Sitting of 1 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London and North Western Railway Bill [Lords]. [Not amended], considered; to be read the third time.
Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords] Road a second time, and committed.
Maryport Harbour Bill [Lords]. Report [30th June] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill to be read a second time.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5.) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill; Aston Manor Improvement Bill [Lords]; Nantwich Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee.
Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL AND LICENSINGLAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Mossley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petition from Walsden, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND.)
  Copy presented, of Report of the Director of the National Gallery of Ireland to the Board of Governors and Guardians for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Accounts presented, of all Deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December, 1902, and of the Sums received and paid by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Fund for the Post Office Savings Banks in the same year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 235.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 9, 1903).
  Copy presented, of convention between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands regulating the Allowances to Witnesses in Fishery cases. Signed at the Hague, 26th April, 1902. Ratifications exchanged at the Hague, 22nd May, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL WORKS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Committee to consider of making further provision for the Construction of Works in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the purposes of the Royal Navy, and of authorising the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums a3 may be necessary for those purposes (King's Recommendation signified), upon Friday.—(Mr. Pretyman.)

  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (PERSONS IN RECEIPT OF RELIEF).
  Return ordered, "showing, in respect of each Union and Parish under a separate Board of Guardians in England and Wales, the number of persons of each sex in receipt from Boards of Guardians (a) of indoor relief or (b) of outdoor relief on the 1st day of September, 1903, who were over sixty years of age, distinguishing those who were over sixty and under sixty-five, sixty-five and under seventy, seventy and under seventy-five, seventy-five and under eighty, and eighty years of age and upwards; lunatics in asylums, licensed

  1019
  houses, and registered hospitals; vagrants and persons who were only in receipt of relief constructively by reason of relief being given to wives or children, not being included (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 36, of Session 1891); and showing in regard to (a) the number of those who, in the opinion of the medical officer of the workhouse, could not satisfactorily take care of themselves owing to mental or physical infirmity."—(Mr. Burt.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Licensing Question.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, having regard to the position of the holders of licences, owing to the action of the justices in some petty sessional districts, he can fix an early day for the consideration of the suspensory Bill introduced by the Member for the Dartford Division of Kent.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I must refer my hon. and gallant friend to the answer I gave on Monday,† and on many previous occasions, to the effect that it is quite impossible, with public advantage, under our existing Parliamentary system, to give facilities for private Members' Bills of a highly controversial character, however excellent the object of those Bills may be.

  Commercial Treaties between Foreign Countries giving Reduced Tariff Charges.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: To ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could state or grant a Return of the commercial treaties effected between foreign countries during the last twenty years giving mutual advantages of reduced tariff charges.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) Such a Return would be difficult to compile, but I am in communication with the Board of Trade and will inform the hon. Member of the result.
  †See page 815.

  Average Prices of Food in Principal European Countries.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he could grant a Return showing since 1880 the average price of the chief articles of food and the tariff duties upon them in Germany and other European countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) It would not be practicable to give the Return quite in the form desired by the hon. Member, but I should be prepared to lay a Return, giving such official information as is available as to the wholesale prices of food in the principal European countries, and to add wheat, etc., to the next issue of the Foreign Import Duties Return, which will be published in the autumn.

  Exports of Ships built in the United Kingdom.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the exports of ships built in the United Kingdom, which are entered in the Statistical Abstract as undistinguished prior to 1899, were included previous to that date under other heads of exports; if so, under which heads; and, if not, whether in future editions of the Statistical Abstract he will substitute the words not included for the word undistinguished.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Particulars of the exports of new ships and their machinery were not recorded prior to 1899, and are not therefore included under other heads of exports previous to that date. The alteration suggested by the hon. Member shall be made in future issues of the Statistical Abstract.

  Construction of Sea Wall at Skigersta, Isle of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether any progress has yet been made with the construction of a protecting wall for the Skigersta Pier, Island of Lewis.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) As the hon. Member has already been informed,† the Board extended the time
  †see (4) Debates, cxviii., 1541.

  1021
  for acceptance of the grant until 14th March. On 10th March the Congested Districts Board received a letter from the promoter of the work intimating that he had secured guarantees "to a certain extent," and requesting the Board to keep the matter open until after the meeting of the Finance Committee, which he stated was to take place about the end of the month. No further communication has been received on this subject since then.

  School Grants.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, whether grants payable according to average attendance in a voluntary school for a year, which covers a period prior to, and a period subsequently to an appointed day under The Education Act, 1902, will be computed according to average attendance taken separately for the period before the change, and separately for the period after.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The grants will be calculated on the average

  Province.

  1891.

  1901.

  Male.

  Female.

  Total.

  Male.

  Female.

  Total.

  Leinster

  -

  -

  -

  21,656

  1,919

  23,575

  17,640

  1,987

  19,627

  Munster

  -

  -

  -

  28,135

  4,670

  32,805

  23,856

  3,408

  27,264

  Ulster

  -

  -

  -

  38,061

  3,629

  41,690

  25,650

  2,426

  28,076

  Connaught

  -

  -

  16,584

  2,465

  19,049

  9,688

  1,271

  10,959

  Total

  -

  -

  104,436

  12,683

  117,119

  76,834

  9,092

  85,926

  Tobacco returned from South Africa.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for War what quantity of unconsumed tobacco belonging to the War Office has been, or is about to be, returned from South Africa to England and sold by tender; at what prices per pound was this tobacco purchased, and what prices have been realised by the lots already sold; whether traders wishing to tender have been allowed to make a full examination of the condition of this tobacco; and whether Army canteens in South Africa were allowed to buy quantities of tobacco
  attendance for the school year as a whole, not on the separate average attendances for the periods before and after the appointed day.

  Value of Coal Exports.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the values of coal exported from the United Kingdom to the different foreign countries, and to the colonies and India.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The information desired will be found set out for the past five years on pages 435 and 436 of the Annual Statement of Trade for the United Kingdom for 1902 (Vol I.) [Command Paper 1582.]

  Indoor Farm Servants in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of farm servants (indoor) in each of the four provinces of Ireland according to the Census Returns of 1891 and 1901 respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.)
  from private traders, although the War Office were in possession of a considerable stock.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) About 200,000 pounds have been sold, and 500,000 are being sold. It is not yet known how much more will be available for sale. It is undesirable to state prices, as any statement affects future tenders. As regards full examination on the part of traders, the tobacco has been available for general inspection, and samples could be obtained on application. I have no information as to what

  1023
  purchases of tobacco were made by the canteens from private traders, but the General Officer Commanding, who is responsible for the regulations of canteens, recommended this sale.

  Vote for Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
  MR. BILL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange to bring on the Vote for Reformatory and Industrial Schools at an early date, so that the subject may be discussed this session.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am afraid that I cannot promise to find any special opportunity for bringing on this Vote in view of the claims of other services which have not yet been under discussion, but I trust that some convenient occasion may be found.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Devonport Garrison.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether all the regiments now stationed at Devonport are connected with the County of Devon; if not, will he consider the propriety, in view of their services in the field, of quartering the Devonshire Regiment in Devonshire.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): There can be only one Devonshire battalion in England at any one time, and as the number of battalions quartered at Plymouth and Dovonport is four, it is not possible to secure that all these should be connected with Devonshire. The barracks were already filled when the 2nd Battalion arrived from South Africa, and it would have been very undesirablo to have put another battalion to the expense of moving out to make room for it. My right hon. friend has every sympathy with the desire to quarter county regiments in their own districts, and hopes an opportunity may arise for quartering the battalion in Devonshire before it abroad again.

  Imperial Yeomanry.
  *MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  1024
  State for War whether he is aware that the men of the 1901 Imperial Yeomanry were required to sign their accounts before discharge; that when these accounts were signed there was a form provided on which the men stated any complaints in regard to their pay, and that these forms were signed by the men and their commanding officers and forwarded to him; and, if so, can he now give information with respect to complaints made at Aldershot.
  LORD STANLEY: My right hon. friend has already asked the hon. Member to refer all further Questions on this subject direct to the Chief Paymaster, Imperial Yeomanry, as such matters of detail could not properly be dealt with by Question and Answer across the floor of the House, † Nor would it be right to employ the Staff in making a number of calculations which in no way elucidate specific cases.
  *MR. MANSFIELD: Were the officers consulted about the complaints of the men?
  LORD STANLEY: That is exactly one of the Questions my right hon. friend wishes the hon. Member to refer to the Chief Paymaster.

  Recognition of Gallantry—Case of Dr. Garland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Governor Hodgson's despatch, received on 17th October, 1899, was only published in the Gazette of 24th April, 1903; whether it is within the province of the Colonial Office or the War Office to take note of the recommendation therein contained respecting an act of the greatest gallantry performed by Assistant Colonial Surgeon Garland in saving the life of Captain Green, who had been wounded by an arrow smeared with virulent poison, by sucking the wound for several minutes, at the peril of his own life; and whether any effect has been given to the Governor's recommendation that the conduct of Dr. Garland and other officers should be recognised in some marked way.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,
  † See page 261.

  Life Assurance Premiums paid to Colonial Companies.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether taxpayers who pay premiums to colonial life assurance companies are permitted to make any deduction whatever; and, if not, whether a change can be made in the interests of the colonies.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The subject is regulated by legislation, and I have no power to interfere.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of this arrangement a great deal of business is put into foreign offices.
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not know whether that is so, and I should doubt it; but in any case I have no power in the matter, as my action is entirely controlled by the law, which is against such a deduction as is desired by the hon. Member.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is not the law equally against deductions on premiums paid to foreign companies?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes.

  Chinese Customs
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the
  1026
  Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangement has yet been made for collecting Chinese Customs duties on goods entering Manchuria which have been landed at Dalney, or whether this port is allowed an advantage which is refused to New-chwang.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CKAN-BORNE,): At present goods entering China via Dalney have free entry, but His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking has reported that an arrangement has been practically concluded by which a Custom House would be established at Dalney on the same conditions as that at Kiaochow. This means that goods imported via Dalney would pay the same duties as at Newchwang.

  American Cotton Corner.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the operations of the trust controlling the corner in the American cotton market and its effects on English manufacturing districts; whether he will confer with President Roosevelt respecting these operations; whether he would suggest a conference with the various Governments which have considered the subject of future options, with a view to propose the introduction of international legislation to control gambling in food-stuffs and other produce.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): I have seen newspaper notices with regard to the operations referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's Question. The answer to the two points raised in the second part of the Question is in the negative.

  Insanitary Cottages at Beeston, Bedfordshire.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the present condition of cottages in the rural district of Biggleswade, Bedfordshire, in spite of

  1027
  two Government inspections in 1896 and 1899; is he aware that an expert inspection was recently conducted by the Rural Housing and Sanitation Association owing to complaints made in the district, that the report on the condition of cottages in Beeston, Sandy, was sent to the Rural District Council, which met at Biggleswade on 22nd May, but was not considered; and whether, in view of the inspector's remarks on the condition of cottages in this district, will he say what action the Department will now take in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have seen a report made on behalf of the Association as to the condition of certain cottages in the village of Beeston. I am informed by the clerk to the Rural District Council that the question of the sanitation of the cottages on Beeston Green has been under the consideration of the Council from time to time for many years past, and that various works have been carried out to endeavour to improve the sanitation of the district. The clerk states that inconsequence of the report referred to the inspector of nuisances was instructed to give the matter his attention. It appears that thereupon he communicated with the two owners of the property in question, and that one owner has since arranged for the repair of the cottages belonging to him. The other owner, who lives at a distance, has not replied, and a further notice has been sent to him. The matter is receiving the attention of the Council, and it does not seem to me to be necessary that any action should be taken by me at the present time.
  MR. SCHWANN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the clerk to the District Council is agent for several owners in the neighbourhood?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have had some general information as to the local circumstances, but I think the hon. Gentleman must take my answer as conclusive. I cannot go further at present.

  Irish Postal Order Business.
  MR. FIELDI beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that all the accounts in connection with Irish I postal orders are at present kept in London, and that inquiries in Ireland regarding these postal orders must be sent to London to be dealt with, he will, in view of the longer time which it takes to send these inquiries to London and to I receive replies therefrom, and of the correspondence which this system gives rise to between the General Post Office, Dublin, and the General Post Office, London, transfer the accounts from London to Dublin.
  I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, with a view to facilitating the transfer from London to Dublin of accounts of postal orders issued and paid in Ireland, he will make arrangements for issuing Irish postal orders with a separate series of numbers and a distinctive colour in the printing, as in the case of Irish money orders.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The postal order accounts of Irish post offices are kept in Dublin, not in London; but all postal orders in the United Kingdom are issued from and ultimately returned to London. The issue of a separate series of orders for Ireland would greatly complicate the working of the system without securing any corresponding advantage. Postal order business gives rise to very little correspondence between the Dublin and London offices; and I am satisfied that nothing would be gained by adopting the system suggested by the hon. Member.

  Gravel Lane, Wapping, Post Office.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience of the post and telegraph office at Old Gravel Lane, Wapping, east of Wapping Bridge, to shipping firms and traders in business west of the bridge, on account of its not being accessible when the bridge is open; and, if so, will he state what steps have been taken to secure

  1029
  premises for the conduct of postal and telegraph business west of the bridge.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have already communicated my views upon this subject to my hon. friend, both in answer to a Question† and by letter, and I can add nothing to what I have already told him. I have invited his assistance in finding a suitable person to undertake the business. He has not hitherto been able to suggest any names for my consideration, and I have not been able to find a suitable candidate myself.

  Women Clerkships in the General Post Office—Examinations.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that prior to the last open competitive examination for women clerkships in the General Post Office such examinations were held at fairly regular intervals, he will state what was the longest of such intervals during the ten years preceding the last examination; what interval has elapsed since the last examination; and will he state the reasons for the length of the last interval; will he also say whether the probability of its occurrence was notified in any way to candidates; whether it is intended to hold any such competitive examinations in future; and whether he will consider the propriety of making an allowance in respect of age to candidates, I now over age, who competed at previous examinations and who would have been eligible for subsequent examinations if such had been held at the same intervals as formerly.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Prior to the last examination for women clerkships which was held in October 1901, the number of vacancies was usually such as to justify the holding of an examination at intervals of about six months. I explained in reply to a Question on the 21st May ‡ that the reason why no examination had been held lately was that there were no vacancies to be filled by competition; it would not, I think, be desirable to alter
  † See (4) Debates, cxxii. 1637.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxii. 1350.
  1030
  the limits of age for the next examination. The causes which made it unnecessary to hold an examination later than October 1901 were quite exceptional. It is intended to hold an open competitive examination during the ensuing autumn, and the exact date will be made known as soon as the necessary arrangements have been made.

  Destitute Female Children in Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a circular issued to the magistrates of County Longford directing them to refuse to send destitute female children to institutions outside the county, whereas a certified institution exists there; if so, will he state on whose certificate or report this order was issued, and whether the classification of this institution has recently been dealt with by Dr. Fagan in his report; and is it due to this report that such order was issued.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I have not seen the alleged circular, and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, it has not been issued by any Government Department. If the hon. Member will be good enough to send me a copy of the document in question I will make further inquiry.

  Crime in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Judge Carton received white gloves at the recent Ennis Quarter Sessions; and whether, in view of the peaceable state of the county Clare, the proclamation of certain districts under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act will now be withdrawn.
  MR. ATKINSON: My right hon. friend has asked me to say that this matter is still under consideration. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question in a week or ten days.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: This day week.

  Gordon-Bennett Motor-car Race.
  Mr. LEAMY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government have yet received a guarantee from the promoters of the Gordon-Bennett race for the expenses of extra police over the sum of £1,000 which the Treasury is willing to contribute; if he is aware that the Kildare County Council consented to hand over the county roads for the race on the express understanding that the county shall not be called on to pay for the extra police; and if so, if it is the intention of the Government to levy any part of the expenses on the county of Kildare.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): No, Sir, the Government has received no such guarantee. It appears that at a meeting of the Kildare County Council held on the 13th June, Mr. Orde, Secretary of the Automobile Club, signed an undertaking indemnifying the Council against all claims which may be lawfully made upon, and established against, the county for the cost of extra police drafted into the county for the purpose of the race. On the strength of this undertaking the Council attached its seal to the Order made pursuant to the Light Locomotives Act.
  MR. LEAMY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether the Government propose to levy any proportion of the cost of the extra police on the county of Kildare. I have asked that Question again and again. The race comes on to-morrow.
  MR. ATKINSON: That is just the matter which is under consideration. But as far as the race is concerned, all arrangements have been made for the extra police. There will be 2,007 police guarding the course.
  MR. LEAMY: I know that, but I want to know who will pay for them. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give an answer to-morrow?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!; The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the matter is under consideration.
  MR. ATKINSON: I do not think it is to the interest of the hon. Member or those he represents to press the question.

  Tobacco Growing in Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Irish Department of Agriculture is continuing the tobacco growing experiments in Ireland this year; and whether he can state if the Department has formed any opinion on the experiments already made.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The Department have not continued the experiments this year. The results of the experiments previously made have now sufficiently proved that tobacco can be grown and artificially cured in Ireland, and the crop manufactured, when blended with American leaf, into a smoking tobacco. Investigations are at present in progress with a view to ascertaining the commercial value of the crop grown in past years. Pending the results of this test the Department cannot say whether further experiments will be carried out next year.
  MR. FLAVIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has formed any opinion about the sample of Irish tobacco which I gave him a few evenings ago?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not tried it myself; I have given it to a friend to try.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that friend is the Colonial Secretary?
  MR. FLAVIN: Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself expressed an opinion in favour of the quality of the tobacco, so far as he could judge?
  MR. RITCHIE: It had a very nice aroma, but I do not know whether that was due to the Irish tobacco or the American tobacco which was mixed with it.
  MR. FLAVIN: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with another sample for his own use.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary whether he will turn his attention to this subject?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Marine Works (Ireland) Act.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the schemes in connection with the Marine Works Act of last year approved of at the conference of representatives of Irish County Councils in February last have been accepted by the County Councils concerned.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The County Councils of Donegal, Cork, and Clare have, by resolution, agreed to make the necessary contributions to the General Maintenance Fund in respect of works at Gortnasate, Cape Clear, and Liscannor, respectively. The Lord Lieutenant has issued his certificates to the Treasury for these works. Correspondence is proceeding with respect to other proposed works.

