Sitting of 30 June 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and, being returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills [See page 897].

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDTNG ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into and which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz., Mid Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords]. Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO NOT COMPLIED WITH.)
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading there f, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into and which are applicable thereto have not been complied with, viz.,—
  North Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill [Lords]. Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Ipswich Gas Bill, Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  King's College, London, Bill [Lords], read the third time, and passed without Amendment.
  Scunthorpe Urban District Water Bill [Lords], read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Poole and District Electric Traction Bill [Lords], read a second time, and committed.
  Hove, Worthing, and District Tramways Bill [Lords] (by Order), read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill—Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (East Ham, &c.) Bill [Lords], read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill, Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, read the third time, and passed.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords], read a second time, and committed.
  South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords], reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

  1. "That, in the case of the Chatham and District Light Railways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  2. "That, in the case of the Maryport Harbour Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Clauses 62 and 63 be struck out of the Bill: That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  3. "That, in the case of the Salford Corporation Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:
  908
  That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  4. "That, in the case of the Jewish Colonisation Association Bill [Lords], Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of the Petition of Israel Zangwill against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with."

  First three Resolutions agreed to.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Salford Corporation Bill [Lords]; Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill to be read a second time.
  Chatham and District Light Railways Bill [Lords]; Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill to be read a second time.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to vest the estate of Lochnell, in the county of Argyll, in trustees for certain purposes, with power of sale and other powers." [Lochnell Estate Bill [Lords].]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Portsmouth Street Tramways Company to construct new tramways in the urban districts of Gosport and Alverstoke and of Fareham, in the county of Southampton; to work such new tramways; and to adapt the existing tramways of that Company in the urban district of Gosport and Alverstoke for working by electrical or other mechanical power; and for other purposes." [Gosport, Fareham and Cosham Tramways Bill [Lords], now "Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [Lords]."]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Manchester with reference to tramways and streets and otherwise for the better local government and improvement of the city; to extend the city; and to make further provision with

  909
  reference to the borrowing powers of the corporation; and for other purposes." [Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal Section 17 of the West Bromwich Corporation Act, 1900, and Section 4 of the West Bromwich Improvement Amendment Act, 1865, and to enact other provisions in lieu thereof; and for other purposes." West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Lochnell Estate Bill [Lords]; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [Lords]; Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords]; West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Eastry, against; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petition from Outfield Colliery, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES.
  Petition from Aikton, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petitions against: from the Scottish Temperance Legislation Board; and Helsby; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from the Scottish Temperance Legislation Board; and Helsby; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Cowdenbeath, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Edinburgh; Aikton; and Wigton; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petition from Rochdale, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition from Outfield Colliery, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (REGULATIONS.)
  Copy presented, of Amended Regulations made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the management and discipline of the Church Army Newdigate Farm Home, Surrey [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
  Copy presented, of Eighty-first Report of the Commissioners, dated 30th June 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 232.]
  PUBLIC WORKS LOAN BOARD.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-eighth Annual Report (for 1902–3), with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 233.]
  ISLE OF MAN.
  Account presented, of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1903, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 234.]
  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS.)
  Copy presented, of the Postal Order (Inland) Regulations, 1903, dated 30th June, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of Papers relating to the Inter-Colonial Council, South Africa, Order in Council, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL.)
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 388 (Wei-hai-Wei, Annual Report for 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CONDITION OF TRADE AND PEOPLE.
  Return ordered, "for the United Kingdom for each of the years 1801,

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  20

  21

  22

  23

  24

  25

  26

  27

  28

  29

  30

  31

  32

  33

  34

  35

  36

  37

  38

  39

  Year.

  Population (millions).

  Death Rate, per thousand.

  Birth Rate, per thousand.

  Paupers, total, indoor and outdoor.

  Emigrants, total numbers.

  Corn, average price per quarter of 480 lbs.

  Beef, average price.

  Foreign grain, corn, and flour imports, total value.

  Foreign meat, alive and dead, imports, total value.

  Food Imports, total value.

  Food Imports from Colonies and British Possessions, total value.

  Food Imports per head of population, total value.

  Corn, Home grown and Foreign, total retained for Home consumption (million cwts.).

  Corn consumption per head of population (cwts.).

  Persons employed in textile factories, woollen and cotton, total.

  Textile manufactures, total production.

  Textiles retained for Home consumption, total.

  Iron and steel manufactures, total production.

  Iron and steel manufactures retained for Home consumption, total.

  Exports, total value.

  Exports, British and Irish produce and manufactures, total value.

  Imports, total value.

  Total Trade, value.

  Trade, total per head of population, value.

  Fish landed, total value.

  Income Tax, yield of each penny.

  Income Tax, gross Incomes brought under review, total.

  Income Tax, persons or firms assessed, total number.

  Income from trades and professions (Schedule D), total.

  Profits from Houses (Schedule A), total.

  Profits from Colonial and Foreign securities, total.

  Post Office and Trustee Savings Bank deposits, total.

  British shipping, total tonnage.

  British shipping, tonnage entered and cleared in the United Kingdom, total.

  Foreign shipping, tonnage entered and cleared in the United Kingdom, total.

  Bankers' Clearing House Returns, total.

  Capital value of personal property charged with Death Duties, total.

  Deposits of Friendly Societies, total.

  A 1801

  B 1811

  C 1821

  D 1831

  E 1841

  F 1851

  G 1861

  H 1871

  I 1881

  J 1891

  K 1901

  L 1902

  —(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Transvaal Loan.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the precise nature of the undertaking on the part of certain persons connected with the mining industry in the Transvaal to subscribe £10,000,000 to the loan of £30,000,000 that is to be issued by the Transvaal Government to meet its share of the expenses of the late war; is this undertaking such as can be
  1811, 1821, 1831, 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, and 1902, in the following form:—
  enforced by law; is it assumed by individuals or firms who each subscribe for a certain proportion of the £10,000,000; is it in this case joint and several; will he lay upon the Table of the House the names of the contracting firms or individuals; is there any date specified before which the loan will be issued; is the Transvaal paying at present interest on the £30,000,000; will he take care that a large amount of the proceeds of the £35,000,000 loan guaranteed by this country will be retained by the Treasury until the £30,000,000 loan has been

  913
  issued, and the proceeds of the issue been paid into the Treasury, in order to ensure to some extent this country not being losers by the £30,000,000 loan not being subscribed; and is it to be understood that the payment of the interest and sinking fund of the £30,000,000 loan is solely a charge upon the Transvaal, and that this country in no way, either directly or indirectly, is liable for such payments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I would refer the hon. Member to my speech of the 6th May last,† which gives all the information which it is desirable to furnish in the present stage of the negotiations for the issue of this loan. He will see that the arrangement made does not provide for the payment of interest to His Majesty's Government pending the issue of the three instalments. I have only to add that the loan of £35,000,000 having been guaranteed by Parliament for certain specific purposes, its proceeds cannot be applied in the manner suggested by the hon. Member in the latter part of his Question.

  Sanitary Arrangements for Workers in Herring Trade at Yarmouth.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the fact that the last Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories refers to unsatisfactory sanitary arrangements for men and women workers, mainly from Scotland, temporarily employed in the pickled herring and kippering trade at Great Yarmouth, will he consider the desirability of calling the attention of the local authority to the subject for the purpose of securing an improvement in the sanitary conditions
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question as the matter comes within my jurisdiction by virtue of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901. As stated in the Report referred to, the unsatisfactory conditions in question have been brought under the notice of the local authority
  † See (4) Debates, cxxi., 1522.
  914
  in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1901. And the factory inspector, in addition to sending formal notices, has conferred with the officials of the local authority on the subject of providing proper sanitary accommodation, with the result that satisfactory action is being taken.

  Application for Voluntary Rates at Liverpool.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that there is affixed to the demand note for rates in the parish of Liverpool an appeal by the churchwardens to the parishioners for the payment of a voluntary rate for church and other purposes; and, if so, whether he will intimate to the churchwardens that voluntary rates ought not to be applied for by the collector of compulsory rates and in conjunction with the latter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have made inquiry on this subject, and I find that the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. It appears, however, that the paper which is attached to the demand note makes it clear that the church rate is a voluntary one. I am aware that there is some objection to an application for a voluntary rate being sent out with the demand note for rates enforceable by law, and I have informed the churchwardens and overseers of my views in the matter.

  Maintenance of Roads to Shankill Camp.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, according to the estimate of the county surveyor for Wicklow, the cost of maintaining the roads from Ballyfolan leading to the military camp at Shankill will be £88 16s. per year as compared with £7 8s., the annual cost of maintaining the roads previous to the establishment of the camp; and whether, seeing the amount received by the local council in lieu of rates upon War Department property for the last four years was in 1900 £9 16s. 8d., in 1901 £17 4s. 2d., in 1902 £11 14s. 3d., and in 1903 £9 8s. 7d., and that under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, Section 27

  915
  (2), the expenditure on these roads is limited to sixpence per perch, being the former average cost thereof, the War Department will increase their contribution to meet the increased expenditure for the maintenance of the roads leading to the military camp.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) Contributions in lieu of rates are given on the valuations fixed by the Commissioner of Valuation for Ireland. The land on which this camp is situate being chiefly mountain land the valuation is low, and consequently the contribution in lieu of rates is low. It is not now the practice to make, in addition to the ordinary contribution in lieu of rates, additional grants out of the rates Vote in cases in which the military traffic appears to be exceptional. Such grants are now made, if at all, from Army funds.

  London County Council By-Law relating to Vehicles.
  MR. CAUSTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any further communication from the London County Council respecting the proposed by-law in relation to vehicles, or if he is aware that the London County Council has not seen its way to arrange the suggested conference between the parties interested; and if he will now receive a deputation on the subject or take steps to bring about a conference between the responsible officers of the council and those concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I have received a letter from the London County Council, in which it is stated that the Council do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the suggested conference. The same letter, however, contains an explanation of the intention of the proposed by-law, which leads me to hope that its terms can be so modified as to carry out the intention, and at the same time meet the objections which have been taken to it. I am about to communicate with the railway companies and other van owners on the subject.

  Increase in Vivisection.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention
  916
  has been drawn to the increase during the past year in the number of experiments on living animals, and also in the number of licensed vivisectors, as shown in the recent Parliamentary Return of Experiments on Living Animals; and, if so, whether he is able to state the reason of such increase.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) There is no doubt a real increase such as the hon. Member indicates, but the figures as to the number of licencees are swollen by the fact that, as explained in the second paragraph of the Report which prefaces the Return in question, a change has been made in the date at which licences expire—viz., 28th February has been substituted for 31st December. The table for 1902 contains, therefore, in addition to the normal number, the names of thirty-four licencees whose licences expired on 28th February in that year and were not renewed. Apart from this, the increase is due to the natural growth and development of the important subjects of physiology, pathology, and hygiene; and the increase in the number of experiments is almost entirely in the class of experiments included in Table III. (b)—viz., inoculations and the like, and more particularly in the experiments performed for the preparation of remedies and on behalf of various public authorities. The increase, eighty-one, in the number of experiments included in Table III. (a) is almost entirely accounted for by injections for the diagnosis of rabies having been seventy more in 1902 than in 1901.

  King's Birthday—Holiday for Instrument Room Staff of Central Telegraph Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the Engineering Branch of the Telegraph Department Central Telegraphs was given a holiday for the King's birthday celebration, while the staff in the instrument rooms were compelled to work on this day, in order to secure uniformity of treatment, a compensatory day will be granted to the latter section of telegraph employees.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) My hon. friend's Question is based on a misapprehension. It has never been

  917
  the practice to grant a holiday in the Central Telegraph Office on the occasion in question, and no general holiday was given to the engineers working in that office on Friday last.

  Amalgamation of Unions, Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commission, appointed to inquire regarding amalgamation of workhouses in Ireland, and the question of whether any administrative changes are desirable, will consider the cases of forty unions in Ireland which are situate in two counties, and thirteen unions which are situate in three counties, or whether the case of the Londonderry Union, which is situate in counties Londonderry and Donegal, is the only

  Land Judge's Court (Estates),—Return showing—

  1898.

  1899.

  1900.

  1901.

  1902.

  Gross nominal annual rental of the estates in the Irish Land Judges Court during the past five years

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Expenditure on same, including Receiver's fees, Law expenses, and all other outgoings

  -

  -

  Balance showing actual net receipts

  -

  -

  -

  Percentage of reduction upon nominal rental

  -

  -

  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that the preparation of the proposed Return would entail such a protracted investigation of the records of the Receiver Department as would seriously militate against the transaction of the ordinary business of the Land Judge's Court. The Land Judge is unable, in the circumstances, to undertake the preparation of the Return.

  Honorary Rank for Long-Service Volunteer Quartermasters.
  COLONEL SADLER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will favourably consider the claims of long-service Volunteer quartermasters to honorary rank in the same way and on the same terms of service as it is granted to quartermasters and others in Army Order 37 of March 1903.
  one to be inquired into by the Commission in regard to suggested alterations of union boundaries.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It will be open to the Commission to inquire into all cases in which alterations of union boundaries have been suggested. Londonderry has been selected as the venue for the first country sitting of the Commission.

  Land Judge's Court (Estates) Return.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return relating to Land Judge's Court (Estates) which appears upon to-day's Paper.
  The Return referred to is as follows:—
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Volunteer quartermasters already obtain the honorary rank of captain after ten years service on the same terms as the Regular quartermasters. The grant of honorary rank of major was intended to meet the case of a very deserving class of officer who have to serve in all climates and under all conditions. My hon. and gallant friend will, I think, admit that the Volunteer officer does not come under the same conditions.

  Clothing and Food sent to South Africa during 1901–2.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the value of the clothing and food supplies approximately sent to South Africa for the use of the troops in 1901–2.

  919
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The total value of the clothing and food supplies sent to South Africa in 1901–2 was about £9,500,000.

  Tinned Meats destroyed at Pretoria.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the quantities of the tinned meats destroyed at Pretoria supplied by each of the various firms.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) These quantities will be shown in the Papers which will shortly be laid.

  Coal Exported for Use of Royal Navy.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total value of the coal exported from the United Kingdom for the use of His Majesty's ships.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold Forster.) The approximate value of coal annually exported, exclusive of freight, etc., is about £500,000. This includes supplies obtained through contractors at ports abroad, but excludes coal taken in bunkers of His Majesty's ships from home ports.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Army Recruiting.
  MR. GUEST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many recruits have been enlisted since 18th March, 1903, for the infantry of the line and for other arms; how many were specials or under the age of eighteen; and in how many cases a certificate of good character has been forthcoming.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Four thousand seven hundred and nineteen recruits have been enlisted for infantry of the line between 18th March and 20th June, 1903. Two thousand one hundred and sixty-eight recruits have been enlisted for other arms. Of the latter ninety-two recruits were specially enlisted; there were no infantry specials. Since March 22nd no man has been accepted without a reference. No recruit is knowingly taken under the age of eighteen, and inquiries are made when any recruit is for physical or other reasons
  920
  suspected of being less than eighteen. I should mention in connection with these figures that recruiting has been temporarily suspended during this period, for the cavalry and to a large extent for other arms than infantry as the establishments are full.

  Woolwich Arsenal—Regulations for the Manufacture of Explosives.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to sak the Secretary of State for War if the same rules and regulations are in force for the protection of the people employed in the manufacture of explosives at Woolwich, as in those private firms which are licensed by the Home Office for the manufacture of explosives.
  MR. BRODRICK: The general rules laid down by the Explosives Act are observed at Woolwich, and, as in private factories, these are supplemented by special regulations for the individual buildings.

  Permit to return to Pretoria—Dr. Beckman.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Dr. Beckman, who hag been appointed head of a school for higher education at Pretoria, which was carried on successfully before the war under the Boer Government and which it is intended to re-open under Boer patronage, has been refused a permit to return to Pretoria, although he had never taken part in politics; whether the permit to return to Pretoria has yet been granted to Beckman; and, if so, what was the interval between his first application to return to Pretoria and the granting of his request by Lord Milner.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have not received any complaint from Dr. Beckman, and have no information on the subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of Lord Milner?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to trouble him about the matter.

  South African Schools—Dutch Language Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the representations made to him by the Dutch deputation at Pretoria on the 8th January last, headed by Botha, De la Rey, and Smuts, and by the Dutch deputation at Bloemfontein in February last, headed by De Wet and Hertzog, that the arrangement by which a maximum of three hours weekly for instruction in the Dutch language, with a maximum of two hours for religious and Biblical instruction, through the medium of the Dutch language, in the Government schools of the Transvaal and Orangia was insufficient, and Lord Milner's declaration that South Africa will be a country of one language, effect will be given to the wish of the Dutch population that the limit of time for instruction in the Dutch language may be extended.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to modify the present arrangement which, as I have already informed the hon. Member in answer to a similar Question on March 18th,† is, I understand, the same as in the schools of the Cape Colony.

  Council of Malta.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the day on which the Council of Malta was adjourned sine die; and whether he is in a position to say when, in the ordinary course of events, a general election would have taken place.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The suspension of the Standing Orders was moved by the Lieutenant-Governor on June 17th, in order to again submit the Education Estimates. The elected members opposed the Motion, which was thrown out, and it is presumed that the Council was adjourned sine die on that day. In the ordinary course of events a general election would have taken place early in 1903.
  † See (4) Debates, cxix., 1098.

  Straits Settlements Imports—An Explanation.
  MR. SEELY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a White Paper (Cd. 1638) issued a few days ago in which the percentage of imports from foreign countries into the Straits Settlements is given at 65 per cent., with no comment or explanation, while in the Colonial Report for that colony (Cd. 788–30) it is given as 45 per cent.; and whether, in view of the importance of accurate figures being obtained on this subject, he will appoint a small Royal Commission to inquire into the actual state of the trade of the United Kingdom with the colonies.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a colonial question, and with the permission of the hon. Member I will answer it. The explanation of the alleged discrepancy is furnished by the paragraph in the Colonial Report to which the hon. Member refers, as it states that the trade with the Malay Peninsula, Sarawak, and French India, amounting to 19·2 per cent. of the whole, is reckoned as British trade, not as foreign. The Return recently laid includes as foreign all trade which is not with the United Kingdom or British possessions.

