Sitting of 23 July 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at Twelve of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill—Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
Oxford and District Tramways Bill—Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Pontypridd Water Bill—Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Swinton and Mexborough Gas Board Bill—Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Risca Urban District Council Bill [Lords]—read a second time, and committed.

IRISH LAND [ADVANCES, &c.].
Resolution reported,
"That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland, it is expedient—

(a) To authorise the creation of a new capital stock for raising any money required for the Irish Land Purchase Fund (including the Land Purchase Aid Fund), and the temporary borrowing of any such money by bills or bonds, and to charge on the Consolidated Fund in certain contingencies the payment of the dividends on the new Stock, and the payment of the interest, and the repayment of the principal of any such bills or bonds;

(b) To remove the limit on the total sums to be paid out of the Land Purchase Aid Fund;

(c) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, in certain contingenicieis, of deficiencies that may arise on the Irish Land Purchase Fund and the Guarantee Fund, and to make provision for payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, on the exhaustion of the Reserve Fund, or the Ireland Development Grant, of sums for purposes for which provision would otherwise have been made out of that fund or grant;

(d) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of an
750
annual sum to the Congested Districts Board for Ireland and to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland;

(e) To authorise the National Debt Commissioners to make advances in certain cases to the Land Commission."

Mr. JOHN DILLON: Before you put the Motion, I wish to claim permission to move to re-commit this Resolution, for the purpose of inserting a sub-section authorising the raising of money required by Irish land purchase; by the issue of 2½ per cent. Consolidated Stock. In asking permission to re-commit the Resolution, I wish to say that I am very doubtful whether it is necessary to do so or not. I suppose it would be perfectly in order to move the insertion of this provision in the Resolution on Report. I only ask permission to re-commit the Resolution should it be ruled out of order to do so on Report. I may say, without entering into the subject at this stage, that I am prepared to argue this question on the ground that it is not an addition to the public burden but a distinct lessening of the public burden, and that so far from an addition there would be no possibility by this provision of adding to the public funds or the burdens of the taxpayers. I also believe that without this amendment of the Resolution two Amendments which I have on the Bill would be ruled out of order, which is undoubtedly a case of inadvertence, because we were given to understand distinctly by the Government that the Resolution was drawn in terms so wide as to cover all the points we desired to raise. This action is simply a case of compulsion.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member wishes to move to re-commit this Resolution for the purpose of moving some Amendment to it. In the first place, I am very doubtful whether, under the Resolution as passed, it is possible to move to re-commit this Resolution; but, putting that aside, and supposing that it were possible to re-commit it, what is the object of re-committal? The object of recommittal is that the hon. Member for East Mayo may do something to the Resolution which he cannot do on Report. It appears to me that practically the same rule must operate with regard to this as with regard to a Supply Resolution at this stage, namely, that you cannot recommit in order to increase the burden to the public Exchequer. If you want to diminish the burden you ought to do that on Report, and no re-committal becomes

751
necessary. I understand that the purpose of the hon. Member for East Mayo is that an additional amount of Consols shall be raised for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the Irish Land Act. How can the hon. Member move to insert a proposal of that kind? That surely must come from the Government, because it imposes a charge on the national Exchequer. If it imposes a charge on the national Exchequer, or the possibility of a charge on the national Exchequer, that charge can only be proposed by a Member of the Government, and not by a private Member. Therefore no object is served by re-committing this Resolution. I am afraid equally, following the same reasoning, that when we come to the Amendments of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I shall have to rule them out of order on the ground chat they impose an additional charge on the national Exchequer.
Mr. JOHN DILLON: May I say on that point I think I shall be able to convince you that what I propose does not impose any charge on the national Exchequer, but, on the contrary, can only operate, in so far as it operates at all, to relieve the national Exchequer. My Amendment is not a direction to the Government to issue Consols, but it is only an option to issue Consols if, in their judgment, by so doing the charge on the national Exchequer will be lightened. It gives the power of the option or alternative to issue 2½ per cent, rather than to issue 3 per cent, or 2¾ per cent., which they have already. Under this Resolution, whether they issue 2¾ or 3 per cent., or whether they issue bills or bonds to provide this money, under each form of this issue there must fall a liability on the national Exchequer, and the ultimate liability must be on the Exchequer. Therefore my proposition does not entail the raising of any fresh sum of money. It is only an alternative method as to the sum of money which is authorised to be raised by the Resolution as it stands. I am prepared to argue, if allowed to move—and I gather from your ruling I may be allowed to move on the Report Stage—that this Motion has for its object to reduce the burden on the national Exchequer and to offer an option to the Treasury. Under the ruling you have just given I ought to be permitted to move on the Report Stage.
Sir F. BANBURY: I would like to confirm what the hon. Member for East Mayo has just said. As I understand, the object of the hon. Member is to give to the
752
Government the option of raising this sum, which they intend to raise for the payment of Irish land advances, by Consols instead of by the form of 2¾ or 3 per cent. Stock. May I very humbly venture to point out that that will diminish the charge on the ratepayers for a great many reasons. Consols and 2½ per cent. Stock stand at 84, and 2¾ per cent. Stock stands at 85.
Mr. SPEAKER: The point of order is this: Has the hon. Member for East Mayo got the King's Recommendation? If he has not got the King's Recommendation he cannot propose a charge.
Sir F. BANBURY: Diminishing the charge.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument. The hon. Member for East Mayo may very well say that, instead of creating this Stock, a much simpler way is to raise further Consols, That is very good by way of argument, but when it comes to increasing the amount of Consols, where is the signification of the King's Recommendation? In other words, it can only be done by a Member of the Government. Neither the Motion to re-commit, nor the Amendments of which the hon. Member for East Mayo has given notice, are consequently in order. Both the argument which underlies the proposition of the hon. Member and his desired action are very proper to use in arguing upon the Resolution.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: May I be allowed to ask whether under the circumstances a way out of the difficulty could not be found by the Amendment being moved by a Member of the Government? The object of this Resolution is to authorise the raising of a certain sum of money. We do not propose anything in the alternative scheme to increase the money that is to be raised. I do not know whether the Government are going to accept our Amendment or not. In any case, it is one of those important points which the Committee ought to be allowed to discuss.
It is one of those points which we understand clearly, in the discretion of the Government, would not be impeded by the terms of this Resolution. We understood that the Resolution would be drafted in as wide a manner as possible in order to allow this Question to be raised. I ask the Government to take steps that will prevent us from being shut out from discussing this most important alternative proposal.
Mr. SPEAKER: I will call upon the hon. Member for the City of London to move his Amendment. It will permit the point raised by the hon. Member for Waterford to be discussed.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to omit paragraph (a). I believe the Government already have the power that this paragraph gives them. My real objection to this paragraph is that it gives the Government power to issue a new capital stock. I do not believe, in the interests of finance, that that is the proper course for the Government to pursue. If this paragraph is carried the Government will be empowered to issue a new form of stock, namely, a 3 per cent. Stock, which I understand it is proposed to issue, at par. That would create two sorts of Irish Land Stock. For over 35 years my business was dealing with finance, with stocks and shares in the City. I challenge anyone to deny that the whole aim and object of the best managed financial companies, and large companies in London, has been, not to multiply varieties of stock, but, on the contrary, to consolidate all their stock into one single account. Every single railway, from the London and North-Western Railway to the smallest in the Kingdom, has for the last 20 years been following that policy. It was a policy initiated by the late Lord Goschen—then Mr. Goschen—with regard to Government Stock, when, in 1888, he took the three forms of Government Stock, Consols, New Three Per Cents., and Reduced Three Per Cents., and consolidated them into New Consols. That is the policy, I venture to say, the Government should pursue, and it is the policy which in the long run will be most beneficial to the Irish Members, the Irish people, and the taxpayers of this country. May I point out that at the present moment Consols stand in round figures at 84. Irish Land Stock stands at 85½. The interest which the taxpayer pays on the one is 2¾ per cent, on the nominal amount, and on the other 2½ per cent. He is paying 5s. more for every £100 of Irish Land Stock than he would for Consols. That 5s., if saved, would go far to meet the difference in regard to the loss on the Sinking Fund, which has exercised such a bad effect upon the Irish Land Purchase Act. It may be held that if you issue Consols you will depress them. That is true to a certain extent. But the same thing follows with the issue of Irish Land Stock. Further—and this is a very important point that I
754
would like to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman—the issue of Irish Land Stock will itself depress Consols. It induces people to sell Consols and to buy Irish Land Stock because of its greater return. May I draw the attention of the House and the right hon. Gentleman to these words in the paragraph I propose to omit: "and to charge on the Consolidated Fund in certain contingencies the payment of the dividends on the new stock and the payment of the interest, and the repayment of the principal of any such bills or bonds." Now that is a fixed obligation for the payment of the interest and the repayment of the stock upon the Consolidated Fund upon which Consols are charged, and therefore the point is this, that there is no difference under this programme between the liability of the taxpayer for Consols and the liability of the taxpayer for Irish Land Stock. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he were desirous of borrowing money and went to a moneylender, and the moneylender said, "I will lend you money at £2 15s. per cent, on one portion of your estate and £2 10s. per cent, on another," what would the right hon. Gentleman say? Of course, he would take the £2 10s. loan. I am quite aware the Runciman Report differed from that, and said there was a difference of security in the two stocks. I deny there is a difference. The security of both stocks is identically the same, the liability of the taxpayer is the same. The credit of the taxpayer is pledged to both stocks, and it seems to me to be the worst possible finance to compel the taxpayer to pay more interest than he ought to. I have said enough to show that there are really serious reasons for omitting this paragraph and for allowing the Government an opportunity of taking the course recommended to them by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I beg to move.
Mr. JOHN DILLON: I rise to second this Amendment, which happily allows us, at least, to lay our views before the House upon this exceedingly important matter. I think it is a very great pity that the Government has not given us the opportunity of recording our opinions in the Division Lobby upon the matter. I confess it seems to me it is partly owing to the fact that they really have no argument at all to answer our contention. I want first of all to draw the attention of hon. Members to the admirable statement

755
made by the hon. Baronet who has just spoken, and which makes my task so much easier. I want to draw attention to the important consideration that this is a very large operation. We are dealing with an operation involving £100,000,000. Under the present system you are losing £8 on every £100 you raise by issuing Irish Land Stock instead of Consols. £8 per cent, on £100,000,000 is £8,000,000 of money. Therefore, if the markets remain as they are at present you are without the shadow of a reason throwing away £8,000,000. There is strong ground for saying that, so far as the correlative prices of the stock is concerned, they will remain the same; and, supposing they do remain in that proportion, you are throwing away this £8,000,000, I want to draw the attention of the House to the state of the Money Market. The hon. Baronet has already pointed out that at the present moment—I take the quotation from "The Times" of to-day—the making-up price of 2½ per cent. Consols is 84⅞; the making-up price of 2¾ per cent. Irish Land Stock is 85. So that there is only ⅛ per cent, difference, and that has been arrived at by a long process of steady fall in the Irish Stock. When you examine the returns for some months, as I have done, of Irish Stock as quoted, there is a continual drop, so that the quotation is not merely an unusual fluctuation of the market, but a steady adjustment of prices, which has been going on for months; and to-day you have this extraordinary state of things that these two stocks, which have precisely the same security behind them—if there is any difference at all, it is in favour of Irish Sitock, which has the whole security of the land behind it—after the years Irish Stock has been on the market, it has adjusted itself to a price which is ⅛ above the price of Consols, although it carries a 5s. per cent, larger interest. What is the difference that ought to exist between these two stocks at par. Irish Stock should stand at £8 10s. over Consols, but the actual difference is one-eighth. You lose with the issue of stocks upon this gigantic undertaking £8 upon every £100 you raise. Having established that, I first of all challenge the Government to produce their arguments, which up to the present they have not done. They must be very strong arguments to justify the throwing away of £8,000,000 on a great transaction of this kind. Let me deal with the only two argu-
756
ments that have been used. One is that the issue of Consols would lower the price of Consols, and the other is that this security ought to be reserved for a great national emergency. I think those two arguments are absolutely futile and preposterous. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London told us that the issue of Irish Land Stock carrying a larger interest would have more effect in lowering, the price of Consols than the issue of Consols. If there is one principle better known than another, it is this: that when you are dealing with these large money operations the smaller the amount of the stock the more it is affected by a fresh issue. Where you have a stock of £500,000,000 or £600,000,000, like Consols, it is like pouring water into a great reservoir. If you pour water into a small bath it will quickly rise to the level, but if you pour it into a great reservoir it will take a great deal to make it rise to the level. The same principle applies to operations in regard to stock. If you have a vast stock reaching £500,000,000 or £600,000,000, it takes a very large issue to affect the price of that stock. I am absolutely certain that the effect, so far as the lowering of the price of Consols is concerned by the issue of 3 or 2¾ per cent. Stock, would be greater than by the issuing of Consols. I challenge the Government to take the opinion of any of the great associations in the City on this particular question. If that be so, and I believe it is—and I doubt if the Government are prepared to resist that view—can it be contended for a single moment that the way suggested is the proper way to raise this money? We are told that this security must be reserved for a great emergency. I have two replies to make to that argument. The first is that this question of settling the Irish land question is a matter of great emergency. Surely the people of this country would never have consented to pledge their credit by the issue of Irish Land Stock to the extent of nearly £200,000,000 if they had not regarded it as a great national interest and a great national emergency. My second answer is that really I regard all this talk about reserving Consols for a great national emergency as mere quackery and hypocrisy. By this course you are endeavouring to throw dust in the eyes of the investing public to blind them, but the investing public are too cute, and will not be blinded, because they know every stock which is guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund is a pledge of the credit of this country quite as much as Consols. The

