Lords Sitting of 26 November 1909

IRISH LAND BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords further Amendments and Commons consequential Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to several of the Lords Amendments.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, in moving that these Amendments be now considered, I have really but little to say beyond expressing a hope that the action taken in another place may, on the whole, commend itself to your Lordships' House. I am quite aware that there are various points on which your Lordships, particularly those who have personal interests in Ireland, would have desired to see this measure become law in a different form; but at the same time I am confident that even those noble Lords who feel most strongly on the subject will admit that His Majesty's Government have met their views in several most important particulars. I will not waste the time of your Lordships' House by any general description of how that has been done, because it will be evident when we proceed to consider these few Amendments, quite apart from other Amendments which were made and agreed to in the course of the debates here. But I would remind the House that in another place the Chief Secretary agreed to several Amendments made by your Lordships, although in doing so he received the opposition of a number of Irish members. I think that is all I have to say, and I will make the Motion that stands in my name, that these Amendments be considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reasons be considered.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not know that it is necessary for me to comment at any length on the statement made by the noble Earl. He has expressed a hope that the action taken in another place upon our Amendments will commend itself to this House. I should certainly be wanting in frankness if I made
1118
believe that the action taken by the members of the Government who are responsible for Irish administration in the House of Commons does commend itself to us generally or to noble Lords from Ireland in particular. The noble Earl calls attention to the fact that on several points the wishes of this House have been met and their Amendments accepted. That is quite true. If you count the Amendments, I quite admit that there are a very considerable number of them with regard to which we have been met in a reasonable spirit; but we have made it clear throughout these discussions that what we cared most for was not what I may call the general mass of the Amendments so much as two or three particular Amendments upon which we concentrated our attention. One in particular we have from the first put in the forefront of our arguments—that is the Amendment relating to the tribunal which was to deal with appeals in regard to the necessity of compulsion and in regard to the compensation to be paid to those owners who were required compulsorily to give up their land. Now, my Lords, on that point, which we shall no doubt come to presently, I certainly do not think that we have been fully met, and I feel quite sure, whatever decision we may come to, that we shall have to put on record that we are by no means satisfied with the fairness of the proposals of His Majesty's Government so far as the appeal on price is concerned.
On another point we have also, I think, some reason to complain of the manner in which our proposals have been met. Those proposals, the noble Earl will remember, were the result of an attempt to arrive, outside these walls, at what I should describe as a reasonable give-and-take arrangement, and one of the points on which we thought we were going to be met was the point where it was proposed by us that what is usually referred to as the standard of congestion should be fixed at £5 instead of £10. We certainly were under the impression that on that point we had a fair prospect of being met by the noble Earl and his friends. We find a compromise, for which, like all compromises, something can be said, but which certainly stops very far short of meeting our requirements. I will only say that my view of the position at which we have arrived is this, that considering the political conditions of the moment there is not much

