IRISH LAND BILL. (Hansard, 17 November 1909)

HL Deb 17 November 1909 vol 4 cc604-66 604

§ Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments.

§ [The Commons disagree to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Irish Land Bill for the following Reason:—

§ Because the Amendments are of such a nature, both in omissions from the Bill as it left the Commons and in additions thereto, as to alter completely the character of the measure.]

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)
My Lords, in rising to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments be now considered, I think perhaps it is due to the House to say just a word upon the position in which we find ourselves in relation to this Bill. As your Lordships know, the Bill as it came from another place was very freely amended, and, indeed, almost transfigured in this House, and on its return to another place your Lordships' Amendments were taken en bloc and were not agreed to by the House of Commons. That course is one which has been taken before, and it is one 605 which, in my opinion, it is and always will be practically necessary to take in the case of a Bill which has been so freely amended as was the case with this measure. In taking that course the Government and my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary did not desire, I need not say, to show any disrespect to your Lordships' House or to the Amendments themselves which were made. But in such a case, if there is to be any hope or chance of a Bill becoming law, it is hardly possible that a measure so altered should run the gauntlet of a long discussion, possibly bitter, in another place on points so novel as many of those which were inserted by your Lordships in the Bill. I think it may almost be taken for granted that if that course were taken in another place the Bill could have practically no chance of surviving. Therefore it was in the interest of this legislation, I venture fearlessly to assert, that my right hon. friend took the course he did. I beg to move.

§ Moved, That the Commons Reason be now considered.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree with the noble Earl in his observation that some explanation was due to your Lordships of the manner in which our Amendments were treated elsewhere. Those Amendments, upon which the House had bestowed much thought and attention, were rejected, I will not say unceremoniously but in globo and after a very brief discussion, and I have no doubt that if your Lordships had been minded to stand upon your dignity on this occasion you might have replied that you regarded the discussion as terminated by the treatment of your Amendments in the House of Commons, and that you saw no object in continuing it in this House. But, my Lords, the case is one of such importance that I feel sure your Lordships will not be influenced by any feelings of pique or resentment in your treatment of the Bill at this stage.
I confess however that I was rather alarmed when I heard the noble Earl say that in his opinion the course followed by the House of Commons on this occasion was the coarse which would always be appropriate when a Bill had been very freely amended in this House. I take note of that observation only in order that I may express my disagreement 606 with it. But I do feel that in this case there were really considerable material difficulties in readjusting the very elaborate scheme of Amendments which your Lordships had inserted in the Bill, and we noted when the matter was dealt with by the Chief Secretary that throughout his observations there ran a note of compromise which we were quite ready to listen to in a not unfriendly spirit. I think it is a matter of common knowledge that since the Bill came back to this House there have been discussions outside these walls between representatives of the Party opposite and representatives of those who sit on this side, and I do not think I am committing any indiscretion when I say that the Amendments, some of which will be proposed from the opposite side of the House and some from this side of the House, are to a considerable extent the outcome of these informal discussions.
My Lords, may I be permitted to say that throughout all these controversies the dominant consideration in our minds has been that we should, if possible, do nothing which would jeopardise the progress of land purchase in Ireland. In our view—and I think that view is shared by the noble Earl and his friends—it would be little short of a calamity if purchase operations in Ireland abruptly came to an end. There are, I believe, pending agreements representing about fifty millions of money still in suspense, and I believe it was stated by the Chief Secretary that no fewer than 175,000 tenants were in a position of uncertainty as to the completion of the transactions which will eventually, we hope, make them owners of the land which they occupy. We feel that it would be a very serious blow for this House to do anything to dash the hopes which have been raised in the minds of these poor people. Another feeling has been constantly with us—namely, that we desire to do nothing which might obstruct the effort which His Majesty's Government wish to make to relieve congestion in Ireland. But we couple with that the reservation that in our view, while the relief of congestion is a very desirable thing, the use of public money for the purpose of providing those persons who are known as "landless men" with land is, on the contrary, an extremely undesirable thing, and we desire to do all in our power to prevent it. We have been mindful of these considerations, and they have weighed 607 with us when we came to consider such important questions as the treatment of the zones, the position of the Congested Districts Board, and the proposal to resort to compulsion in one form or another.
With regard to the zones, the maintenance of the zones has always been in our view an absolutely essential point. The zones are to us, if I may say so, the Arc of the Covenant, and I am glad to know that the noble Earl opposite does not disagree with us in principle on that point. I shall presently move an Amendment which will, I hope, deal with the only class of cases in which the zones can appropriately be set on one side. With regard to the Congested Districts Board, again, our sole desire has been to render that Board as efficient as possible for the purpose which it is intended to fulfil, and our reasons for objecting to the proposed constitution of that Board were due to the fact that we were convinced that the Board as originally contemplated by His Majesty's Government would be an extremely inefficient body for the purpose for which it is designed. In the same way we made proposals for the redistribution of work between the Congested Districts Board, the Land Commission, and the Department of Agriculture, again with the object of providing, as it seemed to us, more efficient machinery for the purpose of carrying out the objects which His Majesty's Government have in view.
As to compulsion, we reluctantly admitted the principle of compulsion in the congested districts, but we are now prepared to agree to a proposal that that compulsion should extend not only to the areas scheduled as congested, but also to those scattered patches of congestion which are to be found in other parts of Ireland outside the limits of the congested areas. We cannot see that we can justify the proposal to deal with congestion in one part of Ireland without permitting similar remedies to be applied to it in other parts of Ireland where it may also exist. We have coupled that concession with a stipulation to which I, for one, attach very great importance, and to which we understand His Majesty's Government are prepared to assent. I mean the stipulation that what I may call the standard of congestion is to be restored to the figure of £5 instead of £10 at which it stood in the Bill when it left the House of Commons.
608 I dwell upon one other point, which also seems to me of great importance. We have stipulated that wherever compulsion is exercised the price to be paid to the person who is compulsorily required to give up his land should be based upon the fair value of that land to him. We have also stipulated that the question of deciding whether compulsion is necessary and the price upon which the person compelled is to be deprived of his land should be dealt with by an independent tribunal unconnected with, or at any rate independent of, the Land Commission. To our mind that condition was, perhaps, the most vital and important of all, because we felt that if we were sure of our tribunal, and if there could be no doubt that that tribunal was thoroughly competent and independent, we need not insist too particularly upon precautions and safeguards at other points. I have ventured to give your Lordships this brief indication of the policy which was present to the minds at any rate of those persons who were engaged in these informal discussions, and I hope that we shall now proceed to discuss the Amendments seriatim. I will only add this one word: that so far as we on this Bench are committed to some of these proposals, which we regard as very important concessions to the views of His Majesty's Government, it must be clearly understood that our adhesion is conditional upon the adhesion of His Majesty's Government to other proposals which perhaps are not particularly acceptable to them, but to which they have agreed for the purpose of promoting a settlement.

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
My Lords, I now move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendments. I think it will be clear to the House that to pass this Motion is the only convenient form of discussing the Bill as it now stands—that is to say, in the form in which it reached your Lordships' House. After that Motion has been passed, we shall proceed to consider the various Amendments on the Paper, which, as the noble Marquess said, embody the result of those informal discussions which have taken place since your Lordships' Amendments were considered in another place. I was glad to note that the noble Marquess was not indisposed to agree that the course taken in another place was a reasonable one, and I think 609 that is proved by the fact that without it those informal communications of which he spoke could not and would not have taken place. The Amendments as they stand on the Paper are to a large extent to be moved by myself, and there are a few down in the names of other noble Lords. I am obliged to make a similar caution to that which the noble Marquess made just now. I do not pretend that some of the Amendments which I am moving embody the views of His Majesty's Government. They represent in some cases to our mind a second best or third best course, but so far as we are concerned the Amendments which are down on the Paper in my name represent what we are prepared to undertake to support in another place. As regards the Amendments which have been placed on the Paper by the noble Lord opposite, I will defer until we come to them such reasons as I may have for stating that they do not embody the considered views of His Majesty's Government, and it will, of course, be for your Lordships then to consider them one by one. But so far as the Amendments in my name are concerned, involving, as they do, concessions in some cases on a very large scale to the views of noble Lords opposite, they may be taken as embodying what we are prepared to do with regard to this measure.

§ Moved, That the Lords do not insist upon their Amendments.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The first Amendment is to insert a new clause after Clause 3. This clause deals with the regulations respecting priority, and is to some extent a reproduction of the original Government Amendment. It is modified in one or two respects. It is not necessary to embody any reference to Section 23 of the Act of 1903 because that section only relates to transactions carried out by the Estates Commissioners, whereas the regulations would naturally refer also to sales of holdings and transactions carried out by the Congested Districts Board. Then we have not kept the words relating to priority of time, but we have remodelled the idea comprised in those words by our subsection (2), and in subsection (3) we simply provide for the laying of the regulations before Parliament. I beg to move.

610

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, Insert the following new clause—

§ .—(1) Regulations may be made by the Lord Lieutenant for determining the priority in which advances, whether by means of money or of stock, or partly by means of money and partly by means of stock, may be sanctioned or made and for allocating as between different classes of sales the amounts from time to time available for advances.

§ (2) The regulations shall provide that in determining the priority as between sales of the same class regard shall he had, so far as is reasonably practicable, to the dates at winch proceedings for the respective sales were commenced, or, in cases where proceedings are transferred from one class to another, to the dates of the respective transfers.

§ (3) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I think the new clause proposed by the noble Earl meets as far as possible the contentions which have been urged on this side of the House with regard to the extremely intricate question of priorities. It is an intricate and involved question, and I think the words proposed by the noble Earl deal with it as adequately as the circumstances permit.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The next is a small Amendment in Clause 11, which I think was originally moved by a noble Lord opposite—Lord Dunboyne—its object being to give the benefit of the old rate of annuity and the old rate of bonus in cases where a substituted agreement is entered into in particular circumstances named in the section. The noble Lord's Amendment included the words "or the Estates Commissioners," but as it is provided that the Land Commission in this part of the Bill includes the Estates Commissioners, those words are not necessary.

§ Amendment moved— Page 6, line 26, after ("holding") insert ("or in consequence of any direction of the Land Commission")—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The next two Amendments are in Clause 12. These were also Amendments moved by Lord Dunboyne. The object is to make it clear that Land Judge cases are included. We thought they were included as the Bill was drafted, but we are quite willing to accept the noble Lord's addition.

611

§ Amendments moved— Page 7, line 13, after ("Commission") insert ("or the Land Judge") Page 7, line 17, after ("by") insert ("or with"), and after ("Commission") insert ("or the Land Judge")—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
The Amendment of which I have given notice is an attempt to meet the only point which I think was made successfully by noble Lords opposite against what we commonly refer to as the zone system. We all desire that the zones should be as far as possible maintained, but it was suggested by the noble Earl opposite that there were cases in which the zones should be departed from and in which the Commissioners should be given power of declaring that the zones should not apply owing to undue pressure being brought upon the tenant, who thereby ceased to be a free agent and became a party to a bargain which was either an inequitable bargain so far as he was concerned or involved undue risk to the State. We challenged noble Lords opposite to supply us with cases where these occurrences had taken place, and I believe one or two cases were mentioned in which a suspicion, or more than a suspicion, of this unfair influence had arisen. I am advised that so far as fraud and collusion in the ordinary sense are concerned the existing law is a sufficient safeguard; but we did think it possible that where an improper transaction was brought about owing to the existence of large arrears there might be some case for giving the Court a power of intervention. I say large arrears, because in our view there is nothing whatever improper, where a tenant owes, as a great many tenants in Ireland do, a certain number of years arrears, in an arrangement between vendor and purchaser under which those arrears or a part of them are in effect added to the purchase money. That is a view held by learned Judges in Ireland who have pronounced on the subject. In one case Lord Chancellor Walker used these words— When a tenant owes an arrear in respect of his holding and asks his landlord to sell, he cannot expect that he can get it for the same price as if he owed none, especially in view of the fact that the agreement discharges the arrear due. In the same case Lord Justice FitzGibbon said— Is there anything wrong or unjust in saying that tenants who owe arrears, and have, therefore, less interest in their holdings, shall pay a higher price for purchasing their farms? 612 That seems to me an eminently reasonable doctrine, provided always the transaction falls within the limits of the zones and the bargain is a perfectly safe one for the State. We have drafted words which would meet the cases—the rare and unusual cases—where, owing to pressure of this kind, a bargain was struck which might be unfair to the State and occasion a risk to the Treasury; and we fully admit that, considering the large amounts of public money which we have made use of for this purpose, the interests of the Treasury as a party to the transaction require to be very carefully considered. The effect of the words which I have put on the Paper will be this. In the first place, there must be arrears; in the second place, those arrears must have been used for the purpose of coercing the tenant; and, in the third place, the result must be to involve the Treasury in a risk which it would not otherwise incur. The tenant is embarrassed, advantage is taken of his embarrassment, and the result is that an inequitable transaction is come to. We propose that in such cases the Court may by order declare that the provisions of the subsection as to zones shall not apply, and we add to that a safeguard which seems to us a very important one—namely, that wherever this happens a person aggrieved by any order of the Land Commission may, within the prescribed time and within the prescribed manner, apply to the Land Commission to refer the order to the Judicial Commissioner for consideration, so that in cases of doubt the high authority of the Judicial Commissioner will be invoked. Those words seem to us to safeguard as effectually as possible the kind of cases which we gather His Majesty's Government have in view, and as it is our desire that this clause should be perfectly watertight and that there should be no suspicion of any desire to encourage I transactions inequitable from the point of view of the State, we move that the words be added to the Bill.