  Income Tax Abatement.
  MR. WILLIAM JONES): On behalf of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what were the amounts paid to persons claiming abatement on account of income tax during the financial years ending the 31st March, 1901, 1902, and 1903 respectively; and what were the amounts which such payers of income tax were entitled to receive during the same years.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,): The amounts paid to persons claiming abatement on account of income tax have been as follows: In year to 31st March, 1901, £348,933; in year to 31st March, 1902, £567,659; in year to 31st March, 1903, £778,731. The above were the amounts which such payers of income tax were entitled to receive during the same years. I may, however,

  923
  observe that these amounts do not represent the total relief granted to persons entitled to abatement. Such relief is granted in two ways: (a) by remission, and (b) by repayment; and the relief given by remission is some six or seven times the relief given by repayment.

  Report of Committee on Import Duties—1840.
  MR. GODDARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will cause the Report of the Select Committee on Import Duties which sat in 1840, together with the evidence and index, to be reprinted and distributed and sold in the usual way; and if he will do this without delay.
  MR. ELLIOT: I will arrange for this Report, together with the evidence and index, to be reprinted at an early date. It will then be on sale again, and any demands received from the Vote Office will be complied with by the Stationery Office in the usual way.

  Wireless Telegraphy for Lightships.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many lightships it is proposed to connect with shore stations by wireless telegraphy, the names of the lightships, and when it is anticipated that the installation will be completed in each case.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): It is proposed in the first instance to connect with shore stations by wireless telegraphy the following six lightships: the "East Goodwin," the "South Goodwin," the "Gull," the "Tongue," the "Sunk," and the "Cross-Sand." The matter is being pressed forward, but as the terms of the contract for the supply of the apparatus have not been settled, I am not able to say when the installation will be completed.
  MAJOR SEELY: May we assume it will be before next winter?
  MR. BONAR LAW: It is impossible for me to name a definite time. We are pressing it forward as much as we can, and hope to have it finished by the autumn.

  Gabbett Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the management of the Gabbett estate in Cahirconlish, County Limerick, is in the hands of the Judges of the Land Court, he will state who is the receiver under the Court; what has been the average number of years purchase on the existing rentals of the part of the estate sold to the tenants; and whether facilities will be given to the house tenants in the village of Cahirconlish to purchase their holdings on the same lines and terms as the farming tenants; and how soon may such a state of things be brought into existence.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The receiver over the estate is Mr. J. B. Barrington. The average number of years purchase paid by the tenants who purchased is eighteen-and-a-half. The property in the village named is no longer under the control of the Land Judge, having been sold to the incumbrancers, but I understand that the latter are prepared to consider proposals by the village tenants for the purchase of their holdings.

  Turf-Cutting and the Land Bill.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposal to regulate turf-cutting on estates purchased under Clause 19 of the Land Bill would authorise tenants of holdings to make hand-turf in cases where existing bogs do not afford the necessary depth for cutting with slanes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not find in any statute or authority dealing with the matter the distinction referred to by the hon. Member. The point can easily be met, if necessary, by the addition of a couple of words to the clause.

  Longford Labourers' Cottage Schemes.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the cause of delay in proceeding with the sixth scheme under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts by the Longford District Council.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Provisional Order in respect of this scheme became absolute in May, 1902; the loan was sanctioned in September, and the first instalment has been issued to the District Council. The carrying out of the scheme now rests with the Council.

  Congestion in County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received an account of public meetings of representative men in the county Kerry, held in Tralee in November last and last month, protesting against the neglect shown to Kerry by the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, will he say whether steps will be taken to compel the Congested Districts Board to do something for this congested district, from which the emigration every year is the highest in all Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The protests were made under a misapprehension of the actual facts. A sum of £49,743 has been expended by the Congested Districts Board on various schemes and works of utility in Kerry. The Board is always prepared to consider favourably any proposals calculated to improve the condition of the congested areas in the county.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not a single penny has been spent in North Kerry?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I was not aware of that.
  MR. FLAVIN: I shall call the attention of the House to the work of the the Board.

  Smerwick Dingle Pier.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board has inquired into the necessity for a new pier at Smerwick Dingle; and whether, seeing that the Union is wholly congested and the rates are at present 9s. 6½d. in the £, under the circumstances, the question will be specially considered.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board, three years ago, offered to contribute towards the cost of extending or improving the existing slip at Smerwick. That offer still holds good if the County or District Council desires to take advantage of it.

  River Erne Fisheries.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the representations made to him in reference to the preservation of fish in the River Erne, county Fermanagh, he will cause the Special Advisory Committee on Fisheries to the Board of Agriculture to take steps to protect and develop the fishing industry in said river.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Any written representations made to me in the matter would be referred to the Department of Agriculture. But I would point out that the duty of protecting the fisheries in the River Erne devolves upon the local Board of Conservators and not on the Department.

  Castlebar Prison Governorship.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the vacancy in the governorship of the Castlebar Prison has yet been filled; and, if not, will he consent to make the appointment from the ranks of the prison service.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The vacancy has been filled by the appointment of a Deputy Governor who was promoted from the ranks of the service.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in future, as far as possible, appointments shall be filled up from those in the ranks?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot give an undertaking of that character.

  Irish Post Office Savings Bank Accounts.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the present number of Post Office Savings Bank depositors in Ireland and England respectively; and,

  927
  seeing that the numbers in Ireland are smaller than those in England, and that extra delay is caused by the present system of depositors having to communicate with London and receive replies therefrom, he can explain the cause of the smaller number of Irish depositors.
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that acknowledgments and warrants for payment in connection with Irish Savings Bank accounts have to be sent from London at present, and that all inquiries have to be sent from Ireland to London to be dealt with, and that the system of keeping these accounts in London causes delay to Irish depositors, he will make arrangements for the transfer of the Irish accounts to Dublin in order to have the additional time taken in communicating with London curtailed as much as possible.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the system of keeping Irish Savings Bank accounts in London gives rise to additional correspondence, both written and telegraphic, between the General Post Office, London, and the General Post Office, Dublin, he will state the estimated cost of this additional correspondence; and whether, with a view to economy and despatch, he will arrange for the transfer of the accounts from London to Dublin so as to avoid this additional expenditure and delay.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Perhaps I may answer the hon. Member's three Questions together. The present number of accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank is estimated to be as follows:—In Ireland, 433,000; in England and Wales, 8,469,000. I cannot explain the cause of the smaller ratio of depositors to population in Ireland; but there is no reason to suppose that it is due to the slightly longer time required in some cases for withdrawing money through an Irish Post Office. There is a similar discrepancy in the case of the depositors in the Trustees Savings Banks of the two countries,
  928
  who are not affected by this consideration. It is more convenient and more economical to keep the Savings Bank accounts at one central institution; and greater facilities are afforded in this way for making or withdrawing deposits at any office in the United Kingdom than would be possible under the system suggested in the Question; I am therefore not prepared to take any steps in that direction. The cost of correspondence between the General Post Offices in London and Dublin about savings bank business is estimated to be about £250 a year; but the additional cost of dealing with Irish Savings Bank accounts by a special staff at Dublin would certainly be much greater than any possible saving on this sum.

  Evicted Farm—Contemplated Purchase by the Admiralty.
  MR. GILHOOLYI beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that the agent to the Clinton Estate is in treaty with the Lords of the Admiralty for the sale of the farm from which Cornelius Murphy, of Millcove, Castletown, Berehaven, has been evicted; whether he is aware that the rent of said farm was £36 5s., while the Poor Law valuation was £22; and whether, in view of the fact that in the Bill now before Parliament provision is made for the restoration of evicted tenants, he will postpone the purchase of the farm until the Land Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The Admiralty are in treaty for the farm referred to in the hon. Member's Question, but the details of any dispute between the owner and the late tenant are not within their knowledge. They cannot suspend the negotiations for purchase, as it is necessary to obtain possession of the land at an early date. The evicted tenant could not in any case be reinstated, as the farm will be utilised for naval purposes.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Will the money be paid to the tenant?
  MR. PRETYMAN: I imagine that any dispute between landlord and tenant as to the allocation of the money would be settled quite irrespective of the sum paid by the Admiralty under the law as it now stands.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I will draw attention to this matter on the Navy Estimates.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, in the temporary absence of the Prime Minister, what business it is proposed to take on Friday and next week.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,): The first order on Friday will be a Resolution in Committee of the Whole House on which the Naval Works Bill is to be founded. The next order will be the further consideration of the Employment of Children Bill. Next week it is proposed to go on with the Committee stage of the Irish Land Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the Government communicate to the House before Thursday the amount involved in the Naval Works Bill. Thursday, as I understand, will be the last occasion on which the Navy Estimates will be considered in Committee, and I put forward this suggestion in order that those interested may have a full view of the expenditure for naval purposes.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I will consult the Secretary to the Admiralty and give an answer to-morrow.
  MR. LOUGH: What about the London Education Bill? Is it to be dropped?
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: The London Education Bill will certainly be proceeded with, and full notice will be given before it is again taken.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the Chief Secretary for Ireland see his way to prolong the sitting a little after
  930
  midnight on Wednesday in order to dispose of the matter which may then be in hand.
  MR. WYNDHAMdoubted whether he was entitled to speak on this point. As far as he was personally concerned he would make no objection, but he would not like to place an undue strain on hon. Gentlemen behind him.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Would it not be more satisfactory to take the Irish Land Bill on Friday?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot very conveniently do so, but the point shall be settled before to-morrow.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked the Prime Minister whether it would not be well to give some decision on that point at once in order that Members might know what to expect.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): If there were any chance of finishing the Irish Land Bill on Friday, I think it would be worth while making a great effort to bring about such a result, and, for that, the convenience of even the most important Member of the House might be waived. But unless some prospect can be held out of such a result I think it will be best to adhere to the original proposal.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Anxious as I am to facilitate the passage of the Bill, I feel it would be utterly impossible to finish it on Friday.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I hope the Chief Secretary will not entertain the idea of taking the financial clauses after midnight.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, I do not think we should do that. I understand the idea to be that if at twelve o'clock a non-contentious matter is under discussion it should be carried to completion. That point will be considered.

  AGED PENSIONERS BILL.
  Ordered, that the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on the Cottage Home Bill, of Session 1899,

  931
  and the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on Aged Deserving Poor, in the same session, be referred to the Select Committee on the Aged Pensioners Bill.—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  MR. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Town Councils (Scotland) Bill:—Sir William Arrol, Mr. Asher, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Crombie, Colonel Denny, Mr. Charles Douglas, Mr. James M'Killop, Mr. W. J. Maxwell, Mr. Nicol, Mr. Pirie, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Cathcart Wason, and Mr. Wylie.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [LORDS.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the chair.]
  Clause 11.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENto insert the following sub-sections at the end of the clause:—
  "(3) The powers conferred upon the Land Commission by Subsection 1 of this section shall extend to the repair and rebuilding of houses and out-offices upon holdings surrendered to them under the provisions of this Act, or the Estate Commissioners may, if they think fit, instead of exercising the said powers, make an advance to any such former tenant when reinstated in his holding for the purpose of repairing or rebuilding upon his holding, and for the restocking of the same, of such sum of money as they may deem necessary. For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression 'former tenant' shall, in case said former tenant shall have died, include his heir or personal representative, or, if no representative shall have been raised to him, such person as may be nominated by the Estates Commissioners as his personal representative.
  932
  (4) Such sums of money as may from time to time be required for the purposes of Sub-section 3 of this section shall be advanced by the Land Commission on the demand of the Estates Commissioners out of the reserve fund. (5) In case any landlord shall sell directly, under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts, to former tenants of holdings upon his estate, or shall re-instate former tenants in their holdings as tenants thereof, the powers conferred by this section shall apply in the same manner as if the estate were vested in the Land Commission."
  After the explanations of the Chief Secretary on the previous day he did not think a lengthy discussion would be necessary. There appeared to be an agreement on the main object—the only question was how it should be worked out. They were all agreed as to the desirability of reinstatement wherever it was possible, and they were also agreed that the Estates Commissioners should have power to facilitate friendly arrangements with that object. That being so, there could be no doubt that some small provision ought to be made to give the poor re-instated tenant, a fresh start in life. No one would dream of leaving them in the position of mere paupers, without the means of carrying on their business, and at the mercy of the gombeen man. Two or three points would arise in connection with that Amendment. The Chief Secretary had promised to try and find some words which would remove any possibility of doubt in the Irish law Courts hereafter as to the sufficiency of the powers they were agreed that the Estates Commissioners ought to have. Was the right hon. Gentleman now prepared with any suggestion as to that? The second point was whether the works which the clause authorised the Commissioners to execute for the improvement of an estate included advances for restocking the land. He feared that that was not at all clear, and he could see no reason why some specific words, such as were suggested in his Amendment, should not be inserted. The third point was this. As the Committee were aware, Clause 11 only dealt with cases where the land was vested in the Land Commissioners themselves, and gave no power for dealing with what he believed would be the great majority of cases, i.e., transactions that had taken place directly between landlord and tenant.

  933
  He could not imagine the right hon. Gentleman ever intended that there should be any such glaring inequality between the two classes of sales. If he was not prepared to accept that Amendment as it stood on the Paper, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, at any rate, not object to adding some such words as would make the new clause read, "The Land Commissioners may, where an estate or untenanted land is vested in them, or where the sale, as between landlord and tenant, has been sanctioned by the Land Commissioners," etc. No doubt, where an estate was not vested in the Land Commissioners, they might feel some difficulty about interfering directly themselves, and carrying out any actual improvements, but the object could be equally well accomplished if they had power to make advances to the new purchasers, as the Board of Works did at present. The words he suggested would answer the purpose, and give the Commissioners full powers to deal with the two classes of sales. They would leave no room for misconception, would settle the matter once for all, and leave no bitter memories behind. They all wanted to secure a clean settlement, and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be too punctilious, but would accept words which, undoubtedly, would remove a formidable obstacle to the smooth working of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 20, at end, to add the words, '(3) The powers conferred upon the Land Commission by Sub-section 1 of this section shall extend to the repair and rebuilding of houses and out-offices upon holdings surrendered to them under the provisions of this Act, or the Estates Commissioners may, if they think fit, instead of exercising the said powers, make an advance to any such former tenant when reinstated in his holding for the purpose of repairing or rebuilding upon his holding, and for the restocking of the same, of such sum of money as they may deem necessary. For the purposes of this sub-section the expression, 'former tenant' shall, in case said former tenant shall have died, include his heir or personal representative, or, if no representative shall have been raised to him, such person as may be nominated by the Estates Commissioners as his personal representative. (4) Such sums of money as may from time to time be required for the purposes of Sub-section 3 of this section shall be advanced by the Land Commission on the demand of the Estates
  934
  Commissioners out of the reserve fund. (5) In case any landlord shall sell directly, under the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts, to former tenants of holdings upon his estate, or shall reinstate former tenants in their holdings as tenants thereof, the powers conferred by this section shall apply in the same manner as if the estate were vested in the Land Commission.'"—(Mr. William O'Brien.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. BUTCHERthought the point a very important one. He was, he said, confident that on the part of landlords there was no objection to the reinstatement of tenants on fair terms, subject to the condition that no pressure should be brought to bear upon existing tenants to give up possession. He noted with satisfaction that hon. Members opposite had declared most strongly that they would deprecate any such pressure, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would see his way to clear up a doubt that arose on Sub-section 2 of the clause. It might be said the effect was to give the Commissioners compulsory powers to turn out a tenant in possession to make room for some other tenant. He knew that that was not the desire of hon. Members opposite, and he therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would add words which would bring the sub-section more into harmony with the wishes entertained on both sides of the House.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said it was clear they were all agreed as to their object, and desired to find the best method of reaching it. He had given expression to his own desire to make the section work without any chance of friction, and he would introduce words to remove any doubt that might be entertained in any quarter as to the meaning of the clause as it stood. He was clear that Clause 11 would cover the object, but he was quite willing to make it clear to the hon. Member for Cork. He was sure that the Estates Commissioners would not use the compulsory powers of the Congested Districts Act of 1901 against the universal opinion of the House; but if there was any doubt, by all means let it be cleared up. Having said that, he repeated what he had said before, that there was some danger, in fact very great danger, in seeking by a number of specific directions to arrive at the intention.