757
state of the Money Market shows that this policy affects the market more than Consols, because there is an uneasy feeling abroad that there is not this security behind this stock. The result is that except in the case of the investors who are well informed and go about the market looking for the best securities, this stock has fallen in the extraordinary way we have seen. Let us look at the history of this case, and let me recall the attention of the House to the fact that this is the first time in the whole history of Irish land purchase in which it has been proposed to finance Irish land purchase with stock bearing a higher rate of interest than the ordinary Consolidated Stock. In the days of the Ashbourne Acts, under which many millions of Irish Land Stock were issued, the money was always raised by Consols, which was then the ordinary method of finance. The first departure from that system was under Mr. Balfour's Act of 1891, when it was proposed to pay the landlords in stock and not in cash, and it was only on that ground this proposal was made, and they set up a separate stock. That was the rule until we came to the Act of 1896, when there was an option given to the landlords to be paid in stock. In 1903 the system of payment in cash was renewed, but even in that year I myself proposed that there should be a 2½ per cent. Stock issued on the principle that we should always keep the interest on Irish Land Stock at the same rate as on the general Consolidated Stock of the United Kingdom. But for reasons then put forward the stock was maintained at 2¾ per cent., which was then the interest on Consols, although that year the interest fell to 2½ per cent. This system was started in 1903, and we should always remember that the whole history of land purchase in Ireland is against this system. We have now had six years' experience of it, and that experience has been more and more disastrous the longer it has been tried, and it has come to the point that now on every £100 we are now losing £8. I will take for a moment or two the Runciman Report. What I want to draw attention to in that Report is that—
"almost all the suggestions which have been put before us by various witnesses have, in one form or another, contained the view that the requisite cash should be raised by the issue: of Consols rather than of Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock. Several reasons have been advanced for this suggestion, and in view of the unanimity with which they have been put forward we thought it incumbent upon us to have them examined with considerable care."
Again and again we pressed the Government to publish the evidence of that Com-
758
mission, but they obstinately refused to do so. The Report goes on to say:—
"It is contended that Consols command a relatively higher price than any other security, and comparison is made between them and Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock, showing that, notwithstanding the greater interest paid by the latter stock, its price has recently been within a point of that of Consols, whereas the true difference between them, if the yield is to be the same is over eight points with Consols at 85.
"In the first place, it must be remembered that Consols are the debt of the British Exchequer, whereas the Guaranteed Stock is primarily secured upon the Irish Land Purchase Fund.
Was there ever heard anything more preposterous?
"It ranks with all the other loans guaranteed by the British Government, and is classed among the contingent liabilities of the State, but is not shown in its debts."
I say it ought to be shown, and this is a very poor system of finance.
"It might indeed be held to be worth while to incur this risk if any commensurate reduction in the charges for land purchase were thereby assured. We are not, however, convinced that this would be the case."
This brings me to a fresh illustration which I think is an extremely strong point. I want to show how this will work out. One of the great changes made was the payment in stock instead of in cash. There are two different forms of payment in stock, but I will deal with the form provided for in Clause 3, under which it is optional for the landlord to accept payment in stock. The provisions of Clause 3 practically mean that the landlord loses £7 in every £100. I intend to propose an Amendment that the landlord should have the, option of taking his payment in stock or Consols at 84 on the same terms as he is offered Government Stock here at 92. The result would be that in the present state of the money market you would be able to pay the landlord in Consols and lose nothing. If you pay him in Irish Land Stock on the terms put here, the landlord would lose a very large sum of money. The Treasury are prepared to lose £8, and if you pay by Consols, whilst the Treasury would lose the same amount, the landlords would not by any means lose so much. The proposal I make would, in my opinion, save an enormous amount of money in carrying through this operation, and would ease the operation to a great extent. It would add no burden to the British Treasury, and in my opinion—and in this matter I have the support of most of the experts—instead of depressing the Consols market it would lift off that market what acts like a wet blanket, that is, the issue of Irish Stock bearing a larger interest and selling almost at the same price as Consols. I therefore strongly urge upon the Government

759
to enable us to take a clear issue on this matter, and to give the House the opportunity of recording its opinion on the relative merit of paying for land purchase by the issue of Consols and the issue of new Irish Land Stock.
Mr. J. S. AINSWORTH: I would like to urge the Government to take the proposal of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) under their serious consideration, and, if they do not feel able to give any pledge, as we can well understand they may not be able to do in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I hope they will be able to say that we shall have a statement, on the subject shortly, and that they will take the matter into favourable consideraion. I have always considered, and I think the House is now beginning to see, that the financial question in connection with the purchase of Irish land is the biggest which has ever been brought before the House. It is quite evident a very much larger sum than was at first anticipated will be required, and it is also evident, when we are face to face with raising a sum of money of this kind, every means open to the Government to raise it on the easiest possible terms should be taken. I cannot see why the Government should not take every possible means of raising the money in every way that may prove convenient to themselves and advantageous to the money market. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that it is a great mistake to multiply the number of different stocks unless they are issued for any particular reason. It always seems to me it would be a good thing to take the power to issue 3 per cent. Stock. It would enable the Government to offer it to mortgagees in payment of their claims. It certainly stands to reason if you can raise money cheaply by issuing Land Stock you ought to do so, because you are saving money and benefiting everybody. You get cash more easily and you are in a better position to deal with the Treasury as may be most convenient to them. I sincerely hope we shall have an answer from the Treasury, and that, if they cannot accept the proposal which is before the House now, they will undertake that we shall have a definite answer on the subject in a very short space of time.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Charles Hobhouse): I can assure the hon. Gentleman the
760
Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that the view he holds—though I am not quite sure whether he expressed it—that the Treasury, in feeling them selves unable to accept the proposals which he has outlined to the House, are animated by considerations other than those which might be referred to as the purely financial results, is without foundation, because in this question we are really animated purely and wholly—
Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely under a misapprehension. I strongly hold that the financial views of the Treasury are entirely mistaken.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I only want to make it quite clear that we are animated in this matter by nothing else than by fears and apprehensions as to the result upon Consols if we were to accept this suggestion. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who moved the deletion of paragraph (a), sees perfectly well that if this Amendment were carried it would not promote the cause which the hon. Member for Mayo and his friends have at heart. It would merely remove the ability of the Government to create a new capital stock. I do not think it is necessary to dwell upon the technicalities which would result if this Amendment were carried; but I would point out to the hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway that the acceptance of it would not have the effect which they desire. The hon. Member for Mayo asked me whether the Treasury, in taking the course it has adopted, has been in touch with the opinion of the City and of those who have to invest money in stocks of this character. It might be thought from the speech of the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London that he was voicing the wishes and sentiments of the City. In all that I have to say, I shall say it after having had personal conversation, and after having been in personal contact with, gentlemen well versed in finance, and who are cognisant of the general opinion of the City of London and the general Stock Market in this matter. I do not profess to put forward my own personal views upon the matter at all. It is only after consultation with the best financial authorities with whom I could get into touch that I venture to say what I am going to say to the House. I, therefore, respectfully deny the right of the hon. Member for the City of London to say that he is voicing the sentiments of the financial community generally.
Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentlemen will excuse me, but I never said that.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I never said you did.
Sir F. BANBURY: What I said was that I was voicing the sentiments of those who, from their experience and knowledge were able to give an opinion upon this question. It is only a small number of people in the City who can give an opinion.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: And I have had the pleasure of consulting those. The hon. Baronet first of all took exception to the creation of new capital stock, because he said it would involve the existence of two Irish Land Stocks, and the multiplicity of stocks must inevitably tend to diminish the price of one or the other. As a matter of fact, however, there are two Irish Land Stocks in existence at the present moment, one which was raised under the Act of 1901, and the other which was raised under the Act of 1903. There is, therefore, not so fundamental a difficulty in the existence of two Irish Land Stocks as the hon. Baronet thinks, because there are two already in existence.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am perfectly well aware of that.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Let me assure the hon. Baronet that it is not the existence of a multiplicity of stocks which is so detrimental to the price at which they can be either issued or subsequently bought. It is the constant issue of fresh stock which depreciates the market. The hon. Baronet instanced the stock of Mr. Goschen in 1888, reducing the number of the varieties of Consols, but at the time that particular kind of stock existed Consols were very high, and stood at a considerable price for a long time afterwards. It was only the new issue of Consols subsequent to the war which brought down the price of Consols to the present low level. The hon. Baronet went on to say that it would not be the issue of new Consols for the purpose of Irish land purchase which would depress Consols. He said it was the issue of Land Stock which depressed Consols.
Sir F. BANBURY: What I said was that a fresh issue of Consols would depress Consols, but that a fresh issue of Land Stock would depress Land Stock and also Consols, because it would tend to show that the credit of the English Government was on the basis of Irish Land Stock and
762
not on the basis of Consols. It would cause people to sell Consols to buy Irish Land Stock, which returns a higher percentage.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I did not wish to misrepresent the hon. Baronet, but I took down what he said was a reason for the depression of Consols, and it was the constant issue of Irish Land Stock. A much greater cause for the depression of Consols is the fact that there are on the market the Floating Debt Exchequer Bonds, and so forth, which form an attractive security both for bankers and insurance companies. Holders of gilt-edged securities infinitely prefer these securities to Consols, because there is no possibility of depreciation, and because they are redeemable within a comparatively short space of time. That, and not the issue of Land Stock, has affected the price of Consols in the market at the present time. I want to deal more directly with the point raised by the hon. Member for Mayo as to the advisability of issuing Consols for the purpose of financing the Irish land purchase instead of doing it by a guaranteed 2¾ per cent, or 2½ per cent. Irish Land Stock. I do not think the hon. Member did justice to the difference which exists in the minds of investors between Guaranteed Stock, which only has a contingent liability upon the Consolidated Fund, and Consols, which are a direct charge upon that same Consolidated Fund. Whether for good or evil, investors have made up their minds that there is a great difference between the two. While I am by no means certain they are not wrong in the conclusion at which they have come, it is at all events at the present moment impossible to persuade them that one stock is as good as the other. The financial advantages which the hon. Gentleman attaches to the proposed change in the present method of financing Irish land purchase rests entirely upon the assumption that the difference between the price of Consols and Irish Land Stock would always continue at the same ratio as it is to-day; but, supposing, as everybody supposes, the issue of £80,000,000 of stock reduced the price of Consols so as to bring it to a difference of seven or eight points, which ought to subsist between 2½ per cent. Consols and 2¾ per cent. Guaranteed Land Stock, you would at once have lost all the advantage which you had hoped to gain from the change of method. If I am right—and I only voice the opinions

763
I have collected in the City—in assuming that not merely the issue of a new stock, but the fear of constantly recurring issues from quarter to quarter, from six months to six months, and from year to year, including issues of Consols, will depreciate the price of Consols, you will at once lose all the advantage you hope to gain. There is another thing to be remembered in this conjunction. It is this fear of constantly new issues which has depressed the price of the 2¾ per cent. Guaranteed Land Stock. The moment you cease that issue, if it were known there were to be no more issues of this 2¾ per cent. Guaranteed Land Stock, what would follow would be that while you are depressing Consols the price of the 2¾ per cent. Guaranteed Stock would go up. It would become apparent you had embarked upon a very bad bargain in attempting to finance yourself by means of Consols rather than by means of Irish Land Stock. There is another question to be recollected in this connection. It is this. Supposing you adopt the proposal of the hon. Member for Mayo, are you going to keep two different sorts of Consols, one of which is to be ear-marked for the purpose of Irish land purchase, and the other for the ordinary demands of the market. You have to recollect that there is a specific sinking fund attached to the 2¾ per cent. Stock. Is that specific sinking fund to be abolished in the case of Consols, be cause, if not, you have to keep a separate set of books and a separate register of all Consols which are used for the purpose of Irish land purchase. And this has got to be recollected, in connection with this subject, that at the present moment the price of Consols is kept up, even to the low level at which it stands to-day, by constant purchases in the open market by the National Debt Commissioners, and if, for one reason or another, these purchases were to stop, the price of Consols would drop very much at once. I hope the lion. Baronet will, at all events, agree upon—
Sir F. BANBURY: No; not at all.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am sorry he will not agree to anything, but in that case he stands entirely by himself in connection with financial transactions, of which I always thought he was a master.
Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how this was worked under the Ashbourne Acts?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I confess the hon. Gentleman has me at a disadvantage, which I at once acknowledge. I confess I am not familiar with the working of all the financial transactions in connection with Irish land purchase, and in particular with that of the Ashbourne Act, which came into operation 22 or 24 years ago—23 years ago—half a generation before my time. I have endeavoured to show, and I am afraid I have presented it, in rather a lame and halting fashion to the House, a very difficult problem, but I have endeavoured to make clear the position of the Treasury in this case, that we do stand on this one main point, that if you add enormously, as you must do, if you are to finance Irish land purchase by Consols, to the dead weight debt of this country, you at once reduce the credit of this country; you will reduce the price of Consols. You will set up on the other hand, and in many cases, the operation of the Sinking Fund, on the price of 4 per cent. Guaranteed Stock, and the Treasury will be at once accused of having made an exceedingly bad bargain and of departing from those orthodox methods of dealing with land purchase which I think have been sanctioned for some time by previous legislation. We should not hesitate to embark upon this course if we had any belief that you would advantage persons who purchase land in Ireland or those who sell. We hope we are not actuated in any way by pedantry in this matter, but acting upon the advice of those who are best qualified to know the state of the money market and its probable fluctuations and the wishes of the general investing public of England, we feel that we must adhere to the present means of financing Irish land purchase.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I would like to make it quite clear to the House the position we take up in this master. We are not asking for any new stock. We want the old stock, the 2¾ per cent. Stock, to remain, as under the present law, and we want the loan under that stock to be borne in the same way as the loan is going to be borne on existing transactions of 52 millions by the Treasury. Therefore, we are not asking for the issue of any new stock, but the Government come forward and they insist on endeavouring to meet the loss on future transactions by proposing a 3 per cent. Stock, that is to say, to take a power to issue this 3 per cent. Stock. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo and we are asking for is this: that while they are taking the power to