  The Fiscal Inquiry.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order to prevent any dislocation of trade by changes in our fiscal policy, he will state when the inquiry instituted by the Cabinet may probably be completed.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with a view to avoid interference with the trade and commerce of the country by any change in the fiscal policy of His Majesty's Government, he will state when the decision of the Government on the proposed establishment of preferential or retaliatory rates will be announced.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid that I have no information to give in regard to the Question of either of the hon. Members, but I think I may reassure them that there is no probability of the dislocation of trade which they appear to anticipate.
  MR. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the inquiry will be finished?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that Question is precisely the Question on the Paper, as to which I am regretfully
  1034
  obliged to say that I can give the hon Member no information, except to reassure him as to the dangers which he appears to anticipate.

  Private Members' Bills.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with a view to secure more adequate time for private Members' Bills when supported by decisive majorities in the House, he will either accept the Motion for a new Standing Order on this subject placed on the Paper or embody the principle of that proposal in his own proposals when the Rules of Procedure are again taken up.
  The Motion referred to is as follows—"Special Precedence for certain Bills,—To move, as a new Standing Order:—When a Public Bill, other than a Government Bill, has been read a second time after a division, and it appears by the numbers declared from the Chair that not less than three hundred Members have voted, and that the majority for the Second Reading is not less than fifty nor than one-third of the number of Members voting against the Second Reading, thereupon any Member in charge of the Bill may forthwith move that the Bill have precedence after Whitsuntide over all Bills, other than Government Bills, as to which no such Motion has been made and carried on an earlier day in the Session, and such Motion shall be decided without amendment or debate, as a Motion consequential on the Second Reading."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have looked at the proposal of the hon. Gentleman which is on the Paper, and, owing, I presume, to some misprint, it appears to me to be unintelligible as it stands. Broadly speaking, I think his idea is that you ought to give precedence to Bills in proportion to the size of the majority they are able to secure upon the Second Reading. I do not think that would be, as far as I am at present advised, a good plan, for this reason: the fact that a Bill secures a great majority on the Second Reading is not a proof, not even a presumption, that it is going to have a peaceable time during its later stages. I may remind the hon. Member that the Education Bill last year was approved by a majority of 402 votes to 165. If you

  1035
  are going to give precedence to Bills which have a large majority, irrespective of any other peculiarity, you will entirely absorb the time after Whitsuntide for possibly one Bill which will never get further, but which, by the mere fact that it is discussed during the two days after Whitsuntide, will absolutely preclude any possibility of passing into law the least contentious measures, which, I venture to say, are the best field in which private Members can exercise their legislative ingenuity.
  MR. CHANNLNG: IS the right hon. Gentleman aware that the more important Bills are prevented from being discussed by the present Standing Orders permitting unimportant Bills to be placed before them. I beg to give notice that I will draw attention to the whole subject at the earliest opportunity.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minuted of Evidence.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 230.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 230.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, ETC.
  Ordered, That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Ship ping, and Manufactures, that they have power to consolidate the Licensing (Scotland) Acts Amendment Bill and the Licensing Acts Consolidation (Scotland) Bill into one Bill.—(The lord Advocate.)

  IRISH LAND BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the chair.
  Clause 21:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 14, to leave out the words 'one of.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one of' stand part of the clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)reminded the Committee that at midnight on Tuesday, when their proceedings were interrupted, they were discussing the position and prospects of the three gentlemen who had signified their readiness to act as Estates Commissioners under the Bill, and he was pointing out the difficulties of this matter. He had since done his best to arrive at a solution. This clause could not be considered alone; it must be considered in connection with a later clause. He had had the advantage of conferring with his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but even with that advantage he was not confident that he had found a solution which would commend itself to the Committee generally. He would like to define the attitude of the Government step by step. During the long conferences which preceded the introduction of the Bill, and on almost every clause he had laid the greatest stress on the administrative character of the new Commission. That the new Commission should be of an administrative character was not merely his personal opinion, it was an integral part of the policy of the Government. He could not have persuaded his right hon. friend to sanction the use of large public funds for purely executive work except upon the basis that those who administered them were to be in a very real sense executive officers, subject in matters of policy, and the economic and proper use of the funds, not only to the control of the Government, but to the criticism of the House. That placed an initial bar in the way of giving to the Estates Commissioners a tenure which would be to all intents and purposes a judicial tenure. If they had such a tenure, the fact of their salaries appearing on the Votes would not place them in the position of executive officers. He need not labour the point.

  1037
  He would only remind the Committee of the long discussion they had the other day on the subject of the £250,000 and the purposes for which it might be used. Nobody would ask a Judge to spend £250,000 of public money in building houses and making roads. Administrative and executive work of that kind must, of course, be subject to control and to Parliamentary criticism. He could not, consequently, accept Amendments which would impair this position. In selecting the gentlemen to exercise these duties, he turned to one who he believed would be able to assist them very largely in the matter. He would rather have kept the personal question out of the argument, but he could not help saying that in selecting Mr. Wrench he was guided by his great desire that the Bill should really confer the benefits it was intended to confer. It was, therefore, an accidental consideration that this gentleman now drew £3,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund. If that were to be a bar, he would not be able to employ a gentleman who, he thought, ought to be employed. He admitted that if Mr. Wrench were to draw his salary from the Consolidated Fund there would be no Vote before the House upon which the exercise which he might make of his discretion could be investigated and discussed. It was quite fair that by some means the executive action of Mr. Wrench should be made as readily open to criticism in that House as the executive action of Mr. Finucane or Mr. Bailey. To make any change in the position of a public servant drawing £3,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund was not a matter which could be rushed hastily. It involved a good deal of conference with his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he did not think it possible to go further that afternoon than to say that by some means Mr. Wrench's salary should appear on the Votes. The Government adhered to the administrative basis of the Bill in respect to the Estates Commission, and to the view that the action of the members of the Commission must be open to criticism in Parliament, and that, therefore, the emoluments of each of the three gentlemen must appear in some shape or form on the Votes.
  MR. DILLONconsidered the right hon. Gentleman's statement, so far as it had gone, eminently satisfactory. He wished, however, to guard himself in so far as it touched the position of Mr. Wrench. He was irreconcilably opposed to the appointment of that Gentleman, but providing he was to be only on an equality with the other Members of the Commission they must accept him as a necessary evil. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had said nothing about the equally important question of bringing the other two Commissioners to an equal status, as regarded their tenure, with Mr. Wrench. The whole question, he admitted was one of extreme delicacy, and it was very hard to debate it without knowing definitely the proposals of the Government with regard to Mr. Wrench's position. With a sincere desire to expedite the progress of the Bill, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of postponing the clause. If he were to withdraw his Amendment they would be face to face with the Amendments of the hon. Members for North Louth and South Tyrone raising the question of the status of the other Commissioners, and it would be impossible to properly debate that point without knowing what the status of Mr. Wrench was to be. Postponement of the clause might enable them to arrive at a perfectly amicable understanding in the interval and save the time of the Committee being wasted on an unreal debate.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLconsidered that it was only fair that the Irish landlords should have a representative upon the Commission. Granted there was to be such a representative, he was not prepared to object to Mr. Wrench, who had had a very long experience as a Land Commissioner and was thoroughly in favour of land purchase. Mr. Wrench might have his own views as to price, but he would not block the object of the Bill. He could not join in any attack on him.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: You have attacked him yourself.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLdenied that he had done so. Knowing what he did, he declared that Mr. Wrench would do his best to forward the object of the Bill. It was said that the landlords did not like him, but that was not their concern. He had heard him called "the English adventurer," but they, as the representatives of the tenants, could not object to him as the landlords' representative. He had the greatest objection to the additional members of the Commission having a status different from that of Mr. Wrench. They should have equality as administrative officials and be subject to the criticism of both Houses of Parliament. They did not want the experience of Mr. Murrough O'Brien re-enacted in the persons of Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane. He might say frankly that the control which the other House could exercise would be the more effective, because there a debate could be raised on any subject free from the limitations and restrictions which the rules of the House of Commons imposed. With another Lord Lieutenant than Lord Dudley other influences might operate, and the Commission should be a free tribunal with equality of status for its members. With personal questions difficulties arose, and he was inclined to think the hon. Member for Mayo was right in suggesting the postponement of the clause.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid postponement was not a practical course; the clause had been already amended, and there were great objections to negativing the clause and beginning again. Two questions had been raised—status and emolument. To insist upon equality would be to prevent the employment of a public servant who in another sphere of duty had a right to a pension. There should be liberty to obtain the services of such a man, but putting him to new work should not prejudice his remuneration. He must beg to be excused for holding that in emolument equality should not be aimed at. As Estates Commissioners they would have the same status and be equally subject to Parliamentary criticism, and he would be prepared to amend the clause in order to meet the views of hon. Members. Without pledging himself to either
  1040
  course he suggested that as Estates Commissioner Mr. Wrench might be paid a separate salary without pension, or the whole of his salary might be transferred from the Consolidated Funds to the Votes, but in that case special consideration would have to be given to his pension. It would be impossible to ask any man who was on the Consolidated Fund to take service on another basis without safeguarding him in the event of his conduct not meeting with the favour of Parliament and necessitating his retirement. By either of these methods Mr. Wrench, as Estates Commissioner, would have the same status as the other members, and his salary could be discussed on the Votes.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he bad no solicitude about Mr. Wrench, and cared not what was done with him, but he was anxious to protect the other men. He did not attach much importance to the right of criticism, for that right in the House of Commons was dead, killed by the new rules It had been shifted to the other House, and in that lawless assembly they could raise a debate every afternoon on every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom. So far as hon. Members were concerned they were shackled and muzzled and working in blinkers. Under the new rules Parliamentary criticism was dead, dead, dead. Mr. Wrench was to be one of the Estates Commissioners, but the other two Gentlemen were to hold office during pleasure. This tenure only affected the underpaid men. What did Mr. Wrench care about a debate in the House? The House might talk itself hoarse; the recurring quarter days would not be affected, he would receive his salary. Neither would it matter to him what the newspapers said. But if the—he was going to say, the humblest Peer, but that would be blasphemy, there were no humble Peers, but let the newest creation get up in the House of Lords and make an attack on Mr. Wrench, and it would mean social ostracism in Ireland, where social distinction was cared for. He would not be made a D.S.O., or K.C.B, or something of the sort, when the birthday came round. That was the power they had over these men, who

  1041
  were on the look-out for these mandarin's buttons and stripes. He did not want to keep open old sores, and he was content to leave him alone. He did not think it was good policy from the tenant's point of view to make these attacks on Mr. Wrench, as he would have to work with the other members of the Commission. He did not think it would be good policy to level him down. He was anxious to level the others up, which was a different position. He strongly objected to the proposal that they should allow the other two gentlemen to remain in a position not merely of financial inferiority, but of administrative inferiority. The speeches made from the Treasury Bench that this was not a Court of law were very much like the speeches that were made when the Land Act of 1881 was going through. This body of Estates Commissioner; would gradually become a Court of law. It had got large jurisdiction, and accordingly, while they would have many administrative functions, they would be addressed by solicitors and by counsel, and they would take upon themselves, rightly or wrongly, the attitude and demeanour of a tribunal. They would have to give judicial decisions. Was it right that men who had to handle 200,000,000 of money as a loan, and 12,000,000 of money as a gift, should be in a position that the House of Lords, which was the body whose members would receive most of this money, should be able to say to any of them that they held their office during pleasure? and, while he had the highest opinion of that assembly, they all knew that nothing had ever been got for Ireland unless the House of Lords were squared. They were squared on the Local Government Act, and under this Act. Was it fair—he put it to the Treasury—to make what would be the receiving assembly the critical assembly as regarded these two men, and say these two should hold their office during pleasure? As regarded this House they had no such powers of criticism as were suggested. These powers had long since been taken from them by the rules.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was not sure that he quite understood the drift of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. It seemed to him that he attached no importance at all to criticism in this House, and his idea of levelling up would be to put Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane on the same plane as Mr. Wrench was at present, and that the whole of them should be excluded from criticism in this House.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I never said anything of the kind.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that he was not sure that he understood the drift of the hon. and learned Member's remarks.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: You understood it perfectly well. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that, of course, he would take no notice of that interruption.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall take some notice of your speech.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: If that were so, he certainly would object to it, because he was not one of those who thought that the whole power and value of criticism in this House had disappeared. He was in favour of levelling up in the case of salary, and in addition to that he was in favour of levelling up to this extent, that he did not think these two Commissioners should be left in the position of being removable at pleasure, but he certainly was not in favour of levelling up to the extent of putting them all on the Consolidated Fund, or anything of that sort. So far as the Chief Secretary's speech was concerned, in his view his statement in reference to Mr. Wrench was perfectly satisfactory. He had stated that in some way or other he would take precautions which would enable them to discuss Mr. Wrench's salary on the Votes in this House, just as they would be able to discuss under present conditions the salaries of the other two Commissioners.

  1043
  That was perfectly satisfactory, but he had not said anything whatever with reference to the tenure of these other two gentlemen. If he could give them an assurance that he would change their tenure in such a way that they would not be removable at pleasure, and that at the same time he would not change their tenure in such a way as to put them on the Consolidated Fund or remove them from criticism in this House, he would have gone a long way indeed towards removing the difficulties. As to whether it was possible to postpone this clause, the right hon. Gentleman certainly mentioned the practical difficulty in the way before the clause was passed; he thought on the second branch of the subject, on which they had had no assurance at all, they should have some further information from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. DILLONassured the right hon. Gentleman that his proposal to postpone the clause was not motived by desire to delay, but quite the contrary. He thought he was mistaken when he said the clause could not be postponed because it was amended. This was the first Amendment, and it was perfectly competent for him to withdraw it.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: There have been two Amendments.
  MR. DILLONsaid if that were so his proposal fell to the ground. He saw that there was extreme difficulty in discussing this all important question of the tenure of the other two when they were in the dark as to the tenure of Mr. Wrench. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was in many respects, so far as it went, very satisfactory; but what they were determined and entitled to press for was that as far as possible, consistently with the appointment, the Commissioners should be on "a level of equality as regarded status" and he should say as regarded salary too. How were they to discuss the question of equality until they had some light thrown on the status of Mr. Wrench? This was so vital a matter that it was not a question
  1044
  the discussion of which they could consent to postpone to the Report stage, where no one would be allowed to speak more than once. On this question of equality and the question of criticism in both Houses of Parliament, the difficulty he saw was that the House of Lords—and he fully admitted that the force of the House of Lords in this matter of criticising officials in Ireland was most pernicious and most powerful—could criticise these men no matter what their status was. The House of Lords had no rules and they could criticise them any day of the week and intimidate them so far as they desired to do it. Their object was to insist upon such a condition of status as would as far as possible protect these men against the intimidation of the House of Lords while not withdrawing them from the full criticism of the House of Commons. That was their real object, and he entirely and heartily supported the view of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, that these men ought not to be dismissable at pleasure. If they were to have Mr. Wrench absolutely independent of criticism, so far as salary was concerned, what did he care whether they called him a Commissioner so long as he got £3,000 a year. If he was to be independent of criticism so far as salary went, and his two colleagues were to be dismissable, no matter how they put it on paper, he was the "boss" of the Commission and the other two men were his servants. Their position in the matter was perfectly clear. They wanted equality, and without equality he did not think that the promises of the Government and the understanding given them on the First and the Second Reading would be redeemed.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was far from complaining of the length at which they were discussing this question. It was a very difficult one. Take the phrase "at pleasure"—that occurs in the Bill—it was the phrase, he was informed, always employed in respect of all civil servants and military officers who were officers and servants of the Crown, and though it might be a somewhat shadowy theory, he believed the constitutional theory was that they defended their

  1045
  salaries, because if they thought they were not the proper persons they would be responsible. He thought that was the view of the responsibility of the Government. The words "at pleasure" were the words uniformly used for all these highest officials in the land.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But you removed Sir Thomas Brady without a word.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman refer to a legislative document in which these words are used for the highest civil servants?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had been informed that that was the constant phrase employed. That was his information. He believed it was a concentrated phrase. He believed that the heads of the greatest Departments, such as the Foreign Office, had this tenure. Of course they never were dismissed.
  *MR HEMPHILLsaid the Chief Secretary said they had never been dismissed. Sir Thomas Brady was dismissed because under the statute his appointment was "at pleasure," and he presented a Petition of Right which was argued at very great length before the Court of Appeal. It had been constantly exercised.
  MR. WYNDHAMdissented.
  *MR. HEMPHILL: Yes, but it was so. It was a reported case, and any law officer could get it and satisfy the right hon. the Chief Secretary.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he might be pardoned from arguing about this matter. It was not a matter which came before him, but it was a matter of Treasury rules running throughout the whole of the public service. There was a certain tenure which made the person under that tenure under the control of the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford invited him to find some other form of words which would keep the Estates Commissioners in an executive position with respect to their executive work, and would not turn them into Judges.
  1046
  He feared he could not promise to succeed in doing that. He did not know whether there was any form of words that would meet the hon. Member's objection, but what was proposed expressed part of the policy of the Government on which the Bill was founded. He would be the first to defer to the hon. and learned Member for Louth on these matters. It might be that their policy was wrong, but that was their policy. The Government had endeavoured to deal with the judicial aspects of the work by providing "that any question of law may be referred for the decision of a Judicial Commissioner" by the Estates Commissioners. They knew that legal questions would arise. In connection with their executive and administrative work the Commissioners were not to expend large sums of money unless they were in the position of other officers who carried out work under the Government, and subject to control and criticisem. If he could find words as between the two, he would endeavour to do so, but he could not take any words which would impair that policy. He treated Mr. Wrench as an Estates Commissioner, and gave him a small additional salary. An alternative plan was to put him, with his £3,000, on the Votes and on the same tenure. He had done his best to meet a difficult position. To one thing he must adhere, and that was that the tenure of Mr. Wrench, Mr. Finucane, and Mr. Bailey was not to be judicial, but was to be a tenure making them executive officers under the Government, and responsible to the Government and this House.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid this was really tinkering with phrases. What was the good of saying that a man's position was not to be a judicial position. He was to be an Estates Commissioner, and there would be no difficulty in giving him such a tenure that he would not be put out of office if he did his duty, as was done some years ago in the case of Sir Thomas Brady, who was summarily dismissed by the Treasury, it being held that he was not under Rule 65, and that there was nothing to prevent the Lord Lieutenant, as representing the Crown, from dismissing him. The hon.