  935
  For instance, "advances for stock" were words used by the hon. Member for Cork, and the question of loan arose, and if transfer and rearrangement of holdings were not mentioned, that would raise doubts. Specific enactments would raise the presumption that the powers of the Commissioners were less than they were under the clause as it stood. In the first sub-section he felt clear in his own mind that no phrase could be wider than "the Commissioners may, where an estate or untenanted land is vested in them, take such steps to execute such works as may appear expedient for the benefit or improvement of the estate."
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Does the word "works" include advances?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid there was no limitation. The Commissioners would "take such steps." He did not think any doubt arose, but if any doubt could arise it could only be in respect to the object for which the steps were to be taken for "the benefit or improvement of the estate." The way to resolve the doubt was not to make the clause more specific, but to make it wider still, and therefore he suggested the addition of the words, "or for the use or enjoyment thereof, or generally for the purposes of this Act." Having dealt with one point he thought he ought to deal with the other. But if they removed the doubt on one side they ought also to remove the doubt on the other. He therefore suggested the addition of the proviso, "Provided also that the powers mentioned in Section 1 of the Act of 1901 shall not be exercised by the Land Commission unless they certify to the Lord Lieutenant that those powers are necessary for the benefit or improvement of the congested estate." He would propose the insertion of those two Amendments at the present stage, reserving the right of reconsidering their full legal effect on the Report stage. There were considerable difficulties in the way of extending the application of the powers to estates not vested in the Land Commission. The difficulties were so great that he had not yet attempted to grapple with them, and while he hoped that before the Report stage something would be done, he was
  936
  not very sanguine of success. The same difficulty arose on Clause 13 with regard to sub-tenancies and middlemen. It was very hard to use the authority of a public body and public funds except in regard to property which was vested in that body, and he would only be delaying the Committee if he attempted to do it. He suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment, that the Amendment he had indicated should be inserted, and that the Committee should leave to the Report stage the consideration of the possibility of extending the application of the powers to estates on which all the arrangements were made between landlord and tenant.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid that as the right hon. Gentleman recognised the undesirability of there being any inequality between the two classes of sales, he could not imagine there would be any serious difficulty in finding, some way of providing against it.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBheld that if a tenant was required to give up his holding for the benefit of the country or of the estate, he ought to come out better than he went in; therefore it should be considered whether the Lands Clauses Act should not in some degree apply in such cases.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that all these matters should be considered. It should be borne in mind, however, that these transfers were to be perfectly voluntary transactions.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 7, after the word 'land' to add the words 'or for the use or enjoyment thereof or generally for the purpose of this Act.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, after line 20, to add the words, 'Provided also that the powers mentioned in Section 1 of the said Act of 1901 shall not be exercised by the Land Commission unless the

  937
  Commission certify to the Lord Lieutenant that those powers are necessary for the benefit or improvement of the congested estate.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the policy underlying the Amendment he now proposed to move was that an asset ought not to be destroyed. An exclusive sporting right was an asset, no matter to whom it belonged, which, if dispersed, it was so difficult to collect again that it was really destroyed. The Government, therefore, held that, without prejudice to any other question, where there was an exclusive right it should be preserved. Where the landlord wished to reserve the right to himself he should be able to do so. Where the landlord did not reserve the right it was to be vested, at any rate for the present, in the Land Commission. The Government considered that a big Land Bill need not be overloaded to save rights of very little value, or of less value than exclusive rights. He begged to move—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 21, to leave out Sub-section (1), and insert the words (1) 'Where at the time of the sale of any land to the Land Commission or to tenants or others the vendor has, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880, the exclusive sporting rights, those rights may be expressly reserved by him. (2) Where such spotting rights are not expressly reserved the sporting rights shall vest in the Land Commission. (3) Where any sporting rights become vested in the Land Commission, those rights may be disposed of by them as they think expedient, having due regard to the interests of the purchasers of the land. (4) The expression 'sporting rights' includes any right of hunting, shooting, fishing, and taking game or fish on any land.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 1 stand part of the clause."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the proposal of the Government was a very bad one, and he disliked it extremely. Nobody was more desirous than he to see sport preserved in Ireland, and he agreed that a sporting right was an asset which if
  938
  once destroyed was very difficult to recover. In a great many cases it was useless to preserve the right on small farms, while if everybody was given the right, say, to fish, the subject matter of the right was really destroyed. The question was, had the Government done the right thing, and was this solution a proper one? He thought it was not, for unless they had the goodwill of the tenants towards the settlement all these provisions were worthless. The Irish were a sport-loving people, and desired people to come amongst them, and it might be a matter of extreme profit that sportsmen should come amongst them. Did this proposal give that incentive to the people? He maintained that it did not. This proposal was unnecessary, because the landlords could reserve those rights without this clause at all. So far as the law was concerned, there was no necessity at all for the provision which the right hon. Gentleman had just moved, which provided that—
  "Where at the time of sale of any land to the Land Commission, or to tenants or others, the vendor has, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880, the exclusive sporting rights, those rights may be expressly reserved by him."
  The question was, what ought to be done to tempt the tenants to give up rights to which they attached great sentimental value? The landlord should not be allowed to make those reservations, and there ought to be a specific reduction in the price if the landlord did make such reservations. The game should either be reserved as a whole or not at all. He suggested that the sporting rights should be vested in the County Councils, or if that was objectionable they should be vested in the Agricultural Board, and that Board might issue licences. He did not make that suggestion in any hostile spirit towards either the landlords in Ireland or in the House of Commons. His anxiety was that as the landlords might desire to live on their demesnes, they should have their own sporting rights, but they should not desire to eat their cake and have it. He would give them a right of pre-emption or first-letting, and he thought the Agricultural Board under Mr. Plunkett was hardly likely to do anything hostile to the landlords.

  939
  The tenants of Ireland should understand that this national asset would go in relief of their rates or in some other way to relieve their burdens. This was a matter upon which there was a considerable amount of friction. Questions of malicious injuries would arise as to the burning of heather and other matters. A match might set a mountain on fire, and it might be dropped by a gamekeeper in negligence. This proposal might lead to the leasing of the sporting rights to strangers who might not be resident in Ireland. There was a considerable amount of feeling on this question in many districts in Ireland, and the best way to get over the difficulty, in his opinion, was that the Government should vest those rights either in the County Council or the Agricultural Board, and the landlord would have the first right to lease those lettings at some rent which would enable the tenants to benefit by insuring that this amount would be placed against some local burdens which the tenant at present discharged.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid this was a very important question, because it must be remembered that this Bill professed to attract landlords to sell. He did not know what attraction they were offering by threatening to extinguish the sporting rights, or if the landlord was to be walled up in his own demesne. It was in the interests of this Bill that they should approach this question from the point of view of inducing the landlord to sell and to remain in Ireland. Whether the landlords remained or not very much depended upon whether life would be tolerable there for them, and whether there was sufficient scope for that energy and recreation which had made Scotland the rich country it was at present. Sporting rights were a great national asset, and anything that was done to diminish or extinguish that asset was not merely against the interests of landlords, but also against the interests of Ireland as a whole. He had put down some Amendments to the Chief Secretary's proposal, and he would explain his reasons for doing so very shortly. The
  940
  Chief Secretary's proposal dealt with cases where the landlord had reserved the exclusive sporting rights, and the effect of this proposal was to reserve those rights after sale. An estate was a sort of chessboard dotted with the landlord's exclusive rights, with concurrent rights, and with rights exclusively the tenant's. His contention was that they ought not to extinguish either the landlords' concurrent rights, or the tenants' exclusive rights. There were a good many tenants who had exclusive rights, and they ought not to extinguish them. The Amendment which he wished to propose was for the purpose of enabling game in considerable areas, where these various rights existed, to be preserved. If they did not do something in this direction, this great national asset would disappear. The hon. and learned Member for Louth said that, whether they had rights on paper or parchment did not matter, for they were no use unless they had the goodwill of the tenants as well. In order to evoke a little more discussion, he begged to move his first Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 5, leave out Sub-section (2), and insert—'(2) Where the vendor has a right, other than an exclusive right, to exercise sporting rights over any lands, he shall be entitled, within the prescribed time, to purchase up such exclusive right at such price as the Land Commission shall, in default of agreement between the vendor and the tenant, fix, and such price shall be paid to the tenant by the Land Commission out of the purchase money of the estate. (3) Subject to the provisions aforesaid, the sporting rights over the lands shall vest in the Land Commission.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment is not in order until the words proposed to be left out of the clause are struck out.
  MR. DILLONsuggested that the clause should be dropped. He did not regard the law as it stood as satisfactory at all, but it was not because he considered the present law unsatisfactory that he made this suggestion. If they examined the notice Paper they would find that the Amendments to this clause, of which notice had been given,

  941
  extended to nearly four pages. Knowing the enormous diversity of opinion on the question that existed in the House he believed they would see clearly that it was impossible to contemplate the discussion of this clause without setting aside some hours for it. If that were so had the matter at issue the importance which was likely to be attached to it? Even from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite was it worth the long struggle and the great waste of time which it would involve? The hon. Member for Louth suggested one course that might be taken. He knew that view was held by some hon. Members—namely, to transfer the game rights to the Agricultural Department. That was a course which he himself would resist with all his power. It might be that in some respects the Agricultural Department was doing good work, but he was not a great lover of that Department in other respects. The proposal that the Agricultural Department should have the whole country covered with gamekeepers would be the prelude to a very prolonged and conscientious debate from these benches. But after all what was the object the landlords desired to achieve by this clause? Under the present law, as had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, the landlords could specially reserve shooting rights. He was very sorry for it. He recognised, however, that if he endeavoured to force his view on the Committee he should probably be defeated. He objected to the present power which enabled a landlord to specially reserve game rights. But what more did the landlords want? The present state of the law was from his point of view very unsatisfactory, but he thought the landlords would not be well advised if they insisted on debating this clause, in consuming a great deal of time over it, and giving rise to a considerable amount of feeling. Although he did not for a moment put this question on the same level as the questions which arose on the first and fifth clauses, it was a question which somehow or other would tend to develop heat perhaps very much in excess of its importance. He shared altogether the view expressed by hon. Members opposite that there was a good deal of sham in a
  942
  discussion over shooting rights. Could anyone suppose that if this House tried to force on the people of Ireland any provision regarding game or sporting rights which the people did not like, they would be able to do so? Of course they would not. People throughout Ireland would kill the game if they put in this Act provisions which they did not like, and in that case the game would be far more likely to be exterminated. Every intelligent Nationalist would feel it to be his duty to go and kill as much game as possible in order to protest against the provisions. It had not been so easy to preserve game in the past, but would it be easier in the future if the landlords insisted on this clause after the land was in the hands of the people themselves? They could not preserve game in Ireland against the public opinion in that country. Therefore to force through Committee against the general opinion on these benches any provisions with regard to game would be disastrous to the objects which the landlords themselves had in view. He thought they should not arouse sleeping dogs.
  The hon. and gallant Member spoke of the enormous wealth which had been brought to Scotland by the existence of game. That was a kind of wealth they did not want in Ireland. He had spoken to English tourists in the West of Ireland himself who, with the best possible intentions, said to him: "Why don't you turn these hills and waste places into game preserves and deer forests and bring over rich Englishmen?" He replied: "We want none of your deer forests in Ireland. You have driven the people out of the good land in Ireland and your sporting people would drive them out of the hills and bogs." He was not a sportsman himself and although he was not an irreconcilable on this question of game, he did not hold the view that the future prosperity of Ireland was much tied up in this question. The fishing rights in the great rivers were not involved in this matter. They were different properties and would be dealt with separately. Under the present law the great fisheries were sold altogether separately from the landed estates. The real question at issue under this clause had reference to

  943
  small trout in the rivers, and, of course, the game that lived on the land. He said that rather than see any attempt to turn the West of Ireland, or any part of the country, into what the Highlands of Scotland now were, he would prefer to see the last head of game killed in Ireland. If the people of the West of Ireland got it into their heads that there was any such scheme hidden in this clause there would be very little game left for sportsmen. His advice to the Government was to drop this clause. If they went on with it they could not reasonably ask the Committee to consent to pass it in a rush. If they found on inquiry next year, or the year after, that the County Councils and the other parties concerned, could come to some agreement on the question, then they could introduce a separate Bill. It was a matter which might be dealt with in a short Bill, but to have a debate of this character in the middle of the Land Bill would not conduce to progress or peace.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman—and apparently it was the only suggestion made—was to leave things as they were. The result of that first of all would be to destroy what had been most properly called a valuable national asset; in the next place it would take away almost every attraction to live in Ireland the landlord had; and in the third place it would leave matters in inextricable confusion and difficulty.
  MR. REDDY: Under the Ashbourne Act have not the tenants the game?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he would answer that question in a moment. How did things stand at present under the Purchase Acts when a property was sold? The Land Commission was obliged to vest in the vendee the fee-simple of the land and discharge all claims. Prima facie that would mean the exclusive right to game for the owner. There were three classes of tenants in Ireland. There were the tenants over whose holdings the right of game was reserved exclusively to the landlords at the time
  944
  the rents were fixed. To vest the exclusive right in the tenants would be to give them a property which they had not purchased at all. The property was not theirs, it was their landlord's. They did not buy it because, it being reserved to the landlords, the conveyance was made to the tenants exclusive of those rights. The tenant at the time his rent was fixed consented that those rights should be reserved. His rent was fixed irrespective of the exclusive right fixed on the property giving him no right of game. Now the Government provided in this clause that the conveyance in that case should be made, giving the tenant that which he had purchased, and giving the landlord that which he reserved at the time the rent was fixed. The other two classes of cases were where the rent was fixed without any express reservation of game rights. That was a most confused condition of things because if the hon. Gentleman referred to the 5th Section of the Act of 1881, he would see that there was a kind of joint sporting property. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that land should be conveyed to the tenant with that kind of joint right existing. Yet if they vested it in the landlord they injured the tenant, and if they vested it in the tenant they injured the landlord. What they said in that case was that if the landlord chose to arrange with the tenant for money that he would give him the exclusive interest in that joint right, then they could carry out the sale, and the exclusive right so bargained for as a separate and independent transaction between man and man would be preserved on the purchase. There was one way of conciliating the tenant, and inducing him to acquiesce, and that was to pay him for the right. And when the landlord had once got the exclusive right, he could come the next day and sell it to his tenant. The third case was that of the ordinary tenant from year to year who had more extended rights. In the same way, they said to the landlord by this clause, "If you want the exclusive sporting right, you must reserve them, of course by paying for them, and when you have got the exclusive rights come into the Land Court and arrange the conveyance." If he did not choose to do that,

  945
  then the exclusive rights went into the Land Commission. Observe, this provision gave nothing to the landlord for which he had not paid.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: All three cases may exist on the same property and get mixed up?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid "yes"; and therefore he submitted that the only effectual way of dealing with the matter was that where the landlord had already got the sporting rights to preserve them, where he had not got them and wanted to get them, let him buy and acquire the rights. If he did not think it worth while to buy, then such sporting rights; as there were, were reserved to the Land Commission. Any other arrangement would lead to the utmost confusion.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid this appeared to him to be one of the most difficult questions with which the Committee had to deal. But he could not at all admit the argument of the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to forget that the very foundation of this Act of Parliament, when passed into law, was to abolish altogether the relation of landlord and tenant. As they all knew, the right of hunting, fishing, and shooting originated in the old feudal system when the landlord was the lord of the soil and when he let the soil to the occupier with certain rights reserved, either expressly or impliedly. But the moment the landlord parted with his estate, independently of this Act altogether, these rights were gone. And when the Land Commission now purchased a property from a landlord the latter ceased to have any right whatever in that land. He became as complete a stranger to it as any Member of this House who had never been in Ireland in his life. It would be an anomaly in law, without any parallel or principle, if the tenant who had bought the fee-simple of the land subject to the payment—not to the landlord bat to the State — of the purchase annuity for a certain number of years, was not the owner of the rights of shooting, fishing, and hunting.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that it had been decided over and over again by the Courts that under the Ashbourne Act the sporting rights were reserved to the landlord on the sale of the holding.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid that was under an express provision of that Act, which was not adopted in this Bill. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was most important that the game should be preserved. It would, he thought, be a loss to Ireland if the game and the fishing in fresh-water rivers were not preserved in some way or another; but certainly they could not be preserved by giving them to a person who had parted with the estate altogether. It would be better to leave Clause 12 as it stood—
  "Where any right of hunting, shooting, fishing, and taking game or fish on any land, becomes vested in the Land Commission, that right may be disposed of by them as they think expedient."
  That vested in the Land Commission this incorporeal right of fishing, hunting, and shooting, and they must deal with it for the benefit of the public and the neighbourhood generally. The only argument that could be advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth was that the late landlord would be induced to continue to occupy the demesne which he was supposed to buy back.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: And might be induced to sell the rest of his estate.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid he had no doubt the landlord would be only too anxious to sell. The thing would be to get the tenant to deal with the landlord. He quite sympathised with the hon. and gallant Member that he might be the victim occasionally of ennui in a remote part of Ireland, but that would be obviated at once if this clause which it was proposed to reject were allowed to remain as in the original ill. What would be easier than for the Land Commission to give a lease of the shooting, fishing, and hunting to the occupant of the demesne? He confessed that his plan would be that this incorporeal right should enure for public purposes, and that it should be vested in

  947
  some public body. He was no lover of Government Boards, and, like the hon. Member for East Mayo, he would rather it should be vested in the County Councils, who were representative bodies for public purposes. The County Councils might perhaps adopt the view of the hon. and gallant Member—though he hoped they would not—and turn Ireland into something like the Highlands of Scotland and cover it with deer forests and grouse moors. It should be recollected that under the existing law—a law which existed long before the Ashbourne Act—a tenant from year to year has an absolute right to the game; and it was only where there was a lease that the shooting, fishing, and hunting were reserved to the lessor.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid there were two important points on which they were all agreed. One was that it was desirable and necessary to preserve sporting rights in Ireland as a national asset. The other was that if they allowed sporting rights to be split up among a large number of small holdings, those rights would cease to exist. Therefore, it was necessary to adopt some means of preserving them. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to approach this question in the same conciliatory spirit which, it would be admitted, was shown by hon. Members on his own side of the House on more important matters. The hon. Member for East Mayo very truly said that more important matters had been dealt with in a spirit of agreement, and he thought it was not too much to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to approach this question in a similar spirit of conciliation. This was not only a landlord's question; it was also a tenant's question. It was necessary that resident landlords should have sport.
  MR. LUNDONsaid there would be no landlords.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid it would be most important that former landlords should continue to reside in the country and spend the money they would receive under this Bill in the country. An hon. Gentleman said that many persons who resided in Ireland suffered from ennui. He would assume that that was the result of want of sport. It was
  948
  said that fox-hunting ought to be sufficient; but there were many counties where fox-hunting did not exist, and it would be desirable to supplement that form of sport with shooting and fishing. What was the solution proposed by the Chief Secretary? It was a most reasonable one and amounted to this: that where the landlord had acquired and was in possession of exclusive rights of sporting, he should be allowed to keep those rights.
  MR. REDDYasked if the hon. Gentleman ever knew of a landlord having the right to shoot over another man's property.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid that a large part of the shooting in this country was over land not the property of the persons shooting. A very great proportion of the sporting rights in this country were exercised by persons who did not own any land. But, of course, in Ireland, as in this country, sporting rights could not be exercised without the goodwill of the occupiers of the soil. He frankly admitted that. The landlord who had sporting rights, and who was disagreeable to the tenants, he would even say who did not do his utmost to conciliate the tenants, would get very bad shooting indeed. What he anticipated was, that if the shooting rights were reserved to the landlord under this Bill he would take excellent care to be on the best of terms with his former tenants and to see that they co-operated with him in preserving the game. Therefore he ventured to think that the Chief Secretary's clause, so far from promoting bad relations, would go far to promote good relations. So much for the rights which were the exclusive property of the landlord. As regarded rights which were not exclusive rights the Chief Secretary proposed what had been proposed by two or three hon. Gentlemen—that they should be vested in a public body. The Chief Secretary proposed the Land Commission; the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken proposed the County Councils; and the hon. Member for North Louth proposed, the Department of Agriculture. Which of those public bodies should have the non-exclusive sporting rights vested in them was a fair matter for discussion; but if it was agreed that those rights should be vested in a public body it would not be difficult to agree as to the particular