765
issue a 3 per cent. Stock in future in the room of issuing short bonds, that, in addition, they should take the power, if they think fit, of issuing Consols. My hon. Friend's proposals would not compel the Treasury to deal with this matter by Consols, any more than this Resolution in regard to short bills would compel them to deal with it by short bills. What possible objection can the Treasury have to having this additional option given to it? The right hon. Gentleman says he is advised, in the present state of things in the City and the money market, that it would not be desirable to use that option if they had it. Is that a reason for not taking the power? Even though the Government did not use the power, other Governments in five or six years' time might find it desirable to do so, and why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to take this option? I should like to know whether putting into this Resolution these words, to take the power to issue money bills, or bonds, and so forth—does that mean necessarily that the Government are going to adopt that method of dealing? Nothing of the kind. It means that they only take the power, and what we want is that they should take the power of issuing Consols, as well as take the power of issuing 3 per cent. Stock or bonds. I have not the knowledge to enable me to deal adequately with financial questions of this sort, but I do call the attention of the House again to the fact mentioned by my hon. Friend that this Runciman Committee only met a few months ago; it took the opinion of every financial expert in the City of London, including the Governor of the Bank of England—I know I ought not to mention names in this connection—but I know, because I have been informed, that practically every financial expert in the City was examined by that Committee, and what do the Committee report: "Almost all the suggestions that have been put before us by our various witnesses have been that Consols should be issued." I think a very unfair method was taken by the Government with reference to this Report. When it was issued to us, and we saw paragraphs like that in it, we thought it would be of enormous importance that we should have the evidence given before this Committee. The Government have refused from that date to this to let us see the evidence, they have refused to give us a list of the names of the witnesses, and yet in view of the fact that all these witnesses reported in
766
favour of Consols, the right hon. Gentleman comes down and says that he has examined presumably the same people, and that they have changed their minds. The Runciman Committee was so impressed by the weight of evidence in favour of Consols that they actually said that if they could be convinced that a saving would ensue to the Treasury by issuing Consols, that it would be worth while taking all the risks and putting aside other methods. There is a strong case to be made in favour of issuing Consols, but, as I said before, we are not asking the right hon. Gentleman to say he will issue Consols, we are not asking him to do so; all we ask is that he should take this additional power of issuing Consols, in addition to the power of issuing 3 per cent. Stock on short bonds. Our position is clear. We look upon this as an alternative—an option—but we do not put it forward as an alternative policy. We do not want him to issue Consols, but we want him to have the power to do so. If we cannot get the old stock continued we want this option put in. I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to give us some more satisfaction than the right hon. Gentleman has done. He, at any rate, ought to enable us to have this option put in knowing perfectly well that we shall not be compelled, if the financial opinion of the Treasury does not warrant it, to put that option into force. I press upon him very strongly to make this issue, which cannot cost the Treasury a farthing, and cannot cause any confusion to the finances of the country.
Captain CRAIG: I think the hon. Gentleman failed to understand the argument of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). All through his remarks, which he wrapped up in some mysterious way so as to make the case look more complicated than it really is, there seemed to be a feeling that no matter which step was taken the Treasury would find considerable difficulty in raising the money. The point really before the Committee is whether it would not be better to adhere to the system of having one large stock which is known throughout the length and breadth of the country. It would have been far better to stick to 2¾ per cent. Stock than to issue this 3 per cent. Stock. The expense in connection with these smaller stocks is much greater than that of Consols. There is no more marketable or liquid security in the country than Consols. Three per cent. Stock, £5,000,000 now,

767
£5,000,000 next year, and £5,000,000 the next, is the very worst class of stock for dealing in. In the case of Consols, the transfer of £1,000,000 hardly affects the market, and the broker's and jobber's return is so small that it naturally lends itself to the appreciation of every trustee and everyone who has to do with financial transactions of the kind. In Lord Goschen's time there were three distinct stocks outstanding of the same class as the present Consols—the reduced three's, the new three's, and Consols. Lord Goschen said nothing could be worse than to have several classes of stocks floating about with varying rates of interest and varying charges, and he immediately consolidated them, and now right hon. Gentlemen are going to try to revert back to the old state of affairs where they will not only have Consols, but will also have the 1891 Land Stock, the 1903 Land Stock, and now this proposed 1909 3 per cent. Land Stock. Any wise Chancellor of the Exchequer would consolidate them. The difficulties are immense in calculating for investment purposes which stock is the better to take, and some remarks which have been made below the Gangway will throw dust into the eyes of these people. It is not as though it made any difference at all against the Government. All is in favour of the Government sticking to one large stock. The right hon. Gentleman did not advance a single argument in favour of this grave step. As soon as I saw the Resolution which was to be brought forward to-day I immediately foresaw what difficulty would be created, and when one considers the saving to the Treasury and to everyone who has any transactions in these stocks it is absolutely ridiculous to create a small stock bearing a varying rate of interest to the larger stocks now in existence.
I believe you could issue £50,000,000 of Consols in a few years, if it was known there would not be these smaller issues of £5,000,000, £2,000,000, and £3,000,000, without disturbing the market so much as right hon. Gentlemen fancy. A great supporter of the Government stated last year that £40,000,000 could be raised without disturbing the market at all. When the market is confidently told there will be no more issues for many years to come the whole of the guarantee that is necessary to carry out this gigantic scheme is so much, 40, 50, or 60 millions, and the City will say it is wise of us to make the issue in one large block of that nature,
768
and we are free of this perpetual chopping and changing by those in charge of the finances of the country. The right hon. Gentleman says they are animated solely by fears of the effect on Consols. He did not mention the evidence taken by the Runciman Commission, which was all in favour of Consols and none against Consols. To tell us that since then all these experts have changed their minds and warned them against the issue of Consols seems absurd. I cannot conceive what the object is in tampering or fiddling with this in the manner proposed, and I cannot conceive why the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the very grave objection made by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who is very fair in the manner in which he puts forward the financial aspects of the argument, which generally prove to be right, and if there is no better argument to be brought forward on behalf of the Government than that of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I really think he might give way on the matter and keep the option till some more sensible Treasury officials are in power who desire to save the ratepayers' money and not to place any more burden on either landlord or the tenant, because that is the effect of it. That is the effect of it. The question is a simple one. It is a matter of taking the nettle firmly in the hand, grasping it, and being done with it. If you would only take up the matter boldly, instead of piecemeal, as is now proposed, and unsettling the whole financial arrangements of those who invest in these particular stocks, I think it would be to the advantage not only of the Treasury but of the great scheme which we hope eventually will be carried out.
Mr. WILLIAM MOORE: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury indicated that if this Amendment were carried it would mean an obstacle in the carrying out of land purchase in Ireland. I wish to say distinctly for my hon. Friends and myself that in supporting the Amendment we are in no way putting any obstacle in the way of the supply of Imperial funds or the credit which the Act of 1903 contemplated as part of the essential means by which what is often called a national bargain is to be carried out. Nor do we desire to put any obstacle in the way, and if we do support the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), it is solely because we object to the method and not to the granting of the money, and also because we cannot realise that there is any ground for the argument which

769
the Secretary to the Treasury brought forward that if the Amendment were carried, it would necessarily mean an obstacle in the carrying out of land purchase. If the Amendment were carried, land purchase would go on just the same as it is going on, or as it was going on successfully under the late Government, and until under the present Government, the failure to raise the necessary funds caused the block which everyone interested in the welfare of Ireland must deplore. That seemed to be the only argument in the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury, and I was rather surprised to hear so much reliance placed upon the opinion of the City. I always understood that this Government were able in all other matters to ignore the opinion of the City in their financial proposals. But on this occasion, as I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, a selected few are able to put him on a line of Irish financial policy which has received the condemnation of every representative of Irish opinion in this House. We are asked on the ipse dixit of the right hon. Gentleman to believe that the Amendment will throw an obstacle in the way of land purchase. Beyond that statement he has given no adequate reason why the Treasury should come down here with a non possumus and say that they are going to create this 3 per cent. Stock, and that they will listen to no argument against the proposal from those interested in land purchase being carried through. It is a matter between the distributing authority in Ireland and the Treasury in this country. In other words, under the Act of 1903 there was to be a cash advance made to enable the purchaser to carry out the sale made by the vendor, and it was immaterial both to the vendor and the purchaser what loss was directly occasioned in each particular transaction by the fall in Land Stock owing to the inability of that particular stock by which the money was secured to remain at par. In other words, the currency of the people who were invited to enter into land transactions was a cash currency. We know that originally it was intended that the payment should be in stock, and that there would have been considerable loss to the Treasury when stock went up to 113. We know that then the Treasury, represented by the lineal progenitor of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, said that they could not allow the vendors to get stock at 113, and, therefore, they said that under the Land Purchase Act of 1903 the purchase money was to be paid in
770
cash. Inasmuch as Irish Land Stock is now 14 or 15 below par, the Treasury turn round and say that it is no longer to be cash. That is really what the Government policy is. The Government say that they are going to issue this new capital stock ad hoc, and that the vendor is to be paid in that stock if he will take it. Of course, the vendor will be compelled to take it, because he is told at once by the distributing authority, with the Treasury at its back, "We do not compel you to take this stock, but if you do not your case will be dealt with long after the estates of those vendors who are willing to take stock." I cordially associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that the 2¾ per cent. Stock, by reason of its being a special stock, is not in popular favour. It is hard to understand why it should not be in favour. It has been christened on the Stock Exchange "bog stock," and it is not popular with timid investors. I have a very keen recollection that it was argued in this House in the Debates which took place after the findings of the Runciman Committee that if Irish Land Stock were quoted and dealt in at its real value, it would be at least five points above Consols. The price to-day is nearly the same, and in that sense it is an absolutely depreciated stock. We are assured by the Chief Secretary that it is a stock which cannot realise its own value in the market, and under the Bill this stock is to be the actual currency between the vendor and purchaser. I would ask the House to consider the question in this way. In the first place the stock is to be issued as a depreciated stock, although in the Bill it is dealt with as having its face value. It is to be issued at 92. It may be worth 92, but, according to the facts and figures as we have them to-day, you cannot sell the stock at above 87. You are, therefore, creating a stock which is twice depreciated. It is to be issued at 92, but it is so unpopular that you can only sell it at 87. It is not to the credit of the Imperial Parliament, which has made this the matter of a great national settlement, that you should induce a man for the sake of his country to part with his land to a purchaser and then pay him for that land in a doubly depreciated stock. There is no question about that being the policy of the Bill, or about the indirect compulsion to be exercised upon vendors to accept this stock. That will be a thoroughly unfair transaction, and one

771
most likely to be carried through if the Treasury are given power to issue a third stock. This will be another reason operating towards the slow working of land purchase. You will have difficulty in getting investors to put their money into a stock which, unless it is. carefully explained to them, they will not understand is as good a security as Consols; but it will be a still more difficult thing u) get a man to sell all he has in the world or to come to an agreement with his tenants if you give him a stock in which investors will not readily invest, and of which, when it has to be turned into money, he has a difficulty in disposing, and then only at less than its face value. If this Bill makes the face value of this doubly depreciated stock the basis of transactions between vendor and purchaser, it will be an obstacle to land purchase, because you will create a direct inducement to the vendor not to accept a stock of this sort. I shall, therefore, have pleasure in supporting the hon. Member for the City of London if he goes to a Division.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I think we are entitled to take note of the fact that since this Bill was last under discussion there has been a complete change of front on the part of the Treasury. The Secretary to the Treasury on that occasion, it is true, did not deal at length with this question of providing for the emergency which has arisen in the matter of land purchase in Ireland by the issuing of a 2½ per cent. Stock; but he did glance at it. He told the Committee that the issue of a 2½ per cent. Stock was impossible, his only reason being that the issue of Consols should be reserved for a national emergency. I am glad that that argument, at any rate, has been abandoned to-day. There is no talk now about a national emergency, and if the Chief Secretary addresses the House on this question I think the last proposition he will venture to put forward is that the state of things existing in Ireland today is not something in the nature of a national emergency, and a very grave national emergency indeed. The proposition that this stock should be issued only in case of a national emergency is quite inconsistent with the argument put forward by the Secretary to the Treasury today. He now says that there would be no advantage in issuing this stock. If that is the case, what was the necessity for telling us on the last occasion that the reason this stock could not be issued was that it
772
should only be issued in the case of a national emergency? If it is the case, as we know for the first time to-day, that no advantage would result lo land purchase from this process, there was not the smallest necessity for telling us that the issue of Consols could only be undertaken in such a contingency as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. The refusal of the Treasury to deal with this grave situation in the manner called for in the Amendment is in effect a denial to Ireland of Imperial credit. With Imperial credit we assert that money could be raised at 2½ per cent. When we want money for English or Imperial purposes you are quick enough to pledge the Imperial credit; it is only when money is required for an Irish purpose that the Imperial credit is refused, and you go to the public in a manner which on its very face depreciates the security offered. This is not a new experience with us in Ireland. I well remember when the Liberal Government of 1883 was initiating its policy of the extension of railways in Ireland, and it was proposed that the money should be raised partly by means of the Imperial credit and partly by means of local guarantees. On that occasion also the Imperial credit was lent in the same stepmotherly fashion. The money was to be raised by a baronial guarantee, recouped to some extent by a grant from the Treasury We proposed that the money should be raised by an Imperial guarantee, the Imperial Exchequer being recouped from the baronies. It made all the difference; to the baronies which method was adopted. In the one case we could have got the money at 3 per cent.; in the other the baronies had to go to the market and raise the money, in many cases at 5 per cent. There would have been no loss to the Exchequer, and the baronies would have saved 2 per cent. We are now having a similar experience on a much larger scale. The Secretary to the Treasury has used only two arguments to-day. He told us, in the first place, that the debt to be created for the purpose of advancing Irish land transactions was different in its character from the ordinary public debt of the throe countries. That, of course, is so. I do not know whether I am correct in using the term "deadweight debt," but I think that that is the expression generally used to distinguish between debt which is a sheer weight on the taxpayer and debt represented by assets in the guarantee of a local authority or income derived from some investment, such as Suez Canal shares, or

773
something else of that kind, where the money has to be paid only in certain contingencies. The hon. Member for East Mayo made a complete reply to that argument in an interruption to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, when he pointed out that this is no new proposal. Money was raised in this way in Ireland, certainly for a period of five years, and to a smaller extent for a period of nearly 20 years. Land purchase transactions in Ireland started as far back as 1869, and, at any rate, transactions on a substantial scale were going on in the manner which the Secretary to the Treasury says is a practical impossibility from the passing of the Act of 1885 down to the date when the Leader of the Opposition passed the Act coupled with his name in 1892. It is quite true that the debt created for the purpose of financing the Ashbourne Act of 1885 stands upon a somewhat different footing from the general debt of the country. It is not what you call a dead-weight debt, and any liability in respect of it only falls on the taxpayer on a contingency. But the right hon. Gentleman says, "To do what you ask us would compel us to keep a second set of books." That was the sum and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition—that the National Debt Commissioners would be compelled to do this dreadful thing, keep a second set of books, in order to earmark that portion of Consols which is secured by the annuities derived from Irish land from the rest of the National Debt, which is secured in no such way. Are we seriously to be told that the keeping of a new set of books by the National Debt Commissioners is such a grave matter that it is a reason for refusing us Imperial credit in the manner in which it is refused here to-day? The keeping of these books has nothing to do with the investing public. They know nothing about it. The man who holds £100 worth of Consols, the proceeds of which were applied to financing the Ashbourne Act of 1885, has not the remotest idea, and has no reason to think that his money was applied in that way. It appears in some book kept in the offices of the National Debt Commissioners that the fund was so applied, but the investing public have nothing to do with that fact, and it never comes under their notice. If the National Debt Commissioners decide to take unto themselves the powers which we are recommending, and exercise those powers, it is perfectly true that they would have to keep in their office a set of books to distinguish the portion of stock which has
774
been applied for this particular purpose, and which only throws a contingent burden on the ratepayer, from the rest of the debt of the United Kingdom. And it is only trifling with us in a very serious matter to urge that as a serious argument why the Treasury should refuse to do what we are asking. The other proposition of the right hon. Gentleman is that here would be no financial advantage in raising the proposed stock. That involves the proposition that if there is an issue of £5,000,000 of Consols in order to finance land purchase, there would forthwith be a drop of 7 per cent, in Consols. Is that a credible proposition? Is it seriously put forward to us that the issue of £5,000,000 of Consols, with the possibility of further issues from year to year or more remote periods, as would be required for the purposes of land purchase, is an operation which will cause Consols forthwith to drop from 85 to 78? That is the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury put forward, and I think that though he was on bad ground when he told us that the motive which actuated the Treasury was that this stock should be reserved for a great national emergency he is on still worse ground when he wants us to believe that the issue of £5,000,000 of Consols would mean an immediate drop from 85 to 78. We have been greatly disappointed with the flat refusal which the Treasury has urged in reply to the arguments which have been issued from those benches. Already it has been pointed out that we are not asking them to pledge themselves to the issue of these Consols if they do not find it expedient to do so. But we are asking them that they shall not tie their hands, and put it out of their power to raise money at 2½ per cent, should it become possible for them to do so. The original precedent by which it is sought to justify the issue of stock at a higher rate of interest than that which is paid on the general debt of the country, namely, the case of 1890, when the Leader of the Opposition introduced his Bill, is really no precedent for it at all. When the Leader of the Opposition introduced his Bill Consols were paying 2¾ per cent, interest. It is true that an Act had been passed by the late Lord Goschen converting the debt, and consolidaing it, and ultimately reducing the interest on Consols to 2½ per cent. No doubt it was 2¾ per cent, dropping to 2½ per cent. in ten years. But the rate of interest which Consols were paying was 2¾ per cent., and