1119
to be gained by a prolongation of these controversies. I am quite ready to admit that on some points a desire has been shown by the Chief Secretary to consider our suggestions, and I am certainly ready to say that the Bill as we now see it, in what I presume will be its final form, is a very much less objectionable Bill than the Bill as it first came to this House. In particular, I make that observation with regard to the retention of the zones, which we now rejoice to see are not to be called in question at all. My Lords, I thought it necessary, as the noble Earl prefaced our proceedings with a few general observations, to make these remarks, and I suppose he will now proceed to put the Amendments seriatim to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill No. (177).]
Lords Amendments.
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 I 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 the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, I 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 Commons disagree to these Amendments, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—
Page 8, leave out Clause 14.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This is the Amendment which deals with the subject to which the noble Marquess alluded at the close of his remarks—the question of the zones. All through, some of your Lordships have had in your minds that my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary had some sinister design upon the zones. There are a great many people in Ireland who do not like the zones, as is evident from what was said in another place by those entitled to speak for them. But his Majesty's Government have never adopted that attitude, and I think your Lordships will agree that in reverting to the status quo and leaving out Clause 14 we show that this is certainly the case. As the House will remember, certain Amendments were made by way of creating precautions in particular cases,
1120
but on consideration it appeared to my right hon. friend and to the Government that it would be wiser to leave the matter alone altogether, if the clause could not be passed in the form which it originally took in the Bill. I therefore propose that the Commons Amendment to leave out Clause 14 be agreed to.
Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments and agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
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.
The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—
Page 12, line 2, leave out ("ten") and insert ("seven")
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the general effect of this Amendment is, as your Lordships know, to fix £7 as the standard for the purpose of determining whether an estate is a congested estate. We originally proposed £10, and advanced what we considered were strong arguments in favour of raising the limit to that amount. This House desired to retain the present limit of £5. I will not repeat the arguments we used against that proposal, which we considered erred in stereotyping too low a figure as the definition of congestion. Now that the House of Commons propose £7 as a compromise, I may remind your Lordships that this is even better from your point of view than the old custom of splitting the difference, because it is somewhat less than half of the difference between the two figures, and in view of the strong opinion which has been expressed by those best entitled to judge of the check which will be put upon the operations of the Board if the old limit is adhered to, I hope your Lordships will agree to accept what I cannot think is other than a reasonable advance towards a better state of things in the congested districts.
Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment and agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(The Bad of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Page 12.
Line 6, leave out ("as so amended")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because it is consequential on the Amendment to Page 12,lines 1 to 4, to which the Commons have disagreed, and in lieu whereof they hare inserted other words.
Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Page 12.
Leave out line 17, and insert ("more than one" quarter of the area of which consists of")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because an estate ought to be considered as congested if the majority of the holdings upon it are congested.
THE EARL OF CREWE: With regard to this Amendment, I frankly admit that there is something to be said on both sides. Neither definition, I think, can be taken as an entirely satisfactory one—that is to say, the definition by number or the definition by area in a particular estate for the purpose of defining it as being congested. It is no doubt true that you could name instances in which the numerical calculation which the House of Commons propose to restore might turn out to work unfairly. But, on the other hand, there are, as I am informed, in actual fact a number of cases in which the area definition, as proposed, I chink, by my noble friend behind me, Lord MacDonnell, might also work very unfairly. There are cases where there are a considerable number of holdings on a particular estate just of the kind which it is most necessary to deal with, and perhaps the whole of the rest of the property is held in either one or two hands. In that case the congested holdings are barred from coming under the clause. That, I am sure, is not what you would desire, and although, as I say, I do not think it is possible to arrive at a completely fair definition on either one line or the other, I am convinced, since I have inquired about the matter, that this definition by number is in fact a fairer definition than the definition by area, and I hope your Lordships, therefore, will agree to accept the decision of the House of Commons.
Moved, That the Lords do not insist
1122
on the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to make a few remarks upon this matter for the consideration of your Lordships. The definition which it is proposed not to insist upon was, I think I am right in saying, a definition which I myself first proposed in my Minute appended to the Report of the Congestion Commission. I speak subject to correction, but that is my belief.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think that is so.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: The definition now proposed was also one I myself suggested, because on examination of the first definition it seemed to me that it would extend so largely the area of congestion, that it was undesirable. My object in all this business was to concentrate attention on congestion in the West of Ireland in the scheduled area as it now exists, that is the throe millions of acres, and to obtain for that area the £1,000,000 which it is proposed to ear-mark for the purchase of land and the other sums proposed to be given by the Bill in cash for the purposes of dealing with congestion in that area. My whole object and aim was to keep these large sums of money for the districts now scheduled as congested in the West of Ireland and to leave congestion outside the existing scheduled area to the Estates Commissioners to deal with by means of the additional sum which the State will be bound to provide for the operations of the Estates Commissioners. I have been defeated in that policy by the extension of the jurisdiction of the Congested Districts Board, and all I have now to say is that if your Lordships desire to relieve congestion in Ireland wherever you find it, and if the Treasury is prepared to provide money for that purpose, I should be the last person to say you no.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendments.
Page 12.
Lines 20 and 21, leaves out ("ten pounds") and insert ("five pounds")
Line 23, leave out ("ten pounds") and insert ("five pounds")
The Commons propose to amend these Amendments by leaving out ("five") and inserting ("seven").
Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments and agree with the