  949
  body to be selected. He ventured to suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they would be doing a service to the Bill if they would come to some reasonable settlement on this matter. If any Amendment were necessary to the Chief Secretary's proposal it could be moved later.
  MR WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he thought it was a matter of great regret that the Government should have given rise to this discussion by introducing the clause, because, as far as he understood there was absolutely no need for it. At the present time there was perfect freedom as regarded sporting rights between those who bought and those who sold.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it would be absolutely necessary to introduce a clause to vest the sporting rights in a public body.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that was not the Amendment. He spoke on the matter as one who was most anxious that the game should be preserved as far as possible in Ireland; and it was because he was certain that if the people were given the idea that when they bought their land they would be deprived of the sporting rights there would be no game at all that he regretted that the Government had brought in this clause. It appeared to him that under this clause it would be perfectly open to a tenant to refuse to purchase his holding unless the question of the sporting rights was satisfactorily settled. The Chief Secretary in his Amendment said that exclusive sporting rights might be expressly reserved to the landlord. What was the necessity of that? If a landlord were making a bargain with a tenant he would be at liberty to reserve anything he pleased.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that it was necessary to insert a provision in order to prevent any previous arrangement being destroyed by the sale.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to ask whether it would not meet the case if a clause were inserted in the Bill setting forth that where land was to be sold the matter of sporting rights should be a matter of
  950
  agreement as between landlord and tenant. As far as he understood it, that was the law at present. He believed that it would be an easy matter to come to an agreement. The tenants were all fond of sport, and the great majority of the landlords were also interested in it; and that being the case, what reason was there for believing that an agreement could not be arrived at. They were about to trust landlords and tenants to come to an agreement as to whether land should be sold, and the price at which it was to be sold; yet, they would not allow landlords or tenants to come to an agreement between themselves as to sporting rights. It seemed to him to be crediting both the landlord and the tenant with a spirit of unreasonableness that they did not possess. In Ireland the law had not always been popular, and a great many of these troubles would never have occurred between the classes if the law had let them alone and had not interfered with them. He believed the landlords and the tenants would come to an agreement in this matter if they were not hemmed in by restrictions and reservations. If they said that the tenants when they bought their land were to allow strangers to trespass in pursuit of game they would raise very great trouble indeed in Ireland. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to leave the law as it now stood and to allow the landlords and the tenants to make a fair and free bargain with regard to the sporting rights. He hoped the minds of the people who purchased their holdings would be disabused with regard to this matter, and that they would be given to understand that they could stick to the game if they chose.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the policy of the hon. Gentleman was the policy the Government had endeavoured to express in this first sub-section—
  "Where at the time of sale of any land to the Land Commission, or to tenants or others, the vendor has … the exclusive sporting rights, those rights may be expressly reserved by him."
  If the hon. Member wished the law to remain as it was, and if this clause expressed what the law was, they were agreed as to policy. [Cries of, "No, no."] Then he

  951
  did not follow the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman wished to leave the matter where it was.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid matters as they were now were in a bad state they wished to leave them in a better state, but their solution was not the solution of the Government.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was a matter of law not of policy; the hon. and learned Member was entitled to express an opinion on the law, but the Government must act on the advice they had. They were advised that unless they could get some definition such as was contained in this first sub-clause, the matter was in doubt. The law as it now stood seemed to be that if the exclusive right was with the landlord he could keep it. They took no account of joint-rights in the purchase agreement. There was no attempt to collect them together and put them in. All they said was that if a landlord had created an exclusive right it could not be left in doubt, it existed as a piece of property; it might be worth £200 a year, and they could not leave property worth £200 a year in doubt.
  MR. WOODpointed out that it was a matter of arrangement between the landlord and the tenant, and the tenant would take into consideration the value of the sporting rights in the price at which he purchased.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that was precisely the position. They said the fee when conveyed should not cover that property, but that when it was not reserved by the landlord it should go to the Land Commission, but that if the landlord wished to reserve the sporting rights he should be able to do so by agreement, which was exactly what the hon. Member for Clare suggested. They only simplified the phraseology of the declaration which confirmed the desire expressed by all, that the landlords and tenants should arrange this matter as they thought best.
  MAJOR JAMESONsaid the whole principle of the Bill was to do away with those strange anomalies which they found in Ireland as the result of the Land Bills of the last twenty-five
  952
  years. If they did away with the sporting rights the question for the Committee was this: The sporting rights were one of the most valuable assets in the country. If they were to be vested in the Commission, let the landlord, if he desired, have the first refusal of them at a rental, to be paid to the County or District Council in whose district the rights were, to be used for public purposes. This Bill broke up Ireland into a country of peasant proprietors, and one of the dangers of a country of peasant proprietors was the wholesale destruction of the feathered kind. That was the reason of the phylloxera visitation which came upon the countries where there had been an indiscriminate destruction of the feathered world. He therefore agreed with the preservation of game, but he hoped the Chief Secretary would not press his Amendment in its present form, but would vest these rights in the Land Commission.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONcould not understand why there should be any heartburning on the part of the Irish tenants if this Amendment were carried. In many cases game rights were preserved under the Ashbourne Acts, and no feeling whatever was excited. Wag it to be supposed that if a landlord in order to reserve these rights to himself gave his tenant valuable consideration for them bad blood would be created? Nothing of the kind would happen. The idea was chimerical. The Amendment simply proposed an act of justice to the present proprietor.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that in the earlier debates the Chief Secretary and the representatives of the landlords never made a speech without referring to the Land Conference Report, but in this matter that document was being entirely ignored. The Conference debated the subject for nearly a day, and came to the conclusion that the sporting and fishing rights should remain as they were, subject to the provisions of the existing Land Purchase Acts.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: That is the present proposal.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it was nothing of the kind. The Conference, at which both landlords and tenants fully stated their views, found it impossible to agree, and decided the best course was to leave matters as they were. If on an estate a landlord had a shooting right worth £200 a year, that right was surely a part of the fee. According to the Chief Secretary the fee-simple meant everything; consequently, it would convey that right of £200 a year. But had the fee never been conveyed hitherto? The existing Land Purchase Acts conveyed the fee as entirely as the present Bill would do, and they made these rights a matter of bargain between the vendor and the buyer, the fee being conveyed subject to those bargains. The Chief Secretary said that that was what he proposed now to do. Why did he propose to do that which was already the law?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that on matters of law he must take the opinion of the Attorney-General.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he valued the opinion of the Attorney-General on any subject, but he was not bound to follow his advice. The less lawyers had to do with this business the better. This matter could be settled, not by the advice of the Attorney-General but only by the goodwill and friendship of the people of Ireland; and he advised the Chief Secretary to pay more attention to the views of Irish Members opposite than to the legal pedantry of any lawyer. He agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo that the matter should be left as the law now left it. When the idea got abroad that the Land Conference had given away these rights, he was deluged with letters of protest. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would leave this matter as it stood.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the object of the Amendment was not to defeat, but to preserve the rights of the parties, and to prevent them being defeated by the coercive force of the vesting order. There was not in the Land Code from beginning to end any provision whatever for the preservation of these sporting
  954
  rights. But it had been decided that notwithstanding the coercive force of the section of the Act of 1888—that the fee was to be vested in the purchaser—in those cases where rents had been fixed, and the exclusive rights had been reserved to the landlords by the order fixing the rent, the Judges had found themselves unable to make a vesting order under the Purchase Act preserving the rights secured to the landlord by the order made when fixing the rent. Hi sole object was that when the parties had come to an agreement vesting the sporting rights in the landlord before the sale, the legal machinery provided by the Act for carrying out the sale should not have its operative effect destroyed by altering that agreement in any way.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he always remembered the law when he had made it himself. The Attorney-General seemed strangely to have overlooked the fact, but the existing law was the exact contrary of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated. [The hon. and learned Member quoted Section 31, 32, and 34 of the Land Purchase Act of 1896, and the decisions based thereon in support of his view.] What did the Chief Secretary's clause do which the clause he had read did not do? Within the last twelve months the Government itself, in the case of Lord Dillon's estate, obtained a declaration from the Court reserving on the Dillon estate the entire game rights. It was common knowledge that the landlords had reserved those rights in the past. He did not like the existing state of the law, but he preferred the present state, because he thought it was better than the law which was now proposed by the Government. The Land Conference agreed that the existing state of the law should not be interfered with, because it enabled the landlord to make those reservations. Personally he would have preferred a different state of things to the present law, and he would like to have the sporting rights vested in the County Councils, but he thought that even the Agricultural Board was better for this purpose than the Land Commission. He did not suggest that the Agricultural Board would employ gamekeepers, nor would the Land Commission,

  955
  but if they would not vest the sporting rights in the County Councils, and leave the landlord to take a licence out from the County Councils, surely it would be best to leave the matter alone. This proposal was neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. He did not see why the Government should give way to the landlords in making this claim, for this was not a light matter. If, as had been stated, the sporting rights were a national asset, they were willing to take it away from both the landlords and the tenants, and make it a national asset. But the Government clause did not make it a national asset at all. It was said that the landlord might have made a lease of his sporting rights. Did those vesting orders he had mentioned enable that to be carried on as against the tenant? Was there any difficulty in making the tenant subject to a particular agreement in regard to game rights? With great submission he said that there was no difficulty whatever in this matter. If there had been any difficulty, how was it that under the Ashbourne Acts landlords had been able to make these reservations? Had they been all along in the dark as regarded this law?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid they did not say that there was any difficulty. What they said was that it was essential that the parties should see exactly where they stood in this matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALYcontended that the argument of the Government was that this could not be done. The Chief Secretary had stated that he had been advised in that direction by the Attorney-General. This was a matter of considerable importance, and he asked the Government to leave the landlords their present powers in regard to sporting rights which enabled them to make all those reservations. He hoped they would agree to this course, and let them pass on to the next business.
  COLONEL NOLANthought that all such rights ought to go to the new proprietor. He knew cases where at the present time the shooting was let by the peasant proprietors themselves. If they had a system of small proprietors they could not have game in defiance of them, because they could easily destroy
  956
  the eggs of the partridges and grouse. With regard to transferring these rights to the County Councils, he thought it would be rather hard to expect county councillors to be always going about prosecuting poachers, and as for the Agricultural Board, he thought they would find enough to do under this Bill without prosecuting poachers or protecting the game. He wished the clause to be so drawn up that no third party could come in at all. The new proprietor should purchase everything in the place, and no doubt some bond of friendship would exist with the old proprietor. Let the new proprietor lease back these rights if he liked to the old proprietor, but they ought not to a low a third party to slip in.
  MR. WOODsaid the Chief Secretary had told them that he was in substantial agreement with the representatives of the tenants in the House, and if that was correct, and if it had been possible to carry this principle out satisfactorily for the last fifteen or twenty years, surely it was sufficient now that they should proceed on the old lines in regard to sporting rights. So far as the Ulster tenants were concerned they were just as strong as they were in the West upon this point, and any interference with the right of free bargains as to sporting and fishing rights would be resisted in Ulster as strongly as in the West of Ireland. The tenants had been giving way at all times; the tenant was being asked to make all the sacrifices and the landlords were getting all the benefits. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to get up at once and make some concession upon this point.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid they all appeared to be agreed that the landlord and tenant should be allowed to bargain in regard to the sporting rights. They had been told that in the past these reservations had been made and that this proposal would make no difference. If they were all agreed that the landlords had this exclusive right, and that they would be able to arrange it with the tenants—of course getting a less value—why on earth should it not be stated in the only document dealing with this question.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid if this debate was prolonged the responsibility would rest entirely with the Chief Secretary. He was bound to say under the circumstances, that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that they were in substantial agreement upon this point, and he admitted that on both sides of the House there was an agreement that free bargaining should be preserved between landlord and tenant in regard to these rights. That had been observed in 80,000 cases which had already been settled under the existing Land Purchase Acts, and in the overwhelming majority of these cases the sporting rights had been reserved to the landlord. Therefore under the existing law there was no trouble whatever, as the hon. and learned Member for Louth had shown. There was no difficulty in vesting these rights subject to reservations agreed upon between the two parties to the bargain. The right hon. Gentleman said that his words were only intended to carry out that idea, but they were of opinion that his words went very much farther, and were unnecessary. He suggested that the Chief Secretary should withdraw this clause, and that upon the Report stage—after he had had time fully to consider whether any words were necessary at all, or whether their contention was right that no words were necessary—he might, if necessary, bring up words to enable this agreement to go on between landlord and tenant. Unless there was some other meaning in these words that they had not detected, there was no reason why he should not withdraw the clause, and leave the matter to be discussed upon some future occasion. Although he agreed with the Conference Report that the law should be left as it had been under the Land Purchase Acts, that was not his idea of a settlement of the question. His idea was that the sporting rights should be held by the County Councils and should be let out by them, and the money so obtained used for the benefit of the people. It appeared to him quite clear in Committee now, as in the deliberations of the Land Conference, that there was no probability of coming to an agreement on that point within a reasonable time, and therefore he waived his own view
  958
  on the matter, and was prepared to accept a settlement based on the lines of the Land Conference, leaving the matter perfectly open to free bargain between landlord and tenant in the future as it had been in the past. He asked the Chief Secretary not to be responsible for the prolongation of this debate. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment and reconsider the matter. The right hon. Gentleman would be free to bring up other words if he thought it necessary on the Report stage. When they had come to a substantial agreement it would be little short of criminal to go on wasting time discussing the matter, in view of the number of clauses which had still to be considered.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he did not think the recommendation of the hon. and learned Gentleman would accomplish the object he had in view. There were between twenty and thirty Amendments to the clause on the Notice Paper.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Withdraw the clause and then all go.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid hon. Members from Ireland should be careful as to how they withdrew a clause in regard to which there was considerable feeling among British Members. He did not see that the Chief Secretary could do more than he had done in explaining that free bargaining under the clause was in no way interfered with. What was proposed was really a way of registering what was called "free bargains." Those who were objecting to the clause could not get that into their heads. To show, however, that the landlords on their side wished not to delay, he was willing, if all the sub-sections proposed by tin; Chief Secretary were accepted, to withdraw the whole of his Amendments.
  MR. CULLINANsaid there seemed to be great confusion prevailing in regard to this matter. He thought one way of getting over the difficulty that was felt would be to omit the clause altogether when it was admitted that in selling to the tenant

  959
  the fee of his holding the landlord sold all the right he had Why not allow the tenant to buy all? Every time the Attorney-General had spoken he had described the game as a great national asset, but, as a matter of fact, it was a landlord asset. A price which was regarded on these benches as liberal, and even extravagant, was being given to the landlords for their land, and yet they wanted to got tagged on to that another asset in the shape of game. He personally took great interest in sporting matters, and he was very anxious to have a satisfactory arrangement come to between both parties in order that sport might be encouraged in Ireland, but he certainly did see that if this clause was forced through the House it would defeat itself, for the result would be that the tenants who were now to become the owners of their holdings would resent the infliction placed upon them, and would certainly destroy the game instead of endeavouring to preserve it. He knew cases where the tenants had purchased and the landlords had reserved the game. These were properties where there was continual friction. There were gamekeepers and spies still about, frequent prosecutions took place, and heavy fines were inflicted. The result was that the game on these properties was destroyed. On the other hand, there were properties where the game rights had not been reserved by the landlords, and the tenants themselves preserved the game with the best possible advantage. His contention was, and he said it with regret, that if they attempted to place coercion on the tenants in order to deprive them of what they had a perfect right to get when purchasing their holdings, it would mean the destruction of game in Ireland. The Chief Secretary had mentioned a case where a landlord was in receipt of £200 for game. But how many cases of that kind were there in Ireland? The landlord was probably getting that for some large wood or mountain preserve. But a case of that kind did not affect the question with which they were now dealing. The landlord would probably retain that property in his own possession, and it would not interfere with the position of the tenants. They had no objection to the present landlords living in Ireland and enjoying themselves, after the tenants
  960
  had become owners of their holdings; but if they wished to enjoy sport of every description, it would only be by giving the tenants the game rights in their own hands. If these rights were reserved to the landlords, the gamekeepers, and spies would give the greatest possible trouble and annoyance to the tenants, and offenders against the game laws would be severely punished by the landlord magistrates on the bench. The question of fishing rights affected a large number of holdings. The measurement of the holdings included portions of the rivers on their borders. The tenants paid rent for the rivers, and when they purchased their holdings the fishing rights should also be conveyed to them.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL,)said he would make an effort to clear up the confusion this matter had got into. What was the difficulty which the clause was intended to meet? By the Act of 1881, Section 5, the Land Commission had power, when fixing a fair rent, to reserve the exclusive right of sport to the landlords. When a lessee, under the Act of 1887, for the first time got the power of having a fair rent fixed during the currency of his lease, that was coupled with the condition that in the fair rent so fixed the reservations applicable to the tenancy from year to year were to be carried on in the tenancy created under the Act of 1887. Therefore the tenants got their rents fixed on the basis of the landlords claiming the right conferred by Section 5 of the Act of 1881. The judicial rent was fixed on the basis that this element, or appurtenance of holding, was to be the property of the landlord. When a holding came to be sold under the Ashbourne Act, the Court found that prior to the passing of the Act to which the hon. and learned Member for Louth had referred, there was no provision enabling the Land Commission to allow any reserve, such as sporting, when the fee was invested in the tenant. What the Land Commission said was that inasmuch as all they were giving to the tenant was the holding, and as the sporting right had been detached from the holding when the fair rent order was made, they were entitled to exempt from

