Sitting of 23 November 1909

Preamble
The House reassembled, after the adjournment from Friday, 5th November.
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

EAST INDIA (STATE PRISONERS).
Address ordered for Return "showing the names of the persons in India who are now detained under the provisions of Bengal Regulation III. of 1818 and kindred regulations; their caste, race, or nationality; the grounds for their detention; the place and nature of their detention; and the date from which their detention commenced."—[Sir Henry Cotton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Duty on Imported Wines (Treaties).
  Mr. STANLEY WILSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what treaties with foreign countries would be affected if the present duty on imported wines was increased?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): If the hon. Member means to ask whether it would be an infringement of any treaty to increase the duties on imported wines, the answer is in the negative.

  Unrest in India.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to lay papers before Parliament relating to the conditions of unrest in India which have been held by the Government to justify the numerous repressive measures directed during the last two years against the freedom of the Press, the right of public meeting, the right of trial by jury, and the right of the subject not to be deprived of his liberty except after sentence by a court of justice?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Will no papers be laid at any time?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I think not.

  Midnapur Conspiracy Case
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked whether the Under-Secretary was now in a position to inform the House of the nature of the Report made by Mr. Commissioner Macpherson as to the conduct of the police

  3
  affected by the strictures of the High Court of Calcutta in the Midnapur conspiracy case; whether the Secretary of State is aware that the three police officers most gravely implicated have been given long leave of absence; and whether he has given his approval to this being permitted?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has not yet received Mr. Macpherson's report. It was completed and submitted to the Government of Bengal early in November, when the local Government took special measures to expedite its examination and consideration by them. According to the information received by the Secretary of State, it is not the case that the three police officers most gravely implicated have been given long leave of absence; Mr. Hyde, superintendent of police at Midnapur, has been granted a year's leave, but he was in no way concerned, and only took charge at Midnapur in September. The deputy-superintendent and an inspector against whom allegations have been made were granted respectively three months' and one month privilege leave on the conclusion of the Commissioner's enquiry, but they are available whenever they are required.
  Sir H. COTTON: Have they returned to their duty?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I have said that they are on leave at present.

  Case of Ghulam Mohammed.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked whether the Secretary of State has yet received any official information as to what steps the Government of the Punjab has taken to punish the policemen found by the sessions judge at Rawal Pindi as long ago as 12th June to have tortured by racking one Ghulam Mohammed into a confession of the crime of murder; or whether it is the intention of the Executive to take any criminal proceedings consequent upon the grave view taken by the judge on the action of the police?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has now received official information on the subject of the case referred to in the question. The sessions judge did not find it proved that Ghulam Mohammed had been tortured by the police into a confession. He said (after enumerating matters which seemed to him
  4
  suspicious) that the police investigation in the case seemed to him to call for inquiry. The Lieutenant-Governor has now made the inquiry suggested, and has come to the conclusion that the charge of torture is false, and that no blame attaches to the police.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether the judge did not say that marks were visible on the man's arms and legs, and that the man had been threatened that he would be taken back to the place where he had been formerly racked?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The judge did refer to marks on the prisoner which called for inquiry, and all the circumstances were taken into consideration in the inquiry which took place.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: By whom was the inquiry made into the conduct of the police?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: That is the same question as was put by the hon. Member in another case of torture or alleged torture, and I replied that the Lieutenant-Governor was responsible for the report.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: To what are these marks on the man's arms and legs attributed? How do they come to be present—what is the theory?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: I cannot really carry in my mind the whole of the reports of these inquiries. The Executive Government went very carefully into these matters, and came to the decision which I gave to the House.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: There were marks of violence on this man said to have been produced by torture. To what are those marks attributable?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of his question.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Was the inquiry conducted in secret without opportunity of cross-examining on the evidence?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The inquiry was conducted precisely in the same way as in the other ease, and in accordance with the usual practice.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: In secret?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Lieutenant-Governor carefully examined the records in the case.

  Gulab Bano Case.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked whether, in regard to the Gulab Bano case, he would lay in the Library of the House a copy of the full proceedings in the trial before the sessions judge, and also a copy of the judgment of Mr. Justice Robertson and Mr. Justice Rattigan reversing the judgment of the sessions judge?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: As I have already stated, I am prepared to lay on the Table a copy of the Resolution of the Punjab Government. The Secretary of State does not think it necessary to present any further papers.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Has the India Office a copy of the full proceedings?
  The MASTER Of ELIBANK: The India Office has.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Then why is the House of Commons denied a copy?
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is it a fact that the judges in this case indicated their intention to reply to the Resolution of the Executive, and has a reply been given?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: No, Sir.

  Deportation of Mr. Lajpat Rai.
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware of the statement made to the jury by the judge in the recent libel case brought by Mr. Lajpat Rai against a London paper, that the plaintiff had been deported by Lord Morley, in whom the public had great confidence; and whether, in view of the fact that the deportation had been thus used to the detriment of the plaintiff, the Secretary of State will now enable Mr. Lajpat Rai to meet such a reflection upon his character by informing him of the grounds upon which he was deported, and who were his accusers?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has seen a report of the proceedings in the case referred to. He sees no reason to take the action suggested.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: Is it fair and honourable that this man should not have the opportunity?

  Unemployment Statistics.
  Mr. LEVY LEVERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are statistics in his Department showing that there are countries where unemployment
  6
  does not exist; and, if so, will he enumerate them?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I know of no such statistics or country.

  Importation of Foreign-made Porcelain.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the importation into this country of foreign-made porcelain with well-known trade marks of English firms printed upon the same; whether he has any power to prosecute and punish those who perpetrate such frauds; and, if not, will he seek powers to at once do so?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Only one case of attempted importation into the United Kingdom of foreign-made porcelain bearing a trade mark of an English firm has been reported during the last twelve months, and in this case the goods were refused admission. The Merchandise Marks Acts provide for the prohibition of the importation of goods bearing forged trade marks and also for the imposition of penalties upon persons selling or having in their possession for sale goods so marked. The Board of Trade may undertake prosecutions in cases of this sort which appear to them to affect the general interests of a section of the community or of a particular trade. If my hon. Friend has in his possession any information regarding the existence of such a practice as that to which he refers I shall be glad to receive and consider it.
  Mr. J. WARD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his officers have directed his attention to the peculiar method of enamelling porcelain, giving the foreign marks, and so that the enamel can be rubbed off directly it passes the Customs and sold with the English trade mark attached to it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; but if my hon. Friend would like to have an opportunity of explaining the process, and of giving the evidence to an expert, I will arrange that he has the fullest opportunity of doing so.
  Mr. J. WARD: I have one in my possession which will provide a sample of the process, and I will present it to the right hon. Gentleman.

  Vatersay (Scheme of Settlement).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate whether he is now in a position to state

  7
  when the Congested Districts Board's scheme of settlement for Vatersay is likely to be completed; would he state the number of squatters at present on the island and the number of their children for whom no education is provided?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I trust that the scheme of settlement may be satisfactorily adjusted by the end of this month. About 60 persons with their dependents are at present on the island and the plans proposed for a school provide accommodation for 100 children.
  Mr. H. A. WATT: Can he say the percentage of squatters who have been imported from the mainland?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir.

  Crofters and Deer Forests.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that crofters in the Highland crofting counties suffer serious loss through deer from the adjoining deer forests devastating their crops, and seeing that these crofters owing to want of means Are not in a position to take action for the recovery of compensation, will the Government arrange to take proceedings to enforce Clause 2 of The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906, which provides for compensation for damage to crops by deer?
  Mr. URE: The answer is in the negative.

  Herring Fishery (Scotland).
  Mr. AINSWORTHasked the Lord Advocate whether, in the event of a Commissioner being sent to inquire into matters affecting the herring fishery in Scotland, he will see that special attention is given to the question of the advisability of establishing a close-time for herrings?
  Mr. URE: There is no present intention to make a special inquiry into the matters referred to by my hon. Friend.

  National Harbour, Dover (Accidents to Workmen).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of accidents occurring to workmen employed upon the new national harbour, Dover, during the whole period of its construction, giving the fatal accidents separately?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): The following figures have been supplied
  8
  to me by the contractors through the Admiralty:—The number of non-fatal accidents from the commencement of the works in February, 1898, to the 1st of the present month was 2,690; of these, 1,001 involved no absence from work or absence for not more than one week, 1,115 involved absence for more than one week and less than four; 424 for more than four and less than 12, 109 for more than 12 and less than 26; leaving 41 in which the absence lasted more than 26 weeks. The number of deaths and fatal accidents that have occurred on the works is 36, of which 10 are stated not to have been accidents due to the nature of the work. The weekly average number employed during the whole period has been 1,017.
  Mr. J. WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the statement issued by the contractors on the day of the opening ceremony that there had been no fatal accidents?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have not seen that statement. I have given the answer supplied.
  Mr. J. WARD: It was in consequence of that statement I put the Question.

  Closing of Public-houses (Staffordshire).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked what number of licensed houses have been closed under the Licensing Act, 1904, in the county of Staffordshire during the years 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908; what was the total sum paid in compensation for such closing; and what sum was paid to the licence holders and what sum to other parties?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: All the information desired by the hon. "Member is to be found in the volumes of licensing statistics for each of the years in question. It cannot conveniently be compressed into an answer to a question, except perhaps that I may give the grand totals for the four years, namely: In the whole county of Stafford, including the county boroughs therein, 231 on-licences have been extinguished under the compensation provisions of the Act of 1904 at a total cost of £151,854, of which £9,080 13s. 6d. went to the licensees and £142,773 6s. 6d. to other parties.

  Newport Dock Works (Accident).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to an accident by which a boy, named Richard Smith, was killed on the new dock works at Newport (Mon.) on 21st October

  9
  last; whether the boy was killed by an engine running over level ground, the driver of which could see anything on the line at least 100 yards ahead; what was the speed of the engine at the time of the accident; and whether, in view of the fact that this man has been warned by the coroner for his share in a similar previous fatality, he will place the evidence before the Public Prosecutor, with a view to further proceedings.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiries with regard to this accident. It happened on a straight piece of line, but on the side from which the boy approached there was a ganger's cabin close to the line which to some extent intercepted the view. The coroner informs me that the statement that the driver had previously been warned by him for his share m another similar fatality is a mistake; so far as he is aware, the driver has not been in an accident of the kind before. He is of opinion that there is no evidence of negligence which would justify proceedings against the driver.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Clothing Supplies.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the advertisement inviting tenders for the supply of cloth, tartan, tweed, etc., for the Royal Irish Constabulary, in which it is stated that patterns and specifications of the various kinds of materials can be inspected at the Royal Army Clothing Department, Gros-venor-road, London, and the Chambers of Commerce at Bradford, Galashiels, Halifax, Huddersfield, Leeds, and Bristol; why no mention is made of the Dublin or Belfast Chambers of Commerce; and whether he will take steps to ensure that Irish firms are given facilities for tendering for materials required by the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): My right hon. Friend has already pointed out in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, on 25th October last, that there would be no increase of convenience to intending contractors in having patterns and specifications left at the Chamber of Commerce in Dublin, as they can be inspected at the office of the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which is close by. The contracts for 1910 have already been made, but as regards future years the constabulary authorities see no objection
  10
  to furnishing the patterns to the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, and they understand that the Chamber is willing to receive and exhibit them. Instructions have been given that this shall be done.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Does that apply to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce?
  Mr. CHERRY: It is not necessary, because the head office is so close and it is quite sufficient to have it there.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why Belfast was excluded this year?
  Mr. CHERRY: The only reason why Belfast was excluded was because it was not considered likely that contractors in Belfast would tender. There is no clothing manufacture of the kind in Belfast.
  Mr. MOORE: Why then, if that is so, is it intended to include Belfast next year?
  Mr. CHERRY: Because Belfast seems to wish it.