§ Amendments moved— Page 8, line 17, leave out from ("that") to ("they") in line 19 and insert ("by means of the existence of arrears of rent owed by the tenant undue influence was exercised by the landlord to induce the tenant to enter into the purchase agreement and the risk to the Treasury would, if the advance were made, be thereby unduly increased") Line 22, after("with") insert— (2) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Commission under this section may, within 613 the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the land Commission to refer the order to the Judicial Commissioner for consideration, and in such case the order shall not have effect unless and until it is approved by the Judicial Commissioner.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I quite recognise that on this point noble Lords opposite have shown a, disposition to meet the views of His Majesty's Government. Whether the words which the noble Marquess proposes will really in practice do what is required I think is open to some question. The noble Marquess said it was generally agreed that cases of fraud could be met and dealt with in the way that cases of fraud in all matters may be—by recourse to a Court of law; bat the real question I think in this instance is the power which the Estates Commissioners will have of discovering that anything improper has taken place. The words as originally proposed gave a power of inquiry into the circumstances, which noble Lords opposite thought too dangerously wide; but whether the words which are included in the noble Marquess' Amendment really give the Estates Commissioners the power which will enable them to discover such a thing, although the words would enable them to deal with it, is, I am afraid, open to some question. However, I will say no more on that point. I would suggest to the noble Marquess that the words "the risk to the Treasury would, if the advance were made, be thereby unduly increased" might be improved. It is not usual to speak of the Treasury as such in matters of that kind, and I would venture to suggest that there might be substituted the words "that the security for the advance might in consequence be insufficient." I think those words convey the same meaning, if the noble Marquess will accept them.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I gladly accept those words, and amend the Amendment in that sense.

§ On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The next Amendment is in Clause 15. This clause was amended at the earlier stages on the motion of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Oranmore. I now propose to leave out the word "or" at the end of subsection (a), and the whole of subsection (b)— (b) a substantial portion of the holding has been tilled in each of the five yours next preceding the date of the agreement. 614 The result of amending the clause in that way will be to limit advances to £3,000, but where the tenant resides on his holding in the technical sense the advance may be raised to £5,000 if the Land Commission think proper. Noble Lords will remember that the increase above the normal rate of advance has in all recent Land Acts been made contingent upon the agreement of the Land Commission. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 36, leave out from ("resides") to ("and") in line 40.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
This Amendment deals with the question of the prohibition of an advance in respect of tenancies created after a particular date. In the Bill as we introduced it we made the date the 1st of January, 1908, because we were given to understand that it was possible, and indeed it had happened, that tenancies had been created simply for the purpose of being bought and sold. I think I am right in saying that Lord Clonbrock moved that the clause be omitted altogether, but the Amendment which I now have on the Paper is identical with that which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, either moved or was prepared to move. This represents in our opinion a very substantial concession to the views of noble Lords opposite. We are prepared to make it, and we hope that it will be generally accepted by the House.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and eight") and insert ("fifteenth day of September in the year nineteen hundred and nine")—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
The Amendment is an improvement. It had a curious history in the other House, but I think after the discussion that took place here, it is obvious that the Amendment is one which will commend itself to your Lordships' acceptance.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
This Amendment deals with the order of priority, in another clause, in which people may be entitled to purchase parcels of land. I move to omit subsection (b), which deals with landless men— 615 (b) A person being the son of a tenant or proprietor of: a holding on or in the neighbourhood of the estate not exceeding thirty pounds in rateable value; and I make in subsection (e) an alteration in the sense which was proposed by the noble and learned Lord opposite. We, I think, were accused of desiring to further the interests of landless men at the expense of those known as congests; but noble Lords will observe that this is not the case, because in framing the Bill now in this form we go beyond what noble Lords themselves proposed in the Act of 1903, because they give under that Act greater preference to sons of tenants and proprietors of holdings in the neighbourhood than we give in the clause as I propose to amend it.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, leave out lines 20, 21, and 22. Page 9, Line 33, leave out ("considering") and insert ("adequate provision has been made to satisfy"), and after ("of") insert ("the")—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
The Amendment proposed by the noble, Earl is, of course, an improvement, and those of your Lordships who remember the discussions that took place in Committee will readily appreciate the arguments which led us to think that it would be a great improvement if the Amendment were inserted.

§ On Question. Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The first Amendment standing in my name to Clause 19 is really a drafting Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 1, after ("grazing") insert ("or other")—(The Marl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The next Amendment, noble Lords will remember, is the subsection which was moved and agreed to in an amended form by my noble friend Lord Cadogan.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 18, after ("purposes") insert— (3) The Land Commission, on the application in the prescribed manner of any landlord who is desirous of selling an estate under the Land Purchase Acts, if they are satisfied that it is desirable that the landlord should be authorised to resume a portion of a holding upon the estate for the purpose of planting trees or preserving woods or plantations, or growing timber, and that 616 the value of the holding will not be materially diminished by reason of the resumption, may authorise the landlord to resume that portion upon such terms as may be approved of by the Land Commission, including full compensation to the tenant, and may make an order accordingly apportioning the rent and discharging that portion of the holding front the tenancy.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I now move to leave out Clause 20— 20.—(1) The Land Commission in determining under subsection (2) of section one or under section five of the Act of 1903 whether the agreed price of a holding is equitable shall have regard to the respective interests of the landlord and tenant in the holding and in the improvements thereon, and the price shall not be deemed to be equitable if it appears to the Land Commission that any substantial part thereof represents the value of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title for which he or they have not been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title. (2) Any question which may arise under this section as to—

(a) whether an improvement was or was not made by the tenant or his predecessors in title; or

(b) whether the tenant or his predecessors in title have or have not been paid or compensated for any improvement;

may (subject and without prejudice to any previous determination under the Land Law Acts) be determined by the Land Commission, who may, in their discretion, refer the question to a Legal Assistant Commissioner, and the determination of the Land Commission, or such Commissioner, as the case may be, shall be final. Here we are prepared to fall in with the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, at an earlier stage to leave out this clause. As we agree to omit the clause I need not do more than point out that it is a further concession to the views of noble Lords opposite.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, leave out Clause 20.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
In the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition I beg to move the Amendments standing in his name to Clause 21. These Amendments deal with a matter which was discussed at considerable length at earlier stages of the Bill, and they propose that what my noble friend called the standard of congestion should be restored to the original figure of £5 which ran all through the Act of 1903. This is, in my opinion, a valuable Amendment, as the 617 larger figure of £10 would have led to considerable disturbance. Subsection (1), which it is proposed to delete, also provided that the consent of the landlord should cease to be required. That was a matter which was very fully discussed, and the noble Earl opposite pressed it very much and so did other noble Lords. I myself was disposed to retain those words, but the matter has to be considered from several points of view. The Amendments also propose that the expression "congested townland" means a townland more than "one quarter" of the area of which consists of, and so on, instead of "more than one half of the holdings."

§ Amendments moved— Page 12, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert— (1) The consent of the owner required for the purposes of subsection (4) of section six of the Act of 1903, shall cease to be required.

§ Page 12, Line 6, leave out ("as so amended")

§ Page 12, Leave out line 17 and insert ("more than one quarter of the area of which consists of")

§ Page 12, Lines 20 and 21, leave out ("ten pounds") and insert ("five pounds")

§ Page 12, Line 23, leave out ("ten pounds") and insert ("five pounds")

§ Page 12, Line 24, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")—(Lord Ashbourne.)

LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD
I rise to express my deep regret that it has been considered desirable by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition to make this change. I well know the kindly feelings which animate the noble Marquess towards the congested peasantry of Ireland, but I consider that no change in this Bill would have a more depreciatory effect upon the relief of congestion than that which has been recommended to your Lordships by the noble and learned Lord. In the congested areas of Ireland at present the average valuation is over £5—the average valuation at present is £6 3s. 2d.; and this alteration would have the effect of still further lowering the position of the Irish congested tenantry. I am glad to say that under the administration of the Congested Districts Board hitherto, although the limit of £5 stood in the law, it was always ignored. Efforts were made to aim at a higher standard even than £10, and my hope and prayer is that in the years to come, as in the years that have passed, the Congested. Districts Board will ignore this limit.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I must say that I regard the moving of this Amendment with great regret. I quite agree with what 618 has fallen from my noble friend who has just sat down, not so much with regard to what he says of the possible action of the Congested Districts Board, but I agree that a limitation of £5 after all these years marks a singular disinclination on the part of noble Lords opposite to encourage and enlarge the operations of the Board. It has to be remembered that this Amendment is of a very far-reaching character. Its effects are not confined simply to the words of this clause, but they run through the whole of the Bill so far as it attempts to deal with congestion; and from that point of view I greatly regret the weakening and the emasculating of the Bill, because I can call it by no other name, by this very far-reaching Amendment. Even if noble Lords opposite had argued that to jump from the £5 limit to a £10 limit was too bold a step, although I do not believe that in effect it would have been found a dangerous one, they might, at any rate, I think, have suggested some intermediate figure—something which would have shown a desire for some advance towards a higher standard, which I am sure in the abstract noble Lords opposite would be glad to see brought into operation no less than ourselves. I really cannot say whether the Bill will become law with this figure in it, but, if it should, I am certain that the matter will not be allowed to rest here, and that demands will be made—and from my point of view I should hope pressed—for an early enlargement of this really inadequate figure. I need not say that I do not propose to divide the House against this Amendment, but I must repeat once more that it is a matter of deep regret to us that the noble Marquess should have thought it necessary to place it on the Paper.

§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON
The noble Earl has expressed a not unnatural feeling with regard to the raising of the limit from £5 to £10, but I do not think he has done justice to the spirit which has been shown on this side of the House in regard to the Congested Districts Board. The Bill places practically the whole of the business relating to congested districts in the hands of a Board, practically without the control of Parliament, and to consist of members nominated by the Chief Secretary. The powers which will be conferred upon the Board by the Bill are, I think, unprecedented in the case of a Board which has not at its head a representative in Parliament. 619 The operations of the Board already are on a gigantic scale, and the additions which will be made by the Bill to the congested areas will increase the work of the Board enormously. The proposal in the clause to change the limit of value from £5 to £10 would involve millions of money—at least £250,000 a year. My noble friends on this side of the House are as desirous as are the Government of dealing with the matter; but I think that the steps which Parliament has taken this year go as far as we can go with prudence.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
My Lords, I must apologise for not being in my place when this Amendment was called. The noble Earl describes it as a very far-reaching one. So in a sense it is. But I would rather like to put it to him that the proposal to change the £5 to £10 is what is really the far-reaching proposal. The effect of that would, we are advised, have been to include an enormous additional area—I am told more than to double the area known as congested. I agree with my noble friend Lord Midleton in thinking that noble Lords opposite do not perhaps bear in mind sufficiently the immense powers which we have given to the Congested Districts Board. It is quite true that congestion does not prevail in the whole of the scheduled area; but, as I read the Bill as it will stand after our Amendment, the Congested Districts Board will be allowed to operate not only in those smaller areas which are described as congested counties, but outside the limits of those and in the administrative counties which include the congested counties. In that larger area they will have the right of compulsorily acquiring untenanted land, the right of compulsorily acquiring congested estates, and the right of carrying out the various ameliorative schemes which they will no doubt undertake with the very large funds placed at their disposal. I really believe that even with the lower limit, to which my noble friends attach great importance, the scope of the new Board will be so extensive that even its most enthusiastic friends and admirers will have no reason whatever for complaint that its activities have been at all circumscribed.

§ LORD ATKINSON
It has always appeared to me that a test of £10 was a most illogical test, considering that by your own Bill you make a holding of £10 620 valuation an economic holding. Therefore notwithstanding the test you yourselves have adopted, an estate on which there were a certain number of £10 holdings became a congested estate. If a £10 holding is an economic holding, what was the sense of enacting that an estate which had a certain number of economic holdings upon it became a congested estate? So far from this Amendment being conceived in any hostile spirit to the proposal to deal with congestion, it is really an aid to the dealing with congestion, because if you accept the £10 limit, the claims on the Congested Districts Board would be so enormously increased that by no human possibility could they apply themselves to the more pressing claims of congestion. This will enable them to deal effectively with the real crying cases, and leave the men with economic holdings to wait until some other time.