  961
  that holding the sporting right. That was challenged and bitterly contested, but the Land Commission adhered to that decision; and hence when the Act of 1896 was introduced, in order to put an end to all these jealousies Sub section 2 of Clause 41 insisted that the vesting order should be subject to such reservations as were specified in the order. The sole object of the first sub-section of the clause under discussion was to continue that same power in the future.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that Clause 86 of this Bill said "Part One of this Act shall be construed as one with the Land Purchase Acts, and may be cited with these Acts."
  MR. CAMPBELLsaid he was quite aware of that, and if hon. and learned Members would bear with him a moment he would explain. He believed there had been unnecessary confusion and friction in regard to this matter. They were all agreed to leave the rights as they at present existed. But a number of hon. Gentlemen said they wanted the present state of the law altered. If they did that, it meant that they wanted to take from the landlord the right of property expressly reserved to him under the lease, or, where there was no lease, by virtue of the judicial fair-rent order. But if they were all agreed that the sporting right was reserved under the lease, or under the judicial rent order was still to be reserved to the landlord, then when the tenant came to buy the holding he should understand that he was not buying that right. That was, in his own idea, all that was intended to be accomplished by the first sub-section of the amended clause. The object was to prevent any litigation afterwards between the selling landlord and the purchasing tenant, and to provide that on the face of the purchasing tenant's title deed it should be stated that he had not bought the sporting right. The tenant could come to the landlord and say he wanted the sporting right; but it was desirable that the tenant should not be deceived, or believe that he was getting the appurtenant right of shooting which was not his, and which he had not given up when the fair rent was fixed, because it was reserved to the landlord in the lease. Why should the tenant be left
  962
  under the delusion that he had got the sporting right, if, in fact, the sporting right had been reserved to the landlord prior to the sale? He hoped he had thrown some light on the matter.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman had thrown considerable light by his most interesting speech which, indeed, to his mind was, the only clear speech delivered from the Government Bench. They had been engaged two and a half hours discussing the first Amendment to the clause—and there were thirty-three on the Paper—and they did not appear to be any nearer the end. He spoke with clean hands on this question because he had not a single Amendment on the clause on the Paper, and he thought that what had occurred in the discussion must have struck anyone that his advice to the Government at the beginning of the debate was not unfriendly. The hon. and learned Gentleman had explained for the first time why it was that the Government were clinging to this provision. They had been told that it left the law as it stood, but why then waste time in clinging to a clause which did nothing to define the law?
  MR. WYNDHAMasked if the hon. Gentleman really suggested that when they had settled so many big questions they ought to find a difficulty in stating in a simple way that the landlord and tenant might settle this question between them?
  MR. DILLONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman should drop these words in the Amendment and allow the parties to do as they had been doing for the past fifteen years. But the real object of the Amendment was perfectly plain; it was to make it almost compulsory on the tenant to part with this right without his knowing what he was doing. The law as it at present stood was that the tenant could not part with his right which attached to the fee without the whole matter being explained to him. The object of the Government was that vast bodies of tenants were to sign these vesting orders under the impression that they were not parting with the game rights, and that they were not to be consulted beforehand. It was because he knew that this business would lead to

  963
  misunderstanding and confusion that he had suggested that the agreement of the Land Conference should be loyally abided by. The Land Conference agreed to let sleeping dogs lie and not to alter the law at all. Did anyone imagine that if this clause was forced through Committee against the will of Members on that side of the House, it would not lead to a feeling of injury in Ireland in regard to game rights? The right hon. Gentleman had quoted—and he listened to him with amazement—as an example of the troubles that would arise if the Amendment were not carried, the Dillon Estate. But the trouble on the Dillon Estate arose because the tenants did not want to give up their game rights and an attempt was made to force them to do so. The tenants objected to sign the agreement, and wanted an alteration. He would further put it to the right hon. Gentleman that even if he got his Amendment, had he considered the subsequent Amendments, many of which would lead to as angry and prolonged discussion as the present Amendment. There was one Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for York, which was a monstrous Amendment, and which they would have to oppose to the end. Had the right hon. Gentleman in his mind Sub-section 2, where the landlord was specially exempted from all those regulations? Was not that setting up an invidious distinction in favour of the landlords, who would buy with public money, and be to all intents and purposes on an equality with the tenants, as they would be in the position of peasant proprietors. Yet they were to be specially exempted from all those regulations. It was too much to expect that such a provision should be allowed to pass without a protest. There was abundant evidence that the section would lead to considerable discussion, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to drop it.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid he was sorry that neither the Attorney-General nor the Solicitor-General for Ireland had said anything about Sub-section 2. What was Sub-section 2? Did it mean that where the landlord
  964
  did not care about the exclusive sporting rights, they should be vested in the Land Commission. Why should not those rights be transferred to the tenant if the landlord did not put any value upon them?
  MR. WYNDHAMexplained that Subsection 1 was a convenient form for carrying out what most people desired. All that Sub-section 2 said was that where there were exclusive sporting rights to be safeguarded which the landlord did not think it worth while to keep, then they should not be dissipated, but for the moment the property should be left with the Land Commission until it was decided what to do with it. He would suggest that they should settle Sub-section 1, which only dealt with the exclusive rights which the landlord did think it worth while to keep, but could only keep by agreement with his tenants. All that was proposed was that the result of that agreement should form part of the procedure.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked why they should not leave the law alone. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened in 1881. It was most remarkable. When the Land Bill of 1881 was introduced there were the words, and the only words "exercise any rights for hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish which belonged to the landlord," so that every tenant, year by year, had his rights to game under the Bill introduced by Mr. Gladstone. But let them mark what the Lords did. The words they substituted were—
  "Hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish, the right of which shall belong to the landlord exclusively, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880."
  They, the Irish Members put in subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, in order to give the tenants the extra right. The landlords in the House of Lords would want to graft something on to this clause which would transmogrify it, and then they would be told when the Bill came back that unless they accepted it in that way it could not be passed. Let them mark the difference in the clause as brought in by Mr. Gladstone,

  965
  and as finally moulded by the House of Lords. The clause in Mr. Gladstone's Bill ran—
  "Hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish, and if the landlord at the commencement of the statutory time so requiries, then, as between the landlord and the tenant, the right of hunting, shooting, fishing, or taking game or fish shall belong exclusively to the landlord subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880."
  What a transformation that was from the original proposal. The Solicitor-General, whom he congratulated upon his able appearance at the Table, reminded him of the way in which the Closure Rule was framed. The original words were that the Closure was to be enforced if Mr. Speaker granted his assent. That was altered at the instance of the Speaker to read—
  "If Mr. Speaker shall not have withheld his assent."
  By the proposal in this clause automatically these rights would belong to the landlord and the tenant had no right of haggling or bargaining with reference to them, and they wanted to withdraw from the tenant the chance of being a free haggler or bargainer. He conceived this matter to be of capital importance. He was willing to abide by the Land Conference Report, which gave the landlords a huge concession, and beyond that concession he would not go—viz., to leave the law as it stood. The Government were introducing a sharp weapon and a burning question all over the country. Let them take these sporting rights as a national asset and vest them in a public authority. Was not that a large concession? Further, he would give the landlord the right of preemption, and on cheap terms. Was not that a fair concession? But the Government would not agree to that. They wanted to put something in the Bill different to the Ashbourne Acts, and then the House of Lords would say they must make that much clearer. It would then come back to the House of Commons in the dregs of August, and the House of Commons would be told that unless they accepted the Amendment the Bill could not pass. That was not fair. They had offered the Government that which the landlords insisted upon at the Land Conference—in fact, they had offered
  966
  even better terms—and he, for his part, if necessary, would continue the resistance.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he regretted the attitude taken by the hon. Member who had said this was a stock upon which something further was to be grafted in the other House. In this Amendment he had endeavoured to put the very minimum of that to which great importance was attached by the landlords. He had put in no more than they understood was promised by the Land Conference Report. If his Amendment was accepted he was humanly certain that it would not be used as a stepping-stone in another place, and the whole of his efforts would be directed to this final solution of the question. On the other hand, if he were to withdraw the Amendment—but that he could not do—the other House might deem itself absolutely at liberty to deal with the question de novo, and would possibly frame a provision to which much greater exception could be taken than had been taken to his proposal, and then there might be a regrettable conflict between the two Chambers. He had sought in this, as in every other question, for a basis giving a minimum on this point to the landlords and the sporting classes in Ireland. This was a matter to which they attached great importance. On the question of the evicted tenants the landlords' representatives did their very best, and he would ask hon. gentlemen opposite on the question—to which the landlords attached, if the hon. Gentlemen opposite pleased, a sentimental importance—to place this provision on the statute book. It did not go further than the Land Conference Report, and merely gave the landlords what they understood was promised to them. Sub-section 2 was another matter. He was prepared to put in words to make it clear there was to be a bargain, but he must adhere to the Amendment. He felt compelled to adhere to his Amendment on this occasion, and he asked the landlords' representatives to support him.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he fully endorsed the remarks of the Chief Secretary in regard to landlords generally

  967
  with reference to the evicted tenants question, and with reference to the concessions made in Clause 1. It would have been impossible to have obtained those concessions but for the conciliatory attitude of the landlords. He therefore felt the force of the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman. This was a comparatively small matter, but one which excited the greatest possible feeling. Members who sat beside him would be satisfied with the existing law. The right hon. Gentleman said his Amendment did not alter the existing law, but he had not made that plain to the Committee. He had now taken up the position that he could not withdraw his Amendment and would not, but he was prepared to put words into it to make plain what was the desire of the Committee namely, that these rights should not be reserved to a landlord except as a result of a bargain with his tenants. They were exceedingly anxious that this Bill should pass, and if some words could be put in to make that plain there need not be any further conflict.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he quite appreciated that the hon. and learned Gentleman was doing his best to get them out of the difficulty they were now in, and he would give an undertaking before the Report stage to make it perfectly plain to the hon. and learned Gentleman's satisfaction that that was part of the agreement, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman had some particular fancy to put the words in now.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he thought it was most undesirable to leave a lot of these questions over to be brought up on Report. There should be no difficulty in inserting words now.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)said that in order to get out of the difficulty he would suggest that the Amendment should be accepted as he had just drafted it, namely, "Where at the time of sale of any land to the Land Commission, or to tenants, or others, the vendor has, subject to the provisions of the Ground
  968
  Game Act, 1880, the exclusive sporting rights, those rights may, by agreement between the landlord and tenant, be either conveyed to the tenant or reserved to the landlord." He thought those words would clear up the whole thing.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDthought those words carried out the object for which they had been contending, and if they were accepted the Amendment might be agreed to without further discussion.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would accept the words for the sake of peace.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 21, to leave out Sub-section 1, and insert the words 'Where at the time of sale of any land to the Land Commission, or to tenants or others, the vendor has, subject to the provisions of the Ground Game Act, 1880, the exclusive sporting rights, those rights may, by agreement between the landlord and the tenant, be either conveyed to the tenant or reserved to the landlord.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "The expression 'sporting rights' includes any right of hunting, shooting, fishing, and taking game or fish on any land."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid he was award that the right hon. Gentleman had an Amendment down at a later stage of the Bill dealing with mineral rights, but that did not meet the case he had in view when placing his Amendment on the Paper. The object of his Amendment was to preserve the mining rights and water rights to those to whom they now belonged by law. The mining law was very complicated, but he believed its main provisions were that unopened mines belonged entirely to the owner of the land; that, with regard to mines which had been opened, there was a concurrent right of working to both landlord and tenant; and that, as to quarries and so forth, there is also a concurrent right, but the tenant must not work them for purposes

  969
  of profit. The effect of the Amendment would be that where a bargain for the sale of any land was made, based as it would be on the agricultural value of the land, the mining rights should remain exactly as they were. It could not be right that the tenants, or the Land Commission should be given these rights unless they paid for them, and the Amendment proposed that the Land Commission, should be empowered to purchase them. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 25, to leave out Sub-section 2, and insert the words '"mining rights" shall mean all rights of mining, and taking minerals, and of digging and searching for minerals, and of opening quarries, or beds of stone, limestone, sand, marl, gravel, or clay, and taking materials therefrom, and of raising timber from under the ground, and all rights to and in respect of mining rents and royalties; and the words "water rights" shall mean all rights of or to water power. (2.) On a sale under the Land Purchase Acts of an estate, whether to the Land Commission or otherwise, the owner of the estate or any other person or corporation entitled to any mining rights, or water rights shall, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, by such owner, person, or corporation, be entitled to and shall retain and exercise or dispose of as he or they shall think fit all such mining rights and water rights. (3.) On any such sale as aforesaid, notwithstanding that any mining rights and water rights are retained by or reserved to the owner of the estate, such sale shall be deemed to be a sale of an estate within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts, and advances shall be made accordingly. (4.) The Land Commission may purchase from the owner of an estate, or from any person or corporation, at such price as may be agreed on, any mining rights or water rights, and such sale shall be deemed to be a sale within the meaning of the Land Purchase Acts, and advances shall be made accordingly. (5.) Where any mining rights or water rights become vested in the Land Commission such rights, or any of them, shall be disposed of by them in manner hereafter to be provided by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 2 stand part of the clause."
  MR. FLYNNthought the hon. and learned Member could hardly be serious in proposing this Amendment. The landlord was not only to get a high price for his land and a large bonus, but it was now proposed that he should also be compensated for these mineral rights.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid he simply proposed to leave the rights as they were. Surely when the land was being sold as agricultural land the mining rights should be kept out of the matter altogether.
  MR. FLYNNcontended that if the Land Commission bought the land it bought everything contained therein. The Amendment was a most fantastical proposition, put forward on behalf of a section of the community who were already getting exceptionally generous terms.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON, as showing the necessity for the Amendment, instanced the case of an estate in Kilkenny, on which was situated one of the largest coal-fields in Ireland. He had received a letter from the proprietor saying he would absolutely refuse to sell any of his land unless the value of the coal-field was made up to him. Could it be conceived that the owner would sell his land at its surface value when that which was under the surface was worth ten times as much? The Amendment would leave the law as it at present stood, and that, he thought, was a reasonable course to follow.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the Amendment would make the digging up of a little bog-oak or sand or gravel a mining right! The idea was absurd. Was it to be supposed that a farmer would buy his farm and not be at liberty to use the sand or gravel he might find there? These landlords' rights could be carried a great deal too far. He was willing to make almost any sacrifices for the Bill, but he was not willing that the tenants should be put in such fetters as these. The proposal was monstrous.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBthought the heat of the hon. Member must have been caused by some misconception.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: We know what is going on in that corner.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid it seemed to be forgotten that certain rights at present belonged to the landlord, and were part of his estate.
  AN HON. MEMBER: And he is going to sell his estate.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBfurther pointed out that these rights were left entirely out of account when fair rents were fixed. The Amendment proposed that the rights should be reserved to the landlord unless they were paid for. That was a reasonable proposition, and one which he should support.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that the natural thing, when the reversion was sold, was that the mining rights should go with it. It would, however, be impossible for small proprietors reasonably to develop such rights, and so the Bill provided that the mining rights should be vested in the Commission, and disposed of by them in a manner to be provided by Parliament. It was felt that the Land Commission, if they held the mining rights of a couple of hundred small properties, might be able to develop them in a manner that the individual tenant could not. By an Amendment lower on the Paper, the Chief Secretary proposed to secure to the tenant purchaser the right of mining and taking stone, gravel, sand, or clay, not merely for the cultivation of his farm, but for sale. On the other hand, other minerals, such as ores and so forth, would be vested in the Commission. That being the position they had taken up the Government were unable to accept this Amendment. Those rights were absolutely useless in the hands of the tenant purchasers, and he thought what the Government proposed was the best position to take up.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that after the statement of the Attorney-General he thought the Government scheme was one to which no exception could be taken. He quite agreed that there might be cases in which mineral rights might be of such importance that they ought to be utilised in the public service, and he was convinced that if those rights were scattered over a series of small holdings it would be impossible to devote them to the public benefit. He entirely assented to the proposition that these rights should be vested in the Land Commission for the benefit of Ireland, and if the
  972
  clause was amended so as to give to the tenant the right of using gravel, sand, and clay for his own purposes of husbandry, and also for sale, if he thought fit, that would be a sensible settlement of the question. That being so, he hoped the Government would stand by this provision, and not allow this clause to be mutilated, either in this House or in the House of Lords, by any such proposal as that which was now before the Committee. When he listened to such speeches as those which they had just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth, it appeared to him that the landlords wanted to get the highest price they could for their land and keep it as well. If the landlords got the value of their land, including the minerals and everything else they now owned, from the sky to the middle of the earth, what injustice was there in preserving these rights to the tenant purchaser? Imagine what would happen if the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for York were adopted. The land would not be felt to belong to the tenant purchaser at all, because every day the landlord might come in ripping up the land and searching for minerals which he might dig out and carry away. If the minerals were a national asset, peace was also a national asset, and peace would be entirely destroyed by any such proceedings on the part of landlords who had sold their land to the tenants. The Amendment under consideration, in his opinion, did not tend to preserve that feeling which had hitherto been manifested in these debates. Such Amendments did not further the progress of the Bill in a friendly spirit, and if any such proposals were carried, in his opinion they would gravely imperil the future settlement of the land question.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he hoped the hon. and learned Member for York would not press this Amendment. It was quite evident that this proposal would excite strong feeling. The Government had explained the altitude they took up, and though that attitude was not altogether satisfactory, Irish Members were willing to go half way and accept it, and it was only fair that the representatives of the landlords should reciprocate.
  MR. BUTCHERasked the Committee to consider the case of a tenant upon a judicial holding paying an agricultural rent. A rent of what? Simply of the agricultural land on the surface. In estimating that value the landlord did not get one farthing for any mineral rights underneath. If the landlord wished to sell such land he would make an agreement within the zone, based on the rent of the agricultural land. That was quite right so long as he was selling agricultural land, which simply meant the use of the surface. He wished to know why the Land Commission should take such assets as valuable coal mines or other minerals underneath the land from the landlord and not pay one farthing for them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] He did not think that was either business or fair play. He was in favour of a man if he had property selling it if he could get anything for it, but he was not in favour of a man being forced to sell. [An HON. MEMBER: Not forced.] At any rate he was not in favour of a man entering into an agreement to sell one thing and being forced to sell something else with it. He hoped the Chief Secretary would find some means of meeting such a case as he had put, which might prove exceedingly hard to the landlord. He thought the mining rights should be preserved to the landlord, or else he ought to be paid for them. The idea of vesting them in the Commission, who had not paid a farthing for them, was really one which, he thought, they should not be asked to support.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the British taxpayer came in here, and it was part of his bargain with the Treasury that these somewhat remote and he was afraid, speculative rights, should be thrown into the bargain and should belong to the State. As a matter of fact the landlords did not derive any advantage from what might or might not be under the soil. He had done his best to arrive at a solution which was fair all round. He should deprecate any attempt to prevent the landlords getting minerals from their land, but if a landlord thought there was coal under a particular field, it might be worth his while to buy that field back. He was not aware that there was a lot of coal, or copper, or gold in Ireland. [An
  974
  HON. MEMBER: Gold Ornaments.] Of course, if there was a mine that was being worked or was leased to somebody else, that was another matter. It was quite clear that they could not interfere with that. And, in the same way, if a landlord were really working a mine or a quarry with capital and with people employed, if, in fact, it was a going concern, there ought to be nothing in this Act to make it difficult to keep that concern going. If, however, it was speculative, then let the State have the minerals, but let them make it clear that that conveyance in futurity to the State was not to deprive the peasant proprietor of any minerals either on or under the surface which he needed not only for husbandry but also for entering into contracts.
  MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that mines could not be disposed of without a Bill in Parliament. He asked what provision had been made to protect the Crown rights in regard to gold?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That is provided for by Sub-section (b).
  MR. POWERasked the Chief Secretary whether in the case of minerals being found in any particular county that county would get the advantage or whether the revenue would be put to a general fund. It seemed to him that the individual county should have a preferential claim. In his own county fifteen years ago copper mines were worked to great advantage. He knew one case where one proprietor got £2,000 by receiving one-sixteenth part of the profits.
  MR. WYNDHAMdid not think they could carry it further than they had done in the clause. They could leave that to Parliament to be dealt with in the future. If it became a practical question it could easily be discussed, but he did not think they should discuss it now.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsaid the clause would seriously affect the granite industry which was carried on in the part of Ireland he came from. If the right to the granite was vested in the

