Sitting of 9 August 1907

Preamble
The House met at Twelve noon of the Clock.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills. (See page 485).

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Swansea Harbour Bill.—Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, etc.) Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Fraserburgh, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1898.
  Petition of the Certificated Elementary School Women Teachers under the Board of Education, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dumfries, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the North-East of Scotland Land Defence Association, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from East Aberdeenshire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petition from Pirbright and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PERMANENT CHARGES COMMUTATION.
  Return [presented 8th August]; to be printed. [No. 292.]
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-second Annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland [by Command]; to the upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (BELFAST).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the President for 1906–7 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (RECURRENT EXPENDITURE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 12th March; Mr. Bellairs]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 293.]
  UNITED KINGDOM (TRADE, COMMERCE, AND CONDITION OF PEOPLE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th July; Mr. Essex]; to li upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 294.]
  BANKRUPTCY.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-fourth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 295.]
  NORTHERN NIGERIA.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to Sokoto, Hedeija, and the Munshi Country [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series. Nos.

  567
  3889 and 3890 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
  Copy ordered, "of the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Acts, indicating the extensions and Amendments thereof proposed by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill (as amended by the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills and on Report)."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 296.] I

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the number of certificates of conscientious objection to vaccination granted during the year 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The number of certificates of conscientious objection to vaccination received by vaccination officers in 1906 was 52,391.

  Appointment of Assistant Inspector of Postmen at Durham.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a vacancy for an assistant inspector of postmen at Durham has been filled by a man from Harrogate, and that men of good character at Durham, with service ranging from fifteen to twenty-nine years, have been passed over; whether the postmaster of Durham objects to men being promoted in his own office, but is willing to recommend them for promotion elsewhere; and whether he has sanctioned this restriction on promotion.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A new appointment has recently been authorised for an inspector of postmen at Durham. There was, unfortunately, no postman at that office fully qualified to fill the new position, and it was therefore necessary to select an eligible officer
  568
  from another town. I have no reason to suppose that the postmaster of Durham entertains the view suggested by the hon. Member, but I should certainly not countenance any exclusion of well-qualified Durham officers from promotion in their own office.

  Treatment of a Superintendent at Newry Post Office.
  MR. MOONEY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will grant an independent inquiry into the allegations made as to the treatment of a superintendent in the Newry post office whose case has recently been brought before him.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I understand the hon. Member's Question to refer to certain allegations of unfair treatment by the postmaster which were put forward recently by an overseer at Newry. Those allegations have been carefully investigated and proved to be groundless. I do not consider any further inquiry necessary.

  English and Irish Postal Stores Tenders.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that Irish manufacturers are required to tender for the delivery of English Post Office stores in London, he will explain why English manufacturers are not required to tender for the delivery of Irish Post Office stores in Dublin; and who pays the cost of carriage on such stores sent from the London stores departments for use in the Irish Post Office service.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The facts are not as the hon. Member supposes. English manufacturers do tender for delivery in Ireland of certain stores required in that country. The Post Office Vote bears the cost of the carriage of any stores sent from the Stores Department in London to Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether manufacturers have to tender for delivery in London of the clothing supplies required in the Irish Post Office service; and, if so, who pays the cost of the carriage on these clothing

  569
  supplies when sent from London to Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Answer is in the negative as regards uniform clothing and head dresses. The tenders are for delivery in Dublin. Cloth and other materials for making up, boots, and waterproofs must be delivered in London for expert examination. The Post Office Vote bears the cost of carriage from London to Ireland on these articles.

  English and Irish Postal Stores.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General how many officials are employed in the London Post Office factories in connection with the making and repairing of Post Office stores; how many officials are similarly employed in Ireland in connection with the making and repairing of stores for the Irish Post Office service; whether the Government built these Post Office factories; what was the approximate outlay in constructing them; and where are they situated.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Post Office has two factories in London, one at Mount Pleasant, Clerkenwell, and one at Bovay Place, Holloway. It is not possible to state with any accuracy what the erection of these factories cost. At Holloway, part of the site was purchased with a building, since utilised, upon it; at Mount Pleasant, also, a block of buildings was on the ground when it was acquired, and, moreover, a part of the factory buildings erected by the Post Office has been devoted to other purposes. The number of men employed at the two factories is about 900. The Post Office has no other factories, either in Ireland or elsewhere.

  English and Irish Postal Service and Promotions.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the London postal service is treated separately from the provincial Post Office service, and all the superior appointments in it are given to London officials on the recommendation of the Controller; and, if so, will he explain why the Irish postal service is not treated separately as that of London, and why all superior Irish appointments are not given to officials serving in
  570
  Ireland on the recommendation of the Irish authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The London postal service, like the postal service of every other town and city, whether in England, Scotland, or Ireland, is treated as a separate unit in matters of promotion, superior appointments being filled by transfer from elsewhere only when duly qualified officers cannot be found upon the local staff, a case which is rare when the staff is large, as in London. Postmasterships are open to the staff of the whole United Kingdom without distinction, but this mode of appointment cannot be conveniently applied to the officers who are designated postmasters in London, their position being dissimilar to that of postmasters elsewhere.

  Irish Postal Stores.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the unequal treatment inflicted upon Ireland in her financial relations with England, he will appoint a small departmental committee to inquire, during the recess, whether the Post Office stores imported from England to Ireland could, without detriment to the public service, be obtained in Ireland, and to ascertain what steps can be taken to give Irish contractors better opportunities of ascertaining what contracts are open from time to time.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton. It is open to any Irish manufacturers who are not at present invited to tender to apply to the Controller of Stores to have their names put on his list of firms to whom tender forms should be sent, and their tenders will always be carefully considered. For many of the stores, however, which are used in the telegraph and telephone services there are no manufacturers in Ireland.

  Post Office Construction—Reinforced Concrete.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether Post Office buildings, other than the General Post Office, are being constructed, or are about to be constructed, of reinforced concrete; and, if so, how

  571
  many, and where; whether the estimates for any such Post Office buildings show any material economy compared with Post Office buildings erected with ordinary materials; and, if so, what is the extent of the saving, approximately, per cubic foot of building.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The other buildings being constructed, or about to be constructed, of reinforced concrete are—

  The Manchester Principal Sorting Office.

  Birmingham: Store Building.

  London: Western District Post Office.

  The approximate savings are 20 per cent.

  Sanitary Condition of Cold Norton School, Essex.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to complaints of inhabitants of the parish of Cold Norton, Essex, that Cold Norton school is not fit on sanitary and other grounds for educational purposes, and to the fact that the building has been condemned by the county education authority as long ago as 1904; whether the poorer inhabitants are still being compelled by law to send their children to this condemned building; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action" in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The building of this school is far from satisfactory, but I am not aware that it was condemned by the county education authority; in fact it was, to a considerable extent, due to the repeated requests of that authority that it was placed on the annual grant list. So long as the school is recognised as a public elementary school it is regarded as affording efficient instruction for the children who attend it and thereby satisfying the requirements of the by-laws. The recognition of the school will expire in March next, and I am in communication with the local education authority as to the best means of providing suitable accommodation for these children after that date. I may add that the average attendance at the school last year was only twenty-four.

  Payment of Salaries of Merionethshire School Teachers.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the President of the Board of Education if all the quarterly salaries due to the teachers in non-provided schools of Merionethshire have now been paid; if so, by whom, and on what date were such payments made.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have no information on the subject of the noble Lord's Question.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has received any further communication from the Merionethshire local education authority; and, if so, what is its substance; and whether the Board of Education is now prepared to refund to the managers any salaries which may be paid by them to the teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have now heard that the local education authority has intimated to the managers of several voluntary schools that if they pay salaries and send accounts to Whitehall the authority will raise no objection to the Board of Education repaying to the managers the sums recognised by the authority as due for salaries. In reply to the last part of the Question, I cannot undertake to give a guarantee to refund to the managers any salaries which may be paid by them to the teachers, as such a step would not be in accordance with the provisions of The Education (Local Authority Default) Act, 1904, but the fact that the local authority raise no objection to such payment to the managers would certainly be taken into account by the Board of Education in coming to a conclusion whether or not it is expedient to proceed in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

  Saturday Half-holiday in Government Offices.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state whether a weekly Saturday half-holiday is granted in any Government office; if so, in what offices and on what conditions whether the privilege may be extended to

  573
  all Government offices on the same conditions; and whether the clerks in offices ill which this privilege is not granted are required to attend for the same number of hours on ordinary days as clerks who enjoy the weekly half-holiday.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am unable to add anything to the numerous Answers which I have given to Questions on this subject during the present session.

  Promotion of Ridley Clerks.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any information as to the number of promotions of Ridley clerks in other Government offices; and, if so, whether, having regard to the fact that there are 113 such clerks at present serving in the Local Government Board, he will consider the advisability of making further promotions.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received some information on this subject. As regards the latter part of the Question, I do not think I can add anything to the reply I gave my hon. friend on the 5th instant.†

  Promotion of Second-Class Clerks.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board how many second-class clerks of the Higher Division appointed under the Order in Council, 21st March, 1890, are employed in the Local Government Board; how many clerks have been promoted to higher posts under this Department from this class since its introduction, and the number of such promotions during the last five years.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, does not relate to the Higher Division. My hon. friend probably intends to refer to that of 15th August, 1890. At the present time there are employed in the Local Government Board twenty-three second-class clerks of the Higher Division who have been appointed to that Division since the date of the last-mentioned
  † See (4) Debates, clxxix., 1519–20.
  574
  Order. Two of them have been promoted from the Second Division. The number of second-class clerks of the Higher Division appointed since 15th August, 1890, who have received advancement is sixteen. Of these fourteen have received advancement during the last five years.

  Lough Neagh Fisheries—Representation on Advisory Committee.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why the Lough Neagh fisheries, the produce of which goes directly to the support of a community of at least 3,000 people, are not represented on the advisory committee to the fishery authority; and whether, in case of any changes being made by the Department, he will have this state of affairs remedied for the benefit of Lough Neagh.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The intention of the Department in forming their advisory committee on fisheries was, I am informed, that the committee should be composed of gentlemen generally experienced in fishery matters, and who, instead of advocating particular interests, would look upon the whole Irish fisheries as a national asset and deal with questions submitted to them from that point of view. The Department consider that it would be advisable to adhere to that basis of selection. But I am of opinion that, even under such a scheme, the claims of Lough Neagh district should be considered in any rearrangement that may take place.

  Navan (County Meath) Labourers Cottage Scheme—Delay in Holding Inquiry.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the inquiry by the Local Government Board to be held at Navan, county Meath, into the application for labourers cottages has been so long delayed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) There has been no delay in this case. The petition for confirmation of the scheme was received by the Local Government Board from the Council on 30th July. Arrangements are being made for holding the

  575
  inquiry as soon as practicable, having regard to the statutory notices which must be given.

  Irish Petty Sessions Clerks—Pay of Substitutes during Absence.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether clerks of petty sessions in Ireland have to pay substitutes to do their work in case of illness or during vacation; and, if so, will he take steps to alter this practice, more especially having regard to the fact that their department yields a surplus annually.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The ordinary receipts of the department from fines and fees are insufficient to meet its expenses, and the deficit is made good by an annual transfer from the receipts for dog licences, which otherwise go to local authorities.

  Commutation of Warrant Officers' Pensions.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to modify in favour of warrant officers the regulation which prevents them from commuting any part of their pensions before fifty-five; and, if so, what changes he proposes to make.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The matter is still under consideration.

  Manual of Military Law and King's Regulations—Issue of New Editions.
  COLONEL LONG: To ask the Secretary for State for War whether he will have fresh and corrected editions of the Official Manual of Military Law and of the King's Regulations issued in time to supply officers preparing during the coming winter for their examination for promotion with the information necessary for passing successfully.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Both these books are in course of revision. The Manual of Military Law will shortly be sent to press, and copies should be available before the end of the year. The revise of the King's Regulations is not in
  576
  so forward a state, but it is hoped will be completed by the end of the year.

  Berks Imperial Yeomanry Band and Political Demonstration.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to an advertisement of a Conservative fete and demonstration to be held in Inglewood Park, near Kintbury, on Saturday, 10th August, at which the band of the Berks Imperial Yeomanry is announced to perform; whether it is with the sanction of the War Office authorities that this band is to take part in a political demonstration; and, if not, whether he will take any, and what, action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My attention has been called to this matter. The arrangement has not received the sanction of the War Office, and action has been taken to prevent any breach of the regulations,

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, That this House do, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday next.—(Captain Norton.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  To be printed. [Bill 309.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Factory and Workshop Bill [Lords] and of the Cabs and Stage Carriages (London) Bill): Mr. Burns, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kettle, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Moouey, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Henniker Heaton, Mr. Haddock, and Mr. Parker; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Factory and Workshop Bill [Lords] and of the Cabs and Stage Carriages (London) Bill): Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Herbert Samuel, Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh, Mr. William Abraham (Cork), Mr. Halpin, Mr. Lardner, Mr. John Murphy.

  577
  Mr. Ffrench, Mr. Bowles, Sir Frederick Banbury, and Mr. George Henry Roberts.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Factory and Workshop Bill [Lords] and of the Cabs and Stage Carriages (London) Bill): Mr. Brace, Mr. T. L. Corbett, Lord Edmund Talbot, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Hunt, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. William Tyson Wilson, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. John Johnson, Mr. Masterman, Mr. John Tennant, Dr. Shipman, Mr. Wedgwood, and Mr. Charles Nicholson.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Employers' Liability (Insurance Companies) Bill and of the Companies Bill [Lords]): Mr. Paul, Mr. James Duncan, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Barran, Mr. Hart-Davies, Mr. Osmond Williams, Sir Albert Spicer, Sir Francis Channing, and Mr. Whitehead; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Employers' Liability (Insurance Companies) Bill and of the Companies Bill [Lords]): Mr. Bertram, Mr. Gibb, Mr. Attorney-General, Sir-Edwin Cornwall, Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Higham, Mr. King, Mr. Ridsdale, and Sir Frederick Cawley.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee: That they had added to Standing Committee C the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Employers' Liability (Insurance Companies) Bill and of the Companies Bill [Lords]): Mr. Bell, Mr. Claude Hay, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Gordon, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Thomas Frederick Richards, Mr. Patrick White, Dr. Ambrose, Mr. Walter Rea, Mr. Lupton, Mr. Theodore Taylor, Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Beauchamp, Mr. Rendall, and Mr. Horniman.
  Reports to lie upon the Table,

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to; Released Persons (Poor Law Relief) Bill; Paisley
  578
  Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to; Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. COCHRANEin moving the rejection of the measure, said they had now arrived at the concluding stages of a very prolonged discussion of the Small Landholders (Scotland.) Bill, on which they had spent twenty-three days in Grand Committee, and, owing to circumstances over which they had no control, a very large proportion of the measure still remained undiscussed. The criticisms directed against the Bill had come from both sides of the House, the most stringent from hon. Members opposite, who, from their experience and skill in agricultural matters and public affairs generally, were calculated to give to the House a great deal of guidance on the merits of this measure. One of the first objections to the Bill related purely to its drafting. Hon. Members would realise the difficulties which faced them in Grand Committee in endeavouring to discover what the meaning of the Bill was. It referred directly to some three or four Acts of Parliament, but indirectly, when they came to deal with the various clauses, they found that they had to wade through statutes of great complexity and length, and it became impossible to understand what the scope and effect of the Bill would be. They referred back, from time to time, to no less than thirteen Acts of Parliament. He respectfully submitted that legislation by reference at any time was undesirable; but in a measure of this kind, which would have to be interpreted by men of no skill in the law, by farmers and small holders, and those concerned in the agricultural interest, it was most desirable that the measure should have borne on the face of it the various statutes to

  579
  which it referred. In this view he did not stand alone. He had the strongest possible opinion on his side, for during the discussion of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, in 1900, two learned Gentlemen now sitting on the Government Bench, founded their criticism of that measure solely on the fact of the aggravated form of legislation by reference which it disclosed. The Lord Advocate offered a very strong expression of opinion, and reminded them of the old lady's description of a sheep's head, that it was "very confused feeding." As very often happened, the learned Solicitor-General went one better than the Lord Advocate; he was still more stringent in his criticism, and he said what was very germane to the present subject of discussion—
  "By the machinery of this Bill, the landlord and tenant of Scotland are to settle down to ascertain their rights at the close of a tenancy. That is the kind of Bill we should expect—a Bill that would tell its own story upon its face, which anyone who runs may read. It ought to be clear, distinct, concise, and self-contained."
  Anyone who read this Bill would see how well that filled in every possible particular. The hon. and learned Gentleman then went one better still, for with great self-sacrifice, he made a suggestion to the Government, which he hoped he would repeat now. So dissatisfied was he with the form in which the Bill was drafted, that he offered to devote a portion of the Easter recess, then approaching, and with the material which the Government had given, to "frame a Bill which would tell its own story on its face, so that he who runs may read." He would venture to suggest to the learned Solicitor-General that ample occupation for the Autumn holiday presented itself in the Bill now before the House, and the kindest thing which he could do to the House and country would be to redraft it in a condensed and comprehensive form so that he who ran might read; and then, if in abridged, wiser, and saner guise it were reintroduced in the succeeding session, and it proved really calculated to deal with the evils under which the rural population suffered, and set on the land a greater number of small holders, it would find no warmer sympathisers and friends than would be forthcoming on his side of the House. If the drafting of the Bill was confused, so also was the description which various Members of the Government had given
  580
  of its objects and intentions He would not go into the old story of the "blank denial," which was one of the original reasons brought forward for the introduction of a measure such as this, because he thought that the right hon. Gentleman who had given publicity to that phrase had perhaps somewhat modified it in subsequent speeches.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Not in the least.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman had not modified it in subsequent speeches, at any rate the evidence on which he based his charge, as anyone who read the evidence would see, was not such as in any way supported or carried out the allegation. Another informal charge, or at least another reason for the promotion of this measure was given tentative effect by the Lord Advocate in one of his speeches, in which he said the Bill was designed to prevent arbitrary evictions. Subsequently the right hon. Gentleman modified that view, and he failed, as others failed, to produce any concrete cases in Scotland sufficient in number and importance in any way to substantiate such a grave and unfair charge. The Solicitor - General at a meeting in Perth could not contain himself any longer, and he repeated his charge there as to arbitrary evictions. He would like to challenge the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General to substantiate the charge against the landed interest in Scotland. They were told that the Bill would arrest depopulation in the rural areas, and that it was founded upon the valuable experience gained during the operation of the Act of 1886 in the crofting areas. No more amazing statement than the assertion that the Crofters Acts had arrested depopulation in the Highland districts could possibly be made. He would take two instances from the Returns, and he would take Skye as a typical instance in the Highlands. There he found that whereas the population between 1871 and 1881 decreased by 9·95 per cent., between 1881 and 1891 after the commencement of the Crofters Acts the population decreased by 6·87 per cent. After the Crofters Act had been in full operation he found that between 1891 and 1901 the rural

  581
  population in Skye had decreased by 12·4 per cent., which was greater than the average decrease throughout Scotland. In the county of Inverness the decrease was 16 per cent between 1891 and 1901, but when they examined it a little closer they found that the drift had been from the country districts into the towns. The towns and villages in the County of Inverness had increased during that period by 3,018, and the rural population had decreased by 3,030. When they claimed that the Crofters Acts had arrested depopulation they were resting their case upon a slender, insufficient, and inaccurate basis. The hon. Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow had claimed that this measure would do a great deal in the direction of remedying over-crowding in the large towns in Scotland. How was it going to prevent that? The hon. Member for Blackfriars had claimed that every Bill introduced by the Government would diminish the overcrowding evil. He made a claim of that kind in regard to the Valuation Bill for Scotland, and only the previous night he had argued that if the tramways in Glasgow were not taxed to their full value they would assist the question of the housing of the working classes. What would be the real result of this measure? He ventured to say that it would have an entirely contrary result to that anticipated by its promoters. What did the promoters of the Bill desire? Their object was to increase the number of small holdings throughout Scotland. He did not see how they would accomplish this object if they cut themselves off from that voluntary effort which had done so much to create small holdings in the past. They might create an artificial demand for small holdings, but would it be upon such a sound and safe basis as would be likely to lead to satisfactory results? The small landholders could not live upon stimulants alone; they would want some solid food as well. To create a false appetite and expect good healthy results was to proceed on thoroughly unsound lines. Sir Charles Renshaw, who had taken a deep interest in this question, had lately endeavoured by the means at his disposal and under the power conferred by the Act of 1894 to ascertain what demand there was in Renfrewshire and give effect to that demand. He said that the County Association advertised for weeks in every paper that they were prepared to sell or
  582
  let small holdings to any deserving or suitable tenants. After applying to every parish council to assist them, and taking every means in their power, they managed to get only three applications, and when those came to be tested two of them withdrew, and the third turned out to be an application not from a farm labourer but from a photographer who desired to have a nice little country place in which to carry on his business. They had heard a great deal about intensive cultivation, and they were all in favour of it, but if that was to include the development of photographic plates they were departing from the real objects of such legislation. What would be the position of the small holder when he was created? He was to be placed upon part of a farm presumably now being cultivated by a tenant farmer and being cultivated to the very best purpose. That farmer would find himself placed in a reduced area with the same sized farm buildings, and consequently an increased expenditure. Could it be expected that he would look upon the small landholder, who had been foisted upon him, with friendly feelings? They were now dealing with 62,000 small holdings of under fifty acres which had all been created by voluntary effort, which they would now put a stop to. Those voluntary holdings formed 70 per cent. of the entire holdings in Scotland. The landlord was now left in the position of a rent-charger, a mortgagee, and a tax-gathered, who could not choose his own tenants, and found himself, instead of being a landlord ready to be the friend and come to the assistance of his tenants, in the position more of a detective who had to watch carefully the tenant to see that he did not dilapidate and deteriorate the holding. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] At any rate that was his opinion as to what would happen. They placed the smallholder in charge of the Agricultural Commissioners, who were a corporation of whom it might be said that they had neither a soul to save nor a body to be kicked. This corporation was few in number and their duties were scattered throughout the whole of Scotland. Under those circumstances how could they assume responsibility towards each individual small landholder. In the interests of the country it was far better for a smallholder to have the warm sympathy which the landlord had always shown towards his tenants in

  583
  times past. One of the principal drawbacks of the Bill was the lack of responsibility, because the landlord had practically no responsibility except to collect his rents. The Agricultural Commissioners had no direct responsibility, because they were scattered about the various parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had refused to meet the real demand which was for the ownership of the soil, and the Government had rejected proposals for purchase. Had they really thought what the desire of all classes of persons throughout the country was in this respect? Was it not the pride of ownership, and was it not much better for them to own their own land? One element which made agricultural pursuits more attractive, was the feeling that a man was working his own land and that all the labour he put into it and the results from that labour were for himself and his family, without any tie or obligation, or any resort to Agricultural Commissioners or landlords. Under the Bill a small landholder would not be the owner, and the landlord would not be the owner in the full sense of the word. Was it likely that a man would take the same interest in a farm of which he was not the owner? Common sense led them to draw a conclusion in the opposite direction. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that purchase might be very well but they had to consider the expense. He did not think that argument would appeal to hon. Members who had sat through the debates this session. The Government endeavoured to lavish £650,000 upon Ireland, who was the spoilt child of the House of Commons, but they denied to Scotland a sum which might be sufficient to place upon the soil a thriving and contented peasantry. The plea that they had not the money was a thoroughly dishonest one. Surely the money which had been so contemptuously refused by hon. Members from Ireland might have been made available for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman said it was cheaper to take the land in the way proposed. He ventured to say that they should take something into consideration besides cheapness. It was proposed to take the buildings and the equipment from the landlord without payment. That was dishonest. After they had deprived the landlord of ownership, he would still have the name of owner. What was the position of a
  584
  landowner when divorced from the responsibilities and duties of a landowner? A mere rent-charger and collector who watched that the tenant did not dilapidate his holding. The pretence of leaving him the landowner would not deceive anyone. He himself would eagerly welcome any well-devised scheme for the purpose of creating small holdings throughout Scotland, but he thought the right course to pursue was to take advice from those who were best qualified to give it, namely, the landlords. Did hon. Members pretend for a moment that the landlords of Scotland did not know their work, that they did not know the needs and demands of the different neighbourhoods, and that they were not honestly desirous of carrying out their responsible duties to the best of their power? The right hon. Gentleman would do well to co-operate with, and to enlist the sympathy of, the landlords in any scheme for the creation of small holdings. All landlords would be found to be anxious to increase the number of small holders, and they would support a measure designed to increase the number, but the condition precedent was that the attempt should be honestly, justly, and fairly made, without any wish to create an artificial demand and to sap the independence of the Scottish people. The Bill would produce a feeling of uncertainty throughout the agricultural districts, and would affect large farms and the investment of capital. It was unpopular with the existing small farmer, and with the labourer; and in the interests of the country generally he suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn and replaced by a more reasonable, workable, saner measure. He begged to move.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.),in seconding the Motion, said that when the Bill was passing through Committee, the Secretary for Scotland gave various promises that certain points would be reconsidered, and various undertakings that on other points Amendments would be made at a later stage. He was only giving expression to the feeling of those on that side of the House when he said they recognised that the pledges of the right hon. Gentleman had been honourably, scrupulously, and punctiliously fulfilled. The underlying object of the measure

  585
  was to bring the people back to earn a profitable living on the land, and as to the desirableness of that object there was little, if any, controversy between the two sides of the House. But where the difference of view existed was as to the possibility of and the methods for achieving that end. What were the methods by which it was sought to achieve that end, and what were the reasons for adopting those methods? The answer to the first part of the question was very simple. He noticed that the Prime Minister was inclined to cavil the other day at the time which was spent on a particular part of Clause 1 the first day the guillotine resolution was in operation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman entirely failed to apprehend that it was precisely on that portion of the clause that the great weight of the opposition to this measure was rested. The words of the clause were—
  "From and after the commencement of this Act, and subject to the provisions thereof, the Crofters Acts shall be read and construed as if the expression 'landholder' were substituted for the expression 'crofter' occurring therein, and shall have effect throughout Scotland."
  What was the justification for this proposal? Having listened patiently through the debates on the measure, he must admit that the question was still shrouded in mystery and obscurity. One searched vainly for evidence that the present proposal was founded on either the evidence or the recommendations of experts made after inquiry had been held. On the other hand they found not only in the opinions of practical agriculturists in Scotland, but in the Report of the Commission which was sent to Denmark to make inquiry into the system which obtained there, emphatic evidence against the proposals contained in the Bill. Inferentially, if not explicitly, the opinion of the President of the Board of Agriculture and of the First Commissioner of Works was against the Bill. What was the case for the proposal? The Lord Advocate, in his Second Reading speech, rested his case on the practical experience of the successful working of the Crofters Acts. He himself did not admit that those Acts had been a perfect panacea, but admitting for the sake of argument that they had been successful, still—and this was the essential point on which he and his friends rested their opposition—the differences
  586
  which obtained between the conditions in the Lowlands and the conditions in the Highlands were such as to make the Crofters Acts inapplicable to the Lowlands. In the debates in Committee the hon. Members who spoke as representing the crofting constituencies referred to these differences. Sir George Trevelyan, who was responsible for the introduction of the Crofters Act of 1886, said on the First Reading that—
  "The proposal, if ever there was one, was based on and limited to the special and local circumstances of the districts to that which this Bill is intended to apply. It is a Bill intended strictly for the historical and local circumstances of a very peculiar district. The farms we are dealing with are farms where the landlord does nothing and the tenant does everything."
  He made bold to say that if such Liberals were present now they would almost indubitably vote against the proposals of the Government. That was his answer to the Lord Advocate's statement that the present measure was based on the success of the Crofters Acts. Let them see how the proposals would affect the various classes who would come within the scope of the Bill. On the Second Reading the Solicitor-General for Scotland based the case for the Bill on the existence of arbitrary eviction. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the Bill would provide a certain remedy for arbitrary eviction. That might be so, but they had heard that argument before. When the Land Tenure Bill was before the House last session they were told that one thing it would do would be to provide a certain cure for cases of arbitrary eviction. Practically before the Land Tenure Act had had a chance of coming into operation, they were now told that an entirely different remedy was required. He doubted the necessity for the remedy. In listening to the debates on the Bill he had heard of only one case of arbitrary eviction, and that was a case where the landlord evicted the tenant from his holding because he considered that the tenant's family contained an undue proportion of girls to boys. He did not think the maxim Ex uno disce omnes could apply to this case. Apart altogether from the restraining sanction of the statute, the restraining sanction of public opinion would prevent such cases. Even if cases did escape through the meshes of these sanctions, they

  587
  would necessarily be microscopic. What did they do for the small holder? They placed these men in a groove which was the weakest point in the operation of the Crofters Act. The Secretary to the Crofters Commission in giving evidence before the Departmental Committee was asked whether there were any disadvantages as well as advantages in the operation of the Crofters Act, and his answer was that no doubt the Act conferred great advantages, but it had its disadvantages, and the greatest of these was that it stereotyped the position of the crofter. That would be exactly the position of the small holder under this Bill, The small holder would be "cribbed, cabined and confined" by cast iron formulas. As to the relations between the landlord and his tenants, was it really the opinion of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Bill would conduce to the smoother working of the relations between these two clases? He had read a speech in which a pathetic parallel was drawn between Naboth and the small holder. But it was not Naboth with whom they were concerned. The vineyard of which it was proposed compulsorily to take possession was not Naboth's but Ahab's. By this Bill, it was proposed to put Naboth into possession of Ahab's vineyard against the will of the owner by an arbitrary and irresponsible tribunal, and then a peaceful and happy state of things was expected to result! It was idle to expect a more peaceful state of things until a position was established which would enable a man to buy his own vineyard and live under his own vine and fig tree. The proposal which the Government made in the Bill was because they were unwilling to accept the burden of financial responsibility for purchase of the small holdings. As to the position of the agricultural labourer, there had been a conflict of opinion between the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire and the hon. Member for West Fife. The former gave his opinion drawn from personal experience that the Bill was demanded by the agricultural labourers of Scotland and would be a great benefit to them. The latter declared that in his opinion the operation of the Bill would strike a very heavy blow at the position of the agricultural labourer and that it would displace agricultural labourers from their present position
  588
  without the opportunity of replacing them by small holders. There was some ground for the belief that where small holdings were multiplied the tendency was to decrease wages. [A laugh.] The hon. Member laughed, but he had authority for his statement. He had consulted two Returns, made to this House and to the House of Lords. The one issued in 1905 dealt with the statistics relating to agriculture and with the question of the wages of the agricultural labourers in various parts of Scotland. The other Return presented a few weeks ago gave the number of holdings above and below fifty pounds rental. In the first Return Scotland was divided by counties into five groups according to the wages paid. In the first group the wages were 20s. a week and upwards; the second, 19s. to 20s.; the third, 18s. to 19s.; the fourth, 17s. to 18s.; the fifth, 16s. to 17s.; and the sixth, 15s. and under. In Group 1 the proportion of small holdings—that was holdings of fifty pounds and under—was 49 per cent., and of big holdings 51 per cent.; in Group 2 the numbers were 62 per cent. and 38 per cent.; in Group 3, 68 per cent. and 32 per cent.; in Group 4, 74 per cent. and 26 per cent.; in Group 5, 93 per cent. and 7 per cent.; and in Group 6, 95 per cent. and 5 per cent. These figures, he contended, were some justification for the opinion that where the small holdings were multiplied there was a tendency for wages to decrease. He maintained that from the farming class there had come, almost without exception, steady opposition to this Bill. The Prime Minister had mentioned one small meeting of farmers who were in favour of the Bill, but he was informed that afterwards that resolution was upset by a larger meeting.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he would point out that at the meeting to which he referred, the resolution against the Bill did not get a seconder, and it was moved by the agent of the largest proprietor in the locality. On the other occasion the meeting represented apparently only big farmers.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he understood that the account of the first meeting had been contradicted or criticised in other quarters. The point, however, which he wished to make was

  589
  not only that it was the big farmers that were opposed to the Bill, but that every man whose farm was over fifty acres had an interest against it. He would have to compete in the market in the sale of his produce with a man who was subsidised by the State, and, in addition, he would have to pay his share of the taxes which provided the subsidy. That accounted for the opposition to the Bill that came from the farmers. From the point of view of the community, as Jus hon. friend had pointed out, the great defect of the Bill was that it gave no responsible owner. The English Bill did not lay itself open to that charge. He would like to know why there was this great and vital distinction between the arrangements of the Bills for Scotland and England. The only suggestion that he could think of was that they in Scotland were too proud to borrow the English system. He was proud of Scotland and yielded to no man in love for his native land. But when they considered this question as a business proposition—and hon. Members opposite contended that it should be so regarded—they could not draw from the point of view of nationality an arbitrary line of distinction between the commercial undertakings of England and Scotland. They could not stop in the application of a principle at the Cheviots as the border between England and Scotland in commercial interests. Caithness indeed had more in common with Cornwall, and Lanarkshire with Lancashire. His other objection to the Hill was that it made no provision for placing the small holdings on an economic basis so that they could be worked at a profit. That could only be done by co-operation and organisation, and for that there was no provision in the Bill. There was a clause which said that the Agricultural Commissioners might give assistance to the small holders, and that might possibly include suggestions for co-operation and organisation, but not a penny was provided to carry that out. He and his friends had always believed, and believed now, in the principle of occupying ownership. The hon. Member for Dumfries had alluded to the state of things in Denmark, but he would point out that the agricultural prosperity of Denmark dated from the time when the farms became the property of their occupiers. The hon. Member had
  590
  stated that ownership had been reached through a system of tenant right. Did the hon. Member suggest that we should groan and travail at enormous expenses, as in the case of Ireland, through the Purgatory of tenant right before we reached the Elysian fields of occupying ownership? The argument of the hon. Gentleman was contrary to reason, and the experience of every other country—France, Denmark, and Ireland—had shown that occupying ownership must come. The proposals in the Bill retarded that day by the extension of circumstances which were peculiarly limited and local in their application. For these reasons he supported the Amendment of his hon. friend, and should vote for the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): This Bill has had a long and stormy career, and we hive now come to the last stage of it, but I do not think that the supporters of the measure have any cause to look with anything but satisfaction on its progress. It is a Bill upon which not only the judgment of the House, but of the Committee, has been taken on all important points, and I doubt whether any Bill of equal importance has passed through the House and through the Committee in regard to which so many satisfactory majorities have been recorded in favour of every single important provision. The criticisms which have been made to-day amount to this: in the first place that the Opposition are willing to view this proposal with favour. They admit the evil, and they recognise that some remedy must be found for it, but they say that this remedy will not do. Any Bill but this Bill! This Bill will not, it is said, meet the difficulty, but I am glad to see that there is an advance to-day, not only from the position taken up by the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the debate, but from that taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin not long ago. I am glad to see that there is some advance upon that in what the seconder of the Motion expresses as his