  Wren and Stokes Estates (North Kerry).
  Mr. FLAVINasked what steps have the Estates Commissioners taken to reinstate Mrs. John Cormody, an evicted tenant on the Wren and Stokes estate, in North Kerry?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into this case, and have found that there was no eviction. The applicant's uncle, by arrangement with her mother, went into occupation of the holding giving her mother a freehold of the house and 5 acres free of rent in exchange. This freehold has been held by applicant for 23 years.
  Mr. FLAVIN: The information I have is that there was an eviction in this ease, and will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Estates Commissioners to inquire again into it?
  Mr. CHERRY: If the hon. Gentleman will supply information to the Estates Commissioners which will tend to show that the report is incorrect, I am quite sure they will inquire into the matter fully again.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I will forward the information I have at my disposal.

  Ormathwaite Estate (Case of Michael Mulvihill).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will say why Michael

  11
  Mulvihill, of Shroneowen, an evicted tenant on the Ormathwaite estate, has not been reinstated in his holding?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have acquired certain lands on Lord Ormathwaite's estate with a view to providing holdings for three tenants evicted from the estate, including the man referred to in the question, but he has refused to purchase the lands offered to him by the Commissioners.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sale of the estate was agreed to on a promise on behalf of the landlord that he would reinstate all those tenants, and that the agent of the landlord consented to that course?
  Mr. CHERRY: I understand that that is so, but a dispute arose as to what was the holding of this particular tenant. That was as to mountain land, which the landlord said had never belonged to the holding. A compromise was arranged by the agent that portion of the mountain land should be added to the low lying portion of the holding, but the man refused to take that.

  Grants to Reinstated Tenants (Case of John Diggins).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can say when John Diggins, an evicted tenant at Ballyline, near Ballylongford, was reinstated; whether any grant of money was given to him to buy stock and build houses; and, if not, will he say why this was not done, in view of this man's circumstances?
  Mr. CHERRY: I understand that this man was reinstated in May last. The Estates Commissioners have sanctioned an advance in his case for the erection of buildings and a free grant for the purchase of live-stock, and have directed one of their inspectors to arrange for the expenditure of the money as soon as possible.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that money will be expended? He has been reinstated since May and has not received anything yet.
  Mr. CHERRY: I really could not say. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are thousands of those cases and they must be dealt with in their order.

  Hussey Estate, North Kerry.
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary whether he could say if the Hussey estate,
  12
  situate near Duagh, North Kerry, was offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners; and whether the estate was inspected; and, if so, what was the result of the inspection?
  Mr. CHERRY: The owner has instituted proceedings for the sale of this estate to the Estates Commissioners. The property has been inspected, and an offer has been made which has not yet been accepted.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Pending completion of the sale, will the Estates Commissioners see that the landlord does not proceed against the tenants for a year's rent where an agreement has been come to?
  Mr. CHERRY: Not having agreed to sell, the landlord has all the rights of a landlord as against the tenants. We cannot compel him to accept the offer.
  Mr. FLAVIN: But pending an agreement, will the Estates Commissioners get the landlord to abstain from proceeding for recovery of arrears?
  Mr. CHERRY: It would not be at all convenient for the Estates Commissioners to interfere with the landlord in the exercise of his rights. If the landlord enters into an agreement to sell, I am sure nothing will be done pending the completion of the sale.

  Intermediate Education Board, Ireland (Awards).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that the intermediate Board for the first 25 years of its existence, when publishing the exhibition and prize lists, always gave after the students' names the total marks which counted for these awards; and whether, seeing that teachers, parents, and pupils were desirous of having these totals published, he would request the Intermediate Board to supply this information for the last and for all future examinations?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am informed by the Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education that the Board published the marks awarded to exhibition and prize winners up to i906, save in the years 1902, 1903, and 1904, when no exhibition or prize lists were published. Since 1906 the exhibition and prize lists have, in pursuance of a resolution of the Board, been published without the total marks, but teachers, parents, or pupils, desiring to know the totals counting towards exhibitions can obtain the detailed marks awarded at the examination.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that over 40 students in the Irish division of the modern literary course in the recent intermediate examinations scored higher marks for exhibitions or prizes than students in the German division of this course, and yet got lower exhibitions and prizes than the students in the German division; and whether he would circulate with the Votes a list of those students in the Irish division, containing their examination number and their net total of marks which counts for exhibitions and prizes.
  Mr. CHERRY: I am informed by the Assistant Commissioners; of Intermediate Education that at the recent examinations in the modern literary course nineteen boys scored higher marks for exhibitions and prizes in Division I. than were scored by boys in Division II. and were nevertheless awarded lower exhibitions or prizes. The exact opposite happened among the girls, live of whom scored higher marks in Division II. than were scored by girls in Division I. yet obtained lower exhibitions or prizes. I understand that the Board resolved in 1906 not to publish the total marks with the exhibition and prizes lists so that I am not in a position to publish the list for which the hon. Member asks.

  Territorial Force (Vaccination).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for War whether the exemption of the Territorial Force from compulsory vaccination had had any effects detrimental to the health of the men; and, if not, whether he would issue orders to respect the conscience in this matter of recruits to both branches of His Majesty's Forces?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): No statistics are available at the War Office to enable me to reply to the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, there is no intention of waiving the Regulations regarding vaccination in the Regular Forces.

  Commissioned Officers in India (Pay).
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he vas aware that the pay of the captains and subalterns of the British Army serving in India was about 40 per cent, less than that of their fellow officers serving in the Indian Army; and whether the question of the pay of the lower ranks of commissioned officers was engaging the attention of the Army Council.
  Mr. ACLAND: It is not at present proposed by the Indian Government to make any change in the relative rates of pay. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

  Natives of India (Designation for Trade Purposes).
  Mr. REESasked whether the Government of India had taken any action on the memorandum received from the Bombay Chamber of Commerce concerning the adoption by natives of India of the names of natives of Europe for trade purposes?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Bombay Chamber of Commerce has addressed the Government of Bombay, not the Government of India, on the subject. So far as I am aware, the Government of Bombay have come to no conclusions regarding it. I understand that it is engaging the attention of other chambers and associations, European and Indian, who are equally interested.

  India (Police and Public).
  Mr. REESasked whether any statistics were available by comparison with which the work of the Indian police might be compared with that of the police of other Governments and Administrations in Asia; whether the British system which had been as far as possible introduced into India depends to a great extent upon the co-operation of the educated classes; and whether the police reports last received from Bengal and the Punjab indicated that such co-operation was wanting?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State is not aware of any statistics of police work in other Administrations in Asia which are comparable with those of India.

  Lala Lajpat Rai (Deportation).
  Mr. REESasked whether Lala Lajpat Rai was deported by the Secretary of State as stated by the judge in a recent libel case tried in London; or whether the Secretary of State for India supported the action taken in this behalf by the Governor-General of India in Council.
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: Lala Lajpat Rai was dealt with by the Government of India, not by the Secretary of State, under Regulation III. of 1818. The Secretary of State supported the action of the Governor-General in Council.

  Uganda Railway (Extension).
  Mr. REESasked whether the extension of the Uganda Railway from Victoria Nyanza to Albert Nyanza had been sanctioned or was contemplated?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The question of constructing a short line of railway from Jinja on the Victoria Nyanza to a place on the Nile some 40 miles below the Ripon Falls is under consideration, but it has not yet reached the stage at which a definite decision can be given in the matter. This is the only extension which is contemplated at present.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY (for Mr. John Murphy)asked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that pension officers in Killarney and various other districts throughout the country were raising objections against pensioners who passed as eligible for pensions nine months ago on foot of Census Returns, which were cleanly incorrect and unreliable; whether they were being assisted in their efforts to deprive Irish pensioners of their allowances by the Irish Local Government Board; whether he was aware that local pension committees were largely disregarded by both pension officers and the Local Government Board; and whether he had made any inquiries on the subject with the view of safeguarding the interests of Irish pensioners and removing the anxiety caused by the recent methods adopted?
  Mr. CHERRY: It is the duty of the pension officers under the Old Age Pensions Act and the regulations there under to raise questions as to the continuance of pensions in all cases in which they consider that the statutory qualifications do not continue to be fulfilled, and the Local Government Board are bound by law to adjudicate upon the questions so raised. I understand that the observations of the pensions committee on each case are fully considered by the pension officer and the Local Government Board. I am not in a position to judge as to the accuracy or otherwise of the Census Returns, but I would point out that if they have been accepted as evidence to disqualify for pensions, they have, on the other hand, been the means of admitting thousands to the benefit of the Act, who, without such evidence, would have been unable to establish their claims.

  Governor General of India (Attempted Assassination).
  Mr. REESasked whether the Under-Secretary for India could give the House any information regarding the recent attempt on the life of Lord Minto?
  The MASTER OF ELIBANK: The reports that have appeared in the newspapers concerning this outrage, happily unsuccessful, are substantially accurate, and I have no further information to give to the House.