775
practically he could have put nothing else in his Bill but 2¾ per cent I am not going to dwell on my last point as to the peril in which the present proposals of the Government place the whole system of land purchase in Ireland. In my view these clauses which we are now discussing are the sum and substance of the whole Bill. The question is not whether this Bill gives us certain advantages. The question is what is to be the influence on land purchase in Ireland of this Bill as a whole? If it suspends land purchase as it is bound to do, then, whatever advantages it gives, it is a bad Bill. This Amendment at any rate gives the Government some opportunity of putting land purchase in Ireland, if the finances of the Kingdom should be favourable, on the old footing, and in refusing, not to bind themselves to issue 2½ per cent. Stock, but in refusing to take powers to do so, they arc further imperilling the future of land purchase and pledging themselves, as I believe, to a policy which will end in its complete suspension.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): By some sort of, I dare say, sensible arrangement, we are now discussing whether the Government should take to itself power by any provisions in this Bill to raise the funds required to carry out land purchase in Ireland in the future by the issue of Consolidated Stock. Although the actual Amendment before the House has a different effect, and is one which I hardly think by itself would secure any large measure of support from hon. Gentlemen opposite, I quite agree that was are now dealing with this question in the form in which it has been raised, as to whether it would be a wise, prudent, or proper course for the Government, in face of the problem of land purchase still remaining unsolved, amounting to a great number of millions, we have to consider how tar that money should be provided by the issue of Consols. Of course, that is not an Irish matter, strictly so-called. Although it will affect Irish interests, it is not a question falling strictly within my province as Chief Secretary. This question is what is called sometimes "high finance," and we have been given to understand by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that, in his judgment, there are not more than half-a-dozen people in the wide universe, and I am not one of them, who are capable of
776
giving the House practical advice on matters of that kind. I do not claim to belong to the inner circle of City authorities, and, therefore, I feel myself in this matter bound by authority. The suggestion is that this matter of Irish land purchase should be absorbed in the general obligations of the country. Hitherto in all our transactions, from the Ashbourne Acts downwards, land purchase in Ireland has been considered as a thing by itself. The proposal on which the Act of 1903 was based was that, in order to secure peace, concord, and the settlement of Ireland and her social interests money should be provided to enable tenants and other persons who are desirous of becoming landlords in Ireland to purchase their holdings from the existing landlords without any loss, except so far as the bonus is concerned, to the British Exchequer at all. The proposal was to obtain money by loan, and that the whole debt should be got rid of by means of a sinking fund provided for in the annuity itself. Therefore, the question never arose at all in connection with the general debt of the country, but as a particular transaction that should be recommended to the House as, on the whole, a business transaction, whereby money could be procured and repaid in something like 68½ years by means of that convenient thing the Sinking Fund.
As regards the Ashbourne Act, the hon. Member for Mayo almost created the impression in my mind at the moment that the moneys for that Act were provided by Consols. It is not so; they were provided for by what is now known as Local Loans Stock. It was a very small transaction, almost experimental, and limited to five million pounds. Nobody ever dreamt in those days of its ever being absorbed in the broad bosom of the National Debt. Such an idea never entered into anybody's mind. At all events, the Ashbourne Acts were not financed through the means of Consolidated Stock. The loans were limited in amount, made for a particular purpose, and repaid by the sinking fund included in the annuity in the manner which I cited to the House the other night. Therefore it is a new proposal. It is a proposal which was never contemplated at the time of the Act of 1903, and it is a proposal which meets with the strongest possible opposition from the Treasury. They are adamant on the point. They always have been ever since I have had anything to do with this thorny question. They never contemplated the issue of Consols as being the proper mode of dealing with the

777
question. To-day we have had the question argued, as it were, on its merits, and we have been assured by hon. Gentleman opposite and by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that by the issue of Consols 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80 millions of money could be obtained according as it is wanted for the growing purpose of land purchase, which I hope will continue and increase. The amount of money we shall want every year will be at least 10 millions, and we are told that it possibly may exceed that sum, but that, it is said, can be absorbed by the market by the issue of Consols without in any way affecting the price of the commodity. I am not an authority on this point. Consols have always been a mystery to me, and their fluctuations are beyond my ken, but they are very important to the interests of the State. It is of no use to say that supposing they do fall a little, what does that matter? A small fall in the price of Consols in a thousand ways interferes with and affects the general welfare of this country from the financial point of view. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. W. Moore) to say with confidence, no doubt from information which has been given to him by someone, that there is nothing in it at all, and that you could issue 10, 15, or 20 millions of Consols a year for this purpose.
Mr. W. MOORE: We have the stock-broking experience of the hon. and gallant Member for East Down.
Mr. BIRRELL: I would not for a moment question the perfect right of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make such a statement, because I am quite sure he made it on authority. It is an opinion which hon. Members have a perfect right to hold that you can raise 50, 60, or 70 or 100 millions by further issues of Consols as required from time to time and year by year, because it is the very essence of the proper working of land purchase in Ireland that whenever the money is wanted it should be forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman says, I think, that we can do that, and that we need not have any anxiety on the subject at all, and that if these issues are only consolidated in one great stock the price will not go down. Lord Goschen was referred to as a great authority in favour of the consolidation of stocks. I daresay he was a great authority, and that it may have been a very good thing to have consolidated stock, but, at all events, this consolidated stock at the present moment
778
commands a much lower price in the market than the separate stocks did before they were consolidated. That, no doubt, is not due to any misapprehension on the part of Lord Goschen, but simply to the fact that the credit of the country is not what it was, and that can easily be accounted for by the fact that Consols are no longer the favourite investment they were at the time when trustees and almost everybody invested large sums in Consols. They do so no longer. Some reasons for that were given by my right hon. Friend, and these make it certain that in future you cannot expect investors to go to Consols in the way they used to do. Therefore it is a matter which I quite agree—speaking not on my own account, but simply speaking as a pious Churchman would speak upon matters which have been declared authoritatively by the General Council—it would be very ill-advised for persons, unless they feel themselves to be supported by a very great amount of authority, to assume that Consols themselves can assume this obligation with reference to Irish land. Irish land purchase is a transaction of a particular kind, not a transaction, in my judgment, involving great risk, but a very different transaction from that of the general obligation of the country. We cannot issue, as you would have us do year by year, 10 or 15 millions of Consols for the purpose of financing land purchase. You might very materially and seriously reduce the price of Consols. All I can say is that is what I am told, and I am bound to say I can see reason for it. At all events, it is impossible for me in a matter of that kind to reject the authority of persons who put that view before me, although, on the whole, I resisted it argumentatively for the purpose of bringing the whole force of the argument against me as strongly as I reasonably could. I cannot go into the question as to who those authorities are. My right hon. Friend has told you that he has been into the City of London and taken advice, and the advice is contrary to the suggestion that this great land transaction should be taken over by the nation on the same terms and basis as the transactions of the country at large. No Consols have been issued since 1902. The question I have to put to hon. Gentlemen opposite is whether they contend that the price of Consols, low as it is at present, and maintained by the consideration that issues of Consols are matters of very rare occurrence, whether the fact that every year there

779
was to be this great addition or considerable addition to Consols of several millions every year, might not very likely affect the price of Consols? We are advised most positively that it would. Then the suggestion is made very seductively by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) that all they want by the actual Amendment which they wish some time or other to introduce, is to give the Treasury the option of issuing Consols, and it is said, Why should the Treasury resist an option and why should it not be free to deal with this great and difficult problem, as suggested in this particular Amendment? The answer of the Treasury is, first of all, although I think the Treasury is successful in resisting pressure—at all events made by me—the answer is that they know the effect which would be produced on the market by the mere possibility that Consols may be interfered with, and that the issue of them may at any time be increased by a demand from the Treasury resulting from pressure. But of the two evils they would very much prefer that they should simply have the option which they would be able to seek to resist rather than have compulsion put upon them. They hold the option itself would have an evil effect upon the price of Consols. You may say what a sensitive thing Consols are and how easily investors are affected.
That is the general statement. I am not concerned to controvert it, but everybody does know that the markets are subject to those extraordinary fluctuations and sentiment and influences which no sane man could hope to express in plain language. At all events, the Treasury feel that, were an option imposed upon them, the pressure to which they would be exposed to exercise that option in a particular way by the united demand of Ireland in this matter, and I quite agree there is a united claim on this point, would be to expose them not only to temptation but the credit of the country to a risk which they are not willing it should run. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy) said that Ireland was entitled to the credit of the country, and that the credit of the country, in the form hitherto given, was doing her harm. Anybody knows that Consols, as standing now, produce within a few pence of 3 per cent., so that 3 per cent, is therefore the credit of the country. There is no good talking of the credit of the country being 2½ per cent. It is a 3 per cent, credit, and that we
780
are giving to Ireland under the Bill. Being, as I am, charged with the conduct of this Bill, and also being as full alive as any man could be to the enormous importance of providing the best possible means of raising this enormous sum of money which is necessary to complete land purchase, which has got to be completed everybody agrees, I should be glad to try and seek to ease my path in any way that was open to me, but I really cannot even pretend to set my judgment, which, I confess, is very much affected by the arguments that are employed by the Treasury, I cannot affect to set any wishes or private desires of my own in order to facilitate a measure in which I am deeply interested—or even land purchase, which is a matter of first-class importance—I cannot set my judgment against those who are entitled to advise me and also the Government and the House in this matter. Mention has been made of the Government acceding in any way to the opinion of the City in this instance, and hon. Gentlemen have said how foolish it is in this particular instance to pay any attention to the City.
Mr. W. MOORE: What I said was that it was a matter of some surprise as being contrary to the general policy of the Government in all other transactions that in this one they should rely on financial opinion in the City in this, case and not in others, and that I did not understand why.
Mr. BIRRELL: I think it was a pity the hon. and learned Gentleman should have implied—
Mr. MOORE: Is that an answer?
Mr. BIRRELL: I will not pursue the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman has had the satisfaction of a sneer, and I hope will feel gratified. In this particular matter I can only repeat what I have already said, that the Government in this case are not in any way animated by the faintest desire to do anything but that which would facilitate land purchase in Ireland. If by this simple process of taking over transactions which hitherto have been kept separate and treated as one, if by taking them over as a great national obligation the path of land purchase was going to be smoothed without injury to British credit or to the maintaining of the price of a great national security, why, we would have gladly done it. But we are satisfied, for the reasons which have been given by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hobhouse), and to some extent

781
repeated by myself, that that course cannot be safely adopted. Gentlemen opposite may come in hereafter, and I do not know whether my right hon. Friend opposite is going to say that the moment he comes into power he will lightly undertake this obligation. If it is so, one would like to hear him say it. The Government, for the time being responsible for the whole interests of the country, think that the experiment, seductive and tempting as it may seem, is one that they cannot possibly accede to.
Mr. WALTER LONG: The Chief Secretary invited me to say what I am going to do when I come into power. What will happen to my party is one thing,' and I think I would rather wait until that first question is settled before I give an answer. I confess I am very sorry for this difficulty of the Government, and after listening very carefully to the speech of the Financial Secretary and the Chief Secretary I find it very difficult to understand why the Treasury have arrived at this attitude. I have myself, with some experience of the Treasury, unlimited respect for the immense experience and knowledge which is possessed by the distinguished gentlemen who have advised successive Governments. Nobody realises more than I do the very deep debt we owe to those distinguished men for the great services they have rendered to the State by keeping successive Governments and successive Ministers straight on questions where they might easily err if it were not for the assistance in the Treasury of those very distinguished men. In this case what have been the reasons given by the representative of the Treasury and that which have been accepted by the Chief Secretary as conclusive evidence against the adoption of this proposal? They have relied, I think, upon three reasons, and the third has been entirely within the region of speculation. The positive statements are that you have now got two stocks, and therefore there is no reason for not adding a third. I demur altogether to that. I venture to say if the Government were able to start a better precedent by so doing they would be offering a very considerable advantage to Ireland, and people here too. The other difference and the other objection was one that I confess I listened to with amazement. That was the statement that there is a real difference, an actual difference, from the point of view of the investor, as between Consols and Guaranteed Stock. If there is that
782
difference I venture to say it is the strongest argument in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend and of the scheme which has been advocated from this side of the House.
If there is that difference, then I can only say that it must arise out of some complete ignorance on the part of the investor as to what Irish Stock really is. I am inclined to agree with the Financial Secretary that there must be a large amount of ignorance in the public mind: they do not understand what Guaranteed Stock really means. If that be true, surely, then, it is an argument as powerful as could be advanced for the abolition of a system which misleads the public; and, consequently, produces this result: that the stock in question does not stand at its fair market value. Why? Not because it is not worth the money, or good stock, or without security, but because the public have formed what is practically an erroneous opinion about it, and are not prepared to accept it at its proper value. If that be true, as it appears to be—I admit that the argument is one that is clearly comprehensible—it tells entirely against the case of the Government and in favour of the alteration which we desire to make. When I was Chief Secretary—towards the end of my time—-I found that Irish Land Stock was not going so well as I and others desired. I made considerable inquiries from bankers and stockbrokers of great experience and eminence in the City, and asked the reason for it. One of the reasons was this very doubt as to the meaning of Guaranteed Stock. Another reason given by every one of these gentlemen was that owing to the fact that there were two different kinds of stock—Consols and the peculiar Irish Stock—the Irish Stock had not its fair chance in the market.
We come to the final argument advanced by the Chief Secretary: that you must not ask this country to risk Consols. It is well known that there are not to-day the same large number of regular investors in Consols that there were 20 or 30 years ago. Insurance societies and others do not hold the same amount. If that be true, what is it that we are asking Parliament to do? It is in regard to this Irish Land Stock, which the Financial Secretary tells us has a different aspect to the investor, to that which Consols have, to give the seal to this misleading view. We are ignoring the fact that Irish Land Stock is as much a stock for which the credit of Great