  591
  view on this subject, that there is real need for such legislation as this. The Leader of the Opposition at an earlier period of our debates cast some doubt upon the need, and expressed a fear lest the measure should have a precisely opposite effect to that intended, and not meet those evils which we all wish to meet with speed, vigor, and energy, by stopping the migration of population from the country to the towns.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood my argument. What I said was that if you desire to increase the number of the rural population from the point of view of public health, that, no doubt, might be done by any change in our system of tenure which increases that population. If this increases the number of heads of families in the country, from the hygienic point of view so much to the good. If, however, the birth-rate remains the same, the migration to the towns will be increased by that process.
  MR. SINCLAIR: So be it, but our object is to increase the rural population. We are making an effort to do that.
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: So far so good, but if your objection to the existing sytem is congestion in the towns, that would be increased by the increase of the normal rural population.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman at all. If there are more people in the country districts there will be more population.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But there will be also a great stream into the towns.
  MR. SINCLAIR: But there are other influences reacting to check that. There has been too great a tendency to deny in country districts a career to people who would gladly not have gone into the towns, but would have been willingly content to seek a livelihood in country districts. I do not think that as a whole we have been sufficiently impressed by the magnitude of the drift into the towns, but I will not labor that point, because if we are agreed we are bound to seek a remedy. It is said that we are wrong in following the lines of the Crofters Act and that it has done nothing to stem depopulation.
  592
  That is a very difficult position to maintain, because there is one great defect in the Crofters Act; it gives no opportunity for the creation of new holdings, and in the crofting areas there are plenty of people willing to take up new holdings but there is no opportunity for them to do so. If the demand for the creation of new holdings had been satisfied ten or fifteen years ago the evil of rural depopulation which we now have to face would have been mitigated. The criticism of this Bill has proceeded on an assumption which is not justified, that we, in considering this matter, shut ourselves down to the crofter solution; but it was perfectly open for us to look at the whole field and to adopt whatever solution we deemed best under the circumstances. We were aware that labour was leaving the country districts in Scotland, and that acres and acres of land in that country were going out of arable cultivation. There was an obligation resting on the Government, therefore, to make some proposal. We need not necessarily follow the method pursued in England, but we had experiments in Scotland by which we were guided. There was evidence in Scotland as well as in England in favour of our method. Reference has been made to the Report of the Small Holdings Committee—I am dealing now with the proposition that small holdings increase the population in a district. We have no fear that labour will be displaced by the creation of small holdings. I will quote from evidence from Perthshire. A witness instanced the case of the Blairgowrie fruit districts. In the old days, before the fruit industry was started, 600 acres there did not employ more than twenty hands throughout the year. Now there are 400 employed throughout the year. The rent in the old days was £900, now it is £3,000. The farm in the old days paid £104 in local rates, now it pays £345; whilst the wages now are £10,500, as against £728 formerly. I will not pursue the subject further. The leader of the Opposition will say no doubt that that is a question of fruit-growing, and that all small holdings cannot cultivate fruit. However, I will give him particulars of a comparison between a piece of land on a large farm and small holdings at Lochmaben, in Dumfriesshire, of nearly equal size. The piece of land on the farm, which is

  593
  slightly smaller than the small holdings, supports three families, while the latter supports twenty - four families. The rental of the large farm twenty years ago was £378 and of the small holdings £767. Now, while the former rent has decreased 18 per cent., the latter has decreased by only 4·2 per cent. On the large farm one ploughman is employed; on the small holdings seven. As to the profits and population, I think it is indisputable that we are on the right road when we are endeavouring to create small holdings and increase their number. I have been dealing with small holdings in Scotland. Let me give smother illustration in England. Take the Vale of Evesham, where there has been a great increase of labour and profits under the system of small holdings. On twenty-four estates with a tenure very similar to that of this Bill, there are 850 tenants renting 1,800 acres. Some 3,000 cultivators of this class have sprung up in the last generation, and we think these instances justify the Government in proposing this legislation. Let mc come to the Bill itself, and point out that the most important transaction attempted under this measure is the admission of existing tenants to its privileges. These existing tenants are there by agreement between the landlords and themselves. They have survived the devastating influence of the last two generations. That is a presumption in their favour that the holdings are economically sound. It is an indispensable preliminary to the creation of new holdings by public expenditure in Scotland that we should do something to preserve existing small holders. Otherwise we should be endeavouring to run water uphill, and while public money was being spent in the creation of new holdings existing holdings would be open to influence inimical to their existence. I recognise the reluctance of the good landlords to part with their interest in their property and in their tenant's welfare. It was one of the many objections of hon. Members opposite that this interfered with the landlords' interest in their own property, but those who urged this objection have to remember that this is a national concern, and whilst there are landlords who will submit to monetary sacrifices to maintain that interest under present conditions of tenure, it is a fact that these small
  594
  holdings are not a paying form of property for the landlords and that over half the the rent is swallowed up in keeping them in good condition. It is the hope of the Government that under the new conditions this will be altered. We place in the hands of these tenants a right of which they cannot be deprived—namely, security of tenure. This is not a compulsory Bill in the sense that every tenant is compelled to exercise that right, but the Bill gives him an option. If the tenant chooses he can, after this Bill is passed, go on with his landlord as before, and remain under existing conditions, but he would never be deprived of the right which ultimately he might choose to exercise of having security of tenure and fair rent. Saving that, nothing prevents the small holder in Scotland remaining under present conditions. Some contend that to adopt this system is not fair. Is it fair to insist on a fair rent? Is it possible to avoid insisting on fair rent even under the alternative system of land purchase, which the Opposition has put forward, and contrasted with this measure? The landlord is not a mere rent-charger under the Bill. What about the landlord's right of feuing? The Bill simply puts tenants all round in the position in which tenants of good landlords are at the present time. We are depriving the landlords of only one right, the right of turning out tenants without reasonable cause—the right of arbitrary eviction. We give the landlords statutory protection with their property. And if we deprive the landlord of this one right of arbitrary eviction we throw on the tenant the burden of maintaining the holding. If the tenant leaves we say that he shall receive as compensation not the amount of the improvements, but the value of them to an incoming tenant. The criticism that the system set up is one of dual ownership, as in Ireland, is not accurate, and it ignores the wide difference between this and the Irish system. Under this system the landlord remains the absolute owner, and his property is more secure than before the passing of this Act, because not only does the land remain his own, but all the time, money, and labour that the tenant lays out on it. On this foundation a new rural economy in Scotland is possible. The occupiers of 50,000 holdings, including the crofter area, will be endowed with

  595
  the right of security of tenure, and with that there may be some hope of success for the efforts of the Agricultural Commission and other Departments to educate, develop, and organise the rural resources of the country. In reference to the machinery for creating new holdings, it is a thousand pities that this was not done in 1866. It has been said that this machinery will prevent landowners making new holdings. We do not touch the right of landlords to make new holdings under the old system, and in that case the tenants will remain outside the provisions of this Bill. There is nothing to prevent them making new holdings or selling small holdings to a purchaser. That is as open in the future as it is now, and if they do so it is all to the good. But in my humble judgment it is not likely that they will, because they will prefer to adopt the cheaper procedure provided by the Bill. In no case do the owners of land stand to lose by the Bill. The compensation provided amply secures the landlord from any possible loss. It must also be remembered that if the Bill succeeds land will rise in value, and nobody will benefit from that so much as the owners of land, the men whom, by this Bill, we leave in the enjoyment of their ownership. It is for them in future to say whether or not they choose to retain their interest which remains so far as this Bill is concerned when this principle is accepted. No one can fairly deny that the interests of the owners of land are amply safeguarded in the creation of small holdings. If a scheme of new holdings is put forward which reduces the value of the land, compensation is provided. If holdings become vacant, compensation is provided. If holdings are a failure, compensation is provided. None of these contingencies are likely to happen, but to calm apprehension and to keep on the strict line of justice, these provisions have been inserted in the Bill. It is said that we ought to have adopted the alternative method of land purchase—the Irish system of purchase. I was somewhat amazed to see that whereas the experience of more than a generation in Ireland was sufficient to convince hon. Members opposite with regard to the value of purchase, a much greater experience in Scotland is not sufficient to show the value of the Scottish system. It has been said that the method of the Bill will prevent the employment
  596
  of landlords' capital. Does not purchase have exactly the same effect? I do not believe in purchase in existing circumstances. There are great difficulties to face in a scheme of land purchase. Among them are the difficulties of subdivision and amalgamation of holdings. Purchase is a more rigid system. It also involves two generations before the instalments are paid off and the holding becomes the absolute possession of the holder. If hon. Members test the crofter system they will find in every part of Scotland which is under that system case after case of small crofters who have risen from the crofter status and taken large farms. I could give twenty cases from Argyllshire and twenty from Skye in which crofters have taken farms of the annual value of from £50 to £150. It has been said that the number of crofters is diminishing. One reason for that is that the Crofters Act does not provide that when the crofter gives up his holding the holding should remain under the Crofters Act. Another difficulty about the purchase scheme is its basis. What Government is going into the market for millions of money for the purpose? A generation has passed in argument. It is fifteen years since Parliament set its hand to this matter, and it has been inquiring ever since. The stage of inquiry has gone. In the last two generations every country in Europe has reorganised its agricultural system. It is the bounden duty of the present Government to bring forward these proposals Purchase being so difficult a method, the Government had to consider whether the essentials could be got by some other method, and by a method which would be as little disturbing as possible and would take the line of least resistance. This country is slow to adopt radical changes. Experience everywhere has shown that, purchase or no purchase, security of tenure is the essence of the case. It is the very least that could be offered under the circumstances. The experience of Denmark, of Europe generally, aye and of Ireland, is that the most prosperous farming districts are those in which the farmers have security of tenure. I have quoted the case of Evesham. We know too the result of the crofter system in Scotland. Half the small holdings in Scotland are already held under security of tenure. Would it have been possible for any

  597
  Government to adopt two conflicting systems of land tenure without leading to constant friction and confusion? Security of tenure is the essence which the Government have endeavoured to secure in this Bill, and they believe they have done it. The Government by this Bill give security of tenure. Once we adopt that position we must have fair rent and a tribunal to fix it. It is only one step further than the existing agricultural holdings legislation. The Land Court is the development of the existing system of arbitration. As farming becomes more and more scientific, and more capital and labour are expended by the tenant, it will be necessary to give wider and wider recognition to the fact of co-partnership between the landlord and the tenant. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland is an essential part of the scheme. Such a board in foreign countries has been an integral part of the work of educating, developing, and organising the industry. To do that work efficiently in Scotland the agency must be a local agency. There is nothing whatever in the argument about interference with the existing law as to preventing disease among animals. Whatever the Department, the existing laws must be administered. In connection with the great show of opposition that has been made, I would point out that the cultivated land involved in the Bill is not 15 per cent. of the cultivated area of Scotland. The opposition does not come from the future small holder. It does not come from the great body of farmers in Scotland. Some of the members of the loading agricultural societies oppose the Bill, but it is not to be assumed that the societies are against it. When a Department of Agriculture was established in Ireland, one of the severest critics of the scheme was the Royal Dublin Society. It was a case of vested interest in the present condition of things. Nobody will deny that farming opinion is not free to express itself as it might do. It is not called upon to express itself. I would like to be shown the farmer who, having the means, would reject security of tenure. The opposition to the Bill comes, in essence, from the owners of land, on a mistaken view. The Bill is not brought forward in hostility to their interests; it does not damage their interests; its success rests largely on their cooperation.
  598
  The opposition is an uninformed opposition, and it is by no means unanimous in spite of the great pressure of class and vested interests that has been brought to bear. There are not 2,000 landowners in Scotland who are concerned in the measure. The scheme has been derided as a scheme of the Scottish Office. Individuals matter very little, though they regret that our poor advocacy should not contribute to urge the measure as much as it might. But it is not the Bill of the Scottish Office, it is the Bill of the Government—it has the support of every Department of the Government. It has the almost unanimous support of the Scottish Liberal Members—and they number fifty-eight out of a total of seventy-two Scottish Members. It has the support of an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons. I say that the case is overwhelming, and if ever a Bill ought to be considered on its merits it is the one which is now commended to the House.
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he was anxious not to give a silent vote, because his attitude towards the Bill was very different from that of many of his friends. The right hon. Gentleman had defended the Bill on the ground that it could not possibly work any injustice to any class of the community. There had been certain complaints that property in land was not very equally shared at present. But was this attempt to adjust the inequalities unattended by injustice? The right hon. Gentleman had told them he had given absolute security to the landowner because provision was made to compensate him. But that was precisely one of the difficulties he found in the Bill. In one of the clauses there was a provision for the compensation of any class, of whatever position, who was in any way injured by proceedings under the Bill. Compensation was to be made by the Agricultural Commission, at the expense of the taxpayer. That was precisely one of the objections to the Bill. He was anxious not to give a silent vote, because his attitude towards the Bill was somewhat different from that of other Members more closely connected with agriculture. He was not there standing for any party or landlord. He thought that injustice was being done, and he was convinced that the landlord had a certain

  599
  case under the Bill, but he would find defenders more able than he. For himself he looked on the Bill in its social and economic aspect, and what he desired was that it should be founded on sound economic principles of justice, that it should raise no false hopes calculated to lead to disaster in the future, and that it should not be based on mere idle fancies and chimeras. He was reminded of two lines of the poet Pope—
  "That not in Fancy's maze he wandered long,
  But stooped to Truth and moralis'd his song."
  The Government used their majority in the converse way from which the poet claimed to use his genius. They wandered into a maze of fanciful hypotheses and a crowd of chimeras, and declined to be humble enough to stoop to the solid foundations of economical truth or to moralise their Bills by a thread of principle and justice. They had not made a paradise or El Dorado in the Western Highlands, yet they were going to apply to the whole of Scotland a system intended only for special circumstances, and which had been applied to a small number of holdings under peculiar conditions. They granted to the people who were under those special conditions a charity, a generosity which no economical considerations could defend. They were now going to extend that system to a far wider area, and apply it not to men who were attached to the spot where they were born, and would rather stay there and make their livelihood, as did the Crofters of the Western Highlands, but to men who were among the most astute of the community commercially, and the most active and energetic cultivators of the soil that could be found anywhere in Great Britain. Did they think that they could set aside economical principles merely by passing a law or by holding vague sentiments? It was said that all were more or less Socialists, but the elements of Socialism were not in their opinions or their views, nor even in Acts of Parliament; they were immutable and fixed, and would work by immutable laws their own ends, and if we erred against them in practice, sentiment, or legislation, they would bring their own punishment as certainly as night followed day. But the Government were not only erring against the laws of political economy in this Bill, they were doing a wrong, he
  600
  did not say to the landlord, he did not even say to the taxpayer, but to that part of the population of Scotland who had traditions of self - reliance and independence. If there was one thing which characterised a Scotsman and had made him a useful citizen of the Empire it was that he was independent, that he worked against difficulty, and forced the world to recognise his merits by hard work, earnest endeavour, and perseverance. What ideal were they going to set up for his countrymen? Their ideal was to entice a man with hopes of a future which would not be realised. Their ideal was to bolster him up with a load of debt which was about the worst equipment with which a man could begin the work of his life. They were fixing him in a holding which the Secretary for Scotland himself said was not an economic holding and never could be profitable on ordinary economic principles. Was that the end and aim they were holding out to him? Could they think that this would be a great benefit to the people of Scotland? The greatest disaster caused by the Bill would be the introduction of a new, dangerous, and alien principle into the life of Scotland—a principle which would teach Scotsmen that they were not to depend on themselves, that they were not to start from small beginnings and advance to higher things, but that they were to be put into an artificial position with the aid of a loan from the State which would hang round them as a burden, that they were to be in the leading strings of the State, bolstered up and guided at every moment by their Land Courts and Agricultural Commissioners. That was to be the scope of their life, instead of their working with that liberty, enterprise, and energy which had distinguished their fathers and grandfathers—qualities of race which had made Scotland what she was.
  MR. J. D. WHITEsaid he must admit that he was a little surprised to hear the phillipics of the hon. Gentleman opposite against this Bill which had for its object, simply and precisely, to give the small holder an abiding interest in the piece of land which he cultivated. It was very singular that a gentleman like the hon. Member opposite, who was well acquainted with

  601
  the history of Scotland, should say that the giving of this abiding interest in the holding was alien to the law of Scotland.
  SIR HENRY CKAIK: Traditions.
  MR. J. D. WHITEsaid it was manifest that both the history and the traditions of Scotland were closely bound up with the feuing system, which was on the basis that the superior received the feuing duty. There were certain conditions under which the feuar could resume, and subject to his performing those duties the feuar had an abiding interest in the land which he cultivated, and could not be interfered on any basis whatever. That had existed in Scotland for a very long time. It had existed from the time when Scotland adopted the Roman law, and it was in harmony also with the system adopted under the Crofters Act of 1886, which had worked well. He had heard with surprise the hon. Gentleman condemn the Crofters Act, but he would ask whether Scotland would be better off to-day if there had been no Croftes Act. They did not say that the Crofters Act had made the parts which it affected a paradise, but they did say that the districts where it operated would have been a great deal worse off' had there been no such enactment. They believed in extending the principle of the Act. It had been said that these Acts were suitable to certain districts, and he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman, assuming that these Acts were suitable to Argyll, why they were not equally suitable for the Islands of Bute in which there was a number of crofters?
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: I expressly moved an Amendment in Committee to extend these Acts to any district which might be called a crofters' district.
  MR. J. D. WHITEsaid he might take Banffshire and Morayshire: was the hon. Gentleman prepared to accept them too? He failed to see why the system should not be applied to any part of Scotland if it was desirable, and the small holders wanted it.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid the whole policy in Committee was to apply these Acts wherever the tenant had made his own improvements.
  MR. J. D. WHITEsaid the hon. Gentleman meant that if the tenant had made the slightest improvement?
  MR. YOUNGER: Substantially his own improvements as the crofters do, not the slightest; that would be perfectly absurd.
  MR. J. D. WHITEasked why, assuming this principle to be true, should it not be applied everywhere that it was wanted I They had been told again and again on the other side that there was no demand for these holdings. If no applications were made for holdings then the Bill would become a dead letter, and there was no reason to take it so seriously as hon. Gentlemen opposite did. The fact was that there would be a very great demand for small holdings in all parts of Scotland, and he believed that the Act in that way would be most beneficial. He was very much surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman speak of their creating an artificial demand and enticing people to take small holdings. There was no enticement. The Bill would merely afford facilities to those who wanted to avail themselves of them. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the burden of delft hung round the neck of the people. By this Bill they expressly wanted to avoid the burden of debt. There would have been a burden of debt round their neck had they adopted a system of purchase which would have loaded them down year after year. They had expressly avoided that. Instead of inviting them to purchase the land and pay a long series of instalments, they had adopted the simple principle of securing to them the land at a fair rent. They gave security of tenure. As for chimeras, an admirable specimen was afforded by the criticism levelled against the Bill on the ground that they were going to cut up the large farms which were worked well. Nothing could be further from the ideas of the promoters of the Bill. The whole series of criticisms which came from the other side were based on that idea. There was no desire to see those large farms which had been worked well cut up; they wanted to see them continue to be worked well; but they knew that a great deal of land was not worked at all. In the county which he represented, and in other counties of Scotland, there was a great deal of land

  603
  out of cultivation, and it was in those very districts that the people wanted to make some use of the land if they could get it at a fair price and on a satisfactory tenure. They wanted to open up these lands to the people. A great deal had been said in Committee about the deer forests which it was claimed, in certain parts, were of real economic value. He quite agreed that there were places suitable for deer forests; but the complaint was that the deer forests had been steadily going down hill, and it seemed to him that their first duty was to see that the highest use was made of the land for the benefit of the community, whether in the way of housing or of agriculture. If the land was unsuitable for farming let it be used for grazing: if it was unsuitable for grazing, let it be used for game; but he wanted to subordinate game to grazing, and grazing to farming and the direct uses of man. From the public point of view they had to see how many people could win their living from the and in independent conditions, and also to consider how the land was worked. To have an American millionaire adding mountain to mountain and moor to moor until there were left only the deer and the people who looked after them was bad for a country; but he ventured to say that if the Bill became law there would never again be there Highland clearances to make way for deer; and if in the past there had been compensation to pay for the little houses and the bits of land in cultivation those clearances would not have been made. The Bill was objected to because they proposed to allow the small holder to do other things besides cultivate his holding. Why should he not be allowed to do anything else? In Committee it had been said that those who earned their living in towns or in other ways would get small holdings and cultivate them to some extent, and thus the Government would benefit a class they did not mean to benefit. He failed to see why even the town dweller should not, if he liked, cultivate a piece of unused land, and why he should not to be facilitated in doing so. He failed to see why his fellow-countrymen should not use their energies in the best possible way. If in addition to cultivating the land they liked to do anything else he would certainly say by all means let them do it. Then all the
  604
  talk about the landlord becoming a mere rent charger seemed to him quite beside the mark. They had been told that not only would he become a mere rent charger, but that he would become a detective, and would go about to see if the small holder was spoiling his holding or allowing it to run to waste. He would like to ask whether the landlords of the crofters were mere rent chargers and detectives? They were nothing of the kind. He was glad to say that in a vast number of cases the personal relations between the superiors and the feuars, and also between the landlords and the crofters, were most satisfactory; and he believed that, under this Bill, those relations would be continued between the landowners and the small holders, who would have an abiding interest in and a legal right to the land they cultivated. It was all very well to talk about traditional usage and all the rest of it, but they wanted a sound business basis for the small holdings, and he believed that basis was provided by the Bill. There might be difficulty in getting people from the cities back to the land, but whatever they could do in that way would go a long way in the direction of solving the labour problem. There would always be a great amount of pressure in the labour market as long as there were more men than jobs. If there were ten men after nine jobs one of them would be out of employment, but the whole ten of them would be in a state of anxiety as to which of them was going to be that one. If they gave an increased amount of employment the effect would be to reduce that anxiety. Therefore it was most important that they should have this Bill put into operation as soon as possible, because the state of things in Scotland was very parlous. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that although the ratio of population per mile in Scotland was very small, yet the Scottish cities were more overcrowded than the cities in England. Emigration from Scotland was six times as great now as it was six years ago, and it had been increasing by leaps and bounds in recent years. They desired to secure for the Scottish people the greatest opportunities they could in their native land. They desired to give them every possible opportunity of settling on the soil and to

  605
  develop their native land, in order that they might improve upon the traditions of the past.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid he did not propose to make a lengthy speech, but he wished to say a word or two to justify the vote he was about to give. He had both Highlanders and Lowlanders in his constituency, but the bulk of them were Lowlanders. A certain number of his Highland constituents took a great interest in this Bill, and many of them desired to see it pass into law. They had in those districts crofting conditions, but the line he had taken in Committee had been to show a perfect willingness to apply its principles anywhere whore the crofting conditions existed. Where the tenant had made the improvements he thought he ought to have security of tenure and all the advantages of the Bill. This measure applied those principles under circumstances of a totally different character from those existing in the Lowlands of Scotland. He doubted very much whether it applied those principles in a way which would prove to be ultimately successful. He would be the last to deny that the Secretary for Scotland believed his Bill to be just, because no one could have listened to his speeches without feeling that he had the most complete confidence in the measure, and had done what he could to protect the interests of all concerned. Nevertheless, the Bill appeared to him to be getting rid of that most important element of responsibility of ownership which was one of the most important conditions that ought to remain in our agricultural system. The Secretary for Scotland had spoken about the success of many of the small holdings which would come within the scope of the Bill, and had argued that that might be taken as a guarantee that small holdings under the Bill would be successful. Scottish landlords had spent the bulk of their income maintaining their holdings, and but for that fact many of their farms would have been derelict at this moment or would have been added to the larger holdings. He did not think the claim of the right hon. Gentleman could be accepted as any proof that the conditions of the Bill would make the plan successful. The mere fact that the Bill brought within its scope the whole of those holdings to which the right hon. Gentleman
  606
  had referred would certainly induce the landlord to cease that expenditure which had hitherto been the means of maintaining them. When they came to deal with small holdings in the Lowlands they were not really dealing with the land but with capital. As they had seen during the debates upstairs, there was practically no value left at all, and therefore they had to recognise that they were dealing with the owners' capital not in land but in equipment. While he would be most willing to vote for an extension of the Crofters Acts to the other districts he had mentioned, and while he thought that those Acts should be extended in many other ways, he did not feel that he could vote for a Bill which in his opinion applied a method which while perfectly satisfactory for one portion of the Kingdom, would be totally unsatisfactory for the other. After carefully considering the balance of advantage he had decided to vote against the Bill.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid a friend from Russia recently told him how keenly the demand for land reform here was watched in Russia. He expressed the opinion that practical land reform was now outside the region of party politics, and the speech of his hon. friend who had just sat down very much bore out that view. Land reformers would not have much difficulty if they had only Tories like him to deal with, but there were others who, while loudly proclaiming their desire for reform, loudly protested, like the man who was being flogged, against any particular application. Almost every Member of the House had declared his intention of voting for land reform. Upon this measure the hon. Member for North Ayrshire had delivered a violent eulogy upon the landlords of Scotland.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he failed to observe in his remarks any expression which could be described as violent. All he had endeavoured to do was to secure justice and repudiate an unsubstantiated charge against the landlords that they were in the habit of arbitrarily evicting their tenants.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he hoped his phrase "violent eulogy" had not given offence to the hon. Member. Hon. Members could not judge of

  607
  Scottish landlords by such gentlemen as himself, and others sitting near him. They represented the best possible type, otherwise they would not be there, but there were many others whose conduct was deserving the most severe reprobation, whose policy had been to depopulate the country for their own greed or glorification. There were those whose policy had been to build great mansions and castles, and to create great farms, driving the small holders out of existence. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had expressed the hope that this Bill would not interfere with great farms. He did not think it would be worth anything if it failed to interfere with large farms, which were the greatest trouble they had to deal with in many places.
  MR. J. D. WHITEsaid he referred to agricultural farms which were properly worked.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Supposing the whole of Scotland was turned into an agricultural farm properly worked? He was told that would be a desirable state of things, but what they wanted to do was to get as many people as possible upon the soil of the country and get them fixed there. Coming further north numberless cases were to be met with where the policy had been one of eviction in order to make room for deer forests, and the small sheep farmers were evicted for such senseless purpose. Further north again they had great mansions and castles. There they had not deer forests but endless cases where the people had been driven off the land to make way for sheep and cattle farmers. He congratulated the Secretary for Scotland on the patience and determination and continued caution which had distinguished his conduct of this Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that some of them who had not always seen eye to eye with him and had looked at the matter from a practical point of view had only been actuated by a sincere desire to promote the very best possible method of carrying out land reform. They had felt the grievance in the crofting districts in regard to this point. They had felt that they had been saddled with the burden of the south, and had it not been for that they would
  608
  have had a better Bill, which would have been more easily carried through. There were certain other matters which they had advocated and which had been promised attention which had not been dealt with. The Lord Advocate the previous day had made an eloquent appeal to the House against preventing people doing any other small business on the land except that of agriculture. Why his advocacy had not included those most in need was difficult to understand. He could not understand the great objection made by the Leader of the Opposition against the system of hiring. In this Bill the landholder was in the position of a tenant and would remain a tenant as long as he paid his rent, and he could not be evicted. He felt sure there was a general concensus of opinion not only in the House but outside it that a big system of land purchase in Scotland would be a bad thing and would be expensive for the country at large. He thought the method which had been adopted by the Government was far more sound. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who had denounced the hiring principle seemed to have forgotten that in the great Act of the last Government, namely" the Land Act of 1903, a somewhat similar principle was applied. It contained a provision by which certain portions of the purchase money could remain in the hands of the local authority. He was not concerned so much with the question of purchase, because he thought the proposal of the Government was much better. There was another point with regard to sheep farms. Under the Congested Districts Acts thousands of pounds had been spent and the purchases made had proved very disastrous. This practice was to be carried out under the present Bill, which provided that large sums were to be paid for sheep stock. He had urged on the Government that they should consider the case of the kelp workers, and if ample money had been found and could be found for well-to-do landlords and farmers, something should have been spared for the kelp workers and their landlords. The condition of the men he had referred to was most precarious. They had to live very hard and work hard. How it could be said that the seaweed which was one of the natural products of the sea ought to be retained by the landlords as being their own special gift from God he could not imagine. He

  609
  hoped the Government would not think it was too late even now to remedy this state of things. He desired to thank the Government for haying removed some of the disabilities from which his constituents would have suffered under the Bill. They had spent a long time in Committee and in the House over the measure, and he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would not be discouraged by anything which might happen elsewhere. There was a demand for the Bill, and there had for a long time existed a demand for some measure of land reform. He thought this was the last occasion upon which they would have any chance of getting land reform for Scotland for a good many years. [Cries of "No, no."] He thought the time at the disposal of this Parliament was pledged to other matters, and he entreated the Government to accept any reasonable concessions and not lightly reject any compromise which did not seriously interfere with the principles of the Bill which was most earnestly demanded in Scotland. Conservatives of the best type and members of all Parties, Liberal and Labour alike, were keenly desirous of having some large scheme in the direction of land reform carried out. If this measure was rejected now, he was satisfied that it would be a considerable time before they would be in the same advantageous position again. It was all very well for the younger Members of the House to say "We want the Bill and nothing but the Bill," but the older Members wanted to have something done now. If this measure passed now, even in a modified form, the Government would deserve well of their country and generation.
  MR. BARNESsaid he wished to associate himself with what had been said by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland regarding the way in which the Secretary for Scotland and the law officers of the Crown had conducted the Bill. They had shown amazing patience and unfailing courtesy, and he congratulated them on the Bill having now reaching the Third Reading stage. On the introduction of the Bill he welcomed it as one giving promise of something being done in connection with the terrible problem of rural depopulation, and on the Second Reading he offered some criticism of the measure, more particularly from the point of view of
  610
  the need of something being done to remedy urban congestion. He understood the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill to charge him with having spoken at large on a subject of which he knew nothing.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that what he stated was that the hon. Member was qualified to speak on the subject of urban congestion. He said further that there was nothing in this Bill which would prevent urban congestion.
  MR. BARNESsaid he had no objection to the hon. Member taking that line, because, as a matter of fact, he did not pose as an authority on agricultural matters. On the two previous occasions when he had taken part in the discussions he had expressly stated that he knew little of agricultural conditions, but that he had an interest in the matter, because, if the Bill arrested the stream of population to the towns, there would be an easing of the urban congestion and the competition for employment. He was going to vote for the Bill, because the more he saw of it and the more he heard of the discussions in Committee and in the House, the more he liked it. It appeared to him at first to be a curious sort of hotch-potch. He had said about the time the English Small Holdings Bill was introduced that he liked it better, because it appeared to give an instalment of what he believed must be the ultimate solution of the problem, namely, land nationalisation. When he looked into the two Bills it scorned to him that whilst theoretically the English Bill was the better one, it depended for its being put into operation on the goodwill of certain local authorities—the county councils—and would be very largely inoperative in consequence. On the other hand, the Scottish Bill, with its hotch-potch conditions setting up various things difficult to understand was, he was inclined to think, much preferable because it would get things done. As a practical man and a Scotsman he wanted to see something done. The commonsense of the Bill seemed to be that it went over the heads of the local authorities and set up a central authority equipped to a certain extent, though not so much as he would like to see, financially, and invested with considerable powers. The Bill seemed to readjust the economic relationship between the landlords and

  611
  the tenants of Scotland in such a way as might lead to further change in the interest of the tenants primarily, though he thought that in this, as in other matters, the tenants could not be benefited without benefit being conferred on every other class in the community. He hoped the Bill would not lead to peasant proprietorship. He did not believe in that as an ultimate solution of the problem. The hon. Member who seconded the rejection of the Bill spoke of peasant proprietorship in France and other countries, and inferred that it had been a success. He did not believe that peasant proprietorship could be a success anywhere. He was quite convinced that it could not be a success in Scotland. Peasant proprietorship would create unsound social and economic conditions. In amount land was a fixed quantity, and it ought to be in possession of the whole of the people, and this Bill might lead to the community getting possession of that which they ought to have. The new adjustment of the relations of the tenant to the landlord would be made on the basis of fixity of tenure and fair rent, and therefore when land nationalisation was put into operation it would be done on terms fair to the tenants. He had adopted a favourable attitude towards the Bill because he had noted that the people who wanted it were those whom he primarily represented. He had noted the expression of opinion which was given at the meeting held at Perth a few weeks ago; he had taken pains to get into communication with people in Scotland who knew the conditions of rural life; he had received letters from many of his own constituents; and having ascertained unmistakably that the rural population was in favour of the Bill, he looked forward hopefully and eagerly to the passing of the measure. It was said that the Bill was being opposed by the big farmers since it only applied to fifteen per cent. of the rural population. His answer to that objection was that if the good will of the big farmers was required, they ought to be included in the Bill. He was prevented from moving in Committee an Amendment of which he had given notice to delete the £50 limit of yearly rent. He was still of opinion that there were many farmers paying higher rents who ought to be brought within the scope of the
  612
  measure. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire had quoted figures to show that in the districts of Scotland where small farms obtained wages were lowest. The simple explanation which occurred to him was that in the places cited by the hon. Member where wages were small, the best types of the labouring class had probably saved up enough to become small holders, and had in that way removed themselves from the category of agricultural labourers. He thought that was a feasible explanation; at all events, in the absence of any other he had adopted it. There was no reason why small holdings should lead to a reduction of wages. If they did, he would not vote for their creation. Anything which tended to raise the condition of self-respecting, struggling men would tend towards the increase of wages. It was because he believed the Bill would tend in that direction that he welcomed it, and he hoped it would be treated tenderly in another place.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I rise early in the debate to conclude it, so far as this side of the House is concerned, it is for the convenience of the House, and to meet an arrangement which, I believe, has been come to between the whips of the parties, that we should finish the Bill and the next business before us at an early hour. The hon. Member who has just sat down has given a great many hypothetical explanations of the agricultural phenomena of Scotland, and has expressed the views of himself and his urban constituents upon agricultural questions, not, if he will allow me to say so, upon the basis of fact or experience, but on the basis of certain abstract theories which find very little justification in any facts known to those who have studied this question. The hon. Gentleman has dealt, for example, with the interesting statistics brought forward by my hon friend behind me in the able speech he made to-day. It appeared conclusively from these statistics that, if you go over the areas in Scotland where different rates of agricultural wages prevail, you will find that, in proportion as the number of small holders increase, in that very proportion do the wages among farm servants, as they are called in Scotland, diminish. The fact, I take it, is undoubted. The hon. Gentleman thinks he has found an explanation. He has suggested that