  Liverpool Disturbances (Imprisonment of Mr. G. Wise).
  Mr. MARTHURasked whether the Home Secretary had considered the representations made to him in favour of the release of Mr. George Wise from Walton Gaol, Liverpool; and whether he had arrived at a decision in the matter?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I hope that the Royal Assent will be given to the Police (Liverpool Inquiry) Bill on Friday next, and I shall then be able to announce the Commissioner's name; and, when he has been appointed, I shall be in a position to take such action in Mr. Wise's case as may be deemed necessary or expedient in the interests of the inquiry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. WALTER LONG: Can the Prime Minister tell us the intended course of business to-day and for the remainder of the week?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith); TO-DAY (Tuesday): Irish Land Bill (Lords Amendments).
Expiring Laws Continuance Bill (Committee), if possible, at a reasonable hour
Trustees Accounts Bill (Third Reading).
Wednesday: Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill (Lords Amendments).
Assurance Companies Bill (Committee).
Asylum Officers (Superannuation) Bill (Lords Amendments).
Naval Discipline Bill.
Police (Weekly Holiday) Bill.
Thursday: Housing and Town Planning Bill (Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments).
Small Dwelling-Houses, etc. (Scotland) Bill (Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments).
Friday (if not taken before by consent): Assurance Bill (Report and Third Reading).
Temperance (Scotland) Bill).
In regard to the business of a non-controversial character, alterations may be made as to the exact order.
Mr. WALTER LONG: Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what procedure it is proposed to take the Lords Amendments to the Irish Land Bill, since the Order is not on the Paper; and also, what he regards as a "reasonable hour?"
The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to take the Lords Amendments by Motion. As to a "reasonable hour," I cannot give an exact time, but it will be an hour that is generally regarded as reasonable.
Sir F. BANBURY: Can a Motion be taken if no notice has been given?
Mr. SPEAKER: A Motion to consider Lords Amendments can be taken.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: What business is it proposed to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: That depends on circumstances.
New Member Swobx.—Charles O'Neill, esquire, for the Division of North Armagh, in room of William McKillop, deceased.

IRISH LAND BILL.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I now move, "That the Lords Amendments to the Irish Land Bill, in lieu of the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed, be considered forthwith."
I might perhaps say, as the House was not sitting, that it was impossible to give notice of this business as would otherwise have been done.
Mr. MOORE: I think it will be in the recollection of the House that on the last occasion on which the Amendments to this Bill were before the House for its consideration that, the right hon. Gentleman got up and moved that they be rejected en bloc. Before we discuss these Amendments I think the House is entitled to hear from the right hon. Gentleman how they have been arrived at. Do they represent the agreement that he foreshadowed might take place? If these Amendments
18
are put forward by the Government as the result of compromise on each side it is obvious that the tone in which they will be discussed in this House will be very different to what it otherwise would be. Are these Amendments the result of the various negotiations which have been proceeding since this House last met, and by a majority decided to reject the Lords Amendments en bloc? I ask this because it is obvious that there has been a good deal of give-and-take in the Amendments Those who oppose the Bill have given up a good deal; on the other hand, there have been some slight concessions made on the part of the Government. I want to understand before we begin this Debate on which of these Amendments are the Government going to take up the position that they adhere to all the surrenders made by the opponents of the Bill, and at the same time are unwilling to stand by the concessions which they granted during the progress of the negotiations?
Mr. BIRRELL: I should have thought that a gentleman of the political sagacity of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not have required enlightenment by the information that he seeks. If he examines the Paper I think he will see that certain Amendments are down in the name of the Lord Privy Seal, and he will not therefore be surprised if these are the Amendments which I shall ask him and this House to adopt. On the other Amendments not down in the name of any Member of the Government, but in the names of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Atkinson, he will not, I should imagine, be surprised to hear that on these subjects that the agreement to which he refers has not been arrived at.
Motion agreed to.

IRISH LAND BILL.
  Lords Amendments (in lieu of those disagreed to by the Commons) considered.
  LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    Clause 3.—(Power to Make Advances by Guaranteed Stock under Certain Circumstances.)
    Lords Amendment: At end of Clause insert:—

    Clause A.—(Regulations as to Priority.)
    (1) Regulations may be made by the Lord Lieutenant for determining the priority in which advances, whether by means of money or of stock, or partly by means of money and partly by means of stock, may be sanctioned or made, and

    19
    for allocating as between different classes of sales the amounts from time to time suitable for advances.
    (2) The regulations shall provide that in determining the priority as between sales of the same class regard shall be had —so far as is reasonably practicable—to the dates at which proceedings for the respective sales were commenced, or, in cases where proceedings are transferred from one class to another, to the dates of the respective transfers.
    (3) Every regulation made under this Section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I hope the House will agree with the Lords in this Amendment. It is a business matter. I think this Amendment meets the necessities of the case. I move.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11 —(Substituted Agreements.)
    (1) Where by reason of the death of the purchaser or the transmission of the purchaser's interest in a holding, or in pursuance of a declaration of the Land Commission under Section fifteen of the Act of 1903 with respect to a sub-tenancy or a sub-divided holding, a fresh purchase agreement is entered into in substitution for an original purchase agreement previously made, any such fresh agreement shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be deemed to be substituted for the original agreement, and, whenever lodged with the Land Commission, to have been lodged with the Land Commission at the date on which the original agreement was so lodged.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) after the word "holding" ["or a subdivided holding "] to insert the words "or in consequence of any direction of the Land Commission."
    Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the. Lords in the said Amendment." This is a technical matter, and it is to provide for additional cases where further purchase agreements are necessitated owing to the direction of the Land Commission.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment," put, and Agreed to.

    Clause 12.—(Interpretation.)
    In this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

    (a) The expression "pending purchase agreements" means agreements lodged with the Land Commission on or before the fifteenth day of September nineteen hundred and nine, or entered into on or before that date by or with the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board;

    (b) The expression "future purchase agreements" means agreements lodged with the Land Commission or entered into by the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board after that date:

    Provided that purchase agreements entered into at any time on the re-sale by the Land Commission or Congested Districts Board—

    (i) of land purchased or agreed to be purchased by them on or before the fifteenth day of September nineteen hundred and nine; or

    (ii) of land being land in respect of which or comprised in an estate in respect of which a purchase agreement, though not actually entered into on or before the twenty-fourth day of November nineteen hundred and eight, is deemed for the purposes of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the percentage payable under the Act of 1903, to have been entered into on or before that date;

    shall be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as pending purchase agreements and not as future purchase agreements;
    Lords Amendment: In paragraph (a), after the word "Commission" ["with the Land Commission or"], insert the words "or the Land Judge."
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Before this Amendment is put may I call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that it brings us down to line 13 of Clause 12, and before that line there is the question of a date which the Chief Secretary, I understood, both in the Committee and on Report, agreed would be altered.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing before the House.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to refer to an Amendment consequential on the Lords Amendment, and which cannot be made afterwards. The right hon. Gentle-

    21
    man, the Chief Secretary, I understood, promised to alter the date from the 15th September to that of "the passing of this Act"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question is not before the House.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: May I suggest, as it is a consequential Amendment to the Lords Amendment, I am entitled to put a question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: A consequential Amendment to which Lords Amendment?
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: It results from the whole of them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That will not do. I think we will follow the regular course that when an Amendment is made which leads to a consequential Amendment we will consider it.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." It, and the two following, are purely drafting Amendments.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I have no objection whatever to an Amendment of this kind being adopted, but I suggest that in its present form it is technically wrong. It conveys that the purchase agreements are entered with the Land Judge or by the Land Judge. That is not so. The Land Judge never himself enters into an agreement to sell; neither does he enter into an agreement with the tenant to buy. I suggest that the proper form that the Amendment should take would be to insert after the words "Congested Districts Board" in paragraph (a), the words "or approved by the Land Judge on or before that date." The Land Judge himself never enters into an agreement to buy an estate; he sanctions the agreement to sell the estate to the Estate Commissioners or he sanctions a series of agreements which the tenants are to enter into with the landlord. According to the words on the Paper, there must be an actual agreement entered into by the Land Judge or with the Land Judge. That is really never done. I therefore propose to add after the words "Congested Districts Board" in paragraph (a) of Clause 12 ["or with the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board"] the words "or approved by the Land Judge on or before that date."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The first thing the hon. Member will have to do is to negative the
    22
    proposal to agree with the Lords Amendment. He can then move his Amendment.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): It is quite true, as the hon. Member has said, that it is not the practice of the Land Judge to enter into agreements with tenants to sell, but I understand under the Acts it is within his power to do so. I think under one of the earlier Acts it is in the power of the Land Judge to do so if he wishes.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: He has not done so.
    Mr. CHERRY: I agree, but that is no reason why we should not provide for it. We are of opinion that these words in the Lords Amendment are unnecessary, and that the clause as originally drafted is sufficient to cover all possible cases, but if there is any possible case that might be excluded that is covered by the words in the Lords Amendment we have no objection to them. The alternative Amendment which the hon. Member (Mr. Maurice Healy) suggests is one to which the Government would object; "approved" is such a vague term. We have a definite period in this Clause for allowing agreements with the Land Commission or being entered into by the Land Commission, and the result of the hon. Member's Amendment would be to substitute the words "approved by the Land Judge" for the effective and definite phrase in the Bill. I ask the House to agree with the Lords Amendment; it cannot possibly do any injury, and it may possibly do some good.
    Mr. MOORE: I never heard a more ridiculous proposition, if I may say so, than that contained in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General. His argument is that the Land Judge has powers under previous statutes to enter into these agreements, and in the same breath he says he never exercised them. This is not a question of the future with which we are dealing; it is a question of something that has been done, because unless the agreements are approved before 15th September, the Clause is no use whatsoever, and the Attorney-General tells us he has not approved of any agreement before 15th September.
    Mr. CHERRY: So far as I know.
    Mr. MOORE: I quite accept that, everyone knows he has not; he has not approved of any of these agreements prior to 15th September last. Yet we are going to put his name into a Clause for

    23
    agreements in which may approve of. If this was legislation for a future date the Attorney-General would be perfectly right, but you are dealing here with lots of people dependant upon a past state of facts, and the Attorney-General has admitted the Land Judge has never entered into an agreement. Will the Attorney-General tell us what class of agreements this is to apply to?
    Mr. JOHN DILLON: It is certainly most cheerful to hear the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore). The hon. Member for North Armagh practically announces that this is an idiotic Amendment. Seeing the source of that Amendment, I do not wonder. It is a House of Lords Amendment, and it is a most edifying spectacle to hear the hon. and learned Member denouncing it as idiotic.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments agreed to: Paragraph (b) after the word1 "by" ["entered into by the Land Commission"] insert "or with."
    After the word "Commission" ["entered into by the Land Commission"] insert "or the Land Judge."

  PART II.—LAND PURCHASE.