783
Britain is pledged as are Consols or anything else. My own knowledge of financial matters is not great, and of high finance I know nothing, but I submit that if you are going to lay down a principle that to invade the security of Consols is a thing which Parliament must not do, you are running a risk of concealing the true facts of the case, when, at the same time, you ignore the fact that Irish Land Stock is just as much a security in which the credit of Parliament is involved as Consols. What, therefore, does it come to? You have this very difficult land problem, and under the Rill you arc asking owners, sellers, and buyers to make some small sacrifice. Here is a scheme which, if all the figures are correct—of this I venture to say nothing—would materially reduce the amount of loss which is to be borne by those who come under your new provisions. The Government should pause before they reject a proposal which might not have the consequences which the Government foresee.
I come to my last point. The last argument advanced is that the required issue of so much Consols for the purposes of land purchase would certainly tend to depreciate Consols. I know nothing of these matters, but I am told on all hands that that would not be the case. At all events, whatever experience and knowledge the Treasury has—and I admit they have unlimited experience and knowledge —we are here not dealing with facts, but are coming within the region of prophesy. No one can claim to be infallible here. The Government may be mistaken. But supposing they are right? What are they going to do? You are going to continue this inevitable issue of Land Stock. Do the Government seriously tell us that the guarantee for the Irish Land Stock is one thing, and the guarantee for Consols another? Look at the language of the financial Resolution on the Paper to-day! There is no difference in the liability of the State for stock and the Consols. I believe the argument is identical. If that be so, the responsibility of the State and Parliament is exactly the same in connection with Irish Land Stock and Consols. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury shakes his head. I am bound to notice that, because I think it is a very grave matter, and we ought to have some justification for it. For the State comes forward and stands behind this security, and says that certain interest and charges shall be paid. What is
784
simpler than that? You are going to protect Consols from the loss which must be borne by the Land Stock. I submit that is not fair. I regret that the Government have not seen their way to make this change, which I certainly, should have pressed upon my colleagues if I had remained longer in office; because I believe the present condition of things is one of the most serious obstacles in the way of the Issue of Land Stock for the purpose for which it is required. Whether I would have met with better luck than the Chief Secretary I do not know, but I think the Treasury are unduly nervous.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that last Friday and to-day every Member from Ireland has been united in the demand made on the Government. In spite of that fact, the Government turns a deaf ear to their request. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has admitted in his speech, and I think the Financial Secretary, too, admitted that personally they knew very little about this question. All the information they have given to the House, and the arguments they relied upon, had been received from their advisers at the Treasury. All the evidence we have heard from the speeches made on this side of the House are in favour of the proposals were have made. Any person of independent judgment of mind, no matter to what party he belongs, who heard the arguments put forwrard in favour of including Consols among the three methods of raising the money for land purchase, would have said we have proved our case up to the hilt. It is stated in the Report of the Runciman Committee that almost all the suggestions put before them by the various witnesses took the form that the requisite cash could be obtained by the issue of Cansols rather than 2¾ per cent. Guaranteed Stock. That is a very important point, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) assured us that the witnesses whose suggestions are referred to in the Report included a great number of gentlemen of very great weight in the City—financiers, stockbrokers, and everybody whose opinion was believed to be of any value. As against that evidence we are asked to take as conclusive the opinion formed by this Committee, composed as it was of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education (Mr. Runciman), Sir Felix Schuster, and three other gentleman, of whom I know nothing except that they have the

785
letters C.B. after their names, and are, therefore, I suppose, connected with some Government Department. We are asked to take the opinion of the President of the Board of Education, whom, without any disrespect, I never looked upon as a great authority upon financial matters, and Sir Felix Schuster, who is a great authority, as against these witnesses who, according to the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, were influential gentlemen in the City, and whose evidence is to the exact contrary.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The statement of the hon. Member for Waterford that these gentlemen were gentlemen of great weight in the financial world was merely an assertion.
Mr. C. CRAIG: I am sure it was only an assertion, but I am sure the hon. and learned Member would not have made it unless he was prepared to justify it. I go further, and say the fact that the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends have persistently refused to present the evidence shows that most probably there is something in the evidence which they know to be damaging to their case.
Mr. JOHN CLANCY: May I interrupt the hon. Member for a moment in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the- Treasury whether he denies
the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I neither admit it nor deny it—
Mr. C. CRAIG: I think, on the whole, the position taken up by the Government is a very bad one. Turning to the expression used in the Report about a national emergency, I venture to say no national emergency could be greater than the one with which we are face to face in completing land purchase in Ireland. The proposals of the Government are that the landlords shall accept a smaller price, and that the purchaser shall pay a greater price. We hold out a proposal to the Government which they admit, so far as land purchase is concerned, would be of considerable assistance, yet they refuse to accept it. I say the blame will lie upon the Government if, after the passing of this Act, if it ever passes, they find the predictions that we have made come true, namely, that instead of expediting land purchase they have hindered it by refusing to include Consols in the category of securities for raising the necessary capital for land purchase.
Question put, "That paragraph (a) stand part of the Resolution."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 122.

Division No. 362.]

AYES.

[2.44 p.m.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Crosfield, A. H.

Kekewich, Sir George

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cross, Alexander

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Crossley, William J.

Lamont, Norman

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Barker, Sir John

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

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Barnes, G. N.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Elibank, Master of

Maddison, Frederick

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Marnham, F. J.

Beale, W. P.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Masterman, C. F. G.

Beauchamp, E.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Beck, A. Cecil

Gill, A. H.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Bertram, Julius

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough).

Myer, Horatio

Bowerman, C. W.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Napier, T. B.

Branch, James

Guiland, John W.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Brooke, Stopford

Harcourt. Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Nicholls, George

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

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Nussey, Sir Willans

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hart-Davies, T.

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hedges, A. Paget

Radford, G. H.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Clough, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rees, J. D.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Higham, John Sharp

Richard, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cooper, G. J.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Horniman, Emslie John

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rowlands, J.

Craiq, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Seely, Colonel

Walters, John Tudor

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

Steadman, W. C.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Watt, Henry A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Toulmin, George

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

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

Ginnell, L.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Ambrose, Robert

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Balcarres, Lord

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. St. Edm'nds)

Oddy, John James

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hamilton, Marquess of

O'Dowd, John

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Grady, J.

Boland, John

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Bull, Sir William James

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hazleton, Richard

O'Malley, William

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cameron, Robert

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hodge, John

Percy, Earl

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hogan, Michael

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Clive, Percy Archer

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Clyde, James Aven

Kerry, Earl of

Reddy, M.

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Kilbride, Denis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Renton, Leslie

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

Crean, Eugene

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Seddon, J.

Cullinan, J.

Lundon, T

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Delany, William

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Sheehy, David

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Dillon, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Donelan, Captain A.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Snowden, P.

Doughty, Sir George

M'Kean, John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meagher, Michael

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Valentia, Viscount

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Mooney, J. J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Moore, William

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Fell, Arthur

Murnaghan, George

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Ffrench, Peter

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Younger, George

Field, William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Flynn, James Christopher

Nolan, Joseph

Frederick Banbury and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Forster, Henry William

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolu-lution," put, and agreed to.

Sir F. BANBURYmoved to leave out paragraph (d). The words contained in this paragraph seem to be foreign to the general object of the Bill, and for this reason I propose to omit them. In view of the Division which has just taken place, it is quite possible that the Government might desire to adjourn the House in order to reconsider their position, and I will content myself by simply moving this Amendment.
Mr. J. B. LONSDALE: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. BIRRELL: I assure the hon. Baronet that I do not require any extra time to consider this Amendment. This paragraph deals with a matter of great importance, and the hon. Baronet has not given any reason for its omission.
Sir F. BANBURY: I said it was foreign to the Bill.
Mr. BIRRELL: It has already been proposed to divide the Bill into two halves in order to allow the provisions dealing with the Congested Districts Board to stand over. There is, therefore, no necessity to waste any further time over this proposal. The Government will not contemplate that course for a single moment. This paragraph deals with the problems dealt with and reported upon by the Dudley Commission, and they are most pressing. I do not think hon. Members corning from Ireland will be found ready to support the hon. Baronet when he seeks to separate these problems. There may be an honest difference of opinion as to whether the Government are proposing to deal with the

789
problem in the wisest and best manner. As to that I say nothing, but the notion that we can introduce a Land Bill, and for the first time for many years seek to separate the two propositions of dealing with the uneconomic conditions in the West and the general problem of land purchase, is quite impossible. I am sure the hon. Baronet will receive very little support in this matter, because it is the opinion of everybody in Ireland, however much they may differ as to the best mode of dealing with this problem, that Irish land purchase and the rebuilding of the economic prosperity in the West should never be separated.
Captain CRAIG: I would like to say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that, as this Bill proceeds, he will see that a very different attitude will have to be taken up, or he will not get the Bill. It would not imperil a great part of the Bill at all to leave out paragraph (d), because he will have the other paragraphs left. He will then have that part of the Bill to go on with which will receive the approval and assistance, I think, of every Member of this House, whereas the part which is so strongly objected to by those who know what the problem is can be missed out, without causing any embarrassment to the right hon. Gentleman. It would actually assist him to get his Bill through. He says he will not divorce the question of the Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland from the rest of the Bill. Everybody knows two Bills ought to have been submitted separately, and the reasons advanced by the right hon. Gentleman would not, in my opinion, justify the House in permitting money to be raised and payments made on behalf of this entirely new system of the Congested Districts Board under their extended powers. I must confess I am astonished to hear, after the Division which has just taken place, that the right hon. Gentleman still adheres to his intention to carry out this part covered by paragraph (d). If he would only drop it and go ahead with the rest, then he would get a Land Bill probably this year, but if he persists in asking us to swallow the whole of this part of the Bill, which nobody likes at all, then I am afraid he will not see his Bill this Session. I prefer my Amendment to that of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), and I hope, when putting the question, you, Sir, will reserve me the right to move my Amendment later.
Captain CRAIG Captain CRAIG moved to leave out of paragraph (d) the words "to the Congested Districts Board for Ireland and." I put this Amendment on the Paper because I felt something should be done to elicit from the Chief Secretary what his real intentions are with regard to this part of the Bill. I very much deprecate keeping back any funds from the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. I think all the money we can legitimately have for that Department should be freely Voted by this House, but, since the right hon. Gentleman has tacked on an annual sum for the Congested Districts Board, I strongly object to this part of the Resolution. Anyone who studies the effect of cutting out these few words will see that the Chief Secretary will have more unanimity with regard to his Bill than at present. The effect of my proposal will be that no money under this particular Land Bill will be given to the Congested Districts Board. Everyone knows that under the Bill new powers are to be given to the Board, and the Board is to be reconstructed in a way not considered satisfactory to those who take an interest in the matter. If the Chief Secretary will only leave out these words the problem he will have to face will be very much simpler. I could not allow this opportunity to pass without entering an energetic protest against the advance of any further money to the Congested Districts Board, who have been fairly and squarely treated in the past. Every shilling which goes to them is taken away from the total amount granted by this Resolution to the settling up of the vast arrears with which the right hon. Gentleman has to deal, and it seems to me, instead of trying to carry out the spirit of the old Act or of the present Bill, he is deliberately putting blocks in his way by constituting a Department of a most novel and dangerous nature, and entrusting it with unlimited funds under this Resolution. Let him keep that money and deal with the vast arrears which are already in the archives of the Land Commissioners before reconstituting the Department and creating what I think would be a very serious economic situation in Ireland.
Mr. LONSDALEseconded the Amendment.
Mr. DILLON: I really think the speech to which we have just listened is so char-

791
acteristic of the spirit with which the Bill has been received in certain quarters that I do not like going to a Division without expressing the view of the Nationalist party with rgard to it. The hon. Member says the Government should keep this money, and use it for the purpose of getting rid of the arrears, or, in other words, that the poor people in the congested districts in the West part of Ireland, who were the means of getting the Bill of 1903 passed, and of inducing the House to consent to the extraordinary terms given to the landlord on which that Act was passed, and who were cheated out of any benefit under that Bill, should be again deprived of any benefit under this Bill. Now, because the Chief Secretary has come to their rescue and put in this Bill proposals which, in my opinion, form the best portion of the measure, proposals which are, for the first time, a serious effort to remove what has long been such a reproach to this country, the festering poverty of that region, he is met by an objection from Ulster to this part of the Bill. They talk about separating it into two Bills. That is what they tried to do last autumn, and what we blocked them in doing. They want to separate the Bill and get all the money squeezed out of the Exchequer for the benefit of the landlords, and these poor people in the West of Ireland may wait for an indefinite number of years for relief. I beg to tell the hon. Member he will not succeed in this policy. We are perfectly determined that the West of Ireland shall not be again swindled in the interests of the landlords. The West of Ireland and these poor districts commenced the land war. There would have been no chance of land purchase if it had not been for the fight these poor peasants made. They have been cheated and left in the cold, and Gentlemen from Ulster want to repeat the operation. I speak for one of the poor districts in the West of Ireland, and I beg to tell them and their landlord clients that they will not succeed on this occasion. If the Western tenants are not going to get a share of the benefits there will be no Bill for the landlords. They may dismiss that idea from their minds and from the minds of our Noble allies across the way. The Western tenants must get a look in; if they do not, the Irish landlords will have to wait.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: The speech to which we have just listened is eminently consistent, coming from the lips of one of
792
the leading Members of the Nationalist party, who has always been the most eloquent voice heard from that party in opposition to all the Land Purchase Acts.
Mr. DILLON: Never. I supported land purchase before you were heard of.
Mr. BARRIE: I was reading the Debates of this House in connection with the Purchase Act of 1881, and in the course of those Debates the hon. Member justified his opposition on the ground that if Ireland came under the benefits of a Land Act of that kind it would be in a worse condition than before.
Mr. DILLON: I have listened to the hon. Member, whose ignorance of Irish affairs has astonished me on more than one occasion. I was lying in Kilmainham Gaol during the whole time the Land Act of 1881 was under discussion.
Mr. BARRIE: I withdraw, of course, the statement, as I am bound to do. I have no desire to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. Our opposition to this part of the Bill is based on the claim we make on behalf of the tenants of the other parts of Ireland who have bought their farms, and who have been delayed in the payment of them. We say it is unfair and a gross breach of faith that tens of thousands of these tenant farmers should be kept out of their money by large and liberal grants to be given to the congested districts. The Chief Secretary will not dispute that under this Bill one million pounds per annum is to be earmarked for the congested districts.
Mr. DILLON: Do you object to that?
Mr. BARRIE: We say that until the serious arrears, £52,000,000 in extent, are dealt with by the Treasury, this problem, which we all agree will have to be faced, must stand over. We say that the farmers who are law-abiding subjects are bound to have preferential treatment at the hands of this House, and we hope they will get it. If they do not get it from this House we can only say that a great injustice will be done, and I am bound to say I agreed with my colleague when he suggested that if this portion of the Bill is adhered to, the fate of the Bill in another place will be seriously jeopardised.
Mr. BIRRELL: For the reasons I have already given in reply to the Amendment we have just disposed of, it will be utterly impossible, notwithstanding the threats of the hon. Gentleman, to listen to this proposal.