  613
  where the low wages prevail all the abler and more efficient members of the class of agricultural labourers have provided themselves with small holdings. I do not think that is the basis of the explanation, but if it be the basis of the explanation it clearly proves that whenever a farm servant or labourer reaches a certain degree of efficiency he can thereupon find a small holding for himself under the existing system of land tenure; and leave the work of the agricultural labourer to be done by the less effective, less efficient and less educated members of the class. If that is the correct explanation it would in itself be an adequate condemnation of the Bill, because it shows that the costly, elaborate, and inconvenient machinery of this measure is not in the least required to carry out the objects which the hon. Gentleman has in view. The hon. Gentleman touched in the beginning of his speech on one point in which naturally he and his constituents are specially interested, and on which he is certainly qualified to express, on behalf of those whom he represents, an opinion in this House. That was the question of overcrowding. The hon. Gentleman, in common with the Secretary for Scotland and other defenders of the Bill, has, in the face of the plainest statistics, laid down as indubitable the propositions that this Bill, or any Bill which increases the number of small holdings, will thereby diminish the migration of the agricultural population to the towns. That argument, as I have previously shown, is opposed to all the facts either in this country, in Ireland, or on the Continent of Europe. We have now a large experience over the world of rural conditions, alike on large and small farms and small holdings. I do not care which of these kinds of land tenure you examine; in all of them it will be found that there is under modern conditions a diminution of the rural population and a proportionate temporary augmentation of the urban population, and you will find further that the migration from the country is not less, but is greater, so far as Irish experience goes, from districts in which small holdings prevail than in those in which culture in large farms is the ruling system. The average diminution of the rural population in all Scotland is about 4½ per cent., and the diminution of population in the crofter districts is greater, or certainly as great. In North
  614
  Antrim, which has exactly the system which the Secretary for Scotland wishes to extend to all Scotland, I find that the decrease has been at the rate of over 10 per cent. in the whole agricultural population. That is, at all events, a prima facie case for coming to the conclusion that, whether the new land system is better than the old or not, it will not cure the particular evil which hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to see cured. It will not diminish the migration from the country into the towns, it will not diminish the competition between the country-born workman and the town-born workman. Let us examine the actual working of the crofting system in the relatively restricted area where it now obtains. This Bill is primarily and fundamentally a method of extending the crofting system to all Scotland. The Secretary of Scotland has been usually content to say in the House and in the Committee upstairs that so excellent is the crofting system that you want no further argument for extending it, not over the whole island, but at all events over the whole of the rest of Scotland. It is not wise to discuss the Crofters Act of 1886. It is past, and done with. We have got to make the best of it, and we have got to reform it where we can in those particulars in which it is defective; but I absolutely deny that the Secretary for Scotland has the smallest justification for the extraordinarily brilliant colours in which he has chosen to paint the success of the Crofters Act. I incidentally discussed this matter on the Report stage, and was interrupted by the Lord Advocate when I said, without the least wish to go into details of what had come out in Committee upstairs, that I understood that in parts of the Western Islands law and order did not prevail to the extent which the right hon. and learned Gentleman described. I mentioned in particular the Island of Barra. The right hon. and learned Gentleman followed me and expressed the deepest indignation at this attack upon him. I was not thinking of him. He supposed that I was making a charge against his administration of the law. He, I have no doubt, does his best; but what I said was that if the Crofters Act found the Island of Barra in a state of disorder after twenty years experience of the working of the Act it could not have been the success it was alleged to be, and that peace and order in the Highlands and Islands did not now

  615
  universally prevail. Parenthetically, I I may remark that the original disorder in the Highlands and Islands was an echo of the profound social disturbance which had gone on in Ireland where a similar tenure of land prevailed. I have not the least doubt that without the Crofters Act peace would have been more or less fully restored. It has not been fully restored under the Crofters Act, but the contrary, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a totally erroneous and misleading account of what is going on in Barra at this moment. There the landlord is notoriously generous, he has given every atom of land in the island to the crofters, and land has been sold to the Congested Districts Board for the extension of holdings in a neighbouring island. A number of crofters in Barra have chosen to go over to the neighbouring island, and, against the law, justice, and the commonest rights of individuals, have seized land which is let to another tenant, erected buildings thereon, and seized grazing, and the tenant, of course, is quite unable to pay the rent he has contracted to pay to the landlord because his farm is occupied by others. The law is openly flouted and outraged without the smallest legal or moral justification on the part of those who are defying the Lord Advocate in his administration of justice. The Lord Advocate will, I think, have still further to qualify his statement. I say that the condition of that part of the Hebrides is a scandal to law and order. I am far from attributing, either in whole or in part, that the deplorable condition of things now prevailing is due to the existence of the Crofters Act, but I do try to make my statements conform to facts. It is beyond folly to suppose that where peace prevails in the Highlands that is due to the Crofters Act. But I am ready to admit that the deplorable condition of things now existing may be due to other causes.
  SIR J. DEWARsaid it was due to defects in the Act of 1886. He knew the facts of the case, Barra being in his own constituency. There was in 1900, as now, some lawlessness. It was due to the fact that the legislation of 1886 did not confer power to create new holdings. The Secretary for Scotland in 1900 bought some land, and that
  616
  removed the dissatisfaction and gave comparative peace. There was no provision under the present Act to provide holdings for an admittedly congested district, and that was the reason for the apparent lawlessness.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know what the hon. Member means by apparent lawlessness. I maintain that the argument of experience breaks down so far as law and order in that portion of the Hebrides is concerned. When it is pointed out to the Secretary for Scotland that he is deprived of the argument from experience, he is driven back to the argument of what might have been if a different Bill had been passed. If you are going to rest on experience it must be experience like all other experience of what has occurred, not what might have occurred if a wholly different Act had become law. Again, I maintain that the argument from experience breaks down, at any rate so far as that part of the Hebrides is concerned. I go further. The Secretary for Scotland objected to land purchase because it would not prevent sub-division and squatting which is now so pressing an evil in certain areas of the country. Has the Crofters Act stopped that?
  MR. SINCLAIR: It has checked it as a matter of fact.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I say it has not checked it, but it is going on more uncontrolled when you have destroyed all influence on the part of the owner of the land than it did before. And it will increase when the landlord's interest is transferred to a Government Department. It is a great social evil in certain parts of the Western Isles, and I have looked upon it as one of the most serious and difficult which this House has to face. The Crofters Act, then, has not stopped disorder and it has not stopped sub-division; has it secured those clear, and clean, and satisfactory relations between landlord and tenant which was promised? Everybody knows there are accumulations of judicial rent unpaid in certain parts of the Highlands. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Is that denied?
  MR. SINCLAIR: If the tenant remains, he remains on the responsibility of the landlord.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am rather surprised. I understood that what was proposed to be extended to all Scotland was that, while the landlord was to be excluded from all administrative control over his land, at all events, that the relations between him and the tenant would be fixed on the basis of fair rent, and that that rent would be paid. Is it being paid?
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid the point of the Act was that the tenant enjoyed fixity of tenure so long as he paid his rent and had not deteriorated the holding.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his information, but with all respect I can assure him that he has not answered my point. Turning to a third matter in connection with the vaunted working of the Crofters Act in the crofting districts I would point out, in the first place, that a large number of the crofters have not taken advantage of the Act. They have preferred to remain in their old relation with their landlord.
  MR. SINCLAIRHear, hear!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That observation receives the enthusiastic support of a Minister who is going compulsorily to extend the Act from the Highlands to the whole of the rest of Scotland. Yet in the area in which it prevails a large fraction of the tenants who might take advantage of the Act have refused to do so. I go further and say that a large number of tenants who have taken advantage of the Act of 1886 have now deliberately freed themselves from its fetters. I should have thought that with these facts staring them in the face the tenants ought to be allowed to extricate themselves from the meshes of the Act if they desire to do so. But this Government of liberty, this Government of free trade, are quite prepared, are quite determined that one kind of contract and one kind of arrangement only shall prevail between the landowner and the small tenant. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech this morning told us that it was in the power of the tenant to remain in the old relations with his landlord, and not appeal for a new rent, but it is apparently not in his power to go back to his old position with regard to
  618
  the landlord—the old position of free contract. If the Bill becomes law, he and his successors are bound for ever to a particular system of tenure which relieves the landlord of all duties with regard to permanent improvements, and gives the tenant in exchange, whether he likes it or not, fixity of tenure. That is what a large number of small holders in Scotland do not desire. And if I am asked on what basis I make that statement, I say that I base it, in the first place, on the experiment of the Crofters Act. A large number of crofters have deliberately freed themselves from that Act. In the second place, a large number of the existing small tenants, who are afraid this Act may pass, have actually requested their landlords to raise their rents above the £50 limit. I remember that the Secretary for Scotland challenged his opponents to show him a tenant who would prefer not to have fixity of tenure. There are countless tenants who would much rather have the advantages of the existing system of co-partnership with the landlord than the system the Government desire to thrust upon them. I should have thought that it was an elementary principle of legislation that when there is doubt whether a bargain is approved by the parties concerned, they should be allowed some liberty of choice in the matter. They have not got it.
  MR. SINCLAIRwas understood to dissent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman dissents. He has apparently forgotten his Bill. It has been so little discussed. I should be glad to have from the right hon. Gentleman some elucidation of the position under the Bill of a tenant whose holding is under £50 valuation or fifty acres in extent.
  MR. SINCLAIR: He is at liberty to make any agreement he chooses with his landlord. He cannot be deprived of that right.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is guilty of a contradiction in terms. He says the tenant has a right to make any terms he likes with his landlord, but he cannot be turned out.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing the rights given

  619
  under the Bill with the right of an individual to make a bargain with another individual. What I say is that the qualified tenants are given rights under the Bill of which they cannot be deprived, and at the same time they are perfectly free to make any agreement they like with their landlord.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They cannot make a bargain which deprives them of a right of which they cannot be deprived.
  MR. SINCLAIR: That is the intention of the Bill, The intention of the Bill is to give them a right of which they cannot be deprived except by their own consent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I can quite believe that there may be some misapprehension, which I should like the Prime Minister to clear up if he speaks subsequently. I would put this plain question to him. Would it be in the power of any tenant under £50 to say to his landlord, "I do not like the Government Bill, I prefer the old arrangement. I do not care for fixity of tenure, and I do not want it, and I ask you to go on making the permanent improvements."
  MR. SINCLAIR: My answer is emphatically, yes. But whatever the tenant does he remains endowed with the rights of the Bill, which he can exercise at the termination of any such agreement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then, may I ask in what sense have the provisions of the Crofters Act been extended?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Exactly the same thing can be done under the Crofters Act, Section 5. The question is whether under this Bill the small tenant can be endowed with rights of which he cannot be deprived without his own consent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite unable to see how the Crofters Act has in this respect been amended if the right hon. Gentleman's present version of his Bill is to be accepted. I am quite sure that that is not the view of it taken in Committee or by any student of the Bill except the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite convinced that the right hon. Gentleman has for the moment for gotten the effect
  620
  of the provisions of his own measure. So much for supporting the basis of the Bill on the perfect success of the Crofters Act in the Highlands. I now come to the question of how we are going to deal with the agricultural labourers in the Lowlands, and their relation to small holders. We are at one that if small holdings can be increased to advantage they should be. But I confess that I do not agree with those who think that there will be an immense extension of small holdings in the Lowlands as likely to prove profitable to the small holders. What does the right hon. Gentleman tell us? I do not myself think any immense extension of small holdings in Scotland is very likely to prove popular. The right hon. Gentleman, arguing in favour of the immense wealth that would accrue to the labourer and the landlord from small holdings, read a long extract on fruit cultivation in Blairgowrie. I have no doubt that fruit culture has proved a great success in that district. But whatever success has been attained in that particular instance, surely nobody can seriously believe that fruit cultivation or vegetable cultivation can be profitably carried on except on a relatively small fraction of the cultivable soil of Scotland. What, therefore, is the use of references to the Vale of Evesham? If there is to be a large extension of small holdings in Scotland, they must, in the main, be small holdings occupied with the-same kind of agriculture as the large holdings. I am sorry it is so, but I am afraid it is so. On the argument of the Government themselves, how are these holdings going to be a success? The Secretary for Scotland has admitted that they are more expensive and that a loss is certain to occur. Then the Member for Aberdeen has stated that the farm servants of Aberdeen do not anticipate that their material circumstances will be-improved by the substitution of small holdings for their present occupations. What the hon. Member did hope for was an improvement in their social status. I do not wish to say anything derogatory to improvements of social status, though I do not know that personally I feel much interest in these social distinctions. I can understand an appeal to do something to raise the material condition of a part of the people, but an appeal to do something merely to raise what is called social status leaves me rather cold.
  MR. MURRAYsaid that what he meant was that every man should have a home of his own and should he independent of anybody. That was the national spirit of Scotland and had made that country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; it has made our country under a system of big holdings, at all events in a large part of Scotland. I appeal to the hon. Member himself to say, apart from electioneering, whether there is in the world any more independent race than the farm servants of Scotland. The Scottish farm servant is the most self-sufficing and independent of human beings. He certainly has not suffered from the tyranny of either laird or farmer. He moves about at his own free will from employer to employer, and he is dependent on no man. He will not be made a more independent man than he is now if his social status was raised by making him an occupier. I cannot believe that everything is going to be changed by the substitution of small holdings for big holdings; but I do desire that they shall be extended as far as they practically can. The Secretary for Scotland says this is not my Bill; it is a Government Bill. So it is, and no one can know anything of its genesis or to whose ingenuity the House owes it. It is by adoption and grace, at all events, a Cabinet measure; and the Cabinet are in the position of dealing with the whole of the land system of Great Britain, with the crofter system in the north, and with a different system of tenure south of the Tweed. What in the circumstances of difference that prevail between the north and the south would any rational body of men do? Do the Lowland conditions resemble those in England or the conditions in the Highlands? If the Government put that question to themselves they can only give the one answer, that there is no difference between the south of Scotland and England, but that there is a fundamental difference between the south and the north of Scotland. The most minute particulars of agricultural employment and practice in Northumberland and Berwickshire show that the systems are identical; and if we compare the lowlands of Aberdeen, Fife, the Lothians, and Ayrshire with the Highlands we find that obviously by tradition, in part by language, by history, by legislation and by every circumstance according
  622
  to which we could draw a distinction, there is the widest difference between the two sets of conditions with which we have to deal. Yet this Government are determined upon promoting two kinds of legislation for the island and to insist that the Lowlands and the Highlands shall be bracketed together and treated in the same way, refusing to assimilate the Lowlands legislatively with the English counties with which they precisely agree. I do not believe that there ever has been so foolish a scheme. Granted that the Crofters Acts have every merit they can possess, no one pretends that crofter conditions prevail in the south of Scotland, and, therefore, we should not extend the provisions of the Bill to a part of the country which does not carry on its agriculture under the crofter system. That is a manifest and commonsense policy. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill will be of great pecuniary value to the landlord. That may be true, but even if the streams of Pactolus were to be poured into the pockets of the landlords, I think it would be bad in principle. I agree with those who think that what has to be considered are the prosperity and well-being of the community as a whole. But even in that case the landlord should receive justice. Whatever the pecuniary gain to the landlord may be, however is it right to take his capital and use it for a purpose that he has not intended? We have to deal with agriculture in a depressed condition, not through the system of land tenure, but through the system of foreign competition. Is it not the part of wise men in these circumstances to say that every force that can be used to bring capital, knowledge, skill, and labour to the land shall be used? My complaint against the Bill is that the Government deliberately refuse to bring together these great purposes and the forces at their disposal. I believe that the Bill will injure everybody, including the taxpayers, because the Government have deliberately deprived agriculture of some of its great motive force in the shape of permanent expenditure by the landlords. What is to be the substitute? It is to be either such capital that the small tenants have accumulated before they take their holdings or the money that is to be supplied by the taxpayers. The Government plan is that the unearned increment is to go to the big landlord; but if the land is bought the small owner will get

  623
  the unearned increment. But all the talk about unearned increment is based on a most foolish estimate of the tendencies of modern industry. In any case no one doubts the proof of experience that we get an amount of work out of people who own the land not to be got out of people who merely occupy the land. Fixity of tenure is no equivalent for ownership, and the Government have deliberately, avowedly, openly, and boastingly deprived themselves of what would have been the substitute of that great liberality in the shape of capital expenditure which they now extract from the large owners of land in Scotland, throwing the burden on the innocent tax papers which the landlord now bears. It is bad from every point of view, and bad unquestionably for the present farm servants. The Secretary for Scotland quotes the case of the exceptional fruit farms which now prosper at Blairgowrie; but the Government must take the ordinary farm of Fife or Berwickshire. I say that similar success is impossible if these farms are cut up into fifty-acre lots, and if they are to employ as many heads of families as they do now. If we maintain the present system of cultivation the work must be carried on with more labour and at less profit, or it must return no profit at all, the loss falling on the public, or else there must be less efficient cultivation owing to less labour; and the position of the ordinary farm servant will fall to the level of wages now prevailing over those parts of Scotland where small holdings exist. These reasons make me think that the whole scheme, as far as it affects owners in Scotland, is based on hopelessly wrong lines. How can the Government with a light heart go in for this revolution ["Oh, oh I"]—for this enormous change based on no experience either at home or abroad, but evolved entirely from the fertile imagination of some member of the Cabinet or of the Cabinet as a whole? I trust that even now, not indeed in this House—for the hours during which the House has been allowed to consider the measure are numbered—the Government will see that the only possible method of dealing with these difficult agricultural questions of balancing diverse interests and considering in equal scales the welfare of every class of the community, is by means of a well-considered measure for every part of the
  624
  country where the agricultural circum-stances are identical. For these reasons I shall most heartily support the hon. Gentleman who has moved the rejection of the Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The right hon. Gentleman has made a great many speeches on this Bill, and I recognise in that which he has just delivered one change from some of those that came before—the right hon. Gentleman has not been so profuse in his epithets. His vaticinations of future disaster might have left us in a state of trepidation, but happily the speech of the right hon. Gentleman recalls a circumstance that otherwise might have been forgotten—that when the Crofters Act was before the House the right hon. Gentleman delivered exactly the same sort of speeches with the same arguments and the same prognostications of future disaster. The result of that Act has been, in the opinion of most people, that a part of Scotland which was in an absolutely disorderly condition now presents prosperity and contentment and everything that makes for the well-being of the people, whether they own the land or till it. But the right hon. Gentleman says that the condition of a part of the crofting area at present constitutes a scandal. He has discovered some improper or irregular proceeding on the part of certain men in the island of Barra, and on that fact he bases the charge that no improvement has been made by the Crofters Act. [Cries of "No!"] The right hon. Gentleman quoted that one instance as an answer to the assertion that law and order prevails. But what did the right hon. Gentleman say in 1886?
  "I doubt whether in any part of Ireland at this moment you will meet with more lawlessness, although you may meet with more violence, than now prevails on the west coast of Scotland."
  Well, we have got rid of all that, except in the one case of Barra. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that there is another thing in the Crofters Act which deserves to be noted—that a great many of the men who held under it have applied to be relieved of the intolerable position in which they found themselves placed, so

  625
  that they might revert to the old patriarchal arrangement. I have made some inquiry, and I find that the instances of application for renunciation are so few as to be inappreciable. They are either the cases of very old men who wish to be rid of their responsibility, or the cases of men who, unfortunately for this country, but greatly to the benefit of the Colonies, are possessed of a desire to emigrate. The right hon. Gentleman always had the deepest distaste for the Crofters Act and he retains that opinion. He asked why the principles of that Act should be applied to the rest of Scotland, and why Scotland should not be given the inestimable advantage of the same principles as are to be applied to England. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to annex all Scotland, south of the Grampians, to England. That would be very agreeable from the English point of view and from the point of view of a man who naturally looks at things with English eyes. [Cries of "Why?"] But it would not be acceptable from the Scottish point of view. The main reason why we have introduced this Bill, and it has been framed as it has been framed, is that it represents what the Scottish people wish to have. They do not wish to purchase the soil, but they do wish to have the Continuity and security of tenure that this Bill gives. A great deal may be Said of the advantages of ownership, and the right hon. Gentleman urged that everything should be done to promote the development of agriculture and the application to the cultivation of the soil of the best resources of modern science and of human energy and ingenuity. The right hon. Gentleman's way of doing that would be to have a country covered with large farms, with benevolent landlords and flourishing tenants. But we think there is something better than the benevolence of the most benevolent landlord, and that is the interest of the cultivator in his farm as to which he has security of tenure, so that he knows that the benefits of the capital and labour that he put into it will go to himself. That is the real impulse in the good cultivation of the soil. The right hon. Gentleman bays there are advantages in having a class who has a personal satisfaction in the ownership of a great extent of land, in sport, and in the other privileges to be enjoyed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That was not my argument. I said that you got great advantages from a system of large ownership in the supply of capital, but that you may make up for that in a small proprietorship by introducing another system.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is our argument. Our view is that the operative motive is the sense of security. That is the whole point of difference between the two sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman taunts us with having one Bill for England and another for Scotland. But the wishes and ideas of the people were different. The right hon. Gentleman says that he could not be sure where the genesis of the Bill is to be found, whether it is in the Scottish Office or some other department or the whole of the Government. It is in the whole of the Government, and the whole of the Government are responsible for it. But if the right hon. Gentleman has some doubt as to the genesis of the Bill, he would be able to state as well as most people what the exodus of the Bill will be. Some indication of that has already been given; and if that exodus is not of a favourable character, I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that there will be a deuteronomy. As to the principle of compulsion, which is supposed to be so injurious, why should it be wrong to apply the principle to hiring and permissible to apply it to sale? I do not see whore the difference comes in, I have never boon able to comprehend how it can be held that, when voluntary arrangement has broken down and compulsion is resorted to to meet a public need, the use of the land is to be absolutely denied to the community under the method of hiring and only to be granted under the method of sale. Seeing that hiring has worked so well in the case of the crofters, to the satisfaction of both owner an I occupier, and that it has commended itself to Scottish opinion, the Government have done their best to adopt it in a way which will prevent any injustice to the landowner owing to the depreciation of his property or to the liability of having abad tenant. A great deal has been said about the hardship to the landlord and the large farmer. But no existing contracts are to be interfered with in any way. The farmers especially have no reason for feeling nervous, because

  627
  it is quite obvious that large well-equipped and highly cultivated farms will not be touched. They will be the last to be selected. [Cries of "Why?"] Because it would obviously be undesirable. At the other end of the scale, no farmer with less than 150 acres can be touched. There will be a gradual application, and ultimately we shall know how far it can be extended, but at first, and for many years, there can be no grievance, no interference with any farmer interested. What is wanted is not a uniform system of large or small holdings, but a healthy variety of both. Another great benefit the farmers will derive from this Bill is the institution of a Scottish Department of Agriculture, which has long been demanded, and the advantage of which is obvious on the ground of its accessibility, on the ground of its being in touch with general feeling and also easily to be got at by individuals who wish either to obtain information or to remove grievances of which they complained. Then there is just a word or two which I wish to say as to the bogey of dual ownership, which has been trotted out pretty freely. I observe that the bogey of dual ownership always comes forth when the advocates of the patriarchal system are opposing a measure of reform. We had it last year on the Land Tenure Bill. What reason have we to be afraid of any mischief coming from that source? The case of Ireland is constantly quoted, and I have always admitted in the case of Ireland that, in the first place, they could never have had a purchase system without having a Land Court to settle rents in advance of it, and, in the second place, that the real cause of the breakdown of the agrarian system in Ireland was the establishment, side by side, of two systems, one being that under which a tenant sat with a rent fixed by a Court and paying that rent, if he could, regularly, whereas his neighbour over the road, whose landlord had been willing to agree to it, could buy his property, paying instalments and becoming the owner in fee simple after a term of years, those instalments being actually, through the use of the public credit, lighter than the annual sum paid in rent by the first man. That is a system that could not possibly be endured, and that is the reason, and no other that I am aware of, why the late Government were driven into
  628
  purchase in spite of their own feeling in the matter. And yet purchase is the thing which they now desire to be applied in Scotland. The objections to the Bill seem to me to be founded on ignorance, although perhaps that cannot be said of those who bestowed so much time on the Committee upstairs, and whose assiduity and attention in discharge of their duties we can but admire. The great outstanding points of the Bill are those I have mentioned, and, above all, there is the question of hiring. The great thing in this Bill is that it leaves the tenant independent of his landlord, and in possession of a secure tenure of his farm. That is the very thing which we consider the great virtue of and the great advantage gained by the Bill. We believe that, if it passes into law, and I hope it will, it will add to the prosperity of agriculture in Scotland and that it will rear up and keep in the country districts a class of men fit to take their place in the towns, if they move into them, and also admirably fitted to discharge the agricultural duties of the country. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that the more you keep the inhabitants in the country the greater will be the drifting to the towns. Of course, if you have a larger population to draw upon, those who go to the towns will be in proportion larger. That is very obvious What we wish to change is the artificial, the unfavourable, as we think, condition of things in the country that drives men unnaturally to the towns. We have no desire to stop the circulation of blood from the country into the towns. Where would the towns be without a constant influx from the country? On the other hand, we do not wish to perpetuate the system which has the effect of inducing men to go in an abnormal degree into the towns, and we believe that, if we furnish them with a reasonable opportunity of leading a healthy and useful life and with a career in which they can raise themselves, that is the very strongest inducement we can give them to stay in the country. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman in his estimate of the Scottish farm servants. There is no better class of servants in the world. With one exception I can express my perfect confidence in their future. I do not think their future will ever be up to their performances of the past if they abandon the food on which they and the generations

  629
  before them have been nourished—namely, oatmeal and milk—and use the substitutes of a more or less pernicious kind which the ingenuity of modern science has brought about, If they go on as their fathers did, they will, with the opportunities which this Bill will
  afford them, show the country that the Scottish farm servants can do in these as well as in the old days.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 63; Noes, 190. (Division List No. 397.)

  AYES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Murray, James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Nioholls, George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harwood, George

  O'Grady, J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Beale, W. P.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Bell, Richard

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh. Central)

  Bellairs, Clarylon

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

  Benn, W. (T' w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rees, J. D.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Higham, John Sharp

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Brace, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Branch, James

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Brigg, John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jenkins, J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Campbell-Bannerraan, Sir H.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead

  Russell, T. W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Sears, J. E.

  Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

  Jowett, F. W.

  Seddon, J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Seely, Colonel

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Kelley, George D.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Clough, William

  King, Afred John (Knutsford

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Clynes, J. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lambert, George

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Snowden, P.

  Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cox, Harold

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemonth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Crooks, William

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Ure, Alexander

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Walsh, Stephen

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Killop, W.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Erskine, David C.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Wardle, George J.

  Essex, R. W.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Waring, Walter

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Markhara, Arthur Basil

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Mamham, F J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ffrench, Peter

  Massie, J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Gill, A. H.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Morrell, Philip

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull. W.)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  NOES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Nield, Herbert

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Balfour, RtHn.A.J (City Lond.)

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Forster, Henry William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gordon, J.

  Starkey, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thomson, W. Mitehell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hills, J. W.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Younger, George

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Moore, William

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th August], "That the Report stage of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill be brought to a conclusion in three allotted days; and (a) That the new Clauses and Clauses 1 to 5 of the Bill be proceeded with and proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day: and (b) That the Clauses of the Bill following Clause 5 to the end of Part II. of the Bill (if and so far as not previously disposed of), be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day; and (c) That the remaining Clauses of the Bill and the Schedules and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage of the Bill to a conclusion (if and so far as not previously disposed of) be proceeded with on the third allotted day, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day.
  Any day on which the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day shall be considered
  632
  an allotted day for the purposes of this Order.
  At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are to be brought to a conclusion, or if that day is a Friday at 5 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall, if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any new Clauses or Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Clauses or Amendments), and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
  Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on any allotted day shall, instead of being taken on that day as provided by the Standing Order "Time for taking Private Business," be taken immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill for that day, and any Private

  633
  Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding the Standing Order "Sittings of the House."
  At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order of the Day, or if that day is a Friday or Saturday at 5 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
  After the passing of this Order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill stand as first Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order 10, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without Debate.—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question again proposed.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he could not allow the Motion to pass without expressing his surprise and even his astonishment that the Prime Minister should have thought it his duty to make that proposal to the House without offering or even attempting to offer a single reason of any sort or kind in justification of it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I gave the reasons the other day.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he was perfectly well aware of that, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had reminded him, for curiously enough the report of the Prime Minister's speech absolutely confirmed his view that there was not the smallest reason for or justification of this action. The right hon. Gentleman had claimed that the Government had endeavoured to allot the time in such a way as to give the best opportunity for considering important matters, and no doubt they had done so, but the result of the endeavour had been singularly unfortunate. During the discussion at an earlier period of the Session of the new rules as to Standing Committees the Prime Minister, as reported in Hansard, claimed to have enlarged the liberties and privileges of Members on the Report stage to make up for the curtailment of Committees in the Whole House. That
  634
  undertaking, given on the 11th April this year, had certainly not been fulfilled. He quite acknowledged that the Bill now under discussion was not so extreme as the other Bills before Parliament dealing with the land of the United Kingdom, because it did not introduce the principle of dual ownership nor did it involve such a complete revolution in our land system as was embodied in the Scottish and Irish Land Bills. But it did propose the most drastic changes in our land system in England that he ever remembered since he came into Parliament, which changes required earnest and most serious consideration. No one pretended that any complaint could be made of the proceedings of the Committee upstairs, and they escaped the violent closure so repeatedly applied to the Scottish Bill. That proved that no time was wasted, and yet it took fourteen days to consider the Bill in Committee, and many of the sittings were much prolonged. The Bill contained forty-seven clauses and two long and important schedules. Yet only three days were offered for discussion on Report. Enormous interest was taken in this measure out of doors, as the letters coming to him by every post testified; but excellent precautions were being taken to prevent any reports reaching the public of the views of the House of Commons on some of the most important questions involved. It was not a very courageous policy, but the knife of the guillotine would be resorted to instead of the weapons of argument. Let them consider how the time for discussion was to be allocated, and the character of some of the questions which would have to be discussed. The first five clauses of the Bill, overriding the wishes of the county councils, which occupied the Committee five or six days, were to be disposed of in one day on Report. Nothing in his judgment could be more important than that proposal, which was an absolute and entire departure from the principles of legislation hitherto adopted in this country. In Clause 5 there was a proposal for compelling the county council to pay out of its own funds for proceedings of which it entirely disapproved. It was the last clause in that section of the Bill—and Subsection (3) of that clause, which was only inserted in the Committee after a division in which the Government was defeated—would be the last question for consideration that night. Neither of

  635
  these questions might even be reached. Ten most important questions were raised in the next nineteen clauses, all of which were to be discussed on the second day. There were the questions whether the new holders should be owners or only leaseholders; whether it should be compulsory purchase or compulsory hire by the county council; the number of dwellings to be erected on an allotment or small holding; borrowing powers; repayment of expenses to the county council in certain cases; the transfer to the parishes of the control of the allotments, even where no parish council exists; the limitation of parish borrowing powers; the relative size of allotments to small holdings; the power of the Government Department to override the county councils in their views on the question of allotments, and the new clause inserted at the last moment giving the London County Council power to establish colonies of allotment holders, a power which surely should have been given to the borough councils. On the third day they had twenty-one clauses and the schedules to consider, all again dealing with most important matters, including that of the compensation to be given to the owners and occupiers, or sitting tenants, who were to be dispossessed. He thought the House was entitled to some explanation from the Government of the reasons by which they had been guided in depriving the House of anything like an adequate time to deal with proposals which he considered to be, if not as extreme as the proposals for Ireland and Scotland, the most serious proposals with regard to the land in England and Wales he could remember since he first entered Parliament. He held that the pressure of time was no excuse for this procedure, for it was the duty of the Government, when they had decided to bring in this important measure, to introduce it at such a reasonable time in the session that it could be fittingly and properly discussed in both Houses of Parliament.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said there were in this Bill two principles which were undoubtedly controversial and matters of importance; but they had, he contended, been decided by the House on the Second Reading, and the Government were entitled to
  636
  assume that they were not likely to be raised on the Report stage. The first of those two principles was embodied in the clause which related to the action the Board of Agriculture might take in default of action by the county council. He could not agree that that principle was a complete novelty in our legislation. There was, at all events, the precedent of the Defaulting Authorities Act. In that case the action of the central department was of a hostile character, whereas the action of the Board of Agriculture under this Bill would proceed on friendly rather than on hostile lines. But the debate on that principle was, as he had said, concluded by the Second Reading of the Bill. With regard to the proceedings in Committee, it was only fair to the right hon. Gentleman who led the Opposition upstairs to say that he acted with the greatest possible consideration for what was fair both to the Government and to the Opposition, and displayed also the greatest care for the proper economy of time. The other important principle raised by the Bill was that of compulsory hiring, and that again, he contended, was concluded on the Second Reading. It was very hard to see that on any day the House would really have very much to do in any of the compartments into which the Bill was divided. With regard to the first five clauses, any one who objected to the principle contained in them ought to have opposed the Second Reading. The next day was to be devoted to a number of clauses relating to the Amendment of the Small Holdings Act of 1892, and not one of them appeared to him to raise any great controversial matter. Then with regard to the question of the acquisition of land, which was to be dealt with on the third day, the points connected with that question were points of detail only. Ho held that the Government had given a very fair and ample amount of time in which to deal with the groups of clauses.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not allow the doctrine laid down by the Solicitor-General to pass without protest. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that if they took objection to hiring as against purchase, or the overriding of the county councils, they ought to have opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, or taken those exceptions on the Second Reading, because these were among the