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I move to omit Clause 27, which deals with the delegation of powers of the Estates Commissioners— 27. The Estates Commissioners may, by order, delegate all or any of their powers to any one or two of their number, and anything done by anyone or two of the Estates Commissioners in pursuance of any such delegation shall be as valid and effectual as if it were done by all the Estates Commissioners.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, leave out Clause 27.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
This represents another concession to noble Lords opposite. It was, I think, Lord Inchiquin who dealt with this matter at an earlier stage, and he represented that the £5,000 limit in Clause 34 was one which in some cases might be regarded as unduly small. We are prepared, therefore, in deference to that view, to leave out "five" and insert "seven," there remaining, of course, the option to the Land Commission to give consent to the acquirement of a larger amount if they think fit.

§ Amendment moved— Page 16, line 24, leave out ("five") and insert ("seven").—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The proposed new clause which I move to insert after 621 Clause 34 was moved by Lord Dunboyne at an earlier stage.

§ Amendment moved— Insert the following new clause— . Subsection (3) of section sixty-seven of the Act of 1903 shall not apply to any land or holding subject to a purchase annuity unless the Land Commission deem it expedient, having regard to the situation, size, and character of such land or holding, to apply the provisions of the said subsection thereto.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The House will remember the discussion which took place on this next Amendment, to omit the last; three lines of Clause 35— and in addition and without prejudice to those remedies, may, if they think lit, exclude from the estate any holding in respect of the purchase-money of which one year's interest is in arrear. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, moved to omit them on a former occasion, and we agree, in deference to the views of noble Lords opposite, to do so, although we do not think any more than we thought at the time that the direful results which we were told were likely to follow from the insertion of the words would take place. We believe, as a matter of fact, that it would be rather a convenience to landlords than otherwise, but as noble Lords do not think so, I agree to omit the words.

§ Amendment moved— Page 17, line 17, leave out from ("annuity") to the end of the clause.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The three Amendments standing in my name to Clause 39 are all drafting Amendments.

§ Amendments moved— Page 18, line 27, leave out ("the") Page 18, Line 28, after ("stock") insert ("charged upon the undertaking"), and after ("railway") insert ("company") Page 19, line 24, leave out ("trustees") and insert ("them")—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The new clauses which I propose to insert after Clause 40 were moved by the noble and learned Lord opposite. They deal with the rather intricate question of intermediate and superior interests. We adopt the noble and learned Lord's views, and I beg to move.

622

§ Amendment moved— Insert the following new clauses— . Where the immediate landlord of any holding or holdings has not an interest sufficient to constitute him a person having power to sell to tenants under the Land Purchase Acts, the next superior landlord having such an interest shall be deemed to be a person having power to sell to occupying tenants under the said Acts notwithstanding that the said holding or holdings constitute the whole estate of such superior landlord, and section fifteen of the Act of 1903 shall apply accordingly. .—(1). Where any land sold under the Laud Purchase Acts is subject to any rent reserved under a lease, and no payment on foot of such rent has been made for a period of forty years prior to such sale, such rent shall, for the purposes of such sale and the distribution of the purchase money, be deemed to have been released. (2) Where portions of any such rent have become vested in different owners, this section shall apply to any portion of such rent as if it was a separate rent.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I move to omit subsection (b) from Clause 41— (b) for the purchase, under section eight of the Act of 1903, of any untenanted land not situated in a congested districts county, whether required for the purposes mentioned in that section or for the purpose of re-sale to any persons to whom parcels of land may be sold under this Act. This opens up the question of dealing with the relief of congestion outside the congested districts area by compulsion in certain eases.

§ Amendment moved— Page 20, leave out lines 3 to 8.—(The Earl of Crave.)

LORD CLONBROCK
This clause provides that the Estates Commissioners may make proposals and enter into negotiations for the purchase, under Section 6 of the Act of 1903, of any estate not situated in a congested districts county. This was struck out in Committee, and it is with great regret that we see it reintroduced. As it stands, the provision is of a most sweeping and arbitrary character. It enables the Estates Commissioners to propose to an owner, first of all to sell his property to them under Section 6, and then, without his consent, to send inspectors to fix a price, thereby entirely precluding the owner from selling direct to his tenants. I need not remind your Lordships that the zones do not exist in transactions under Section 6. The proceeding would result in a price being put on the property, and once having been fixed by a Government authority it would be the utmost the owner could expect to receive. Therefore it brings in, in a sense, 623 compulsion. Further, it would establish a new standard in the neighbourhood, and tenants who had already purchased and whose agreements were pending would be very naturally discontented if the price fixed in this way were a lower one, and would be disposed to go back on their former agreements. But, apart from that, it certainly seems a most arbitrary proceeding that a landowner should be given no option in the matter, but should be told he must sell direct to the Estates Commissioners under Section 6.

§ LORD ATKINSON
Perhaps I may be permitted to explain. Under Section 6 of the Act of 1903 the Commissioners could not approach an owner with a view of entering into negotiations with him. The first part of this clause was intended to relieve the Commissioners from that disability, and to enable them to approach a landlord. The provision to which my noble friend objects is that apparently, whether the landlord consents to enter into negotiations or not, the Estates Commissioners are entitled to send down surveyors and others to ascertain the boundaries of his land, and, I presume, to obtain the information necessary to enable them to make an offer. That does, I admit, appear an arbitrary proceeding, but I do not believe evil consequences would necessarily follow. But perhaps the purpose would be met by prefacing the clause with the words, "If the landlord consents to negotiate." Then the things set forth could be done; but the Commissioners should not be permitted, if the landlord refuses to negotiate, to send officers to inspect the land.

LORD LANGFORD
I like many other noble Lords from Ireland have estates that have not yet been sold. As the clause stands, I can be approached other than by direct negotiation and can have my land inspected. Surely His Majesty's Government do not contemplate putting forward a provision of that description. At the present moment there is a large amount of land in Ireland unsold owing simply to a want of money and not to any disinclination on the part of the landlord to sell. It is very unjust that we should be treated in this way without any fair proposition at all. Moreover, the actual fact of these negotiations having been entered into and our land inspected will depreciate the value of the land to a large extent. The price of and is driven down enormously whenever 624 these inspections take place. A clause of this description would be the death knell of all voluntary and direct sales. If we are to have land purchase, the voluntary arrangement which has up to this time met with such great success should be encouraged, and it should not be permissible for owners to be approached in the way suggested in this clause. Indeed, it would paralyse the whole transaction. We have up to this met in a very favourable spirit the proposals of His Majesty's Government, and I hope we shall be enabled, with the assistance of the Government, to amend this clause in the direction to which I have referred.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
I think it has been conclusively shown that if operations take place under subsection (2) of this clause— (2) For the purpose of enabling the Estates Commissioners to ascertain the boundaries, extent, and character of any estate, or untenanted land which they propose to purchase and to estimate the price to be offered for the same, any inspectors or other persons appointed by the Commissioners may, after notice sent by post to the person who appears to the Commissioners to be the owner thereof, enter upon the estate or untenanted land and make all such inquiries and do all such things as may be necessary for the purpose aforesaid, there is really brought in a very insidious form of compulsion, much more dangerous than the compulsion which appertains to any other part of the Bill. I would point out that noble Lords on this side of the House have accepted the principle of compulsion as laid down in the earlier part of the Bill, and I think it is asking a great deal to ask us to accept this other and more insidious form of compulsion. Of course, if the words suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, were inserted that would obviate all the complaints we have to make.

§ THE EARL OP CREWE
I really think the fears of noble Lords opposite are of a groundless character. I take it there is no intention on the part of the Estates Commissioners to acquire by agreement land which the landlords do not wish to sell. It would be such an obviously futile course for them to take that—

LORD LANGFORD
It is in the Bill, and there is the possibility of its being done.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
Yes, but all 625 Acts of Parliament must be read in the light of what is likely to be done by the official body concerned.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
Not Irish Acts.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I would ask noble Lords opposite to read Clause 43 as I propose to amend it in conjunction with this as it stands. Suppose it is desired to acquire some untenanted land under that clause for the relief of congestion, how are the Estates Commissioners to be in a position to make a final offer unless they have had this power of inspecting the land? The noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Atkinson, agreed that it is not unreasonable to give the power of initiative to the Estates Commissioners, and I confess that I should be very sorry to see this clause struck out, because I think on consideration noble Lords will see that to do so would seriously interfere with the machinery which we have proposed in the later clauses.

THE EARL OF MAYO
The provision in the Bill is that the Estates Commissioners may, after notice sent by post to the person who appears to them to be the owner of the estate, enter upon the land and make all such inquiries and do all such things as may be necessary for the purpose stated. That is how the provision stands, and that is what we feel affects us. With the proviso suggested by Lord Atkinson enabling the Estates Commissioners to proceed after they have received the consent of the owner we should be pretty safe; but the provision as to the sending of notice by post is rather a strong one, because, after all, the owner might be away.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I am quite ready to be convinced that these words are harmless, but I am not quite convinced yet. Will your Lordships be good enough to bear in mind that this clause does not deal with congested estates. Therefore, you have a case where there are no compulsory powers, and where the transaction is purely voluntary. What does the clause say? It says that in such cases the Commissioners may make a proposal to the landlord or may enter into negotiations with him. By proposal I understand is meant a proposal which major may not be accepted by the other party. 626 One of two things will happen, either that the landlord entertains the proposal or that he does not do so. If he does entertain it, obviously there must be the inquiries and so forth contemplated in subsection (2); but if, on the contrary, the owner of the land says from the outset that he does not entertain the proposal and is not prepared to enter into negotiations, then what in the name of all that is wonderful is the use of sending down inspectors who may go all over the place unsettling the tenants and so forth? Surely the logical tiling to do is to make subsection (2) subject to the consent of the landlord. The proposal is then made, negotiations are entered into, and thereupon, on the consent of the landlord, the inspector is sent down and all the investigations contemplated by the subsection would follow. I would suggest that the clause might read thus— The Estates Commissioners may make proposals and enter into negotiations for the purchase, under Section 6 of the Act of 1903, of any estate not situated in a congested districts county, notwithstanding that an application has not boon made to them by the owner under that section; and that then it should proceed— If the owner consents to enter into negotiations will) the Estates Commissioners they may, for the purpose of enabling the Commissioners In ascertain the boundaries, Fend down inspectors, and so on. I think the clause would then not be open to the objection raised by my noble friend behind me, and would really do all that the framers desire. I would be much obliged if the noble Earl would consider that suggestion.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord opposite what would be the procedure in that case under Clause 43, where negotiations had been entered into or proposals had been made for the purchase under the Land Purchase Acts of any estate or untenanted land not situated in a congested districts county and no agreement had been arrived at. Would not the Amendment suggested by the noble Marquess enable any owner of such untenanted land to refuse to have his land inspected?

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
No; because Clause 41 deals with estates which are not congested. The procedure which the noble Earl has just described has reference to congested estates. In the case of congested estates there is a compulsion 627 in the background, and therefore inspection follows as a matter of course.

§ LORD ATKINSON
As the noble Marquess has said, this clause does not deal with congested estates alone. Under Section 6 of the Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners were prevented from approaching a landlord. The landlord, however, could approach them. That was proposed in order to promote direct sales. Now this clause takes that away, and the Estates Commissioners can approach the landlord. But what we wish to provide is that if the owner is unwilling to sell and rejects the proposals of the Commissioners the Commissioners should not have power to send down inspectors and so forth. What is the use of giving them power to overrun an estate which the owner refuses to sell to them and which they cannot compel him to sell, unless, indeed, it be proposed to enforce compulsion by public odium? The suggestion which the noble Marquess has made would allay all fears, and give to the Estates Commissioners all the powers they really require in this matter.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I do not wish to pursue the subject further, but I confess I am not entirely convinced by what has fallen either from the noble Marquess or from the noble and learned Lord, but if noble Lords desire to insert these words I will not resist the matter further, although I cannot pretend to make sure that they will not have the effect which I dread upon Clause 43.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE then moved the insertion of his proposed new words.

§ Amendment moved— Page 20, line 9, insert ("If the owner of the estate accepts such proposal or consents to enter into negotiations, the Estates Commissioners").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Consequential Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I move to leave out Clause 42— 42.—(1) Where the Estates Commissioners have made a proposal for the purchase of an estate or untenanted land, and the owner objects to the proposal 628 on the ground that adjoining lands belonging to him have not been included in the proposal, if the Estates Commissioners refuse to withdraw the proposal or to amend the same by including therein such adjoining lands the owner may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the Judicial Commissioner for an order that no further proceedings be taken upon the proposal. (2) Upon any such application the Judicial Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the said adjoining lands would be substantially depreciated in value by the purchase of the estate or untenanted land as proposed, order that no further proceedings be taken for the purchase of the estate or untenanted land upon the proposal unless within a time to be named in the order the Estates Commissioners amend the proposal so as to include the said adjoining lands or such portion or portions thereof as, in the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner, ought properly to be included. This omission, as your Lordships will see, is preliminary to altering the machinery for compulsory powers.