1123
Commons in their Amendments.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendments.
Page 20.
Line 9, at the beginning of the subsection insert ("If the owner of the estate accepts such proposal or consents to enter into negotiations with the Estates Commissioners")
Line 9, leave out ("the Estates Commissioners") and insert ("them")
The Commons disagree to these Amendments, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—
Page 20, line 10, after ("any") insert ("congested").
THE EARL OF CREWE: This is one of the cases in which in another place an attempt has been made to meet the views of your Lordships' House. The Amendment in line 9 was an Amendment to subsection (2) of Clause 41, which clause empowered the Land Commission to enter upon estates and untenanted land which they proposed to purchase with the object of ascertaining the boundaries of the estate and of estimating its value. I endeavoured to point out at the former stage that such power was necessary, because, without it, if there was to be any question later on of compulsory purchase, the Estates Commissioners would obviously be in no position to make an offer. My plea was not accepted by your Lordships. What I ventured to point out did not appear to appeal to your Lordships' view; but, on the other hand, you pointed out that where there was no question of making a compulsory purchase it was unreasonable to give this power of general inspection to the Estates Commissioners. That is so, and the Amendment which we propose meets that point, because in another place it was agreed that after the word "any" in line 10, the word "congested" should be inserted. The effect, of course, of that is to limit this power to estates which in some circumstances might be compulsorily acquired. I therefore beg, leave to move that your Lordships agree to this Amendment.
Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendments and agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Page 22.
Line, 39, leave out ("five") and insert ("eight")
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by inserting ("nine") instead of ("eight").
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this Amendment has come about in a rather curious way. The figure which was originally proposed was the outcome of those informal communications between the two parties which, as your Lordships know, took place, but it has been pointed out that the effect of the numbers which we then arrived at was to cause the Board to consist of the fatal number of thirteen. I cannot profess to say whether it is desirable or otherwise that a Board should consist of thirteen persons. To be quite frank, I can see no earthly reason why it should not; but in Ireland a great many superstitious people hold a contrary opinion and consider that the Board should not consist of that unlucky number. It is for that reason that we have proposed to provide for the number of appointed members being nine instead of eight. Noble Lords might say, "Why not take one off instead of putting one on?" But I think anybody who has followed the course of the general discussion will see that to do that would cause some little difficulty in view of the present composition of the Board, and of the generally admitted, I will not say necessity, but desirability, of importing some new blood into the Board as it exists at present. I therefore beg leave to move that your Lordships agree to this Amendment.
Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment and agree with the Commons in their Amendment.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Page 24.
Line 20, after ("county") insert ("the four rural districts of Ballyvaghan, Ennistymon, Kilrush, and Killadysert in the county of Clare, shall together form one congested districts county")
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by learing out ("four") and inserting ("six") and by inserting after ("Kibrusk") the words ("Scariff, Tulla").
LORD ASHBOURNE: There is a small question of spelling that arises on this Ballyvaghan, according to my recollection, is spelt with a "u."
THE EARL OF CREWE: My recollection is the same as the noble and learned Lord's opposite, but with the improvement in learning and spelling in Ireland since the time I was Lord-Lieutenant it may be more consonant with Irish ideas now to leave