  637
  principles of the measure. If they had followed that course and voted against the Second Reading, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends would have gone down to the country and denounced them as being opposed to any extension of the system of small holdings and allotments. The hon. and learned Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen supporting the Government had not acted on that principle when in opposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman was vigorously opposed to the Aliens Bill. Did he vote against the Second Reading? Of course not.
  MAJOR SEELY: We divided against the Second Reading.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had been informed that they had not voted against the Second Reading, but it did not matter whether they had or had not, it was immaterial to his point, which was that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the passing of the Second Reading, with or without a division, settled all the principles of the Bill, and that they had no business to raise them again, and had no claim to discuss them.
  SIR W. ROBSON: I said that we were fairly entitled to assume that when the Second Reading of a Bill is passed without a division the House has accepted the vital principles of the Bill.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Had the Opposition accepted the vital principles of the Aliens Bill? Of course they had not. They fought every line of it as far as they could, whether they divided upon the Second Reading or not. The distinction which the hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn as to vital principles was one invented for the purposes of that debate. Had they divided on the Second Reading of this Bill every hon. Member knew, as he had said, that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have gone to the country and told the people that they were opposed to an extension of the system of small holdings and allotments. He submitted that the right test was that they divided on the Second Reading when they believed that it was impossible to make the Bill a good Bill by changing it in Committee or on Report. They could have altered the
  638
  principle of this Bill in Committee into one of purchase had the majority of the House been willing to do so. Then as to overriding the local elective representatives, they could perhaps have altered that in Committee, if they had been allowed to discuss it. He had only risen, however, to enter his protest against the doctrine invented by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought on the spur of the moment, to justify the course which the Government were now taking. He protested against the view that, because they allowed the Second Reading of a Bill without opposition, therefore they were to be taken as having accepted the great and important principles of the measure.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he wished to enter a protest with regard to certain details of this Resolution relating to the prevention of adjournments of the House under Standing Order 10. He was aware that right hon. Gentlemen opposite joined with his right hon. friend the Prime Minister and Members on the Treasury Bench in regarding unfavourably these motions for adjournment, because they were anxious to get on with the business; but private Members were of opinion that although it was of importance to pass Bills, it was of infinitely greater importance that they should retain their power to discuss grievances. This matter had become acute only last week when hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to move the adjournment in regard to the state of affairs in Belfast. They ought to have been able to move the adjournment. Troops had been called out in large numbers, and danger was anticipated, and matters of the gravest consequence had arisen which that House ought to have found it possible to discuss. By the Motion which they were now going to pass, and which followed the precedent set by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and was, therefore, no Party question, they were depriving themselves during the remainder, or a great portion, of the session, from moving the adjournment of the House. He appealed to his right hon. friend the Prime Minister, who had again and again expressed his view that this was a Parliament House, and that its principal function was debate. While he did not in the least dispute the necessity for guillotine Motions of this kind, deplorable as they undoubtedly were,

  639
  still he appealed to his right hon. friend that when next he moved such a Motion, he should leave out the obnoxious words, "nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order 10." He could not vote for a Motion of this kind in future if it contained those words, but, since it followed precedent so closely, in the circumstances he should vote for it on this occasion.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid the Solicitor-General had referred to this measure as having nothing controversial in it, but the hon. and learned Gentleman would remember there were two subsections which tended directly to destroy the operation of the Act of 1892. One subsection would make almost impossible any further effort of the county councils to put in operation the Act of 1892; he referred to the five acres limit for small holdings, and in regard to which, he was happy to say, the Government were defeated by two and the Act was saved. So much for the uncontroversial character of the measure. The other subsection, which still remained in the Bill, was a direct attack on the Act of 1892, and the effect of it would be that where there was a colony of peasants now in existence, as they died, under certain circumstances the holdings would be extinguished as ownerships and would be let as tenancies. These were very controversial matters in his opinion, and if the country had known the principles of the measure—and they were bound to let them know some way or other, in spite of the hole-and-corner manner in which this Bill had been conducted—they would have rejected it unanimously. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor - General had made very light of the coercion of the county councils, and had cited the Education Act, but he had forgotten that in the case of the Education Act the central authority supplied the bulk of the money, and therefore they naturally had something to say. But in this case the local authority supplied the money, and it was the local authority that was to secure repayment. Therefore there was no precedent to be found in the case of the Education Act. The Government were afraid of the example of the Act of 1892, which was an unqualified success so far as it had been put into force, and therefore
  640
  they wanted to stifle discussion, and, so far as they were concerned, they would succeed in stifling discussion.
  MR. BYLESsaid hitherto all the speeches had been from the Front Benches, and he thought, therefore, that it was just as well that they should hear an independent voice from the back benches. All previous speakers had addressed themselves to the merits of the Land Bill which they were to discuss next week or three or four days; in anything he desired to say he would try to keep as much as possible to the Motion. He should vote without hesitation with the Prime Minister, though he would do so with great reluctance. Ho voted without hesitation because he desired to support the Government in this kind of legislation. It was not that he loved the guillotine more, but that he loved sterility loss, that he would vote for the Motion. He would vote for it also because it applied to legislation dealing with the most important of all questions, namely, the land question. They desired to bring together the land and the people. Wed them and there was joy, divorce them and there was sorrow. But he voted for the Motion with reluctance, because no one detested the guillotine and closure more than he did. When they had to pass a guillotine Resolution by the aid of the closure things had got to a point at which he thought the House of Commons should reconsider its ways. He applied that criticism to all Parties, and not to any particular Party, because it was the duty all of to consider how the great traditions of the House could best be maintained without the introduction of measures of this kind. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He hoped the cheers of hon. Members opposite augured well for their future action, because they had not been unwilling recently to waste the time of the House. [Cries of "No."] Hon. Members opposite had occupied the time of the House with the deliberate purpose of wasting Government time. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no."] If they did not get rid of the guillotine and the closure it would compass the ruin of the House of Commons. The Leader of the Opposition had said that the guillotine in the end must lead to the destruction of the British Government. He regarded free discussion as the life-blood of that assembly, and he hoped all parties would

  641
  strive to maintain the great glory of the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: Are you going to vote against this Motion?] He agreed that the conduct and speeches of the Opposition made this Motion necessary. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: What have we done?] The Leader of the Opposition had said that laws enacted under the closure could not have the same weight and authority with those who had to obey them as if they had been passed in the old fashion. Whenever he had spoken with his colleagues on this question they all agreed that the guillotine was bad, but they replied, "What can we do? There were some things they could do. It had been suggested that a business Committee should allocate the time to be given to the different parts of all important measures. He thought it would be a great improvement. ["Agreed."] It had been pointed out that there were certain Standing Orders which would enable Mr. Speaker and the Chairman to exercise a more rigid control over speeches which were obviously made for the purpose of wasting time. It had never been his misfortune to be in opposition. [Cries of "Divide, divide," and "Question."] The Standing Orders did not allow an hon. Member to make irrelevant remarks.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid I shall have to put that Standing Order in force myself against the hon. Member, who is really taking a very comprehensive view of this question. He is departing from the strict limits of the Motion before the House.
  MR. BYLESsaid he was much obliged to Mr. Speaker for giving him such a striking example of the kind of repression he was advocating. ["Question."] If they stuck to their old methods of procedure and remembered what they were doing to the House of Commons by this policy; if they only showed in regard to this question some of the patriotism which hon. Members laid claim to, they would try and put the conduct of the business of the House under such conditions as Mould render Motions of the character they were now considering quite unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon had argued that the practice of individual closure should be revived in this House. Many years ago
  642
  a Speaker of the House of Commons laid down the ruling that an hon. Member had the right to speak but the House had the right to judge whether they would hear him. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] On another occasion a Member's speech was interrupted by humming, and the Member was obliged to resume his seat. [Cries of "Hum, hum."] He was glad hon. Members opposite had been so quick to learn this lesson. Probably some hon. members like himself occasionally went to the Oval and Lords to see a cricket match. There was often a keen contest in those matches, just as there was between one Party and another in that House, but when a man had his middle stump knocked down he generally acted in a sportsmanlike manner, and hon. Members in a minority ought to accept the decision of the umpire, which in the House of Commons was the Division Lobby.
  MR. CAVEsaid there was really no valid reason for a guillotine Motion in this case. Notice had been given of the Motion before a single Amendment to the Bill had appeared on the Paper, and before anyone knew how many Amendments were to be put down, or how long the discussion on the Report stage was likely to take. It had been admitted by every speaker on the Government benches that the Unionist Members had not wasted time in the discussions in Committee. Time had been needlessly consumed by hon. Members opposite, and that had been admitted by some of their own speakers and in their own papers. He was confident that if, instead of proposing a guillotine Motion, the Government had given reasonable time, say until midnight on three or four days, for the consideration of the Bill by the House, the discussions could have been got through without the application of the closure. The division of time in the proposed Motion was such that some of the most important matters in the Bill must be shut out from discussion. On the first day much time might be taken up in the discussion of the new clauses, and he was afraid there would not be much opportunity for the discussion of the really important clauses of the Bill which were to be disposed of on that day. Clause 5 was the last in the group to be dealt with on the first day. That was possibly the most important

  643
  clause in the Bill, and they knew perfectly well that there was no chance whatever of its being adequately discussed. He hoped it would be possible to alter the allocation of time so as to begin the second day's discussion with Clause 5. The question of allotments came at the end of the second day's group, and he did not think they would get a word said upon it.
  MR. O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister whether it was essential to retain in the Resolution the words "nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order 10," which would have the effect of preventing the adjournment of the House being moved to call attention to any definite matter of urgent public importance on any day when the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill was put down at the first Order of the day. At the present moment there was a very serious situation in Belfast, and at any moment there might be a terrible massacre. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member opposite that this was too serious a matter to be allowed to go without protest. If the Prime Minister could see his way to delete these words he and his colleagues would readily vote for the Motion.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANexpressed regret that he could not assent
  to the suggestion, for to allow opportnnities for moving the adjournment of the House would be inconsistent with the conception of the guillotine Resolution. The portion of time at the disposal of the House for the transaction of its business was already too short.
  LORD R. CECILsaid it would be perfectly easy to put words in the Motion to provide that if a certain amount of time was taken up in the discussion of a Motion for the adjournment of the House, an equivalent amount of time could be given to the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill later on. He thought that would meet the whole case.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that that was part of the proposals of the Procedure Committee which the Government hoped would secure the assent of the House.
  LORD R. CECIL: That could be done in this Motion.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We could not introduce it now.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 398.)

  AYES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caith'ss-sh

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Beale, W. P.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Bell, Richard

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Duckworth, James

  Hudson, Walter

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bethell, T. B. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Black, Arthur W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Brace, William

  Erskine, David C.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Branch, James

  Essex, R. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Brigg, John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kelley, George D.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Fenwick, Charles

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lambert, George

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamont, Norman

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Llewis, John Herbert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  O'Grady, J.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Lough, Thomas

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ure, Alexander

  Maclean, Donald

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Walters, John Tudor

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Waring, Walter

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rees, J. D.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Killop, W.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

  Waterlow, D. S.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, Luke, (York, E. R.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Massie, J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Russell, T. W.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilis, Arthur Walters

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Seddon, J.

  Wilon, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Seely, Colonel

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

  Morrell, Philip

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Murray, James

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Napier, T. B.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Nicholls, George

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

  Nolan, Joseph

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Snowden, P.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barrie H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Fell, Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthiur (Ormskirk

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gordon, J.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Wyndham, Et. Hon. George

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Younger, George

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Moore, William

  Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Nield, Herbert

  Ordered accordingly.

  PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
  New clause:—
  "A defendant in an action for infringement of a patent, if entitled to present a petition to the Court for the revocation of the patent, may, without presenting such a petition, apply in accordance with the rules of the Supreme Court by way of counterclaim in the action for the revocation of the patent."—(Mr. Lloyd-George).
  Brought up and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  New clause:—
  "Rules may be made under the principal Act for regulating the matters dealt with in subsections two and three of section forty-seven, and in section forty-eight of the principal Act, which relate to the form and manner in which applications for the registration of designs are to be made, and on the coming into operation of any such rules the said enactment" shall be repealed."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Brought up, and read the first time and second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEin moving a new clause (Procedure on Petitions for Extension of Term of Patent) said that he submitted it to the House in redemption of a pledge which he had given in Committee to the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth. It did not go quite as far as the clause proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in Committee, but it went as far as they could safely do at present.
  New clause:—
  "The following section shall be substituted for section twenty-live of the principal Act:—(1) A patentee may, after advertising in manner provided by rules of the Supreme Court his intention to do so, present a petition to the Court praying that his patent may be extended for a further term, but such petition must be presented at least six months before the time limited for the expiration of the patent; (2) Any person may give notice to the Court of objection to the extension; (3) On the hearing of any petition under this section the patentee and any person who has given such notice of objection shall be made parties to the proceeding, and the comptroller shall be entitled to appear and be heard, and shall appear if so directed by the Court; (4) The Court, in considering its decision, shall have regard to the nature and merits of the invention in relation to the public, to the profits made by the patentee as such, and to all the circumstances of the case; (5) If it appears to the Court that the patentee has been inadequately remunerated by his patent, the Court may by order extend the term of the patent for a further term not exceeding seven, or, in exceptional cases, fourteen years, or may order the grant of a new patent for such term as may be specified in the order and containing any restriction, conditions, and provisions the Court may think fit."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid that in rising to speak on this new clause he wished first of all to acknowledge the ability and courtesy displayed by the President of the Board of Trade with regard to this question. On the first occasion on which he called the attention of the House to the necessity of reducing the cost and increasing the facilities for the extension of the period of protection in the case of small patentees, the President of the Board of Trade immediately and very courteously adopted the suggestion and declared his intention of embodying a clause in the Bill to cover what he advocated.
  648
  Afterwards, when in Committee, he brought forward his new clause, the President of the Board of Trade gave the matter his most careful consideration, and eventually he brought in the clause as it now stood, to which he would give his cordial support. Naturally, he would have preferred the new clause in its original form as he introduced it, namely, that the authority who was to deal with the extension of the period of protection should be the Comptroller of the Patent Office, since his object was especially to reduce the cost of and to simplify the process of extension which he honestly thought would be best accomplished by the clause as it stood in his name on the Paper. Briefly the case was as follows. At present an application by a patentee for an extension of the period of protection must come before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a process which costs the patentee at least £500 and frequently a much larger sum. This put it quite out of the reach of the small patentee. By this new clause he proposed that the Comptroller of the Patent Office, who originally caused the patent to be granted, and who might if he thought fit, refer the application to the President of the Board of Trade, should have power to grant an extension of the period of protection. This would be a very simple and inexpensive process. In the new clause adopted by the President of the Board of Trade the authority to grant the extension should be a Judge of the Supreme Court instead of the Comptroller of the Patent Office. This, he thought, would be more expensive than his own proposal. Still, being convinced that the President had done his level best for this new clause, and as he understood from him that under this clause the cost would be reduced from £500 to something like £50, or possibly £25, he thought that a very substantial boon would be conferred upon a large class of working men who were eminently deserving of their encouragement and support. These were the class of men who lent dignity to labour, who instead of merely trying to got through their day's work with as little trouble as possible threw themselves heart and soul into their employment; who studied how they could improve the machinery with which they daily worked; spent their leisure hours in trying to develop such small improvements; and applied for a patent to protect the result of their

  649
  energy and ingenuity. Surely these people were deserving of help, and it was with the object of making it easier for them to reap their just reward that he had put forward his new clause. They all thought that their geese were swans, but in this case he preferred to compare his new clause to the ugly duckling of the fable who grew up into a swan, and he hoped that now that the ugly duckling had struggled through its earlier and most dangerous period of existence under the genial and generous support of the President of the Board of Trade, and was now fledged, it might accomplish the object that they had in view, namely, to bring increased profit and pleasure to many who were entitled to all the assistance which they had it in their power to give them. He therefore thanked the President for his adoption of the clause, and had great pleasure in supporting the proposed clause and withdrawing his own, which had been so generously met by the clause the right hon. Gentleman had now introduced.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILLsaid he had read with care the clause which the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth had proposed in Committee, and agreed with every particular in it; but he thought they ought to fall in with the clause now suggested by the President of the Board of Trade. He wanted to know, however, whether they were assured that the procedure proposed under the new clause would be removed from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the Supreme Court.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it would be removed to the Supreme Court and the case would be considered by specially-appointed Judges.
  Question put, and agreed to, and clause added to the Bill.
  MR. J. D. WHITE,in moving a clause (Exemption of innocent infringer from liability for damages) said that his object was to give the public some protection. As things at present stood, a patentee was under no obligation whatever to notify the public that there was a patent for the article, and the object of the Amendment was that even if the article was marked "patent" it should not be deemed to constitute notice of the
  650
  existing patent unless the word was accompanied by the year and number of the patent. If a patentee wished to secure damages for the infringement of his patent, the first thing he should do was to communicate with the infringer. It seemed to him to be an abuse of the system to mark an article with the word "patent" so as to prevent competition, after the patent had really expired. Of course the Amendment provided that nothing in the new section should affect any proceedings for an injunction. He would like to make two small Amendments in the clause which had been suggested to him. In the first line after the word "damages" to insert "in respect of any infringement," and in the third line to strike out the second "the," and substitute "such."
  New clause:—
  "A patentee shall not be entitled to recover any damages in an action for infringement commenced after the commencement of this Act from any defendant who proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware of the existence of the patent, and the marking of an article with the word 'patent,' 'patented,' or any word or words expressing or implying that a patent has been obtained for the article, stamped, engraved, impressed on, or otherwise applied to the article, shall not be deemed to constitute notice of the existence of the patent unless the word or words are accompanied by the year and number of the patent.
  "Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any proceedings for an injunction."—(Mr. J. D. White.)
  Brought up, and read a first time
  Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  LORD R. CECILsaid he could not believe that the Government would accept such a provision. In the case of saccharine and other chemical patented articles which were now imported into this country: how on earth were they to mark them as proposed by the clause? A common defence was that the infringer of a patent did not know that the imported article was imported, or was a breach of a patent, or that he thought that it was made in such a way that it did not infringe the patent. It was no defence for taking away another man's property to say that it was taken in ignorance. Surely it would be a monstrous proposition that under no circumstances was a patentee to be able

  651
  to recover damages under this clause for infringement of the patent of any chemical material, because such material could not be stamped.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,in accepting the new clause, pointed out that the matter was discussed very fully and at very great length upstairs, and he recognised at that time the difficulty of the question. The general, if not the unanimous, feeling of the Committee was in favour of something of this kind being inserted in the Bill. The object was to secure that every patented article should contain some notification, not only of the fact that it was patented, but of the date on which the patent was granted. The Government, therefore, accepted a clause dealing with the question. At the time they accepted it they were satisfied that it met the exigencies of the case; what they meant to deal with was this, that at present there was no doubt that the patentee could go on manufacturing a patented article and selling it as patented long after the patent had expired, say sixty or seventy years after. He thought they ought to take the American precedent and mark the product, but of course if they could not, as in the case of chemicals, mark the product, they must mark the bag.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the bulk in the bag was split up and the product sold retail in small quantities.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEadmitted that of course that might be done, but said he was not satisfied with the clause of the Bill as it passed away from the Committee, and he thought after consulting his advisers that this proposed new clause was the fairest way of carrying out the intention he had.
  MR. ASTBURYasked the right hon. Gentleman to make three alterations in the clause, otherwise he thought it would be wholly unworkable. First of all, it ought to be limited to patents granted after the passing of this Act. It was not fair that people who already possessed and were working patents should have their trade interfered with retrospectively. Secondly, he suggested that after the word "aware" in line 4 of the Amendment the words "or
  652
  could not with reasonable diligence have become aware" should be inserted, and thirdly, that after the words" marking I of an article" in the same line the words "or the case of or covering in which the article is contained" should be inserted. If these changes were made he thought the clause would be much more operative and valid than it was at present.
  MR. CAVEsaid that this was an entirely new departure in the patent law-of this country and would seriously affect a great many people.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was not-a departure from the practice which prevailed in other countries.
  MR. CAVEsaid the effect of the clause was this. A patentee might get an, injunction against infringement, but he could not get damages unless he proved that the infringer knew of the existence of the patent. That opened a do or to fraud, because a man who had knowledge might go on infringing, and when the action came on he might say he did not know of the patent. It was sometimes very difficult to prove knowledge though knowledge existed. The profits from an infringement might be very large, and yet if the infringer chose to say that he was not aware that he was infringing the patent and was-doing so innocently, he was to keep the profits he had made and deprive the patentee of them. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was hasty in accepting the clause, which was not of such a nature that it should be adopted at short notice.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the chambers of commerce had asked for this. [Cries of "No!"]
  MR. CAVEsaid another point was that there were certain patents, such as patents for chemical processes, on which a mark could not be put as suggested by the clause. He knew the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to do what was fair, but he did not think he should accept this clause.
  MR. NAPIERobjected to the Amendment. As to the infringer not knowing whether he was infringing a patent or not, he often did not know because he did not choose to know.

  653
  If this Amendment was carried it would distinctly encourage the multiplying of that class of person who made articles and made them purposely without inquiring whether there was any patent which would hinder him from making that article. This was, in his opinion, a very dangerous clause.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he sympathised with his hon. friend in the desire he had embodied in this clause, and he thought they wanted it in a different form; something more drastic, but, at the same time, something workable. There were a good many things which could not be marked, such as chemicals, which could only be marked on the bags. Flour was another article which could not be marked except in the bulk, either with the word "patent" or "patented," or with the date of the granting of the patent. As soon as the article was sold retail that safeguard went. He thought the object of the clause was good, and was not surprised that the chambers of commerce should desire something of this sort.
  SIR F. CHANNINGthought the danger of the patentee suffering from this clause was illusory. If a notification were placed on an article or upon the case containing it it would be a warning against infringement and the best possible protection to the patentee,
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINhoped the President of the Board of Trade would reconsider his decision on the subject. It was to secure a monopoly that a patent was granted by the State, and it was important that it should be duly carried out, and the patentees should be able to carry out their patent rights on reasonable terms. This clause, however, might involve great hardship to an inventor. A person might become rich and make a large sum out "of the invention of another, and they ought not, he thought, to prevent an inventor from recovering damages When use was made of his invention Without any licence from him. The onus was put upon the patentee, and he thought that the possible result would
  be that the patentee would be subjected to great hardship. The result of the clause might very often be that the man who could more easily afford to lose would make a profit to which he was not entitled, at the expense of the man who ought to make the profit.
  MR. BOWLESsaid he could not believe that the President of the Board of Trade was going to press this clause, which must press most hardly on the great majority of patentees. The great majority of patentees at the present time were not working in accordance with this section. That was to say, they did not mark the patent with the date of patent and the number. If this clause were passed every one of the patents now in existence would be at the mercy of anyone who chose to infringe them. If the person did not know or it could not be proved that he knew that he was infringing a patent, he thought it would be a most improper thing to proceed with a clause like this with so attenuated a House. The right hon. Gentlemen could not really have contemplated the results of this clause, and, therefore, under the circumstances, he hoped he would give more time to its consideration with the view to safeguarding existing patents.
  MR. GORDONsaid he could not see any means by which the purchaser of an infringement of a patent could know that it was an infringement, and if this clause were accepted he would be allowed to go scot free until the patentee had found him out. He suggested that the right hon. Gentlemen ought not to open the door to frauds of that kind.
  MR. BERRIDGEsaid that if the clause was passed in its present form the very remarkable result would follow that a premium would be given to people to go about infringing patents without caring whether they were doing so or not.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 34. (Division List No. 399.)

  AYES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Beale, W. P.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Bell, Richard

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Black, Arthur W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Brace, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rowlands, J.

  Branch, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Russell, T. W.

  Brigg, John

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Seddon, J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lambert, George

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lamont, Norman

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Snowden, P.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strauss, E. A. Abingdon)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Maclean, Donald

  Ure, Alexander

  Cox, Harold

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Crooks, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Duckworth, James

  M'Killop, W.

  Waring, Walter

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Maddison, Frederick

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Massie, J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Erskine, David C.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Essex, R. W

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn

  Ffreneh, Peter

  Morrell, Philip

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough).

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Nicholls, George

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.).

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Grady, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  NOES.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Fell, Arthur

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gordon, J.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Moore, William

  Younger, George

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Napier, T. B.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Cave.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Nicholson, W. G. (Petersfield)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Nield, Herbert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Radford, G. H.

  Question, "That those words be here inserted," put, and agreed to.

  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that he desired to amend the clause by inserting after the word "infringement" the words "of a patent granted after the passing of this Act," the object being to exclude patents now in existence.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed clause—
  "In line 1, after the word 'infringement,' do insert the words 'of a patent granted after the passing of this Act,'"—(Mr. Rawlinson),
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept that.
  MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON said he had a further Amendment, the object of which was to get over the difficulty which was present in all infringement cases showing that a man had knowledge of the fact that he was infringing a patent. The object of the Amendment was perfectly simple. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed clause—
  "In line 4, after the words 'where he is not aware,' to insert the words 'or had reasonable means of making himself aware.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not accept these words as he was not quite sure that the form of words was the best that could be found for the purpose, but he would accept the Amendment in substance and would either accept these words or find alternative words which effected the same purpose.
  Proposed clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  The following Amendments were proposed and agreed to without discussion.
  "In page 1, line 15, after, the word 'devolve,' to insert the words 'on his personal representatives.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  "In page 2, line 8, to leave out from the word 'the' to the word 'principal,' in line 10."—(Mr. Cave.)
  "In page 2, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'required by the Comptroller' and to insert the words 'in any particular case the Comptroller considers it desirable so to require.'"
  "In page 2, line 16, to leave out the words 'applicants have,' and to insert the words 'applicant has.'"
  "In page 2, line 18, to leave out the word 'have' and to insert the word 'has.'"
  "In page 2, line 20, after the word 'inventions,' to insert the words 'are such as to constitute a single invention and.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  "In page 2, line 32, after the word 'on,' to insert the words 'or modification of.'"—(Mr. Astbury.)
  "In page 3, line 14, after the word 'an,' to insert the word 'extended.'"
  658
  "In page 3, line 30, after the word 'wholly,' to insert the words 'and specifically.'"
  "In page 3, line 36, to leave out the words 'or described.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  "In page 4, line 28, to leave out the word 'for' and to insert the words 'after.'"
  "In page 4, line 30, to leave out the word 'substituted' and to insert the word 'added.'"
  "In page 4, line 30, after the word 'words,' to insert the word 'or.'"
  "In page 4, line 31, to leave out the words 'described or' and to insert the words 'wholly and specifically.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 33, after the word opposed,' to insert being a specification deposited pursuant to an application made fifty years or less before the date of the application for such last-mentioned patent, or has been described in any such specification published before the date of the application.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CAVEthought there had been some oversight in connection with this Amendment. He had had the advantage of a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman, and he understood him to drop entirely the power of the controller to deal with the position of patents thus described.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was an oversight. He was quite willing his Amendment should end with the words "last-mentioned patent."
  MR. J. WARDhoped the right hon. Gentleman was not going to give away the whole purport of the Bill in order to get it through that afternoon. These matters were very fully discussed in detail in Committee, and he was surprised to find that things agreed to were now in the final stages being abandoned. It looked to him as though they were losing the best part of the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEassured the hon. Member there was nothing vital in the words he was omitting.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, and agreed to without discussion—
  "In page 4, line 33, after the word 'opposed,' to insert the words 'by a specification deposited

  659
  pursuant to an application made fifty years or less before the date of the application for such last-mentioned patent.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  "In page 4, line 33, after the word 'opposed, to insert the words' or described in any specification which has been published before the date of such application.'"—(Mr. Astbury.)
  "In page 4, line 33, to leave out from the word 'opposed' to the word 'or' in line 35."—(Mr. Cave.)
  "In page 4, line 39, to leave out subsection (2)."—(Mr. Cave.)
  "In page 5, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'eight or section nine of the principal Act,' and to insert the words 'three of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Amendment Act, 1885."
  "In page 5, line 24, to leave out the words 'or the comptroller.'"—(Mr. Lloyd George.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 5, line 25, to leave out the words 'or the comptroller.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-Gorge.)
  MR. J. WARDsaid he must protest against striking out the words "o the comptroller." He remembered that in Committee there was a discussion of nearly three hours on these very words.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid this was not the clause to which the hon. Member was referring, and when they reached that clause he would adhere to the words relating to the Comptroller. In this instance the omission of the words was purely a drafting matter. He was told by the draftsman that to retain the words would make interpretation of the clause difficult, and it was necessary to leave them out.
  MR. J. WARD: I hope I can trust you.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CAVE MR. CAVE moved to leave out Clause 14, which, he said, operated very hardly on a patentee who, having got capital and plant together, and having a fair prospect of getting some profit out of his patent, might find himself, at any time within four years, in the position of having to defend his patent at very great expense indeed. Of course, if the opponent lost he might have to pay the costs, but in many cases the patentee was not a wealthy man, and would rather surrender his patent and
  660
  climb down, possibly on terms, than run the risk of very heavy litigation. He did not think that was right or wise. He thought it far better to act on the English principle that a patent once granted was good unless it was held bad in an action specially framed for that purpose, and that this important power of revocation should be exercised, not by the Comptroller, but only by a Court of law. Questions of patents-raised points of very great technical difficulty which taxed the capacity of even the Judges for the High Court; and, with the greatest respect, he thought the duty of revocation ought not to be left to the Comptroller. The House ought to be very careful about interference with the rules designed for the protection of inventors, on whom a great part of the industries of the country depended.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILLseconded the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: I will first of all put the question to omit the first line and a half of the clause, and if both sides agree upon that, then I will put the whole clause.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 39, to leave out from the beginning to the word 'any' in line 40.'
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 40, to leave out from the word 'any' to the end of the clause."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid this was a matter which had been very carefully considered, the clause having no doubt met with opposition from some quarters. Out of about 17,000 patents granted, a very small percentage really became operative, and a large number were retained on the register simply for the purpose of blocking other perfectly bona fide inventions, thoroughly practical, which would serve an excellent purpose if they were patented. What the clause proposed was that there should be a simple procedure for getting rid of these

  661
  blocking patents, and there were thousands of them simply cumbering the register at present. He was prepared, however, to assent to one or two modifications of the clause, recognising that they must introduce some security into the life of a patent. If a considerable sum of money was spent on buildings and developments, it might be thought rather hard that the patent should be upset simply by a decision of the Comptroller. But anyone who seriously wanted to upset a patent of that kind would not go to the Comptroller under this section, for the simple reason that the ground would be very limited. Any man who wanted to upset a patent would put about twenty or thirty counts into his petition, and would not risk the whole thing on the very narrow ground stated in the section. He was perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Launceston, cutting down the four years to two years. If the hon. Gentleman felt that there was any real danger as to security he did not mind going beyond the Court of First Instance. That would ensure complete protection. He would cut down the limit of time from four years to two, and allow the petitioner to carry an appeal from the Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. These modifications could not be made now, but they might be made in another place.
  LORD R. CECILfeared the procedure proposed would very much increase the cost of proceedings in patent actions. He could not himself see the advantage of approaching the matter by way of the Comptroller instead of the Court. Under the present procedure, once they obtained the fiat of the Attorney-General, they could go to the Court and then to the House of Lords.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEadmitted that this might be the case if the patent was a genuine one, but the object there was to get at patents which were not bona fide. In those cases there would be an Application before the Comptroller, and there would hardly be any defence at all.
  LORD R. CECILthought that when the parties concerned were rich and
  662
  foreign pirates, whose object was to ruin their competitors, they would probably carry the case to the highest Court of Appeal. His experience was that these attempts to meet hard cases always put weapons into the hands of the rich, which they used against the poor. He trusted the Amendment would be accepted.
  MR. J. WARDhoped the President of the Board of Trade would not concede another point in regard to the clause. A poor patentee if he had a useful patent ought to be able to secure it, although he might not have the financial resources necessary to work it. A rich syndicate might come along and take out a patent for precisely the same mechanism.
  LORD R. CECIL: They could not do it.
  MR. J. WARDsaid the Bill pre-sup-posed that such a thing could be done.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 6, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words 'a patent may be opposed,' and insert the words 'the patent might have been opposed.'"
  "In page 6, line 5, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that when an action for infringement or proceedings for the revocation of the patent are pending in any court, an application under this section shall not be made except with the leave of the Court.'"
  "In page 6, line 10, after the word 'application,' to insert the words 'bat the Comptroller shall not make an order revoking the patent unless the circumstances are such as would have justified him in refusing to grant the patent had the proceedings been proceedings in an opposition to the grant of a patent.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 10, at end to insert the words '(3) On the hearing of such petition the Comptroller and Court shall have the same powers of requiring amendment of specification, and shall be guided in their decision by the same principle as in the case of an opposition to the grant of a patent.'"—(Mr. Radford.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEassured the hon. Member that the words he suggested were not necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved to leave out Clause 15. The proposal in this clause with relation to the revocation of patents worked outside the United Kingdom was really a crude form of protection, affording no help to the poor patentee. It would have no advantage at all, except that it would be to some extent protective in its action. He believed the inevitable result would be what always happened when protective measures were resorted to; it would hit those by whom it was imposed. The clause provided—
  "At any time not less than four years after the date of a patent any person may apply to the Comptroller for the revocation of the patent on the ground that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on exclusively or mainly outside the United Kingdom."
  In other words, the patentee was to be compelled in the first four years of the patent to make a substantial use of it in the United Kingdom. They were told on the First and Second Reading of the Bill that this clause was directed against the "rich pirate," but he believed that it was the poor man who would be hit, the man who had patented a meritorious invention, and then had difficulty in collecting enough money to start manufacture within the prescribed time. He begged to move.
  MR. NAPIERseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 5, line 19, to leave out Clause 15."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'At any time not less than four years after the date of a patent,' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the clause was the pith of the Bill. He pointed out that in many instances the privilege granted by the Crown in respect of patent rights, instead of being used to start British industries, was used to prevent other persons from establishing industries in the United Kingdom, causing
  664
  thereby an increased cost in the production. This clause, indeed, was purely in the interests of free trade, freedom of commerce, and industrial freedom.
  MR. BOWLESexpressed the hope that what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman would have the effect of converting some of his own friends to join-in the opposition to a clause which restricted to one country in the world the-operations of a man who had secured a patent. [Cries of "No."] That was his interpretation of the clause. The-right hon. Gentleman had the courage to tell the House that, instead of restricting, it increased a man's freedom. It was quite clear that the effect of the clause, so far as it had any effect at all, would be protective. There were other objections to the clause, but for that one alone he thought it ought to be rejected.
  LORD R. CECILasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 20, after the word 'patent, to insert the words' granted after the commencement of this Act, and in case of a patent previously granted at any time not less than four years after the date of such patent and two years after the commencement of this Act.'"—(Mr. Astbury.)
  MR. G. CROYDON MARKS*MR. G. CROYDON MARKS (Cornwall, Launceston) moved to add to the clause the words, "for meeting or supplying a continuous demand existing for such patented article or process in the United Kingdom." The object of the Amendment was to protect a patentee who might manufacture the article in America or Germany when there was a demand for it there, though during the first four years of the patent there might be no demand for the article in this country. Was a man to lose his rights in the patent in this country because he did not manufacture the article here at a time when there was no demand for it? He held that it would not be fair to the patentee to deprive him of his rights in that way. Germany was about