§ Amendment moved— Page 20, leave out Clause 42.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
This clause embodies the proposals for a limited form of compulsory purchase outside the area of the Congested Districts Board. As we propose to amend it, the clause will run— 43.—(1) Where negotiations have been entered into or proposals have been made for the purchase under the Land Purchase Acts of any congested estate or untenanted land not situated in a congested districts county and no agreement has been arrived at, the Estates Commissioners may, if in their opinion it is desirable that the estate or untenanted land should be purchased for the purpose of relieving congestion, send in the prescribed manner to the person who appears to them to be the owner a final offer in writing for the purchase of the estate or untenanted land. I do not want to reopen the matter, but I still do not see how, unless the untenanted land, for instance, has been inspected, which it is in the power of the owner to prevent by refusing to enter into negotiations, the Commissioners are going to send in their final offer. The noble and learned Lord has given me his assurance on the point, but I confess I do not see it. Noble Lords will recognise that this proposal is for a very limited form of compulsory purchase, carefully restricted to the one object of the relief of congestion. It represents the result of some of those communications of which the noble Marquess spoke, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree to it in this form.

629

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 20,

§ Page 20, Line 39, after ("any") insert ("congested")

§ Page 20, Line 41, leave out, ("if they think fit") and insert ("if in their opinion it is desirable that the estate or untenanted land should he purchased for the purpose of relieving congestion").—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ ^*LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved to amend the last subsection of the clause by omitting the words directing the Estates Commissioners to have regard "to the voices which the tenants and other persons are willing to give for the holdings (if any) and parcels of land comprised in the estate or untenanted land," and substituting the words "and to the fair annual value of the same to the owner, but no additional allowance shall be made in respect of the purchase being compulsory."

§ The noble Lord said: In the debates which we have had on this Bill, which I venture to think might, perhaps, be more properly termed a Landlord Eviction-Made-Easy Bill, I ventured with some persistence to press on the noble Earl to give us the ground on which it was proposed to value land from which the owner was to be compulsorily expropriated; and I think the noble Earl certainly made a very important admission as to the views of the Government on that point on the Report Stage, when he told us that he intended that the value should be the fair annual value to the owner. I think those were his words. It is true that he modified that by comparing freehold land in Ireland to that of a newspaper in England, and suggested that four and a-half years purchase was the value of a newspaper. I do not exactly know what the value of a newspaper is, and I think the noble Earl may have had in his mind the Tribune, which had a meteoric existence as an organ of Radicalism in this country. At any rate, we do not wish to go more minutely into this matter, and we are glad that the noble Earl has added words in this sense in the First Schedule with reference to the question of bonus. But it seems to me that in this clause we are reverting to the old idea which has caused such dread amongst landlords that the price is to be fixed, not at the value to the owner, but at the price which the tenants and other persons are willing to give. It is a matter of indifference to the landowner who is going to be deprived of his land what the tenants are willing to give. 630 The only question that interests him is whether he is going to get the value. I therefore trust that the noble Earl will see that this is a reasonable Amendment, designed to carry out the views which he has himself expressed on the subject. The tenants naturally are willing to give as little as possible, and I cannot see why, in making an offer to the landlord, the Estates Commissioners should consider an absolutely unfair value—namely, what the tenants are willing to give.

§ Amendment moved— Page 22, line 7, leave out from ("advances") to the end of subsection (5) and insert ("and to the fair annual value of the same to the owner, but no additional allowance shall be made in respect of the purchase being compulsory").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I hope the House will not accept the noble Lord's Amendment, because he appears to me on this occasion to have done what I am bound to say he does not often do, and that is to have got hold of the wrong end of the subject. This clause has nothing whatever to do with compulsory purchase. It is an offer made to the landlord for a voluntary sale, and because it is a voluntary sale we adopt the same words which are used in Section 6 of the Act of 1903 in relation to voluntary sales. The noble Lord is mixing up two entirely distinct things. He is mixing up the price the Estates Commissioners think it reasonable to give for the land having regard to what they can sell it for again, and the price which the landlord may ultimately get for it under the award of some tribunal if it is to be compulsorily sold. But it does not at all follow that any transaction will take place in respect of this offer. The Estates Commissioners make an offer, and in making it they bear in mind, and the landlord will bear in mind, that if the transaction takes place it will become a cash transaction if the vendor so desires, and it will therefore be for the landlord to consider whether, in consideration of that fact, he will take rather less money than he might otherwise have taken. The noble Lord must remember that this has nothing to do in any way with compulsory purchase, and there is no reason to suppose that, if it does ultimately come to compulsion, the tribunal or arbitrator who fixes the price will be in any way biased by the offer which the Estates Commissioners have made. The Estates Commissioners may say, "This land has turned 631 out to be much dearer than we thought and the price is more than we are prepared to give; we would rather not proceed with the transaction at all, and we will go and look somewhere else." The noble Lord has argued as if this offer concluded the transaction. It is merely a stage in the transaction for voluntary purchase. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD DUNBOYNE
As I read the clause, if any offer is not accepted then the Commissioners can proceed to take the land compulsorily. It does seem an outrageous thing that in ascertaining the price of the land the Commissioners are to consult alone the purchaser as to what he is willing to give, and are not to inquire in the slightest degree the price the vendor is willing to take. Indeed, they are practically excluded from doing so. They must inquire what the purchaser is willing to give, and then they fix a price at which the vendor is compelled to sell.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I am afraid the noble Lord above the Gangway has fallen into the same error as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. The price which the Commissioners offer has no necessary relation to the price which the vendor will ultimately get if it comes to be a matter of compulsion. The two things have no bearing on each other. I will give an instance of the kind of thing that will happen. The Land Commission want a particular piece of land, and offer £1,000. The owner says he will not take less than £1,500. The Land Commission would then have to consider whether, if they have to buy it compulsorily, it will be worth their while to do so in view of the fact that they will have to resell it. It is quite possible that if, on further consideration, they think the land will be pronounced worth much more than the £1,000 which they were prepared to give, they will abandon the transaction altogether, and in that case the whole matter is concluded.

LORD DUNBOYNE
They could make the offer for £1,000 and compel the owner to sell at that price.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I beg the noble Lord's pardon. He cannot have read the Bill as proposed to be amended. It really is not so. The £1,000 having been offered, it is for the landlord to accept or not, or to say what price he will take. Supposing that the landlord has named his figure and 632 the Estates Commissioners still wish to acquire the land and proceed to use the compulsory powers in the Bill, then the price, which very likely might turn out at something between the two, would be fixed by the tribunal or arbitrator.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
The noble Earl stated that one reason why the owner might accept a low offer was that he would receive payment in cash. This is a voluntary transaction. Would he not, therefore, receive stock?

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I would refer the noble Lord to subsection (3), which provides that the like consequences shall ensue and the like proceedings shall be carried on in the case of such an agreement save that the advance for the purpose of the purchase shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Bill, be made by means of money and not by means of stock, except in cases where the vendor agrees to accept in lieu of cash an amount of guaranteed three per cent. stock.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
Now we get to the composition of the Congested Districts Board. As we originally proposed, there were to be three ex officio members, five appointed members, nine representative members, and two paid members. Strong objection was taken by noble Lords opposite to the nine representative members representing the different counties, and after full consideration we have agreed to abandon that form of election—indeed, to abandon election altogether. But we propose, in view of the largely-extended powers and command of money of the Board, to alter its composition in certain respects. We retain the three ex officio members, we retain the two paid members, to whose services we anticipate that in future the Board will be greatly indebted, and we propose that eight members should be appointed. Then we propose in the next Amendment that an appointed member should hold office for five years and should be eligible for re-appointment, and we provide for the case of a casual vacancy. That, I think, covers all the points in relation to the actual composition of the Board as apart from its powers.

LORD ASHTOWN
What is going to be done with the present members of the Congested Districts Board? Will they be 633 re-appointed or will entirely new members be chosen?

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The Board will undoubtedly be dissolved, but I have no doubt that a substantial proportion of the existing Board will be reappointed. It is not possible, I think, or indeed desirable, to mention the names of those who might or might not continue as members. I can quite imagine that regard might be had to the length of service or age of a member in deciding whether he should be nominated again, but I am quite sure that my right hon. friend has no desire to dispense with the services of the whole of the present Board, and I have his authority for saying so.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 22, line 30, leave out ("five") and insert ("eight")

§ Page 23.

§ Leave out lines 1 to 4.

§ Leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert ("An appointed member shall hold office for five years, and shall be eligible for reappointment. On a casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation, or incapacity of an appointed member or otherwise, the person appointed by His Majesty to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the member in whose place he was appointed would have retired, and shall then retire")

§ Leave out lines 20, 21, and 22.

§ Line 24, leave out ("or elected")—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON
I am glad the noble Earl has gone as far as he has, but it would be more satisfactory if we could have had a more explicit assurance. The Board as proposed by this Amendment will consist of two permanent members and eight appointed members, the whole ten holding office for five years with no power except for misconduct to change the Board. It would have been of advantage if it had been arranged that members of the Board should retire annually by ballot. To have the whole Board appointed irrevocably for five years does seem a very strong thing. As to the present Board, could not the noble Earl go a little further and undertake that, although the whole of the present Board will not be reappointed, the majority of them will be asked to serve again, because I do view with great apprehension the situation which we may arrive at if the matter is carried out as it might be carried out under the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I cannot add anything to what I have said. I have 634 given an assurance on behalf of my right hon. friend that the work and claims of the existing members of the Board will be considered to the fullest extent, and I think it is hardly reasonable to ask us to go I further than that.

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I move to omit Clause 46— 46.—(1) The representative members shall hold office for terms of six years (the first whereof shall date from the appointed day) and shall be eligible for re-election. (2) A representative member may resign office by giving notice to the secretary. (3) A casual vacancy occurring through death, resignation or otherwise, in the office of representative member shall be filled by the election of a person by the local authority by whom the person whose office is vacant was elected. (4) A person elected to fill a casual vacancy shall retire from office at the same time as the person whose office is vacant would have retired. This is purely a consequential omission.

§ Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 16.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The next Amendment is also consequential, namely, to leave out Clause 47—

§ 47.—(1) There shall be an administrative committee of the Congested Districts Board consisting of the Chief Secretary, the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the permanent members and two other members of the Board not being ex officio members, to be chosen by the appointed and the representative members.

§ (2) The administrative committee shall control the finance of the Board

§ (3) Subject to such control, the Board shall have power to determine all matters arising in relation to the purchase or re-sale of land or the aiding and developing of agriculture, industries or fishing under the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts as amended by this Act.

§ (4) The powers and duties of the Board shall, subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, be exercised and performed by and through the administrative committee.

§ Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 17.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN)
I have received notice of a new Amendment in the name of Lord MacDonnell to leave out Clause 48 and to insert new clauses.

635

§ Clause 48 ran—

§ 48.—(1) For the purposes of the Congested District? Board (Ireland) Acts, as amended by this Act, each, of the following administrative comities, that is to say, the counties of Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, Clare, and Kerry, shall be a congested districts county, and the four rural districts of Bantry, Castletown, Schull, and Skibbereen, in the county of Cork, shall together form one congested districts county.

§ (2) The council of the administrative county shall be the local authority of the congested districts county except in the case of the congested districts county in the county of Cork.

§ (3) For the purposes of this Part of this Act there shall be a joint committee of the councils of the rural districts of Bantry, Castletown, Schull, and Skibbereen, consisting of two persons chosen out of their body by each of the said councils, and that committee shall be the local authority of the congested districts county in the county of Cork.

§ (4) No electoral division shall, after the passing of this Act, be or form part of a congested districts county, unless it is included in a congested districts county constituted under this section.

§ (5) The Local Government Board for Ireland may make rules regulating the election, meetings, and procedure of the said joint committee.

LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD
I think I have already said in your Lordships' House that I regard this clause as one of the most important in the Bill. This clause and the clause dealing with the personnel of the Congested Districts Board were, in my opinion, from an administrative point of view and from the point of view of the peace and good government of Ireland, the most important in this Bill. Your Lordships have dealt with the question of the personnel of the Board, and on that I desire now to make no comment. But on this clause I would ask your Lordships to consider that in Ireland in dealing with congestion there were two schools of thought—mainly the school of those who consider that eleemosynary administration, if I may so call it, should be restricted to the utmost limits, and that the relief of congestion in the West and transfer of property from landlord to tenant should be prosecuted with the utmost despatch. This clause, which transfers to the control of the Congested Districts Board one-third of the entire area of Ireland, a large portion of which is by no means congested under any possible acceptation of the word, raises considerations which are, in my opinion, entirely foreign to the question of the relief of congestion. It raises questions of great political moment into which I do not desire on this occasion to enter; but I consider it my duty to your Lordships to advert to them.
I understand from what has fallen from 636 the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition and from the noble Earl the Leader of the House that a general agreement has been come to, and I understand that that general agreement covers this clause although it may not cover it in all its details. Therefore, having regard to what has fallen from the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, I do not desire to move now the omission of the clause, but I desire to move the insertion in subsection (1) of certain words of which I have given notice. The subsection as I propose that it should read will run as follows— (1) For the purposes of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts, as amended by this Act, so much laud as is congested within the meaning of Section 21 of this Act in each of the following administrative counties, that is to say, the counties of Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, Clare, and Kerry, shall be a congested districts county, and the four rural districts of Bantry, Castletown, Schull, and Skihbereen, in the county of Cork, shall together form one congested districts county. The object of that is to exclude from the control, management, and influence of the Congested Districts Board so much of the land as is not congested.
At the present time the area subject to the jurisdiction of the Congested Districts Board is as nearly as possible 3,000,000 acres. If Clare had remained in the Bill the additional land which would be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Board would amount to 3,800,000 acres. But, even with the Amendment which I see down in the name of the noble Earl, the new transfer of land to the Congested Districts Board will be considerably over 3,000,000 acres. The land already scheduled as congested gives a valuation of £6 3s. 2d. per holding; the new area gives a valuation of £17 6s. 2d. By no possibility can it be stated that congestion exists in the new area in any sense to the extent that it exists in the old area. The fact is that in this new area which it is proposed to bring under the control of the Board there are scattered congested estates just as there are similar estates scattered throughout the rest of Ireland. Your Lordships, by the modifications which you have made in this Bill and which I have been glad to see, have enabled the Estates Commissioners to deal with congestion outside the congested area, and the Commissioners were perfectly competent to deal with congestion existing in those additional three millions of acres which it is now proposed to transfer 637 to the Congested Districts Board. I see no reason for this transfer.
From the time that congestion was first dealt with the Congested Districts Board never dealt with land which was not considered within the meaning of Section 35 of the Act of 1891. Your Lordships, in Clause 21 of this Bill, have also provided a definition of congestion, and you have limited the activity of the Estates Commissioners in dealing with congestion to estates which met the terms of that definition. But in this proposal, in Clause 48, you throw every definition overboard. You no longer say that the Congested Districts Board shall deal with congestion, but you transfer to the Board the entire area of this large tract of country which, as I say, covered one-third of Ireland before some portion of the county of Clare had been taken away. What is the reason for that? Why should you take away from the Estates Commissioners, who are, in my opinion, a more efficient agent for the purpose of this work than the Congested Districts Board, the opportunity of dealing with this tract of country which is not congested—this tract of country in which there are only congested estates sparsely scattered throughout the area; why bring the whole of this vast tract of country under the jurisdiction of a Board over whom Parliament will have very little control? I think that before work is transferred from a Department which is competent to discharge it and added to a body which has already a heavy task to deal with, there should be a far better case made out than has been made out on this occasion. I therefore move the insertion of words the effect of which will be to restrict the Congested Districts Board to dealing with congestion.
It may be said, by way of answer, that it is desirable that the Congested Districts Board should have an opportunity of controlling land in the immediate vicinity of congested estates. For instance, it may be said that the Congested Districts Board should have power, of its own motion, to make a road between one congested area and another, and that unless the uncongested areas were made over to the Board some difficulty might be found in carrying through such a project as that. You have given them power under this Bill to take up land compulsorily in any place in an administrative county which 638 contains a congested area, and beyond that they want no further power at all. For these reasons I beg to move the insertion of the words to which I have referred.

§ Amendment moved— Page 24, line 17, after ("Act") to insert ("so much land as is congested within the meaning of Section 21 of this Act in").—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
My noble friend has taken a somewhat unusual course, for in the place of a very elaborate Amendment on the Paper he has moved some thing which bears no relation to that Amendment, and of which no notice whatever has been given.

LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD
I gave notice of the withdrawal of my Amendment as on the Paper.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I do not complain of my noble friend's action in any way, except to say that if it became the uniform practice of the House the conduct of business would be very difficult. We really had all this matter out on the earlier stages of the Bill. I know that my noble friend strongly holds the opinion that the Congested Districts Board should be limited to its present area, and that its powers should in some respects be even reduced. But against him is a strong body of opinion which believes that this extension of the area and operations of the Board will be for the advantage of the congested districts; that they will become a more important and even more efficient body than they have been in the past; and that, taking it all in all, balancing advantages and disadvantages, it is a real advantage to give them the control in the large area which, by the Bill as we propose to amend it, they are to serve. Mingling together the powers of the Estates Commissioners and of the Congested Districts Board, which would be the effect of adopting my noble friend's Amendment, is regarded by many best qualified to judge as likely to produce serious inconvenience, and I cannot help thinking that the weight of expert opinion is in this particular instance against my noble friend. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment in any form, and we must ask the House to accede to my Amendment which I shall move later, which represents the result of much thought and discussion, and which we believe will produce an area which will be of a practical character for the purposes of the work of the Board.

639

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
I confess I was disappointed to see in the Bill that the whole of a county which contains a congested area was to be scheduled as congested, for the simple reason that we have already nominally a division of north and south, and the effect of scheduling all these counties will be to divide Ireland again into east and west. We must remember that the whole of the operations of the Congested Districts Board as compared with the Department of Agriculture are absolutely different. The Congested Districts Board has a paternal system of dealing with congestion, whereas the Department relies upon the system of self-help. Now you are going to schedule enormous tracts of country in the West of Ireland which will come under the operations of the paternal system of the Congested Districts Board, which, to my mind, is a great pity. For these reasons I am sorry to see this provision back in the Bill.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I agree with much that has been said by the noble Lord on the Back Bench opposite and by my noble friend Lord Shaftesbury. I am personally reluctant to see this vast area earmarked as congested. We know perfectly well that a great part of it is not congested at all, and that it is entirely misleading so to describe it. But this is a point which we understand is insisted upon as a conditio sine quâ non by His Majesty's Government. The proposal is, of course, an entirely different one from the proposal which found favour with us. We recommended the House to agree to an arrangement which would have made the Land Commission the sole purchasing authority, and which would have shorn the Congested Districts Board of a considerable part of its powers. That proposal His Majesty's Government were unable to accept, and we have agreed to recognise the Congested Districts Board as the purchasing power within the congested districts, and we have also agreed to give back to them a considerable part of the functions of which we proposed to deprive them. Now if that is to be accepted as the point of departure, it seems to me to follow almost of necessity that in those parts of Ireland which contain a congested district but which are not themselves congested you must give the Board certain powers of promoting useful improvements, and certainly of acquiring untenanted land for the relief of congestion within the smaller and congested areas. I am afraid I can see no advantage, when once we have gone so far 640 as that, in endeavouring to restrict the activities of the Board within those parts of Ireland which contain the congested area properly so called; and therefore, although I am very much in sympathy with the view so well expressed by my noble friend Lord MacDonnell, I am afraid I can scarcely promise him my vote if he goes to a Division.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ ^*THE EARL OF CREWE then moved the omission of Clare from the list of counties to be regarded as congested districts counties, and the substitution of the four rural districts of Ballyvaghan, Ennistymon, Kilrush, and Killadysart, in the county of Clare, as a congested districts county.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 24.

§ Page 24, Line 19, leave out ("Clare")

§ Page 24, Line 20, after ("county") insert ("the four rural districts of Ballyvaghan, Ennistymon, Kilrush, and Killudysert in the county of Clare, shall together form one congested districts county").—(The Earl of Crewe.)

LORD DUNBOYNE
These districts are not congested in the slightest degree. There is no doubt that the proposal is to enable the Congested Districts Board to deal with fishing districts in the matter of fisheries. I enter my protest against the districts mentioned in the Amendment being scheduled as congested districts, which in fact they are not.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ ^*THE EARL OF CREWE moved the omission from Clause 48 of subsections (2) and (3)—

§ (2) The council of the administrative county shall be the local authority of the congested districts county, except in the case of the congested districts county in the county of Cork.

§ Amendment moved— Leave out lines 23 to 31.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE then moved to leave out subsection (5)— (5) The Local Government Board for Ireland may make rules regulating the election, meetings, and procedure of the said joint committee.

641

§ Amendment moved— Leave out lines 36 to 38.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD
At the present moment the Congested Districts Board is out of official touch with any of the local organisations of the country. It is out of official touch with county councils and with rural district councils. It may, of course, address them, but these local bodies have no statutory power of creating committees for the purpose of assisting the Congested Districts Board in their work. It is of the utmost importance that touch should be kept between the Congested Districts Board and these bodies, and that local lay opinion should be brought to bear in assistance of the operations of the Congested Districts Board, especially in regard to such matters as parish committees and the expenditure of money by such bodies. I believe that from that the greatest advantage would come, and for that reason I have ventured to place on the Paper the proposal which your Lordships were satisfied with when it was last before you and which you embodied in the Bill as it left this House.

§ Amendment moved— To insert the following new clause—

§ .—(1) The council of any administrative county comprising a congested districts county may, at the request of the Congested Districts Board, appoint a committee for any electoral division or for any other area in the congested districts county, consisting partly of members of their own body, and partly of other persons for the purpose of obtaining such information and furnishing such suggestions as the Board may require, and of generally assisting the Board in the relief of congestion in the congested districts county.

§ (2) The Local Government Board for Ireland in consultation with the Congested Districts Board may make rules regulating the election, meetings, and procedure of the said joint committee.—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
On a former occasion I explained to the House why we do not see our way to adopt the proposal of my noble friend. In our original form of the clause which provided for the composition of the Board we suggested an elected element, and we thought that the nine gentlemen who were to be elected as representing the different counties, sitting round a table, would exercise a sound influence, sobered as they would be by the consciousness of responsibility, upon the work of the Board, but we view with a somewhat different eye a proposal to appoint independent 642 committees of this kind responsible to nobody except to themselves. Our opinion, which may or may not be shared by noble Lords, is that the provision of committees of this kind, empowered to make proposals of all sorts to the Congested Districts Board, is not suited to the circumstances that exist in the West of Ireland. We may be wrong and the noble Lord may be right, but I confess I shall be surprised if noble Lords opposite, holding the views they do about the West of Ireland and its inhabitants, should desire to imitate my noble friend by setting up these irresponsible advisory bodies. In the circumstances we are notable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved, on Clause 49 (Transfer of certain powers and duties of the Congested Districts Board to the Department of Agriculture), to add the aiding and developing of industries and fisheries to the powers and duties to be transferred. The noble Lord said: Tins is a proposal, which your Lordships have already accepted, transferring industries and fisheries to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. The Bill as it stands transfers agricultural instruction, forestry, and some small industries; but the great industry of fishing, which is particularly suitable to come under the superintendence of the Department of Agriculture, is to remain with the Congested Districts Board. I have always been in favour of keeping people to their own work and reducing the number of overlapping Departments in Ireland. Here we have an instance of a Department created especially for the purpose of dealing with industries and fisheries. Before the creation of that Department it was quite natural that in the congested districts the Congested Districts Board should be entrusted with these duties, but when a Department has been created, richly endowed, and had passed its novitiate and was an effective Department, surely every canon of good administration pointed to the transfer to that Department of this work. I have had long experience of the Congested Districts Board, and I know that what happens is that a gentleman—the most competent, perhaps, in Ireland to deal with fisheries—sits as a member of the Congested Districts Board. He deals with fisheries in the building of the Congested Districts Board precisely in the same 643 way as he would if sitting in his proper place in the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. Perhaps he has a little more freedom from official control, but I have been far too long in the public service to think that freedom from official control is in the long run of advantage. I do not think that any advantage will come from this splitting up of work and multiplication of Departments. You have already a high-paid establishment and officers able to do the work; yet the proposal is to leave these duties with a Board by whom they cannot properly be looked after and where they must be in the hands of one official.