1125
out the letter "u." If it is wrong, I have no doubt it is capable of correction. The effect of the Commons Amendment is to include two more rural districts, only leaving the strictly eastern and southern part of Clare out of the congested districts. I do not propose to discuss the reasons for including these two further rural districts, because I honestly confess I am not at this moment acquainted with the conditions of either, although I am able to say they are in a much more happy condition now than they were when I had the privilege of being Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. I understand, however, that local feeling in Clare is strong for the inclusion of these two further rural districts, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will consent to include them.
Moved, That the Lords agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord's Amendment.
Page, 30.
Line, 40, leave out ("Judicial Commissioner") and insert ("Court")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:—
Because it is desirable that applications tinder Part IV of the Bill should be made to the Judicial Commissioner.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This, of course, opens up the whole question which the noble Marquess very rightly pointed out as having been the principal cause of disagreement between the two sides of the House on the question of the tribunal. We have held all through that the Judicial Commissioner, either aided by some technical advisers or sitting alone, formed as good and as secure a tribunal in the interests of justice, which is, after all, what we all desire, as could be found, and we do not think that for the particular purpose of fixing the price, which is now the only question involved—because noble Lords opposite will remember that so far as the question of the suitability of the particular piece of land and the possibility of finding land elsewhere is concerned an appeal is given—a better tribunal could be devised. We have never believed that three Judges of the High Court formed a good tribunal to fix the price of anything. If one of your Lordships was going to buy a horse, he might take the opinion of my noble friend Lord Ribblesdale, or of either of the noble Marquesses who sit on the Front Bench opposite, but he would not in the least
1126
desire to take the opinion of the Court of Appeal who had never seen the horse, and who, if they did, probably would not be competent to form an opinion of its value, nor indeed would he take the opinion of any judicial body on such a matter. The Judicial Commissioner, on the other hand, is an expert; he is not only an expert but, what is very much better, he is by general consent admitted to possess and to exercise the highest judicial qualities, and I confess for myself that I, for one, would never have agreed to the creation of a tribunal of this kind if I did not believe, as my right hon. friend also believes, that the interests of those whose land is thus to be taken would be most entirely and completely safeguarded. My Lords, once more I would draw your attention to the fact that there is an appeal from the Judicial Commissioner to the Court of Appeal on any question under the clause which your Lordships inserted—that is to say, on the necessity of purchase. That. I think, must constitute in your Lordships' minds a very important difference, because the fear has been, as I understand, that land will be taken not only compulsorily but also casually without due inquiry as to whether or not other suitable land can be found in the neighbourhood. So far as that fear is concerned, even although it may not have been an entirely reasonable one, it is completely removed by this provision. Therefore, it is simply on the question of price. Price is always necessarily a question of valuation, and I do not think that in any way you could obtain a better or a fairer system of valuation than that which we propose. I hope, therefore, that this I branch of the subject, which has given rise to so much discussion and about which strong feeling has been evidently raised, may be considered to be satisfactorily settled by the proposals in the Commons Amendments. I venture to think that the interests of all parties are sufficiently safeguarded, and yet the amount of trouble and expense which would, as we fear, have prevented the application of compulsory powers altogether if the Amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, had been accepted as he originally introduced them, may be avoided. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will give your assent to the Amendments as made in another place.
Moved, That the Lords do not insist on the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
LORD CLONBROCK: I should like to say one word on this question. This Amendment, as the noble Earl has just said, is one that created the greatest, I will not say excitement, but the greatest possible interest among noble Lords from Ireland. I am only speaking for myself, and I have no authority from my noble friends to say anything on their behalf. But I am perfectly at liberty to say that a considerable number of noble Lords from Ireland, I for one among the number, felt so strongly on this matter that we have even thought and frequently said that we would prefer to see the Bill lost altogether rather than have a tribunal established for the purpose of fixing value in which we could not place implicit confidence. I must beg to assure the House that in saying this I am saying nothing against Mr. Justice Wylie; very much to the contrary; but Mr. Justice Wylie may vacate his office at any moment. We do not know who may be appointed in his place, and it is a most serious thing to think, considering the magnitude of the interests involved, that the value of a very large portion of Ireland might be left to be fixed by any one man—I do not care who he is—who may not happen to possess the qualifications of Mr. Justice Wylie. We still feel very strongly on this, but we now recognise that there has been an improvement in the original proposal by leaving the case of necessity and the suitability of land to the Court of Appeal, and we also feel that, owing to the peculiar political state of things at this moment and the advice that has been tendered to us from a quarter which we are bound to respect, we have reluctantly come to the decision not to oppose this proposition.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the House must have listened with satisfaction to the statement just made by my noble friend Lord Clonbrock. He and I have throughout these discussions regarded this question from very much the same point of view. We have felt that a good appeal, an appeal commanding general confidence, was of absolute necessity. Now we have certainly got, upon all questions but those of price, what seems to me, as a layman, a very excellent appeal. We have a general appeal under the words to be found at the top of page 5 of the printed Amendments. We have an appeal to the Court of Appeal, not only upon questions of law, but really upon all questions except that of price. There remains,
1128
then, the one question of price. I think my noble friend Lord Clonbrock has expressed the view entertained by all who have considered this question, that in the hands of Mr. Justice Wylie the parties may consider themselves perfectly safe, but we have regarded this question not as a question to be discussed on personal grounds but on grounds of principle, and we remain of opinion that the last word upon the question of price ought not to be spoken by an official, however distinguished or however high a character he may hold, who is a member of the very Department which is concerned from the first in these proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of land. But I am bound to say I think there is some force in the noble Earl's contention that the Court of Appeal is not a very appropriate tribunal to dispose of mere questions of land value—I mean where you have the question of whether a certain parcel of land is worth 15 s. or £1 an acre. That is hardly the class of question which you would naturally expect to go to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal is, however, not the only arbitral tribunal which we can conceive, and we do hold very strongly that with a little more goodwill His Majesty's Government could have provided us with some arbitral tribunal with regard to the question of price entirely outside of, and unconnected with, the machinery of the Land Commission. To speak quite plainly, His Majesty's Government have put their foot down at this point, and we, as practical people, have to recognise that although our feelings remain perfectly unaltered on the subject there is no prospect of obtaining what we want and that if we press our views we are faced with the alternative of wrecking the Bill. That alternative we do not desire to face for reasons we have again and again explained, and therefore it seems to me there is nothing for it but to accept the proposal of His Majesty's Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Page 31.
After clause 64 insert the following new clauses A, B, and C—
A.—(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—