  1047
  and learned Member for Waterford pretended that he could not understand the drift of his speech. His speeches were generally pretty plain. He would undertake now to make it perfectly understood by the meanest intelligence. What they desired was that these two gentlemen should have such a tenure as that the Lord Lieutenant could not dismiss them at a moment's notice, as he did in the case of Sir Thomas Brady. Where was the difficulty in providing words to fit that? He would tell the Committee what the difficulty was. The landlords wanted to have these two gentlemen under their thumb. They were perfectly satisfied that Mr. Wrench would be friend them, and they knew with regard to these other two gentlemen that, if they held office "during pleasure," one word from the Lord Lieutenant and their dismissal was assured. The right hon. Gentleman could not suggest that this matter had come upon him by surprise. It was a very long way since the debate on the Second Reading. This matter had been fully gone into. The right hon. Gentleman had managed, with great dexterity, to meet matters of greater importance. He had indicated his intention to accept one of the Amendments on the Paper. He himself did not care which one was accepted, but let them have some words that would assure these two gentlemen in the greatest office, whether judicial or non-judicial—call it X—ever yet created in Ireland. It was an office that would have to deal with the evicted tenants, transplanting, congestion in the West of Ireland, the giving out of the £12,000,000, and it would have to do with the loan of £100,000,000. In fact, these two gentlemen, who had the tenure of ordinary removables, would have to exercise during the next twenty years, if they lived, functions of intimate relation with the daily and domestic life of the country. Therefore, it was utterly impossible, so far as the Irish Members were concerned, to hail with satisfaction the appointment of this Commission, unless some solid tenure, as good as Mr. Wrench's, was given to these two gentlemen.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid it appeared to him that great and unnecessary difficulty
  1048
  had been made by the Chief Secretary with regard to this matter. He was not referring to Mr. Wrench's case at all. It was not desirable to make the other two Commissioners Judges in any sense of the word, or to bring them within the rule which would prevent this House criticising their conduct. He believed that rule was strictly confined to Judges of the Superior Court. County Court Judges held office on a different tenure, and he did not see any practical objection to giving these two gentlemen the same status and tenure as County Court Judges, but without calling them Judges. County Court Judges, under a recent Act regulating their appointment, now held office during good behaviour. That was a technical phrase, and when an office was created to be held during good behaviour the officer could not be removed as long as he behaved well The Superior Court Judges were remov-Able by an Address to the Crown from both Houses of Parliament. County Court Judges could be removed on certificate of the Lord Chancellor certifying to their incapacity. That certificate was laid before the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant, by order in Council, could in motu proprio at the Privy Council remove County Court Judges. He had removed one or two of them. Why not adopt that machinery, adapting it to cases of other than physical or mental incapacity, to enable these two gentlemen to hold office during good behaviour in the first instance, and have at the same time the special power of removing them on the certificate of the Lord Chancellor. That would give control over them and a check upon them. In that way Parliament could ensure that they would have a tolerable tenure of office. Nothing had so much shaken the confidence of the people of Ireland in the administration of the civil and criminal law as the circumstance of reposing that administration in the hands of removable officers. For human nature was always the same, and when a man had before his eyes the possibility of being dismissed and deprived of the means of livelihood, that fact might possibly go far to influence him in the discharge of his duties conscientiously as between the public and the Government.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that as far as Mr. Wrench was concerned, the Chief Secretary was prepared to bring up words that would ensure that his salary would be brought under the criticism of Parliament without interfering in any way with his tenure as an Estates Commissioner.
  MR. WYNDHAMdissented from this interpretation of what he had said.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it came to this—that Mr. Wrench was to be levelled down to the position of security which Mr. Finucane and Mr. Bailey were to enjoy. This was not a question of salary so far as he was concerned. He did not question Mr. Wrench's salary in any way at all. He thought that Mr. Finucane and Mr. Bailey were very well paid with £2,000 a year. This was a question of tenure. Surely it did not pass the wit of man to let these two men draw their salaries and, at the same time, to secure that the salaries should be subject to the criticism of this and the other House of Parliament, and yet to provide that they should not be subject to dismissal by any Lord Lieutenant who might be in Dublin Castle in future, surrounded by landlords or ex-landlords. They should not be at the mercy of those men. That was what constituted the real difference between Ireland and other countries. They were dealing with Dublin Castle, and that was the real reason why Irish Members were anxious that the tenure of these two Commissioners should be secure. He did not wish to make them irremovables, but surely the Chief Secretary and his legal advisers could devise words which would secure them against being subject to dismissal at the mere pleasure, which might be interpreted as the mere whim, of the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid if there was to be general control on the part of the Government over those Estates Commissioners who were to administer public money, then there must be control of an effective character.
  MR. DILLONsaid that they did not know where they were. The Chief Secretary had not even said that he
  1050
  would present an alternative; he only said that he would cast about to see if possibly he could find words, but he had not been able to find words. This was one of the most vital matters that had turned up in the whole debates. In justification of his own Amendment he insisted that the whole of this difficulty had arisen from the introduction of Mr. Wrench. He was not quite certain whether he would not be prepared to go as far as to let the whole three Commissioners be appointed with their present tenure if there was no Mr. Wrench in question. But what was intolerable was that the landlord representative, or the landlord element, on the Commission was irremovable to be beyond and above criticism, and above fear, while the other Commissioners were to be placed in a position to be removable by the Government of the day. It was all very well to talk of the small chance of their being removed. That was not the fear; it was the effect on the minds of these men that they were removable; that they were not independent men. The Chief Secretary met their criticism by saying that there would be an addition to Mr. Wrench's salary. That was good, so far as it went; but he hoped it would be a very small addition. Mr. Wrench was a gentleman who had the reputation in Ireland of spending all his time in providing for himself and his friends, and in doing no public work; and he ventured to point out that so far as the purpose of criticism was concerned a £5 note would be enough.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that in addition Mr. Wrench would have to give up his title to a pension.
  MR. DILLONsaid they would have a word to say about pensions, the granting of which was one of the most remarkable features in recent Irish history. Mr. Wrench was to be placed in a position that he might lose £5 a year, but the other Commissioners might lose everything—their office and their salary. Was that equality? If Mr. Frederick Wrench retained his £3,000 a year and with nothing to do, nothing would please him better; and to hold out to the Irish Members the comfort that they

  1051
  could punish Mr. Frederick Wrench by depriving him of his work and leaving him with his salary of £3,000 a year was the most monstrous proposition ever made. That was not equality. The Committee was in a most unfair position, because they had really obtained, so far as the status of the other Commissioners was concerned, no pledge of any kind from the Chief Secretary. He believed he spoke for the whole of the Irish Party when he said that they heartily supported equality in the members of an administrative Government Board, and that that Board should be under the constant supervision of the House of Commons.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid they had been for close on two hours waiting to see whether the right hon. Gentleman could ascertain the views of Mr. Frederick Wrench—whether that gentleman would accept this alteration of service and the new conditions in regard to salary. Having regard to the fact that they all objected to the appointment of Mr. Frederick Wrench, he would, with all respect, ask whether it was worth while occupying the time of the Committee in discussing hypothetical conditions which depended upon Mr. Frederick Wrench. The right hon. Gentleman was misinformed by his legal advisers when he said that an officer appointed during pleasure was practically irremovable. No one knew better than the Solicitor-General that Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane would only hold office subject to the whim of the Government of the day. Mr. Charles Bourke, who had been Inspector of Prisons for a great number of years, and to whom the age limit of sixty-five did not apply, was dismissed by the Chief Secretary of the day. The Land Commissioners were to be charged with purely administrative business, and it was not to be tolerated for a moment that one of them should have a tenure of office which was practically that of a superior Judge, and therefore irremovable, while the other two were to be removable at pleasure. It was quite intolerable that this gentleman should be foisted into this place against the wishes of the Irish Members, and that he should be given a different tenure from that of the other Commissioners. He agreed
  1052
  thoroughly with what had been said about the inefficiency of Parliamentary criticism in regard to the holders of a secure office. He had tried it in all its phases. When he entered the House Members were allowed to attack officers in the position of a Judge, but now they were not permitted to even sneeze a complaint. He would therefore be unable to approach such an austere gentleman as Mr. Frederick Wrench; that gentleman would be irremovable, and therefore his salary could not be discussed. He challenged the right hon. or any other gentleman to give an instance of a man who discharged administrative and executive duties as distinguished from judicial work, who was irremovable. Such a case did not exist. There was, he thought, a possible way out of the difficulty. There was one class of executive officers who, although they discharged executive duties, were not under the control of the Executive Government, but of the House of Commons itself. He meant the clerks at the Table of the House of Commons. These gentlemen's salaries were on the Estimates and were subject to Parliamentary criticism, but they were only removable by an Address carried in the House of Commons. If the Commissioners were made removable by an Address to the Crown by the House of Commons it would be a different thing from being removable by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland sitting in Privy Council. He wanted to keep the Commissioners from being subject to the back-door operations of some gentleman who had climbed up to Dublin Castle. If Mr. Bailey or Mr. Finucane were to be dismissed by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, Mr. Wrench himself might be summoned to that Privy Council and brought under the influence of Dublin Castle. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman for the mere personal matter of the pension or no pension of one man should obstruct the business. He impressed on the right hon. Gentleman the fact that the only instance of administrative and executive officers being removable was the case of the clerks of Parliament, who might be removed from the House itself. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to himself make terms for Mr. Wrench.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the right hon. Gentleman where he proposed to move the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had stated would facilitate the change in the position of Mr. Wrench. He supposed it would be in Sub-section 3 of Clause 76.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he supposed that would be so. But he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would like to say anything further now to show how the change was to be brought about.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid these three officers were to have the same tenure, and Mr. Wrench's salary would be determined in one of two ways—either he would come on to the Votes at £3,000 a year, in which case his pension would be considered—there was no pension now, but in one clause of the Bill there was a provision for a pension—or his salary would remain on the Consolidated Fund, and in place of a pension he could have a separate salary as an Estates Commissioner, with the same status as the other Estates Commissioners. The status was to be the same, and the only point was what was the tenure to be. He could not say more than he had already said. They must be executive officers of the Government. If they were only to be removable for inability or misbehaviour that was the tenure of a Judge of the High Court, and that was a position independent of the Government, and the Government would not be responsible unless these gentlemen were responsible to the Executive Government.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman involved this. A vote in the House of Lords against A and B—A would say I am very sorry for having quarrelled with my Peers in Parliament, and would retire on his pension, while B would slip down a hole in the ice.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the others were to have Civil Service pensions, under the Act of 1881, but by a mistake in the drafting it was not put into the clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that was a most marvellous statement. Now they found because Mr. Wrench was to get a pension Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane were to get one also. He welcomed the statement. No doubt it was a mistake in the draftsmanship, but where was the Treasury when that mistake took place? These gentlemen were not holding office under the Act of 1881, and it was absurd to say they were to have pensions under that Act. This discussion had been of some benefit, for it had, at all events, secured pensions to Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane, and if, as the result of attacks upon them in the other House, they were driven out, they would not go without a pension.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was wrong in his explanation though right in his facts. These gentlemen got a pension under the Superannuation Act of 1859.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid there was no reference to the Act of 1859 in the Bill. What they wanted to know was, was Mr. Wrench to take a pension under the Superannuation Act of 1859, or was he to be left by this Bill with a pension. The right hon. Gentleman knew them perfectly well, and knew they never gave way on a good point. They had got a good point now and would stick to it till the facts were before the country. He last night advised the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind in the few moments that remained, but he would not do so, and they had two hours discussion to-day in consequence. But the right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind to this. He believed the Treasury view was that Mr. Wrench should have the other two under his thumb, but he was determined to prevent that. He would not be a party to this thing.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid there were two points in this clause, and the Government had gone wrong in both. First of all there was the question of making two different kinds of Land Commissioners. Whatever they chose to do with the Land Commissioners should be done with all three. Under the present scheme one was to be responsible only to his conscience, and the other two,

  1055
  who were to hold office during pleasure, were to be responsible to the Lord Lieutenant. They could not harness sheep and goats together in this way. They could only take the clause as it stood, and under the clause one of them would be master of the other two. Why the Government should have made an exceptional rule for one Commissioner, and left the other two under the other rules he did not know. What was the rule to be? Were the Commissioners to hold office during pleasure, or be practically irremovable like Judges, except on the vote of both Houses. There was a middle course which certainly would not make them as irremovable as Judges, but by which they could hold office during good behaviour.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that when he spoke of the Commissioners not receiving pensions he was interrupted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary, and referred to a subsequent clause; but it was not quite clear to him that that clause provided for pensions. They were also referred to the Act of 1859; but there was nothing in the Bill about that Act. Why should not the Government make it clear that pensions would be secured for those gentlemen? He was not quite sure that the Commissioners would find themselves very comfortable in their positions. A great deal had been said about the Commission not being a Court. He certainly did not wish them to have a judicial position; but they would be dealing with the property of the country. Further, the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the Bill had been entirely changed since it was introduced; and that the Commissioners were now vested with discretion, which it was not originally proposed they should possess. He did not wish to touch Mr. Wrench, and he did not believe his position could possibly be taken from him. Indeed, as far as he was concerned, the Government could do anything they liked as regarded Mr. Wrench; but he wished that the other two Estates Commissioners should have the same status as Mr. Wrench, and that Mr. Wrench should not have a superior status and be the consulting
  1056
  party at the Castle. If that were done he would be quite content.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that that was his intention.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would state that he was prepared to bring up words later which would change the position of these two Commissioners from being removable into a more stable tenure, at the same time not removing them from the cognisance of Parliament, that would meet the point. All the right hon. Gentleman had said up to the present was that he would look round and see whether it was possible to find such words, but the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that it would be a hopeless task.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid, as he understood the hon. Member for South Tyrone, his position was that although he did not approve altogether of the course which had been taken, he would be prepared to accept it if all the Estates Commissioners were given the same status. Then the hon. and learned Member for Waterford asked what that status was to be, and he said that he was not satisfied with the words of the Bill. His reply was that those gentlemen would not have a judicial status, and that he did not know of any other phrase, other than the words in the Bill, which would not give them such a status. He had, undertaken to endeavour to find words which would form a new tenure, but he did not yet know whether it would be possible. If there were a half way house between tenure at pleasure and a judicial tenure he would endeavour to find it, but beyond that he could not go.
  MR. BLAKEasked if the Committee was to understand that if there was a tenure which was a half-way house between tenure at pleasure and a judicial position, which would give those gentlemen a more stable tenure, but would not withdraw them from the cognisance of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to conduct the Committee to it?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that was his policy.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if the Commissioners were to be on the same footing as regarded pension.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had already stated all he had to state on that point. If the £3,000 paid to Mr. Wrench were taken off the Consolidated Fund, then they would have to specially consider his case.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid the Committee had not yet been told what Mr. Wrench's present tenure was. When they knew that, all that would be necessary would be to raise the other Commissioners to the same level.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with the pensions of the three Commissioners in one clause.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that if the hon. and learned Gentleman attached any importance to that, there would be no objection to it; but it should be understood that the pensions of the two Commissioners, other than Mr. Wrench, would be at Civil Service rates. He could not reopen the financial question; but he was informed by the draftsman that the tenure in the Bill did not require any explicit statement as regarded pensions.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that although the reply of the Government was not quite satisfactory, he recognised that there had been a concession. It was some concession to those gentlemen that they could not be turned out of doors without getting some solatium. For his part, he was prepared to wait until the Chief Secretary had introduced his clause. The position of Mr. Wrench was becoming extremely interesting; he seemed to be the fairy god-mother of the situation, and had already showered down pensions on Mr. Bailey and Mr. Finucane. What they had to do now was to concentrate their attention on Mr. Wrench's pension, and the pension Mr. Wrench would get would also have to be provided for the other Commissioners.
  MR. DILLONsaid he had struggled hard to get out of the difficulty, but he was bound to say that he was not satisfied with the result. The whole matter had arisen from the introduction of Mr. Wrench. He would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division; but he certainly would not withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the precedents he had placed before him.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked when the right hon. Gentleman would put down his new Amendment.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid it would be put down before the Report stage.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLformally moved the following Amendment—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 30, at end, to insert the words 'Any member of the Land Commission who has been nominated or appointed as an Estates Commissioner shall not be entitled to be a member of the Congested Districts Board as the member of the Land Commission to represent forestry and agriculture.'"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept the Amendment, because it was not necessary. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman wished to put into an Act of Parliament a provision that a distinguished public servant should be given work involving no emolument because he was discharging work to which an emolument was attached. Mr. Wrench had informed him that his work as an Estate Commissioner would not enable him to undertake other duties.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was not aware of Mr. Wrench's action. The Chief Secretary would admit that he was not ungenerous to Mr. Wrench. He would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid as the Bill stood the Estates Commissioners would be the servants of the Lord Lieutenant, and be subject to his orders. He proposed to leave out the words "shall be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant." The policy of the Commissioners ought not to be controlled by the Executive Government. They would have very large matters within their discretion, and they should bring all their mind and intelligence to bear on them without such control as was suggested, although it was quite right that their actions should be subject to discussion in this House. It was quite a different thing to say that their action should be dictated by the Lord Lieutenant of the day. It would not be right to put these men, who had to discharge most important duties, involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, under the control of the executive, with instructions to do whatever the Lord Lieutenant told them. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, lines 32 and 33, to leave out the words 'shall be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid it would be clearly improper to decide in essence the question which they had been debating when they had agreed to adjourn the actual decision until the Report stage. This was the old question in a new form, and he would not add anything to the argument, he had already adduced.
  MR. T. M. HEALYentirely concurred in the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman, but he pointed out that this proposal relieved the Chief Secretary of any difficulty in giving these gentlemen the tenure which had been suggested. With such potent words as "shall be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant" in the Act, he could not conceive any difficulty in providing a proper tenure for these men.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had had these words in his mind during the whole of
  1060
  the previous debate, and it was because he could not assent to the proposition that the words used in the case of a Judge would fit in with these words, that he could not agree that the words were applicable to the tenure of a Judge. These words expressed the policy of the Government.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBregretted the decision of the Chief Secretary. "Control" meant that the Lord Lieutenant would be able to influence the Commissioners in the way he wished them to go. What was wanted in the administration of this Department was continuity of principle uninterfered with by party exigencies on either side.
  MR. BUTCHERagreed that these Commissioners ought to have their action considered in Parliament, and that they ought not to have such a tenure that they could not be removed. What he objected to was that in carrying out the provisions of this measure they should be subject to the daily and hourly control of the Lord Lieutenant. It could not be right for the Lord Lieutenant to give directions that the Commissioners should buy a particular estate or give a certain price for it. If that were done, the Commissioners would be prejudiced in the discharge of their duty, and he was unable to see what other meaning could be placed on the words.
  MR. BLAKEsaid the words, when taken in conjunction with those that followed, seemed to lend themselves to some extent to the criticisms which had been made. He agreed that these gentlemen were to be executive officers, and there was no harm in making it perfectly plain that the Government were responsible for their conduct. That being so, the Government must be able in a general way to regulate the course the Commissioners should pursue, and that object was secured, not only by the tenure of office, but also by the words—
  "Shall act in accordance with such general, regulations as may be made by"
  the Lord Lieutenant. But when the two provisions of this sub-section were taken together, it seemed possibly to be