  975
  peasant proprietor he thought that would interfere with the development of the industry. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the insertion in the Bill of a definition of "stone," and also that all valuable minerals should be vested in the Crown and not in individuals.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid a great deal of the granite that was available was already being worked. In those cases the rights would be covered by a further clause which he would suggest. When the hon. Member asked them to try to legislate for granite which might be worked he did not think that would be practicable. He would like to say generally that it was not possible in one Bill to anticipate all the developments that might take place. A number of questions might be raised, but if they were not to have any practical effect for ten, fifteen, or twenty years he thought they might leave something to their successors. If there was any danger of granite not being worked on account of this Bill, Parliament would amend the Bill in order that it might be worked.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had in contemplation the coal mines which were at present being worked.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he did not wish to go outside the language of the clause at present. He would put in a clause dealing with mines which were being worked and which had a substantial value at the present moment, and also with properties which had a prospective mining value. All that would be provided for He thought what was now proposed was a useful, practical, all-round, fair decision on the ordinary cases.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid his right hon. friend had not convinced him, but as he had promised to deal with certain specified cases, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 36, at end, to insert the words 'or (c) to any stone, gravel, sand, or clay.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR ROBERT FITZGERALDsaid there were foreshores where the rights to take sand, gravel, rocks, and stones, between high and low-water mark were vested by the Crown in certain people. He did not intend to move an Amendment, but he wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the right which these people had at present under old grants from the Crown. He knew one case where the grant was a little over 600 years old. Ought there not to be some means by which that right could be handed to the tenant when he purchased the farm?
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he promised to carefully consider the suggestion of his hon. friend. When the owner of the dry land was not the owner of the foreshore there might be difficulty in carrying out the hon. Member's suggestion by a vesting order, but there would be no difficulty in cases where the landlord owned the foreshore because he could by deed transfer his right to the tenant. The position of the purchasing tenant would depend entirely on the nature of the landlord's interest in the foreshore.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid it seemed to him that under Sub-section (c) now proposed, the landlord would retain the stone, gravel, sand, and clay, and that the tenant would be excluded from taking them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No. The clause says that there shall be reserved "to the Commission the exclusive right of mining and taking minerals." "Minerals" cover everything that goes to the Land Commission. The clause does not give to the Commission "any demesne or other land repurchased by the vendor of the estate," or "any right which i vested in the Crown." Therefore they would be the property of the purchaser.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid there were many tenants in his own constituency who, for the payment of a shilling or two, were allowed to take manure from the foreshore. That was a right which hundreds of tenants enjoyed apart from the kelp right. It would not be fair to sell that foreshore to an individual tenant whose farm bordered upon it. It would be well that the Government should consider whether that seaweed could not be vested in some trustees so as to prevent any man getting hold of it.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On Report we could do that I think on Clause 4.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 3, at end, to add the words '(4) Provided always that nothing in this Act shall affect any lease or agreement demising or dealing with any of the rights mentioned in this section.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMasked his hon. and learned friend to allow him a little more time to consider this matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he wished to say that the clause as it now stood was not satisfactory to him.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that this clause provided for the redemption of what were called intervening interests, but only so in the case of an estate purchased by the Land Commission, or by the Congested Districts Board. He had put down an Amendment providing that this power of dealing with intervening interests should exist in the case of individual sales between landlord and tenant. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment, which he accordingly moved—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 7, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words 'or being otherwise sold under the provision of the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that his right hon. friend recognised the absolute, necessity of a clause of this kind in dealing with large farms, some of which were sub-let. In that condition the large farmer could not buy, because he was not in possession of the whole, and the sub-tenant could not buy directly either. There was a good deal of difficulty in putting the powers in force when the sale took place between landlord and tenant, and very considerable difficulty in calling the Land Commission into operation to interfere. It might, however, be quite possible to carry out everything desired by agreement. Assuming that the large farmer had sub-let, to a sub-tenant, twenty acres, and that the landlord wanted to sell, there would be nothing to prevent him arranging with the large tenant to surrender the lease of these twenty acres, and then the landlord could deal directly with the sub-tenant for the sale of them. All that could be carried out by agreement. His right hon. friend hoped to contrive simple machinery whereby the good offices of the Land Commission could be obtained so as to apportion the rent between the large tenant and the small tenant, and so enable an agreement to be arrived at.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he recognised the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had met his Amendment. Anyone who had had any experience of the Land Judge's Court knew that if the whole tenancy had been sub-let at the same rent, there would be no reason why the agreement should not be easily arrived at; but in a great many cases where the tenancy had been sub-let at an enhanced rent, the middleman would have a substantial interest which he would not surrender unless there was an expectation that he would be able to buy himself.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid it was his desire to hit on a plan by which a landlord could sell his estate with the exception of this or that part, and then bring in

  979
  the Land Commission to apportion the rents of all the parts.
  MR. CLANCYsaid after that explanation he would not persevere with his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid he wished to move an Amendment to insert at the end of Sub-section 1 of Clause 13, "Provided that when the person in such exclusive occupation shall have been paying a higher proportionate rent than that paid by the owner of the intervening interest to the owner of the estate, such higher rent shall be assumed to be the rent in respect of which an advance may be made in estimating the price of the estate under the provisions of Section 5." His Amendment was designed to provide that in cases where the middleman was compensated out of the purchase money, the purchase money should be estimated on the basis of the increased rent got by the middleman.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 8, at end, to insert the words, 'Provided that when the person in such exclusive occupation shall have been paying a higher proportionate rent than that paid by the owner of the intervening interest to the owner of the estate such higher rent shall be assumed to be the rent in respect of which an advance may be made in estimating the price of the estate under the provisions of Section 5.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his Amendment.
  MR. DILLONsaid the Amendment was preposterous and without meaning.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALYmoved an Amendment providing that where a holding in any such estate was held by joint tenants or tenants in common, or was subdivided
  980
  between two or more persons, and the Land Commission were satisfied that such tenants or persons were in the exclusive occupation of separate portions thereof, the Commission might, if they thought fit, for the purpose of the Land Law Acts, as well as this Act, declare that any such tenant or person should be deemed the tenant of the parcel of land in his exclusive occupation, and that such parcel should be deemed a holding, and might apportion the rent of the holding between such tenants or persons as the justice of the case might require. He suggested that if a man was a tenant for the purposes of sale he should be regarded as a tenant for all purposes, and it would be most unjust, he contended, if this were not to be the case with regard to this part of the Bill. He was quite prepared to admit that this was not the best place for his Amendment, but his desire was to put the matter on a sound basis.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 30, to leave out the words, 'foregoing provisions of this Act,' and insert the words, 'Land Law Acts and this Act.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he thought the clause did all that was necessary for the purpose of purchase, and it would not be desirable to amend the law as suggested by the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he recognised that a new clause would probably be the best means of making the alteration. He would bring it up later in the shape of a new clause; and he hoped that the Government would then view it with an open mind.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELLmoved to leave out Sub-section 5 of Clause 13. His object in moving the Amendment was for the purpose of avoiding litigation if possible, especially in the case of small holdings. He also desired to entrust the Land Commissioners wholly and solely with the power of dealing with small holdings under this section. He

  981
  did so because there was a Judicial Commissioner whom they all knew as one who would do his utmost to be fair and just to all classes of both tenants and landlords.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 35, to leave out Sub-section (5)."—(Mr. Edward Mitchell.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 5 stand part of the clause."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid this clause applied to some of the poorest tenants in Ireland, i.e., to those who were called co-tenants. To lodge an appeal was not a great privilege for these people, because it simply meant expense, as the landlord would probably take the appeal further. It was not reasonable to suppose that if the Estate Commissioners could be trusted in large matters they ought not to be trusted in this small matter. Their decision ought to be final.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he thought his hon. friend, the mover of the Amendment, could not be conversant with the difficult and complicated questions of law that might arise. They might involve the construction of a marriage settlement, the question whether a man was a tenant for sixty years or a tenant for life, the construction of a lease and many other important legal points. It would be perfectly impossible for all the various questions that might arise to be settled by the Estates Commissioners, and, in fact, no one would recognise them as a final tribunal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had had some difficulty with regard to the first part of the Amendment, Sub-section B, he now proposed, but having regard to the agreement at which they had arrived this afternoon, he now thought there would be no difficulty in the Committee accepting these words. Of course, if any further words were thought necessary they could be put in. It was quite clear that they ought not to handicap the small purchaser
  982
  by giving less for the sporting rights than they had agreed to give this afternoon, and if this Amendment was accepted he would make these matters equal between the landlord and tenant. Sub-section C was necessary in order to provide that land, when vested in the Land Commission, should be subject to the ordinary maintenance charges. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 5, at end, to insert the words '(b) to any sporting rights reserved by the vendor; (c) to any maintenance charge under the Public Works Acts; and.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, having accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, it was only fair to acknowledge that these words did not infringe on the word which had been agreed to.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBasked that when the right hon. Gentleman made it equal between landlord and tenant, they would also take care that adequate protection should be given to the lessee of the sporting rights.
  MR. CLANCYthought some declaration was necessary, and that if the sporting rights were conveyed to the tenant under the agreement, the vesting order should specify them also.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the vesting order vested all in the tenant. The only object of having the sporting rights mentioned in the vesting order was to preserve in that document the evidence of the agreement come to between the parties.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he wanted to see in a case where an estate was going to be sold, and the landlord had let for a term his sporting rights, that the lessee of those sporting rights should be sufficiently protected.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONpointed out that when a landlord and a tenant came to an agreement to purchase, the

  983
  landlord would have to deal with the question of sporting rights. He might say, "I must reserve the sporting rights because I have already granted a lease of them"; or he might say to the tenant, "I will convey them to you subject to the existing lease." Therefore any words were unnecessary.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SHARPEsaid the object of the Amendment in his name was to ensure that in future the practice hitherto adopted by the Land Commission should continue, and that full and proper notice should be given to these persons.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 19, after the word 'notices,' to insert the words 'on all incumbrancers and on such other persons.'"—(Mr. Sharpe.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid no doubt the hon. Member was sufficiently conversant with the Bill to know that great powers were vested in limited owners to enable them to sell at once. This clause dealt mainly with the question of ascertaining whether the person dealing with the Commission had authority to sell. It did not at all affect the distribution of the purchase money. Of course, the rules would provide that adequate notice should be given, but it was unnecessary that everybody should have notice.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid his next Amendment dealt with a technical matter, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether it was necessary, and would accept it now, or if not sure upon the point whether he would consider it on Report.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Amendment could not be accepted in its present form.
  Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15.
  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 MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.
  Clause 15.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid the Amendment he proposed to move had reference to the question of who should be allowed to sell under this Act? The persons put forward as the persons to sell should be the persons who were interested in obtaining the best price for the property. If a mortgagee had the power to sell within the zones at a price sufficient to cover his mortgage, and no more, he would be able to inflict a very serious loss on other persons interested in the property. According to the Bill as it stood, he had that power, and that was a thing that should be guarded against, because it would not be right to allow him to sell under the value. Another danger in the Bill was with regard to the bonus. The bonus was to go to the vendor, so that if a mortgagee sold he not only got his mortgage paid off, but also the bonus. It could not be contended that he should be paid his mortgage and get the bonus as well. Then there was the question of a tenant for life, who had no substantial interest in the property. Under the Bill he could sell within the zones at any price he liked without consulting anyone, and pocket the bonus. That was a case which ought to be provided against. It might be said that the person to sell had to be for six years in possession of the rents and profits of the property, but that was no protection at all, because the tenant for life in this case might be only nominally in possession of the rents and

  985
  profits. If such a tenant for life was allowed to sell, he at all events ought to be prevented from getting the bonus, and it should go into the purchase money of the estate. Then there was the case of the bankrupt tenant for life. That was a case this Bill did not provide for. Under these circumstances, he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 30, after the word 'person, to insert the words, 'not being a mortgagee and not being a tenant for life, or a person having the powers of a tenant for life who is a bankrupt, or whose estate or interest in the land has been assigned or parted with.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid although he was unable to accept the Amendment he hoped he should be able to reconcile the Bill with the points raised by the hon. and learned Member. The Amendment, as it stood, precluded sales by mortgagees or tenants for life who had no substantial interest in the property. Both those classes could sell under the existing law. If these classes of persons were debarred from selling, one of the main objects of the Bill would be defeated. The clause, as it stood, only conferred discretion on the Land Commission, and it was not necessary to interfere with that discretion. He considered that other interests in these cases were protected by the discretion which was vested in the Land Commission. The Government proposed that persons in this position should not be entitled to the bonus on the same terms as others, because it was quite clear that great objection would be taken to a sale of property by such persons, and to their taking the bonus; and when the grant-in-aid clause was reached, he intended to propose that the bonus in these cases should go into the purchase-money for the satisfaction of other claims.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid some of his objections had been satisfied by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, but one objection had not been met, and that was sale by a person who had no interest in getting the best price,
  986
  such as a mortgagee who only wanted to obtain the price of his mortgage.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid a mortgagee could now sell and could not be precluded from selling under the Bill. Such an Amendment would only lead to weighty and prolonged inquiries in each case, and therefore defeat one of the main objects of the Bill, which was quick sale.
  MR. CLANCYsaid it would greatly weaken the Bill if this Amendment were carried, and he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had made the concession he had, because it took away the very inducement for them to sell. The only inducement such persons had to sell was the very fact that they would get the bonus. The Chief Secretary now said the bonus was going to be thrown into the purchase-money, and the only inducement for them to sell was taken away.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BUTCHER, in the absence of the hon. Member for North Louth, moved the Amendment standing in the hon. Member's name. He said if the person was registered as a person entitled to sell he ought to be allowed to sell under the Act. The acceptance of the Amendment would result in the avoidance of difficulties likely to arise in regard to whether a person was the person to sell or not. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 31, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'is registered under The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, as amended by this Act, as owner of an estate sufficient to constitute him a person having power to sell under the Land Purchase Acts, or.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had no objection to an Amendment of the Registration of Title Act, but he doubted if that could be effected under the Bill. If hon. Gentlemen desired there should be, this session or next, a new Registration Bill he had no objection to the

  987
  Amendment" as amended by this and subsequent Acts," but as the hon. Member for North Louth had an Amendment lower down and was not then present the Amendment might perhaps be allowed to wait.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid he was disposed to take the Amendment as amended by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the real question was whether this could be done in four sections, or whether it must be amended by a Bill.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid the mere fact that a person was registered owner ought not to be sufficient title for him to sell. It might be possible for a person not having a title under this Bill to be placed on the register.
  MR. WYNDHAMthought it would be better not at this Stage of the Bill to attempt to amend the Registration Act.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'claims in respect of an interest which is sufficient to constitute him,' and insert the words 'gives primâ facie evidence that he is.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the object of his Amendment might count his immediate predecessor's occupation as his own, as in the case of a father dying within the six years and the son inheriting.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 35, to leave out the words 'has been by himself or his,' and insert the words 'or his immediate predecessor in title has been personally or by an.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid it appeared to him that a man who was in possession by a Receiver of the Land Court had not sufficient title to sell. He therefore begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 35, to leave out the words 'or a receiver.'"—(Mr. H. Robertson.)
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid this Amendment might be accepted. The word "receiver" was not meant to cover a Receiver of the Land Court at all. It was not ad rem and was therefore unnecessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 37, after the word 'fit,' to insert the words 'subject to such conditions with respect to advertisements and notices as may be prescribed.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 39, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that an owner who has not for six years immediately preceding been in receipt of any portion of the rents or profits of the land (other than the demesne, and whether or not he be under an occupation rent for such demesne) shall not without the consent of his incumbrancers be at liberty to sell any land under the Land Purchase Acts. (2) A mortgagee in possession with power of sale, or a mortgagee who has been by himself or through a receiver in exclusive receipt of the rents or profits of an estate for a period of not less than six years immediately preceding, shall, for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts, he deemed to be a landlord.'"—(Mr. Sharpe).
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept the Amendment, as it was opposed to the Irish and other Land Acts.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  On Clause 16:
  MR. BUTCHERsaid that Clause 16, Sub-section (1), provided that the Land Commission should be able to recover arrears of rent in regard to land purchased by them, and the Amendment he was about to move proposed that the Commission should pay over the value of the arrears to the landlord. In the case of a sale direct to the tenants, the usual practice, if there were any arrears, was to add