(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

1129

(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 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.
B.—(1) Subject to any application in the Court under the last preceding section, and to the final determination of all questions arising thereon,
1130
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 question in dispute; or

(b) in any other 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, 1856, 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 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.
C. 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 circumstances shall ensue as if the estate or untenanted land had been purchased by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board 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.
The Commons propose to amend these clauses as follows:—
In new clause A.—
Lines 23 and 24, leave out ("or the amenity of the owners residence will be impaired")
Line 26, leave out ("court") and insert ("Judicial Commissioner")
Lines 29 to 32, leave out subsection (2).
Lines 33 and 34, leave out ("The Court shall hear and determine all applications coming "before it under this section") and insert ("The "Judicial Commissioner shall 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 "subsections (1), (3), and (4) of section forty" "eight of the Act of 1881")
Line 39, leave out ("court") and insert ("Judicial Commissioner")

1131
Line 45 to 49, leave out subsection (5).
Line 51, leave out ("Court") and insert ("Judicial Commissioner") and leave out ("on any question of law")
Line 52, leave out ("on such question")
Line 53, leave out the first ("Court") and insert ("Judicial Commissioner")
Lines 56 to 59, leave out subsection (8).
In new clause B.—
Line 1, leave out ("Court") and insert ("Judicial Commissioner")
Line 6, leave out ("Court") and insert ("Judicial Commissioner")
Line 9, leave out ("Court") and insert ("Judicial Commissioner")
Lines 10 to 22, leave out subsection (2),
Line 28, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part of this Act") and leave out ("Court") and insert ("Judicial Commissioner")
Line 29, leave out ("Court may, if it thinks fit") and insert ("Judicial Commissioner may, if he thinks fit")
In new clause C.—
Line 1, leave out ("Court") and insert ("Judicial Commissioner")
Moved, That the Lords do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I hope it will not be out of place for me at this stage to draw attention to the real utility of your Lordships' House as a revising body and to the necessity of it as a Second Legislative Chamber. When this Irish Land Bill came up to this House from another place it was, in my humble opinion, and I believe in the opinion of many noble Lords on this side of the House, really an unworkable measure. We must remember that as far as compulsion was concerned it was applicable to the whole of Ireland, and we drew attention to the fact that if compulsion was to be applied to the whole of Ireland, and the owners of land were to be paid in cash, there would be great difficulty with regard to financing. Secondly, there was the question of the zones; if that system was to be removed from land purchase it would mean endless litigation and a great deal of time and trouble to all parties in Ireland. Thirdly, there was the question of the Judicial Commissioner. Conferences have taken place between the representatives of both Houses of Parliament and a working arrangement has been arrived at, and I believe that this Bill, as it will now become law, will be a real boon to Ireland, although I do not say that the landlords, or that we on this side of the House, have got all that we ought to have got.
LORD ASHTOWN: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down that this measure will be a real boon to Ireland. The main principle now will be the relief of congestion, and I do hope that some of the members at any rate of the Board who will have charge of this matter will understand the different classes of land with which they will have to deal. That is, in my opinion, a very important point, because in the past the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners have made sad mistakes, simply because they had no personal knowledge of the different kinds of land with which they had to deal, and what each particular piece was suitable for. I warned your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill that owing to the conditions now prevailing in Ireland tenants would not be able to pay their annuity. That has come about, I am sorry to say, sooner even than I expected. At the last Quarter Sessions over 100 tenant farmers were freed from annuities because they could not sell their young stock. This has come about owing to mistakes made in the past by which the cattle trade has been upset, and I hope the Government will take care to place on the Board men who really understand the land in the different districts and what it is suitable for, so that such mistakes may not again occur.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, this is one of those minor Treasury Bills that generally reach the House at a rather late period of the session. There is nothing of a contentious character, I believe, contained in the Bill. It is merely to set right a few anomalies at present existing in the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue, and I beg leave, therefore, to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived, and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