  1061
  intended that the Lord Lieutenant should exercise a daily and hourly control over the detailed performance of the work and the determinations of the Commissioners in regard to particular estates. He thought that could hardly be intended, and it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman explained exactly what the words did mean.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the hon. Member who had just spoken, having held high office in another part of the Empire, must be aware that a member of a Government could not interfere minutely from day to day in the detailed work of a great Department. These words merely meant general control and guidance, the Government being responsible for the success of the Act. The Government would not interfere in regard to a particular estate, or as to the sphere of the operations of the Commissioners. But seeing that the Government of the day would be criticised in Parliament if the hopes raised in the course of these debates were disappointed, it might be right for them to have a word as to whether the energies of the Commissioners should be directed towards dealing with congestion or some other of the objects of the measure. There was a great deal of policy in a Bill of this kind; and the Government were responsible for that policy; therefore it was necessary that they should have a general control to see that their intentions were carried out.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that in the administration of a new body with large funds at its back it would be intolerable if the Chief Secretary of the day, who would be constantly subject to criticism in Parliament, had not a directing voice. Especially would that be the case in regard to the present Chief Secretary, who was responsible for this Bill. If the measure failed to work satisfactorily, the right hon. Gentleman would be attacked on all sides, and it would be impossible for him to defend his position, unless he could say he had given the necessary directions, or something to that effect. It would be a satisfaction if the Committee could be told whether the regulations
  1062
  were to be prescribed, published, or submitted to Parliament. He would suggest that they should be laid on the Table of the House with power to present a prayer against them if necessary.
  MR. BLAKEsaid there was a great deal to be said for the position of the Chief Secretary, so long as the interference of the Executive Government was directed to the principles of action, to seeing that the Act was carried out in the spirit in which it was intended, and did not extend to the minor details of judgment, and so forth.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had not yet decided on the exact form of publication, but he agreed the regulations should come before the House in some way.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid that as the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the control was to be merely a general control, he would withdraw his Amendment, and move the insertion of the word "general."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 32, after the word 'the' to insert the word 'general.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 34, to omit the word 'general.'"—(Mr.. T. M. Healy.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid that this Act was going to work for a considerable number of years before it was worked out, and therefore he did not like the Lord Lieutenant to be able to lay down any regulations he liked. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 34, at end, to insert the words 'and such regulations shall be deemed to be statutory rules within the meaning of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)was understood to say that he had no objection to the proposal of the hon. Member, but some other form of words would be necessary if the Rules were to be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid he much preferred that they should be laid upon the Table. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid if the desire of the House was that the Rules should be laid on the Table, he would bring up a clause on Report dealing with this matter.
  MR. CULLINANsaid he desired to move an Amendment leaving out the words "Judicial Commissioner," and insert "said Commissioners." The Chief Secretary had already stated that he was anxious that the Bill should be worked with the greatest possible expedition, and he thought this Amendment would expedite matters. It was only fair to assume that the Estates Commissioners who would be responsible for the administrative work of the Act would be the best judges in regard to the selection of the officials to carry on their work in the most satisfactory and expeditious manner.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, lines 30 and 37, to leave out the words 'Judicial Commissioner,' and insert the words 'said Commissioners.'—(Mr. Cullinan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Judicial Commissioner' stand part of the clause."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the clause enabled the Judicial Commissioner to appoint a staff to assist the Estates Commissioners. The Judicial Commissioner was the head of the Commission and he was the person who must decide what members of the staff he could spare to be transferred from his own Department to the branch presided over by the Estates Commissioners.
  1064
  This Amendment would enable the outside body to strip and carry away the staff of the Judicial Commissioner against the wish or contrary to the orders of the head of that staff. That was a perfectly impossible state of things, for the Judicial Commissioner must have control over his own staff.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid he agreed that the less the Judicial Commissioner had to do with the appointment of officials the better. He did not agree that it would be better if the appointment went to the Lord Lieutenant. He did not see why any objection should be raised to the proposal to give the appointment to the Estates Commissioners themselves. The hon. Member opposite said that if they got the proper men the work would be carried out in a proper manner, but many of them did not think that the present Judicial Commissioner was the man who was likely to make the best selection and carry out the work satisfactorily to the Irish people. He strongly supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.
  MR. BLAKEpointed out that these officers would be the officers of the Commission. He did not see why the Judicial Commissioner should have the sole voice in the disposition of the staff. It seemed to him that if it was to be left to the Commissioners at all it should be left to the whole Commission to determine their officers, and then the Judicial Commissioner would have his say and the whole question would settle itself. He did not see why the Judicial Commissioner should be given this special patronage.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the proposal of the Government was introducing a totally new departure into the administration of the Land Commission. As far as he understood it, the Judicial Commissioner at present had no such power as was proposed, and, as a matter of fact, he did not actually deal with this matter.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that the question of transferring some part of the staff elsewhere had never occurred before.
  MR. DILLONcontended that the question of dealing with the staff had arisen and arose continually, and the Judicial Commissioner had no special powers of this nature. It stood to reason that if this appointment was to be left in the hands of the Commission it should remain in the hands of the whole Commission, so that the matter could be arranged in consultation with the men who were to be responsible as Estates Commissioners. Those Commissioners were to be appointed as additional members of the Commission, and if they gave this appointment to the whole body then the Estates Commissioners would have a voice in the appointment of their own officers. Was that an unreasonable thing to ask for? He thought it was an extraordinary proposal that the Judicial Commissioner should be invited to have the sole voice in appointing the staff of this new Department, and it would be a very ill omen for the new Department if the staff was appointed without giving the new Commissioners a voice in the matter. What earthly objection could the Government have to allowing these Estates Commissioners to come into the room when these matters were being settled so as to have a voice in them? Really it was a matter of very considerable importance that these officials should know at the start that the men who were to be their masters and employers and directors had had some voice in appointing them, and it might tend to impair the smooth working of the official machine at the very start if these men were to look upon the Judicial Commissioner as their sole employer.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that the proposal was that the Judicial Commissioner should have the sole power of nominating men on the staff of the Land Commission to work under the Estates Commissioners. He contended that this was not a judicial act; it ought not to be confined to the Judicial Commissioner but ought to appertain to the whole Commission. There was an additional reason for that. Two of the new Estates Commissioners had been in the service before. One was a Land Commissioner, and the other had for fifteen or sixteen years been in the service as an Assistant Legal Commissioner. Consequently they knew all the men who had been doing this work and their
  1066
  capabilities. It was no use putting too fine a point upon this question. They were not living in a foreign country. They knew what they were talking about, and they were not prepared to have this new organisation packed with anybody's creatures. He hoped the Chief Secretary would say that in a matter like this they should not distrust the whole Land Commission. This was not a question of distrusting the Commission but of trusting them, and in this case the three Estates Commissioners ought to have a voice with the other members of the Land Commission, and that would be very much more satisfactory than leaving the whole executive work to the Judicial Commissioner.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Attorney-General had stated that this case had not arisen before. He was sorry to tell him that it had. When the Land Act of 1881 was passed, Mr. Justice Lawson stated that the officers and clerks of the Church Temporalities Commissioners who were suitable would be transferred to the new Land Commission. He objected to the present proposal on the same ground that he objected to the other—namely, that they would pick out certain favourites for the appointments. Judge Lawson was then Judge of the Church temporalities; and the Committee could imagine what chance Catholics would have with him. He got a distinct pledge from the then Attorney-General that nothing in the nature of discrimination would be attempted, but what was the fact? They boycotted every Catholic, and a number of the men who received appointments afterwards took a prominent part in Orange demonstrations and had to be dismissed by the Land Commissioners. On the matter being referred to the Lord Lieutenant they were told to go back to the office, hang up their hats, and apologise. They did not want all this kind of thing over again. He did think it was a most invidious thing that all the nominations for appointments from the existing staff should be made by one man. He thought this was a matter in which the claims of the individual men should be considered. The proposal made was most unfair to Mr. Wrench, who was to be excluded from making appointments from the existing staff. He thought that for Mr. Wrench's sake alone they ought

  1067
  to make a stand in order that he might not be put in the position in which the Bill proposed to place him in regard to these appointments. He hoped the Chief Secretary would yield on this small matter.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid it would be very difficult to frame words saying what the members of the Land Commission were to do in this matter. He thought the Government should nominate and appoint the persons. They would do that with due regard to the nature of the work to be performed.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that so long as the nominations were in the hands of one man the appointments would follow. If the Judicial Commissioner nominated a certain number of men for duty, who in the Government was going to intervene to prevent the appointments? He suggested the substitution of the words, "Land Commission" for "Judicial Commissioner." The Judicial Commissioner was a Judge, and did not know the capabilities of the men. If the nominations were made by the Land Commission they would come from a body who knew the capacities of the individual men.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsaid a far more serious matter arose on this question than had vet been mentioned. He referred the Committee to Clause 76 of the Bill, which provided that—
  "The Hon. Gerald FitzGerald, one of the Land Commissioners, shall, for the purposes of the Land Law Acts and Land Purchase Acts, but not further or otherwise, in addition to his existing powers, have all the jurisdiction and powers of a Judicial Commissioner, with the same rank and tenure of office as if he had, at the commencement of this Act, been appointed a Judicial Commissioner under the Act of 1881."
  The Hon. Gerald FitzGerald would, therefore, have the appointments in his hands. That would be wholly objectionable to the people of Ireland, and to all parties in the country who had any dealings with the Land Commission.
  MR. WYNDHAMdid not think it was very convenient to cast upon the
  1068
  Land Commissioners the duty of selecting the staff. He proposed to put that duty on the Lord-Lieutenant, and to let the Government accept the responsibility.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 36, to leave out the words 'the Judicial Commissioner may nominate such officers of the Commission, and.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  "In page 12, line 39, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'land clerks of ten years service and.'"—(Colonel McCalmont.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he objected to an Amendment which would specify these clerks. He had no doubt the gentlemen would be suitable candidates for employment under the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 40, at end, to insert the words 'and the remuneration of those persons shall be paid as part of the expenses of the Land Commission.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTONmoved—
  "In Clause 21, page 13, line 2, after 'Commissioners,' insert 'or by any vendor.'"
  He said his object was to extend the same facilities to all landowners as to the class mentioned in the clause.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 2, after the word 'Commissioners,' to insert the words 'or by any vendor.'"—(The Marquess of Hamilton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had not had an opportunity of considering this matter. He asked his noble friend not to press the Amendment at present.
  THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTONsaid he would move it on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid the Amendment he now wished to move was to leave out the words "and completed" from line 3 of Sub section 9. He was aware that in moving this—which was one of a series of Amendments—he was taking a course which might not be very popular in the Committee, because, as a general rule, lawyers were not in great favour there. Why they should not be he never could understand, because this House was the fountain and creator of all law, and one would have thought that those who tried to administer the law should not be marked out for derision. He had observed that any clause bearing on lawyers' fees was received with a good deal—he would not say of obloquy, but with a great deal of discouragement—on both sides of the House. The scheme proposed in the sub-section was that sales of estates to the Estates Commissioners, and sales by those Commissioners to tenants and others might be negotiated and completed by any agents, solicitors, or other persons approved by the Estates Commissioners at a fixed price or percentage, according to scale fixed by the Estates Commissioners. That was to say, when a landlord wanted to sell, and a tenant to buy his property, neither landlord nor tenant could have any voice in the appointment of the solicitor but he was to be appointed by the Commission. In starting the original negotiations he thought it was right and reasonable that the landlord's or tenant's solicitor should not interpose or be recognised, and accordingly his Amendment did not interfere with that. It only enabled the negotiation to be carried to a completion by the solicitor of the landlord or tenant. Why should landlord and tenant be compelled to put their title deeds into the hands of a solicitor who was not nominated by themselves, of whom they knew nothing, and who could not be supposed to have their particular interest at heart? It was most unreasonable that such a novelty should be introduced into legislation. The object of his Amendment was that when the sale came to be completed the landlord and tenant should be able to exercise the ordinary citizen's right of nominating their own solicitor to carry out the contract to its completion. His Amendment was supported by the Incorporated
  1070
  Law Society of Ireland, who could not be accused of being animated by selfish motives. After a great number of years experience he could say that there was no more intelligent and honourable profession in the Empire than the solicitors of Ireland, who, under great temptations, and struggling under very trying circumstances were an example of public trusteeship of which any country ought to be proud.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 3, to leave out the words 'and completed.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and completed,' stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the subsection did not by any means lay down that solicitors other than those connected with the particular properties were to be employed by the Estates Commissioners. It was a permissive clause, subject to the goodwill of the Treasury. He was quite sure that the Treasury would not permit the Estates Commissioners to employ a solicitor to the detriment of the solicitors who were connected with a particular estate; but the right hon. Gentleman would see that it might occur that if the solicitors to the estate were compulsorily employed it might put a certain premium on factitious opposition to the completion of the transaction. He had no doubt that in a great number of cases the family solicitor would be employed; but he could not accept the Amendment.
  *MR. HEMPHILLbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTONmoved that Sub-section 9, line 3, should be amended by leaving out "agents, solicitors, or other persons" and inserting "land agent or solicitor nominated by the landlord and"—approved by the Estates Commissioners.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 3, to leave out the words 'agents, solicitors, or other persons,' and

  1071
  insert the words 'land agent or solicitor nominated by the landlord and.'"—(Sir John Rolleston.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNTDHAMsaid he could not accept the Amendment. As he had already stated the Estates Commissioners would, as a rule, employ the solicitors connected with the property, but some discretion must be left to the Estates Commissioners.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTONhad an Amendment on the Paper to insert in Sub-section 9 relating to the scale of fees to be paid to the solicitors, the words—
  "Such scale to include in the case of a land agent of an estate acting in that capacity on the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and three, a three per cent. negotiation fee, but such negotiation fee shall, in the case of a land agent in receipt of an annual salary less than five per cent. of the rental of the estate, be assessed on the proportion the salary hears to five per cent. of the rental, and the negotiation fee shall be reduced accordingly."
  *THE CHAIRMANruled that the Amendment was incompetent, as it was outside of the Money Resolution of the Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. SLOANsaid in moving his Amendment he desired to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary to the enormous number of employees under land agents who would be deprived of their livelihood because, having regard to the number of years they had served as land clerks, it would be impossible for them to obtain other occupation at their age. Could nothing be done for that class of workers who had been most faithful in doing their duty to their masters?
  MR. REDDY: Let the masters do it themselves.
  MR. SLOANsaid they should not be left without any occupation; and he submitted the Amendment to the kind consideration of the Chief Secretary.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 8, at end, to insert the words' On the sale of any estate under the Land Purchase Acts, whether to or by the Land Commission or otherwise, one fourth of the percentage or fixed price allowed to an agent for the negotiation and completion of the sale shall be paid to the land clerk employed in the office of such estate, and if there be more than one land clerk employed in the office of the estate the said amount shall be distributed to the land clerks in proportion to their number of years service as land clerks in Ireland respectively.'"—(Mr. Sloan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept the Amendment. Where the Estates Commissioners employed a person in any capacity, the scale of payment would be arranged between the Commissioners and the Treasury; and justice would be done as regarded any work done for the Department. As regarded the second part of the Amendment, they ought not to interfere with a landlord who was conducting his own negotiations. He assumed that the landlords would do their best to see that those who had been in their service would not suffer. He wished to repeat what he had already stated, that in administering the Act they would, where-ever they could, do their best to see that persons would be compensated in meal where they could not be compensated in malt. He knew that it had been suggested that in addition to the bonus there should be a grant; but his colleagues and himself could not see their way to adopt that policy. In administering the Act it would, however, be their earnest desire to give as much employment as they could to agents and others concerned.
  *MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GOREsaid he should like to ask, on a point of order, at what particular point the interests of the land agents could be discussed on this clause?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The interests of the land agents is rather a large question. Financial compensation for land agents could not, I think, be introduced at all in this Bill without obtaining previously