  665
  to alter her laws in regard to compulsory working of the patent in Germany and France also was going to take the step of not compelling the working of a patented article in Prance. But why should we cut off the patentee's right in his patent after four years, because there was no demand for the patented article or process in the United Kingdom? Let them take the case of machinery for operating on fibre, such as jute. At present that process was carried on in India, but why should a patentee lose his patent at the end of four years because there was no continuous demand for the article here? A new fibre might be discovered in this country, such as from cabbage leaves, which might be treated with the patent machinery hero, but a man should not be compelled to manufacture it until there was a known demand for it. He begged to move.
  LORD BALCARRESseconded the Amendment. He said he was very much interested in those processes which would be seriously affected by the Bill as it stood, and representations had been made to him by manufacturers against the clause. Under the clause as it stood, wealthy foreign syndicates would have a right to keep their patents alive here. The Comptroller had got to decide whether a process was mainly carried out inside or outside the United Kingdom; but there might be some articles, such as those made of steel, which involved twenty or thirty different patented processes. The duties imposed on the Comptroller were already extremely difficult without his having to decide whether there was a continuous demand for a certain patented article or process in this country. The scheme of the Amendment was one which ought to receive attention.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 23, after the word 'Kingdom,' to insert the word" 'for meeting or supplying a continuous demand existing for such patented article or process in the United Kingdom.'"—(Mr. Croydon Marks.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that it had been asked why if there was no demand in this country for a certain patented article,
  666
  should anyone go to the expense of setting up workshops for the manufacture-of the article? But, after all, this was a great exporting country, and it was our interest to manufacture for the whole-world, and a patent might be wanted here for some article which was used for I export purposes. From any point of view he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. BARNESsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman considered this matter, he would see that it really cut to the root of the question, and defeated the object for which the Bill had been introduced. The hon. Member for Launceston had mentioned the jute industry, but that industry was started in this country, and a large number of manufacturers who had exploited the industry here now took advantage of the cheap labour in India, and manufactured the jute there.
  MR. G. CROYDON MARKSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved to insert at the end of Clause 15 the words 'or His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas.'" He took it that the object of the Bill was to prevent a man taking out a patent in. England and then manufacturing that article in France or Germany because he could get cheaper labour there. He put it that if the patent were to be kept alive in England it should be worked in England for the benefit of British, workmen; and he thought that a similar advantage should be extended to the Colonies so as to give the Colonies a certain preference. With that object he ventured to press this Amendment upon the House. It did not establish protection or Colonial preference, but it gave the Colonies some sort of preference.
  MR. NAPIERseconded the Amendment on the ground that it would, he thought, not give a preference at all, but would slightly limit the protectionist character of the clause. It would, at all events, enlarge the area from which the people of this country would be entitled, possibly, to buy patented articles.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 6, line 23, at the end, to insert the words 'or His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEexpressed his utter amazement that the hon. and learned Gentleman should play so absolutely into the hands of his foes. Did he realise that this would give immunity to American patents? All that would have to be done would be to set up a factory across the border, in Canada, and every American industry would instantly be contracted out of the clause. Did he also know that in Canada there was a compulsory working law? That operated against the British patent and the American patent, and the Americans were obliged to set up factories in Canada, and they had done it. He could not conceive anything more dangerous than the inclusion of this Amendment, which would cut out instantly every American patent. The acceptance of the Amendment would make the clause absolutely futile. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would strengthen his hands by withdrawing his Amendment.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman was too striking for him not to say a word or two in reply. The right hon. Gentleman was an advocate of free trade, and he as one who was in favour of promoting the free exchange of commodities practically said to his hon. friend if he pressed the Amendment it would destroy the whole protective effect of this clause. The House would observe how the right hon. Gentleman adopted the whole of his friend's argument. As to the argument against cheap labour, it was rather an old friend, and was directed against unfair competition. They did not want protection to bolster up industries, but it was needed to prevent unfair competition. He should support this Amendment.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he fancied he had heard all these speeches before. He had heard them in the Committee, and he thought they were dealt with very effectively then. He did not understand that there was any protection in the
  668
  policy proposed. What was suggested was that when we were creating a monopoly and when the article was manufactured the products of the monopoly should not be protected in this country under the patent laws. If the article could be produced more cheaply in other countries, then it would not be produced in this country, but they wished to provide that our fellow countrymen would not be prevented from competing if it could be produced here. They were not applying a protective tax, but it was an extension of free trade, as it gave our people the opportunity of making these things if they could make them. If they could not the modification of the Patent Law would not affect the matter.
  MR. HILLSsupported the proposal of the Board of Trade. The Amendment looked attractive at first sight, but we could not treat the Empire as one until it was one in reality. The objection to cheap labour was a very important one, and, although at first sight he was inclined to look with favour on the Amendment, he thought on consideration it was a bad one.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that after the very able speech of the right hon. Gentleman and the sound principles which he had enunciaated, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, as he felt the country was safe in the right hon. Gentleman's hands on this point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The following Amendments were proposed and agreed to without discussion—
  "In page 7, line 25, after the word 'manufacture,' to insert the words 'and supply."—(Sir M. Levy.)
  "In page 7, line 25, after the word 'article,' to insert the word? 'or any parts thereof which are necessary for its efficient working on reasonable terms.'"—(Sir M. Levy.)
  "In page 7, line 26, after the word 'extent,' to insert the words 'in the United Kingdom,'"—(Mr. Astbury.)
  "In page 7, line 27, after the word 'existing,' to insert the words 'trade or." "—(Mr. Astbury.)
  "In page 7, line 28, after the word 'new,' to insert the words 'trade or.'"—(Mr. Astbury.)
  MR. CAVE MR. CAVE moved an Amendment to prevent Sub section (b) of Clause

  669
  16 being retrospective. This sub-section provided that the reasonable requirements of the country shall not be deemed to have been satisfied if any trade or industry in the United Kingdom is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions attached to the purchase, hire, or use of the patented article or to using or working the patented process by virtue of any contract with the patentee "whether" made before "or after" the passing of the Act. The hon. Member said he also intended to move to leave out the words "or after" so as to restrict the sub-section to a contract made before the passing of the Bill. Unless this were done, they would make a man pay a penalty for something which was perfectly legal before the passing of this measure.
  LORD R. CECILseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 7, line 38, to leave out the word whether,'"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'whether' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEhoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment, as full provision was made for compensation later on in the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page it, line 13, to leave out from the first word 'and,' and to insert the words 'After the expiration of the prescribed period the comptroller.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 14, to leave out the words 'law officer,' and to insert the word 'Court.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'law officer' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. RAWLINSONasked whether if they carried this it would affect the discussion of the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper to leave out Sub-section 1 of Clause 26.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was told that it would not affect such a discussion.
  LORD R. CECILasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to go any further to-night having regard: to the fact that they were now approaching the discussion of Clause 23, which was a most contentious clause, or whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed when this Amendment was agreed to to defer the discussion of Clause 23 to another day.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was not late, and there were many Members now in the House who desired to discuss Clause 23 who might not be present on another occasion, and he-therefore thought they might be allowed to go on.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'of the Comptroller.'"—(Mr. Astbury.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CAVE MR. CAVE moved the omission of Clause 23, which, he said, avoided certain conditions which were now freely entered into between patentees and business men. The boot trade was quoted as a burning example in favour of this claim, and it was said that there were cases when the right to use a patent corrected with the manufacture of boots had been refused except upon conditions that the licensee should use it for all boots which he might manufacture. But he believed that in spite of this condition the licensee had in fact made substantial profits. He knew it was said that the right had been abused. But where business men had found this particular mode of dealing most convenient—both parties to the bargain entering into it with knowledge of what they were about—it was a great mistake for Parliament to intervene and say it should be void. Apart from that, the clause was retrospective and avoided-existing contracts. There was a compensation provision, but no compensation would make up for the avoidance of a contract entered into in the ordinary course of business and upon the faith of which important arrangements might have been made. By Subsection (5) the insertion by the patentee in a contract made after the passing of this Act of any condition which by virtue of the

  671
  clause was null and void was made a ground on which the patent might be revoked. Even if the principle of the clause was assumed to be right, it was wrong to go so far as to say that if a man, by inadvertence, inserted one of these conditions in a contract with A he should be unable to sue B for some flagrant infringement of the patent. That was a monstrous penalty to impose on a contractor. The purpose of the clause was to a great extent already met by Clause 16. The whole of Clause 23 was very objectionable, and he strongly held the view that there should be no attempt to deal with the mischief which was said to exist in the drastic way proposed.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILLseconded the Amendment. He trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would look at this clause in the light in which it was regarded by many in the country. In the legal profession there was a common saying that "hard cases made bad law." He thought, although this clause was directed to meeting hard cases, it would establish a very bad principle in English law. If it remained in the Bill it would constitute an interference with the freedom of contract between people who were quite able to conduct their business in their own way. They were not here legislating for children or minors but for grown persons who knew their own mind and were able to conduct their own affairs. Not only would it interfere with freedom of contract but in some trade? would bring about a state of things which would inflict great injustice on patentees. It would also act "in restraint of trade." Therefore he hoped if the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to acept the Motion of his hon. friend he would at least consider whether the clause could not be modified.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 9, line 21, to leave out Clause 23."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'any,' in page 2, line 22, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid he would not have asked the 'Government to pass a general law affecting
  672
  the commercial interests of the country merely because the existing law pressed hardly upon a small industry, but they must judge of the necessity for a change in the law by the magnitude of the industry if it were so affected from the consequences of it, whether they were serious or not. There was a trade with which he was connected and which had grave complaint against the existing law. It was a large industry, and so far as machinery was concerned was practically in the hands of a syndicate which had attained its power in a way which would be prevented in the future if this clause was retained in the Bill and became law. Seven or eight years ago the machinery of this trade was largely supplied by the United Machinery Company. That company was bought up by an American syndicate, and in addition to buying the machines which the company provided, it took care to buy up also such other machines as it conceived were absolutely necessary to the carrying on of the business. Consequently it became possessed of a monopoly, and upon the basis of that monopoly altered the conditions upon which the machinery could be obtained by this industry and made them of a very restrictive and tyrannical nature. A large part of the trade were not free agents in the matter at all. He himself was free from these contracts, because the firm with which he was connected obtained the bulk of its machines before the American syndicate established its monopoly. These leases extended the term of the patent to twenty years, and so got round the Patent Act, and they made additions to the machines, each addition extending the term of the lease, and thus the whole thing became a perpetual burden on the manufacturer. Three-fourths of the boot manufacturers of the country were unable to take up any other machines than those supplied by the syndicate. Very grave injustice was thus done to the whole industry and it would be largely removed by the passing of this clause.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that the fundamental idea of the patent laws was to give the inventor a monopoly, in order to encourage inventions. A patentee might exact any terms he liked Anyone might reject his machines, but

  673
  no one did, because even with the restrictions placed by him on their use it was more profitable to use them. It was argued that the contracts of the syndicate referred to by the last speaker involved a restraint of trade which was against public policy; but that doctrine had been so relaxed that it was now almost impossible to frame a contract which would be pronunced against public policy on that ground. It was held now that it was more in the interest of public policy that grown free men should be allowed to make what contracts they chose amongst themselves. That was the danger which attached to this clause. It was extremely widely drawn; it was devised to deal with one particular case, and one case only, for he did not know of any other case of a like nature. Under this clause if there were put into an agreement any provision that the purchaser was only to use the patentee's article the agreement was void. One could see at once how very hardly that might bear in particular cases. A man might have acquired a reputation far a particular kind of goods produced by a particular kind of machinery, and he might sell his machine to a comparatively ignorant user on the terms that he should use it and none other. He could imagine many cases in which a perfectly reasonable provision of that kind might be made which would do no harm to anyone, even in the view of the hon. Member for Norfolk, and to say in the particular terms which this clause laid down that all such conditions and agreements were to be void was a somewhat dangerous form of legislation. Here was a hard case, and something must be done to settle it, and they did the something, and found out afterwards that it in itself was something very hard. He was satisfied that this clause, if accepted, would do the greatest possible injury to the industries of this country, and he, therefore, asked the President of the Board of Trade not to insist upon it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not propose to enter very fully into this question, not because it was late in the session or late in the evening, but because they had dealt with it twice already very exhaustively. There had been a very considerable discussion on
  674
  it on Second Reading, and he specially drew attention to this clause when he introduced the Bill. There was also a full discussion upstairs, where two days were entirely devoted to the clause. The noble Lord was not present on the first occasion, but he did not make that a cause of complaint, though he must be excused from again entering extensively into the question. His hon. friend had gone a little further by explaining one special case which had lately precipitated the action of the Legislature in this matter. IE a privilege were abused, surely the Legislature which granted that privilege had a right to come in and say the limits which were allowed when the monopoly was granted were being exceeded. This was a case in which for the first time they saw in their sheer nakedness the methods of the American trusts. The noble Lord had argued a good deal about general principles as to trade, and he did not disagree with the principles he had laid down. He absolutely agreed with the noble Lord about the fulfilling of contracts and as to men of mature judgment exercising caution. That was the only way to develop a manly action. But this was not a case in which they had two traders on equal terms to begin with. This was a case in which one man had a monopoly which the community had given him, and the other man was left without any defence at all. The boot industry in this country was practically compelled to take a certain machine. Those engaged in the industry were good business men and well able to hold their own in competition, but they were really obliged to sign a contract, and a more monstrous contract had never been submitted to an industry. Did the noble Lord realise the extent of one of the clauses which was inserted in the contract? It compelled the use of this particular machine and no other. Supposing there was another patent, either British or foreign, which revolutionised the trade as completely as this one did, and which it was just as necessary for the boot industry to utilise, nine-tenths of the industry would not be able to use the new machine for twenty years to begin with. That was not all. If an improvement of the invention for which a contract had been

  675
  entered into was taken up at the end of nineteen years, the trade was bound to take the improvement and the lease was renewed for another twenty years. At the end of another nineteen years there might be another improvement and the boot industry would have to take that up for a further period. There was nothing in the contract to prevent a series of slight improvements which might be invented, enabling an equal number of extensions of the lease of its exclusive use to be made, conceivably obliging the boot trade to continue using the same machine for 300 years. The industry could not survive it, and the Legislature was, therefore, bound to interfere in the general interest, not to protect individual bootmakers who had entered into a bad bargain, but in order to protect a very powerful industry, and to say that this country really could not
  Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.
  stand the use of a privilege conferred by the Crown for the purpose of hampering a whole trade. The American Legislature had found it necessary to introduce a provision of this kind, and he knew of no country under the sun which would tolerate this kind of thing. In Canada, he believed, it had been held by the judges to be a contract in restraint of trade. The Judges, no doubt, here held it was not in the ordinary sense such a contract; but, at any rate, the Legislature ought to come in and say that it was very prejudicial to the trade of the country. He therefore proposed this clause. There were one or two modifications which would be proposed later on.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 79;, Noes, 13. (Division List No. 400.)

  AYES.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Rowlands, J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Russell, T. W.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Bell, Richard

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Snowden, P.

  Branch, James

  Henry, Charles S.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Brigg, John

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Verney, F. W.

  Burt, Bt. Hon. Thomas

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Walters, John Tudor

  Carr-Gomm. H. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Lambert, George

  Waring, Walter

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lupton, Arnold

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  White, Patrick (Meath, Norths

  Crooks, William

  M'Callum, John M.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Wills, Arthurf Walters

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Elibank, Master of

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Essex, R. W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  NOES.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Gordon, J.

  Rawlinson, Jn. Frederick Peel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Cave and Mr. Staveley-Hill.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Napier, T. B.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Radford, G. H.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Whiteley,)—put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock till Monday next.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Finance.

2. Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment,

3. British North America.

4. Employment of Women.

5. Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1.)

6. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2.)

7. Leeds (South Parade Chapel) Charity.

8. Kingswood (Whitfield Tabernacle Schoolroom, etc.) Charity.

9. Longton (Caroline Street Chapel) Charity.

10. Portishead District Water.

11. Collooney, Bellina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers.

12. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.

13. Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water.

14. Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board.

15. Merthyr Tydfil Stipendiary Justice.

16. Selsey Water.

17. Midland Railway.

18. Birkenhead Corporation Water.

THE LORD O'NEILL took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Aberdeen Corporation Electricity Bill [H.L.]. Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, etc.) Bill. Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Llandrindod Wells Gas Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
  Petitions to be heard by Counsel for Amendment of; of Stalybridge Groce s' and Provision Dealers' Association; Maidstone and District Grocers' Association; Newark and District Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Leith Grocers' and Provision Merchants' Association; Rochdale and District Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Wallasey Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association; Eastbourne and District Grocers' Association; and Hull Retail Grocers' Association. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NORTHERN NIGERIA.
  Correspondence relating to Sokoto, Hadeija, and the Munshi country,
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Sixty-second Annual Report of the Commissioners.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST.
  Annual Report of the President, for the year 1906–1907.

  TRADE REPORTS; ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3889. Germany (Hamburg).
  No. 3890. Guatemala (Quezaltenango).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BANKRUPTCY.
  Twenty-fourth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under Section 131 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
LIGHTS ON VEHICLES BILL.
Report of the Amendments made in the Committee of the Whole House, and by the Standing Committee, to be received on Monday next.
POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment; and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
(The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.)
Clause 1:—
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved to omit Sub-section I, which enabled the Estates Commissioners to acquire any land for the purposes of the Act on offering to the owner a price which appeared to them to represent the fair market value of the land, and to substitute for it the following new sub-section:—" If the Estates Commissioners are unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms suitable land for the purposes of this Act, and if they have offered to the person appearing to them to be the owner of any land which, by reason thereof, they desire to acquire compulsorily for such purposes, compensation for the loss which would be sustained by the owner by being deprived thereof, and he has not within the prescribed time accepted the offer, they may, subject to the provisions of Sub-section 8 of Section 2 of this Act, acquire that land compulsorily for those purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and shall declare any land so acquired to be an estate." As a consequential Amendment he proposed to insert in Clause 2 (provisions respecting acquisition of land and purchase money) a new sub-section (8), referred to in the foregoing Amendment, providing that I any person aggrieved by any order or petition of the Estates Commissioners might apply, as he should elect, either to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland or to the Judge of assize in which the lands sought to be acquired were situated, to hear and determine any question of law or fact arising out of any such petition or order.
He had three objects in moving this Amendment. The first was that the Estates Commissioners should to some degree—he regretted he could not manage it altogether—be put in the position of all other bodies who sought to acquire land compulsorily, namely, that
488
they should be obliged to show that it was necessary for the purpose authorised that they should so acquire it. He made this statement with the confidence that there was not to be found in the legislation of the three kingdoms a single instance where any individual, body, or Minister of State could take land compulsorily without convincing some other body or Minister of State that it was necessary to do so. He challenged the noble Earl the Lord President, or any noble Lord who might speak for the opposite side of the House, to produce a single instance where power was given to take land compulsorily without convincing some other body, external to the body or person who desired to acquire the land, that it was necessary for the purposes they had in view.
To that rule there was only one exception. When the country was actually invaded by a foreign force the Minister for War had power to take land compulsorily for the safety of the nation. But fleets might conquer our shores and our national existence might be threatened, yet only on actual invasion was the Minister for War given the powers which it was proposed by this Bill to confer on the Estates Commissioners. He had based his Amendment on this point on the Allotments Act, 1887, amended as it had been by the Local Government Act, 1894. In that Act it was provided that if a parish council were unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms land suitable for any purpose for which they were authorised to acquire it, they might represent the case to the county council, who should inquire into that representation. The body who wanted the land were the parish council; the body who investigated the claim were the county council. But the very first point the county council would investigate would be whether it was true that the parish council were unable to obtain, by agreement, land suitable for the purpose and on reasonable terms. There was something very repellant to him in enabling any body to acquire land compulsorily without the authority of some other body external to themselves. But he quite recognised that this Bill was framed altogether on different lines, and that if he were to propose an Amendment which would vest in some body external to the Commissioners the power of deciding whether or not they should take

489
land compulsorily, it would disjoint the Bill and practically defeat it.
The noble Marquess the Leader of the House had said the other night that some of these Amendments looked as if they were designed to wreck the Bill. So far as he was concerned, he utterly disclaimed any such motive. His sole object was to mould the provisions of the Bill into harmony with the machinery of the various Acts which existed for the acquisition of land compulsorily and into some resemblance to justice, equity, and fairplay. It was impossible, without wrecking the Bill, to provide that in the first instance before any active steps were taken, some external body should be created with power to decide whether it was necessary to acquire the land compulsorily at all; but he had endeavoured, by the creation of an Appeal Court, to provide that that question should come up, and that the Court of Appeal, amongst the other things referred to it, would have power, jurisdiction, and authority, to decide whether upon the facts and circumstances proved before it it was necessary that the land should be taken compulsorily. That would be the first and the only occasion on which the task set in every other case to some authority outside the taking authority would in this case be discharged.
As the Bill stood it gave power to the Commissioners to take land where they pleased, when they pleased, and in what quantity they pleased, if they "deemed it expedient." He held that such a power was tyrannical and unjust, and it was no offence and no insult to the Estates Commissioners to say that it ought not to be given to them when it had not been given to any other body. The Estates Commissioners had peculiar views. He understood that they had at the present moment thousands of acres of land in their possession; he did not know the exact number of acres, but they had very considerable tracts, and it was perfectly competent for them to say that they thought it inexpedient to employ that land for the purpose of reinstatement, and that in their opinion it was more expedient to take other land compulsorily. The first object, therefore, of his Amendment was to require that they should show that they could not get the land they required by voluntary agreement, and to bring the question of the necessity of the application
490
of compulsory powers before a tribunal of review. By his Amendment he also wished to provide that the owner of land compulsorily taken should not only be paid the price of the land, but compensation for any other loss he might sustain through being deprived of such land compulsorily.
Under the operation of the Lands Clauses Act hundreds of thousands of pounds, he might almost say millions, had been paid to the owners of houses and lands compulsorily acquired as compensation over and above the actual value of such houses and lands. One of the earliest cases was that of a man whose brewery was taken, and he was held to be entitled to be compensated for the loss he sustained until he could get another brewery. Under that law compensation for good will had grown up, and the necessity for introducing such a provision in this measure was emphasised by the principles which, in their evidence before the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland, the Estates Commissioners had laid down. He had been accused of doing an injustice to Mr. Finucane. It was far from his desire to do that gentleman any injustice, and he had re-read Mr. Finucane's evidence since and found that he did him no injustice. What Mr. Finucane had said was this, that with regard to grazing land he did not estimate the value by the income which the owner was receiving from it as used, but upon some estimate that he, or his subordinates, made—because, of course, the Estates Commissioners would do very little of this work themselves—as to what it would let for to a solvent tenant, and he capitalised that rent at a certain sum. Mr. Finucane had persuaded himself that people could get 3½ per cent. for money, and that therefore the landlord would not lose anything; but he forgot that from 70 to 75 per cent. of the land in Ireland was in settlement. That meant that the purchase money of the land must be invested in trustee securities, and he was a very fortunate trustee indeed who, at the present moment, could succeed in getting 3½ per cent. for money in a trustee security.
The principles of the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 had been adopted in legislation relating to education, in the Housing

491
of the Working Classes Act, in the Sanitary Acts, and in the Allotments Act, and why should it not be adopted in this Bill? He had never heard any reason given. One peculiarity of this Bill was that, with the exception of this clause and half of another clause, none of it had been discussed in the House of Commons at all. He objected to anything so fanciful as a rent which might be fixed by the Estates Commissioners, more particularly as one of them, Mr. Bailey, after fifteen years training, told them that the fair rents under the Act of 1881 were fixed on no principle whatever.
His third object was to provide a Court of Appeal. He did not think it would be convenient to discuss at that point the structure of the Court of Appeal, but he had put down a subsequent Amendment setting up appeal machinery. In that he had slavishly copied from the provisions of the Bill of Mr. Gladstone in 1870; that ought to be a good authority for the Government of the day, although, of course, they had advanced greatly since Mr. Gladstone's time. He had also made use of the provision in the Act of 1898 which gave local government to Ireland. He wished to refer to this tribunal in the first place the necessity of taking lands compulsorily, and in the second place the amount of compensation to be paid according to the principles of the Lands Clauses Acts. The tribunal he proposed was the Judge of Assize for the county in which the lands in question were situated, or one of the Judges of the King's Bench Division; but he would not now discuss the details of that proposal. It was said that under the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 10 per cent. was added for compulsory purchase. There was nothing about 10 per cent. in that Act, but the habit of giving it in cases of compulsory purchase had grown up. There was a great deal to be said, he thought, for not giving that 10 per cent. when land was taken by the Estates Commissioners. He did not himself see why a landlord should get the bonus and also this 10 per cent., although he was conscious that his views on this matter might not meet with general approval.
On the question of an appeal, he pointed out that to grant an appeal was no aspersion of incapability, partiality, or dishonesty. It was only yesterday that noble Lords opposite argued in favour of
492
appeal in criminal cases, and represented that, although a Judge of first instance was perfectly honest, and exercised his powers impartially and with a paramount desire to do justice, he might have views. He would acquaint their Lordships with some of the views of the Estates Commissioners as to what their functions were under the Act. Mr. Bailey, at page 186 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland, gave evidence of a landlord who was iniquitous enough to divide his grazing lands amongst his own tenants and to apply to have the lands so sold declared an "estate," so that by that means he might get the bonus, and have the benefit of the zones, because the zones only applied and the bonus was only given in the case of; "estates," and therefore it was necessary, as a condition precedent both to the application of the zones and the obtaining of the bonus, that the land should be declared an estate by the Commissioners. This was the view of Mr. Commissioner Bailey as to this method of dealing with the grass lands—
"It encouraged the land-hungry people to bid prices frequently out of all proportion to the value. The effort to raise the purchase money frequently led to borrowing and indebtedness that kept the people in poverty and misery and lessened the security for the repayment of advances of public money. Where this was not the case the system resulted in the land getting into the wrong; hands. It enabled the sons of wealthier farmers and graziers to acquire the grass lands and took away all hope of bettering their position from the smaller and poorer people who most needed relief. The system of; creating holdings by the payment of fines is, accordingly, discouraged by the Estates Commissioners, who refuse to declare lands so-dealt with as 'estates' for the purposes of the Land Acts. The Estates Commissioners are always ready to make an estimate of the price of such lands when asked to purchase, with: the object of carrying out the enlargement and creation of holdings, and the distribution, of the land among suitable persona under their own supervision."
Later on he was asked—
"You say the Estates Commissioners are always ready to make an estimate of the price of such land when asked to purchase. Previously you told us of landlords having grass land in their own hands who saw a means of making a considerable profit by dividing it up and throwing it on the market. I presume, and I think you told us, that that would be an extremely profitable thing for the landlord of the grass land?"
to which he replied—
"Yes."

493
The next question put to Mr. Commissioner Bailey was—
"When you told us you are ready to estimate the price of such land, is that a fact you take into consideration, that if the landlord had exercised what he would be allowed to exercise in any other country, the right of doing what he likes with his own—do you take that into consideration in the price you "re going to offer him?"
To which the witness replied in the negative. Sir Antony MacDonnell then interposed and asked the witness to explain why he did not take it into account, and Mr. Bailey replied—
"We can only offer him a price that bears a relation to the value of the land and the price at which we can resell it to the tenants we put into possession. If the landlord chooses to cut it up and sell it and make something in that way, of course he can do it, but he cannot expect us—"
That might be a good principle for a voluntary sale, but not when land was taken compulsorily and without reference to any outside tribunal. The answer was interrupted by Sir Antony MacDonnell, who said—
"Does not the reason go still further back; that Parliament in its wisdom has enacted a measure which is for the good of the community as a whole, and that that measure lays down the rule that landlords in disposing of their property should only do so in accordance with the spirit of the measure?"
He did not know where Sir Anthony MacDonnell found that rule. It was not in the Act nor in any speech that was I made by anyone on the Government side. The principle on which land had been acquired for great public purposes was that if the public wanted the land full value must be paid to the owner. To the question put to him by Sir Antony MacDonnell, Mr. Bailey replied—
"Our grounds for refusing to declare an estate are that it is not fit to be declared an estate for the purposes of the Land Act."
His Majesty's Government, in this Bill, were grieviously contravening the spirit of the Land Act of 1903, because the leading principle of that Act was that the transaction should be voluntary, and from that fact it was hoped would spring the peaceful and beneficent spirit that would allay the strife which was poisoning the life of Ireland. He made no charge against the honesty of these men, but he could not help remembering a very shrewd remark he once heard, that "An established character for honesty is too
494
great a temptation for any man." He begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, lines 5 to 13, to leave out Subsection (1), and to insert the following new subsection: 'If the Estates Commissioners are unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms suitable land for the purposes of this Act, and if they have offered to the person appearing to them to be the owner of any land which, by reason thereof, they desire to acquire compulsorily for such purposes, compensation for the loss which would be sustained by the owner by being deprived thereof, and he has not within the prescribed time accepted the offer, they may, subject to the provisions of Subsection 8 of Section 2 of this Act, acquire that land compulsorily for those purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and shall declare any land so acquired to be an estate.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, as the House will clearly perceive, this Amendment, or series of Amendments, is of the very first importance, and it has been introduced by the noble and learned Lord in a speech marked by no small amount of humour and also by a clearness and lucidity which I admire but cannot hope to imitate. I think, if he will allow me to say so, that the noble and learned Lord did wisely in travelling to some extent outside the purview of this particular Amendment, because it was impossible, without reference to the fact that he desires to establish a Court of Appeal, to make the provisions of his Amendment to the first clause clear. The noble and learned Lord said, and I need not say that I quite believe him, that he does not design these Amendments for the purpose of wrecking the Bill. But I do not think it will be very difficult to point out to your Lordships that if these Amendments are carried and are insisted upon the effect will be to destroy the entire purpose of this measure.
The noble and learned Lord does not desire—at any rate, if he desires it he does not carry out his desire—to abolish compulsion altogether, because he knows very well that to do so would be equivalent to throwing out the Bill on Second Reading, for the Bill depends upon compulsion and nothing else; but he desires to limit the operation of compulsion so far as it ever has been limited by previous legislation on other

495
subjects and possibly even a little further. The general effect of this series of Amendments would be to apply the Lands Clauses Acts to this land taken for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants. The operations of the Lands Clauses Acts are very familiar to most of your Lordships. Many of you, I have no doubt, have carried out transactions, I hope of a profitable character, under those Acts. Under them it is customary to give compensation for damage done by severance, and to give, in addition, 10 per cent. in respect of the compulsory purchase and sometimes even more. The noble and learned Lord very fairly said that it seemed to him that if the landlords were given the bonus it would not be reasonable also in all cases to ask for the ten per cent. extra; but I noticed that that observation was not received with anything like uproarious applause on the other side of the House. On the contrary, I think it passed in absolute silence.
Now consider what would happen, assuming compulsory purchase under this Bill to take place under the Lands Clauses Act. It may be taken, I suppose, as an absolute axiom, at any rate as the result of long experience, that prices obtained under the Lands Clauses Act are higher than those which are obtained by the ordinary operations of sale and purchase. The vendor under the Lands Clauses Act is always assumed to be unwilling—even although he may possibly be delighted at the transfer—and he is treated as if he were an unwilling seller. That being so, it surely is obvious that, if you are going to get a higher price by dint of using the Lands Clauses Act for this purpose, no vendor of land will ever enter into a voluntary agreement unless he gets the same price by that agreement as he might hope to get by means of application to the tribunal. That, again, I think, is the common experience of those who are used to transactions under the Lands Clauses Act.
As a matter of fact, it is in the experience, I think, of many of us that higher prices are often obtained by agreement because of the Lands Clauses Act, and very often higher than could possibly be got if the matter went to arbitration. If that is so, I venture to submit that practically no transaction under this Bill will ever take place at all, because the
496
treatment of these sales as matters for compensation will cause so great a difference between the amount which the landlord will receive and the price at which the land can be resold to the tenant purchaser that it will be altogether impossible for the Estates Commissioners to enter into these transactions at all. The difference has to come from somewhere. Where is it to come from? Is it to come out of the bonus or out of the Imperial Treasury? I think it is almost unnecessary to remind noble Lords that the Treasury are not likely to make themselves liable for any indefinite possible charge of this kind, I assume with equal certainty that noble Lords opposite would not desire that the Purchase Aid Fund should be similarly liable; and under those circumstances I submit that if you apply the terms of the Lands Clauses Act to these transactions it simply means that no transactions will take place at all.
But, my Lords, it goes further than that, because supposing some transactions do take place on this higher scale, the Estates Commissioners will incur the risk of running up the value of all the land in Ireland which they may afterwards wish to acquire by agreement. They are accused by noble Lords opposite of desiring to depreciate the value of all the land in Ireland by paying low compulsory prices for certain parcels, audit is assumed that the effect will be disastrous upon the value of land in. Ireland generally; but surely it is equally true that, if you compel them to pay fancy prices under the Lands Clauses Act for certain parcels of agricultural land, you will be doing the precise opposite—that is to say, you will be running up the price which landlords are likely to demand for land all over Ireland. That is one set of considerations.
But there are other considerations. The noble and learned Lord desires that if the Estates Commissioners are unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms suitable land they may in the last resort apply compulsion. If he means that the question whether suitable land cannot possibly be obtained elsewhere by agreement is one on which there is to be an appeal, let us consider the amount of possible delay and