IRISH LAND BILL.
Bill considered in Committee.—[Progress, 9th July.]
[Mr. CALDWELL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

PART I. —LAND PURCHASE FINANCE.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Power to raise new Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock; and Provision as to Investment by Savings Bank Depositors in Stock.)
  (1) The power of the Treasury to create stock for the purpose of raising money required for the Irish Land Purchase Fund (including the Land Purchase Aid Fund) shall include power to create a new capital stock to be called Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock, and the Treasury may at any time create for that purpose either Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock or Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock as they think fit.
  (2) The provisions of the Act of 1903, relating to stock shall apply to Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock created under this section as they apply to the Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock created under that Act, with the substitution of 3 per cent for 2¾ per cent, as the rate of dividend, and of 30 years from the passing of this Act for 30 years from the commencement of the Act of 1903, as the period after the expiration of which the stock is redeemable.
  (3) The definition of Government stock in sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Savings Bank Act, 1893, shall be read as if stock issued under the Act of 1903 or this Act were included in the First Schedule to the said Savings Bank Act, 1893.
  Captain CRAIGmoved to leave out section (1). I wish to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this part of the Bill (Mr. Hob-house) as to the proposals for the issue of stock. We have had to-day a fairly protracted financial Debate, but we have not been able to ascertain from the Treasury what their real intentions are with regard to the creation of this stock. So far as I can make out, there is power under the Bui to create a new Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock, but they do not say how much or
  794
  when it is to be issued. I think it is very important for us to know in the early stages of our Debate how this 3 per cent. Stock will rank with regard to the other issues of 2¾ per cent. Stock, what the redemption date will be, and whether that redemption date will coincide with the old 2¾ per cent. Stock, or whether each issue will have its own fixed date of redemption. The old 2¾ per cent. Stock, which has 68½ years to run in order to be met out of the Sinking Fund with ½ per cent., has, so far as I am aware, had a fixed date for its redemption.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE dissented.
  Captain CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that I am wrong, which means, I suppose, that each particular stock has its own particular redemption date. That is the point I wished to ascertain, and I would like to ask whether it would not be possible to make this 3 per cent. Stock all redeemable at one time. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that will upset the Sinking Fund, but I think it would be possible to get over that difficulty if he would strike an average. I do not want to interfere in any way with the length of time the tenants would have the power of becoming possessed of their holdings, but I want to strike an average date, so that this stock would fall due about the same year. If you are buying other stocks—West Australian, for instance—the price you pay for them depends a great deal on the date of redemption. A great many of the older stocks have not got the full market value to which they are entitled, because it is very difficult indeed for the ordinary investor to put his finger on the exact issue which he wishes to buy. The same thing is to be said in regard to the issue of municipal and county loans. Where there are issues of 1901, 1903, 1905, and 1908, which become due at different times, it is extremely difficult for the investor to tell whether the stock he is buying is redeemable in 10 years or 20 years. In the case of an issue of stock like this, when millions are floated on the market, it is a most important point that we should have one issue and only one redemption, so that the persons applying will know that they are getting the same stock which was issued before, until all the land purchase operations are concluded.
  I would like, even at this late period, to ask whether it would not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to assure the Committee that he does not intend to issue

  795
  this 3 per cent. Stock at all. In regard to this provision which gives them the option of creating either 2¾ or 3 per cent. Stock, I think he has heard from all quarters of the House how important it is not to duplicate the issue of these Loan Stocks. If he has to raise money, let him stick to the old 2¾, and I really think it is risky on his part to turn round now and complicate matters by issuing a 3 per cent. Stock. Supposing he had had to deal in this matter in 1903—I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman took part in those Debates. I did not, but I followed them very closely, and I was very much struck with the idea that the 112 millions, which at that time was supposed to be sufficient to cover the whole of the transactions in Irish land, was a worthy loan to be classed as a loan by itself, and if this option is exercised, as I presume it will be, or it would not be asked for, we have to break into the continuity of that system, and it is to be broken into without its being pointed out what advantages would accrue to the Treasury or to the seller or buyer. I think the financial system to be pursued under this Bill does require some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. If he confines himself to the 2¾ per cent. Stock for the necessary amount to carry out the Bill, then we shall have one stock for 160 millions, a large loan, which will bear one rate of interest all round. If instead of doing that he breaks the continuity and starts upon a 3 per cent. Loan, I venture to think that in a very few years some Chancellor of the Exchequer will be asking this House to consolidate all these loans that his absurd predecessors had agreed to for the settlement of the land question. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not deal with this in a piecemeal fashion and have four separate and distinct stocks—the 1891 Loan, the 1903 Loan, the 1909 Loan, and then our own National Debt—but will take the matter from its very widest aspect, deal with the problem as a whole, and let the country understand that there is only to be one class of Land Stock to deal with. Looking at the unanimity of the feeling of the House which was demonstrated by the Division a short time ago, I think it would be a great mistake to depreciate the security by issuing some millions of a different stock. I beg to move.
  Mr. LONSDALE: This clause gives powers to the Treasury to create a new Land Stock, and it also authorises the
  796
  Treasury to issue at any time 3 per cent. Stock, or 2¾ per cent. Stock. It is assumed, although I do not find it expressly stated in the Bill, that all future purchase agreements will be financed by means of the new 3 per cent, or 2¾ Stock, and that the latter will only be created, so far as it is necessary, for the purpose of floating the pending agreements, and, of course, providing the cash for the bonus.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so.
  Mr. LONSDALE: If that is so, there will be 100 millions of 2¾ per cent. Stock, and an amount of the 3 per cent. Stock which the Chief Secretary estimates at about 90 millions, but which, of course, we place at a very much lower figure—but I do not intend on this occasion to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's calculation as to the size of the problem. The point which arises on this Amendment is that there would be two classes of Irish Land Stock, one bearing interest at 2¾ per cent, and the other at 3 per cent., and what we have to consider is the bearing that that fact will have upon the future of land purchase in Ireland. I look at the provisions of this Bill from the point of view of the farmer, who has agreed to purchase his farm, or desires to do so under the Act of 1903. In the Constituency which I have, the privilege of representing, the tenant farmers have for the most part agreed to enter into agreements for the purchase of their farms, but there are some who have not yet been able to do so. Those who have arrived at agreements with their landlords are waiting, with what patience they can command, for the Estates Commissioners to complete their agreements, and place them in possession, as owners of their holdings. The others who have not come to terms with their landlords are, of course, directly interested in these proposals to create a new 3 per cent. Stock for the purpose of financing future purchase transactions. It is a matter of very great importance to them. Is it desirable, from the point of view of those who desire land purchase to go forward, that there shall be two kinds of Irish Land Stock? I do not think it is desirable. It will introduce a new element of uncertainty which must make future agreements much more difficult, if not absolutely impossible. It is not as if the landlords and tenants who have not yet arrived at agreement have a clear field in front of them.