§ Amendment moved— Clause 49, page 25, line 6, after the first ("of") insert ("industries, fisheries")—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)

§ THE EARL OP CREWE
My noble friend has attempted by his Amendment to reinsert the words relating both to industries and fisheries. In what he said he devoted himself mainly to the question of fisheries. I understand that it is known to many of your Lordships that this is a subject on which opinion is no doubt somewhat divided in Ireland. The view expressed by my noble friend is that it is a simple and easy thing to place the care of all the fisheries in Ireland—and I will explain directly that the word "fisheries" has in Ireland a somewhat different meaning from what it has in this country—in one hand. Unless I am greatly mistaken many people in Ireland think that it is not wise to attempt to treat the fisheries on the East coast and on the West coast in precisely the same manner and on the same lines, and that the division between East and West which the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, regretted has to be recognised in some cases—and this is one of them—as a practical fact. The real difference, I take it, is to some extent this, that so far as the East coast is concerned the care of fisheries means very much what it does on the English Board presided over by my noble friend behind me; but on the West coast, at any rate in many parts, there is a great deal more to be done. Work has to be done which is kindred to the work performed in other respects by the Congested Districts Board; that is to say, the assistance of fishing as an industry by promoting modes of sale, processes of curing, and things of the kind have to be carried out by whatever 644 body is responsible for the care of the fisheries in that district. That is the kind of work which does not fall naturally under such a Department as a Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. My noble friend has nothing to do with these matters in this country. Neither would it seem natural that the Board of Agriculture should have those duties in Ireland. It no doubt is desirable, where you can, to avoid overlapping, but you must be careful in your desire to do so not to find yourselves dealing with two different things as though they were the same thing, and that, I am afraid, would be the result of my noble friend's Amendment. We think that as the Board is now designed and with the area over which it operates it is desirable to leave it both the power to deal with industries other than purely agricultural industries, and also with fisheries within the domain of which it has charge.

LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON
I regret the decision to which the noble Earl has arrived. I had the honour of proposing, in Committee, the Amendment with regard to fisheries which Lord MacDonnell now embodies in his Amendment, and I had hoped, from the discussion that took place in Committee, that the Government would have seen their way to accept this proposal. I venture to think that the argument of the noble Earl goes rather further than perhaps he quite realises. Practically his argument is that the Department is not a fit body to administer fisheries in the West of Ireland because it is not charged with these somewhat paternal duties. But the subjects that are transferred by the Government's Bill—agriculture, and so forth—will have to be dealt with in the congested districts undoubtedly in rather a paternal manner.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
May I interrupt the noble Lord. The subjects which are transferred are not commercial subjects, and the operations of the Congested Districts Board as regards fisheries are to a considerable extent commercial.

LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON
I suppose the provision of seed potatoes and seed oats, transferred by the clause, is of a somewhat commercial nature. I do not, however, wish to prolong the discussion; but I desire to express my regret that the noble Lord's suggestion cannot be taken, and that the very serious overlapping 645 that will result from the continuance of the present arrangement should not be put an end to.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The next Amendment is a consequential one.

§ Amendment moved— Page 26, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("and of the administrative committee")—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
We now come to Clause 55. Noble Lords opposite will see that we omit the words "whether before or after the passing of this Act or purchased on their requisition under this Act," and substitute the words "after the passing of this Act"; and if your Lordships will look at subsection (5) you will see that I have a further Amendment there. The subsection runs, "Section 75 of the Act of 1903 shall cease to have effect," and I propose to add "save as respects sales of parcels of land purchased by the Board before the passing of this Act." As regard the leaving out of the words "on the requisition of the Board," that is provided for by the new clause which deals with completion of purchase. Then noble Lords will observe that we strike out the whole of subsections (2) and (3)— (2) If any parcels of such land are not required for, or having regard to the circumstances of the estate, land, or district cannot advantageously be sold to, such tenants or proprietors, the Board may sell those parcels to any sons of tenants or proprietors of holdings situated in a congested districts county and not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value. (3) Where the Congested Districts Board sell any parcel of land to the son of any tenant or proprietor under this section, they shall insert in their annual report to the Lord Lieutenant full particulars of the sale and the circumstances in which the same was made, which deal with what we have been in the habit of calling landless men, and we propose in their place to insert at the end of subsection (1) the words "or any herdsmen employed on or in connection with the land." That is a class of person which it is proper to provide for, but we leave out the words which seem to give a special claim to landless men.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 27.

§ Page 27. Line 38, leave out from ("then") to ("to") in line 39, and insert ("after the passing of this Act")

646

§ Page 27, Line 40, at end insert ("or to any herdsmen employed on or in connection with the land")

§ Page 28.

§ Page 28, Leave out lines 1 to 11.

§ Page 28, Line 17, at end insert ("save as respects sales of parcels of land purchased by the Board before the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
My next Amendments are on Clause 60. This is an important clause. It deals with pre-emption by the Congested Districts Board, and in deference to the views expressed by noble Lords opposite we have agreed, which we think is another concession of considerable magnitude, to limit the power of pre-emption in no small degree. We propose to insert the word "congested" in line 18, limiting this power of pre-emption to congested estates, and we also propose to stiffen considerably the obligation on the Board to purchase within a reasonable time. We leave out the words "purchase within a reasonable time" and insert the words "to enter into an agreement or to send a final offer for the purchase of the estate within one year." We hope that noble Lords will agree that in this greatly limited form the interests of the owners of such estates will be sufficiently safeguarded.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 20.

§ Page 20, Line 18, after ("no") insert ("congested")

§ Page 20, Line 22, leave out from ("undertake") to ("Provided") in line 23 and insert ("to enter into an agreement or to send a final offer for the purchase of the estate within one year").—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I agree with the noble Earl in thinking this an improvement to the Bill, but I cannot allow him to represent it as a concession of first-rate magnitude, because nothing could have been more grotesque and absurd than allowing this right of pre-emption in the case of estates which were not congested. The right of pre-emption in the case of congested land or untenanted land is a thing we can perfectly understand, but what conceivable reason there could have been for allowing a right of pre-emption in cases of land not congested and held by solvent economic tenants I am quite unable to conjecture. Therefore, while welcoming the change we guard ourselves against admitting that it is any very great concession to us.

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

647

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I move to leave out Clause 62— 62. Where the Congested Districts Board make a proposal for the purchase of an estate or untenanted land, the provisions of Part II of this Act with respect to the amendment and withdrawal of proposals of the Estates Commissioners shall apply, with the substitution of the Congested Districts Board for the Estates Commissioners. That is preliminary to the change in the compulsory powers.

§ Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 62.—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM
The Amendment standing in my name to Clause 63 speaks for itself. It is to insert the word "congested." It confines the operations of the Congested Districts Board to congested estates. If the clause remains as it is, the Congested Districts Board are empowered to acquire any estate which is not congested in the congested districts area. I would remind your Lordships that the area of the congested districts has been doubled by this Bill. Therefore, I hope His Majesty's Government will see their way to accede to this point.

§ Amendment moved— Page 30, line 3, after ("any") ("congested").—(The Earl of Clanwilliam.)

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment because it really strikes right at the root of the proposed arrangements for the Congested Districts Board. We have been told over and over again that the demand for land within the congested districts is likely before the problem can be said to be in any way solved to be so great that it is not safe to leave any land there altogether out of the area to be covered by the operations of the Board. The real point is that, without supposing that land of the kind which the noble Earl mentions is likely to be necessarily bought on a very large scale, it is of the first importance that the Estates Commissioners should be in certain circumstances empowered to obtain the particular piece of land they require for the relief of congestion in a particular area. I need not argue again all the considerations which make that important—the considerations of distance, the desirability of not migrating people more than can be helped, and considerations 648 of that kind. I hope, therefore, the House will not agree to the Amendment.

LORD CLONBROCK
The provision in the Bill enables the Congested Districts Board to buy tenanted land. I can understand their buying untenanted land for the relief of congestion, but to give them power to buy tenanted land over this large area seems to be an advance on anything we have heard before.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ LORD ATKINSON
I move to substitute "Court" for "Judicial Commissioner" in the first subsection of Clause 64 as the tribunal of appeal against a proposal of compulsory acquisition. This Amendment is made to introduce a series of clauses which are down in my name, and I think it will be better if I add a few words explaining what the condition of things is in the Bill and the changes which are to be introduced by my proposed clauses. As the Bill stands at present it is competent for the Land Commission, having made an offer to an owner, if he refuses to take that offer, to take the land compulsorily without anybody's approval and on their own mere motion. I have before remarked that such a power is not conferred on any body inside the British Empire. The Congested Districts Board, in the same way, are empowered, after making an offer to an owner, and in the event of his refusing to accept their offer, of their own motion and without anybody's consent or authority to call upon the Land Commission to acquire compulsorily the land they desire to buy. That is, if possible, a still greater anomaly than the other. And having put in force this power, it is left to the Judicial Commissioner, with the aid of two assessors, to fix the price. In the discussions that took place in your Lordships' House objections were urged to those provisions so strongly that it was quite impossible for noble Lords on this side of the House to accept them or anything resembling them.
I would ask your Lordships to remember that by the Amendments which we have already moved in Clause 31, the Estates Commissioners are confined, in their acquisition of land compulsorily outside the congested districts, to employ it for the purpose of relieving congestion. They can only 649 buy congested estates and such untenanted land as is necessary for the relief of congestion on those estates. It should also be borne in mind that, according to the Amendment which has been moved to Clause 55, the Congested Districts Board when they shall henceforth acquire land, can only use it for selling parcels of it to proprietors or tenants of holdings and herdsmen. As far as the land which they have already acquired is concerned, they can deal with that under Section 75 of the Act of 1903. There is another matter which requires to be borne in mind. In the Bill as it originally stood there was a definition of untenanted land by which it appeared that land held under fee-farm grant, or lease for lives renewable for ever, or lease of which sixty years remained to run, should be treated as untenanted land. That definition has been altered, and now land so situated is only to be treated as untenanted for the purpose of the Evicted Tenants Act. It should be remembered also that the definition of Purchase Acts is so altered as to include all the Land Purchase Acts. It is necessary to bear these things in mind to appreciate what it is these compulsory clauses can operate upon, and to what purpose the land acquired by means of them can be devoted.
By my proposed new clauses it is provided than an application to restrain the Estates Commissioners from acquiring land may be made to a Court composed of two Judges of the King's Bench Division taken from the rota and the Judicial Commissioner. There are four grounds on which such application can be made: (1) that other land sufficient and equally suitable can be acquired by voluntary agreement at a reasonable price; (2) that the estate or Untenanted land consists of or includes land in the occupation of the owner which is, or forms part of, a park, garden, pleasure ground, recreation ground, demesne, or home farm, or was purchased under the provisions of the Irish Church Act, 1869, for a sum not exceeding £2,000; (3) that the estate or untenanted land consists of or includes land which has been purchased under the Land Purchase Acts, or is the property of a local authority, or is held by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking: and (4) that if the estate or untenanted land is acquired as proposed 650 other land of the owner adjoining the estate or untenanted land will be injuriously affected or the amenity of the owner's residence will be impaired.
For this purpose the Court will have all the powers of a Court of Chancery, and they will have absolute discretion as to the mode in which they award costs. They will also have another very important power to which noble Lords on this side of the House attach perhaps more importance than to any other part of the Bill—namely, they can fix the price. I do not myself admire the word "price" used in such connection. I think the word "compensation" would be a better one. At any rate "price" has been used, and it is pretty clear that the meaning is that they are to take into consideration the full value of the land to its owner. Almost in every case where an objection is lodged on the first of the four grounds on which such applications can be made, it will be necessary for the Court to inquire more or less into the value of the land, and they will be in such cases in a position, without much difficulty, to fix what is the fair price having regard to its value to the owner. But it may be that in some cases the price will be the only matter really in controversy, or it may be that in some cases where several objections are made price is one of them. The others objections may be removed and the price may become the sole remaining question in dispute, and in such cases it might be desirable that the Court should be empowered, if it thinks that the question of price could be better and more appropriately settled by an arbitrator, to refer the fixing of the price to an arbitrator. Therefore, when the price is the sole matter in dispute or the sole remaining matter in dispute, on the application of one of the parties interested, other than the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board, it will be better for the Court to send the question to an arbitrator appointed by themselves and allow him to fix the price. That is the scheme embodied in these Amendments, and I think they provide a satisfactory and just tribunal.
This tribunal would have the confidence of parties on both sides, and would be un-doubtedly competent to fix the price. Contrast it, for instance, with the tribunal set up by the Bill. The tribunal in the Bill would consist of one of the persons 651 mentioned in my Amendment, who would be flanked on each side by two assessors whose function it would be to disagree with him and overrule him on many occasions, because it would be impossible for him to stand up on questions of mere value against the two assessors sitting with him. The only objection that can be raised to the tribunal which I propose is that it is not fitted to fix the price. One of its members is so fitted by the confession of the Government themselves, because they have appointed him already without assessors to fix prices under the Evicted Tenants Act. I am unable to see how any reasonable objection can be raised to this tribunal, always assuming that it is the object of the Government to appoint an independent tribunal capable of gaining confidence, and efficient, adequate, and well equipped for the discharge of its duties.

§ Amendment moved— Line 40, leave out ("Judicial Commissioner") and insert ("Court").—(Lord Atkinson.)