  1073
  a Resolution, which would have to be proposed in Committee on the authority of a Member of the Government, as it would involve the expenditure of money; and the Committee could not initiate expenditure of money without obtaining the authority of the Government.
  Question put, and negatived.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid that the clause enabled the Commissioners, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, to make rules for carrying the Act into effect. In several recent Acts of Parliament the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland had been included on the rule-making body; and the Incorporated Law Society thought that where the interests of their clients were so deeply involved as they were in this Bill, it was only reasonable that a representative of the solicitors' body should be a member of the rule-making body. The Amendment had, he believed, been submitted to the Chief Secretary and to the law officers; and, of course, if the Chief Secretary was unable to accept it he would not occupy the time of the Committee further. It appeared to him, however, to be an eminently reasonable proposal; and it was a practice which was followed in England as well as in Ireland in all modern Acts of Parliament which provided for the making of rules.
  MR. JORDANasked if there was a salary attached to the position.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid there was no salary.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 9, after the word 'Commissioners," to insert the words 'and the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland for the time being.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept the Amendment as it stood. Many of these rules would be administrative rules, but he would undertake to consider whether the
  1074
  President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland should not be brought in on particular occasions.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that although no salary was attached to the membership, it would involve work; and he thought that the Government ought to welcome an independent mind in regard to those rules. When they had a gentleman who, in the interests of the smooth working of the Act, undertook to go over the rules without pay, the Government should jump at such an offer. The offer was, he understood, made by a responsible body of great experience, and it followed English precedent as well as Irish precedent. He did not think it would water the wine of the Estates' Commissioners if they had to act with a grave and reverend seignor of the legal profession who had long experience. He did not know the present president, but he thought the Amendment should be accepted here and now. If the words were too wide they could be limited. He should like to know if the Chief Secretary was resisting the Amendment on the advice of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the clause covered duties which would not be discharged by solicitors at all. As regarded the professional duties of solicitors, it would be a matter for consideration whether the co-operation of the President of the Incorporated Law Society should not be secured.
  MR. GORDONsaid he hoped the Chief Secretary would reconsider the position. He joined in the request which had been made by the hon. Member for North Louth.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would reconsider the matter before the Report stage.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid on that assurance he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. THOMPSONsaid the Amendment which he wished to move would greatly expedite sales.

  1075
  Several solicitors had informed him that otherwise there would be no end of delay. Indeed, it would be a great improvement if there was an examiner appointed in each county town.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 10, after the words 'Lord Lieutenant,' to insert the words 'appoint two examiners of title in each province and.'"—(Dr. Thompson.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it was not possible to accept the Amendment, as it would upset the work of the staff altogether.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid the Amendment he wished to move was to the effect that the rules under Section 10 should be laid on the table of the House. He had been given an assurance to that effect with regard to Section 6.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 13, line 19, at end, to insert the words, 'All such rules shall be made by a majority, of whom the Judicial Commissioner shall be one; and such rules shall be deemed to be statutory rules within the meaning of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATKINSONreplied that these were rules of a wholly different character.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONthought it was very desirable that they should know that these rules were for the costs and expenses of the Land Commission. That ought to be made quite clear.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL,)said it was desirable wherever publication was required, that it should be publication of the same kind whether under the Act of 1893 or by laying on the Table of the House, and he would promise and undertake
  1076
  that the Government would provide that wherever publication was required it should be publication of the same kind.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: Does the hon, and learned Gentleman acknowledge that these rules should be published, and it is only a matter of form as to how they shall be published?
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLreplied that would depend upon the scope and nature of rules. Some it would be ludicrous to lay upon the Table. Others might relate to such important matters that it would be desirable they should be laid.
  *MR. BUTCHERasked who was to be the judge of whether they were of sufficient importance to be published or not. He pointed out that there were rules "for carrying into effect the foregoing provisions of this Act," and it might be necessary they should be considered by the House. He suggested that all should be laid upon the Table of the House so that the House could have control of them. If some were laid and some not there would be great confusion.
  MR. BLAKEconcurred in thinking that the general description of the rules in this section involved the proposition that they might be of far-reaching importance and ought to be laid.
  MR. T. M. HEALYregarded the position taken up by the Government as not at all unreasonable. There were rules so insignificant in their character that it would be absurd to ask Parliament to discuss them.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLthought they might say that all rules made in pursuance of "such and such" should be laid on the Table. That might bring in the subsection they were then dealing with.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid he would be content with this assurance, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DILLONsaid, with reference to the last sub-section, he hoped the Government were not going to assent to the Report of the Estates Commissioners being simply and solely a financial report. It was desirable that the Commissioners should furnish a much fuller Report than was received from the Land Commissioners. He suggested the Report should be more of the character of that of the Congested Districts Board. It was not a question for Amendment, and he merely made that suggestion.
  Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid the objection to Sub-section 3 was that where there was a sale by the landlord to the Estates Commissioners by the operation of the preceding clause, the landlord would get 3½ per cent. on the purchase money until the final distribution of the purchase money took place, but the effect of this clause would be that when there was a sale by the landlord to his tenants he would get the 3½ per cent., but part would come out of the purchase money if the investments did not earn sufficient to pay it. Why should that distinction be made between the two methods of sale? He believed that sales to the tenants were the best, and he desired to encourage them, and that that could best be done by leaving out this sub-section. He therefore begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 1, leave out Sub-section (3)."—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 3 stand part of the clause."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the two cases were entirely different. When an estate was sold to the Land Commissioners the purchase price was immediately paid into Court, and during the twelve months the money ay in the bank the Government gave 3½ per cent. upon it, although the receipts from the land might not amount to that. By so doing they did away with one of the great deterrents that prevented landlords from selling, which was the fear that the percentage on the purchase price would
  1078
  not be sufficient for them to live upon. Where a landlord sold to the tenant, the Commissioners were in an entirely different position. In that transaction the Commissioners lent the money and the landlord received it at once. Therefore the State did not feel themselves bound to come forward and, out of public money, provide what might be necessary to meet the claim of the landlord measured at 3½ per cent. But in order that he might receive something equivalent to the 3½ per cent., they provided that if the produce of the money was insufficient to pay him 3½ per cent., he should be entitled to go upon the principal for sufficient to keep his income up to the 3½ per cent. level for twelve months. It was true that that was at the expense of the remainder-man, but inasmuch as the landlord had chosen to deal with his tenant direct, if anybody was to suffer it was more rational that it should be the remainder-man rather than the State, who, in the transaction, only assumed the character of a lender of the money.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that as an estate meant anything the Commissioners chose to call an estate, it might be a portion of an estate. In such a case a landlord who sold three or four holdings might get advantages from which another landlord selling an equal number of holdings direct to his tenants would be precluded. The transfer of land in many parts would be best promoted by a gradual process, and he knew several cases where two or three tenants had bought, and then the surrounding tenants, when they saw the advantages, had come in afterwards. Sales would not be accelerated by penalising the landlord who, from the circumstances of his estate, desired to deal with the individual tenants.
  MR. BLAKEsaid there was no doubt that in many cases the uncertainty as to whether the purchase money of an estate would produce the income of the landlord had acted as a great deterrent to purchase, and the right hon. Gentleman had stated that this provision had been inserted to get rid of that deterrent. To the extent to which that deterrent had been removed in the case of sales to

  1079
  the Commission, its existence had been emphasised in the case of sales direct to the tenants. The two methods of sale ought to receive equal treatment, but here a preference was given to one mode as against the other. In the one case the landlord secured 3½ per cent., while in the other he ran a certain risk.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONthought it very unfair that the landlord who dealt direct with his tenants should have to take money from his children or the remainder men to bring his income up to the 3½ per cent. level. It was rather shabby on the part of the Treasury to insist on that, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would avoid making this invidious distinction.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDhad always understood the view of the Government to be that direct sale should be the normal transaction. This provision, however, would offer the greatest possible incentive to the landlord to sell to the Land Commission; in fact, it would be quite sufficient to prevent men selling direct who otherwise would do so. The provision was altogether inconsistent with the view the Government had over and over again expressed. It was necessary to have both methods of sale, and in many parts of the country it might be desirable that the sales should be largely to the Commission, but fair play must be given to both systems. This provision penalised the very procedure which the Government had declared they wished to see generally adopted.
  MR. GORDONcould not see any logic for the reason given for the distinction. If the Treasury were put to greater expense or had to provide a large sum of money, he could understand it, but neither of those conditions obtained. In each case they were dealing with the difference between what the price would produce and the 3½ per cent. It was desirable that landlords and tenants should deal direct with one another as far as possible, and that no distinction should be made. He hoped the Government would give way on the point.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that in the opinion of the Government this subsection, if it favoured either, favoured the landlord who dealt directly with his-tenant rather than the landlord who sold to the Commission. The landlord who sold to the Land Commission went at once on the 3½ per cent. basis, whereas the landlord who conducted his own negotiations continued to draw rent for a longer period, so that the gap before the cessation of the rent-paying and the investment of the purchase money was shorter.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDpointed out that the Attorney-General had just declared that the existing system acted as a deterrent, because the landlords were afraid they would not get sufficient money to preserve their income. That was inconsistent with the argument the right hon. Gentleman was now adducing.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he did not hear the speech of the Attorney-General, but he was clear that the sub section acted rather in favour of the direct sale than otherwise. In the case of a sale to the Land Commission, as soon as the estimated price had been assented to by the landlord and three fourths of the tenants, and the estate was vested in the Land Commission, the landlord immediately went on the 3½ per cent. basis. In the case of the landlord selling direct the question of the three-fourths did not arise, and the interval was shorter than in the other case. Under Sub-section (2) the Land Commission would be drawing rents for a certain period, out of which it would be easy to take 3½ per cent. so that, while the Treasury would not gain they were not exposed to loss and the solvency of the land purchase transaction would be strengthened. In the case of a direct sale the contingency of 3½ per cent. not being available was very remote; but it had to be provided for, and, as the money was there, the Government held it was better that the landlord should have a certainty of 3½ per cent. than be exposed to the chance of less than 3½ per cent. Of course, in the long run, the landlord was anticipating the aid grant, but in the opinion of the Government the interregnum in the case of a direct sale.

  1081
  would be shorter than in the case of a sale to the Land Commission.
  MR. CLANCYsaid the speeches of the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General were absolutely inconsistent. It was the distribution that caused the delay, and the landlord after he made his agreement could not draw rent; and he would only be getting interest on his purchase money. The Chief Secretary had stated that the owner who had sold to his tenants direct could prolong the payment beyond the date of the agreement. He could not get rent beyond the date of the agreement, and after that date a whole year must elapse in most cases. The consequence would be that they would have the sales blocked because under Section 8 the Land Commission could not hold more than £50,00,000 worth of property.
  MR. DILLONasked if it was not a fact that when a landlord sold an estate and the agreement was arrived at, in the interval between that and the final completion of the transaction and the payment of the money the tenant had to pay 4 per cent.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that when a landlord came before the Land Commission, and the Commission agreed, a vesting order was made immediately. The money was then put into Court and the Commission had their fund out of which they could get the money to pay 3½ per cent. on the purchase money for twelve months. In the other case, when the agreement was made between the landlord and the individual tenant, rent ceased at the date of the agreement.
  MR. DILLONasked if it was not a fact at the present moment when they sold an estate in Ireland, that when the purchase agreement was signed the rent stopped, and then the tenant went on and continued to pay 4 per cent., on the purchase money. In that case the statement of the Attorney-General was not in accordance with the facts, because he stated that the moment the agreement to sell was signed all rents stopped, and there was no fund except that which arose from the investment of the purchase money.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that when the vesting order was made then the tenant's payment of 4 per cent. ceased.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was rather difficult to explain how these things worked out. He was perfectly clear, however, that the general effect of contributing under Sub-section 3 would be to put a premium upon the direct sale of land. When the landlord sold directly to the Land Commission he got 3½ per cent., but when he sold to his tenants he went on getting the rents for a longer period. They could not lay down a rule that it would take so long in one case and so long in another, but the general effect would be that 3½ per cent. would be paid for a longer period in the case of a tenant of the Land Commission than in the case of the landlord. He was perfectly satisfied that if he left out this subsection hon. Members, after considering its ramifications, would wish to have it re-inserted.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that he thought the right hon. Gentleman must admit that the landlord who sold direct to his tenants could not get rent after the date of the agreement for purchase. A whole year elapsed in most cases, and during that time he would not be getting rent, but instalments of purchase money, which might be insufficient.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that, as a matter of fact, where the landlord sold direct to the tenant all the agreements for the whole estate were signed about the same time. In the case of a sale to the Land Commission a period of negotiation came after the sale. Consequently, the 3½ per cent. period was longer than the other.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid this clause simply referred to a case after a vesting order had been made or the money had been paid into the bank. When the money was paid into the bank it was invested at a lower rate of interest than 3½ per cent. It would be absolutely impossible to have any other result. In the one case the Land Commission received the rent, and therefore they could afford to pay 3½ per cent.;

  1083
  but in the other case they received the rent-charge, which was about the same thing. He thought it would be very shabby on the part of the Government to throw what he still considered an obstacle in the way of direct sales to tenants.
  MR. BLAKEsaid that under this sub-section interest was to be paid at the rate of 3½ per cent. He contended that this applied to both classes of cases and in each case 3½ per cent. was possible. The section seemed to apply to both classes of cases. In that case the deficit would have been paid out of the purchase money, and the transaction was going to be a more profitable one. The net result would be that there would be more money to meet the intervening period. It was rather a singular provision which was contemplated in this case while no deficit was contemplated in the other case. He thought this must mean a general provision for the payment of interest at 3½ per cent., but in case of direct sales if there was a deficit it was to be borne by the purchase money.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that in the case of a sale to the Estates Commissioners there could be no deficit. In this case if they were to drop the sub-section the only result would be that if there was any deficit the landlord would bear it. There was no proposal to spend money upon this, and certainly no money would be spent on direct sales to the Land Commission. They certainly did not propose to spend money on direct sales to the tenants. After all, the position of the Irish landlord was not so very bad that they would have nothing left of the purchase money. He promised to consider the propriety of doing something in the case of men who were really bankrupt.
  MR. FFRENCHasked whether the bonus would be available in cases where bargains were made between landlords and tenants direct.
  MR. WYNDHAMwas understood to say that it would.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 8, after the word 'claim' to insert the words 'or in respect of any premium or any policy of insurance charged on the lands sold.'"—(Sir Lewis McIver.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR WALTER THORBURNexpressed the hope that the Government would accept this Amendment. What was proposed was just and reasonable.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid there was some difficulty in this matter. He knew the kind of case to which his hon. friend referred. It was the case where a tenant for life went to an insurance company and gave a mortgage on the land at 5 per cent. The tenant for life insured his life at a certain premium, and he charged this premium on the land in addition to the mortgage debt and the interest. It was more or less a contingent liability. While he thought it was quite right that the mortgage and the interest on it should be paid out of the proceeds of the sale, he was very much afraid that a collateral and contingent charge of this kind might very often crush out some pecuniary encumbrances. It was not by any means clear how that had been charged. It was not an annual charge. It was only ultimately in the case of default by the insurer that the land was come down upon. More consideration would be required to see what particular method could be adopted whereby the placing of this contingent liability, in addition to the mortgage and interest secured by it, might not crush out a pecuniary encumbrancer.
  *SIR LEWIS McIVERinstanced by way of illustration of the nature of the liability the case of an ordinary investor who instructed his solicitor to invest £1,000 in land mortgage in Ireland on a life interest. The invariable practice in such cases was to receive a policy of insurance as collateral security, and to make the premium on that policy a charge on the land of the mortgagor who had the life interest. These premiums were an integral part of the