TRUSTEES' ACCOUNTS BILL
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, this Bill is one that has struggled through the House of Commons and merely relates to some small points of trustee law. I am sorry to say that I have not yet had time to examine it so as to be able to give any assurance with regard to it, and if the House will, under those circumstances, give it a Second Reading, I hope to be able to examine it before I proceed with any further stage of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, but merely to call attention to two points with regard to which I should be grateful for an explanation from the noble and learned Lord when he has had time to consider the Bill. The first is with regard to Clause 1, which says that it shall be part of the duty of a trustee—
"to keep clear and accurate accounts of the trust, and preserve for a reasonable time all vouchers relating thereto, so that the accounts and vouchers may he at all reasonable times ready for production."
We all know that, generally speaking, in the case of every trust there are several trustees, and that many of these trusts run on for a great number of years. I have no doubt many of your Lordships are trustees of trusts that have gone on for more than half a century. Of course they are covered by the provisions of this Bill, but new trustees would not be; and what I venture to suggest for the consideration of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is whether it would not be better to say that the duty should be on the first trustee named, so as to make it the duty of one of the trustees only, because it is quite clear that they cannot all keep the accounts and that the vouchers must be in the custody of one person. Probably my noble and learned friend will be able to say, when the Bill conies up again, that the fears which some of us entertain on this point are groundless, and that it is covered by the law as it stands. One other point
1134
with regard to which I would like a word of explanation from the noble and learned Lord at the next stage of the Bill is why the Bill is not to apply to the Public Trustee. There, again, I have no doubt there is good reason for it, but it would, I think, be satisfactory to many of us to know what that reason is. I would, therefore, ask my noble and learned friend to kindly consider those two points before the Bill comes before us at the next stage. I have no doubt that the points have already been considered, and that the words as they appear to a layman do not really carry out the meaning they seem to do, but that they are guarded by the provisions of some other measure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If my noble friend will be kind enough to confer with me and give me his points in detail I will certainly deal with them at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD AVEBURY: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRAWLING INVESTIGATIONS IN THE NORTH SEA.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I beg leave to put the Question that stands on the Paper in my name—viz.: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the fact, according to evidence given before the Ichthyological Committee, that a steam trawler having a spread of net seventy-five feet broad, and working for fifteen hours a day during 280 working days, and trawling over each station once a month, would only be able to cover an area equivalent to about seventeen square miles, and that the trawlable area of the North Sea is approximately 152,000 miles, facilities will be given by the Treasury to enable the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to carry out such investigations as will enable them to adequately trawl over the area of the North Sea, which will be impossible if only one vessel were employed.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): In reply to my noble friend

1135
I have to state that I am unfortunately at the present moment not in a position to be able to answer the somewhat intricate Question he has placed upon the Paper. I might add that in the present state of uncertainty it is rather difficult to know what the Treasury will do or will not do, but I am in communication with that Department on the subject, and I hope
1136
to be in a position shortly to give an answer which will be satisfactory to my noble friend.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
House adjourned at Three o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.