  989
  a certain sum to the purchase-money, and out of the purchase-money a sum not exceeding one year's arrears was paid to the landlord. That was fair enough. But in the case of a sale to the Land Commission, there was no provision in the Bill by which the landlord would get anything in respect of arrears. He contended that if the landlord was not to get anything in the way of purchase-money for the arrears, and if the Land Commission was to be entitled to recover the arrears, the value of the said arrears ought to be paid to the landlord. Unless some such provision was made, sales to the Land Commission would be penalised. He was aware that another clause provided that the landlord should keep one year's arrears of rent, but that merely reduced the purchase money. His point was that, as the landlord had nothing in the purchase money in respect of the arrears, he was entitled to either the arrears themselves or their value. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 10, line 10, at end, to insert the words '(2) The value of such arrears of rent, if not agreed upon between the vendor and the Land Commission, shall be fixed by the Judicial Commissioner, and shall be paid by the Land Commission to the vendor over and above the purchase-money of the lands. Payment of the value of such arrears of rent shall be made immediately on the completion of the purchase agreement to the person who would have been entitled to receive the same.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not possibly accept the Amendment, and he thought he could satisfy his hon. and learned friend that it was not one on which he need insist. The Amendment would have the effect of placing on the Land Commission the duty, not only of judicially ascertaining the amount due, but also of estimating the value of the debt. Such a power would be inquisitorial, and would lead to a great waste of time. The arbitrary limit of one year's arrears, as placed in the Bill, seemed to him to be the best arrangement. At present, attempts were sometimes made to collect the arrears, but they generally broke down, while if they succeeded they were not usually welcome in the public interest, because it meant that people who were already in debt made an effort
  990
  to discharge that debt, and then entered into obligations with the State. The almost universal practice was that, where the tenant desired to buy and the landlord to sell, an arrangement was come to by which—as it was crudely put—a year was added to the price; in other words, the parties agreed to a bargain which wiped out all question of past debt—a transaction which was absolutely necessary before the tenant-purchaser could be accepted as a debtor of the State. In the Bill the Government had endeavoured to strike a rough-and-ready bargain which they believed to be substantially just. It appeared to be unjust that a part of the purchase-money which might be in respect of arrears should go into the purchase money, because it really belonged to the vendor, so they cut the Gordian knot by saying he might take a year's arrears out of the purchase-money, the remainder of the purchase-money being distributed amongst the superior interests. This decision had been arrived at after careful consideration; the Government considered it fair as between the vendor and the owners of superior interests, and it certainly made for speed, whereas the Amendment would mean great delay, immense difficulty in estimating the value of the arrears and in collecting them, and also the questionable proposal that all such arrears should be handed to the vendor, and nothing to the owners of superior interests.
  MR. BUTCHERasked whether it would be possible for a landlord, when he negotiated a sale with the Land Commission, to get an increase of price where there were large arrears of rent. If so, his difficulty would be met. If it would not be possible, he thought it was very hard that a whole year's rent should be cut out of the corpus of the purchase-money. The arrears ought to be either included in the purchase-money or paid over subsequently to the landlord.
  MR. WYNDHAMpointed out that the purchase-money was the total amount the purchaser had agreed to pay. There was nothing in the Bill by which an unfavourable distinction was drawn between sales to the Land Commission and sales direct to the tenants. By Clause 5, the Land Commission would be in treaty with the tenants to know

  991
  how much they would pay, and one of the first considerations in such a matter was always the manner in which the arrears were to be dealt with. The Land Commission, being in touch with both landlord and tenant, would arrive at a bargain to which three-fourths of the tenants subscribed, the result of which was a corpus of money out of which the landlord was to take one year's arrears, as was usually done in the case of sales effected directly between landlord and tenant. He thought that was a practical solution of the question.
  MR. BUTCHERunderstood that his point would, in substance, be met, and he therefore asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BUTCHERmoved to insert "Judicial Commissioner" for "Land Commission," his contention being that the matter referred to was one more fitted for the Judicial Commissioner than for the Estates Commissioners, who were not necessarily conversant with questions of law. He admitted that the present proposed Commissioners included persons so qualified, but that might not always be the case.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 10, lines 14 and 15, leave out 'Land Commission,' and insert 'Judicial Commissioner.'"—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid there was one series of Amendments on the Paper proposing to substitute "Judicial Commissioner" for "Land Commission" wherever the term was used, and another series suggesting the substitution of "Land Commission" wherever "Judicial Commissioner" occurred. The Government had endeavoured as far as possible to give administrative work to an administrative body and judicial work to a judicial body, the allocation having been made after very careful consideration. Upon that allocation the hon. and learned Member had an advantage as
  992
  the Bill was drawn, because there was an over-riding injunction that all judicial points were to be brought before the Judicial Commissioner, so that if any doubt arose it would be decided by that official.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he understood the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman had proceeded, but surely it was entirely a question of law as to who was entitled to the purchase-money.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that whenever a primâ facie case could be made out that a question was one of law it would go to the Judicial Commissioner.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the Committee had now reached a point of considerable difficulty, as wag shown by the fact that no fewer than five notices of Motion for the rejection of this clause were on the Paper, those Motions coming from every part of the House. The reason was that tenants in every part of Ireland were very jealous of any attempt to touch their rights under the Act of 1881. He did not think the rejection of the clause was the course that ought to be followed. It was quite impossible to allow one-fourth of the tenants on any estate to bar or hinder the sale to and purchase by the other three-fourths. It would be equally impossible to leave that one-fourth as tenants of the Land Commission, as the Commission would be unable to fix the rents where they were themselves the landlords. He did not say that the Amendment he had placed on the Paper was a perfect way out of the difficulty, but it was taken almost bodily from Section 40 of the Act of 1896. It might not be a very logical thing to declare a man to be a purchaser when he did not want to purchase, but the Committee had a choice of difficulties, and there was no way out except by some such means; and inasmuch as this method of procedure

  993
  had already been adopted and no complaint had been made of it, he thought it was as good a way out of the difficulty as any that could be found. In addition to the part to which he referred, viz.—
  "The Estates Commissioners may, if, having regard to the circumstances of the case, they think it expedient, order that the remaining tenants, or any of them, shall be deemed to have accepted the offers made to them, and the Land Purchase Acts shall apply accordingly."
  there was the following proviso to safeguard the interests of the one-fourth of the tenants, viz.—
  "Provided that the Commissioners before making such order shall consider any objection thereto, or modification therein, made or suggested by such tenants, and may alter or modify the terms at which such tenants, or any of them shall be deemed to have purchased as may be considered equitable."
  The proviso which he had added would safeguard the interests of the objecting tenants, for the Commissioners, having heard their case, would have discretion to make any difference which in their judgment might be called for in the terms as between the dissenting minority and the assenting majority.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 10, line 33, to leave out from the word 'holdings,' to end of clause, and insert the words 'The Estates Commissioners may, if, having regard to the circumstances of the case, they think it expedient, order that the remaining tenants, or any of them, shall be deemed to have accepted the offers made to them, and the Land Purchase Acts shall apply accordingly. Provided that the Commissioners before making such order shall consider any objection thereto, or modification therein, made or suggested by such tenants, and may alter or modify the terms at which such tenants, or any of them, shall be deemed to have purchased as may be considered equitable.'"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid this Clause was referred to more than once during the debate which took place on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the views of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and many of his hon. friends were then carefully expressed upon it. He thought the proviso should not be accepted, but he agreed to accept the first part of the Amendment, believing it to be as good a way as any
  994
  of dealing with the cases under consideration. He wished to explain the process by which the Government had arrived at that conclusion. It had been admitted that some method must be found of dealing with such an estate bought by the Land Commission. It had been admitted that there were cases in which the Land Commission ought to buy with the assent of three-fourths of the tenants. The hon. Member for East Mayo accepted the illustrations he gave of cases in which it was proper for the Land Commission to buy a property without having previously got the consent of the Court. Having bought, the Land Commission became the land owner. Before he introduced this Bill he came to the conclusion that it was not advisable to unduly weight this measure by the introduction of any novel procedure to meet the difficulties of the case when the Land Commission bought without the assent of three-fourths. Then he held that where a majority had bought, the minority might well go on under the present rents. He held that there was a far less drastic procedure than the one recommended to-night, and he thought it was recommended as a substitute by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in the Second Reading debate, namely, that where three-fourths bought the remaining one-fourth should be deemed to have bought. They were now invited to revert to the practice under Section 40. There was a great deal to be said for adopting that method, which was known in Ireland. Certainly nothing could be urged against employing that measure when it was to be employed by the Estates Commissioners. He thought such a tribunal could with general satisfaction administer Section 40 in the cases where it was admitted that some machinery must be found. ["No, no."] That he understood was the suggestion thrown out during the Second Reading, and there was a great deal to be said in favour of adopting the old method. There was another advantage in proceeding along a known path. They could work in other Amendments on the Paper. There was a very good Amendment standing in the name of the

  995
  hon. and learned Member for Louth. As it stood he did not think the phraseology would work in.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Not if you accept this Amendment, for then my Amendment would be needless.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the proviso to the Amendment did not occur in Section 40, and he thought they had better proceed along a known line. He hold that the object which the hon. Member was aiming at was attained without the proviso.
  MR. DILLONdenied that the Amendment was on the lines of Section 40. That section was compulsory against the landlord as well as the tenant, but this Amendment proposed to put compulsion on the tenant without there being any compulsion whatever on the landlord. The landlord was not compelled to sell. But when the Land Commission had bought over the heads of the tenants, this proposal empowered that body to compel one-fourth of the tenants to buy their farms at a price to which they objected. He thought that was a most unfair and one-sided provision. The average price put upon the farms by the Land Commission was fifteen and a half years purchase. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him an undertaking that in no case would any tenant be compelled to purchase at more than fifteen and a half years he should have no objection. The tenants ought not to be subjected to any penal clause. The proviso which the hon. Member first put into his Amendment would have had a considerable effect in mitigating the offensive character of the proposal, but the Chief Secretary objected to it, while accepting the penal portion.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that in the discussions of this Bill he had agreed in the main with the hon. Member for Mayo, but on this occasion he differed from him entirely. He did not regard this as a penal provision at all, but as a most reasonable proposal, especially as modified by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member for Mayo had referred to the Act of 1887 and the "eviction-made-easy" clause; but he would recall to him the Act of 1896, when the
  996
  Government proposed to take away from every tenant in the congested districts area the right to have a fair rent fixed. He himself was afraid to open his mouth on the Bill of 1896, because the hon. Member for Mayo was then the Leader of the Party, and he was more or less, sometimes more and sometimes less, under his jurisdiction; and so, if it had not been for the hon. and learned Member for North Tyrone, who interposed at the very moment when the Chairman was putting the clause, every tenant in the congested districts area would have had this right taken away from him. But what was this proposal? Let them be reasonable and have some sense of proportion. The Land Commission, in the interests of the tenants, acting in the same spirit as the Congested Districts Board, acquired a holding. What for? Not to make money out of it and to sell it to London speculators, but to benefit the tenants on the holding. It might very well be that two or three wastrels on the holdings would set up their backs and obstruct the sale to the whole of the tenants. If they did so, surely it was fair and reasonable that the Land Commission should be empowered to act according to this provision. The terrible penalty was that these tenants were to be made owners of their land. If anyone made him owner of his house on the same conditions he would be delighted to accept money at 2¾ per cent.
  MR. TULLYsaid the other day when he was proposing an Amendment of a similar character to this one, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said it was preposterous and absurd. The hon. Member for East Mayo had made an attack upon the hon. Member for South Tyrone over this Amendment, but the hon. Member had enough to do to carry that wretched Dunraven Treaty on his back. [An HON. MEMBER: Tullyfy him!] The minority spoken of were likely to be the selfish land-grabbers and those who always held out against a reasonable settlement.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that both upon the introduction of the Bill and the Second Reading exception was taken to this clause, mostly to Sub-section

  997
  (b), which proposed to apply compulsion not merely to one-fourth, but practically to one half in cases where the Lord Lieutenant enabled that to be done. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not now suggest that the power to the Lord Lieutenant should remain. The Chief Secretary was quite right in saying that he made a suggestion with reference to the 40th Section. What he said was that he took a strong objection to the bare majority, and that with reference to the three-fourths he thought the penalty proposed in the Bill, that the remaining one fourth should be deprived of their rights, was an absurd and monstrous one. He agreed that it would not be desirable, nor did be think that the tenants generally would regard it as desirable, that a small handful of tenants on an estate should be allowed to block a whole transaction of purchase, and, therefore, that some power should be taken to deal with such a contingency, but he thought the simplest and least objectionable way of doing so would be on the lines of the 40th Section. He did not see why the Chief Secretary should object to the proviso. The Judge in the Land Court was given this discretion, and why should it be taken away from the Commissioners? All that the proviso said was that before imposing this penalty upon recalcitrant tenants the Land Commission might consider any objection taken as to the price, and surely that was reasonable and proper. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman objected to this proviso. Surely if a small number of tenants held out, it was reasonable and proper that the Commissioners should inquire whether the objection was reasonable or not. Although he shared the objection to the clause as a whole which had been put forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo, he thought this question of blocking transactions by two men was one that must be dealt with in some way. If the proviso proposed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone were allowed to stand, it might be a way out of the difficulty. He asked the Chief Secretary whether he could not allow the Amendment to stand as a whole. It gave the Land Commissioners the same discretion
  998
  as was possessed now by the Land Judge. He saw no reason why they should not have that discretion.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid they were all, he believed, anxious that this Bill should run, and that the sooner they placed the tenants in possession of the land the better. He thought it would be a most unfortunate thing that one-fourth of the tenants of an estate should bar a settlement which would bring satisfaction to a multitude of people. He did not believe they would find one estate, perhaps, out of a hundred where one-fourth of the tenants would refuse to be made proprietors of their own land at a large reduction of rent. But the proposition of the hon. Member for South Tyrone might obviate a difficulty which might arise and bring about an unfortunate state of things. The only difficulty he had in regard to the proviso was that it appeared to be fraught with legal complications; it introduced the lawyer.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Where does this terrible man come in?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he could come in to show where modifications were necessary, and where the terms might be modified. If the hon. and learned Member for Louth were employed he could make a good deal out of these points. It was to avoid the delay and expense which would thus be involved that he objected to the proviso from the layman's point of view. He thought the other part of the proposal of the hon. Member for South Tyrone was one which would lead to what they all desired, and that was the most expeditious manner possible of placing the Irish tenants in possession of their land.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that in the seventeen years that the Purchase Act had been in force he had not been three times before the Commission. He understood that the Estates Commissioners would do their work, not sitting as a court at all, but as an administrative body. It would be managed by direct communication with the tenants, the tenants' solicitors, and

  999
  the landlords' solicitors. The machinery of purchase was not a contentious business at all.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he had as great an objection to a solicitor as to a lawyer.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that in his judgment the tenants who did not employ solicitors to work for them were penny wise and pound foolish. He had known hundreds of pounds lost because the tenant would not pay 6s. 8d. to a solicitor. One solicitor was acquainted with another, and they could arrange these matters. Just as hon. Members from Ireland could run things through his House by meeting the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, arguing with him in the most polite way outside the House, and using to him a quite different tone and manner to that which they employed officially inside, so the tenant's solicitor, meeting the landlord's solicitor in the marketplace, and talking over things, got over a hundred points long before they reached the Commissioners. He did not apprehend that the difficulties suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would in the least appear. He thought they were dealing with an imaginary difficulty, but it was one that must be provided against. If they allowed two or three curmudgeons to take advantage of their ill-humour or cussedness to block a sale these men might become masters of the situation, just as they had known such a thing in this House, he would not say on the part of the Colonial Secretary or the hon. Member for Stoke. It was notorious that two or three men asserting themselves
  1000
  unduly undoubtedly acquired great power. There was no machinery known to the constitution by which a three-fourths majority could be ruled by one-fourth. They had not that protection in the Bill, and it was now proposed to provide it on the easiest terms possible.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that having considered the Amendment he had gone the whole length to which he could go at one bound when he accepted the first part of it. The proviso was not necessary, and he saw some dangers in it. He had tried to meet hon. Members opposite, and he hoped the Committee would now come to a decision on this matter.
  MR. DILLONsaid it was absurd to represent the attitude he had taken up in this matter as indicating a desire to enable two or three men to obstruct the sale of an estate. No such idea ever occurred to his mind. But there might be, and he believed there would be, estates where if the price was fixed by three-fourths of the tenants the remaining fourth would feel aggrieved; and it was not fair to reject the proviso by which they would be enabled to state their grievance to the Commission. The Chief Secretary had made an urgent appeal to wind up the discussion simply because he had announced at the commencement, at one jump, the concession he was prepared to make. He protested against that, for hon. Members were at least entitled to state their views at reasonable length.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he wished to offer a word of explanation as to what he meant. What he thought would happen was that where three-fourths of

  1001
  the tenants on an estate agreed to purchase on certain terms the minority of one-fourth might hold out. What he imagined would take place under these circumstances was that the Land Commission would probably send down an inspector to confer with the recalcitrant minority, to learn their circumstances and to report to the Commission, and that the Commission would then act on that report and do what they thought right in the circumstances. That was all he thought the proviso would do. He did not think this was a penalising clause against the tenants. He did not chose to lose the first part of his Amendment because he could not carry the second.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for assisting their progress this evening. He formally moved the omission of the proviso.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To omit lines 7 to 10."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALYmoved to add at the end of the first sub-section—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 10, line 38, at end, to insert the words 'where the tenant could have obtained an advance of the entire purchase-money, and the Land Commission had offered in the prescribed manner to make the advance.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18.
  MR. CLANCYurged that the regulations as to turbary should be laid on the Table of the House. He did not desire to detain the Committee by moving an Amendment, but he wished to say that if it was proposed to give the trustees powers to tax that would be thoroughly unconstitutional.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it would be quite impossible until the trustees had acquired particular rights to make regulations as to how they were to be exercised.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 11, line 25, to leave out the word 'vesting,' and insert the word 'sale.'"—(Mr. Edward Mitchell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 11, line 30, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Edward Mitchell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the clause."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he could not accept the Amendment, because in many cases it would be necessary that the word "may" should be retained.
  MR. MITCHELLsaid he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 11, line 31, after the word 'aforesaid,' to insert the words 'and on any estate

  1003
  purchased by the Land Commission when the only bog available is in possession of the landlord. It shall be necessary for the landlord prior to sale to dispose of the whole or as much as may be necessary of the bog to the Land Commission for the use of the tenants, at such price as in case of dispute may be considered fair by a Land Commission inspector.'"—(Dr. Thompson.)
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that the Amendment was entirely unnecessary.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would suggest that there should be a wider and less definite wording of this section. A man on the upper part of a mountain might have twenty or thirty acres of bog land, and an acre or two of tillage land. The only pasturage which he had in the summer time would be on a patch of the bog land. It would be very hard upon him if a man on the lower part of the mountain, who had plenty of pasture on which his cows browsed up to the udders in grass, came up and destroyed his little bit of summer grazing.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that these things could be provided for by schemes which would be drawn up to meet each case.
  DR. THOMPSONsaid he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he wished to draw attention to the question of hand-made turf. If the regulations under Sub-section 2 were enforced against a large number of tenants in his constituency they would be severely penalised. The right hon. Gentleman had promised him that he
  1004
  would add some such words as would protect these tenants. He moved therefore.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 11, line 32, after the word 'cutting' to insert the words 'or making.'"—(Mr. J. P. Farrell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to put in after the word "turf" in line 34, the words "and pasturage." It was not merely the turf which the tenant on the top of the mountain wanted, but the small bit of grass on the turf.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid he presumed that the hon. and learned Gentleman meant that the turf and grass should not be cut away to such an extent as to seriously injure the mountain holding. If so, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 11, line 34, after the word 'turf' to insert the words 'and pasturage.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20.
  Mr. HEMPHILLsaid that this clause enabled the Land Commission on the application of any proprietor of a holding to determine all questions which might arise respecting the boundaries of the holdings, easements, or appurtenances, claimed by any proprietors against any other proprietors or tenants of holdings. That was an enormous