    Clause 14.—(Exclusion from Provisions as to Zones.)
    (1) Where after the passing of this Act application is made under Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Act of 1903 for an advance of the whole purchase money of any holding, if the Land Commission are satisfied that circumstances exist which, in their opinion, necessitate inquiry as to the security for the advance or the equity of the price, they may by order declare that the provisions of the said Sub-section shall not apply, and may deal with the application accordingly in like manner as if those provisions had not been complied with.
    (2) The Judicial Commissioner and the Estates Commissioners may make rules under Section twenty-three of the Act of 1903 providing for the furnishing of such particulars with respect to rent and arrears and of such information with regard to the estate as may appear necessary for the purposes of this Section and for the verification of the particulars and
    24
    information in such manner as they think fit.
    Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "circumstances exist which, in their opinion, necessitate inquiry as to the security for the advance or the equity of the price," and insert instead thereof the words "by means of the existence of arrears of rent owed by the tenant undue influence was exercised by the landlord to induce the tenant to enter into the purchase agreement and the security for the advance might in consequence be insufficient."
    At the end of same Sub-section insert, "(2) Any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Commission under this Section may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the Land Commission to refer the order to the Judicial Commissioner for consideration, and in such case the order shall not have effect unless and until it is approved by the Judicial Commissioner."
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move. "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
    Those who followed these proceedings will recognise that we are now dealing with Clause 14, which raises the controversial question of the zones. Controversy has arisen as to the meaning of the words of the Clause. Rt. hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite said they destroy the zones altogether, and hon. Members for Ireland sitting below the Gangway said that was a consummation most devoutly to be wished for. I come to the conclusion that they did not abolish the zones at all, but that they modified them in certain cases, such as enabling the Estates Commissioners in certain circumstances, notwithstanding that an agreement had been entered into within the zones between the landlord and the tenants, to make inquiry into a transaction in which the State is so largely concerned, being the mortgagee advancing the whole of the purchase money. The House of Lords, first of all, omitted the Clause altogether and then they proceeded to amend it by inserting Amendments which were placed upon the Paper by Lord Lansdowne. I have considered these Amendments most carefully with the Estates Commissioners, and they are of opinion that they would sooner not have them. We fear, what I recognise would be a great disadvantage, the danger of throwing a doubt upon the title between the landlords and tenants until some time

    25
    at all events had elapsed for the purpose of seeing whether the Estates Commissioners were going to exercise the power conferred upon them by the Amendment. I have, therefore, had to consider the course to adopt in this matter, and I am most reluctant to abandon the words in the Clause as originally drafted and passed by this House, which, in my opinion, were wise and proper words giving a discretion to men well qualified to exercise it when they were satisfied that circumstances existed which amounted to an injury to the carrying out of those transactions. I grieve very much for the loss of those words. I have, however, no desire to insert words which would be nugatory, and which might do a maximum of harm and no good. The harm would be to throw a cloud of doubt upon a transaction between landlord and tenant, whilst the object, which is the prevention of certain frauds which cannot be achieved in the ordinary course because the tenant who can lodge the proofs is well satisfied with the result of his bargain, namely, the advance by the State of the whole amount of his purchase money. You cannot get a man of that sort to come into court and say that he has been put under duress and undue influence. These persons do not want to upset the bargain, and the only persons who want to do this are those interested in seeing that a poor man has not been induced, under pressure of arrears of rent from which he has been excused, to enter into a bargain which from the point of view of the man who advances the money is an unreasonable one. I do not want a worthless or nugatory Amendment introduced into this Clause, and rather than have any more bones about it, I move to disagree with the Lords in these two Amendments, and T move the following Amendment, namely, to leave Clause 14 out altogether.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I wish at the earliest possible moment to enter on behalf of my colleagues and myself a protest against the course which the Chief Secretary has indicated. So far as the particular Amendment on the Paper is concerned which the right hon. Gentleman is moving to disagree with, we approve of his action. He is right in saying that the Amendment on the Paper would be a ridiculous and harmful one, and it would be better to have no Amendment at all. The Chief Secretary went on to say that, in obedience to the pressure of the House of Lords, he is going to give up altogether
    26
    the provision with reference to the zones which appeared in his Bill. For the benefit of English Members let me recall, in a few brief words, the history of this matter. Does every hon. Member who is listening to me know what the zones mean? They mean that in a certain class of cases, where the reduction obtained on the annual payment of the annuity by the tenant falls within a certain limit, the Estates Commissioners are forbidden to inquire into the equity of the price obtained or the value of the security. Looking at it from a purely British point of view, the result is, if landlords or tenants—either from some fraudulent agreement or as the result of pressure of arrears of rent, the threat of the destruction of the interests of the tenant, and so forth—can be got to agree to a price which is ridiculously above what is fair, then the British tax-payer is forced to advance the whole of that money without any inquiry whatever.
    That system in Ireland has worked disastrously against the interest of the tenant, and it has been one of the chief means of the extraordinary inflation of price in Irish land. It has reduced tenants who had large arrears of rent into a position of absolute helplessness when entering into bargains with their landlords, because they have had to act under duress. Cases have been brought forward in the courts where it has been proved that under the operation of this system prices were agreed to and went through, owing to the state of the law, which were ridiculously above the value of the holdings, and where the security was not adequate for the amount advanced; and yet by the law these transactions were forced to go through. That is what the zones mean. We demanded the abolition of the zones, and we contended that the case for their abolition was complete from the Irish point of view and from the point of view of the Treasury and British interests. Accordingly we proposed, in the Land Bill we introduced before this one was introduced, entirely to abolish the zone system, and we pressed our view upon the Government. We could not, however, get the right hon. Gentleman to go the whole way with us. We could not get him to abolish the zones, and we protested that the Clause was not strong enough and did not go far enough.
    What was the right hon. Gentleman's Clause? He would not abolish the system, but he gave the Estates Commissioners power wherever they had reason to think, and were satisfied that circumcumstances existed which in their opinion

    27
    necessitated inquiry into the security for the advance and the equity of the price, to exercise a discretion in every case of holding such an inquiry. That did not satisfy us, but surely, from everyone's point of view, it was a most moderate and reasonable proposal. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House and in obedience to the pressure of Irish landlords he gives up the entire Clause. He rightly says their Amendment is no good, but after disagreeing with that Amendment he is going to give up the whole Clause. I have risen at once to protest against this course in the name of my colleagues, because I am sure it will be received in Ireland with the greatest disappointment and dissatisfaction. This is one of the vital points in the Bill so far as we are concerned, and I can only say that I have heard with deep regret and disappointment the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I am in favour of the Motion to disagree with this Amendment, but when the right hon. Gentleman moves to omit the Clause altogether my colleagues and I will certainly go into the Division Lobby against him.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: We take a different view to that adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and we think it is a much more satisfactory arrangement to leave this question of the zones alone. I know the Government and the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford take a totally different view of the advantages to be obtained by this Clause. The Chief Secretary has spoken of this Clause as affording protection to the Treasury, but the hon. and learned member has made it clear that his object and the object of his friends is to damage or weaken the principle of the zones as provided for in the original Act.
    We contended all through that the Clause, as originally framed, would practically destroy the zones. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) hove both spoken again to-day of cases where arrears are piled up and where therefore injury is done either by making the tenant pay too much or by imperilling the credit of the Treasury. The most remarkable thing is that in all the Debates in this House and in another place, the Government have failed, although they have been challenged repeatedly, to produce cases in support of
    28
    the theory they advance, that this piling up of arrears is an evil which ought to be prevented. The learned Attorney-General dissents. Will he tell us whether there was more than one case quoted, either in this House or in the other House, and, if so, what those cases were? There was one case given in this House, and the same case was quoted in the other place. I do not recollect any other case being given. The same general remarks were made; but, although we have repeatedly asked for evidence by the citation of cases in support of the arguments of the Government, they have failed to produce such evidence. In these circumstances I do not wonder they have failed to maintain the position they originally took up. I confess I do-not quite understand why the Chief Secretary regards the Amendment of the House of Lords as being so futile; but, if that is his view, and if he prefers to remove the Clause altogether, we shall offer no opposition to the course he proposes to take.
    Mr. DILLON: I agree with the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) that this is an idiotic Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is perfectly correct in saying that the Amendment put in by the House of Lords would render the law worse than it now stands. We are therefore entirely with him in rejecting the Amendment from which he proposes to dissent. But when we come to the subsequent policy of giving up the very insufficient and moderate Clause inserted in the original Bill, then we are entirely and most emphatically opposed to it. There has been a great deal of difference of opinion on this question of the zones and their effects. The matter has been for a long time debated in Ireland, and, so far as those are concerned for whom I speak, public opinion in Ireland is crystallised and settled upon the subject. I was very much struck and edified by the expression used by Lord Lansdowne in another place when moving this Amendment and protesting against any interference with the zones. He said:
    "This provision of the zones is the Ark of the Covenant, and no one must lay disrespectful hands upon it."
    Yes, it is the Ark of the Covenant, and it is valued by the Irish landlords, because they know very well the number of fraudulent cases they have passed through in connection with the zones, and that they have collared hundreds and thousands of pounds which ought never to have been advanced

    29
    to the injury of the taxpayers of this country, and also to the injury of the unfortunate tenants. The right hon. Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long) said there was a difference of opinion and of point of view between the Chief Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). The Chief Secretary spoke in the interests of the taxpayers, and the hon. Member for Waterford spoke in the interests of the tenants. In this particular instance the interests of the taxpayers and of the tenants coincide, because it is to the interest of the tenant to be protected against being squeezed into agreeing to an extravagant price, and it is to the interest of the taxpayer not to have his money advanced where there is no adequate security for repayment; and there never was a device invented by the Irish landlords which has had more disastrous effects upon the tenants of Ireland than this provision of the zones. I frankly confess that in resisting, as I do with all my strength and as emphatically as I can, the proposal of the Government to waive their Clause, I am actuated mainly, not by consideration for the interests of the taxpayers, although that is an interest which affects Ireland as well as this country, but by consideration for the interests of the tenants. I say that under the old Purchase Acts which were in operation in Ireland till the Act of 1903, there was no more important provision for the protection of tenants against having forced upon them unfair bargains by pressure of arrears or innumerable other means. There were no means more effective than this very point of requiring inspection for security. The hon. Member for South Dublin challenged the Government to say if it was not a fact that in all the discussions that have taken place there was only one case mentioned where pressure of arrears was made use of by an Irish landlord to put up the price. I will satisfy the right, hon. Gentleman that we can mention so many cases that I would be ashamed to take up so much time, but, as we have been challenged, it is absolutely essential that I should mention a sample of the long list of cases I could lay before the House if I had no regard at all for time. Before I come to these cases let me mention the only argument ever put forward for the zones. It is that they facilitate and expedite sales. We are told they expedite sales because they do away with the necessity of inspection. That has been repeated ad nauseam in this House and has been believed by people not acquainted
    30
    with the process of sales to tenants in Ireland. Let me read one or two sentences from the evidence given before the Dudley Commission in answer to that statement. This is the evidence of Mr. Bailey:—
    "The Chairman: Just as a matter of information, have you found that sales have been quickened since the adoption of the system?—One of the great arguments in favour of the zones was that by abolishing inspection a case would go through much quicker. As a matter of fact, we have to inspect even zone cases for certain purposes, such as boundaries, occupation, etc, and my own opinion is that the abolition of inspection does not really enable the case to go through much faster."
    There is the opinion of a man who, above all others, should know. He goes on to say:—
    "We have still to inspect."
    Anyone acquainted with the work of these cases knows that inspection for occupation and boundaries takes as much time as inspection for security. You can inspect for security at the same time.
    "Mr. O'Kelly: One of the reasons given for abolishing inspection, was that delays would lie avoided, and you say that result has not been achieved?—I said we have to inspect to see whether the tenant is in occupation, or whether the boundaries are correct."
    Then Mr. Bailey is asked whether, in his judgment, the existence of the zone system has any effect upon the prices given for Irish land. He answers:—
    "There need be no hesitation in answering the question. A system which enables holdings to go through without inspection, some of which holdings would not clearly pass if there were inspection, must result in higher prices."
    He was than pressed a great deal by other members of the Commission whether it was his deliberate opinion that that was frequently the case, and, in many answers, he said he believed it was very frequently the case:—
    "Sir John Colomb: On what do you found the strong statement that they would not have gone through if there had been inspection of these properties?—In this way. There have been a very large number of cases brought into us as a non-zone cases; cases in which there were no judicial rents, and we have got. them inspected as non-zone cases. Afterwards the parties found out that they made a mistake. When we have inspected and cut down advances to what we consider security, it was then found these were zone cases' —cases in which the fair rent had been fixed and consequently, the property having been declared an estate, we are obliged to make the advance, it being within the zone, although we had come to the conclusion after the inspection that the price asked for was not secured."
    4.0. P. M.
    That has occurred over and over again. The money of the State, by the admission of their own Estates Commissioner, is being advanced in hundreds of thousands of cases in Ireland, where there is not adequate security for the money. I say to propose, as a remedy for this, the