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I am very sorry we do not find ourselves in closer touch with noble Lords opposite as regards this particular Amendment, and I am afraid that the position with regard to it is a somewhat serious one, because we are not convinced by the very full and complete arguments of the noble and learned Lord opposite that on the occasions where compulsory powers have to be exercised, they can be exercised with reasonable speed and reasonable cheapness under the proposals which he has embodied in his Amendment. We are afraid—and nothing that has been said gives me reason to alter the opinion—that the zareba, if I may adopt the phrase of the noble Marquess, that has been erected round this is so high and the thorns in it are so pointed that nobody will be able to get through. We believe if the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord were to be embodied in the Bill that in fact compulsion would not be used, and the result would be, where, for instance, it was a question of relieving congestion outside the area, that instead of acquiring the particular piece of land that they might desire to acquire and which would settle the matter satisfactorily, the Estates Commissioners would be placed in the position of having to acquire by agreement some land altogether unsuitable to the purpose, with the further choice of leaving the hard case alone altogether.
652 The proposal of the noble and learned Lord is, I think everybody will agree, an extremely elaborate one. The grounds of objection are very numerous, and to take the first, the fact that the Commissioners have to say that it is not possible to obtain in the neighbourhood—indeed, not necessarily in the neighbourhood, because it might be held that distant land was equally suitable—land which would answer their purpose equally well, involves a possible inquiry by this tribunal into the whole geography of the neighbourhood, with the necessity of inquiring not merely into the price of the land proposed to be taken, but also the price of all the other land within a considerable area around. Then in paragraph (b) there is the provision which excludes land which was purchased under the provisions of the Irish Church Act, 1869. I admit that by placing a £2,000 limit upon that the noble and learned Lord has prevented the worst excesses which might conceivably have happened under that Act, because I fancy there is no doubt that there were some considerable tracts purchased under the Irish Church Act which could not reasonably be excluded from compulsory purchase if that were necessary. Then the noble Lord, in adopting the words of the Lands Clauses Act in relation to lands injuriously affected, opens out, and means to open out, a very wide area of objection on the part of a landlord.
But, my Lords, our principal objection, as the noble and learned Lord foresaw, is to the composition of the tribunal. We proposed that the Judicial Commissioner, with two expert assistants or assessors, whatever you may please to call them, should sit on the case and fix the price. I have never been able to understand what the particular objection was to the assessors named by us in our Bill—whether it was supposed that people would be appointed who were entirely ignorant of the subject, or whether it was supposed that persons might be appointed who held the view that there ought to be no private property in land. I should have supposed that it was possible to find a great many gentlemen in Ireland who were thoroughly competent to sit with the Judicial Commissioner for such a purpose, and who would, I believe, have inspired general confidence in doing so. But personally I have never regarded the assessors as an integral part of the proposal, and if it had been proposed that the Judicial Commissioner should sit alone, I think we should have endeavoured to meet noble Lords opposite 653 in that respect. I can recall no precedent or analogy for the proposal made in the Amendment; I cannot remember any enactment containing anything like it—that is to say, that two Judges of the High Court should be called upon, on evidence brought before them, to fix the price of an estate—and nothing has been said by noble Lords opposite to induce the Government to believe that this tribunal can from any point of view be regarded as reasonable for the particular purpose to be carried out. I pans by the question of a further appeal to the Court of Appeal; it is only one more thorn in the zareba.

§ LORD ATKINSON
On law.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
That was in your own Bill.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
That is true, but our preliminary proceedings were not so elaborate as those proposed by the noble and learned Lord, and it was reasonable enough to have an appeal on points of law from a tribunal which was not essentially legal in character, whereas that of the noble and learned Lord is composed entirely of Judges of the High Court. I regret that noble Lords have thought it necessary to press this proposal in so extreme a form. It is impossible for me to say that this Amendment, in the form in which it now stands, will be favourably viewed in another place. I am afraid that very-serious objection is likely to be taken to it, and I must leave the matter there. I have no power to force any Amendment of this Amendment on your Lordships; but I am bound to utter this degree of warning, that I am afraid we are still far apart, although I am glad to think that on so much of the Bill we have been able to arrive at a basis of common agreement.

THE EARL OF MAYO
The noble Earl said the position was a somewhat serious one. I quite recognise that this is a serious matter, and I would recall to your Lordships' memory that noble Lords from Ireland resisted from the beginning the principle of compulsion in the Bill. The House decided otherwise, and we have accepted the position. I think the noble Earl is unduly alarmed at the somewhat long Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has on the Paper when he said that the zareba erected round this subject by the noble and learned Lord was 654 so high and that the thorns in it were so pointed that nobody would be able to get through. That there is no analogy to this proposal is not surprising, because in Ireland there is passing a transition of land from one class to another such as has no parallel. What we ask for, compulsion having been granted, is a Court to which all parties should be able to go and demand that justice to which everybody is entitled. That is really what it all amounts to. Are we to be told that the Bill is to be lost because we make this reasonable demand? We who come from Ireland and who are put under this Bill have taken the situation in a generous manner, and I hardly think that the noble Earl has been fair to us on this point. I hope that noble Lords from Ireland will insist upon this Court of Appeal, which is a proper one to place in the Bill.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
It is with the greatest regret that I listened to the speech of the noble Earl opposite. So far everything seemed to have been going on satisfactorily in the negotiations which have been conducted with regard to this Bill. Concessions have been made on both sides, and I think those made on this side of the House have largely exceeded those made by His Majesty's Government. But the whole point—the pivot—on which these concessions turn is the necessity for an impartial and competent tribunal to decide the question of price, and I must honestly say we do not consider the tribunal proposed in the Bill by His Majesty's Government to be a competent one. I do not like to repeat what I have already said, but I mentioned to your Lordships at an earlier stage a case in which the Judicial Commissioner thought twelve years purchase a sufficient price to give to a landowner who was compulsorily dispossessed under the Evicted Tenants Act. We do not consider that this is giving a landowner the fair annual value of his land. I should like to impress on the House how very important it is that we should make a stand for this tribunal in view of the possibility of the principle of compulsory purchase being extended to the whole of Ireland. If we accept an incompetent tribunal in the present case, it will be impossible, when compulsion is extended over a larger area, to have a reformed tribunal. The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition gave us on every occasion the most confident assurance that he would be no party to the passing of this 655 Bill unless every device was adopted which should secure that in the case of land taken compulsorily the owner should be fully safeguarded. When the Bill goes back to the House of Commons it should be made clear that, however much we should regret the Bill being lost, believing as we do that it will be for the advantage of Ireland, we consider this competent and impartial tribunal essential, and that if the Bill should come back from another place with a tribunal which is not satisfactory to us, we should feel bound in that case, at whatever sacrifice, to declare that we could not make further concessions in this matter.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I rise for the purpose of expressing the great regret with which I listened to the chilling reception which the noble Earl opposite has accorded to this Amendment. I was certainly not under the impression that he would in any way bless it, but I had a hope that he would recognise the immense importance which we attach to it and that he would have realised that the points upon which we have been able to meet him would not have been conceded unless we had been under the impression that upon this all-important point he was ready to meet us. We put this requirement in the very forefront of our proposals. We believe that in this matter we are fighting for a principle, a principle which we find ourselves called upon to defend not in this Bill only. That principle is that when Parliament passes legislation under which owners of property, whether they be private owners or local authorities, are to have that property interfered with or taken from them, the parties aggrieved should be afforded some security at all events that the necessity of the treatment meted out to them and the terms upon which they are compensated shall be considered by an independent and competent tribunal. What it seems to me we are acquiring an evil habit of doing is that we pass legislation of this kind, we entrust the administration of it to a Government Department, sometimes presided over by an enthusiastic Minister, and inspired by enthusiastic feelings, and we give to the Minister or to the Department an absolutely free hand to interfere with the rights of owners of property. To that growing practice it is, I conceive, our duty to offer a strong opposition.
The noble Earl recommended to us a tribunal which he suggested as one more 656 suitable to the requirements of the case than the tribunal advocated by my noble and learned friend behind me. We have explained very clearly the nature of our objection to the tribunal advocated by the noble Earl. He relies, and naturally relies, upon the high qualifications of Mr. Justice Wylie. But may I remind the noble Earl that he cannot give us any security that Mr. Justice Wylie will always hold the position he at present holds; and when we are told that we are to rely not only on him but on the two assessors whom the noble Earl proposes to give him, are we not justified in saying we know nothing about those assessors? We have no security that they will not be gentlemen of very decided political views. Unfortunately, it is the case in Ireland—and no one knows it better than the noble Earl—that it is not very easy to find gentlemen who are regarded as thoroughly impartial. What is the noble Earl's objection to the tribunal which my noble and learned friend proposes? He criticised it upon several points of detail, into which I will not now enter except for the purpose of saying this, that if it had only been a question of detailed consideration of the subsections contained in my noble and learned friend's Amendment, we should have been perfectly ready to discuss those with him on their merits.
But it is said that these two Judges to whom a place is proposed to be given on the tribunal would know nothing about land. Possibly they might be learned Judges who might have no particular claim to expert knowledge of land; but are learned Judges never called upon to adjudicate upon technical matters of which they have no special acquaintance of their own; and are they not able in such cases to supply any deficiencies on their own part by hearing the evidence which is brought forward on the technical points by the parties concerned. Then the noble Earl said that a tribunal of this kind would occasion needless delay, and he indicated to us very plainly indeed that what is in the contemplation of His Majesty's Government is that land should be taken under this Bill by what I can only describe as the most rough-and-ready methods—methods in which short cuts will be taken and very scant justice done to the parties aggrieved. He also, I think, said something of the expense which would be occasioned by a tribunal of this kind. That might be an 657 excellent argument if this Bill was a cheap Bill. Is it a cheap Bill? You are ladling out enormous sums of money for the purposes of this Bill, and are you really going to stop short at the expenses occasioned by a Court of this kind, merely because there are added a few hundred pounds to the total expense of this measure?

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
It is the general expense involved to the parties by the employment of expensive counsel, such as are always employed before a tribunal of this kind, that I had mainly in mind.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I ask the noble Earl to remember that what you are going to do under this Bill is an extremely violent thing. You are going to take away from people property which belongs to them as much as the coat on their back belongs to them; and it seems to me really idle to suggest that in a case of this kind you are not to give proper and adequate safeguards to the persons aggrieved merely because there may be a little delay or a little more expense involved. I greatly regret that at this point, which is one which seems to us of vital importance, the noble Earl has not been able to say something which would reassure our minds and mitigate the deep misgivings and anxieties with which this part of the policy of His Majesty's Government is not unnaturally regarded.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD ATKINSON then moved to delete from Clause 64 the following subsections—

§ (3) Any person interested in the estate or untenanted land who is dissatisfied with the price named in the final offer may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner apply by way of objection to the Judicial Commissioner to fix the price to be paid for the estate or untenanted land.

§ (4) The Judicial Commissioner shall, with the assistance of two specially qualified lay assessors, hear in the prescribed manner and determine all applications coming before him under this Part of this Act, and for that purpose shall have and may exercise the powers conferred on the land Commission by subsection (1) and subsection (3) of section forty-eight of the Act of 1881, and his decision on any question other than one of law shall be final.

§ (5) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from any decision of the Judicial Commissioner under this part of this Act on any question of law and the decision of the Court of Appeal on such question shall be final.

§ (6) Subject to any application to the Judicial Commissioner under this Part of this Act and the final determination of all questions arising thereon, 658 the price named in the final offer or fixed under this Part of this Act as the case may be shall be deemed to be the purchase money of the estate or untenanted land, and shall within the prescribed time be paid info the Bank of Ireland, and the purchase shall be completed and the purchase money distributed in like manner and all the like consequences shall ensue as if the estate or un-tenanted land had beer, purchased by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Hoard, as the case may be, by agreement entered into under the Act of 1903 as amended by this Act upon the date of the payment of the purchase money into the Bank.

§ (7) The costs and expenses of and incidental to any application to the Judicial Commissioner under this section shall be at the discretion of that Commissioner, who may if he thinks fit order the same to be paid by the Laud Commission or the Congested Districts Hoard.

§ (8) In fixing the price to be paid for an estate or untenanted land under this section no additional allowance shall be made on account of she purchase being compulsory.

§ Amendment moved— Page 31, leave out from ("land") in line 4 to end of clause.—(Lord Atkinson.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD ATKINSON then moved to insert, after Clause 64, the new clauses which he had already explained.

§ Amendment moved— Page 31, insert the following new clauses—

§ .—(1) If any person interested in the estate or untenanted land objects to the acquisition of the the same under this Part of this Act on the ground—

(a) that other land sufficient and equally suitable for the purposes for which the estate or untenanted land is proposed to be acquired is available for purchase by the Commissioners or Board, as the case may be, by voluntary agreement at a reasonable price; or
(b) that the estate or untenanted land consists of or includes land in the occupation of the owner which is, or forms part of, a park, garden, pleasure ground, recreation ground, demesne, or home farm, or was purchased under the provisions of the Irish Church Act, 1869, for a sum not exceeding two thousand pounds; or
(c) that the estate or untenanted land consists of or includes land which has been purchased under the land Purchase Acts, or is the property of a local authority, or is held by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking; or
(d) that if the estate or untenanted land is acquired as proposed other land of the owner adjoining the estate or untenanted land will be injuriously affected or the amenity of the owners residence will be impaired:

he may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the court for an order restraining the Estates Commissioners from acquiring the estate or untenanted land, or any specified part or parts of the same under this Part of this Act.