  797
  There is the block of land purchase to be taken into consideration — £50,000,000 worth of agreements which have yet to be completed. The length of time which will be required to clear off these arrears is, of course, a matter of speculation. Obviously it depends upon two considerations—first the extent to which landlords will avail themselves of the offer of the Government to take 2¾ per cent. Stock at 92 in part payment, and secondly the capacity of the Land Commissioners for dealing with the agreements.
  As to the first of these conditions, unless the terms offered by the Government in Clause (3) are very materially improved landlords cannot reasonably be expected to incur the loss which would be entailed by the acceptance of the proposals of the Bill. That being the case, we are thrown back upon the cash proposals of the Act of 1903, and, as the Treasury have announced that they are not prepared to find more than £4,000,000 of cash in any one year for the completion of voluntary agreements, the process of clearing off agreements will extend over at least a dozen years. On the other hand, if the Government are prepared to modify Clause (3) so that landlords will be prepared to accept part of the purchase price in stock, we may see the arrears being disposed of up to the limit of the capacity of the Land Commissioners, which the Chief Secretary has told us may be calculated at about £8,000,000 of advances yearly. In that case the advances may be got rid of in about six or seven years, but not sooner. It is quite impossible to get rid of the present pending agreements under the most favourable conditions in less than six or seven years, and in the meantime we have a right to insist that those who have entered into agreements already should have priority of treatment over those entering into agreements under the new conditions. When we are considering the probability or otherwise of landlords and tenants finding a basis of agreement in the new proposals of the Government, we must take into account the fact that agreements cannot be completed for at least six years, and that payment will be made in the new 3 per cent. Stock, the value of which at that time cannot possibly be foreseen. Even supposing the new stock was at a premium, the Government have been careful to prevent the landlord from deriving any advantage from the stock being at a premium, because in those circumstances the Treasury would
  798
  undoubtedly exercise the option of paying him in stock. On the other hand, the landlord may have to suffer a serious loss if the stock should be below par and he should be compelled by necessity to realise that stock. The prospects of the new stock being at a premium in the near future are, to say the least of it, not very encouraging. It will not be contended, I suppose, that Land Stock, even at 3 per cent., will be as popular with the investing public as Local Loan Stock, for example, which stands at 97, or other Guaranteed Stock. The presumption is that at the present time the new Irish Land Stock at 3 per cent, would not produce more than 95 per cent., and there is no guarantee whatever that it would be worth more than that in six or seven years time, and it may come down to 90. It is unfair to ask the landlord to enter into this responsibility, or the tenant to increase the difficulty which he undoubtedly would have with his landlord in arriving at an agreement which cannot possibly be completed for at least six or seven years.
  The fact has also to be realised that many landlords will be forced to realise their stock as soon as they have received it in order to redeem charges upon their estates, and the effect of throwing a large quantity of stock on the market must be to depress the price. All these points have to be considered when we are asked to issue 2¾ per cent. Stock. The landlord is face to face with the double uncertainty as to when he will be paid for his land and what he will get for it. Delay appears to be, under any circumstances, absolutely inevitable, and the risk of loss, of course, cannot be disregarded. The landlord, I am afraid, will be bound to ask for his land an amount which will cover both the delay and the risk. Owing to that fact the tenant will be asked to pay an increased price for his farm, and under Clause (1) of the Bill he will be required to pay an increased annuity upon an increased price. Surely the Chief Secretary must see that under these circumstances to expect land purchase to continue on voluntary lines is to look for an impossibility. You cannot expect land purchase to continue on voluntary lines unless you offer some inducement to the landlord and also to the tenant.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): The question which the hon. Member is discussing does not arise on this section. It simply deals with the power to raise new Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock.
  Mr. MOORE: Surely this clause deals with the money required for land purchase, and, therefore, I submit that my hon. Friend is reasonably in order in taking into consideration whether under the provisions of this Bill more or less money might foe required to foe provided for that purpose.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was going outside of that, and discussing whether land purchase would succeed under the proposed arrangement. That is dealt with in a later clause.
  Mr. MOORE: I have not made my point clear. This section deals with the proposal to raise the money required for land purchase, and, therefore, the money required for land purchase is the subject matter of the clause. My hon. Friend was just now explaining that under certain conditions there would be less money required, and, therefore, I submit that consideration is fair subject for Debate.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was going outside the question before the Committee.
  Mr. LONSDALE: What I was going to point out was that the question arises whether it is worth while to give the Treasury power to create a new 3 per cent. Stock, seeing that the issue will do nothing to facilitate land purchase. I may have transgressed the rules of strict order, but I submit that it will not be denied by anyone acquainted with the money market that if the investing public have to choose between a 3 per cent, at par and a 2¾ per cent. Stock at 92 or 88, they would prefer stock at the lower rate of interest. The Government are taking power under Clause 4 to issue short dated loans If that power is used with discretion, and the Government are able to make more satisfactory arrangements than under Clause 3, there seems to me to be no necessity for issuing a 3 per cent. Stock. In the proposal now before the Committee we are brought once more against the stone wall of the Treasury. It is the interest of the Treasury and their interest alone that this proposal is intended to safeguard. The question whether or not it. will promote land purchase seems to be the last consideration with the Government, in spite of the Chief Secretary's declaration a short time ago that to obstruct land purchase would be a blunder of the first magnitude. That was what the right hon. Gentleman said in introducing the Bill to the House, and he has led
  800
  us to understand that he has played the part of a sort of importunate widow with the Treasury on behalf of Ireland. The treatment Which the right hon. Gentleman receives from the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Treasury, seems to be somewhat of the same nature as the Prime Minister extends to certain suffragettes standing on his doorstep. They do not get much consideration. The Treasury make a great show of generosity in assuming responsibility for the loss on the stock for advances, and for thus relieving the Irish taxpayers of a burden which no one ever contemplated they should be called upon to bear. By insisting en the issue of a 3 per cent. Stock, with an increased annuity to be paid by the purchaser, the Treasury are destroying any grounds for our feeling in the least degree grateful to them. The Secretary to the Treasury has not done much to justify his proposal to issue a 3 per cent. Stock by the exagge-tated estimate he presented the other day to the Committee of the capitalised value of the burden to be undertaken by the State. In arriving at the figure of £30,000,000, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have estimated for an all-round loss of 15 per cent, on the issue of the 2¾ per cent. Stock, but, as a matter of fact, the Chief Secretary, in the course of his remarks, told us in the same Debate that the average loss on the Stock issued up to the present time is only 12 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have made no allowance whatever for the fact that, as land purchase progresses, after a certain number of years the cost of administration will be very materially reduced, and that the cost of the Land Commission will also be very largely reduced. Why do they always try to shelter themselves behind the Treasury in this matter? The Chief Secretary is always saying, "I wish I could move the Treasury. You must attribute all the blame to the Treasury. You have got all my heart with you in every demand I make for Ireland, but I have to look to the Treasury." We look to this Government to make good their professions that in the interest of Ireland land purchase must go on, Time after time the right hon. Gentleman has said that the whole object of the Government of Ireland was that land purchase should not be interrupted. I hope we shall not look in vain for the fulfilment of that policy. In the meantime, when a proposal is made which will not do anything to facilitate land purchase, I offer to the Government my strongest opposition.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I listened very attentively to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment (Captain Craig), and I confess that I was not quite sure whether he moved the deletion of this section for the purpose of obtaining information as to what were the proposals under the clause as to the issue of stock, or whether he did so because he wished the Treasury not to issue 3 per cent. Stock at all. I should like to point out that if the latter was his intention, there would be certain results which perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not altogether contemplated. The first result of such a course would be that it would absolutely preclude any issue of 3 per cent. Stock for land purchase. The issue of 3 per cent. Stock is because we believe that you can obtain a better price for 3 per cent. Stock, no matter for what it is employed, than if you issue a 2¾ per cent. Stock. I confess, from all I have been able to ascertain on this point in various quarters, that there is pretty general unanimity of opinion that you can always get a better price for a 3 per cent. Stock than one of the denomination of 2¾ per cent.
  The next result of deleting this clause would be that the 3½ per cent. Annuity of future agreements would have to be worked on a 2¾ per cent. Stock. I think it must be clear at once to the Committee that such a method of finance would be perfectly unworkable. Another result would be that the Treasury option of giving for future agreements 3 per cent. Stock equal in nominal amount to the sum to be advanced would disappear, and to that we attribute great importance. Under Clause 1 (2) it has already been agreed in respect of advances for future agreements that the rate of interest to be paid by the Land Commission to the National Debt Commissioners shall be 3 per cent., and that has an important bearing on the power of the Treasury to issue a 3 per cent. Stock. The hon. Member for Mid-Armagh (Mr. Lonsdale) seemed to think that it was in the interests of the Treasury alone that the power to create a 3 per cent. Stock was being taken. The interest of the Treasury is the interest of the person who has to find any deficiency which may occur upon the issue of stock. The liability for that deficiency has been shifted, by the agreement of the House, from the Irish ratepayer to the general taxpayer of the country; therefore the person concerned in the power of raising money in the cheapest possible way is no
  802
  longer the Irish ratepayer, but the taxpayer generally. The only other question put to me was as to the date of redemption. It is clear that in the case of stock which is raised not all at one time or all for one purpose, the date of redemption is the date at which the accumulations of Sinking Fund enable the stock to be purchased in the market. It may be 64 or 65 years, but it is a great mistake to suppose that there is any fixed time for the redemption of either 2¾ per cent, or 3 per cent. Stock. It entirely depends on the rate at which the Sinking Fund accumulates, either for the purchase of stock of £100 denomination in the market or to accumulate the sum of £100.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is it proposed to issue 3 per cent. Stock for the purpose of raising money? I gather that one of the objects of giving the power to create a 3 per cent. Stock is with a view to future purchases. A subsequent part of the Bill enables you to compel future purchasers to take 3 per cent. Stock at its face value instead of cash. Is it intended to keep that stock for that purpose, or is it also intended to raise money for the purpose of feeding the agreements already entered into?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Pending agreements?
  Sir E. CARSON: I thought on first reading the Bill the stock was to be created only for the purpose of future agreements, particularly having regard to the provisions of sub-section (1), to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. We ought to have it made clear whether the Treasury intend immediately on the passing of this Bill, when they want money, to create a 3 per cent. Stock and put it on the market.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Clause 6 (2) will show the intention of the Government. The intention, no doubt, is that future agreements should be financed by a 3 per cent. Stock, and pending agreements by 2¾ per cent. Stock. But sub-section (2) shows that the 3 per cent. Stock can be used for the purpose of financing the 2¾ per cent. Annuities, which are practically for pending agreements, and that sub-section will enable us to make good the difference between the 3 per cent, and the 2¾ per cent. Stock.
  Sir E. CARSON: The Treasury contemplate that they may raise money for pending agreements by the creation of a 3 per cent. Stock.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I believe that the proposed issue of a 3 per cent. Stock is a mistake financially, and it is entirely on financial grounds that I shall support the Amendment. Under this section the Treasury propose to take power to create in addition to the 2¾ per cent. Stock a 3 per cent. Stock. Earlier in the Debate the Secretary to the Treasury pointed out that there was already in existence an Irish Land Stock, created in 1891, in addition to the present 2¾ per cent. Stock, and he seemed to think that because there were already two different Irish Land Stocks there would be no harm in making a third. I seriously differ from him on that point. The fewer the number of stocks the larger the market. That is a fact which the right hon. Gentleman's unknown financial authorities will not contradict. It is well known that the larger the market, the bigger the amount of stock, the better the market, the easier it is to float stock, and the easier it is to deal in it when the stock is floated. It is proposed to fly in the teeth of what is a maxim accepted by everybody who has ever had any experience in the issue of stocks. I myself have issued the first Corporation Stock in the English market, and therefore I am not speaking of something of which I have no experience. The right hon. Gentleman flies in the teeth of what is an accepted maxim as to the issue of stock, and creates a third class of stock. In my opinion that is a wrong thing to do both from the point of view of the Treasury and from the point of view of those who are going to receive the stock. The right hon. Gentleman says, "My financial advisers advise me that a 3 per cent. Stock can be issued at a better price than a 2¾ per cent. Stock." I presume that when he says that that the right hon. Gentleman means at a relatively better price. If so, I venture to tell him that his financial authorities are absolutely wrong. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I may give two or three concrete instances to prove that I am right. Take the case of the Japanese Government, which at present, owing to financial exigencies, has three different classes of stock—5 per cent., 4½ per cent., and 4 per cent. I am sorry to talk about myself, but I am afraid that I cannot illustrate my argument unless I do. I happen to be a holder of Japanese 5 per cent. Stock. Holding my view that a 2¾ per cent. Stock relatively to a 3 per cent. Stock is more popular, when the 5 per cent. Stock went to par, I changed to 4½ per cent. Stock, and
  804
  the 4½ per cent. Stock rose in very much greater degree than the per 5 cent., and I made a profit. I did exactly the same thing when the 4½ per cent. Stock went up. I changed to 4, and again made a profit. I did exactly the same thing with Russian 5 per cent. Stock. I changed to 4½ per cent., which is now relatively higher than the 5 per cent. I venture to say that there is not a single man of experience in Stock Exchange matters who would deny what I say. In these instances I acted on what I believed to be the desire of the public to have a lower priced stock, that is a. stock under par rather than a stock at par, and in each case I have been right; and as a matter of fact the public will take a less return for its money in interest on a lower priced stock. I commend that fact to any gentlemen of the Treasury who may be in the gallery. The public will take a less amount of interest if the stock is under par than they will do if it is at par, and the reason is very obvious, that they hope they will get unearned increment. If they buy a stock at 92 which will eventually be redeemed at par, though they may suffer a little in interest they will eventually get the unearned increment. Whether or not the Government, in its hatred of unearned increments, intends to deal a blow at unearned increment in stocks I do not know. For that reason I say that the Government is absolutely wrong in the course which it is pursuing. I sum up my arguments by saying, first of all, one stock is better than two, and I challenge any one of financial experience to deny that; and, in the second place, that the relative price of a stock under par is higher, and that the stock is more run after by the investing public than a stock at par. For those reasons I strongly support the Amendment.
  Mr. MOORE: As this Amendment raises exactly the same subject that was discussed in the financial Resolution earlier, I do not propose to repeat any of the arguments addressed to the House on that occasion; but as the Government only retained its position when the matter was discussed earlier in the afternoon by a majority of eight votes, I do think it rather fortunate, from their point of view, that, whether by accident or design, they should have this opportunity of reconsidering their position, so that they may not have every Irish vote against them and their majority reduced to eight. There is one matter which should be cleared up, though it may be merely a matter of drafting. As the clause stands, I am not sure that we

  805
  are not going to have four Land Purchase Funds. The House has expressed the opinion by a majority of eight that there should be three, but I do not think that the House ever went so far as to say that their should be four. The last words of the sub-clause, after dealing with the creation of capital stock at 3 per cent., proceed: "And the Treasury may at any time create for that purpose either Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock or Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock, as they think fit." The only meaning of that, as I understand it, is that it is a power to the Treasury to create 2¾ per cent. Stock. That power already exists under section 27 of the Act of 1903. If that is still the law, is it a question of drafting or is it intended to enable the National Debt Commissioners to issue a new 2¾ per cent.? If not, why is it put in? They have the powers in terms under the Act of 1903. The only difference is that under the Act of 1903 it is to be called the Land Purchase Fund, and in this Act there is no provision as to name.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in his statement as to the meaning of section (27) of the Act of 1903. Look at these words: "The Treasury may create for that purpose either Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock or Guaranteed 3 per cent Stock." It is only to show that the power to create 3 per cent. Stock has not done away with the power of section (27) of the original Act to create 2¾ per cent. Stock.
  Mr. MOORE: I do not think that that argument itself will hold water, because the powers in the clause are included in the new power. It is not taking away existing powers or altering them in any way; it is a new additional power. First, under that additional power, is the creation of new 3 per cent. Stock, and, in a very extraordinary way it seems to me, there is the power to create the new 2¾ per cent. Stock. I think that the matter ought to be cleared up, and the persons to do it are the Government. I have no doubt that the draftsman will look into the point, for it appears to me that there is redundancy which is likely to cause confusion. The right hon. Gentleman laid down the general proposition that under all these Land Purchase Acts the extent of the period during which the amount of the Sinking Fund would be affected would vary every year, because that would depend on the price at which the stock could be repurchased.
  806
  Surely that is not the case. Under the Act of 1903, the Treasury have made rules by which all these annuities are calculated on the basis that it takes 63 years to pay off principal and interest. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it will be only 54 or 56 years.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I really did not say 54 or 56 years; I said 64 or 65 years. I can assure him that his belief that 2¾ per cent. annuities are extinguishable in 63 years is a misapprehension. The period will be 68 years, but inasmuch as the price of stock varies from day to day, the result is that 68 years is only a sort of index figure that may vary up or down the scale.
  Mr. MOORE: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but I consider my, self at liberty to raise this point again. I have never heard it suggested that there was a different term for calculating the repayment, and I always understood that it was determined under the rules framed by the Commissioners. I should be glad to refer the right hon. Gentleman to those rules, because they form the universal basis of repayment in Ireland. That may be taken as the ABC and the groundwork of the matter in connection with land purchase in Ireland. If the calculation is regulated by the price of Consols then every transaction would be complicated and varying in cases where the tenant had to refund.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no necessity for the tenant purchaser to refund. The tenant purchaser repays at the rate of ½ per cent, on such an amount of capital as would enable a £100 bond to be purchased in the open market. If the price of that bond is 86, then he has to make a corresponding amount of payment to realise the £86 cash. If he purchased at 94 he would have to make a corresponding amount of payments in order to purchase at 94. If he purchased at 100 he would have to pay the amount of annuities which make the accumulation of £100, but beyond that he spends nothing further. He only makes such payments as enables the National Debt Commissioners to purchase with every £100 advanced stock representing that amount of cash at par.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That assumes the stock to be at par.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Each of these payments is paid in stock, and it is impossible to say exactly the period at which it will be extinguished.
  Mr. MOORE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that suppose that the stock when a man purchases is at par the tenant's annuity is calculated on that, and that the sum will be sufficient in 63 years to repurchase that.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, it is not.
  Mr. MOORE: I understood him to say that if stock had gone down from 100 to 86, and if the tenant's annuity had been repaid by the time it did reach 86, the stock could then be repurchased, and the transaction would be complete. If that is so, it would not be a period of 63 years' purchase, which is the universal basis of
  land purchase in Ireland. I am only saying what everybody knows is the fact.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not the fact.
  Mr. MOORE: We must agree to differ, but it is the experience that the annuity is calculated at repayment for 63 years. With regard to that, I do not understand his remarks as to the repayments.
  Question put, "That the words of section (1) proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 53.

  Division No. 363.]

  AYES.

  [4.14 p.m.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gulland, John W.

  Plckersgill, Edward Hare

  Astbury, John Meir

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Radford, G. H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Rees, J. D.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Beale, W. P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Rowlands, J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Bertram, Julius

  Hodge, John

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Seddon, J.

  Branch, James

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seely, Colonel

  Brooke, Stopford

  Isaacs, Rutus Daniel

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Snowden, P.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Lamont, Norman

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cameron, Robert

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Clough, William

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Cooper, G. J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Toulmin, George

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Cross, Alexander

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Wardle, George J.

  Crossley, William J.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Whltbread, S. Howard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Morrell, Philip

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Myer, Horatio

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Napier, T. B.

  Gill, A. H.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nicholls, George

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  NOES.

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

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Oddy, John James

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renton, Leslie

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Younger, George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Moore, William

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott-

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Peterslield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Charles Craig and Mr. Lonsdale.