    31
    ridiculous Amendments the Lords have brought forward, that where duress or pressure have been exercised, then, forsooth, the tenant who has been subjected to this duress, and has thereby escaped from eviction or seizure, is to proceed by way of appeal, is most ludicrous. It is a contradiction in terms. I have been challenged by the right hon. Gentleman to mention other cases. I could advance dozens of cases. If the Kinvarra case had stood alone, the mere fact that such a case could occur under the zone system ought to determine this House to abolish that system altogether. The greater part of the cases where this zone system has worked evil, both for the Treasury and for the tenant, never come before the public at all. It is only exceptional cases which come into the courts, and, therefore, it is ridiculous to say that the few cases which incidentally become public stand by themselves. As a matter of fact, they represent the great majority of the cases. I will take the Clinton case. Mr. Bailey describes this in these words:—
    "The owners there offered first for wile at 24 years' purchase. Subsequently they reduced their offer to about 22 years' purchase. The tenants offered 19 or 19½ years' purchase, and then the case was brought by both sides before us to try and effect a settlement."
    Why was it brought before the Commissioners? It was because the police had been mobilised to evict the tenants, and the tenants had been mobilised in order to resist the police, and with a view to avoiding a pitched battle both sides were persuaded to agree to the arbitrament of the Estates Commissioners. Mr. Bailey goes on to say:—
    "We got a very careful inspection made. The result of the inspection was rather remarkable because we found that the tenants on it had to be graded into a very large number of classes. The estate was in a fore part of West Cork, running up the side of Hungry Hill. In grading the holdings, 20 years' purchase of the judicial rent was fixed on one class. 19 on another, 17 on another, and we actually had some holdings on which we could not sanction advances of more than 12 years' purchase. There were a couple of cases where the tenants were actually in receipt of outdoor relief and we could not see our way to advance more than 10 or 11 years' purchase.
    "Mr. Bryce: In one case, docs it not go as low as 7 years purchase?
    "Witness: I forget the lowest, but taking the average it only came to about 17 years' purchase of the total rents upon it."
    Thus we see that, whereas a tenant had been asked to agree to pay 21½years' purchase, and had actually offered 19½years', the result of the inspection was to show that the security was worth only 17½years' purchase. Some of these tenants who were to have paid 21½years'
    32
    purchase, according to the terms demanded by the landlord, eventually got off with seven or eight years' purchase. What, I ask, is the justification for advancing the money of the taxpayers in that way? Here is the report of the Commissioners on this case:—
    "The greater part of the land is composed of mountains, bogs and rocks. The soil is generally peaty and the arable land is only found here and there in small patches between the rocks and the rough uncultivated grazing land. The holdings are, with few exceptions, uneconomic, and the supplemental income necessary to maintain the tenants and their families is obtained (1) from America; (2) from labour on the fortification works, Bere Island (which are now nearly finished, and (3) from money obtained from the seamen of the Atlantic Fleet, which spends about six weeks annually in the harbour. Those of the tenants who possess a horse (and they are in the minority), hire the animal to the sailors, and make a little money in that way. Over 50 of the tenants have spent part of their lives in America, and there are some members of nearly every family at present in foreign countries sending money home to their relatives. There are five of the tenants at present in the mines at Montana."
    Thus it will be seen that the landlords are getting a great deal of their money from the Montana mines, where many young men are employed at present, and not from the land. Then I have here the schedule applying to this estate, which shows that of the second term tenants 26 bought the 17 years' purchase, 27 at 20 years' purchase, 22 at 19 years' purchase, 14 at 15 years' purchase (instead of 21½years), and 2 at 10.6 years' purchase; while of the first term tenants I bought the 17 years' purchase, 3 at 15, 1 at 12½, 1 at 12, 1 at 11½, and 1 at 7½; and, be it remembered, in regard to that holding bought at 7 years' purchase, had it not been for the fight made by the tenants and holders, would have had to pay 21½ years' purchase. That is the way in which this system works. We are only able to bring out these cases because they are fought. We do not know how many other cases there may be in which the tenants have submitted to these extortionate demands, but no doubt they are numerous. I can give a few more cases. I was told the other day by a gentleman who knows county Galway perfectly well of a case where, within the last few months, the tenants agreed to pay the landlord £16,000, but, owing to some accident, the arrangement could not be carried through and the estate came before the Estates Commissioners for inspection, and they found the security to be worth only £10,000. The landlord immediately accepted that valuation. Is it a wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, should applaud this Ark of the Covenant. I have here, too, a case in the county of Cavan.

    33
    In that case the tenant had agreed to buy at 22 years' purchase, but the Commissioners, on inspection, held that there was not sufficient security and fixed the value of the security at 17½years' purchas.4–4½years less than the tenants had agreed to give. These cases could be multiplied by the dozen. Here, again, is a case in the county of Roscommon. The estate was agreed to be purchased at 22.8 years' purchase. The Estates Commissioners refused, and on inspection found that there was security only for 17 years' purchase—5½ years less than the tenants had agreed to give. I assert that that is characteristic of what is going on all over Ireland under this abominable zone system. Under this Ark of the Covenant the landlords are collaring from four to five years' purchase more than there is security for the State. No wonder, having got through so many fraudulent transactions under its protection, they deem the Ark of the Covenant to be sacred. I am opposed to this proposal mainly because it affects the unhappy tenantry in the West and South of Ireland. It is the poor small holders who suffer. They are the men who are at the mercy of their landlords. They are the men upon whom chiefly this pressure is exercised. The poorer the estate the more miserable it is, the less able are the tenants to make a bargain, and the more are they at the mercy of the landlords. Yet by allowing this series of Amendments to the Bill, in which the Lords have taken elaborate precautions to prevent estates being classified as congested, the Government are simply playing into the hands of the landlords. Why are the landlords so averse to extending the definition of congestion? One reason is, no doubt, that if the zones do not apply the Ark of the Covenant will disappear. What they want is, by means of this system of zones, to bring hydraulic pressure to bear in order to squeeze these unfortunate tenants into giving extravagant prices for their holdings. I say that that is a most outrageous proposal. For my part I deeply regret that the Government have consented to yield upon this point. I know the Irish party are determined to let the Irish people see that they have neither hand nor responsibility in this matter.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I share the regret expressed on these benches at the decision of the Government to abandon Clause 14. I do not base my opposition quite on the same lines as those adopted
    34
    by the last speaker. He has argued, in attacking this Clause, as if its effect were to abolish the zone system. The effect of Clause 14 is not to abolish the zones, and does not come near to abolishing the zones, and I do not quite see the advantage of arguing it on that basis, but although it does not abolish the zones, it is a very valuable clause because it restores a beneficial practice which had existed for upwards of four years in the office of the Estates Commissioners, and under which great protection had been afforded to the tenant purchasers, especially in the poor districts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long) stated that only one case had been cited as a proof of the necessity of this Clause, and that was so. Only one case has been cited, but why? Because it was a case that reversed the practice of four years. It was not the first case of the kind that had arisen. This question arose almost immediately after the passing of the Act of 1903 in the reported case of an insurance company in the West of Ireland. The facts were very remarkable. The owners of the estate, before the Act of 1903, had entered into a purchase agreement with the tenants, and they had lodged the agreement with the Land Commission. That body inspected the estate under the old law, and they found that it was held in rundale or intermixed plots, and they came to the conclusion that it was not security for the purchase money which had been asked. They accordingly refused to sanction the sale, but the Act of 1903 had not been in existence for a year before the owners of the estate entered into a new bargain with the tenants, but within the zones, and as a matter of fact they had actually succeeded in inducing the tenants to offer higher prices than those which the Land Commission had previously refused to sanction. The owners came to the Estates Commissioners and said, "We have now brought ourselves within the zones; it is not competent for you to inquire into the sufficiency of the price, but you have to sanction the sale." The Estates Commissioners said, "Nothing of the kind; it is perfectly true that the first Section of the Act prevents us from inquiring whether the value comes within the Act, but there is another Section in the Act which places upon us the responsibility of declaring whether the lands are 'an estate,' and before we can declare these lands 'an estate' we shall enter

    35
    into all kinds of inquiries about them, the nature of the holdings, the amount of rent due, and whether they are held in rundale and if we find the character of the estate as a whole is such as to make it undesirable for us to declare it to be 'an estate' we shall refuse to sanction, even although the price is within the zones." They came to that decision within twelve months after the Act of 1903 was passed, it was not challenged for four years, and it went on regulating the practice until the Weir's estate case arose, which was taken to the Court of Appeal. The reason, therefore, why Weir's estate case has always been referred to was not because it was the only case, but because it was the case which had reversed the practice under which the Estates Commissioners had been administering the Land Act for four years. My view of this Clause is that it simply restores the law to the state in which it was before Weir's case was decided, but it does not go so far as to abolish the zones. My own view is that the landlords had no reason to fear its results, except in bad cases, and that although it did not abolish the zones it was valuable. I regret the Government have come to the conclusion to drop it.
    House disagreed with Lords in said Amendments.
    Lords Amendment: At end of Subsection (1) after "with" ["as if those provisions had not been complied with"] insert, "Any person aggrieved by any order of the Land Commission under this Section may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the Land Commission to refer the order to the Judicial Commissioner for consideration, and in such case the order shall not have effect unless and until it is approved by the Judicial Commissioner."
    Mr. BIRRELL: This is consequential upon the other Amendments. The Government would be unable to assent to any such Amendment.
    House disagreed with Lords in said Amendment.
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved, as a consequential Amendment, that Clause 14 be left out of the Bill.
    Question put, "That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 192.