497
difficulty that would be caused by such a provision. It seems to me to open up a vista of endless discussion and recrimination between the vendor and the Estates Commissioners. And these appeals, long, complicated, and expensive, are to be paid for out of public money. I ask the House whether it is conceivable that those who are responsible for the finances of the country would agree to enter into possible liabilities of that kind.
It appears to me that noble Lords have not entirely grasped the root idea of this Bill. Nobody disputes that it is quite possible to reinstate all the evicted tenants in Ireland by means of agreement if you give time enough. It is undoubtedly true that the Estates Commissioners could in the course of the next fifteen years acquire by agreement sufficient land of one kind or another to put these people back, and, therefore, the whole case for this Bill rests on the necessity for doing this work in a short space of time. Therefore, unless this operation can be carried through in a comparatively short time there is not the least object in passing this Bill. If noble Lords are right in thinking that the matter is by no means urgent, that it is perfectly satisfactory for these transactions to go on pari passu, in Lord Donoughmore's words, with all the other transactions, with the possibility of not concluding for fourteen or fifteen years or possibly longer, in that case noble Lords, from their point of view, would be right in rejecting the Bill altogether. But if you embroider the Bill with provisions of all kinds which involve either indefinite delay or an indefinite addition to the cost, so far as we are concerned the effect will be precisely the same as voting against the second reading of the Bill.
That is why I say these Amendments of the noble Lord will have the effect, though I dare say they have not the intention, of defeating the Bill. If the Government are asked to proceed under the Land Clauses Acts, or if the Estates Commissioners are to be forbidden to obtain the land they want, no Bill is required, and although in our opinion the consequences to the peace of Ireland may be exceedingly grave, noble Lords would have to take the responsibility for that state of things. On the question of
498
an appeal as to whether a particular piece of land should be taken compulsorily I am afraid we are not disposed to com-promise; but we regard an appeal on value as a different matter, and we shall be willing to discuss it with the noble Lord.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he had listened attentively to the speech of the noble Earl the Lord President and was not sure that the noble Earl himself had very definite views as to the first clause. The noble Earl had said that the Amendment might tend to wreck the Bill, but had not given any reason for that statement. Nor had he defended the clause in the Bill as a reasonable, intelligible, or just clause. The noble Earl had not said a syllable in defence of it.
What was the position at the present time? The whole of the land legislation of Ireland was based upon the voluntary principle. The evicted tenants were dealt with under the voluntary system in the Act of 1903, and upon that Act there had now been built up a grievance which, it was said, demanded a supreme, urgent, and revolutionary legislative measure. The noble Earl had himself said that this. Bill was not intended to apply to impossible tenants, and Mr. Birrell had declared that it was intended to apply only to those who in an agrarian war had come to grief. But the Bill was so wide that it included not only the Plan of Campaign tenants, the dupes and sufferers of an agrarian war, but also every tenant evicted within a large number of years—it might be because he had been thoughtless, because there were years of arrears of rent, or because he had not succeeded and could not succeed, and was, therefore, an impossible tenant. There was no restraint as to the cause or reason for the eviction. Nearly all the Plan of Campaign estates were provided for; there were only seventeen estates in all, fifteen of which had been dealt with, and in regard to one of the remaining two negotiations were taking place, so that there was only one estate outstanding at the present moment. The bulk of the evicted tenants remaining were, therefore, tenants who had been evicted by the ordinary process of law chiefly for the non-payment of rent. He pitied anyone in misfortune, and was not against the principle of restoring the evicted tenants to a position of happiness;

499
but the suggestion that there was any supreme urgency in dealing with this topic obviously required considerable explanation. It was only by straining language that they could call this matter urgent. A great many evicted tenants had been restored under the voluntary system in the Act of 1903, and that process was going on easily and smoothly at the present moment. The power compulsorily to take land had always been cautiously used, an honest price—to quote the words of the present occupant of the Woolsack—had always been paid, and it had always been subject to legitimate appeal. The Estates Commissioners were only human, and if they were given uncontrolled power to select land where they pleased, was it not reasonable to ask that their action should be reviewed by fresh and independent minds? This was a novel and startling position. As Lord Atkinson had pointed out, the Commissioners were to be given an absolute charter, without check, guidance, or control, to go into any part of Ireland and to take as much land as they liked, where they liked, and to measure the price without appeal. Had the noble Earl, in his opening speech that day, said one solitary syllable—
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? I was not making an opening speech. I was endeavouring to deal with the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord opposite.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that, being an Irishman, he called that an opening speech. This was an Amendment of the first importance. It suggested, first, that compulsion should only be employed if the Commissioners were unable to get land voluntarily. Was it not reasonable that they should only be allowed to grasp a man's land compulsorily when it was unattainable voluntarily? As to the second point of the Amendment, was it not the most common principle of justice that when land was taken compulsorily fair compensation should be given? Coming to the question of an appeal, the noble Earl opposite seemed to indicate that there was some point on which he would consider it reasonable to give an appeal, but he did not see why there should not be
500
an appeal which would search the whole transaction from beginning to end.
LORD EVERSLEYsaid that as this was the first of a long series of Amendments which, whatever their intention might be, would have the effect, if carried as a whole, of defeating the Bill, and, at all events to whatever extent they were insisted upon and were accepted in the other House, of making the Bill distasteful to the great body of Irish Members, he hoped he might be allowed to make a few general observations upon the policy of mangling the Bill. He thought that when their Lordships looked back at past legislation relating to Irish land, they would find that almost without exception the attempts of that House to interfere with the Bills which had come up from the other House, supported by the great majority of Irish Members, had been a failure in the sense that they had made legislation of a more extreme character necessary, and the very object that they had in view was defeated. He would give a few illustrations, and would take first the Land Act of 1870. He well recollected that when that Bill was before their Lordships' House, Lord Salisbury and Lord Cairns made speeches on the subject very similar in tone and substance to that which they had heard on Tuesday last from the noble Marquess the Loader of the Opposition. It was said that the Bill was thoroughly bad in every respect, that it was unsound in principle and bad in detail; but their Lordships decided that, in view of the state of Ireland, it was not desirable to reject the Bill, but that, on the other hand, it should be considerably amended. The House of Lords then proceeded to adopt a long series of Amendments which completely altered the character of the Bill. Most of those Amendments were ultimately defeated, but the other House of Parliament, fearing the loss of the Bill altogether, accepted some of them, and it was not long before it was proved that those Amendments were most serious in their results. Then came the crisis of 1879, when there was great distress in Ireland owing to a succession of bad harvests. It was found impossible for large numbers of tenants to pay their rent, and the better landlords of Ireland made large abatements, but the minority of bad landlords

501
insisted upon full payment, and began to evict on a large scale. Then the defect he had mentioned in the Act of 1870, which was due to their Lordships' Amendments, showed how unwise those Amendments had been, and the Government of the day, at the instance of the great majority of the Irish Members, felt themselves compelled to introduce a temporary measure for the purpose of meeting the evil, and of limiting eviction by giving compensation.
THE EARL OF MAYOinquired whether the discussion should not be confined to the definite Amendment before the Committee.
LORD BALFOUK OF BURLEIGH (who was in temporary occupation of the Chair)said he thought it would be in order to refer to incidents of previous history only by way of illustration, but not to discuss them on the merits in detail.
LORD EVERSLEYsaid that was just what he was doing. He was proceeding to say that the Government of the day then introduced the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. Their Lordships threw that measure out, and as a result a series of agitations occurred in Ireland when evictions took place; and in the following year it was' necessary for Parliament to pass a measure which went far beyond that of the previous year and showed the unwisdom and impolicy of their Lordships in rejecting the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. The Act of 1881, which affected the greatest agrarian revolution ever carried in any country, was finally passed into law; but again their Lord-ships inserted Amendments of a serious character, which the House of Commons felt itself unable to resist, but the demerits of which afterwards appeared.
He was surprised to hear the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition state, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill, that the Act of 1881 was complete, and that since then no tenant in Ireland had lost his farm by eviction unless he had brought that eviction upon himself. The noble Marquess was Governor-General of Canada, and out of this country, between 1881 and the passing of the Act of 1887. Events then occurred which necessitated an amendment
502
of that Act in 1887. There occurred a second agrarian rising. From the land legislation of 1887 this question of the evicted tenants was left over, and had continued a running sore up to the present time. In 1894 Mr. Morley attempted to deal with it by a moderate measure proposing reinstatement of these tenants as tenants, but that Bill was unwisely rejected by their Lordships. The late Government endeavoured to deal with it in the Act of 1903—a good measure—but being permissive it lacked backbone, and was not final or complete. The present Bill was the natural supplement, and looking back at the past history of land legislation should convince their Lordships that it was unwise to introduce Amendments contrary to the expressed wishes of the representatives of the people. It was of no use to provide remedies that would not be accepted by the people for whom they were intended. With regard to the specific Amendment, it practically meant the application of the Lands Clauses Act, adding immensely to expense and delay in the procedure.
LORD ATKINSONsaid there was no proposal that this matter should be dealt with under the machinery of the Lands Clauses Act; it was merely that the principle of compensation should be the same.
LORD EVERSLEYsaid he quite under stood that, but he thought to whatever extent the proposal was made it was not a wise one. It was not acceptable to the majority of the Irish Members, and he ventured to say that on that ground alone their Lordships would be wise in rejecting it.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would not follow the noble Lord into his memorandum upon the Book of the Irish Attorney-General on Irish land law, or make Second-Reading observations on the Bill; he would simply deal with the objections of the Lord President to the Amendment. The first objection was that the Amendment would destroy the principle of the Bill. The object of the Amendment was to assure an honest price being given for the land. He had ventured to assert on the Second Reading that the principle of the Bill was to secure land at a dishonest price, and the speech of the Lord President went far to prove that. The

503
second objection was that the Amendment would initiate the system of the Lands Clauses Act; but that had been conclusively denied. It would ensure a fair price being fixed by a Judge of the High Court. It was objected that this would be too high a price to allow of the land being sold to the tenant; therefore the landlord was to take a lower price than the land was worth. Did obviating that destroy the principle of the Bill, and was it wrong to destroy such a principle? The noble Earl said the system of appeal would be too expensive. Well, this was the first time he had heard it urged in that House that a subject of His Majesty was not to have justice because that Justice would cost too much.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the noble Earl forgets that when people go to arbitration they usually pay their own expenses. In this case the expenses are paid by the Treasury.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid this was offered by the Government. It was in the Bill at their initiative. The noble Earl had given them ground for thinking that they might be allowed an appeal on the question of value. So far so good. He was sure they would be very grateful for even that; but why should they not have an appeal on fact? Clause 6 defined lands which were not to be taken under the Bill. Was it not reasonable to suppose that countless questions would be raised as to whether a particular thirty or forty acres came within the definition of that clause or not? Was it fair that these questions should be decided by the purchaser without appeal? If noble Lords opposite were going to maintain that the purchaser should be allowed to decide these questions without appeal they could join issue, and he scarcely thought that such a contention, so contrary to all precedent, would commend itself to the country generally.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I will endeavour to emulate the brevity of the noble Earl, who has spoken closely to the Amendment, though he has misapprehended some of the observations of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council. The principle of compulsion is not struck
504
at by the Amendment, and an objection to that principle is a matter for the Second Reading. The complaint that there is no limitation to the Bill is not a subject dealt with in this Amendment, and is a matter for special and separate consideration when we reach it. The question whether there is urgency for this Bill is, it seems to me, a matter for the Second Reading; but I hope I may be permitted to say, as the mouthpiece of the responsible Government, that we think there is great urgency and great necessity for a measure of this kind in the interest of peace and good government in Ireland. I say that with all the emphasis I can, and speaking, on behalf of my colleagues, and therefore I should like to prepossess your Lordships with a favourable view towards this Bill, provided, of course, that the Bill is a fair Bill. I hope none of us would desire to make unfair propositions, although we may differ as to what is fair.
I have not been able to look through Clause 6 since the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, referred to it, but my impression is that it is prohibitive, and that if the Estates Commissioners were to act contrary to that clause they could be restrained by the Court as it is. Under the Amendment the Court of Appeal, before the question of value was come to, might have to decide—first, whether in a particular case the Estates Commissioners, were unable to acquire by agreement and reasonable terms suitable land; and, secondly, whether upon the facts and circumstances proved in evidence before them the compulsory acquisition of the land was just and reasonable. All that would mean a very large addition indeed to what I may call the litigious machinery of the Bill. Then as to the question of value, the clause as it stands provides that the owner is to be paid the fair market value of his land; and in addition to that he is to get the bonus of 12 per cent. Is it a fair use of language to say that that proposal is dishonest? I think myself that it is a very fair proposal. I can only say that if the Amendment is insisted upon it will clog the Bill in point of time, business, and money. Noble Lords opposite say they have no desire to wreck the Bill. I am sure they have no desire either to put difficulties in the way of the Government, who, whether worthy or unworthy, are responsible for good order and peace in Ireland.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONsaid that even the Lord Chancellor had hardly addressed himself to the main point under the consideration of the Committee at the moment. It was quite true that the clause as it stood provided that the owner was to be paid the fair market value of his land, but it was to be what appeared to the Estates Commissioners to be the fair market value. That was the whole question in dispute, and it was the point raised by the Amendment. He supported the Amendment, but his action in doing so was very far indeed from that of a wrecker. He hoped their Lordships would not sanction the novel principle that the Estates Commissioners should not only purchase, but decide the price of the land.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the speech of my noble and learned friend behind me necessarily covered a good deal of ground, because, consulting, as I think, the convenience of your Lordships, he laid before us fully the whole scheme of Amendments of which this particular Amendment forms a part. But the question upon which we shall presently have to vote is a comparatively restricted one. That question, I take it, to be this: Are your Lordships content that the final decision upon these questions of the necessity for compulsion and of the amount of compensation to be paid to the person against whom that compulsion is exercised shall in all their bearings be left to the Estates Commissioners? I do not think? I misinterpret the feelings of your Lordships when I say that those, at any rate, who sit on this side of the House feel very strongly indeed that it is impossible for us to place the Estates Commissioners in that position.
My noble and learned friend, at the outset of his remarks, threw down a challenge to the House. He said: Can you show me any case in the legislation of this country in which this power of compulsion has been committed to any public authority without an appeal to some external tribunal? The glove which my noble and learned friend threw down still remains upon the floor of this House. In our view it is improper that these gentlemen, owing to the position which they occupy under this Bill, a position which really makes them the promoters of these
506
schemes, should be not only the promoters of them, but also the final arbiters as to the terms upon which those schemes should be carried out. And we are obliged to add, in common candour, without making any imputation whatever upon the integrity of these gentlemen, that their antecedents, the atmosphere in which they move, the language they bold, as recorded in the reported evidence given before the Congested Districts Commission, render it unlikely that, in our opinion, when they come to deal with these questions they will do so in a judicial frame of mind.
There is a word in this Amendment whish seems to me of the utmost importance. My noble and learned friend proposes that when compulsion is exercised "compensation" should be paid to the person against whom such action is taken. One would have thought that this was so obvious a proposition as to need no defence or explanation. But there is a wide difference indeed in our minds between the import of this word, "compensation" and the import of the word "price," which it will replace if the Amendment is carried. The price to be paid would under this Bill be fixed solely with reference to the personal opinions and anticipations of the Estates Commissioners. There is nothing to suggest the idea that any regard whatever is to be had to the loss which will be sustained either by the tenant farmer who is turned out to make room for the planter, or by the landlord whose untenanted land is taken up for a similar purpose.
We Irish landowners have had a very bitter lesson as to the consequences of the absence of the kind of principle which my noble and learned friend desires to-introduce in this clause. At present rents are being valued all over Ireland upon no principle whatever, and that has been so from the regrettable moment when it was determined to leave out of the Land Bill of 1881 any attempt to define what a fair rent ought to be. The result has been that the sub-Commissioners have themselves had occasion to lament the fact that they have been, to use the expression employed by one of them, turned out without chart or compass to fix rents all over Ireland upon no known standard. That is what we want to-avoid in this case.

507
What, then, is the counter proposal of His Majesty's Government? The Lord President has, it seems, a holy horror of procedure under the Lands Clauses Act, but the Amendment of my noble and learned friend does not imply the adoption of the whole of the machinery of that Act. What, then, is the proposal? I welcome gratefully the announcement the noble Earl made that in regard to the question of compensation His Majesty's Government are prepared to grant an appeal. I welcome that as a very important admission, which pro tanto goes a considerable distance to meet our objection. That would deal with the question of value. But why are we to be told that we are unreasonable in asking for an appeal on other important questions which arise under this Bill? For example, the question whether a person who is being turned out of his holding in order to make room for an evicted tenant is really a bonâ fide farmer entitled to the considerate treatment which the Lord President has always claimed for men of that class, is one which I do not think ought to be left simply to the fiat of the Estates Commissioners.
Then, again, there is the application of the sixth clause dealing with the restrictions as to untenanted land which may be taken for the purposes of the Bill. Let me say, in passing, that this is a clause in which I recognise a desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to deal fairly and reasonably with the persons who will be affected by this measure, but surely it is not unreasonable to suppose that there may be cases of very great hardship, unless some opportunity is offered to the landowner of protesting against the decision of the Commissioners, who, it must be remembered, are advised by their subordinates, many of whom are persons of very strong political tendencies. We fence in all other cases of the exercise of compulsion by precautions of this kind, and why not in this case? You are, by the admission of the Government, dealing in a very unusual way with property; why, then, should you neglect these precautions?
The noble and learned Lord suggests that by so doing we should clog the Bill, and that there would be innumerable appeals. I do not see in the least why that should be the case. The value of a
508
Court of Appeal in a case of this kind is that the knowledge of its existence steadies the Court below. For my part, I believe that if you will give us either the kind of appeal which my noble and learned friend desires, or some equally substantial appeal, the effect will be that the Estates Commissioners and their myrmidons would be very much more careful how they do their work, and that in all probability the actual number of appeals will be comparatively small. I admit that it would be unfortunate if anything happened to protract the proceedings under this Bill to an indefinite extent, but, my Lords, permit me to say, as I resume my seat, that there is a much worse possibility than that of delay, and that is that a great wrong and injustice may be done.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I should not have troubled your Lordships with any remarks on this Amendment if it had not been for something which fell from the noble Marquess who has just sat down with reference to the Estates Commissioners. As far as the legal aspect of the case is concerned, I may safely rest on what has been said by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Both he and my noble friend the Lord President have pointed to the possibility of an appeal in certain cases and in certain circumstances. I think it is very unfortunate that the noble Marquess should have used language, perhaps unintentional, which will rather tend to diminish the credit of the Estates Commissioners. My noble friend said he thought there would be very few appeals even if they were to be permitted. I am quite sure that if you discredit the Commissioners appeals are likely to be very numerous. But, my Lords, who are these Estates Commissioners? They are gentlemen who were appointed by the Government of which my noble friend opposite was a member, and it is a little hard that you should turn round now upon the men you yourselves appointed and speak of them in what I must say are very disparaging terms. I know that one of the Commissioners greatly offended a Member of the other House of Parliament, who addressed to him a very singular letter. But I venture to say that these gentlemen, who were selected by the late Government, are gentlemen of very high

509
character, perfectly fit to be entrusted with the duties which will devolve upon them. I do not know any of the Commissioners myself, but I do know the reputation of Mr. Finucane, who was a Civil Servant in India while I was Viceroy, and I know he did his work very well. I hope that in the course of this discussion noble Lords will remember that these Commissioners are to continue. They will have a great and important work to do, and it is a mischievous thing to disparage them in any way that is likely to weaken their authority.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYdenied that the Leader of the Opposition had used any expression containing a note of disparagement in regard to the Commissioners. The late Government appointed those gentlemen to carry out their present duties, and never for a moment imagined that they would afterwards be given the extraordinary powers which were now proposed, powers which were virtually autocratic. If the Bill were dropped in consequence of this Amendment the responsibility would rest with the Government. The Lord President had alluded to the question of costs in regard to appeals, and had stated that in cases where land was taken compulsorily the costs were paid by the parties concerned. That was not accurate. He believed that in all cases in which land was taken for railway purposes the costs were paid entirely by the company acquiring the land, and he believed they also paid the cost of proving title and the expenses connected with the investment of the purchase money.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That is perfectly true. I was merely speaking of the employment of public money for this purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid it might be public money, but it
came to the same thing so far as the person was concerned whose land was compulsorily taken. He could assure the Committee, on behalf of himself and noble-Lords closely connected with Ireland, that they had not the slightest desire to wreck the Bill. Without injuring the Bill, they had put down Amendments with the object of preventing injustice being done. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that a large portion of the provisions in the Bill had not been discussed in the other House.
THE EARL OF MAYOfelt bound, as one who had sold land to the Commissioners, to say that he had always found them carry out their duty to the-best of their ability, and if the money had been provided these evicted tenants, would have been put back. If they had had sufficient staff and sufficient money given them to work the Act of 1903 properly the evicted tenants question would have been dealt with pari passu with the estates, and their Lordships would not have been troubled with this Bill. They must remember that already under the voluntary system over 1,000 tenants had been put back, and fifteen out of seventeen Plan of Campaign estates had been settled with. Only two estates were still left to be dealt with, and in regard to one it was only a matter of price. The Estates Commissioners had not been given sufficient money and sufficient staff, so the Government said, "We will give them compulsory powers." In the past the Estates Commissioners had done their best under very difficult circumstances, but the compulsory powers now proposed to be given them were a great deal too large.
On Question, whether Sub section (1) should stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 153.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Portsmouth, E.

Denman, L.

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Selby, V.

Eversley, L.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Farrer, L.

Allendale, L.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Blythe, L.

Glantawe, L.

Carrington, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Granard, L. (E. Granard.), [Teller.]

Craven, E.

Courtney of Peawith, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Stanmore, L.

Haversham, L.

Pirrie, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Headley, L.

Rendel, L.

Weardale, L.

Hemphill L.

Sandhurst, L.

Welby, L.

Lyveden, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Hampden, V.

Inchiquin, L.

Argyll, D.

Hood, V.

Kelvin, L.

Bedford, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.

Northumberland, D.

Kensington, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Kenyon, L.

Wellington, D.

Templetown, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Ailesbury, M.

Addington, L.

Langford, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Alington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Salisbury, M.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Lovat, L.

Zetland, M.

Ampthill, L.

Ludlow, L.

Annaly, L.

Lurgan, L.

Bandon, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Camperdown, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Massy, L.

Carlisle, E.

Atkinson, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Cathcart, E.

Balfour, L.

Methuen, L.

Cawdor, E.

Barrymore, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Clarendon, E.

Basing, L.

Muskerry, L.

Cowley, E.

Belper, L.

Newlands, L.

Darnley, E.

Biddulph, L.

North, L.

Dartrey, E.

Borthwick, L.

O'Neill, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Penrhyn, L.

Drogheda, E.

Braye, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Eldon, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Essex, E.

Burton, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Rathmore, L.

Haddington, E.

Carew, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Halsbury, E.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Robertson, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Rosmead, L.

Ilchester, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

St. Oswald, L.

Lindsey, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Saltoun, L.

Londesborough, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Sanderson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clinton, L.

Sandys, L.

Mayo, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Savile, L.

Morton, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Sherborne, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Colchester, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Northesk, E.

Collins, L.

Sinclair, L.

Onslow, E.

Dawnay, L. (F. Downe.)

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanri-carde.)

Plymouth, E.

De Freyne, L.

Powis, E.

De Mauley L.

Stalbridge, L.

Rothes, E.

Deramore, L.

Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

Saint Germans, E.

Desborough, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Digby, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Verulam, E.

Dunalley, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Dunboyne, N.

Templemore, L.

Westmeath, E.

Dunleath, L.

Tennyson, L.

Wharneliffe, E.

Ebury, L.

Teynham, C.

Wicklow, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Estcourt, L.

Ventry, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Fairley, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Waleran, L.

Falkland, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Falmouth, V.

Forester, L.

Wolverton, L.

Halifax, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted.
LORD CLONBROCK,who had on the Paper an Amendment to provide that—
"A register shall be kept by the Estates Commissioners of the persons reinstated under this Act, with their names and addresses, and the number of acres of land in which they shall
512
have been reinstated, which register shall be open for public inspection,"
said that on further consideration he was disposed to think that this was not the best way to effect his object, which was that persons should be able to obtain information as to the operations of the

513
Estates Commissioners. He thought it would be far better that the Commissioners should be instructed to publish periodical Returns as they now did under the Act of 1891. In those circumstances he did not intend to move his Amendment, but would bring up a new clause at a later stage. But he would like to know the views of His Majesty's Government on the subject.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, we should have no objection to the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands, provided he would agree to a slight alteration. The term "persons reinstated" is not a correct one. It should be "persons provided with parcels of land," because they are not all reinstated. Similarly at the end of the Amendment the words should read "land with which they have been respectively provided," instead of using the word "reinstated." I understand that the noble Lord wishes to bring up his Amendment in an amended form, and in doing so perhaps he will bear in mind that those phrases should be used instead of the words in the Amendment as on the Paper.
THE EARL OF MAYOproposed an Amendment to limit the operation of the Act to evicted tenants whom the Estates Commissioners had, prior to 1st November, 1907, determined to be fit and proper persons to become purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts. The Commissioners knew at present the number of applicants they wished to reinstate, and it was not desirable that their decisions should be reopened. If there were any applications beyond the number referred to, the Commissioners would have ample, time to deal with them in the interval between the passing of the Bill and 1st November. It was also ill the interests of the Commissioners themselves that the cases they had decided upon should be closed, and that pressure should not be brought to bear upon them by undesirable persons who ought not to be included. As they knew, pressure of all sorts could be brought on people in Ireland in this matter, and he therefore thought it should be closed altogether by 1st November next. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 2, to leave out the word 'consider' and to insert the words 'have prior to the first day of November one thousand nine hundred and seven determined.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: This Amendment forms part of a series of Amendments which might be moved with regard to limiting in some degree the scope and operations of this Bill, either by time, or by numbers, or in some other way; but I hope the noble Earl will not press this particular form of limitation. It is true that the Estates Commissioners have provisionally placed upon the list a considerable number of names, but I take it that they are not prepared to say that all those provisionally placed on the list ought ultimately to be provided with holdings. On the other hand, they think that it is quite possible that a few—and even if there were only very few it would be a hardship—deserving people might be left out if the date is fixed as proposed by the noble Earl. We are not opposed altogether to the principle of some form of limitation on the operation of the Bill, as I shall be able to explain on the next Amendment; but I hope the noble Earl will not press this particular form of limitation.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Is there to be no finality in the operation of the Bill?
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl's Amendment does not deal with the operation of the Bill. The limitation of the Bill is one thing, but it is another thing to say that a certain individual, however deserving you may find him to be, six months hence cannot possibly be reinstated in his holding. The Estates Commissioners think the Amendment undesirable, because there is a possibility of real hardship being inflicted on deserving people in a few cases.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I was very glad to hear the noble Earl the Lord President announce that he was not opposed to the principle of limiting the operation of this Bill, because nothing could be more disastrous than that proposals of this kind should remain indefinitely open. There are limits of three kinds that might be imposed—a

515
limit of time, a limit of number, and a limit of money. I gather that the Lord President is prepared to make a statement on this point further on in the Bill. Is that so?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, on Lord Londonderry's Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If there is to be a limitation of any kind, a time limit does seem to me a most reasonable thing to propose; and if the particular date suggested by my noble friend Lord Mayo seems to the Lord President too near at hand, I suggest whether he might not name a rather later one that would give a sufficient margin of time for his purpose. It should be remembered that quite lately a Member of His Majesty's Government announced that the Government knew the exact number of cases with which they had to deal.
LORD ASHBORNEappealed to the Government to have some regard to the health of the Commissioners. No constitution could bear up against the labour that would be involved if a date limit were not inserted. Unless that were done, the sooner the Estates Commissioners insured their lives the better.
THE EARL OF MAYOsuggested December 31st, 1907. He held that this date would give the Commissioners plenty of time to fill up any gaps in the numbers.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid I did not make myself quite clear. There are two kinds of limitations. We should be prepared to consider a time limit after which no tenant should be restored to his holding. But we do not want to make a time limit against individuals.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he would withdraw his Amendment at this stage, and bring it up on Report if no time limit were introduced.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved an Amendment limiting the operation of the Bill to 2,000 evicted tenants. He contended that there must be some limit to the number, and this
516
Amendment would bring the Bill into accord with the opinion expressed by the Chief Secretary in another place. It might be argued that the Bill did limit the number of tenants whose applications were to be considered. He did not deny that entirely. But the Bill did not specify, as he thought it should, and as the Chief Secretary evidently thought it did, with any degree of certainty that the number of 2,000 was to be the number on which the Government would act. Mr. Birrell's words were—
"We have to appreciate what the limited purposes of the Bill are. They are the reinstatement of those 2,000 scheduled or named persons compulsorily."
But that left a very open door. At present there were about 6,500 so called evicted tenants whose claims to be reinstated had been rejected, and if the limit was not definitely settled the Government would be pressed to admit, more of them. This was really a question of opinion. The Estates Commissioners thought these persons ought not to be reinstated, but the tenants themselves naturally thought they ought to be; and unless some definite limit was fixed they would not be able to arrive at a conclusion which would settle the question once and for all. If they were going to leave this question open they would be adding greatly to the difficulties of the Estates Commissioners, whose chief work was to promote the sale and transfer of land. They had been taken away from their real duties for the purpose of deciding what applicants were qualified to be reinstated, and unless the limit which he proposed was inserted the time; when the Commissioners would return to the duties for which they were appointed: would be very far off. Meanwhile they were creating a false hope in the minds: of the applicants, and rendering the-position of the sitting tenant extremely unsatisfactory. In 1903 Mr. Dillon, whose opinion was endorsed by Mr. Redmond, stated the number of evicted tenants to be 400; now the number was-said to be 8,500; how were they to know that in the next three or four years the-number would not continue to grow?
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 4, after the word 'Acts' to insert the words 'not exceeding two thousand in all.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.),
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I dealt with this question as fully as I could on Second Reading, a fact which, I think, has escaped the recollection of the noble Marquess. At that time I said there were three possible forms of limitation that you might add to the Bill—a limit of time, a limit of numbers, or a limit of area, and I endeavoured to show why, of the three, the most objectionable in our opinion was that of the limit of numbers. When I saw the noble Marquess's Amendment I was half sorry I had not expressed a preference for a limit of numbers and a strong distaste for the others, because I thought that might have been the reason he put it on the Paper; but, as a matter of fact, he does not seem to have remembered that I addressed myself to the subject at all. I gave them various reasons why, in our opinion, a limit of numbers was an unfortunate one. The noble Marquess has just said that Mr. Dillon and Mr. Redmond made an estimate which proved to be wrong. I should have thought that that fact in itself, considering what good judges Mr. Dillon and Mr. Redmond ought to be, would show how dangerous it was to put in an exact limit of numbers. If you fix a very low limit you run the risk of leaving somebody out who ought to be in; on the other hand, if you fix too high a limit those who have applied will take that maximum as a standard and will feel aggrieved if you do not work up to it. If there is to be a limitation, we think that the best is a limit of area, and we should be prepared to consider such a limit, for which I quite admit a good deal is to be said. I understand that Lord Mayo desires to bring up his time limit on a future occasion as against the other form of time limit which I suggested as a possibility, namely, a time during which the Bill should be in operation. That, of course, is an alternative, and those two proposals can, no doubt, be considered together when the time comes. I strongly object to the noble Marquess's Amendment limiting the numbers, but we should be prepared to consider the question of limiting the area.
LORD ATKINSONsaid they would find themselves in inextricable difficulties if they inserted a limitation of area. The claims sent in numbered 8,500, and the 5,000 whose claims were rejected were in anything but an agreeable frame of mind. He understood that the area that was
518
suggested was 80,000 acres, calculated at forty acres per man. Forty acres was a great deal more extensive than many of the farms out of which these people had been evicted, and those applicants who were disappointed would not be content to see the 2,000 selected returned to farms of forty acres; it was inevitable that agitation would again arise. An agitation would be set on foot to divide the 80,000 acres between the whole of the applicants. Nobody could contend that it would not be desirable, so far as the peace of Ireland and the labours of the Commissioners were concerned, to put an end to the agitation and to the applications for reinstatement. So long as they kept the matter open, and so long as they permitted the condition of any particular district to guide them in any way in selection, so long would they make agitation and intimidation profitable. As to the noble Earl's statement that it might be difficult to fix 2,000 because some few cases might be thereby excluded, he would remind the Committee that the Chief Secretary had again and again stated in the House of Commons that he believed he had arrived at the right number, but, of course, could not pledge himself to one or two on either side. First of all, the Commissioners stated that out of the 5,000 applications they had selected 1,600, and that they firmly believed that the balance would only yield 400 more, making, in all, 2,000. If the number was now fixed at 2,200 they would be allowing a margin of 50 per cent. to cover possibilities on the Commissioners' estimate of 400. That surely would be sufficient. He was solely interested in the due administration of the Act of 1903 and in the peace and prosperity of Ireland, and he thought their Lord-ships would be contributing to both if they closed the door to all hope after a certain number had been reinstated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid it is not practicable to assent to the limitation of numbers, and that is the only question before the Committee at the present moment. The noble and learned Lord has referred to objections to the acreage limit. Be it so. That may be discussed when the acreage question comes up.
LORD ASHBOURNE: It will not come up.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It may. I do not see any reason why it should not. There seems plenty of vitality in the way of moving Amendments. The present question is merely one of limiting the numbers, and I am sorry that, for the reasons stated by my noble friend the Lord President, we are not able to assent to that. Other limitations are, of course, left open for the present.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that unless some limit was inserted these men could go on being reinstated for ever. He deprecated the contemptuous manner in which the suggestions made by noble Lords who lived in Ireland were treated by His Majesty's Government. He would renew his Amendment on Report.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONpressed for some more definite assurance from the Government. Unless a limit such as that proposed was inserted in the Bill the position of the Estates Commissioners would be untenable. He was bound to say that the speech of the Lord President was not merely an unconvincing speech, but also, it appeared to him, an unconvinced speech. He did not think that His Majesty's Government, if they really desired a settlement of this question, could possibly obtain it by merely putting in a limitation of acreage. Before they left the question the Committee ought to know until what period the time of the Commissioners was to be taken up with these cases, for it should be remembered that this was not the only important subject with which the Commissioners had to deal.
THE EARL OF MEATHsaid the proposal with regard to an acreage limit was a most extraordinary one, and, instead of bringing peace to Ireland, would lead to one of the greatest agitations they had ever had. He hoped the noble Marquess would press his Amendment to a division, unless some reasonable suggestion from the Government were forthcoming.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think this debate has been of an instructive character, though the noble Earl who has just sat down imported a somewhat needless measure of heat into it. If it is agreed that some limit is necessary, the question of what that limit should be is arguable. The reasons why we do not think a limit
520
of numbers a good one have been given. The most valuable opinion upon a subject of this kind would be, I should have thought, the opinion of those who will have to work the Act; but I am quite open to admit that the matter is an arguable one, and that there is some force in the objections which were raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite. We shall be glad to take the whole matter into consideration, and, although we shall say "Not Content" when the Amendment is put, we do not propose to divide the Committee upon it.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE moved an Amendment in Sub-section (2) to provide that new tenants to whom this Bill applied should include those whose lands might be acquired voluntarily as well as compulsorily. It had been repeatedly stated by the Chief Secretary, during the Committee stage of the Bill in the other House, that he thought there were many new tenants who would be very desirous of availing themselves of the terms in the Bill and would go voluntarily and willingly. No doubt there was a good deal in that. But in the absence of such an Amendment as he had placed on the Paper this would not be open to a new tenant, because first the screw of compulsion must be applied. He thought that was unwise. He did not think it would be possible legally to give the benefits under the Bill to any new tenant except under the screw of compulsion. If the Government thought that the Amendment did not go in the direction he desired and that the object could be achieved in some other way he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 9, after the word 'applies' to insert the words new tenants to whom this Act applies shall include those whose lands may be acquired voluntarily as well as compulsorily.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this is merely a drafting question. The intention of the Bill undoubtedly is to carry out what is expressed in the noble and learned Lord's Amendment; that is to say, there will be no difference between new tenants whose land is compulsorily acquired and those who retire Voluntarily, so far as their treatment under the Act