  1085
  mortgage. They were not contingent. They were simply part of the transaction. All that he claimed by the Amendment was that the mortgagee should have the full benefit of the mortgage of which the policy of insurance was only an incident.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he could not accept the Amendment at this s age, but he would consider the matter.
  Question put, and negatived.
  *MR. HEMPHILLmoved the proviso to Sub-section (6) of Clause 22, with the object of safeguarding the interests of parties concerned in cases of sale where disputes arose over the distribution of the purchase money. This sub-section was a most important one, because it laid down what was to be done with the purchase-money after an estate had been sold, the vesting order made, and the tenant put in possession as the owner in fee. Of course the tenant was in no way interested in what was to be done with the purchase-money of the estate. He thought they might assume—and he said it with some regret—that a majority of the estates in Ireland which would be brought within the provisions of this Act were encumbered—some of them very heavily encumbered. He doubted whether there was a single owner of an estate with a clean bill of health, as it were, who would take advantage of the Act. The sub-section dealt with an important part of the purchase-money in a perfunctory way. It said—
  "After the vesting order, or the payment into the Bank of Ireland, as the case may be, has been made, no proceedings shall be taken, without leave of the Land Commission, in respect of any claim against the purchase-money, or the income thereof."
  In dealing with his Amendment he asked the Committee to keep in view the eighth sub-section, which went on to show how the purchase-money was to be dealt with. What he proposed was that the money in dispute should be paid into Court, that being necessary for the protection of the encumbrancers. When the money was in Court it could not be paid out until close investigation had taken place as to whether the whole or part was due to
  1086
  the claimant, and also as to the relation in which he stood to the other encumbrancers. This was a matter they could not deal with by any rule of thumb. The proviso he proposed to add did not interfere with the general policy of the Act, or in any way retard the conversion of the tenant into the fee-simple proprietor. It was all very well in theory, but when it came to practice that was a different thing. He gave the three Commissioners credit for being, if they liked, the greatest administrators that had ever sat on any tribunal, but there were only three of them, with only three brains, and three hearts to keep alive, and they could not go through all this business without considerable assistance. If an attempt was made to force these enormous duties upon them there would be innumerable mistakes, and great injustice would be done to the community. The time had gone by when technicalities caused delays in the Court of Chancery, and there was now no more difficulty in getting money out of the Court of Chancery than out of any other Court. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 22, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words 'Provided that any person making any claim against the purchase money, or the income thereof, may apply to the Judicial Commissioner to have the said purchase money paid into the High Court to be distributed thereby; and the Judicial Commissioner, if satisfied that the said claim is bunâ fide, and that a dispute exists as to the title to, or distribution of, or payment of the said purchase money, or any part thereof, or of the income thereof, shall make an order for the payment of the said purchase money, or any part thereof as to which a dispute exists, and the income thereof, into the High Court, to be distributed among and paid to the parties entitled thereto in the same manner as if it were the proceeds of the sale of lands ordered to be sold by the Chancery Division of the High Court under its ordinary jurisdiction.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that there was an axiom that the multiplicity of suits ought to be obviated, but under such a clause as was proposed by his right hon. friend it would be possible to establish half a dozen Chancery suits, or more. [An HON. MEMBER: That is what he wants.] In addition to the general provision made for the distribution of the purchase money

  1087
  the 64th Clause provided that questions of law arising under the Land Purchase Acts might be taken to any Division or Judge of the High Court. All the rest thereof was a matter of administration. It would be most unfortunate if the purchase money was to be consumed in Chancery costs.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 23, after the word 'estate,' to insert the words 'where the purchase money thereof is sufficient to discharge all claims affecting same, and.'"—(Sir Lewis McIver.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he could not accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 14, line 40, after the second word 'the.' to insert the words 'Local Registration of Title Office.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 23.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 15, line 24, to leave out the words 'twelve months,' and insert the words 'two years.'"—(Mr. Sharpe.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'twelve months' stand part of the clause."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that the period of twelve months had been chosen after great conaideration; it at once protected the landlord, and gave a stimulus to despatch.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25.
  MR. LAMBERTmoved—
  "In Clause 25, page 16, lines 11 and 12, leave out 'two and three-quarters,' and insert'three.'"
  So far as he could gather, there was no probability of raising this huge loan of £12,000,000 at 2¾ per cent., because at the present time Irish land stock stood, not at par, but at 92 for every 100. The most recent example of the Government issuing stock was the Transvaal Loan, but that was not issued at 2¾ per cent. but at 3 per cent. The Transvaal had enormous possibilities compared with Irish land; it had enormous quantities of gold and diamonds, and he did not know that Irish land was as valuable as gold and diamonds. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give an explanation as to how this money was to be raised, and at what price it was estimated it could be raised. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman was going to raise something like £5,000,000 a year for the next two years. If they took the present price at 92, that meant a loss of £8 on every £100 to be raised, which meant a loss of £400,000 a year. But, as the right hon. Gentleman said the rate of purchase should be accelerated, the loss which would have to be made up by the British taxpayer would amount to not less than £800,000 a year. The whole financial Press, and the whole financial opinion of the country, was against the view that the £112,000,000 could be raised at 2¾ per cent. This £800,000 a year could not be covered by an equivalent grant of £185,000 a year, and really he did not See from the point of view of an Englishman why this equivalent grant should be used. He apprehended that in the future they would have Irish Members asking for more money for educational purposes that were required so urgently in Ireland. His own impression was that the rate was put at a low level in order to artificially increase the price of land in Ireland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation as to how this money would be raised, and at what price it was estimated that it could be raised, because the whole financial Press and the whole financial opinion of this country was against the

  1089
  view that the £112,000,000 could be raised at 2¾ per cent. He further thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have a very considerable difficulty when he placed this loan in competition with other loans of a similar character. Surely the Transvaal loan gave as good security as this Irish loan, and that had to be raised at 3 per cent., so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not count upon raising the money on lower terms. What grounds had the Chief Secretary for supposing that in the future money could be raised on cheaper terms than at present? It might be cheaper, but it might, on the other hand, be dearer, especially if the present policy of the Government were pursued. Therefore without going into questions of detail he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some information upon this most important point because it affected very considerably the security of the Treasury in guaranteeing this £112,000,000 at 2¾ per cent.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 16, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words 'two and three-quarters,' and insert the word 'three.'"—(Mr. Lambert.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Member had invited him to make a statement that would be more appropriate on a First Reading than on a clause in Committee. He would refer the hon. Member to his speech in introducing the Bill when he made a careful justification of the financial foundations of the measure. It was difficult—even impossible—in Committee to develop once again the arguments he then laid before the House. He thought the hon. Member must realise on reflection that his colleagues and the Guardian of the Purse would not have assented to the financial provisions of this Bill except after long and anxious investigation. The hon. Member could take it from him that this was not a plan devised on the spur of the moment. In arriving at it recourse had been had to persons not connected with the
  1090
  Government, whose opinions on financial questions were valuable and always on such occasions obtained. He had received from many sources—perhaps people more competent to advise on financial matters than the hon. Gentleman could pretend to be—prospects of the future that could be regarded with equanimity. The hon. Member seemed to think that the difference would fall perpetually on the Irish development grant. That was not so. Assuming the loan as floated at £95 or even £92, the interest on the difference was to be paid at the same rate as the repayment by the purchaser—viz., at sixty-eight and a half years. It would be found that the charge would not fall as a heavy burden on £185,000 a year. He apprehended no difficulty on that score. The hon. Member had challenged his estimate of the security of the whole transaction, and had asked them only to lend the money to Ireland at 3 per cent. He could not repeat what he had already said on the question of security. They had felt it their duty to Ireland, to this country, and to the Empire to lend the money at the lowest possible rate. Had the finances of the Empire justified it they would have been glad to lend the money at 2½ per cent., and then the period of repayment would have been less. In view of the facts referred to, however, that had been found to be an impracticable policy. They had followed the most-favoured-nation policy in respect to Ireland by letting her have the money at 2¾ per cent. as it was their duty to do. He could not accept any Amendment which would shake the financial foundation of this Bill and bring it with a crash to the ground.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the purpose of the Government should always be to raise a loan at a natural interest and to issue it at par. They knew that last year a loan of £30,000,000 was issued at par, and 3 per cent. was the rate of interest upon which it was found possible to raise the money. If 2¾ per cent. was the right price of issue, then the price of the Transvaal loan was wrong, and something ought to be done to reconcile the difference between the two loans.

  1091
  He really could not allow these financial clauses to pass without reminding the Committee of the existence of the British taxpayer, and of the fact that the security for this loan was the security that he furnished, as any default would have to be made good out of the Consolidated Fund, in which the British taxpayer was so greatly interested. It was an invidious thing to utter a discordant note when two sides of the House so seldom in agreement were ready to fall upon each other's necks and embrace each other. If he were to describe the present condition of things from the fiscal point of view, he should picture up a remote and inaccessible cave in which a band of brigands was engaged in cutting the throat of the British taxpayer, and complaining that he did not bleed to death quickly enough. Far be it from him to disturb the harmony, but he felt it his duty to say again that in his opinion there was no adequate security furnished for these sums to be advanced by England. There was absolutely no limit to the amount of the loan. £100,000,000 and £150,000,000 had been suggested, and even £200,000,000 had been mentioned that day on the opposite Benches. So far as he could see, so long as there was land to be sold in Ireland for more than it was worth, and there were tenants to buy for less than it was worth, so long would the British taxpayer have to furnish extra millions. He would not go into the reasons for thinking that the security was inadequate. In his opinion the whole finance of the Bill was most disappointing. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he had taken the advice of financial experts, but if that had been done surely he would have been advised to follow the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and deal with the matter not on sentimental or political, but solely on fiscal grounds. If he had done that this stock would have been issued at 3 per cent. He did not want to stop the passage of the Bill, but although he stood alone he felt he must make a protest on behalf of the British taxpayer against the facility, and even the wantonness, with which the Chief Secretary had
  1092
  persuaded his colleagues to pledge the credit of the British taxpayer to an enormous and incalculable extent. If this stood alone it would be bad enough, but these sums were to be put on our shoulders at a time when other vast sums were also being placed there. He confessed that he was very far from envying the position in which a Chancellor of the Exchequer some three or lour years hence would find himself.
  MR DILLONsaid that this was a most important clause, and he desired to say all he had to say upon the clause, on this particular Amendment because he went very strongly in the opposite direction to the Amendment. He would point out that in this Bill, for the first time in the history of Irish land purchase, the financial scheme proposed to issue the stock at a higher rate of interest than the rate of interest on Consols. Many Irish Land Acts had been passed, commencing with the Ashbourne Acts, and in every single instance the land stock, whether paid to the landlord direct as by the Act of 1891 or the Act of 1888, the stock had always been issued at the same rate of interest as Consols. But that was not all. This stock was to be irredeemable for thirty years. He objected very strongly to that and urged that it should be issued at 2½ per cent.
  *MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: And at the same price as Consols.
  MR. DILLONsaid it was not for him to say. His desire was to point out what a serious effect this would have on the people of Ireland. On such a large transaction ¼ per cent. was a very important matter. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke of the present state of the money market and pointed out that Consols were much below par, but hon. Gentlemen must remember that within the last seven years the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, owing to the rise in the price of Consols, declared the price to which they had risen to be a public danger. Consols, it was true, were below par now, but he saw no reason why, if there were no fresh war, they should not rise above

  1093
  par in the course of the next five or six years. In that case this 2¾ per cent. stock, which was not rede mable for thirty years, might rise to 115 or even 120, and the effect on the Irish tenant would be unfortunate, for his redemption period would be considerably lengthened, and he would be obliged to pay a great deal more money. When Consols rose to 114 five years ago they were told by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that the whole of the debt would be paid off in twenty-five years, and if the Sinking Fund were to rise to the figure mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech Consols would undoubtedly go up. This stock ought to be issued at 2½ per cent. The result no doubt would be that for the first two or three years a heavy loss would have to be made up by a comparatively small charge on the savings from Irish expenditure, and on the Irish equivalent grant. And if at the end of three or four years it was found the stock was not rising, and there was no prospect of it standing at par, then it would be competent for the Government by a one-clause Bill to alter the stock and turn it into 2¾ per cent. If they began with a 2¾ per cent. stock they could not turn back. Then, again, by making the interest on the annuity 3¼ per cent. instead of 3½ per cent. the Government were taking another vicious departure from a financial point of view, for they were cutting down the Sinking fund to a point unsafe both for the tenants and the Treasury. The principle on which the decadal system was founded was the proper principle to adopt. That system was a great advantage both to the tenants and to the Treasury. Then further reductions were given at the end of the second and third terms of ten years, and by that system great relief was afforded to the tenants, while it was also a great system of insurance for the taxpayer. As far as human foresight could do it, that system provided against all future contingencies or depression in agriculture, and the whole matter was placed on a secure basis. By fixing the interest now at 2¾ per cent. and the annuity at 3½ per cent., the Government proposed to cut down the Sinking Fund from £1 5s. to 10s., with the result that
  1094
  it would be absolutely impossible to give any decadal system of reductions worth considering. He spoke in this matter for himself; but he had a strong view as to the desirability of making this a sound system of finance. In 1877, if any one had proposed to settle the land question by the perpetuation of the then existing rents, the proposal would have been accepted readily; and the result would have been national bankruptcy. Who could say with confidence that a reduction of 20 per cent. on the present judicial rents would be sufficient to carry over the events of the next sixty-eight years? The system of decadal reductions was one of the greatest improvements introduced into the system of land purchase, and he deeply regretted that the Government had made this departure from that plan. He was strongly opposed to the finance of this Bill as unjust to the tenants, and, having regard to the vicissitudes of agriculture, as less safe than the system which had worked so admirably in the past. He would have wished to see the stock issued at 2½ per cent. for the first few years at any rate, whatever the price it would fetch, and the annuity fixed at 3½ per cent.
  MR. COHENsaid that the Chief Secretary had exercised a very wise discretion in fixing the rate of interest on this new stock at 2¾ per cent. This stock was to be issued gradually, and its amount was an unknown quantity. That fact in itself would operate against any undue rise in the value of the stock.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had heard with intense gratification the encomiums the hon. Member for East Mayo had poured upon the Land Act of 1896.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid that as he had received no support except from the hon. Member for King's Lynn he should not press his Amendment to a division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Clauses 26 to 39 agreed to.
  Clause 40.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 21, line 4, to leave out Subsections (1) to (6), inclusive, and insert the words '(1) Every advance shall be repaid by means of a purchase annuity, calculated at the rate of three pounds five shillings for every hundred pounds of the advance, and so in proportion for any less sum.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  And, it being half-past seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 40.
  MR. TULLYprotested against the abolition of the rent-charge. It was a large, democratic proposal for a Unionist Government to submit, and he complained that there had been no opportunity to discuss it.
  Clause 40 agreed to.
  Clause 41.
  MR. DILLONasked for some assurance that from time to time the Treasury regulations under this clause and similar clauses would be communicated to Parliament, in order that it might be seen that the tenants were receiving fair-play.
  MR. WYNDHAMthought that the suggestion was a proper one, and he would act upon it.
  MR. TULLYsuggested that some provision should be made whereby the tenant who had saved money, say in a good harvest year, might be enabled to
  1096
  send it through the Post Office in order to reduce the amount of his indebtedness to the Land Commission.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would consider that suggestion also.
  MR. HEALYpointed out that if a tenant had an exceptionally good harvest it was quite possible that he might like to pay 2½ yearly payments at once.
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clause 42.
  *MR. ASHTONsaid he was afraid the voice of the British taxpayer was "the voice of one crying in the wilderness," but he could not allow a clause which proposed to raid the Treasury to the extent of £12,000,000 to pass without a protest from an English representative. He had no objection to the landowners of Ireland being fairly, even generously, treated in the matter of the purchase money; but the purchase price to be offered by the tenants for the estates was treating them very generously. They were proposing that the landowners should get a price amounting to from twenty-five to thirty years purchase of the rental, which was far in excess of the general price which had been paid to them in the past. Therefore no one could suggest that the taxpayer was not treating Irish landowners generously, quite apart from this £12,000,000. In his judgment this payment was entirely unnecessary. It was said that it was to be given as a bribe to induce the Irish landowners to sell, but he saw no reason why the Bill should not have been made a compulsory measure. If that had been done there would be no necessity for this bribe. Why should this not be a compulsory Act? They had reached in this country the point that where they considered the purchase of any property was to the public interest, private interests must be over-ridden. That had been done in the case of the London Water Board, to which the water companies were compelled to sell their property at a fair price because it was considered to be in the public interest, and

  1097
  in the Act which governed that matter a clause specifically stated that no compensation should be given for compulsory sale. The same thing is happening in the case of the London docks, and the case perhaps was a better analogy to this case because there the dock companies had to part with real estate. He failed to see why special compensation should be given to Irish landowners when, in the public interest, it was withheld from the owners of the metropolitan water companies and of the London docks. He regarded this as the greatest blot on the Bill, and said it could only be defended on the ground that it was necessary to secure the assent of the House of Lords to the passing of the measure. He looked upon this compensation as a bribe to satisfy the House of Lords, who always looked after the interests of their friends, and he hoped the British people would recognise that this was not the first occasion on which they had had to pay a considerable price for such an anachronism in the twentieth century as that Assembly. He protested against this grant of £12,000,000, which in his opinion was absolutely unnecessary. He therefore begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 22, line 9, to leave out Subsection [1)."—(Mr. Ashton.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 1 stand part of the clause."
  *MR. CHANNINGsaid those who felt strongly on the principle underlying this transaction, and at the same time felt warm sympathy with the wishes of the Irish people to obtain a settlement on this land question, thought it only right to enter their protest against what they considered to be a wrong application of public money. A large share of this burden would fall on the Irish taxpayer. It would fall far more heavily on him than on the English taxpayer. He had voted two years ago with the hon. Member for South Tyrone for compulsory land purchase and sale at a fair price. But it seemed to him to be absolutely unsound where they were proceeding on a voluntary basis as in the present Bill, with all the credit of the United Kingdom behind it, that
  1098
  this enormous bribe should be given in addition to stimulate artificially these transactions. He had spoken on the Second Reading strongly against the pressing of purchase on terms economically impossible for the Irish tenants in view of the profitable working of their holdings in the future. He had protested then against the extra burden thus placed on Irish agriculture, and though the evil had been lessened by the wide and generous concession of the right hon. Gentleman as to bargaining outside the zones, the protest still held good. Now he had to protest against this bonus also. It was obvious the bonus would have the effect not only of inducing the landlords to sell, but also of inducing the tenants to buy at a far higher price than they would otherwise do. The amount of the rents estimated by the right hon. Gentleman in first introducing the Bill was £4,000,000, which, capitalised at the average years purchase contemplated in the Bill, meant at least a sum of £100,000,000 to be advanced by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. But at the average price under the Ashbourne Acts, eighteen years purchase, £72,000,000, was the actual market value of the land. With the bonus of £12,000,000 provided by this clause, and the excess sum of £28,000,000 given by the terms of the Bill in excess of the true market value, the Government were giving £40,000,000 in excess of what would have been given to the landlords if they had to part with their land under compulsory sale at a fair price. That sum of £40,000,000 represented an addition of about 60 per cent. to the value of the land instead of the usual 10 per cent. for compulsory expropriation. They were actually giving about six times the amount of compensation which would be given to an English landlord who was expropriated in the public interest. Of that £40,000,000, £28,000,000 would be paid entirely by the tenants of Ireland, and this £12,000,000 fell with wholly disproportionate weight on Ireland. Of the £390,000 in any one year, £250,000 was to be found by economies in Irish administration, and much of this meant a loss to Ireland. It seemed to him that the immense advantages which the landlords of Ireland got out of this Bill