    Division No. 896.]

    AYES.

    [4.20 p.m.

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

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Alden, Percy

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Dowd, John

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Grady, J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Boland, John

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    O'Malley, William

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Keating, M.

    O'Neill, Charles

    Byles, William Pollard

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cameron, Robert

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pointer, J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lundon, T.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dclany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Kean, John

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, J. J.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Murnaghan, George

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Ginnell, L.

    Nannetti, Joseph p.

    White, Patrick (Heath, North)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Nicholls, George

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harrington, Timothy

    Nolan, Joseph

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Capt. Donelan.

    Hodge, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    NOES.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Banner, John S. Harmood

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Balcarres, Lord

    Barnard, E. B.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Haworth Arthur A

    Percy, Earl

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Branch, James

    Henry, Charles S.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Bright, J. A.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Campbell. Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Radford, G. H.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hooper, A. G.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Richardson, A.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Clark, George Smith

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Clough, William

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H A. E.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rowlands, J.

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

    Lambert, George

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Sears. J. E.

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

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Seely, Colonel

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Steadman, W. C.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Dumphreys, John

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Elibank, Master of

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Erskine, David C.

    Maclean, Donald

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Toulmin, George

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Maddison, Frederick

    Vivian, Henry

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

    Marnham, F. J.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Falconer, J.

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Fell, Arthur

    Massie, J.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Forster, Henry William

    Menzles, Sir Walter

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Molteno, Percy Alport

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

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Moore, William

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Greenwood. G. (Peterborough)

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Gretton, John

    Morse, L. L.

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Griffiths, Ellis, J.

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

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Gulland, John W.

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Younger, George

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B

    Paul, Herbert

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

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    CLAUSE 15.—(Limitation on Amount of Advances to Tenant Purchasers.)
    (1) No advance exceeding the sum of three thousand pounds shall be sanctioned under the Land Purchase Acts to any tenant in pursuance of an agreement for the purchase of a holding entered into after the passing of this Act, unless—

    (a) the tenant resides on the holding, or such holding is ordinarily used with the holding on which the tenant resides; or

    (b) a substantial portion of the holding has been tilled in each of the five years next preceding the date of the agreement

    38
    and the Land Commission consider that an advance of a larger amount not exceeding five thousand pounds may properly be sanctioned.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out "or (b) a substantial portion of the holding has been tilled in each of the five years next preceding the date of the agreement."
    Mr. CHERRY Mr. CHERRY moved "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is the Clause which provides a general limit to advances of £3,000, but by way of exception to that, there are two cases where a limit of £5,000 is granted. The first is where the tenant

    39
    resides on the holding or the holding adjoins the house in which he resides. The second is where a substantial portion of the holding has been tilled in each of the five years previous to the agreement. The Lords rejected the second on the ground that it might unduly encourage tillage in lands which where only suitable for pasture. As a matter of fact, a tillage holding generally is one on which the tenant resides. It is worked by a man who lives on the holding or on an adjoining holding. So we considered that almost all the cases which will be covered by paragraph (b), which the Lords have struck out, will come within paragraph (a).
    Mr. J. J. CLANCY: I am very much disappointed that the Government propose to agree with this Amendment. The defence made by the Attorney-General seems to me to be no defence at all. It is not an unimportant question. Anything which tends in favour of doing away with the big grazing ranches, which provide no employment for the people, and which tends to the increase of land under tillage is not only not an unimportant matter, but one of the very highest consequence. I was hoping that this Amendment would be resisted, especially as I could not understand on what ground the House of Lords insisted upon it. What good will it do them? Does the House of Lords wish to prevent the increase of tillage? Do they wish to prevent the increase of unemployment? And, anyhow, what is it to them, if they sell their lands, what becomes of the land afterwards? The fact of the matter is that this is just the sort of Amendment which displays the true inwardness of the House of Lords in dealing with this whole question. They have no regard whatever, no matter what they may say, to the real interests of Ireland. No one can deny that the increase of the extent of land under pasture has tended to unemployment. No one doubts that it has tended also to decrease the agricultural wealth of the country, and yet, knowing this, they propose an Amendment which would actuary continue that disastrous state of affairs. It is one of those Amendments which, in my opinion, stamp the House of Lords as the enemies of the people beyond question, and I am surprised to find a single Uster Member who, it is to be presumed, represents Orange farmers as well as Orange artisans, indulging in laughter, which means that they have no regard for the material interests of Ireland. I protest against the Amendment and I
    40
    hope the party with which I act will oppose it in the Division Lobby.
    Mr. MOORE: I wish to say a word in, reply to the rather vehement remarks of the hon. Member, who appears always to profess to misunderstand the position of Ulster Members. Whether it is on the question of zones or of restrictions such as this, which are put in at the instance of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, the Ulster farmer is anxious that all land should pass under the operation of the Purchase Act, and he is anxious that all land should pass as quickly as possible, because his desire is not to get further reductions of rent by agitation, and not to blackmail the vendor by cattle-driving or any other little amusement to reduce the value of the land. He is willing to pay a fair price, but he wants to get the transaction through, and wants every acre of Ireland, whether pasture or tillage, sold as speedily as possible. For that reason I would regret any restriction which would keep the holding out of the purview of the Act or any policy which would delay the purchase going through once the agreement was signed. I regret to say that the policy of the Government has been in the direction of excluding certain holdings.
    Mr. J. C. FLYNN: My hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy) refers to the Ulster Members because Ulster is largely a province of small holdings and of mixed farming, in which tillage largely predominates. That is the kind of thing that the Lords seek to depreciate and to prevent in other parts of Ireland. I well remember when the 1903 Act was going through the protests which were made by several Members of the Irish party with regard to the advance being raised from £3,000 to £5,000. There was such a desire to get the Bill through that the thing was rushed. We made a protest on that occasion, but our better judgment was overruled, and we allowed the thing to go through. We made a protest, which we repeat now, because it is a great discouragement to the employment of labour all over the country, and the increase of the large pasture holdings, instead of being an economic gain, is an economic disadvantage to Ireland. It is impossible to read the report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, which we believe is doing its level best to increase employment and break up the grass lands, and to give more employment and put more land under tillage, without a certain amount of misgiving. And we

    41
    find that on an occasion like this, on which the Government should have made some stand and done something on behalf of the agricultural interests of Ireland and the agricultural labourers, they have weakly given way. Anyhow the action of the other House has been a wanton piece of interference. When the landlord has sold his land, what is it to him so long as he gets his price? If Ireland is to be the fruitful mother of flocks and herds, but not the fruitful mother of an industrious population, it is legislation of this kind which tends to carry it out.
    Mr. J. CULLINAN: Let me, as representing tin agricultural county, where, according to recent returns, the number of acres under tillage has increased by thousands, enter my most emphatic protest against the action of the Government in accepting this Amendment of the Lords. Under the Act of 1903 you made advances of large sums to the large graziers of the country who gave no employment what-
    ever on these holdings, and you now want to try and prevent the farmers in Ireland, who are really conferring immense benefits on the community by giving considerable employment, from getting any special treatment. I think this gives us an indication of the spirit which animates the Lords, especially those who pretend that they are great philanthropists, whose only trouble, night and day, is the welfare of the industrial classes in Ireland. This is simply putting a barrier in the way of employment. I enter my emphatic protest against it, and I am surprised to see that the Government seems to be completely playing into the hands of Noble Lords, who want to keep the open sore there, and are doing all in their power to defeat the Government.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 88.

    Division No. 897.]

    AYES.

    [4.45 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cotton. Sir H. J. S.

    Horniman, Emslie John

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

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Banbury, Sir Fredarick George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Dumphreys, John

    Lambert, George

    Barker, Sir John

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Lamont, Norman

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

    Elibank, Master of

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Erskine, David C.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Essex, R. W.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

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

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Bertram, Julius

    Falconer, J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Fletcher, J. S.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine

    Forster, Henry William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Branch, James

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Bright, J. A.

    Gardner, Ernest

    M'Micking, Major G.

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

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Marnham, F. J.

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Buxton. Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Gulland, John W.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hancock, J. G.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Moore, William

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Morgan. G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hart-Davies, T,

    Morrell, Philip

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morse, L. L.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Paul, Herbert

    Cleland, J. W.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Clough, William

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pirle, Duncan V.

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

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Radford, G. H.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Sunderland)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Rowlands, J.

    Thornton, Percy M.

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

    Sears, J. E.

    Toulmin, George

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Younger, George

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Walters, John Tudor

    Shlpman, Dr. John G.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Watt, Henry A.

    NOES.

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

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Neill, Charles

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Joyce, Michael

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Pointer, J.

    Boland, John

    Keating, M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Reddy, M.

    Burke, E. Haviland.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Cameron, Robert

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Richardson, A.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lundon, T.

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Crean, Eugene

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Cullinan, J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

    Delany, William

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Dillon, John

    M'Kean, John

    Sheehy, David

    Duffy, William J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

    Stewart, Hailey (Greenock)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mooney, J. J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Muldoon, John

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Murnaghan, George

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nicholls, George

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Gilhooly, James

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wardle, George J.

    Ginnell, L.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Glover, Thomas

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)

    Harrington, Timothy

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

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Capt. Donelan.