521
is concerned. That is the intention of the Bill, and, as I am advised, it is carried out by the terms of the Bill as it stands. There really is nothing in the Bill, I am told, to confine its application to tenants whose land is compulsorily taken. Clause 1 gives power to acquire land compulsorily, but it does not state any restriction. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will look into the matter between now and the next stage, and if he thinks it necessary we will meet him.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he had considered the matter very carefully, and had come to the conclusion that an Amendment in this direction was necessary. Perhaps the noble Earl would consider the matter with his professional advisors, and if it was thought that the Amendment was necessary he would put it down again. But for the present he withdrew it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to amend the sub-section of the clause which enabled the Estates Commissioners to remove a "new tenant" or planter if, "having regard to all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district," they considered it expedient that the evicted tenant should be reinstated, by providing that boycotting or intimidation directed against the occupier should not be regarded as a reason for his removal. He said that as the Bill was drafted this was possible, and the fact that a planter was unpopular would be enough to authorise the Estates Commissioners to remove him to some other part of the country. If that was the intention of the Bill—and he sincerely hoped it was not—it would obviously be a very wrong state of things to allow. Boycotting had been very well defined by the Chief Secretary as a system by which the boycotted person's means of livelihood were affected, through the refusal to sell provisions to him in local shops, the refusal of labour to work for him, and the refusal of neighbours to buy from him. Noble Lords in England had no experience of this terrible political engine, but it had not been forgotten in Ireland. Cattle driving was another form of pressure; it was described in Ireland as the policy of "letting the bullocks wander." One-third of Ireland was
522
so disaffected. Those who participated in cattle driving were claiming that the Government sympathised with them. He knew that that was denied here, but he did not think he would be putting it incorrectly when he turned a common phrase round and said that the Government had praised cattle driving with very faint damnation. Mr. Birrell had admitted that 240 grazing farms were under police protection; that was, of course, to protect the graziers from intimidation. If that was the treatment of the grazier, what would be the treatment of the planter, who was a vastly more unpopular person politically? If it were understood that a man would be got rid of by the Estates Commissioners if only he were boycotted, there would be such an agitation in Ireland as had not yet been dreamed of.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 13, after the word 'district' to insert the words' other than any boycotting or intimidation directed against the owner or occupier of such land,' and after the second 'and' to insert the words 'also having regard'"(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to make it entirely impossible for the Estates Commissioners to acquire tenanted land for any purpose in a district where there had boon boycotting and intimidation. The noble Earl threw out an obiter dictum to the effect that there was no boycotting in England. I am not prepared entirely to accept that statement, but I pass it by. But it is obvious, I think, that in the very great majority of cases the boycotted person is the injured person, and therefore he ought not to be made to go if he desires to remain. I can, however, conceive cases to the contrary. I can conceive it possible that a planter, the type of man who is spoken of as "spoiling for a fight," might be an absolute centre of disturbance by his own fault: and under those circumstances I do not see that it can be described as a hardship to remove such a man to some other part of Ireland. I do not think the cases would be frequent in which the person would not be willing to go. In the circumstances I would appeal to the noble Earl not to press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid the proposition was now laid down that the planter was a centre of disturbance.
THE EARL OF CREWE: By his own fault, I said.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he did not hear those words. The statement made by the noble Earl was not a very agreeable one for them to hear. It led them to believe that the planters were to be turned out any how and no matter what happened. It was only fair that Lord Donoughmore's Amendment should have been considered by the Government in its proper light, and not taken in the way in which it had been taken by the Lord President. The truth was that in many cases the planters were not absolute centres of disturbance. It was the people round them who had made them centres of disturbance. They were to be sacrificed now because they had been put in the places of men who had not met their obligations and who had left the farms under circumstances well known. They had been farming properly and in many cases very successfully, and because the other people were jealous these planters were designated by the Lord President of the Council and by the Attorney General for Ireland as centres of disturbance. It was very important that these men should be treated in a proper manner and not turned out of their farms, and he hoped Lord Donoughmore would press his Amendment to a division. He did not think that the Estates Commissioners had ever stated that the planters were centres of disturbance.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I must ask the noble Earl not to misquote me. I said that you could conceive a case where a planter, because of his character and through his own fault, might be a centre of disturbance. That is by no means the same as saying that planters in Ireland are, as a whole, centres of disturbance. I must ask the noble Earl, if he quotes me at all, to quote me correctly.
LORD ATKINSONthought the Government did not adequately realise the dangers of the course they were pursuing. If they made intimidation profitable, the spoils being divided among the intimidators, all the prosecutions that could be instituted would not stop intimidation. If a planter was on a good farm, and the idea got abroad that if his position were made troublesome, so that he would have
524
to be protected by the police and great cost incurred, he would thereby be got rid of and the farm divided among the intimidators, they would have intimidation spread over three-fourths of the south and west of Ireland. There were in Ireland 100,000 farms with less than ten acres of land. They must remember that intimidation was not looked upon as a crime in Ireland, and he was convinced that there were tens of thousands of men in Ireland who would willingly go to gaol for six months to get forty acres of land afterwards.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid he was not clear as to the effect of the Amendment, which he thought might not carry out the object desired. It was conceivable that the Estates Commissioners might consider the fact that intimidation had taken place as a very good reason for not reinstating a tenant. This Amendment would preclude their taking into consideration the fact that intimidation had taken place at all. Therefore the Amendment might go in the exactly opposition direction from that desired by his noble friend.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, whether the words are as unambiguous as might be desired I will not take upon myself to say, but I do not think there is any doubt as to the intention with which my noble friend Lord Donoughmore has moved them. There are two or three different cases which we can suppose. In the first place, there is the case of the person who has been subject to boycotting and intimidation, but who is ready and willing to leave his holding. He goes because he wishes to go, and there is no question of applying compulsion to him. Then there is the case of the boycotted person who may be quarrelsome and aggressive, a man of bad character, who is a source of danger and embarrassment to the neighbourhood. I do not see why such a person as that should not have compulsion applied to him. But the case which I wish to guard is a different one. I wish to guard the case of a bona-fide farmer dealing fairly by his land, a man of good character and antecedents, who has been the victim of persecution and boycotting, and who, in spite of that, desires to stand fast and remain where he is. To my mind it would be a monstrous

525
thing that that individual should be extruded from his holding merely because he had been the victim of persecution, and because his removal was desired as a cowardly way of quieting the neighbourhood. That is, I conceive, my noble friend's intention.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Manquess who has just sat down has certainly travelled further than any previous speaker on the opposite side in the direction in which we desire to go, in that he has admitted that there are cases in which a planter might with advantage be compulsorily removed. I certainly do not desire that those in the second category mentioned by the noble Marquess—namely, well-disposed people who have been boycotted—should be disturbed if they do not desire it, and I am sure the Estates Commissioners would not wish it either. But I also think, as I have said, that the words as proposed in the noble Earl's Amendment would prevent the Estates Commissioners from dealing in any way with land whore there has been boycotting and intimidation, with the result which was pointed out more clearly by the noble Earl at the Table, Lord Dunraven. Perhaps, therefore, the matter might stand over to give an opportunity of words being found which would meet both the noble Marquess's view and ours.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid there was really nothing between them except as to the kind of words to be used. He therefore gladly adopted the course suggested by the Lord President.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to amend Sub-section (3)—
"(3) No tenanted land shall be acquired compulsorily unless it is in the occupation of a new tenant to whom this Act applies, and unless the Estates Commissioners, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, and to the cost involved, consider it expedient that the evicted tenant should be reinstated as a purchaser of that land,"
by substituting for the word "involved" the words "of acquisition." He thought the Amendment did little more than explain what he hoped was the meaning of the words "the cost involved." But it had been suggested that "the cost
526
involved" might be held to mean the cost of giving them police protection, and that the State might say, "You are costing us too much money, and therefore you must go." He did not think this was the intention of the Government, and consequently moved his Amendment to clear up the point.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 14, to leave out the word 'involved,' and to insert the words 'of acquisition.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD DENMANthought there was a little misapprehension in the matter, as the words proposed by the noble Earl would limit the application of the clause. The words in the sub-section included not only the cost of acquiring the land, but also the cost of compensating the tenant who was put out. But if the Amendment were agreed to, the provision for compensation would be omitted.
LORD ASHBOURNEasked whether they were to understand that the words "the cost involved" had nothing subterranean in them. Unquestionably the Attorney-General for Ireland had stated that in considering the question they would take into account the cost of protecting the man who was removed, and the cost of guarding him against intimidation; and the Chief Secretary had pointed out that two of the elements would be whether the man lived in accord with his neighbours and whether the district was in such a condition as to involve a great charge on the Exchequer. If he was to understand from Lord Denman that these elements were not to be taken into account in the cost involved, but that those words were to be taken in the ordinary agrarian sense, the difficulty he had suggested would be removed; but his alarm was excited by the way in which the matter was discussed in the House of Commons, when the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary used the language to which he had referred.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think it is important not to mix this matter up with the last Amendment we were discussing, and upon which, I am glad to say, we came to something like agreement. So far as this particular clause is concerned, without limiting the discretion of the Commissioners as to which

527
holding they may wish to acquire, I certainly understand the cost applies only to the actual cost of acquiring the holding and compensating the tenant.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he had no intention of attempting to cut out the second case mentioned by Lord Denman. He could quite see, after what had been said, that his Amendment, as drafted, would go further than was intended. In these circumstances perhaps the Committee would allow him to consider the matter between then and Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROBERTSON LORD ROBERTSON moved an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (4) of the clause in the Bill and to substitute the following:—" Provided always that no lands shall be acquired compulsorily which have been purchased, or agreed to be purchased, under the Land Purchase Acts prior to 1st May, 1907, nor any tenanted land which is in the possession or occupation of any tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer." This Amendment involved vitally the fortunes of a considerable class of His Majesty's subjects, and, in the view he took of the matter, it also involved the honour of the Imperial Parliament. The clause as it was in the Bill proposed to place in the hands of the Commissioners a universal warrant of eviction against all the new tenants and those who were called "planters," without exception or discrimination. His Amendment would give the planter a qualified protection, or, rather, the protection was limited to those who were ordinary farmers holding on their own account, and were not mere caretakers or agents for others. His Amendment was directed solely to the defence of the class of independent farmers who were making their own way in the world. The planter class included not merely those who were still tenant farmers, but there were those who had advanced beyond the stage of mere tenants, and had become, in all but formal title, the owners. They had done every thing which the law required them to do in order to obtain the right of ownership. If this Amendment were not carried the warrant of eviction would go against not merely the tenant-farmers, but against
528
those who were, except in form, the owners of their farms. When this subject was adverted to in the Second Reading debate the noble Earl the Lord President treated it with characteristic urbanity. He addressed some good humoured raillery to the House, and observed that noble Lords on that side had a way of speaking with tears in their eyes. If the Amendment were not adopted to stop a great wrong there certainly would be tears in many households in Ireland. He thought also there would be tears of shame shed on this side of the Channel. But the emotions which his Amendment was likely to excite that evening were of sterner stuff, and he thought indignation would be the most prominent among them. What was the position of the Government in this matter? He declined to accept observations or suggestions, but would deal with the text of their considered and adhered-to Bill. The Bill gave an indiscriminate warrant of eviction, except against those who found favour in the eyes of the Commissioners. On the Third Reading of the Bill in the other House, the Chief Secretary, in the course of some casual remarks, said—
"There are new tenants whom to turn out would be an act of injustice and tyranny."
That sounded well. But Mr. Birrell went on to say—
"I cannot say that I have the particular planters in view, but my imagination has played round the subject."
If this were an entirely new and unexplored region of legislation, he could conceive that this vague and conjectural language might have a measure of propriety. But planters had been a topic in Irish politics for decades. In 1903 there were anxious discussions in both Houses of Parliament about their affairs. Every point now before the House was before Parliament in 1903, and therefore it was idle to say that the deliberate adoption by the Cabinet of this stringent universal warrant of eviction could be done away with by the otiose and lazy language of rhetoricians. He must say it showed a levity of dealing with this grave subject, and with the fortunes of a large class of His Majesty's subjects, to say the case could be met by an assurance of the responsible Minister that "his imagination had played around the subject."

529
He now came to the facts of the case. First of all, this was no small or inconsiderable body of men, even in point of numbers. There were many hundreds of these planters. He had not in his hand any definite information as to the precise number, but in the evidence of the special Report of the Commissioners, published the other day, it was said that there were 1,259 planters' holdings available. He was content to take that as the minimum of the number of the class he was dealing with. Next, they had been in their holdings from which it was proposed to eject them for a number of years, varying from fifteen to twenty years. As to their origin, some of them came from the immediate districts surrounding the holdings in which they were established; others had come from other parts of Ireland. As to their religion—a topic which had always to be considered in dealing with a matter of this kind—some were Protestants and some were Roman Catholics. These new tenants were good citizens, who had fulfilled their duty to the law and had been loyal to the State. When there was a conspiracy against law and order so that there should be a surcease of agriculture and vast districts of Ireland should be converted into a desert, plucky men were found to come forward and, in spite of local boycott and intrigue, take their places on the farms and keep them going. These were the men and their successors on whose behalf he spoke. He rested the claim of these men, not on personal merit, but on right. But the question of character did come in. If it was proposed to thrust A out in order to put B in, he was afraid they must ask something, not merely about A, but about B. He could not forget, when they were proposing to turn out these men, that the evicted tenants shared in the conspiracy to make Ireland a desert. It was imperative that those thing" should be recalled. This clause had been launched against these men because they were marked men for having served the State at a critical moment. They had been marked men and hated in Ireland, and he would tell the Government this, that, unless they discovered some intelligible and reasonable explanation of this clause, the inevitable conclusion was that, in proposing the sentence of eviction against those men, the Government were the instruments,
530
conscious or unconscious, of vengeance. Then these men were told, "Oh, do not be so frightened at eviction from your existing farms, because we are going to offer you other farms." He was dealing with the cases of men who had prospered decently well in a modest way, and who did not want to move. Some of these men were advanced in life; some had additional connections through their families in the district. Why should they be taken to another place? A great deal of light was thrown on this question in the recent Report of the Congested Districts Commissioners and the evidence which it contained; and among the many queer things in the evidence of Mr. Finucane there was one thing which had not been referred to as yet in these debates. First of all, Mr. Finucane admitted that there was a pretty general hostility to people coming from another part of Ireland. He said that this was very unreasonable, and went on, with great complacency, to observe—
"When we find difficulties of that kind we invite the co-operation of the local political leaders."
He would like to picture the introduction of, let them say, a planter who came from Ulster to the local popular leader. He assembled the neighbours, his object being to make things smooth for the new man. He naturally told them first of all how he came to be in his old holding—a very popular and inviting subject—and again how he came to have left it; and he (Lord Roberston) was certain his duties would be so faithfully performed that he would wind up with an earnest exhortation not to nail his ears to the pump.
They were told that there was a discretion given to the Commisioners. Was it possible for Commissioners having a vast amount of business on their hands to take more than a casual view of every case? The general result would be that the Commissioners would keep a roan because he looked like a good sort, and they would turn out a man because they did not like the cut of his jib. They were told at one and the same time that expropriation was justified by public necessity, and that individual merit was to be considered. But the one proposition destroyed the other, for the essence of compulsory legislation was that it was universal and no respecter of persons.

531
Let the House suppose that a Committee of noble Lords opposite had a Bill sent to them which had passed the Second Reading and had compulsory powers as its basis. He would imagine it to be a Bill affecting a suburb in the neighbourhood of London, and that an objector came forward and said, "I am, although perhaps it is not I who should say it, a model of all civic virtues, and yet my villa is going to be taken; I call that a monstrous injustice." And in amplification of his claim to be a person of the highest civic virtues he might go on to say," I am a member of the National Liberal Club, a teetotaler, and a passive resister; I have decently married my deceased wife's sister, and none of my children have been vaccinated." What would be the answer of the most indulgent Committee? They would, of course, mark the perfect man and behold the upright; but he believed they would show him to the door and take his house. This pretence of public necessity broke down as soon as it was stated. In 1903 there was universal agreement that compulsion was out of the question. On that occasion the Lord President declared it would be monstrous to disturb these planters, who were respectable men and good farmers; and again, Mr. Morley, who had a firm grasp of principles, said that these men should not be put out against their will. He wanted nothing more than that. He invited their Lordships to come to a decision on grounds of high and imperious principle, and to hold to that decision unflinchingly. On former occasions the House, when contending for lights of property and freedom of contract, had had launched against it the accusation that the House of Lords was always on the side of property and the rich, but to-night it was not the rich, but the poor, for whose defence they stood—not for men of one class, or one faith; it was the proud privilege of the House to redress a wrong done to the humblest of His Majesty's subjects. What course the Government might take after the House had given a decision on the Amendment he would not profess to predict. The Government had to judge whether their comrades in another place would tolerate such a lapse from rectitude. He did not suppose the Prime Minister would steer by the stars, and respectfully suggested some more mundane considerations. If he wanted to pick a
532
quarrel with the House, did the right hon. Gentleman think this was a well chosen battle-ground? Let him make up his mind upon that. If he decided to quarrel on this ground, the House would be willing to accept the challenge, being assured that the country would support a refusal to allow the powers of the State to be launched to ruin poor men whose only crime was that they had trusted to Parliament and obeyed the law.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 15, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'provided always that no lands shall be acquired compulsorily which have been purchased or agreed to be purchased under the Land Purchase Acts prior to the first day of May one thousand nine hundred and seven, nor any tenanted land which is in the possession or occupation of any tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer'; and in lines 16 to 21, to leave out Sub-section (4). '—(Lord Robertson.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, we always listen to the noble and learned Lord with the keenest pleasure, even when he chastises us as he has done this evening, and I can assure him that we have seldom listened with more admiration to a speech than we have to that which he has just delivered. I cheerfully join in the sentiment with which the noble and learned Lord began and ended his speech—namely, that so far as this Amendment is concerned it does not contain the slightest atom of selfish or what I may call axe-grinding motives in the minds of those who support it. I do not know that it was really quite kind of the noble and learned Lord to point out that in that respect it appeared to constitute an exception when suggestions involving the rights of property were brought before your Lordships. But I frankly agree that it is purely with a generous motive, and with a desire that certain classes of men in Ireland should not be ruined, that this Amendment is brought forward by the noble and learned Lord and so obviously supported by noble Lords on that side of the House.
The noble and learned Lord's Amendment contains two distinct propositions, and perhaps I may be allowed first to deal with the minor one included in the first half of the clause. As our Bill stands, unless the agreement to purchase had been made before the 1st day of January of this year it would not be

533
operative for the purposes of this Bill. Our object in naming the 1st of January was a perfectly simple one, and we have no hesitation in announcing it. It became known at the beginning of the year that a measure of this kind was likely to be brought forward, and its general character was, I think, pretty well foreseen. We did not think it reasonable that where agreements to purchase were entered into, not on their merits, but simply in order to evade the provisions of this Bill, it should be found possible to do so. Our object was very similar to that which is often acted upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when introducing a new tax in his Budget. Knowing that there will be a rush to take any particular article out of bond in order to get the benefit of the old scale of taxation, a particular date is named from which the new tax is to take effect; and I think we cannot be blamed for inserting in our Bill a provision to prevent what, in a common phrase, I may call a number of ad hoc purchase agreements being lodged, some perhaps not intended to operate but to outlive the years during which this Act is in operation. And that is why we named the 1st day of January, and not, as the noble and learned Lord desires, the 1st day of May, for the purpose of safeguarding these purchase agreements.
As regards the first words of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment—
"Provided always that no lands shall he acquired compulsorily which have been purchased, or agreed to be purchased, under the Land Purchase Acts "—
apart from the question of the date we have no objection to the insertion of those words, but, if the noble and learned Lord will take it from me, they are really not necessary. If he will look at Section 9, Sub-section (4), of the Land Act of 1891 he will see that no money can be advanced for the purchase of land which is subject to an annuity until that annuity is either paid off or redeemed. Nobody is likely to redeem the annuity, and by the hypothesis that it cannot be paid off, no land purchased under the Land Act will be available for the purposes of this Act.
I now come to the second part of the Amendment—
"Nor any tenanted land which is in the possession or occupation of any tenant using: or cultivating the same as an ordinary fanner."
534
The noble and learned Lord referred very kindly to what I had said on this matter on a former occasion and also during our recent debates. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I had no intention of approaching this matter in anything like a flippant spirit. Quite the contrary. If I ventured to banter noble Lords upon their fears on the subject I did so for this reason, that I do not believe, as a matter of practice and fact, knowing the people who will have to administer this law if it is passed, that the kind of cases of hardship which the noble and learned Lord seemed to assume would be not merely common but almost universal, will occur at all; and consequently I confess I was not able to take the same serious tone of alarm which was so evident in his eloquent observations. The noble and learned Lord seemed to have a vision of the Estates Commissioners parading throughout the whole of Ireland and evicting, for the mere pleasure of doing so, substantial farmers who had been put in as planters; and it is because, as I say, I do not consider anything of the kind, if the Bill is left as it is, the least likely to occur, that I do not feel the same alarm. Why, and under what temptation, should the Estates Commissioners desire to disturb, on a large scale, or, indeed, on any scale, tenants of that particular kind? What pressure can be put upon them to which they are the least likely to yield to do anything so obviously unfair?
I confess, my Lords, I am not able entirely to follow the noble and learned Lord in his, if I may venture to say so, rather indiscriminate eulogy of the whole class of planter tenants. As regards their personal merits, I imagine they are of various characters. Some of them, no doubt, are excellent, hardworking people and serious farmers, and others, I take it, are the reverse. Neither am I able to express an unqualified admiration for the policy, if it can be called a policy, or the action, of landlords, so far as they were to blame for what occurred, which led to the fact of planters being needed at all. That, of course, is a different reading of history. The noble and learned Lord reads it in one way, and some of us read it in another way.
The noble and learned Lord spoke upon the question of migrating tenants, but he

535
did not mention that if a tenant is migrated against his wish, he has the right to claim pecuniary compensation. But as regards this question of compensation, which the noble and learned Lord treated so humorously, I take it that the answer, to some extent, to what he said is that, as a matter of fact, it has been done. The Estates Commissioners have migrated a certain number of tenants—I am not able to give the figures, but a substantial number—to the West of Ireland; and these have—after, in some cases, it is true, a certain degree of preliminary trouble—settled down, and, so far as anybody is able to judge, not only are they contented themselves, but the neighbourhood in which they live is contented with them. Of course, if you assume that the most unlikely kind of tenants are to be dumped down by the Estates Commissioners in the most improper places, I have no doubt you could get up a very pretty row indeed in a great many parts of Ireland. I shall be told, I have no doubt, that I am once more urging the House to trust to the discretion of the Estates Commissioners. I do not ask the House to do that in all respects or entirely; but I do ask the House not to assume that the Estates Commissioners will invariably act either as knaves or as fools, which seems to be the suggestion repeated over and over again from the Opposition benches. As regards the phrase which the noble and learned Lord desires to insert, "an ordinary farmer," I am not going to enter into any discussion with the noble and learned Lord on a question of legal interpretation or of drafting; and if he says that those are the best words which can describe what he means, I have no doubt he is right. I confess they do not seem to mo very much like words which I have ever met with in Acts of Parliament; but, as I say, on a matter of that kind, I should not venture to doubt the discretion of the noble and learned Lord. In our opinion, the words are too wide. After all, every man in Ireland who walks about with, occasionally, a spade in his hand, and has a patch of potatoes, is called a farmer. A "farmer" in Ireland is not the same thing as a farmer in England or a farmer in Scotland. But I pass from that to ask whether, assuming that
536
we are, as I believe we are, all agreed as to the kind of people who ought not to be moved, and those who might be, the words might not include a certain number of people who, by common agreement, might be moved without injustice to them. If the noble and learned Lord, assuming that his words are the best that can be found, would agree to the addition of these words, "except under special circumstances with the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant," we should be prepared to accept his Amendment—not as regards the month of May, which is a different question, but as regards the latter part.
LORD ASHBOURNEinquired who would advise the Lord-Lieutenant.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Well, who ordinarily advises the Lord-Lieutenant? The Lord-Lieutenant's name occurs in a vast number of Acts of Parliament, and who advises him is best known to himself.
LORD ASHBOURNEasked whether the Chief Secretary was not advised by the Estates Commissioners?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I suppose the Chief Secretary would take the advice that he thought fit to take under such circumstances.
LORD ATKINSONasked what would be the "special circumstances."
THE EARL OF CREWE: The special circumstances would be those which appeared to the Government—the Irish Government, for, of course, that is what is meant—to justify the exceptional action of removing a man who might come under the head of the legal term "ordinary farmer."
LORD ASHBOURNEinquired whether the noble Earl could give any illustration of what would be "special circumstances."
THE EARL OF CREWE: I really think I must leave noble Lords to think that over for themselves between now and the next stage of the Bill. I think I can scarcely be expected to invent, as I go along,

537
anecdotes of Irish life. I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord will come down with some at the next stage of the Bill. I really think that that is not an unreasonable proposition. I certainly withdraw nothing I have ever said on the subject, or qualify it in any way; but I cannot help feeling that the mere fact that a man has cultivated a farm after some fashion or other is not in all cases a reason for saying that he should not be compulsorily moved—of course, under the safeguards provided in the Bill as a whole.
The noble and learned Lord said that we were venturing upon an entirely new path of legislation by arguing, upon the one hand, that compulsion was necessary, and upon the other hand, that merit might save a person from compulsion. My Lords, I do not think it is a question of merit; it is a question of the character of the damage which the person would sustain through being expropriated. And that, surely, is what governs all questions of expropriation, whether under the Lands Clauses Act, or any other Act. If the character of the damage sustained by the expropriated person is so severe that he ought not to be made to undergo it, so much the more overwhelming has to be the necessity of public policy. That is surely exactly what will happen in these cases. Where the character of the damage which the man sustains, not because he is a virtuous person, but be cause he is a substantial farmer and a good mail of business, is very severe, then clearly he ought not to be moved. But, so much the less those things can be said of him, so much the less damage does he sustain by being moved, and therefore, it does not seem to me to be a hardship to move him. I sincerely hope that noble Lords will carefully consider whether they cannot accept the addition which I have suggested; but I am afraid that so far as regards the putting forward to the month of May of the time during which provisional agreements could be held to bar the operation of the clause, we could not agree to that.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that the speech of his noble and learned friend Lord Robertson had beep so convincing that it required very few
538
words from him to impress upon their Lordships the necessity of accepting the Amendment. Lord Robertson had dealt very fully with the question of the hardships to the new tenants, and it was almost unnecessary for anyone to dwell further upon that point. He wished, however, to draw attention to the fact that the Amendment moved by his noble and learned friend was without exception the most important which had been, or probably would be, put forward by the Opposition, because it was a question whether they were to act justly or unjustly—whether the Government ware to keep faith with those tenants who, in very strenuous and arduous times in Ireland, undertook the responsibility of taking over these holdings, or whether they were to deal harshly with them. The Bill as it at present stood dealt far more hardly with those people than the Bill of 1894, which their Lordships rejected on Second Reading. He was not going to weary the House by quoting the various speeches made on that occasion by prominent members of His Majesty's present Government, amongst which was one made by the noble and learned Lord, in which he declared (as had been more or less corroborated recently by the Lord President of the Council) that he considered it would be most unjust to evict unfairly those people who had taken holdings under conditions which they fully understood. He held in his hand a number of quotations which he did not think could be contradicted, but with which he thought it would be a waste of time to trouble their Lordships. His real reason for rising was merely to say a few words in endorsement of what had fallen from his noble and learned friend. Why had these people taken these holdings from which the tenants in those arduous and critical times to which he had referred had been evicted—times which were critical not only with regard to the political condition of Ireland but with regard to the whole agricultural industry of Ireland? Why had they taken those holdings and undertaken the duties inherent in them? It was because the Government of that day was responsible for giving them protection in taking those holdings. At that critical time when the Plan of Campaign was started in Ireland he (Lord

539
Londonderry) had the honour of being Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. The Government of that day recognised the great difficulty—the great danger—that hung over Ireland by reason of what was known as the Plan of Campaign, and they grappled, and he thought successfully, with that Plan of Campaign, and the success with which they had done so was proved by the fact that the farms from which tenants were evicted were taken in great numbers by the new-comers. But why were the farms taken by these new-comers in the manner which had been alluded to by his noble and learned friend (Lord Robertson)? He remembered making a speech on behalf of His Majesty's Irish Government with the full approval of Mr. Balfour, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. That speech had had a very wide circulation and in it he assured the people who had taken the farms from which those tenants had been evicted that they should receive the protection of the Government. To that statement, made on the authority of the Government, he attributed the fact that these people had taken the farms in question. In those farms they had invested their capital, their energy, and their ability, and yet it was now proposed that these men, acting under the assurance of the Government during that time—an assurance for which he was prepared to take full responsibility—should be evicted if it was considered necessary by His Majesty's present Government. He said emphatically that that House would be wanting in justice to these people if it allowed them to be evicted from those holdings contrary to their desires. The events that he had been speaking of took place twenty years ago. Twenty years was a long time. These men during those twenty years had farmed their land to the satisfaction of their landlords and of all connected with them. They had proved themselves able and worthy citizens; they had proved themselves worthy of the position they occupied on those holdings; they loved their holdings; their children had grown up upon them; they had made their friends and their interests amongst their new surroundings; and he asked was it right that upon the simple whim
540
of the Government these people should be evicted? He declared that it was not right, and that the Government were not justified in turning those people out of the land which they had cultivated under the great difficulties he had described, unless they were perfectly willing to leave, and desirous of leaving. He hoped their Lordships would not think that in making these remarks he was desirous of saying one word which could be considered as unsympathetic to those who had had to give up these holdings. He pitied those people who were evicted more than he could say, but at the same time he always considered that they were the dupes and tools of agitators. Had they considered their own interests, and not listened to those who merely used them as pawns on the board for their own political purposes, they would be living on these farms to-day, enjoying the benefits which were now being enjoyed by those who had come after them. He spoke in no spirit of anger, but rather in a spirit of sorrow for these unfortunate people, but nevertheless he would say that the fact that these people were the dupes of agitators was no reason whatever why any injustice should be done to those who had taken their places.
There was one other point which he thought had not been alluded to either in another place or in the course of their Lordships' debate, and to that point he wanted to draw attention. The British taxpayer had, during the past twenty years, invested no less than something like £60,000,000 in Irish land for the purpose of enabling occupiers to become the owners of their holdings. £60,000,000 was a large sum of money, but the instalments due upon that advance had been paid up to now with the greatest possible regularity. He had no reason to doubt—in fact, he was of opinion that there was every reason to believe—that those instalments would be paid in the future with the same regularity; but they must always look more to the possible than to the probable, and supposing that such a state of affairs occurred as that there was a repudiation of the repayment of those instalments, what would be the position of His Majesty's