  Captain CRAIGmoved, in section (1), to omit the word "either" ["and the Treasury may at any time create for that purpose either guaranteed two-and-three-quarters per cent. Stock or"].
  I wish to prevent the Treasury by this Amendment creating a 3 per cent. Stock. I ask them to stick to the old 2¾ Stock which has proved so satisfactory in the past, and which has effected more than, the most sanguine supporters of the Act of 1903 ever contemplated. At that time the most sanguine anticipations did not put the operations under the Act at more than £5,000,000 a year, whereas we are faced with something like £50,000,000 remaining over, which must be worked off. The arguments used all this afternoon proved that the operations of the Land Act could best be carried out by sticking to the stock which proved so successful in the past. I hope the Government will meet us in this matter and keep to the 2¾ per cent. Stock.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The purpose of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to limit the power of the Treasury to the issue of what they have already power to issue, namely, 2f per cent. Stock. I do not think it would be fair to the Committee that I should trouble them with the arguments I have already advanced earlier in the afternoon in favour of a 3 per cent. Stock as against a 2¾ per cent. I need only say further that the Government are unable to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Captain CRAIG Captain CRAIG moved to omit section (2).
  The reason I move this Amendment is to try and get some opinion from the Treasury as to the reasons which have prompted them to include this section in the Bill. There is no necessity for this sub-section at all. If the Government
  810
  would only carry out their object in a legitimate way and use the same machinery as that which has hitherto existed, there would be no necessity for this Bill. As I have tried to point out before, the great danger about these loans is their varying time of expiration, and the right hon. Gentleman has not given to the Committee any explanation at all why it is necessary to have £200 or £300 of stock this year redeemable in 30 years and then the same class of stock issued next year redeemable the year after. For the sake of the simplicity of these flotations, it would be more advantageous to arrange a definite date for redemption, so that the whole would be considered as one stock. The right hon. Gentleman has not given the slightest explanation of this important matter which tends to keep the stock depressed. Six years have now passed under the 1903 Act, and even now it is felt that if you are purchasing stock you have to be most cautious as to the actual year you are purchasing, in order to watch the date of redemption. Half-way through the term it would be absurd to pay the same price for the stock as for a stock which would not be redeemed for 30 years. The right hon. Gentleman thinks in the case of every pottering little issue that it should be redeemed at a different date. Treasury Bills ought to make up the difference between now and the date when it is necessary for the stock to be completed. Short loans have been granted in similar instances in other departments, and there is no reason why, in such a gigantic operation as this, the same method should not be applied. It is quite true that the 2¾ per cent. Stock has that form, but there is no reason why, in introducing a new Bill, be should not correct the faults found in practice under the old Act. No one will deny that the trouble which the investor

  811
  is put to in order to find out whether he is being properly treated by his broker or banker who performs the purchasing operation is most onerous and difficult. Purchasers will have to instruct their brokers very carefully to be sure and buy that part which will allow the term of years they desire. I think it will be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation of the attempt which is made in this particular section to rectify a fault which was unforeseen. I do not say there is such importance attaching to this matter that it will be necessary to go to a Division, but it is one of those points which the right hon. Gentleman might explain to the Committee.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman intimated in his closing words that he did not intend to trouble the Committee with a Division upon this section.
  Captain CRAIG: Well, I might; it depends upon what answer I get.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I therefore imagine he does not attach so much importance either to his Amendment or to my explanation as he did to some previous parts of the Bill. The justification of this section is that, unless it was in existence, it would be impossible to pay the dividends on the stock by means of which land purchase is in the future to be financed. One would think that was sufficient to attract even the approval of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the success which attended the finance of the 1903 Act. It is simply because the finance of that Act, has not been a success that this Bill has been brought into being. If it had been the financial success which was anticipated at the time, there would have been no necessity to create a 3 per cent. Stock for the purpose of getting better terms for the investing public. As to the provisions for redemption contained in the second section, if the hon. Gentleman would turn to the Act of 1903 and look at the 28th section he would see we merely reproduced the provisions which are made there for redemption. I imagine that the authors of that Act consider the power of redemption has made this stock attractive
  to the public. We have followed, and I think wisely followed, the exact provisions they thought necessary, and the considerations which guided them guided us.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think there is very little harm in this particular section. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the Act of 1903 had been unsuccessful from the financial point of view, and then he proceeded to say that they were going to apply the provisions of that Act to this section. The provisions are only a machinery, and I do not think they will do any harm; in fact, I think it is almost necessary they should be passed. The right hon. Gentleman has quite misunderstood the point of the redemption. He tells us he supposes the people who passed the Act of 1903 put in the redemption because it would make the stock attractive to the public. He evidently does not know what the powers of redemption under the Act of 1903 are. They are optional to the Government, and they make the stock less, and not more, attractive. They are not absolute powers of redemption. If the Government were obliged to redeem at the end of 30 years, and the stock was issued at par, it would be attractive to the public; but the power of redemption will only be exercised if the stock is high. If it remains low, the Government will not exercise their option. I do not say the Government are not right to put the option in, but the right hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the object of the provision, and his statement as to the effect was quite erroneous.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Government cannot exercise their power until after the period of 30 years has elapsed.
  Sir F. BANBURY: All that does is to postpone the period at which the Government have the power of redemption. It does not give an absolute power of redemption. It is optional, and it is perfectly clear, if it is not to the advantage of the Government, they will not exercise their option.
  Question put, "That section (2) stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 49.

  Division No. 364.]

  AYES.

  [4.40 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Alden, Percy

  Barnes, G. N.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ambrose, Robert

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Boland, John

  Astbury, John Meir

  Beale, W. P.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Branch, James

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hodge, John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Phllipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Clough, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Radford, G. H.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ladlaw, Robert

  Reddy, M.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lundon, T.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Cross, Alexander

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rowlands, J.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Delany, William

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Devlin, Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  M'Kean, John

  Seddon, J.

  Dillon, John

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Seely, Colonel

  Dobson, Thomas W.

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Sheehy, David

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Elibank, Master of

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Snowden, P.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ffrench, Peter

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Field, William

  Meagher, Michael

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Gilhooly, James

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Ginnell, L.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Toulmin, George

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Murnaghan, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Myer, Horatio

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gulland, John W.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Napier, T. B.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nicholls, George

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Dowd, John

  Higham, John Sharp

  NOES.

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Forster, Henry William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  814

  815

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Oddy, John James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Younger, George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Percy, Earl

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Craig and Mr. W. Moore.

  Renton, Leslie

  Question proposed, "That Clause (2) stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I wish to explain why we propose to vote against this clause. In spite of the first Division in which the Government only obtained a majority of eight, they have refused to meet the wishes of Irish Members on every point connected with the clause. If we are to have a number of options with regard to the stocks which the Government may raise for the purpose of financing this Bill the most important option of all that we ought to have is the option of Consols. That having been refused, the position we take up is that the Committee should have confined the power of the Government to 2¾ per cent. Stock only. We have maintained all through that the multiplication of these various options is bound to have a bad effect upon each class of stock included in them, and if we must have them we ought to have Consols because the issue of a comparatively small slice from time to time would have no visible effect on them,
  whereas if you have these 2¾ per cent, and 3 per cent, and other Stocks it is obvious that the effect on the market is that they re-act one upon the other, and each is cutting, so to speak, the other's throat. It would have been better if the Government had not introduced this provision for the raising of 3 per cent. Stock, but had confined themselves, as in the Act of 1903, to 2¾ per cent. I very much regret that the Government have not seen their way to meet our wishes in the matter of Consols. We have proved to them in a manner which cannot be particularly pleasant that it would have been better if they had done so. How they can continue to carry through a long Bill with the guillotine, when they only get a majority of eight, or, as happened the other week, 32 or 33, I really cannot see. I shall certainly vote against Clause 2 being retained in the Bill.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 54.

  Division No. 365.]

  AYES.

  [4.53 p.m.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Crossley, William J.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Alden, Percy

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barnes, G. N.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lament, Norman

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Beale, W. P.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Beauchamp, E

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Branch, James

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gulland, John W.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Clough, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cooper, G. J.

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Myer, Horatio

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Napier, T. B.

  Cross, Alexander

  Hodge, John

  Newnes, F. (Netts, Bassetlaw)

  Nicholls, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seddon, J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Seely, Colonel

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Snowden, P.

  Whitbread, Sir Howard

  Radford, G. H.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rees, J. D.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Rowlands, J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Toulmin, George

  NOES.

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renton, Leslie

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Younger, George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Moore, William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Charles Craig and Mr. Lonsdale.

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Oddy, John James

  And, it being Five of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th June, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Power to Make Advances by Guaranteed Stock under Certain Circumstances.)
  (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 27 of the Act of 1903, advances for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts may, subject to the provisions of this section, be made in whole or in part by means of stock in the manner and under the cir cumstances for which provision is made by this section.
  (2) For the purpose of carrying into effect pending purchase agreements advances may, if the vendor agrees, be made by means of the issue to the prescribed persons, in the prescribed manner, and subject to the prescribed conditions, of such an amount of guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock, as, at the market price of the day of issue (as certified in the prescribed manner) is equivalent to the sum to be advanced if that price is not below ninety-two pounds (ex-dividend) for an amount
  818
  of stock of the nominal value of a hundred pounds, or if the stock is below that price by the issue of such an amount of stock as would be equivalent to the sum to be advanced if the stock were at that price.
  (3) For the purpose of carrying into effect future purchase agreements advances may, if the Treasury think fit so to direct, be made by means of the issue of an amount of Guaranteed 3 per cent. Stock equal in nominal amount to the sum to be advanced and carrying dividends as from the date of the advance.
  (4) Stock issued in pursuance of this section as the equivalent of an advance shall, as between the vendor and the purchaser, be accepted by the vendor as the equivalent of the corresponding amount of purchase money, and a vendor, although he is not an absolute owner, may agree to advances being made by stock under this section for the purpose of carrying out any pending purchase agreements, and any person having power to sell under the Land Purchase Acts, although he is not an absolute owner, may enter into any future purchase agreement, notwithstanding that the purchase money may be payable in stock in pursuance of this section instead of in cash.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 51.

  Division No. 366.]

  AYES.

  [5.2 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Alden, Percy

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hart-Davies, T.

  O'Dowd, John

  Astbury, John Meir

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Grady, J.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Malley, William

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Beale, W. P.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Radford, G. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hodge, John

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Boland, John

  Hogan, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Reddy, M.

  Branch, James

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

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

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rees, J. D.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lamont, Norman

  Rowlands, J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Clough, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lundon, T.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Seddon, J.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Seely, Colonel

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead

  Lynch, H. B.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sheehy, David

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Snowden, P.

  Cross, Alexander

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Crossley, William J.

  M'Kean, John

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Delany, William

  Maddison, Frederick

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Devlin, Joseph

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Dillon, John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Toulmin, George

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Elibank, Master of

  Menzies, Sir Waiter

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morrell, Philip

  Watt, Henry A.

  Field, William

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murnaghan, George

  Whitbread, S. Howard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Myer, Horatio

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Gilhooly, James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)

  Gill, A. H.

  Napier, T. B.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Ginnell, L.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Nicholis, George

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Gulland, John W.

  NOES.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renton, Leslie

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Younger, George

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Moore, William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfleld)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hugh Barrie and Mr. Lonsdale.

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Oddy, John James

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Temporary Borrowing by Bills or Bonds.)
  (1) Any money which may be raised by the creation of stock under the Act of 1903 or this Act may be temporarily raised by the issue of bills or bonds in such form, and for such period not exceeding seven years, and bearing such rate of interest not exceeding 3 per cent, as the Treasury may determine.
  (2) The interest on or in respect of any such bills or bonds shall be charged and paid in the same manner as the dividends on stock under section 29 of the Act of 1903, and the provisions of that respecting the income account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund shall apply as if the interest on or in respect of the bills or bonds were dividends on stock.
  (3) The principal money of any such bills or bonds shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be repaid out of the Irish Land Purchase Fund, and, if the capital account of that fund is insufficient shall be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof.
  Stock or fresh bills or bonds may be issued for the purpose of raising the principal money required when necessary.
  (4) Sub-sections (6) and (7) of section thirty-six of the Act of 1903 (which relate to the deficiency arising from the issue of stock at a discount and the surplus arising from the issue of stock at a premium), shall apply in the case of the issue of bills or bonds under this section as they apply in the case of the issue of stock.
  Clause agreed to.
  Whereupon the Chairman left the chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday next.

REMISSION OF SURCHARGES (DUBLIN) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
HANDLOOM WEAVING BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered, read the third time, and passed.

LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES (MEDICAL TREATMENT) BILL.
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered:—
A Clause (no obligation on parent to submit child to treatment,)—[Mr. Walter Guinness,]—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW WRIT.
For North Sligo, in the room of Patrick A. McHugh (deceased).—[Captain Donelan.]
Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 3.
Adjourned at Eighteen minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next (26th July).

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week, and ordered to lie upon the Table:—

MONDAY.
Cinematograph Bill—Petition from Battersea, in favour.
Finance Bill—Petition from Latchford and other places, against.
Labour Exchanges Bill—Petition from Battersea, in favour.
Licensed Premises (Election Days) Closing Bill—Petition from Battersea, in favour.
Local Education Authorities (Medical Treatment) Bill—Petition from Battersea, in favour.
London Elections Bill—Petition from Battersea, for alteration.
Milk and Dairies Bill—Petition from Battersea, in favour.
Trade Boards Bill—Petition from Battersea, in favour.

TUESDAY.
Milk and Dairies Bill—Petition from Chelsea, for alteration.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petitions in favour from Brierley Hill, Highbury, and Smethwick.
Scotch Education Department (Minute of 3rd June, 1909)—Petition from Stirling, for an Address to His Majesty the King to withhold his assent.
Temperance (Scotland) Bill—Petitions in favour from Catrine and Huntly.

WEDNESDAY.
Building Leases (Ireland)—Petition from Arklow, for legislation.
Finance Bill—Petitions against from Alvescot, Bridgnorth and other places, Chester and other places, Cleobury Mortimer, Oldham, and Sandbach.
London Elections Bill—Petition from Lambeth, against.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petitions in favour from Beech Lane, Lye, Stoke Newington, and Stratford.
South Africa (Draft Constitution)—Petition from Alice and Queenstown (South Africa), for alteration.
Temperance (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Coatbridge, in favour.

THURSDAY.
Temperance (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Stirling, in favour.

FRIDAY.
Burial Places (Exemption from Rates, Scotland) Bill—Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour.
Finance Bill—Petition from The Vale of Leven, for alteration.
Labour Exchanges—Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour.
Merchant Shipping Lighthouses Bills— Petition from Edinburgh, in favour.
Milk Control (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Edinburgh, and Kirkcaldy, in favour.
Open Spaces (Scotland) Bill—Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour.
Rights of Way Bill—Petition from Kirkcaldy, in favour.
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—Petitions from Bath and Lower Walmer.
Temperance (Scotland) Bill—Petitions from Edinburgh, and Glasgow, in favour.

  Marking Eggs (Cold Storage).
  Marking Eggs (Cold Storage).
  Old Age Pensions (Naturalisation).
  Old Age Pensions (Naturalisation).
  Census Bill.
  Census Bill.
  Milk and Dairies Bill (Grocers and Sale of Cream).
  Milk and Dairies Bill (Grocers and Sale of Cream).
  Belfast Post Office.
  Belfast Post Office.
  Convicted Prisoners (England and Wales).
  Convicted Prisoners (England and Wales).
  Committals in Default of Payment of Fines (England and Wales).
  Committals in Default of Payment of Fines (England and Wales).
  Territorial Force (Arms for Royal Engineer Units).
  Territorial Force (Arms for Royal Engineer Units).