  1005
  power to give to the Land Commission on a subject upon which the Irish tenants were peculiarly touchy, and which often gave rise to disputes and disorder. In order to modify the clause he begged to move.
  "In line 3, after the word 'may' insert 'with the consent of all the proprietors and tenants affected thereby.'"
  If these words were inserted the mischief would be minimised, or disappear altogether; because it would become a species of arbitration, and enable the tenants to get a hearing. It would be a monstrous thing to allow the Land Commission to settle boundaries on an ex parte statement.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 3, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'with the consent of all the proprietors and tenants affected thereby.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TULLYsaid he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that the proposal on the Bill was simply to enable the Land Commission to settle a question of boundaries instead of driving a number of poor proprietors into litigation. The Land Commission would have no coercive jurisdiction.
  MR. GORDONsaid that the questions thus left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Commission might be of the most momentous character. The County Courts and the Superior Courts were open to the tenants. He would suggest that some limitation should be placed on this new power that was to be conferred.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that it was not proposed by the Clause to oust the jurisdiction of the County Courts. It simply provided that two adjoining proprietors might appoint the Land Commission to arbitrate between them. He would be willing to insert on line 3, the words "at the request of the parties interested."
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid that that was exactly the thing he wanted, and he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 3, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'at the request of the parties interested.'"—(Mr. Atkinson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 3, after the words 'think fit' to insert the words 'for the carrying out of such purpose.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ATKINSONsaid his right hon. friend apparently wanted to confine the exercise of these magisterial powers to the purchase, but in his opinion it was much more important that the Land Commission should have power to arbitrate either before the purchase, on the purchase, or after the purchase.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid he could very well understand the granting of such powers to the Land Commission for the purpose of educating the people in the policy of this Act, but here they were

  1007
  setting up a tribunal for the purpose of determining some of the most delicate questions that could be raised.
  MR. O'DOHERTYconsidered the proposed tribunal a very proper one, and considered that it would confer a great amount of good on small farmers throughout Ireland. Anyone acquainted with Irish County Court procedure must regret the great amount of money wasted on disputes over very small matters.
  MR. WOODcould not agree with the last speaker. He thought the clause was unnecessary because under existing Acts ample powers were conferred on the Land Commission to settle disputes for the purpose of carrying out sales between landlord and tenant. He considered the suggestion of the Attorney-General a very fair one. He was reminded of a case which came under his personal notice. Two tenants had a dispute, and in order to avoid the expense of litigation they agreed to place a turkey cock on a table, and whichever of the two parties the bird first bowed to was to be deemed in the right. The experiment was not a success, so at last they had to go to the County Court Judge, and to spend a good deal of money which might have been saved had they obtained proper legal advice in the first instance.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDhoped that the clause would be allowed to pass. He regarded this clause as one of the very best in the Bill, as it would do away with a lot of useless and expensive litigation.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREthought the clause did not go quite far enough. When the Land Commissioners sent down an inspector to inspect an estate he might find a dispute between two tenants A and B as to a right of-way, or a boundary, or some matter of the kind, and the landlord would be unable to go forward with the sale until the dispute was settled, although possibly the tenant might decline to persevere with that. When A made a claim and did not persevere with it it remained a block in the way which was perhaps only to be got rid of by the landlord paying A to withdraw his objection. In his opinion the Land Commissioners should be given power to determine all disputes between tenants in respect of holdings about to be sold.
  MR. HEMPHILL: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21.
  MR. WYNDHAMmoved an Amendment, providing that any question of law arising should be referred for the decision of a Judicial Commissioner.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 12, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the words 'shall on the application of any person interested.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WYNDHAMnext moved a further Amendment to line 13, the

  1009
  object of which was to prevent frivolous law points being raised.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 13, at end, to insert the words 'unless in the opinion of the Estates Commissioners the application is frivolous.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. DILLONmoved to amend the second sub-section so that it should read:—
  "The Estates Commissioners shall be appointed by His Majesty, by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, as additional Members of the Land Commission."
  He said that on the Second Reading of the Bill the Chief Secretary gave a sort of pledge that there should be no difference in the status of the Commissioners, that there should be no chairman, and that all should have the same status and powers. The object of this Amendment was to secure the redemption of that pledge. The provisions of Sub-section 2 were plainly inconsistent with that promise, for one Commissioner was to be appointed by Sign Manual and his salary charged on the Consolidated Fund, while the other two were to hold their office at pleasure and to be paid a lower salary to be provided by Parliament. It was pretty well known that the landlord's nominee on the Commission was to be Mr. Frederick Wrench. He was to be paid £3,000 a year as compared with £2,000 a year to be given to the other Commissioners, and as his salary would be a charge on the Consolidated Fund he alone on the Commission would not be subject to Parliamentary criticism. He would, in fact, hold a position entirely different from that held by the other two Commissioners. He thought that
  1010
  hon. Members around him were entitled to object to the landlords' representative on the Commission being made practically the president of that body. As had been said more that once, the future of that Bill depended to an enormous extent on the method of administering it. Land Bill after Land Bill in the history of the Irish Land War had been destroyed by administration, and the hopes and confidence of the people had been turned into bitter disappointment in consequence. If there was to be any real settlement now, there must be a fresh departure in the matter of administration. They did not want the work entrusted to such men as Judge Ross and Mr. Frederick Wrench, who would be withdrawn from the criticism of Parliament, and as to whose actions Ministers would be able to refuse information. He had hoped to see the administration put on a sounder basis and placed in the hands of men who would be recognised as a responsible body of administrators and not mere officials. Let the Government adopt that policy honestly and frankly, and not give the chief place to one who enjoyed the confidence neither of tenants nor of landlords. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would realise the gravity of that question, and the importance of endeavouring to secure the confidence of the Irish people in the Commission.
  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."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that on the night the Bill was introduced he heartily congratulated the Government

  1011
  on the fact—as stated by the Chief Secretary—that the decisions of the new tribunal, being a non-judicial tribunal, would be open to criticism on the Estimates. But on seeing the Bill in print he very soon discovered that the statement of the Chief Secretary was inaccurate, inasmuch as the most important member of the Commission, by having his salary charged to the Consolidated Fund, was removed from the criticism of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt unintentionally, conveyed a false impression on the night he introduced the Bill. It was now clear that Mr. Wrench was placed in the position of superiority over his colleagues. Parliament would be unable to discuss his conduct, and he could not be removed except by some almost impossible procedure, while his colleagues were to be in the position of removable resident magistrates. And Mr. Wrench was to occupy that favoured position in spite of the fact that he had not the confidence of either the landlords or the tenants in Ireland. Worse than that, the other two members of the Commission were paid lower salaries than Mr. Wrench, and were removable at pleasure. It was a most serious thing that Mr. Wrench should be put in such a position of superiority, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would give them satisfactory assurance that his promise on the point would be redeemed. It must not be forgotten that Mr. Wrench was already a member of the Congested Districts Board, and he certainly could not satisfactorily perform the work of the two offices.
  MR. T. M. HEALYdid not claim to be able to say whether or not the landlords had confidence in Mr. Wrench.
  1012
  He preferred to discuss the Amendment rather from the point of view of the inequality of the Commissioners than that of disparagement of one of their number. He contended that it was reasonable to require that Mr. Wrench should be put on the same footing with his colleagues as regarded Parliamentary criticism, tenure, and salary. He well remembered the mistake that was made in the case of Mr. Murrough O'Brien, who was appointed to his office by a Liberal Government at a reduced salary of £2,000, with the result that he was practically boycotted by his colleagues and treated as if he occupied an inferior instead of an equal position. They did not want a recurrence of that. There was a strong aroma of the Treasury about this clause; and the right hon. Gentleman had already rejected one Amendment on the ground that he was fettered by the Treasury. As to the questions of status and tenure, such a case might occur as that, because the Commissioners by a majority refused to buy a slum holding. A Member of the House of Lords would at once come down with a Motion for their removal, and as the Peers held the Government in their pockets, the position would be intolerable. If the question was not decided that evening there was a danger of its discussion occupying the whole of the next day.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that with reference to the action of the Treasury he would remind the hon. and learned Member that the Bill was brought forward upon the responsibility of the Government as a whole, but there was no doubt that a strong case had to be made out for creating new departments and new offices. He would repeat now what he said on the

  1013
  first and second reading of the Bill—namely, that the sole intention of the Government was that the Estates Commissioners should be a body of administrators, and not a body of Judges. He did not know that he need take up the cudgels on behalf of Mr. Wrench, but he would only say that he should not have recommended his appointment unless he had had a very high opinion of his ability. No one had joined with him more cordially in pushing on land purchase and shortening the procedure. But, taking it that Mr. Wrench might be one of the three Commissioners, was it contended that a person who held a certain position at a certain salary could be appointed to do more work on condition that his tenure was altered and his salary reduced? That was not practical politics. It was the intention that Mr. Wrench and the other Commissioners should be subject to the criticism of Parliament, and if there were any doubt as to that let it be removed. That was his intention, and he would see that it was carried into effect. His suggestion was that it should be made clear that the Estates Commissioners, as Estates Commissioners, were an administrative and not a judicial body, and that their action in that capacity could be reviewed on the Estimates year by year. Their tenure, he thought, should be the tenure of the Civil Service. The hon. Member suggested that there should be a levelling up as regarded salaries; but he would prefer not to discuss that suggestion. He associated himself, however, with the Treasury in thinking that £2,000 was an adequate salary for the work; and he could not suggest an increase to the Treasury. The salary which a man received did not add weight to his influence in council.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he did not want the House of Lords coming down and banging these men.
  MR. WYNDHAMasked the hon. and learned Gentleman how these men were to be subject to the criticism of this House and not of the other House. If they were to be administrative, clearly they must have an administrative tenure.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid there never had been an instance in which they were restrained from discussing the action of County Court Judges. He himself had discussed the judicial action of every County Court Judge in Ireland. He remembered beginning with Judge Clarke in 1881, and then he went on to Judge Barry, of Monaghan. The County Court Judges had never been considered to have a Consolidated Fund tenure. He thought there was some force in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the salary, but on the question of tenure he remained immovable. It was an absurd tenure. These men ought not to be removable at pleasure. Their minds were all full of the old tenure disputes. But this was not the old question. It was not a question whether a man was within the Act or not. It was a question where two parties were agreed except as to amount, as to whether the Commissioners would give a man a £10,000 bonus or not, perhaps for a slim estate. With the influence of the constant hammer-hammer of society in a little island where everyone was known, and where the telescope and microscope of public opinion were on everyone, were these gentlemen to be given a scavenger's tenure? Why, under the Local Government Act the humblest employee of a

  1015
  County Council was given an absolute tenure. Was it reasonable that they should be asked, knowing what they did about the vicissitudes of appointments in the past, to agree to such a proposal. If they were to agree to the suggestion of the Government they would be positively giving away the tenants' case. He himself had not put down many Amendments to the Bill; he did not care a great deal about them; and he would tell the Committee why. When the Land Act of 1881 was being passed he said:—
  "Give me the making of the Land Commission, and I do not care who makes the land laws."
  But if the Estates Commissioners were to be the merest shadows, whose breath was to depend on the thunders and vetoes of the House of Lords, they might as well appoint the three greatest landlord partisans in Ireland. No man could stand up in Ireland against constant debates by influential men. If Lord Londonderry, Lord Abercorn, Lord Ardilaun, or any of the great proprietors came down to the comfortable Assembly over the way with a Motion calling attention to the conduct of Mr. A, B, or C in Dublin, and declaring pontifically that it was intolerable—the Chief Secretary might then be at the Treasury or be Prime Minister, and they would have in that House a Chief Secretary who knew not Joseph, or perhaps knew him too well, and who would take up a strong line on the landlords' side—why the echo of the division would not have ceased before their Lordships would come clattering across the lobbies, and the Chief Secretary of the day would have to send a telegram to these unfortunate Commissioners which would make their hair
  1016
  curl. Where was the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, who had pleaded on behalf of the British taxpayers? This was the occasion for protecting the British taxpayers. The Commissioners could only incur censure by acting on motives of economy and strictness. It was not the criticism of the Irish Members they would incur, but the criticism of the gentlemen across the lobby. He took a strong view on this clause, and unless they got some satisfaction he was afraid its discussion would occupy a good deal of time.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid they could not possibly settle the question that night. The hon. and learned Member would give the Estates Commissioners a tenure tantamount to the tenure of a County Court Judge; that was to say that they could be removed, not by the House but by the Lord Chancellor. If they gave the Commissioners the tenure of a Judge it would tend to make the procedure judicial. He was inclined to make it administrative; and what they had to find was some plan that would keep the procedure administrative, and subject to criticism in that House, but which would not subject those who had such important duties to perform to any slight. As time did not then suffice for the discussion of the matter he suggested that they had better sleep over it.
  Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

1. Finance.

2. Naval Forces.

3. Berwickshire County Town.

4. Coal Mines (Certificates).

5. Land Drainage Provisional Order.

6. Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1).

7. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2).

8. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3).

9. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4).

10. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6).

11. Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Order Confirmation.

12. Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum Orders Confirmation.

13. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1).

14. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2).

15. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4).

16. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6).

17. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 8).

18. Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of the Working Classes).

19. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1).

20. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

21. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

22. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

23. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6).

24. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).

898

25. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).

26. Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas).

27. St. Luke's Church and Parish Quoad Sacra Edinburgh Order Confirmation.

28. Naval Works Provisional Order.

29. Pier and Harbour Order (No. 1).

30. Grangemouth Water Order Confirmation.

31. Lanarkshire Electricity and Refuse Destruction Order Confirmation.

32. Forth Navigation Order Confirmation.

33. Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation.

34. Edinburgh Corporation (Markets, Slaughter-houses, etc.) Order Confirmation.

35. North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation.

36. Western Trust.

37. Great Western Railway (Pension Fund).

38. Dublin Improvement (Bull Alley Area).

39. Queensland Investment and Land Mortgage.

40. Great Northern and City Railway.

41. Maidstone Gas.

42. Stoke Newington Borough Council.

43. North Middlesex Gas.

44. Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas.

45. Faversham Gas.

46. North's Navigation Collieries.

47. Life Association of Scotland.

48. Pelican and British Empire Life Office.

49. Lima Railways.

50. Exeter Railway.

51. All Saints, Poplar (Rate Abolition).

52. London Hydraulic Power.

53. Sutton District Water.

54. Bridgwater Gas.

55. East Ardsley Gas.

899

56. Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas.

57. Scarborough Gas.

58. Sittingbourne District Gas.

59. South Wales Mineral Railway.

60. Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power.

61. Indiarubber, Guttapercha, and Telegraph Works Company.

62. Milford Docks.

63. Market Drayton Gas.

64. Wellington (Salop) Gas.

65. Knott End Railway (Extension of Time).

66. Winchester Water and Gas.

67. Midland Railway.

68. Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal.

69. Harrow and Stanmore Gas.

70. Wirral Railway.

71. Rickmansworth Gas.

72. Harrogate Water.

73. Gorleston and Southtown Gas.

74. Belfast Water.

75. Shepshed Urban District Gas.

76. Gas Light and Coke Company.

77. Commercial Gas.

78. Great Eastern Railway.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Kinnaird be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Kilmaine; read, and agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways.
Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills: Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 17).
And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the Alexandra Park Trustees ought to be dispensed with.
  Read, and agreed to.
  North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]. Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  Hyde Corporation Bill; Cheshire Lines Committee Bill; Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company Bill [H L.]; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and East Denbighshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
  Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
  Watford and Edgware Railway Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read and ordered to lie on the Table.

  901
  The orders made on the 16th instant and Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
  Romford and District Tramways Bill. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  Crystal Palace District Gas Bill. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill; South Shields Corporation Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  Lochnell Estate Bill [H.L.]; Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways Bill [H.L.], now Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Bill [H.L.]; West Bromwich Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  Ulster and Connaught Light Railways Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (East Ham, &c.) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment.
  Southampton Harbour Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
  Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Irvine and District Water Board was presented by the Lord Balfour (pursuant to the
  902
  Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 148.)
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 16th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North-Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Stanmore be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Stewart of Garlies (E. Galloway); read, and agreed to.
  Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]; Brighton Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That

  903
  the Lord Kilmaine be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Belhaven and Stenton; read, and agreed to.
  Leigh Corporation Bill; Welling-borough and District Tramroads Bill; Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill; Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill; Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Craven be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Kilmaine; read, and agreed to.
  Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Kenyon be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore); read, and agreed to.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill, (No. 151); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, (No. 152). Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRANSVAAL (ORANGE RIVER COLONY).
  Papers relating to the Inter-Colonial Council South Africa Order in Council, 1903.

  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 338. Wei-Hai-Wei (Report for 1902).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CERTIFIED INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (REGULATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT).
  Amended regulations, made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the
  904
  Home Department, for the management and discipline of the Church Army Newdigate Farm Home, Surrey.

  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS, INLAND).
  Statutory Rules and Orders, 1903.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee that they have added the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore) to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  CONTRACTS (INDIA OFFICE) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with a further Amendment; the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House, and by the Standing Committee, to be received on Thursday next.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment: the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Friday next.
  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment: the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
  MARINE STORE DEALERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 150.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
  Order of the day for the House going into Committee read.
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, I wish to say that the Marquess of Ripon and several other noble Lords have brought to my notice a resolution passed by the West Riding County Council objecting to the clause that enables the different local authorities to veto the resolution of the County Council. As a matter of fact, in the House of Commons the smaller local bodies objected to the County Council having entire authority, and this clause was put in as a compromise. Although anxious to do everything to meet the views of the County Councils in this matter, the clause cannot very well be altered now.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 omitted.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 149.)

  GUINEA POSTAL ORDERS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: The object of this Bill, which consists of only two clauses, is to enable the Postmaster-General to issue postal orders to the value of 21s., and as a large number of people send subscriptions of a guinea to charitable and other institutions the Bill would confer a great boon to the public generally.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Fire o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.