541
Government? His Majesty's Government would be unable to collect those instalments. The only process that the Government could follow would be to evict the tenants who refused to pay them. But who would take the holdings of those evicted tenants if they were liable to be evicted again at a moment's notice, in order to replace those people who had refused to meet their responsibilities and duties? They must look at the position, not only from the point of view of the Irish landlord, nor merely from the point of view of the Irish tenant, but from the point of view of the English taxpayer, and he maintained that under the circumstances which he had imagined, they would find that no honest, well-to-do citizen would take a farm from which his predecessor had been evicted, if it were recognised that His Majesty's Government would have no hesitation whatever in reinstating that evicted tenant at any moment they thought it right to do so. The question to his mind was one of supreme importance from all points of view. Their Lordships had undoubtedly to consider the unfortunate people who were the dupes of agitators, but at the same time those people ought to look to their own leaders to reinstate them, and to do what they could for them, because they had followed their advice. He said again, that he spoke upon this subject with no feelings of indignation—on the contrary, he sympathised sincerely with these unfortunate men, but he trusted that his noble and learned friend behind him would go to a division on the question in order to make certain that no injustice whatever should be done to those men who, under circumstances of the greatest possible difficulty, relying on the pledge of the Government of the day, had stepped in at a critical moment to take the place of the evicted tenants, and had made the holdings of those evicted tenants their homes and done their duty upon them for the last twenty years.
LORD CLONBROCKdesired to say a few words on the subject of the new tenants—the "planters," as they were called. He had had no personal experience of evicted tenants on his own property, and consequently no experience of the planters;
542
but he lived in a county where there were a good many of them, and he had taken some trouble to find out the way in which they were living and their relations with the people about them. The Lord President of the Council seemed to agree with those of their Lordships who were of opinion that a man who was farming his land in a proper agricultural manner and attending to his business ought not to be disturbed in his holding. The noble Earl appeared, he thought, to be somewhat exacting as to the method of tillage these men should pursue; but he did not suppose that the noble Earl expected that they should go in for the highest class of farming such as would be seen upon a model farm. If they tilled their farms in the same manner that their neighbours did, he thought nothing more could be expected. No doubt it was not a very good manner, and he himself could wish that the method of agriculture in Ireland was a great deal better and more advanced than it was. Still, a man could hardly be expected to be very far superior to his neighbours. If, therefore, the noble Earl thought it wrong that a man of that class should be disturbed, why should he object to the insertion of such a provision as was contained in the Amendment? The noble Earl had also said that the Amendment threw great doubt on the way in which the Estates Commissioners did their work, and asked why they should not be trusted, and what temptation they could have to remove these men. Now they were told that the Bill was imperatively called for by public opinion in Ireland, and that it was—he thought the noble Earl had used the phrase—a political measure. All those who were well acquainted with public opinion in Ireland were fully agreed that the element of vengeance mentioned by the noble and learned Lord who had introduced the Amendment had a very great deal to do with the matter, and that what public opinion in Ireland called for was not so much the re-instatement of evicted tenants as the removal of the planters. There was a strong feeling against anybody who took a vacant farm in Ireland, more especially when that farm was rendered vacant by a political movement and by the effect of a widespread conspiracy. Therefore, public

543
opinion would be most favourable to the Estates Commissioners if they went rather out of their way to remove the planters. He had tried, as far as he could, to ascertain the position of those men, of whom there was a considerable number in his own county of Galway; and his information led him to be thoroughly of opinion that, taking them as a whole—he did not say there was not a black sheep among them as there was in every other class, though he had not heard that there was—but, taking them as a whole they were men who worked their farms in a manner quite equal to that of the rest of the country, and indeed rather better. Further, they were men who paid their rents and acquitted all their obligations properly. They had laid out money on their farms, and they were now on good terms with their neighbours, having lived down the obloquy with which they were met when they first took their farms. Again, in some places the difficulty of reinstating evicted tenants would be extreme; the farms had been differently arranged, and where there used to be, say, 150 farms, there were now perhaps between fifty and sixty. So much was that the case, that he was informed that not long ago one of the evicted tenants went over the country but could not find his old farm, because the boundaries had been so changed. These men had been in possession for some twenty years, and he asked whether it was fair, or in any way proper, to remove these men, in order to reinstate the tenants who were turned out in consequence of having joined the Plan of Campaign.
LORD BARRYMOREsaid he felt great diffidence in taking part in the debate, because all he wanted to say had already been said much more ably by his noble and learned friend who had introduced the Amendment, and by others who had addressed their Lordships. But he had lived for many years, during the troublous times which had been referred to, in the South of Ireland, and had seen so much of these land wars, and had had so much to do, he was sorry to say, with evictions and reinstatements, that he did not like to let that occasion pass without saying one word in favour of the men who had
544
stepped into the gap at a very critical time, taken the farms which would otherwise have become an absolute desert, and lived honestly on those farms, doing their duty to the State. Who were those men? Some of them were local men who came in and took the farms; others were men who came from elsewhere. They had heard it said that many of them were bogus tenants. He did not know of any such—he had not come across them, although they might exist. But this Amendment was confined to those men who were bona fide tenants, bona fide farmers, bona fide working their land, and acting in the manner in which good citizens and good farmers should act. These men had come in at a critical time. They were guaranteed, both by the Government and by the landlords on whose estates they were placed, that they would be supported in their places, and he felt that every Member of their Lordships' House was in honour bound to see that the interests of these men were properly safeguarded. What had these men gone through? The noble Earl said that some of these migrants had had preliminary troubles. Had the planters had no preliminary troubles? Had they not formerly been boycotted? Had they not gone in danger of their lives, with police surrounding them to protect them from the fury of their neighbours? Many of them had gone through those experiences, and as his noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry had said, they had lived it down, and were now popular men in their neighbourhood. They were called in the Bill "new tenants." Many of them were by no means new tenants. Many of them had been on their holdings for nearly a quarter of a century—either they or their fathers before them. They had lived on those holdings all that time, and they ought not to be disturbed without the gravest possible reasons. He did not wish to say one word against the Estates Commissioners, or the judgment and discretion with which they would exercise the extraordinary powers which it was proposed to confer upon them, but he certainly thought it would be doing a most grave injustice to all law-abiding people if their Lordships' House allowed a class like this to be left to the mercy of the

545
Estates Commissioners or anyone else. He had never been against the reinstatement of the Plan of Campaign tenants. He thought he was the first Unionist Member in the House of Commons some years ago who had said that he did not wish to see the door shut against these men, and that he thought that under the purchase system they might be reinstated, provided always that the planters were absolutely and positively safeguarded. To that position he had always held, and that position he maintained still. If his noble and learned friend went to a division, as he sincerely hoped he would, he would with a clear conscience and with a most honest and firm heart, walk into the division lobby with him in order to safeguard the interests of those men who were placed in this position of jeopardy.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not rise for the purpose of arguing over again the case of the planters. That has been done by my noble and learned friend behind me in a manner which renders it quite superfluous for any of us to add a single word to his most learned presentation of the case. But I should like in a single sentence to confirm what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Barrymore with regard to the title which those planters have to our consideration. I, like my noble friend, have had some experience of planter tenants, and I can corroborate what he has told your Lordships—that these men came forward at very great personal risk, that they assumed the position that other tenants, their predecessors, had thought unworthy of them, that they paid the rents that their predecessors refused to pay, and paid them punctually, and that they held their own gallantly throughout a very trying time, thereby rendering, as I conceive, yeoman service to the State at a time when that service was most urgently needed.
I wish to notice two observations which fell from my noble friend the Lord President. I understood him to suggest that it would be sufficient if these men were dealt with on terms which made good any damage or loss which they might sustain by removal from their holdings.
546
Do let me impress upon the House that there are two sides to this question. There is the question of that which is due to the man and there in the question of that which is due to the community. As to the man, I can conceive that you might offer him terms—at the public expense—so lavish and so generous that he would have no more to say, and that as far as the man was concerned, your scruples would be salved. But when you come to the question of the community, then pray do not let us forget that the extrusion of the planter tenant, and the substitution for him of one of these agitators, does mean the triumph of a conspiracy which has been condemned as illegal by the highest authorities. It does mean the promotion of the agitators and the conspirators, and the humiliation of the men who deserve best at our hands. The Lord President asked us this question. He said: Under what temptation would the Estates Commissioners be to drive out one of these bona fide planters? He asked what pressure could be put upon the Estates Commissioners. It seems to me that those questions were characterised by that sancta simplicitas which we sometimes detect in the noble Earl's utterances. He has been Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. Surely he must know something of the kind of pressure to which the Irish Government can be subjected on occasions of this kind. It is because I know, and it is because those who are connected with Ireland know, what that pressure; is and what it can be, that I mistrust the formula which, I have no doubt with the most considerate motives, the noble Earl proposed to the House. I think he suggested that at the end of my noble and learned friend Lord Robertson's Amendment we should add the words "except in special circumstances with the concurrence of the Lord-Lieutenant." If we adopt those words, who will be the judge of the "special circumstances"? The Government of Ireland. Who will advise the Government of Ireland? The Chief Secretary and the Estates Commissioners. Those words, I am sorry to say, do not inspire me with any confidence whatever, because I know perfectly well that given a Government with particular political tendencies, that Government

547
will be amenable to the kind of pressure with which the Lord President is apparently unfamiliar, but which we who know Ireland know only too well.
My Lords, I hope my noble and learned friend Lord Robertson will press his Amendment upon the House, although it seems to me that the wording of it might perhaps be capable of amendment. I suggest to him that it might run somewhat in these words. It might end—
"Nor any tenanted land which is in the possession or occupation of any bona fide tenant using or cultivating the same as an ordinary farmer in a husbandlike manner."
I believe the words "husbandlike manner" are not unfrequently to be found in statutes dealing with agricultural questions, and that would meet, I think, to some extent the criticism of the noble Earl that the expression "an ordinary farmer" is somewhat too vague. I suggest that to the noble Earl,
but I am afraid that his own proposal is not one which will altogether commend itself to your Lordships. At the same time I do not wish to conclude my observations without expressing my thanks to the noble Earl for his evident appreciation of the force of the argument in favour of these planter tenants. He has himself, on more than one occasion, spoken in what I regard as a very honourable manner with regard to them, and I am glad that he has shown this evening a desire to do all he can to meet their case.
LORD ROBERTSONaccepted the suggestion of the noble Marquess. He thought the words proposed improved his Amendment, and he would accordingly move it in that form.
On Question, "That the words of the Amendment, as amended, be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 146; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshall.)

Powis, E.

Burton, L.

Argyll, D.

Saint Germans, E.

Carew, L.

Bedford, D.

Shrewsbury, E.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Northumberland, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Castlemaine, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Verulam, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Wellington, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Cheylesmore, L.

Westminster, D.

Westmeath, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Wharncliffe, E.

Clinton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Wicklow, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Cloncurry, L.

Salisbury, M.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Colchester, L.

Zetland, M.

Falkland, V.

Collins, L.

Falmouth, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Bandon, E.

Halifax, V.

De Freyne, I.

Camperdown, E.

Hampden, V.

De Maulay, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hood, V.

Deramore, L.

Cawdor, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Desborough, L

Clarendon, E.

Digby, L.

Darnley, E.

St. Aldwyn V.

Dunalley, L.

Dartrey, E.

Templeton, V.

Dunboyne, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Dunleath L.

Addington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Egerton, E.

Alington, L.

Estcourt, L.

Eldon, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Essex, E.

Ampthill, L.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Fortescue, E.

Annaly, L.

Forester, L.

Haddington, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Gage, L. (V Gage.)

Halsbury, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Inchiquin, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Atkinson, L.

Kelvin, L.

Ilchester, E.

Balfour, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Lindsey, E.

Barrymore, L.

Kensington, L.

Londesborough, E.

Basing, L.

Kenyon, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Belper, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Mayo, E.

Biddulph, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Morton, E.

Borthwick, L.

Langford, L.

Mount-Edgcumbe, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Lawrence, L.

Northesk, E.

Lovat, L.

Onslow, E.

Braye, L.

Ludlow, L.

Plymouth, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Lurgan, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Rathmore, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Massy, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Methuen, L.

Robertson, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Rosmead, L.

Stanmore, L.

Muskerry, L.

St. Oswald L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Newlands, L.

Saltoun, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

O'Neill, L.

Sanderson, L.

Templemore, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Sandys, L.

Tennyson, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Savile, L.

Ventry, L.

Sherborne, L.

Waleran, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Wolverton, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Sinclair, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, L.

Haversham, L.

Blyth, L.

Headley, L.

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Hemphill, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Lyveden, L.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Denman, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Pirrie, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Carrington, E.

Eversley, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Craven, E.

Farre, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Weardale, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

Welby, L.

Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Selby, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

On Question, agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:—
LORD INCHIQUINproposed an Amendment to Subsection (1) to provide that the prescribed particulars which the Estates Commissioners are required to publish in the Dublin Gazette "shall set forth in full the name and present address and occupation of the person or persons whom it is proposed to put into the possession of the land so acquired or any part thereof." The names of evicted tenants had been asked for on several occasions, and there was apparently some difficulty about giving them. But, surely, when negotiations were pending with a landlord to buy his land, the names of the persons should be given, for various reasons. One was, that he might know who was going to be put in; and another was, that he might know if the man going to be put in was the man who had been evicted, and, if not, if the man who had been evicted was deceased, or whether a proper representative of that man was to be put in. In either of those events the landlord would probably know something of the proposed tenant, and would have the right of objecting to his being put in if he thought that he was an improper person. Then, again, where the evicted tenant
550
had died, and had left a certain number of relatives, it was right that all his relatives should know who was the claimant. Somebody might claim to be tenant of a farm who was not necessarily the right person to do so. A younger brother, for instance, might claim over an elder brother; and therefore it was only fair that this information should be given at the time when it was proposed to purchase the land. The case, in his opinion, was so obvious that he hoped His Majesty's Government would see their way to grant it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 31, after the word 'objection' to insert the words 'the prescribed particulars shall set forth in full the name and present address and occupation of the person or persons whom it is proposed to put into the possession of the land so acquired, or any part thereof.'"—(Lord Inchiquin.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am afraid we cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and our inability to do so is based, really, on the ground of delay. So far as tenanted land is concerned, the landlord practically knows who is coming. He can only be the evicted tenant or his representative. He can be nobody else. He is bound to be the particular person who formerly occupied that particular farm, or his

551
representative. I do not know whether that is perfectly clear to noble Lords, but that is so.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid there might be twenty representatives.
THE EARL OF CREWE: It is the representative as described—as the noble Lord knows perfectly well—in the Act of 1903. As regards untenanted land, it is true that knowledge does not exist; but, when untenanted land is purchased, I confess it does not seem to me to make very much difference to the landlord who comes there; and I think it is possible, at any rate, to maintain that, once having parted with his land, the landlord is not entitled to know who the new occupant is to be.
LORD INCHIQUINpointed out that the landlord had not yet parted with the land, he was only asked to part with it.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That is perfectly true, but he knows that he will have, or may have, to part with it. Of course, in the case of a voluntary sale, it is perfectly true that the personal element would enter in, but, as we know, this is a compulsory Bill, and that is a fact which is very material in dealing with this particular matter. What we feel is, that those who are not particularly anxious that this Act should work—there may be some, and there may even be many such—will find this a most admirable method of delaying operations by engaging in absolutely interminable correspondence on the subject and altogether delaying the operations of the Act. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREobserved that if the correspondence was interminable it would be partly the Government's fault in keeping the correspondence up; but this question had a more important bearing, because a great deal of the untenanted land that was going to be taken was near the landlords' own residences, and near their demesnes; and therefore they had a right to know who the person was who was going to be put down at their very lodge gate. Such information could not cause any
552
great inconvenience to the public service, and it would not be letting out any secret prematurely to give the information. Therefore, he hoped the Government would see their way to meet the landlords in some way or other, on a point which might seriously affect the amenities of their residences and of their homes.
LORD DENMANsaid that he could give one or two reasons which would show that there really was a practical difficulty in doing what had been suggested. He quite sympathised with what had been said as to some person whom the landlord did not care about being placed in the neighbourhood of his own residence; but there was this difficulty in the case of untenanted land—that it was impossible for the Estates Commissioners to know beforehand whom they were going to put in. The ordinary procedure was, that they first bought the land, and then determined upon the particular individuals they would put upon the land. The present Amendment would imply that they must first go to a tenant and say, "Will you take this particular land?" The tenant would say, "You must first take me all round it and let me see it." But the land would not then belong to the Estates Commissioners; and it seemed to him, from what he knew of these matters, that in many cases the landlords would very strongly object to the Estates Commissioners or their representative going with a tenant over their land when it did not belong to the Commissioners, and when they had really no right to go there with a tenant and ask him whether that particular land would suit him. There were many other points of difficulty with regard to untenanted land. Buildings would have to be put up, and other points would have to be settled, and therefore he really thought there were practical difficulties in the way of accepting the noble Lord's suggestion, although he confessed that he himself entirely sympathised with the noble Lord's reason for moving it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONthought the noble Earl had hardly done justice to the very strong feeling which existed on the

553
point in question. The noble Earl, when he spoke of untenanted land, had said that the landlord knew he would have to part with it. He was supposed to know that even before the case was tried. That was an assumption which he thought might rather guide their Lordships in their subsequent Amendments, especially in Clause 6. Apparently, according to the noble Earl, it was to be understood that the moment the Estates Commissioners had scheduled a piece of ground belonging to a landlord he had parted with his interest in it. As everybody knew, this was a question which affected not landlords alone. There were men who had been centres of disaffection and disturbance in certain districts and, even with the utmost desire to credit the Estates Commissioners with universal knowledge and competence, it was only natural that the man from whose estate a tenant had gone, and to whose estate it was proposed to return him, would know something more about the antecedents of the man who was to be placed there than the Estates Commissioners could know; and although he thought it clear that there might be difficulties in naming at the outset the exact individuals who were proposed to be put back, surely there must come a time when it would be fair to give the landlord that information. Could not the noble Earl hold out any hope that in some way or another he would be able to accept this extremely reasonable proposal? He was sure that his noble friend the mover of the Amendment had no desire to force upon the Government anything which would lead to delay, but to leave the matter absolutely open and to treat the land as if it belonged to the public and not to the landlord himself—to treat the matter as if it were one of perfect indifference to the man, who owned the particular land in question and who perhaps owned hundreds and thousands of acres around it—seemed a degree of injustice to which their Lordships would be unwilling to consent.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I cannot resist the appeal of the noble Viscount, and I will certainly consult my right hon. friend as to whether any via media can be found which will meet the difficulty.
554
I quite understand it is disagreeable to landlords to have no inkling of who the man may be who is to arrive on their untenanted land until he actually appears, and I would certainly consider whether it would be possible to give them any notice or intimation of the kind desired at some stage of the proceedings. But it is quite impossible to do it at the stage at which my noble friend asks that it should be done. The land is really bought before it is decided to whom it is to be distributed. In some cases a very large area is bought from one landlord, and it would be impossible for the Estates Commissioners, having bought a large block, many hundreds of acres in extent, perhaps, to be able to allocate at once—indeed, before the purchase is made—the actual people who are going to be put there and the area of their farms.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he was very pleased to hear the noble Earl say that he would consider the Amendment, because there was an element in the case which demanded very keen consideration. He had presided for so many years at Courts whose function it was to decide upon the value of land, that he knew this question might lead to grave differences of opinion and to possible bitterness. He quite appreciated what had been said by Lord Denman—that if they did not know the name of the tenant it was impossible to give it, and there might be other reasons which would make the giving of the information at a particular time inconvenient. But there could be no objection at all, he would venture to suggest, to his noble friend who had moved the Amendment putting in the words "if possible," and then the matter could be considered again, before the Report stage, to decide whether the proviso could be modified or developed in any way. It might be that, although the man had lost his legal grip of the land, yet it might do him a great amount of injury to go and plump down on his property a man who had been leading a boycott against him for years past and making his whole residence like a hell upon earth. This question had to be considered. In the experience of Irish land administration it was a familiar feature, and one which occurred over and over again, that the persons

555
most objectionable to the landlord and to the other people upon the property were sought to be put upon the land. He did not wish to attribute motives at all, but as a fact such persons had been sought to be put down in places where their presence would be most hateful to the landlord and most disagreeable to the other people in the neighbourhood. That had been done in the past, and unless it was guarded against the same thing might take place very readily in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is it not better to let it stand as it is until the Report stage, and then to consider the question of any practical inconvenience which may arise?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think so, certainly.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid that having regard to what had fallen from the noble Marquess and from the noble and learned Lord he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment, but he thought the evicted tenant's name, or the name of his representative, might be given. There might be twenty representatives of a deceased evicted tenant, and bethought it was essential that the landlord should know which of the representatives was the one he had to deal with.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I will bear that in mind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved, as consequential Amendments to his Amendment on Clause 1, that compensation was to be paid as if the lands were about to be acquired compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845.
Amendments moved—
"In page 3, line 3, to leave out the words 'price thereof' and insert the words 'amount of compensation to be paid therefor, as if the said lands were about to be acquired compulsorily under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845.'
"In line 11 to leave out from the word 'land' to the end of the subsection, and insert the words 'such compensation as to them appears to be reasonable.'
"In line 17 and 18, to leave out the words 'at the aforesaid price' and insert the words 'upon the terms aforesaid.'
556
"In line 25, to leave out the words 'purchase money' and insert the words 'amount of the compensation.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: With reference to these consequential Amendments I may perhaps be allowed to say that while the Government does not accept them we do not propose to offer any opposition to their insertion at the present stage. The further discussion of the whole question will, of course, come up rather later.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE moved an Amendment to insert in the sub-section providing that if no petition had been presented, or if the petition had been withdrawn, the Estates Commissioners might make an order vesting the land in the Land Commission "without delay." He said there was a great deal of uncertainty amongst many noble Lords interested in this section as to what exactly the financial position was. He might say at once that there were three classes of people to be considered—the owner who was deprived of his land, the evicted tenant who was put on to the land, and the new tenant who might be moved into the holding. There was great uncertainty as to what was to be done in regard to the dispossessed owner. If part of his land was compulsorily taken, when was he to get his money and what was to be his position in reference to interest? When was the new tenant to begin payment of his instalments to the Land Commission? He would be very pleased if the noble Earl would give an explanation as to the exact financial position of the three classes he had mentioned. What he particularly desired to know at present was this: When the owner was dispossessed and had to hand over his property, how soon would he receive payment of his bonus? He also desired to know whether that was to be fixed by Rules or whether the noble Earl could state it now.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 26, after the word 'Commission' to insert the words 'without delay.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: As regards the position of the vendor, as the noble

557
Lord knows, before the land is vested in the Land Commission the purchase money has to be paid into the Bank of Ireland. Then under the Act of 1903 interest at the rate of 2¾ per cent. is to be paid by the Land Commission to the National Debt Commissioners until the land has been disposed of to purchasers. Then the Land Commission has to pay interest at the rate of 3½ per cent., as the noble and learned Lord is aware, to the person from whom the land is acquired until closing day. The supposition is that the Estates Commissioners will be able to let the land so as to be in possession of a sum which will enable them to pay 3½ per cent. to the owner. Then as to the purchase money, although the Bank of Ireland will not make payment to the National Debt Commissioners, there is a power later on in the Bill to invest that money, so that it is hoped and supposed that the 2¾ per cent. may be forthcoming. Then the reinstated tenant and the new tenant become at once owners in fee under the Land Purchase Act just like other purchasers, and the owner will in due course pay this purchase money. The position is, in fact, precisely the same as that of ordinary purchasers under the Act of 1903.
LORD ASHBOURNEasked whether the noble Earl could lay before the House a Memorandum setting out clearly what was the financial position of the three different classes he had mentioned. There was to be created a perfectly novel form of occupation arising from the planting down of a person on a man's land, whether he wanted him or not; and what he wanted to know from the noble Earl was when would the purchase money be lodged, what was his position until it was lodged, and whether it would be handed over to him in the way in which it was handed over to an ordinary vendor. If the noble Earl would have a short Memorandum prepared giving the information for which he had asked it would be a great convenience.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I will inquire whether that can be done, in order to meet the wishes of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he gathered from what the noble Earl had stated that the whole of the proceedings under this Bill as regards finance were exactly the same as those under the 1903 Act.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, as regards the payment. As regards the actual words, I think the noble and learned Lord will agree that the words "without delay" hardly fit in with the words "they may if they think fit."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved to amend Sub-section 7, so that it should run—
"If a petition has been presented and has not been withdrawn, the Estates Commissioners or any two of them shall hear and, by Order, determine the petition and all questions arising thereon,"
and to insert a new sub-section providing for an appeal either to the King's Bench Division of the High Court in Ireland or to the Judges of Assize. He explained that the first part of his Amendment was introductory to the clauses which would produce the Appellate tribunal. He did not know whether, assuming that his proposed tribunal was right, the Government would object to the machinery he had set up for proceedings before it. He had taken a good deal of care in selecting it and he had followed precisely that provided by Section 24 of the Act of 1870. The Act of 1870 entitled tenants to be awarded compensation for capricious eviction, and also compensation for improvements. The case went, in the first instance, to the Court of Civil Bill, and on appeal from that to the Judge of Assize; and all the provisions he had introduced were little more than repetitions of the provisions in that section as regarded the procedure and mode of hearing. The tribunal which he had selected was one of the Judge of Assize. He had selected that tribunal as the normal tribunal, because it had been selected under the Act of 1870, and under the Local Government Act, 1898. It was the natural tribunal to deal with questions arising in the county where the assizes were held; but he was quite aware that the objection might be made that as the Court of Assize sat only twice a year great delay

559
might be caused by the absence of an appellate tribunal which should be open to the parties aggrieved in the interval when the Court of Assize was not sitting. For that reason, he had selected another tribunal merely to assist, more than anything else, in disposing of the delay, and the tribunal which he had selected was the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. First, there was the precedent of the election petition. When the House of Commons dispensed with the power of dealing with election petitions, they selected the Court of Common Pleas, as it was then, and petitions were heard and disposed of by Judges of that Court selected by rota. In the Canadian Act a provision similar to that which he had proposed was introduced, and the appeal was to the King's Bench Division of the Court, to be tried and disposed of, of course, by a Judge of that Court selected by rota. It was inconceivable to him what real objection there could be to the Court of Assize; it was the tribunal that came home in its operations to the vast majority of the people of Ireland, because the Judges of Assize exercised a jurisdiction which was unknown in England. They sat to try, as Judges of law and fact, what were called Civil Bill Appeals. Where there was a proceeding in the County Court, if the party was not satisfied with the decision of the County Court Fudge he appealed by the most simple and inexpensive process to the Judge of Assize; and the Judge of Assize, sitting alone, re-tried the case. It was a small record, it was cheap, it was speedy, and it was satisfactory. He did not believe there was a judicial proceeding of any kind in Ireland which gave more satisfaction, came home more to the people, and did more to give them their ideas and knowledge of legal obligation and justice. Therefore, it was the natural tribunal to select for the trial of these cases. It was the local tribunal. If any other tribunal were selected, it would be extremely easy for the Estates Commissioners to send down one of their army of subordinates with the necessary documents and have the question investigated; but it might be an extremely irksome and annoying process to bring either a landlord or a planter up from the country to Dublin to have his case decided in Dublin.
560
The only other possible alternative was, that a wandering Judge should be sent here, there, and all round the country everywhere to try upon the spot these disputes. He could not see the advantage of that; and therefore it appeared to him that the ordinary tribunal ought to be the Judge of Assize. But, to meet the objection, which he anticipated might be made, that there would be no tribunal available in the intervals between assize and assize, he had selected the only one possible, that was, the Court of King's Bench—the matter to be disposed of by the Judge selected from a rota. To obviate any difficulty that might arise, he had inserted clauses which provided for ample and speedy powers of transfer. If one party to a dispute brought his case to the King's Bench Division, and another to the Assize Court, there was a provision that either the one could be transferred from the Assize Court to the Court of King's Bench or the other from the Court of King's Bench to the Assize Court, and when they got together before the same tribunal they could be consolidated. There was ample power to bring all disputes before the same tribunal, and to have them dealt with and settled speedily and without unnecessary expense. If there were to be any tribunal at all, he was entirely unable to see what better one could be selected. He was, however, not at all bigotedly attached to that particular tribunal, but he had thought, to use a legal phrase, that he might "estop" the Government from objecting to it, because it was the tribunal selected by Mr. Gladstone in his Act of 1870. He was obliged to refer to that tribunal the question of the propriety or the necessity of putting these compulsory powers into force at all. In that he had followed the precedent of the Local Government Act of 1898, where, as he had already explained, in the question of the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of enlarging roads that procedure was taken. He quite admitted that it might not be the best conceivable tribunal to try the question whether the compulsory powers ought to be put into force at all. If that was so, he begged to remind the noble Earl that the fault was not his. The Government had chosen to depart from all known precedent.

561
Any person who was acquainted with the proceedings before a Select Committee in the case of a private Bill knew that the first thing that would probably be found in most cases in a private Bill was a preamble beginning: "Whereas it is desirable that such-and-such works should be done, and whereas it is impossible to carry out the project without compulsory powers to acquire land." That was the matter which the Committee investigated. If they proceeded by a Provisional. Order, and they went before the Local Government Board, the first thing of which they had to convince the Board was the propriety and necessity of giving compulsory powers. Under the Allotments Act, when a parish council or a district council wanted to get compulsory powers, they had to go before the county council, and convince them that they ought to get compulsory powers, and no single instance could be found where the parties who wished to exercise compulsory powers were absolved from obtaining the approval of some superior tribunal. Therefore, if there was any difficulty in the way the Government had created it themselves by endeavouring to authorise two gentlemen to go to any owner of property and say: "We tell you we want to acquire compulsorily your land; we do not require any person to approve of our doing so; we are not called upon to say that we cannot dispense with it; we think it expedient, and you must give it to us." He could at any rate say for himself that as long as he had the honour of belonging to any tribunal he would never consent to such a power being given to any human being, or refrain from raising his voice against it. He believed it was wrong, tyrannical, and unjust, and for that reason he thought such a power ought to be subject to review. The only conceivable way in which he could see that it could be subject to review was to make it one of the matters of fact which would be brought up for revision before the tribunal, whatever that tribunal might be. An objection had been made by the noble Earl that this would cause great delay, but the noble Earl was entirely under a misapprehension. It would not cause anything of the kind. Supposing the Estates Commissioners made an order to buy, there was nothing on earth to prevent
562
the case being heard within a couple of months at the very outside. They, he presumed, had materials in their possession on which they came to the conclusion that the land ought to be acquired, and they had the Reports of the inspectors as to the value, upon which reports they based their offer. All these things were available. It could not be supposed that they went blindly at it, haphazard, without coming to any conclusion as to whether it was necessary. They had to ascertain whether there was any land available, and whether they were obliged to buy that particular land. They had all the material. The owner, or the tenant, as the case might be, would be ready to prove his case, and to show that there were reasons why his land ought not to be taken or why the price ought to be higher. But even if there should be delay, there was a great principle of justice involved, and even though delay might be incurred in the vindication of it, yet he did not think it was a tenable contention that the interests of the parties should be sacrificed, because occasionally delay might be interposed by the exercise of a necessary check upon this arbitrary power. Their Lordships would observe that Subsection (k) of his proposed new clause provided that the compensation to be paid to any owner of land in respect of the loss thereof should be deemed to be the purchase price of the land within the meaning of the Land Purchase Act. He was not particularly attached to that, but he had put it in in aid of the Government, for the reason that unless that were done they could not get the officials under the Land Purchase Act to pay compensation. But if the Government chose, that provision could be struck out, and they could provide in some other way for the difference between the amount of compensation and the sum at which they would be able to resell the land. He need hardly point out that it was a perfectly common case—it was provided for where the Estates Commissioners bought land which they could not sell to the tenant for what they had paid for it. There was a provision introduced to meet deficits, and if they were obliged to pay the man whom they compulsorily expropriated more than they could themselves obtain, then surely it was not on the man

563
expropriated that the cost should fall. He could not understand with what face the contention was put forward, that because it suited the Government to sell to an evicted tenant at a small price, therefore they might acquire at the same price, under compulsion, the land necessary for them to sell. He could not understand how it could possibly be contended that because the Government wished to favour these men who had been evicted, and because in order to favour them it was necessary to resell land at a low price, therefore they must buy compulsorily from the owner at the same price to enable them to carry out their desire to benefit these evicted men. He submitted that that was entirely wrong. He repeated that if the noble Earl so desired he was quite willing that this clause should be amended, but in any case it would be the business of the Government to provide from some other fund the amount of the deficit between what they had paid and what they had received. Certainly the loss should not fall upon the man who was compulsorily deprived of this land.
Amendment moved—
"In page 3, line 29, after the word 'withdrawn' to insert the words 'the Estates Commissioners or any two of them shall hear and by order determine.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am entirely in the hands of the House as to continuing the debate at this moment. I have observed, interested as the whole House undoubtedly has been in the very clear statement of the noble and learned Lord, yet a good many eyes have been cast towards the clock. I think it is clearly not possible to finish the debate on this subject this evening, but I am entirely in the hands of the House as to whether I should now reply to the noble and learned Lord or postpone doing so until Monday. If noble Lords think there is any advantage in my speaking now I shall be very happy to do so. In either case it is an advantage to us to have had the very clear statement of the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell us what he thinks.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the matter is one entirely in the hands of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Then I think we will adjourn.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Monday next. The Committee to have precedence of other Notices and Orders of the day.

BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
FATAL ACCIDENTS (DAMAGES) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
VACCINATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order,) and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(The Lord Chancellor.) (No. 167.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords before I move the adjournment of the House I beg to propose that the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill shall take precedence of other business on Monday. My noble friend the Marquess of Lansdowne, who has now left the House, agrees to this course. I regret to say that the most rev. Primate, who had a Motion upon the Paper, and who has been good enough to withdraw it, is not very well, although his illness is nothing very serious. My noble friend Lord Ribblesdale also had a Motion which he is willing should stand over, and I therefore beg to move that the Evicted Tenants Bill take precedence on Monday of other Motions.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.