  1099
  were such that they could very well do without this £12,000,000. Even if the total price could now be bargained down a little towards the Ashbourne level, it was unjust, and more unjust even to Ireland than to England, to add five to eight years purchase by means of this bonus. Most of these estates—those not included in the congested districts—had their "slum" corners—areas in which there was no economic rent whatever, and the whole value had been created by the tenants themselves. Yet we were buying out such districts as if they were English managed estates, and at enormously enhanced values. He had always supported land legislation for Ireland in which the principles to which he attached great importance were not violated, but they were now being asked in a thoroughly unsound scheme to guarantee to a certain class of Irish landlords, who, in nine cases out of ten, had contributed nothing to the land, a sum three, four, and five times more than they would get in this country if they were compulsorily expropriated from estates where they had made all the improvements, and very nearly half as much again as they would have got in their own country under a fair assessment of the value of their land. They all knew perfectly well that such proposals would never have been made or supported but for the fact that the Irish landlords exercised a controlling influence in another place, and were thus able to dictate the terms on which any Bill should pass. He wished to protest in the name of Ireland quite as much as on behalf of the British taxpayer against this proposal.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that if he were to attempt to make a comprehensive reply to the hon. Member's remarks, he should be driven to repeat almost all he said upon the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. Member said on previous occasions he had voted for a compulsory scheme. He would not take up the time of the Committee urging what he had often urged, namely, the extreme difficulty, if not the impossibility, of finding a practical plan of compulsion. He would not now be led away into arguing that point. The real point was that the House, on the Second Reading of the Bill,
  1100
  by a majority of over 400, in which all parties were included, had declared its readiness to support this voluntary scheme of land purchase, and an integral principle of that scheme was that a bonus of £12,000,000 must be supplied by the general taxpayer to meet the drop in the incomes of the landlords which was inevitable under any system of land purchase in Ireland. That was the great difficulty. The plan of the Government had received the general assent of the House. It was supported on the Second Reading by the Leader of the Opposition, although the right hon. Gentleman expressed at a later stage in the proceedings some doubt as to whether the first Clause would receive the unanimous support which the Bill as a whole commanded. He thought he might claim that that had not happened. As he could claim that the Government had the general support of the House in its policy, he did not think he would be justified in replying at any greater length to the supporters of the Amendment.
  MR. DILLONthought it was due to the Liberal Party that their considerate attitude towards the Bill should be acknowledged on behalf of the Nationalist Party. He was aware that many Liberals entertained the very strongest objections to some of the provisions of the Bill; yet their action with regard to it had been marked by great self-restraint, and great generosity towards Ireland. He had a sneaking sympathy for the views put forward by the supporters of the Amendment. He agreed that the landlords were getting too much under the the Bill. But there was no prospect of ending the land trouble in Ireland in any other way than by offering this inducement to the landlords to sell. Would they be worthy of the praise or support of any intelligent man if they rejected the offer made by a powerful Government to devote £250,000 to inducing Irish landlords to meet the tenants and put an end to this land war instead of continuing to spend that money upon police and prosecutions necessary to carry on the war. Was it not a great deal better to devote this money to such a purpose, even if the landlords did get too much, rather than carry on this land war for another twenty or thirty years? In

  1101
  conclusion he again desired to take this opportunity of acknowledging the generous attitude of the Liberal Party towards this measure.
  MR. TULLYsaid he had always regarded the Bill as a landlord relief Bill. The landlords were getting entirely too much under it. He would give some figures which had been prepared by one of the best intellects in Ireland. The Chief Secretary's estimate of the rental of the Irish landlords was £4,000,000. From that they had to deduct cost of collection, estimated at 12½ per cent., which amounted to £500,000: and interest on mortgages upon Irish land at 4½ per cent., amounting to £1,800,000, which represented the interest on £40,000,000. That left a net income to the Irish landlords of £1,700,000. He could assure hon. Members that he had got his statistics from the best authority in Ireland. From these figures it was clear that the Irish landlords were getting £220,000 in excess of the price they had themselves been asking for their land, and therefore he desired to express his protest against this Clause.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINpointed out that the Bill was voluntary, and a sale could only take place by an agreement between landlord and tenant. If the course suggested by his hon. friend were adopted and the bonus disappeared it would put an end to the Bill at once.
  MR. TULLYsaid he did not suggest that.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid that was the inference from the hon. Member's criticism. The whole thing would drop at once if they dropped the bonus. If the Bill passed without the bonus what would the result be? There would either be no sale of the land or else the tenant would have to pay more. They ought to do everything they could to render the position of the tenant as easy as possible, and the State came to his rescue in the matter with this bonus The tenant's position must be considered, because he had the hardest road to travel. The tenant after he had purchased had to pay for the land, and it should not
  1102
  be forgotten that he had to face the competition of farmers in America, who got the land for nothing. The hon. Member for South Leitrim had expressed himself unfavourably to the granting of this £12,000,000.
  MR. TULLY: No, no.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINrepeated his contention that if this bonus disappeared from the Bill the measure would have no effect in Ireland, because the landlords would refuse to sell. Coming from one of the poorest parts of Ireland he had no hesitation in supporting this grant of £12,000,000 to the landlords, because it was absolutely necessary in order to bring about a settlement of the land question in Ireland.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the next Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was simply a drafting Amendment, the object of which was to make it quite clear that the guarantee fund would not be responsible for any part of the bonus.
  Amendment proposed.
  "In page 22, after line 21, to insert—'(3) The provisions of this Act with reference to the repayment of advances by the Land Commission to the National Debt Commissioners shall not apply to advances under this section.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 43.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid he desired to move the Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for South Glamorganshire. He strongly held tint the bonus should be treated as an accretion to the purchase-money. It would be a perfectly legitimate transaction for the State to contribute some of the purchase-money for the purpose of bridging over the gap between the price at which the tenant might fairly be expected to buy and the price at which the landlord might fairly be expected to sell. But there were the gravest

  1103
  objections to treating this bonus as a bribe and paying it over to the vendor whether the land was settled or not. In cases where the seller was the absolute owner of the land it made no difference whatever, but in the majority of the estates which would come under the operation of this Bill the vendor only held a very limited interest, either as tenant for life, or in some other capacity. If a vendor obtained a bribe for selling property in which he was only partially interested, that bribe ought to go into the purchase-money for the benefit of the other persons interested in the property. There was not a man in the House who would say that was not the view of the case that any Court of law would take. He could not see the difference between a bribe given by an ordinary purchaser and a bribe given by the State. The State ought to insist upon the bonus going into the purchase money. As the Bill stood, the whole of this bribe would go to the vendor, and a landlord who had mortgaged his life interest and whose interest in the property was small, could, provided that he kept within the zones, make a bargain, not the best bargain, to sell and carry off the bonus. That was unfair having regard to the interests of other persons. If the man was selling his own property no one cared what bribe was given to him, but in the case he was putting the man was not selling his own property. He was selling in the position of a trustee for other people. His interest was to sell at almost any price in order that he might pocket the bonus. That was not a fair position in which to put the tenant for life. The Chief Secretary in the course of the debates had intimated that there were certain cases where it would not be proper to give the vendor the bonus. Perhaps his right hon. friend had in view cases of bankruptcy. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had said that in the case of a tenant for life who had a very small interest in the property it would not be right to give him the bonus. He was glad those cases would be excepted from the operation of the bonus clause as it stood. He did not think it would be possible to frame a clause which would be sufficient to avoid such injustices as
  1104
  he had suggested. It would be only fair to let the bonus go into the purchase money. He knew of only one argument which was put forward as a justification for this extraordinary novelty, and that was that the bonus would be an inducement to a tenant for life to sell. He did not believe that was a sound argument. If there were a case in which a tenant for life was unwilling to sell, unless he was allowed to pocket the bonus, he did not hesitate to say that it was better he should not sell, rather than this vicious principle should be admitted.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 22, line 22, to leave out Sub-section (1), and insert the words (1) In the case of every estate sold the Land Commission shall, by means of advances to be made to them by the National Debt Commissioners out of the said fund, receive a sum equal to a percentage on the purchase-money of such estate according to the scale set forth in the First Schedule to this Act, and shall apply such sum as follows—namely, they shall in the first place pay there out the expenses properly incurred by the owner incidental to the redemption of superior and intervening interests, the investigation of titles, the distribution of the purchase-money, and other like matters, and shall pay and apply the balance by way of audition and accretion to the purchase money.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (1) stand part of the Clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that some minutes ago he was pained, though not surprised, to hear some hon. Members opposite describe the bonus as a bribe. He did not know whether he was more pained or surprised at the opening sentences of his hon. and learned friend. He drew a picture of a private transaction in which a secret commission was offered to a man to induce him to sell his property to the detriment of his creditors; but private transactions had nothing to do with a large measure of public policy, brought in with every circumstance of publicity, and accepted by all parties in the House of Commons. That was not a secret or a discreditable transaction.
  MR. BUTCHER: I never referred to it as being secret. I objected to the bribe.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid his hon. and learned friend, as an Irishman sitting for an English constituency and wishing to

  1105
  see voluntary purchase succeed in Ireland, had supported the Bill as one who had the grievances of the landlords at heart. To-night he came forward and urged the claims of the remainder-men. He could only repeat what he had said before. What was the position of the remainder-man in the remote future if land purchase was made impossible in Ireland? If the Government were justified in their policy, which had received so much support, they were also justified in saying that the winding up of the present impossible and, he would say, intolerable position in land tenure in Ireland was a big public object. Take the case of a landlord who had but a small margin to live upon. If he failed to hang on he surrendered; and the encumbrancer, who probably lived in England, suddenly found himself the landlord of an impoverished Irish estate. The Government wished to save him from that unexpected windfall. But he did not think it was impossible to arrive at a general agreement on this. It was quite impossible to accept the Amendment, but he thought hon. Members opposite would see from the cogency with which this point of view was put forward that it was proper to make a concession in respect of the man who was deriving no profit from his estate. He thought that it would be only fair, though he should resist all attempts to put the bonus into the purchase-money as a general rule, that when an estate was so encumbered that the owner was not entitled to receive any part of the rents and profits the bonus should be added to the purchase-money. He was prepared before Report to consider an Amendment to that effect.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDmoved an Amendment providing that, for the purposes of aiding the sale of estates under this Act and "preventing improvident purchases by tenants," the Land Commission may pay to the vendor a percentage according to the scale in the first schedule. He said that by the last Amendment the hon. and learned Member for York, who had been regarded as representing the landlords, proposed to deal with the bonus in such a way as practically to prevent the landlords from deriving any benefit from it at all. The Amendment
  1106
  which he was now proposing would have exactly the opposite effect. This Amendment had been laid down by the National Convention in Dublin. The Committee would remember that the Land Conference based its Report upon the idea that the whole of the gap between what the tenant could afford to give and what the landlord could afford to take should be provided by the State, and their idea was that £20,000,000 would be required for that purpose. He regretted that amount was not forthcoming. He gave notice of an Amendment to the effect that the State should give £20,000,000 instead of £12,000,000, but he did not move it because he felt that it would be impossible to get it accepted. It was clearly the interest of the landlords and the tenants to preserve the whole of this £12,000,000 bonus to the landlords, and from the tenants' point of view his idea was that the more the bonus was the less the tenants would be called upon to pay, and that in their bargains with the landlords they would take into account the number of years the landlords would receive in the shape of bonus. If there was a large inroad in the bonus for the cost of proving titles, or for other matters, by so much would the tenant be injured in making his bargain. Therefore he desired that the whole of the £12,000,000 should go intact to the landlord. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 22, line 23, to leave out from the word 'and,' to the first word 'the,' in line 26, and insert the words 'preventing improvident purchases by tenants.'"—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the opinion of the hon. Member was that the expenses referred to in the words he wished to omit should fall on the State. There was no provision to that effect in the Bill, and the Government were not prepared to insert any to that effect. The financial arrangements of the Bill were arrived at after very careful consideration, and they did not go as far as the hon. Member and his colleagues in the Land Conference desired. But the Government

  1107
  had tried to carry out the spirit of the Report as far as they could with the facilities at their disposal. The facilities which had been suggested were not at their disposal, so that the effect of omitting the words would not be to throw the charges on the public funds but to omit an indication of some of the reasons which lead the Government to think that a bonus should properly be given. The bonus was not a bribe but a contribution absolutely necessary on many grounds, among others because these transactions were costly and did deter many landlords from selling their estates. The hon. Member wished to insert other words which would also be an expression of opinion. He did not maintain that the words which the hon. Member proposed to omit were more than an indication of some of the reasons for giving an aid grant or bonus; and he thought the simple course would be to leave out the words altogether and put nothing in substitution.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was very glad that the hon. Member for Waterford had felt able to move an Amendment of this kind. The basis of the Land Conference Report was that the landlords should get their net income. He should like, before committing himself to this proposition, to know what would be an improvident purchase by the tenant. "Improvident" must qualify something, and he should like some sort of definition from the hon. Member as to what would be an improvident manner for a tenant to become the owner of his holding. Did it mean that he was to give the landlord twenty-five or twenty-eight years purchase? He did not wish to vote for this Amendment in the dark. He wished to be told by the hon. Member what he thought would be an improvident acquisition of a tenant's holding. All through he had endeavoured to give as much support as he could to the general principles of the measure. They were now told that there was a rash method of land purchase, and that there might be cases in which purchase would be the height of folly. What were these cases? Was it sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, or twenty-five years purchase? Who was to be the judge of improvidence? Was it the tenant, the landlord, or the Land Commission? He
  1108
  did think it would be better if they could have a frank understanding in regard to this matter. This was not a frank Amendment. If there was an improvident method of acquiring a holding, the hon. Member for Waterford ought to put down an Amendment in that sense. He ought to tell the tenants what price they should give, and what price they should refuse to pay. He regarded this Amendment as one of the sham Amendments that had been proposed to this Bill to cover up the tracks of the Land Conference Report.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to leave out these words.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid there was no great objection to keeping them in; they were in the nature of a preamble, and they had no legal effect on anybody.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid it was better than nothing.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that the words which it was proposed to leave out stated that the fund was not a dole or a bribe, but was for the purpose of "making contributions towards the expenses incidental to the redemption of superior and intervening interests, the investigation of titles, the distribution of purchase money, and other like matters." Why, he asked, should the words be omitted which showed what the money was to be used for?
  MR. TULLYsaid that the hon. Member for Waterford had brought over this Amendment and Mr. Cherry to coach him; in fact he was cherry ripe. The hon. Member for Waterford ought to give some better explanation than he had done of this point.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid he hoped if the Chief Secretary was going to keep any part, he would keep the particular words which showed what this payment was for. If these words were simply taken out he would feel bound to call this a bribe of the most naked, barefaced, and shameless description; but if the words were kept in they showed that an

  1109
  inducement was given, and that that inducement was justified to a certain extent.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Does the hon. and learned Member wish to leave the words out?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I think so.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. and learned Member for York takes strong objection to that course.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: He objects to the bonus altogether.
  MR. DILLONsaid he thought the words ought to be left out. As to the hon. Member for York, he knew what that Gentleman's position was—he objected to the bonus altogether.
  *MR. BUTCHER: I do nothing of the sort. I am entirely in favour of the bonus, but it should be added to the purchase money.
  MR. DILLONsaid that he and his friends entertained strongly the opinion that the bonus should be dealt with as the Bill provided. He always understood that the justification for the bonus was that it would facilitate land purchase. He really was not very much alarmed at the threat of the hon. Member for York.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid his argument was that he objected to the words being cut out, because in that event the costs of sale would fall entirely on the purchase-money, which, he thought, was wrong.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that these words could not have any effect one way or the other. They were, as he had already stated, in the nature of a preamble. As his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford made a great point of this, he should like to give effect to his wishes and those of his supporters; but he would remind hon. Members that it was impossible for a Minister in charge of a Bill to accept a proposal at one moment and refuse it the next moment.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that the words in the Bill specified for what purpose this money was to be applied. If they were of no earthly use why were they put into the Bill? His complaint was that these words being in the Bill his right hon. friend, without discussion, calmly got up and proposed to chuck them overboard. In that the right hon. Gentleman was premature.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that so far he was guilty of haste.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDmoved—
  "Clause 43, page 22, line. 29, leave out from 'estate,' to end of line HO, and insert 'agreed to be sold within five years after the commencement of this Act a bonus of fifteen per centum of the amount of the purchase-money of said estate, such bonus to be paid upon the completion of the sale.'"
  This Amendment, he said, had been adopted by the National Convention. It was in two parts—the first dealt with the allocation of the bonus, and the second with the proposed limit of time. As to the distribution of the bonus, the scheme of the Bill had been by universal consent given up. The proposal in the Bill was that the bonus should be distributed in an inverse ratio to the purchase-money; but the general opinion was that the bonus ought to be distributed by a fixed amount all round, and that had received the sanction not only of the National Convention but of the Land Conference and the Conference of the Landlords. His proposal was that a bonus of 15 per cent. of the amount of the purchase-money should be paid all round upon the completion of the sale His second proposal was that the benefits of the bonus should only be obtained by landlords who agreed to sell within five years after the passing of the Act.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 22, line 29, to leave out from the word 'estate,' to end of line 30, and insert the words 'agreed to be sold within five years after the commencement of this Act a bonus