§ (2) The court for the purposes of this Part of this Act shall be a court constituted of the Judicial 659 Commissioners and two Judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court to be selected from a rota formed for the purpose.

§ (3) The court shall hear and determine all applications coming before it under this section, and may, if the justice of the case so requires, amend the final offer by excluding therefrom any part or parts of the lands therein described, or (with the consent of the owner and the body by whom the final offer was sent) by including therein any other lands of the owner.

§ (4) Where a final offer is amended by the court under this section, the body by whom the offer was sent may make such consequential amendments in the offer as appear to them to be necessary, and the offer as amended in pursuance of this section shall be deemed to be the final offer for the purpose of any subsequent proceedings under this Part of this Act.

§ (5) The court with respect to any applications coming before it under this part of this Act, and to all questions arising thereon shall have and may exercise all the powers, rights and privileges of the Chancery Division of the High Court, and the decision of the court on any question other than one of law shall be final.

§ (6) There shall be an appeal to the court of appeal from any decision of the court under this section on any question of law, and the decision of the court of appeal on such question shall be final.

§ (7) An order of the court or the court of appeal restraining the Estates Commissioners from acquiring land under this Part of this Act shall remain in force for five years after it is made.

§ (8) Rules of the Supreme Court shall provide for the forming of a rota for the purposes of this Part of this Act, and for the procedure to be adopted on the hearing by the court, and the court of appeal of applications and appeals under this section.

§ (9) The expression "owner" in this section means any person having power under the Land Purchase Acts to sell the estate or untenanted land.

§ .—(1) Subject to any application in the court under the last preceding section, and to the final determination of all questions arising thereon, any person interested in the estate or untenanted land who is dissatisfied with the price named in the final offer may apply, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, by way of objection to the court to fix the price to be paid for the estate, or untenanted land, and, subject, to the provisions of this section, the price shall be fixed by the court accordingly.

§ (2) The court upon any application under this section, if satisfied that the price can more conveniently and properly be fixed by arbitration, may—

(a) on the request of any of the parties interested other than the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board if the question of price is the sole or sole remaining question in dispute; or
(b) in any case where the parties so consent: refer the application to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Court, and in the case of any such reference the provisions of the Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1850, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall with the necessary modifications apply in like manner as in the case of a reference to arbitration under that Act.

§ (3) In fixing the price to be paid for an estate or untenanted land, regard shall be had to the fair value of the same to the owner, but no additional 660 allowance shall be made in respect of the purchase being compulsory.

§ (4) The costs and expenses of and incidental to any application under this section shall be at the discretion of the Court, and the Court may, if it thinks fit, order the same to be paid by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board.

§ . Subject to any application to the court under this Part of this Act, and the final determination of all questions arising thereon, the price named in the final offer or fixed as the case may be under this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be the purchase money of the estate or untenanted land, and shall, within the prescribed time, be paid into the Bank of Ireland, and the purchase shall be completed and the purchase money distributed in like manner and all the like consequences shall ensue as if the estate or untenanted land had been purchased by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Hoard as the case may be by agreement entered into under the Act of 1903 as amended by this Act upon the date of the payment of the purchase money into the Bank.—(Lord Atkinton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD ATKINSON moved to leave out Clause 65—

§ 65.—(1) If any person interested in the estate or untenanted land objects to the acquisition of the same; under this Part of this Act on the ground that the estate or untenanted land consists entirely or mainly of land to which this section applies, he may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner apply to the Judicial Commissioner for an order that no further proceedings be taken for the acquisition of the estate or untenanted land under this Part of this Act.

§ (2) If any person interested in the estate or untenanted land objects to the acquisition of the same under this Part of this Act on the ground that the estate or untenanted land includes land to which this section applies, he may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the Judicial Commissioner for an order excluding such land from the purchase.

§ (3) Upon any application under this section the Judicial Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the estate or untenanted land consists entirely or mainly of land to which this section applies by order direct that no further proceedings be taken for the acquisition of the estate or untenanted land under this Part of this Act.

§ (4) If upon any such application the Judicial Commissioner is satisfied that the estate or un-tenanted land includes land to which this section applies, and that such land is not the main portion of the estate or untenanted land, he may exclude such land from the purchase and may fix the price to be paid for the remainder of the estate or untenanted land, and the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the payment and distribution of the purchase money and the completion of the purchase shall apply accordingly in the case of the remainder of the estate or untenanted land.

§ (5) This section applies to any land in the occupation of the owner which is or forms part of a demesne, garden, pleasure ground, or home farm.

§ (6) In this section the expression "owner" means any person having power under the Land Purchase Acts to sell the estate or untenanted land.

661

§ Amendment moved— Page 32, leave out clause 65.—(Lord Atkinson.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
I do not intend to detain your Lordships in moving again the insertion of the new clause standing in my name. I merely wish to ask His Majesty's Government whether they cannot see their way to accept the clause. It would involve no expense whatever to the Treasury, and is merely an enabling clause to empower landlords to compensate their agents when land is taken away compulsorily. The noble Earl said when this matter was discussed on the Third Reading of this Bill that in cases of the sale of land held in fee simple the money would go to the vendor, and he would be able to deal with his agent in this matter; but there are very few estates held in fee simple in Ireland. The other fear of the noble Earl was that an Amendment of this kind would raise the price. But this provision has entered into the consideration of all negotiations for sale by voluntary agreement. I think the noble Earl may rest assured that his fear will be groundless. The clause involves no cost to the Treasury and only gives power to do certain things with the consent of the vendor and the Land Commission. I hope the noble, Earl will see his way to agree to the introduction of these words.

§ Amendment moved—

§ After clause 66 insert the following new clause— . In the case of the acquisition of land compulsorily, such sum as the vendor may approve and the Land Commission may sanction shall be paid out of the purchase money to the land agent of the estate on which such land is situated or to the negotiator for the purposes of the sale (if any) and the said agent or negotiator shall give the Land Commission such information as may be required by them after all questions in connection with the compulsory acquisition of the land shall have been finally determined.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I am sorry not to be able to meet the noble Earl on this Amendment. Like him, I do not wish to re-argue the whole question, but it certainly does seem to me that it is a matter which rests between the vendor and his agent, and although it is true that where the land is not held in fee simple it may be less easy for the landowner to pay a sum down, yet, on the other hand, in such a case he could presumably pay a similar sum or a somewhat smaller sum by instalments. The main argument which we use is that 662 the sum proposed to be paid under the Act of 1903 was not compensation for disturbance, but was a payment supposed to be made for having conducted certain negotiations. Where the land is not bought by agreement that reason seems to disappear. In those circumstances I am afraid we cannot agree to the noble Earl's Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD CLONCURRY
I move to amend subsection (1) of Clause 67— 67.—(1) Where a present tenancy was determined at any time before the passing of this Act, the Land Commission way, subject to the provisions of the Land Law lets, on the application in the prescribed manner of any tenant in occupation of the lands comprised in the said present tenancy or of any portion of those lands, being either— by leaving out the words "before the passing of this Act" and inserting "after the passing of the Act of 1887." This Amendment is not put down with any idea of hostility. In the Bill introduced by the present Government in November last year Clause 45 covered the same ground as Clause 67 of this Bill, and the words which I propose to insert in the present Clause 67 are only intended to bring it into harmony with the clause of last year. My other two Amendments, to leave out subsection (3)— (3) Where a present tenancy has been sold under a writ of execution and assigned by the sheriff to the landlord, or a trustee for the landlord, the tenancy shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been determined, and to omit from subsection (4) the words— and the expression 'present tenancy' includes any existing lease within the meaning of the Act of 1881, and any tenancy which was determined at any time between the first day of January eighteen hundred and seventy-nine and the passing of the Act of 1881, are also to bring the present clause into harmony with the clause of last year. I ask the noble Earl to accept these alterations of the clause, or to re-insert the Government clause of last year, which introduced everything that was necessary.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Clause 67, page 33, line 11, leave out ("before the passing of this Act") and insert ("after the passing of the Act of 1887")

§ Clause 67, page 33, line 36, leave out subsection (3).

§ Clause 67, page 34, line 2, leave out from ("enactment") in line 2 to the end of the clause.—(Lord Cloncurry.)

663

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I am afraid we cannot agree to the noble Lord's Amendments, and I put it to him and the House whether it really is worth while to make the small distinction which he proposes by leaving out that very limited number of tenants who would fall under the omission covering the years from 1879 to 1887. The noble Lord, as we see, agrees to admit those tenants who lost their status under what was known as the Eviction-Made-Easy Clause of the Act of 1887, where mere notice took the place of ejectment. But there are certain other tenants who did not technically become evicted tenants. There is the case where a present tenancy was put up for sale and the landlord bought it, without in many cases any money passing, the mere effect being to wipe out a certain quantity of arrears and to change the status of the tenant. In such cases, which are not very numerous, is it worth while to leave those people out and to leave a very limited number of persons with something like a grievance, or what they consider a grievance, in order to save what may be regarded from the point of view of noble Lords opposite as an injustice? If noble Lords could show that there were a great number of cases where the landlord had actually bought a tenancy and paid for it, the argument would be a strong one. In the circumstances I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendments, because we think that if this question of future tenants is to be dealt with at all it is desirable that it should be dealt with completely.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
All the argument in favour of the proposal of His Majesty's Government has been in defence of the clause of last year and not the clause as now in the Bill. I think the clause of last year was bad enough, but this clause goes very much further than anything that we expected after seeing the Government clause of last year. I do not know whether my noble friend intends to press his Amendment or not, but I hope the noble Earl will take note of the fact that this is a very large concession—I believe a far larger concession than any which has been made on either side up to now. I have no hesitation in describing the clause as it stands as most objectionable.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I am rather inclined to agree with the noble 664 Earl that it is not desirable to insist upon depriving these future tenants of the benefits of this Bill in those cases where it can be shown that there has been an uninterrupted occupation on the part of the tenant, and where the tenant's interest really has never been acquired by the landlord. But am I to understand from the noble Earl that the clause as he wishes it to run would convert a future tenant whose interest had been acquired by the landlord for a valuable consideration—would convert him by a stroke of the pen into a present tenant? That seems to me to be rather a strong order. The noble Earl has told us that the cases were not numerous. Have the Irish Office made inquiries, and are they able to tell us approximately how many of these people are concerned?

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
It is difficult to estimate the number, but we are given to understand that there are only a few hundred of such cases. I should, however, be sorry to bind myself to that figure. The noble Marquess used the phrase "valuable consideration." I admitted just now that if it could be shown that there were a number of cases where landlords had bought the tenancies of present tenants and paid for them in cash, the case would be very much stronger than it is. I do not know whether the noble Marquess would say that the wiping out of arrears which in any circumstances would have been irrecoverable would be regarded as a valuable consideration. In those cases we do not think there is a claim for keeping such tenants out of the Bill.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
No; but where the consideration might be regarded as a fair equivalent for the tenant's interest.

§ On Question, Amendments negatived.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
My next Amendment in Clause 68 is put down in deference to noble Lords opposite. We alter the definition of the Land Purchase Acts so as to secure, without any possibility of doubt, that all previous Land Purchase Acts are included.

§ Amendment moved— Page 34, line 16, after ("by") insert ("the Act of 1896 and").—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

665

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The two Amendments standing in my name to Clause 69 make rather an important alteration, which was alluded to by the noble and learned Lord when speaking of the safeguards which surrounded the acquirement of land. As the Bill was originally drafted, all land in the occupation of persons holding under a fee-farm grant or a lease for lives or a lease for not less than sixty years was to be deemed untenanted land both for the purpose of the Act of 1903, the Evicted Tenants Act, and also of this Act. The arguments for including a great part of that land in such a definition were, I confess, not always felt to be strong, and, therefore, we are prepared to confine the definition solely to the very limited purpose of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 35.

§ Page 35, Line 2, leave out ("the Act of 1903").

§ Page 35, Line 3, leave out ("and this Act").—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE moved two Amendments in the First Schedule.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 36.

§ Page 36, Line 29, after ("land") insert ("and in any case whore the amount advanced is less than the purchase, money").

§ Page 36, Line 31, after ("Treasury") insert ("regard being had in case of untenanted land to the fair annual value of the land to the owner."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
The Amendment standing in my name to the Second Schedule is a saving in the repeal of Section 75 of the Act of 1903 of certain parcels of land.

666

§ Amendment moved— Page 37, third column, line 30, after ("seventy five") insert ("save as regards parcels of land purchased by the Congested Districts Board before the passing of this Act."—(The Earl of Crewe.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Bill returned to the Commons.