  1111
  of fifteen per centum of the amount of the purchase money of said estate, such bonus to be paid upon the completion of the sale.'"—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was unable to accept the Amendment. The more convenient opportunity to discuss the distribution of the bonus would be on the Schedule. He did not intend to adhere to the distribution set out in the first Schedule. The limit of five years was not the policy of the Government, and he believed that it would lead to precipitate action, and embarrass the financial operation of the Bill.
  MR. DILLONsaid he wished to impress on the Chief Secretary that a percentage involved a vicious principle, and would form a dangerous precedent. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the principle of a fixed number of years' purchase. As the Bill stood, the more the landlord got for his land from the tenant the more he would get from the State. That was most irrational. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had taken up a stand on the time limit, because he thought the time limit was essential. The Land Conference were unanimous on the point, and the Landlords' Conference accepted it. The almost universal acceptance in Ireland of the voluntary principle of the Bill was based solely on the express understanding and assurance that there was to be a time limit; and all those who were really anxious to see this controversy brought to a conclusion by voluntary arrangement should accept the time limit.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the Government were not rigidly wedded to the first Schedule as it now stood, and he thought, as he could not accept the Amendment, it would be convenient to adjourn any debate on the distribution of the bonus until they got to the Schedule.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that it was very important that time should be given to the landlord to make application. The
  1112
  Schedule was one thing, but it was upon this clause that they had to determine the time limit. He could conceive of nothing which was more calculated to bring about peace in the country than that the tenants of Ireland should know that a large number of the landlords had made application to sell. That could not be done by the Schedule, and he believed that it would pacify large districts. He thought that there should be a prescribed period, and that the Government should use some such phrase as was in the Act of 1881—that the landlords should make their application on or before the appointed day, so that there should be something hanging over their heads so as to induce them to quicken the pace and come in at the earliest possible moment. If there was no last day appointed for something to be done, there would be nothing done. Why, then, should not the right hon. Gentleman say that the landlords must apply for the bonus on or before the appointed day, and leave the Land Commission to settle the appointed day? He attached much more importance to the time limit than to the question of amount. He did not think that any of them were competent to decide the question of the amount. As to the manner in which the schedule had been arranged, in that respect it was a credit to the Conservative Party. If it had been put in any other way it would have been said that it was an effort on the part of the big proprietors to grab the money for themselves. But the schedule was passed so as to avoid that suspicion. No doubt it was a difficult task to allocate ten or twelve millions, but the landlords had not indicated any want of confidence in the Commission. Why not, then, leave the-matter in a fluid condition. The province of Connaught deserved, he thought, more of the money than any other part of Ireland because of its poverty. The poorer estates should come in for a larger part of the money than the richer estates. The Committee, however, was not competent to decide that question. The best plan was to leave it to the Estates Commission. It would be a mistake to deal with it by rule of thumb. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider whether the best way

  1113
  out of the difficulty was not to allow the guillotine to fall at the end of five or ten years.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that two years ago the demand made in that House, supported by the voice of Ireland from one end to the other, was for compulsory sale, but it had been agreed to waive the question of compulsion for the time being. The representatives of the tenants had loyally adhered to the bargain they had made, but they had, all the same, incurred a great deal of blame in Ireland. There were thousands of Irish tenants who did not hesitate to tell them, in vulgar language, that they had "sold the pass." They could only in reply refer them to the Land Conference. It was a strange thing that whenever that Conference procedure was in favour of the landlords it was freely quoted by the Government and by the landlords, but when it was in favour of the tenants it was coolly set aside. The Chief Secretary talked about adhering to the spirit of the Conference; let them have a little of the letter as well as of the spirit. The Land Conference suggested that the bonus should be limited to transactions initiated within five years of the passing of the Act, and they must be done with the Conference Report if they were to observe the spirit of it when it suited the landlords, and were to ignore both the spirit and the letter of the Report when the interests of the tenants were concerned. He knew that the majority of the landlords in the south and west of Ireland would close with these terms, but they would not be a sufficient inducement for a large number of what were called commercial landlords in Ulster, landlords not of the old stock, but men who had bought the land out of profits made in trade. A time limit was absolutely necessary so that Parliament might be able to take stock at the end of five years and say what they were prepared to do. It would be perfectly impossible to allow a state of affairs in which three-fourths of Ireland would be under freehold occupation and one-fourth held under landlords. Let the Government accept a time limit for the bonus and say that to ensure participation in it sales must be initiated in
  1114
  five years. That would help them in resisting the demand for compulsion.
  DR. THOMPSONsaid he too was in favour of the Amendment. It was most important, and Irish Members were unanimous in the view that it was necessary. Perhaps the difficulty would be met if the Chief Secretary would accept his Amendment lower on the Paper to the effect that landlords should register their desire to sell within five years.
  MR. BLAKEsaid this was a subject of enormous practical importance with respect to the successful working of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had objected to any proposal which would indicate completion or anything of that kind within five years, on the ground that it would involve congestion of the machinery for working the Act. He, however, saw no difficulty whatever in setting a time limit. There would be ample time for the proper organisation of the machinery, and officials, when once trained to the work, would find it easy to accelerate operation. He was sure that if any increased expenditure was necessary in order to issue the stock a little faster, the House would not begrudge it. On the contrary it would willingly vote money to bring about a more rapid accomplishment of the beneficent objects aimed at in the Bill. The time limit should not be left to the Commissioners, but should be settled by Parliament. They ought to declare that this money was only for the benefit of those landlords who made up their minds within five years. With regard to the allocation of the bonus he thought the plan of his hon. friend was a great improvement on the Government plan. The purpose was to grease the wheels of purchase. Some thought the grease should be applied to the tyre, but if they wanted to make the machine go they must apply it to the axle, which in this case represented the tenant for life. It must be applied in relation to the difficulties and friction with which the wheel had to contend. The difficulties were the greater when the wheel had to travel over roads in the congested districts, and therefore more of the money was wanted in Mayo

  1115
  than in other parts of Ireland. It was the smallest and poorest estates that required the greatest amount of axle grease. Then let them use the bonus where it would do most good.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that with reference to the allocation of the bonus he had nothing to add to what he had already said. With regard to the time limit, the reason of the Government for not accepting it was this. The issue and management of a loan estimated to be of £100,000,000 was not only a vast, but a very delicate, operation. The responsibility for undertaking it was a heavy one resting on the Government, and they could not undertake an operation so delicate and so vast if a sudden inrush of people under an adventitious stimulus should mean that, instead of coming, say, for £10,000,000 or £20,000,000, they might have to come for £60,000,000.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We only ask that the applications shall be made in a given time. You can delay the issue of the stock as long as you like.
  MR. WYNDHAMreiterated that financial operations were very sensitive. A false report in the newspaper might prejudice the flotation of a large loan, and it was not the business of the great financiers of London to measure the exact result of 40,000 people coming in to subscribe their names. They might suppose that that might mean a great demand for money in excess of the forecast already drawn up, and, therefore, on financial grounds, and on financial grounds alone, the Government could not entertain the suggestion of putting in an adventitious stimulus in the shape of a time limit.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he fully appreciated the delicacy of the operation, but he felt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary had omitted to take account of the way in which this matter would work. He would go the full length of saying that, if the matter could be stated absolutely in the way the Chief Secretary had put it, the Amendment was impossible. But that was not the way the matter would work. Nobody was more anxious
  1116
  than he was to do justice to the admirable manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had befriended Ireland on this occasion. They knew that in him Ireland had a thorough friend. They were anxious that an immediate anodyne should be applied to the Irish problem. As a method of bringing that about they suggested that the tenantry on every estate should become aware that their proprietors were anxious to make bargains with them. There was all over the country an anxiety on their part to bring this question to an issue. Land purchase must, however, take time. The Treasury would not have to issue money at once. He was satisfied that it would not prejudice the issue of the loan if the Government were to know that within a prescribed period there would be an application for a given amount. The matter was absolutely within the control of the Treasury. They need not issue the loans. They could dribble them out according to the exigencies of the market. This was not a matter which would prejudice the landlords, who had met them very fairly in that House. He had been astonished at the spirit in which the hon. Member for York and his colleagues had met them. There had been no friction between them, and they were all agreed that it was reasonable to have this position arrived at at the earliest possible moment. Let them fix a time limit then. The clause said that the Estates Commissioners should be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant, and, therefore, the Treasury would be the commanding body, and the stock would be issued according to the necessities of the case. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not take up a final attitude in the matter now. The Amendment would make for the peace of the country, and from the English point of view, as well as from the Irish point of view, it would be much better if it were adopted.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that the representatives of the great majority of the landlords had already endorsed the demand for a time limit. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that in this matter he was listening not merely to a request from

  1117
  one party, but a request which had been endorsed by the representatives of the landlords as well as the representatives of the tenants. Surely it was a very serious thing for the Chief Secretary, if it could possibly be avoided, to deny a demand which was practically unanimous on both sides of the House. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to facilitate, as far as possible, the idea which they had in Ireland that under this Bill the landlords would be willing to sell and the tenants to buy. The Government ought to be glad that such a demand had been made, as it showed that there was a real anxiety on the part of those most interested that the Bill, when it was passed, should not be a dead letter, but should carry out its object, namely, to transfer the land from the landlords to the tenants on fair terms.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that he quite appreciated the financial objections which had been stated by his right hon. friend, and on them he would express no opinion Personally, and speaking for himself, he was in favour of a time limit. He had always held that this was not a landlords' question, but a tenants' question. The landlords in this House had practically no friends. The only way he was conscious of to buy friendship in this House was by votes; and the landlords had no votes. Therefore, this was a tenants' grievance, and the only tenants' grievance that he knew of that did not inflict injustice on the landlord. Looking at the Bill as a great State measure for the pacification of Ireland his private opinion was that the sooner it was carried out the better. He lived in the peaceful Province of Ulster, but he should certainly put in his application within six months of the passing of the Act. He could not conceive any landlord in Ireland who was of the same mind who would refuse to take advantage of this Bill. That there were difficulties in connection with the time limit he admitted. Five years was probably too short, as the preliminary negotiations would take time; and the fault might not be with the landlord, but with the tenants. The tenants might delay the purchase for various
  1118
  reasons, and therefore a five years limit would probably be too short. At the same time, it ought to be prominently brought before the minds of the landlords that there was a limit, and that they should make up their minds for or against accepting the Bill. That might be called compulsion, but it was not compulsion, because if a landlord wished he could remain outside the Bill.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid he wished to urge on the Chief Secretary, in common with other hon. Members from Ireland, the desirability of adopting the time limit. They all knew very well that matters would come to a point more quickly if there was a limit, instead of an indefinite period. There were no people more likely to procrastinate in coming to an agreement than Irish landlords and tenants, and the time limit would be a stimulus to both of them to come to terms. The object of the Government by this great measure was to improve the social and political condition of Ireland, and why should not they be anxious that that happy result should be brought about as speedily as possible. It might be said that some effect would be produced upon the Stock Exchange if Irish landlords and tenants appeared too anxious to avail themselves of this beneficent measure. Surely the inference from that was that the Government expected that the operation of the Bill might be indefinitely postponed, and that twenty-five years might elapse before the £100,000,000 was called into being. That was a very unreasonable attitude to assume to the Irish Members. What they wanted was that the Bill should be brought to a speedy trial, and that its results should be enjoyed by the present generation, and not be put off indefinitely. The measure, he presumed, was brought in with the real and great object of benefiting all classes in Ireland, and some time limit should be imposed. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was a very common thing to fix time limits in railway and other Bills; and nothing would be easier when the end of the five years was approaching than to introduce a short Bill extending the limit, if there were a great many estates on which the Act had not been brought into play. His own constituents were most anxious

  1119
  that there should be a time limit, in order to induce both landlords and tenants to come to a speedy agreement.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he himself was certainly not in favour of a time limit nor could he see how it would practically work. Indeed, he could not see how it would have any other effect than to block sales to the tenants, and for this reason. Only property to the value of £5,000,000 could be disposed of during the first year; and if all the landlords hurried up the whole operation would be blocked, and with the court blocked it might be twenty years before the landlord would get his money at all. He thought it would be very desirable, after the enormous expectations which had been aroused in Ireland in connection with this Bill, if some modus vivendi could be found by which the position of landlords and the status of the tenants could be somewhat modified. The difficulty was to find a remedy; but it could not be found by asking the landlords to give notice within five years. What the tenants wanted was to get possession of the land. That was the anodyne the tenant wanted. He himself thought that the time limit was wholly impracticable and impossible. He would rather move in the direction of Clause 36 of the Act of 1896.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNGsaid there was nothing distinct or feasible about the observations they had just heard. The Bill would not run in the North of Ireland unless there was a time limit; and he begged the Chief Secretary to introduce a time limit if he wished to see the Bill a success.
  *MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GOREsaid he approached this question not so much from the point of view of the landlord or the tenant, but as a member of the London Stock Exchange. He perfectly acquiesced in the desire expressed by hon. Members opposite that purchase should be carried out as speedily as possible; and he quite appreciated the first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford. He spoke as a member of the Stock Exchange, of which he was a member for sixteen years, and he thought the remarks of the hon. Member for North Tyrone were somewhat precipitate. The Stock Exchange was the barometer of the National credit; and his experience during his membership of that institution was in entire contradiction to the statement of the hon. Member for North Louth, who said that everything on the Stock Exchange was discounted beforehand. Sometimes it was the case and sometimes it was not. It certainly would affect the prosperity of the City to have a large loan hanging over the market. He would instance the War and Transvaal loans, which had greatly depressed the money market recently and had hung like a pall over it. If they were to have loans floated of £10,000,000, £20,000,000, £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 one after the other, it would be a very dangerous experiment for the money market here, and he believed it would render the procuring of money by the Government from time to time very difficult. It would also militate very severely against this Act.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that as they went on they would liberate a large quantity of money which would seek

  1121
  investment. The potential investors would naturally seek trustee securities. [Mr. RITCHIE dissented.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer shook his head; but, babes and innocents though they were, they knew what had happened before.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,)said they would not put it in 2½ per cents.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he spoke humbly in this matter, but it must be remembered that there would be, not only landlords, remembered, and so forth, but great societies, insurance companies, and Trinity College, to whom security was a necessity. They would not only have 2½ per cent. on their sales, but they would have the bonus in addition. He thought what would happen would be what had occurred when Mr. Goschen's conversion scheme and previous conversion schemes were carried out, namely, that there would be a vast volume of money seeking investment and finding it not They would be driven to come upon the market and buy up this stock. The Government had the matter entirely in their own hands; they could issue the stock as they pleased and when they pleased; and, having regard to the effect it must have on the peace of the country, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would further consider this matter.
  MR. MURPHYassured the hon. Member for South Tyrone that all the estates in the South of Ireland would not come in unless there was a time limit. He also pointed out that the fixed percentage of distribution in the matter of the bonus would work very unfairly as between various counties. Taking the case of a £2,000 rental in Kildare, he contended
  1122
  that a landlord would be able to get five years more purchase than a landlord in Kerry, and his bonus would be £7,500 as against the Kerry man's £6,000, so that, by fixing the limit at 15 per cent. all round, the tenant in the poorer districts would be placed in a most unfair position.
  MR. FLAVINfelt that this question was a most important one. Unless a time limit were inserted the men in the poorer districts of Ireland, who had been debarred from the benefits of past land legislation, would continue to be debarred from them for another ten or fifteen years. The object of all parties in the House was to secure peace as far as the agrarian struggle was concerned, but if the Irish Members were forced to go back and tell these men that they must wait for years longer, that object would be frustrated. They would carry the land war on to the end if necessary, but they preferred peace, and he appealed to the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider their decision.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he had heard nothing in the debate to convince him that there were any serious objections to a time limit Five years might possibly be too short, but that there ought to be a limit of some sort was the unanimous opinion of representatives from all parts of Ireland. He hoped the Government would not refuse this important concession. They all desired this Bill to settle the land question, but if its operation was to be put off from year to year its benefits would be frittered away, new causes of agitation might spring up, and from that point of view it was desirable that a time limit should be fixed. He felt sure that the financial

  1123
  difficulties, if there were such, could be overcome.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid it was evident from the debate that landlords and tenants were absolutely united on the question; and it would be a great misfortune if the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make a concession to that feeling. He would withdraw his Amendment if there was a promise given that the matter would be reconsidered on the Report stage.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that opportunity for consideration should be afforded by reporting Progress. He pointed out that possibly a way out of the difficulty might be found by distributing the bonus on a graduated system according to the speed with which landlords made their application.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he would not offer any opposition to the proposal to report Progress, but it must not be supposed that there was any intention to agree to the time limit. Having regard to the interests of British credit and British taxpayers he felt bound to associate himself with what his right hon. friend had said in deprecation of any unnatural stimulus of the kind. The Government had met the demands made upon them in a broad and liberal spirit, feeling that it was well to do so with hope for the restoration of peace and quiet in Ireland. Feeling this fully, he still felt it would be unwise, in the interest of British credit as well as in the interest of the Bill, to risk disturbing the financial basis upon which the Bill rested—the raising of money at 2 per cent. It would not be to the interest of British credit that they should
  1124
  be called upon by some unnatural stimulus to go to the money market for large sums of money. They had before them the probability of having to raise considerable sums for other purposes, and to add this would be detrimental to the working of the Bill itself. If money could not be raised at 2¾ per cent. the Bill would not work. As far as he was concerned, speaking as the representative of the British taxpayer and of British credit, and also in the interests of the Bill, he could not hold out any hope that the Government could consent to any proposal which would give an unnatural stimulus to land purchase in Ireland.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again"—(Mr. T. M. Healy)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  BANKERS' (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Debate arising.
  MR. CALDWELLcomplained that an enormous amount of pressure had been brought to bear in order to obtain the passing of the Bill practically without discussion. The measure was being promoted in the interests practically of the Bank of Ireland.
  And it being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.