    Hodge, John

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    CLAUSE 16.—(Prohibition of Advance.)
    (1) No advance shall be made under the Land Purchase Acts in respect of the purchase of a holding if the tenancy was created after the first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and eight.
    (2) This Section shall not apply to tenancies created by the Land Commission or by the Congested Districts Board.
    The Lords Amendment standing next on the Paper was: Leave out "first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and eight" and insert "fifteenth day of September in the year nineteen hundred and nine."
    Mr. CLANCY: I rise to a point of Order. This is an Amendment which proposes to add to the public charge. It may involve an advance of public money, not only for the purchase of land, but also for the purpose of flotation and the payment of bonus. The Amendment, therefore, I sub-
    44
    mit, according to the Constitution, if the Constitution is worth anything at all now, is one which the House of Lords is absolutely incompetent to move. I ask your ruling upon the point.
    Mr. MOORE: The position of affairs was this. Under the existing law all tenancies were entitled to advances, and the Clause which the Government proposed was to restrict them to tenancies created after the first of January, 1908, but that never became law. What the Lords have done is to bring the date forward from 1st January, 1908, to 15th September, 1909. The effect of that is to diminish the charge to be made on the Exchequer, because at present every holding is entitled to an advance. Therefore I submit that the point of Order does not arise, either as a matter of privilege or in any other way.
    Mr. CLANCY: This Amendment will increase the charge proposed by the Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I wish to hear the views of the Irish Government on the point.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The view we take of this is that the Amendment does not in any real sense increase the charge, because in the case of tenancies between the two rival dates—the one inserted in the Bill, and the one which is being inserted by the House of Lords—are tenancies on which no advance could be made to the tenants. Still the land comprised in such a tenancy might be the subject of an advance under the Land Purchase Acts. Therefore in reality it cannot, in my opinion, be said that there is any real increase of the charge, because there was a possibility of the land being made the subject-matter of an advance. This Clause provides that no advance should be made for tenancies created after a particular date. Therefore it limits the number of tenancies which can be made the subject-matter of advances under the Land Purchase Acts, and the only difference between the two Houses is as to what date should be inserted. I submit that there is no possible increase of the charge.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to say that these Amendments only came into my hands at 3.30 to-day, and that I have not therefore had time to give that amount of attention to them which I have given to other Amendments made by the Lords. The matter is somewhat complicated to me, although it is clear to hon. Members from Ireland, who are very familiar with the subject, but after the statement of the Chief Secretary that no increase of advances will arise under this Amendment I feel bound to accept his view and say that the Amendment is one which can be discussed by the House.
    Mr. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken, and he can only deal with the merits now.
    Mr. CLANCY: I do not understand the point of Order has been disposed of, and it is not on the merits at all that I wish to speak at present. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that if an advance is made not to the Congested Districts Board or to the Estates Commissioners, but to a tenant, there will be no increase of charge? I think that is a fair question.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think there could be, except in the most roundabout way, any increase of charge at all, but it
    46
    is very difficult categorically to say "No" to the question put by the hon. Member. I certainly say that if there was any question of privilege in the matter the House should waive it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. BIRRELL: This Clause provided that no advances were to be made where a tenancy was created after 1st January, 1908, and it may be remembered by those who took part in the discussion that there was a certain amount of uncertainty as to what would happen. Consequently, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long) asked me to put in two Amendments, of which this was one. It was thought that for safety it was desirable that the Bill should be re-committed in respect of these Amendments, because the one did clearly involve a charge. It was a matter of controversy between learned persons whether this Amendment did involve a charge or not. The right hon. Gentleman, when he asked me to put down the Amendments, said with perfect good faith that they would cause no criticism whatsoever. I put them down without giving so full consideration to this particular Amendment as I ought to have done. Having put them down, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends divided the House against the recommital of the Bill. Although I am one of the mildest mannered men, I confess that irritated me almost beyond the point of endurance. These Amendments were put down to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman and they involved the recommital of the Bill. The recommital having been opposed, I did not move the Amendments in terms of excessive cordiality when they came to be moved. This Amendment gave rise to an animated discussion. It showed that this Amendment, so far from being popular with those who represented particular views, was most unpopular, and I therefore voted against it. Then when it went up to the other place what I quite foresaw would happen did happen —namely, that the other place put into the Bill the words of the Amendment. Now I cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs. I cannot come to terms with the other House and do what I am anxious to do, and what I know can be done—secure the passage of the Bill—without making concessions. Therefore, although my

    47
    reason does not pretend to be convinced, nevertheless I think that the proper course is to agree with the Lords in their Amendment. After all, if this Bill does not become law there will be no limitation at all. It is only if the Bill becomes law that there will be the limitation from the altered date. I think, under all the circumstances, that that is well worth securing, and I now move that the House do agree with the Lords Amendments.
    Mr. CULLINAN: On a previous occasion, after the strong line of action taken by the representatives of the Irish party, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary voted against his own Amendment. He was then the object of very strong attack from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. We are very much accustomed recently to very fine though unparliamentary expressions being used by Leaders on the Front Opposition Bench. I was reading the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. J. H. Campbell) in Lancashire lately. He made a very strong attack upon members of the Irish party, and said that owing to their action his country was reeking with crime and blood and outrage. His language was enough to make Irish Nationalist Members of Parliament feel most indignant. He used an expression with regard to the Chief Secretary for Ireland which I then thought rather strong, but which I think this evening I cannot any longer object to owing to his action in accepting this Amendment of the House of Lords in face of the decision arrived at by this House after full discussion on a previous occasion. Let me tell right hon. Gentlemen on both sides that if this Amendment is passed it will inflict a most glaring injustice, and the Chief Secretary will put a premium upon the Gentlemen above the Gangway and their friends in Ireland who have tried to make his rule of government impossible in Ireland for the last couple of years. When this Bill was first introduced the date fixed for limiting advances was the 1st January, 1908. You have since then seen a lot of those people, under the patronage of Lord Ashtown and the outrage mongers in Ireland, bring in bogus tenants on their properties in order to prevent the old evicted tenants being put back. You have lots of that land which the Estates Commissioners in Ireland might have acquired under the Evicted Tenants Act
    48
    given to such parties, and you have charges made on the Irish County Council for extra police in different parts of Ireland, and in my own county, Tippe-rary, they have had extra police charges. The Chief Secretary says that he has no control, that the laws are there, and that he must enforce those charges on the people. But here you have in this Bill not only a recognition of those bogus tenancies but you have a tax put upon the whole district for extra police who are brought in on account of this effort to prevent evicted tenants and deserving people getting those lands. It has been said that I have, used strong expressions. If I did so all I can say is that I could not possibly make them strong enough to express my indignation as to the consequences of this Amendment. If you accept this Amendment of the House of Lords people in Ireland will understand that you are simply playing the game of those men who have created these bogus tenancies. I have no hesitation in saying that in my division, where there are some of these cases, and in other divisions, if this Amendment is included in the Bill you will have reason to remember it.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: In reference to the Chief Secretary's criticisms of the Opposition for the action which they took in regard to the Motion for recommittal, may I say it is perfectly true that he was good enough to tell me that one of those Amendments would require a Motion to recommit, but he also said it would be necessary to recommit the Bill in respect of other matters. It was in respect of these that the Opposition resisted recommittal, as they were proceeding under a closure by compartment resolution, which limited the time to two hours, and it was, they thought, extremely unfair to take a Motion for recommittal and then go through the Committee stage of the Bill in the time reserved for the general debate without recommittal. That is the reason we opposed the recommittal. In regard to the action of the right hon. Gentleman now, I do not believe that the insertion of this Amendment will have the dire consequences which are foretold by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I believe it is an Amendment which lessens hardships that otherwise would have been created by this Clause, and I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for Ireland for accepting it.
    Mr. DILLON: I sympathise strongly with the view put forward by the hon.

    49
    Member for Tipperary. This Amendment is another of those made by the House of Lords with which this Bill is studded all over, and which hamper the work of relief of congestion. There is no more disgraceful action on the part of Irish landlords since the Act of 1903 passed than their action in parts of Ireland, where it is notorious that the amount of unoccupied grazing land was insufficient to deal with the problem of congestion. In these places the landlords proceeded to create new tenancies on grazing land, and did a thing which I have always denounced as a fraud, and still condemn as a fraud. They let these lands more or less at moderate rents, which I believe in some cases are turned by agreement into judicial rents. Then they put them up at these rents to auction and took large fines, and they have sold them to the incoming tenants or graziers, whichever they were, for these fines. They then proceed to come to the Government to get advances of public money to sell to the grazing tenants. I think that is an absolute fraud on this House, and on the whole system of land purchase in Ireland. Public money was never voted for that purpose, and the purposes for which the money was voted, and for which all this machinery was set in motion, are defeated by these fraudulent proceedings; and that the Government should approve of this to me is most deplorable, and is, I confess, a thing which I am entirely unable to understand. This Clause, as it stands in the Bill was undoubtedly demanded by public opinion in Ireland. It is no answer to tell us that there are certain groups of tenants in Ireland who support the landlords Amendment. We know there are. They are the tenants who have taken this land. I say without hesitation that the whole of that proceeding is a fraudulent proceeding, and utterly opposed to the whole purpose of the House, and if the House of Commons had been told when they were passing the Act of 1903 that any such proceeding was contemplated I am perfectly certain that they would have put in a provision to make it impossible that it should be done. The House of Lords over and over again in the course of the Debates on this Bill proclaimed their zeal for the enlargement of congested holdings, and wanted to make out that the Irish party were championing landless men and doing other dreadful things; but by this Amendment, as well as by many other Amendments, they have added to the difficulties of relieving congestion, and have
    50
    created machinery for limiting considerably the already insufficient supply of grazing land in the congested districts of the country.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I have no very strong opinion upon this matter. If the Government had included in the Act of 1903 a provision that no public moneys should be advanced on tenancies created after that date, that would be a perfectly reasonable proposition, and one to which no one would have objected. On the other hand, there is always some objection to retrospective legislation. That is the only criticism which I make on that ground. I do not rise to continue a general discussion on it; but I do rise to point out that under the Clause in its present form it appears to me that a very gross injustice may be done to a class of persons whom I am sure nobody in this House desires to hurt, and I wish to move a consequential Amendment to get over the difficulty. As the Clause stands it contains an absolute prohibition against the advance of public money for the purchase of any holding the tenancy of which was created after 15th September. It contains an exception in favour of tenancies created by the Land Commission of the Congested Districts Board, but it contains no exception for the case in which a landlord voluntarily reinstates a tenant whom he has evicted. I cannot conceive why Parliament should deliberately pass an Act providing that where a tenant has been out of occupation for some years and where ultimately he makes an arrangement with his landlord and is reinstated in his holding he should get no facilities for purchasing his holding. Take another case. We all know that the Irish courts in the matter of land legislation carry technicalities very far, so that the mere sub-division of a holding is held to create a new tenancy, and the smallest change in the subject matter of the tenancy at once creates a new tenancy. It is now provided that no advance is to be made in respect of a tenancy created after 15th September, 1909. That was not what Parliament meant in 1903. In 1903 we all know there was a limit on the amount which could be advanced in the case of new tenancies—that is to say, the case of tenancies created after 1st January, 1901—but there was a qualification to that providing that this Section should not apply in the case of a former tenant or a person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal

    51
    representative. Whereas the former tenant was carefully protected under the Act of 1903, here we have an absolute prohibition against him. I wish now to make a consequential Amendment, if the Lords Amendment is adopted, so that there may be some qualification such as was enacted in the Act of 1903 providing that the former tenant shall not be excluded.
    Mr. MOORE: This is a very important Debate, I do not say to hon. Members above the Gangway but to hon. Members below it. On the night the Chief Secretary made a memorable surrender, it turned out how very important it was from their point of view, and I want to know whether they still maintain the same opinion with regard to it. The Member for Tipperrary (Mr. Cullman) in the previous Debate on this Amendment, which is now in the Bill, said if the Amendment were passed:—
    "I unhesitatingly say that there could be no more outrageous piece of weakness upon the part of the Chief Secretary, and one which would cause greater dissatisfaction in Ireland, and I warn the Attorney-General he may find it necessary to put the engines of his law and legal power into force against us, and if yon do consent, on the suggestion of hon. Members above the Gangway, to insert such a Clause, then let the consequences be on your own heads."
    The Hon. Member for Kildare said:
    "I say this deliberately, and I say it in the best of good faith to my colleagues, that even should they, after due consideration, think it better to accept the Bill with this provision, than that the Bill should be rejected, that the Irish people will not accept the Bill, neither across the Shannon, not in many of the Leinster comities."
    The Hon. Member for Mayo said:
    "If the right hon. Gentleman insists on the Amendment, he may as well abandon the Bill altogether, because it will not be accepted by the people, and will only lead to a renewal of the land war."
    Mr. DILLON: I did not say that.
    Mr. MOORE: It was another hon. Gentleman, the Member for Sligo (Mr.
    O'Dowd). I want to know whether those lion. Members still entertain that view on this very important Amendment. The whole course of policy on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway during this Session has been to render to the Government support in other matters in order to get as a reward a Land Bill such as this. And now when they come to discuss this Land Bill for themselves, and see what advantages they are getting, it is interesting, if not amusing, to us above the Gangway, to observe how much powder they have got to swallow with the jam. We have heard Amendment after Amendment denounced; we have seen sham fights with regard to them, for they are only sham fights, but hon. Members below the Gangway know very well that the Government on this occasion can outvote them, and they can go home and sleep in their beds perfectly comfortably, knowing that their opposition had done nobody any harm. I do not think their efforts at opposition will impose upon anybody. At any rate, this Bill is the reward of their political virtue, and though hon. Members say that this Amendment, if accepted, will damn the Bill and render it unacceptable in Ireland, yet they dare not go back to Ireland with empty hands; they dare not refuse the Bill now, although it contains this Clause which is so objectionable to them. The Chief Secretary knows that for once he has them in his hands, and he knows that the Amendments which he is now moving will be accepted, and that hon. Members below the Gangway will have to swallow them.
    Question put: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 88.

    Division No. 898.]

    AYES.

    [5.20 p.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

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

    Beauchamp, E.

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Astbury, John Meir

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Bertram, Julius

    Channing, sir Francis Allston

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Clark, George Smith

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Cloland, J. W.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Branch, James

    Clough, William

    Barker, Sir John

    Bright, J. A.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Barnard, E. B.

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

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

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cox, Harold

    Hooper, A. G.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Radford, G. H.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jackson, R. S.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

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

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighshire)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Dumphreys, John

    Kerry, Earl of

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Erskine, David C.

    Lambert, George

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Essex, R. W.

    Lamont, Norman

    Rowlands, J.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Sears, J. E.

    Falconer, J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Fell, Arthur

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Fletcher, J. S.

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

    Steadman, W. C.

    Forster, Henry William

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Sunderland)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Maclean, Donald

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Gulland, John W.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Teulmin, George

    Hancock, J. G.

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Moore, William

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

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Morrell, Philip

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morse, L. L.

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

    Haworth, Arthur A.

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

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Nicholls, George

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Younger, George

    Henderson, J McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Paul, Herbert

    Henry, Charles S.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Percy, Earl

    NOES.

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

    Ginnell, L.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Glover, Thomas

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

    Alden, Percy

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Mooney, J. J.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Harrington, Timothy

    Muldoon, John

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hodge, John

    Murnaghan, George

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Hogan, Michael

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Boland, John

    Hudson, Walter

    Nolan, Joseph

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, West)

    Crean, Eugene

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    O'Dowd, John

    Cullinan, J.

    Keating, M.

    O'Grady, J.

    Delany, William

    Kekewich, Sir George

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Dillon, John

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    O'Malley, William

    Duffy, William J.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    O'Neill, Charles

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Lundon, T.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Pointer, J.

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Reddy, M.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    M'Kean, John

    Richardson, A.

    Gilhooly, James

    Meagher, Michael

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    54

    55

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Summerbell, T.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Tsylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Sheehy, David

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Captain Donelan.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Mr. MAURICE HEALY Mr. MAURICE HEALY moved, as a consequential Amendment, to add at the end of the Clause the words, "or in the case of a former tenant of a tenancy created before the first day of January, 1908, or a person nominated by the Land Commission, or his personal representative, purchasing his former holding, or part thereof." That is simply adopted from the Act of 1903.
    Mr. MOORE Mr. MOORE seconded the Amendment.
    Mr. CHERRY: I really think that those words are unnecessary. I understand that the point the hon. Member raises is as to the case of those who have been evicted and who have been reinstated.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Where there has been a technical breach of the tenancy.
    Mr. CHERRY: I do not think that that arises. As I understand the law, the landlord who has evicted a present tenant is entitled on reinstating him, even though the period of redemption has passed, to reinstate him in his old tenancy, and to continue the old tenancy. I know of a great many cases where, after the six months for redemption had expired, the landlord reinstated the tenants in their old tenancies, and restored them to all their rights. In a great many cases the landlords have preferred to reinstate them in future tenancies. They have done that with their eyes open, and if they wish they will take care to reinstate them in such a way that they can sell to them under the Purchase Acts. Even if that were not so, and if there were any doubt in the matter, they can always sell the land, as untenanted land for the purpose of having the tenant reinstated, to the Estates Commissioners.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Not as a tenancy.
    Mr. CHERRY: Instead of reinstating the tenant they would sell the land occupied by the tenants to the Estates Commissioners, and then the evicted tenant or his representative could be provided for under the Acts of 1903. I think the Amendment would be dangerous, and I ask the House not to accept it.
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Advances for purchase of Parcels of Land.)
    (1) In the case of the sale of an estate to the Land Commission advances under the Land Purchase Acts may be made for the purchase of parcels thereof by the following persons:—

    (a) A person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value;

    (b) A person being the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding on or in the neighbourhood of the estate not exceeding thirty pounds in rateable value;

    (c) A person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion;

    (d)A person who within twenty-five years before the passing of the Act of 1903, was the tenant of a holding to which the Land Law Acts apply, and who is not at the date of the purchase the tenant or proprietor of that holding, or in case such person is dead, a person nominated by the Land Commission as his personal representative; and

    (e) Any person to whom in the opinion of the Land Commission after considering the requirements of persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this Sub-section an advance ought to be made.

    (2) Advances under this Section shall not, together with the amount (if any) of any advance under the Land Purchase Acts, which has been made and is then un-repaid by the purchaser, or for which an application by the purchaser is pending, exceed one thousand pounds: Provided that the limitation in this Sub-section may, subject to the other limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, be exceeded, where the Land Commission consider that a larger advance may be sanctioned, to any purchaser without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.
    (3) The Land Purchase Acts shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, apply to the sale of a parcel of land in pursuance of this Section in like manner as if the same was a holding and the purchaser was the tenant thereof at the time of his

    57
    making the purchase; and the expression "holding" in those Acts shall include a parcel of land in respect of the purchase of which an advance has been made in pursuance of this Section.
    (4) Section two of the Act of 1903 shall cease to have effect save as regards the sale of any parcels of land in respect of which purchase agreements have been entered into before the passing of this Act, and save as aforesaid any reference in any enactment to that Section shall be construed as a reference to this Section.
    Lords Amendments: Sub-section (1), leave out paragraph (b).
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The effect of this Amendment is to alter somewhat what I would call the priority of persons to whom advances for the purchase of parcels of land may be made under Clause 17 of the Bill, and I do not know that it is very material. We set out in Clause 17 the persons to whom for the purchase of parcels of land advances might be made as follows: (a) A person being the tenant or proprietor of a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value." "(b) A person being the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding or in the neighbourhood of the estate not exceeding thirty pounds in rateable value." "(c) A person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion." Then in (d) for evicted tenants, and (e) "Any person to whom, in the opinion of the Land Commission, after considering the requirements of persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this Sub-section, an advance ought to be made." A good deal of controversy arose as to the position of certain persons who were called landless men, that is to say, persons who have not got any land, although they have lived all their lives on it. It was thought that they had got a certain priority over and above other persons whose claims were superior. The effect of the Amendment is, by striking out (b), to secure that in the first place the tenants or proprietor of a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value, or a person who has surrendered his holding for the purpose of relieving congestion, or a person who is an evicted tenant shall be provided for, and then they provide for the landless men because they put in at the end of the Subsection an Amendment: "Any person to
    58
    whom in the opinion of the Land Commissioners, after considering the requirements of persons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this Sub-section an advance ought to be made." In that way they come in after adequate provision has been made for the tenant, for the person who surrenders land for the relief of congestion, and the evicted tenant, and I do not myself quarrel very much with that order. I do not know that it makes really very much difference in the case, as it seems to me to make it plain that the sons of tenants are not to be provided for, but may be provided far when adequate provision has been made by the actual tenants for those who have surrendered for the relief of congestion and the evicted. Therefore, I move that we agree to this Amendment.
    Mr. SCANLAN: I am in favour of disagreeing with the Amendment of the Lords, and I think this Amendment might be characterised in very mild language as a stupid Amendment, and if I would commit myself to the language of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway descriptive of some of the Amendments of the House of Lords, I think it might be called an idiotic Amendment. If the Lords had no other meaning than to change this class of persons from one of the paragraphs to another, then the Amendment would be stupid and meaningless. But to everyone who has followed the discussion in the House of Lords relative to this Amendment, and to the whole question of landless men, and who has listened in this House to the opinions expressed in regard to landless people by those who sit on the Front Opposition Bench and by hon. Members from the North of Ireland, who are the mouthpieces of the landlords of Ireland, it is very well known that this Amendment is dictated by the insensate hatred which the landlords and their friends, both in this House and in another place, entertain to the class of people who are called landless. To hear the speeches made in this House or to read the speeches made in another place, one would think that the greatest political sin which any Government could commit is to provide land for the landless people in Ireland. Everyone would think that the landlords of Ireland had made up their minds for a lock-out against the whole of the landless people of Ireland. If it is desirable at all to provide for people who are landless, amongst those who are landless what class are so worthy or so capable of being good tenants as the class described in paragraph (b)?

    59
    "A person being the son of a tenant or proprietor of a holding on or in the neighbourhood of the estate not exceeding £30 in rateable value." It is not quite the case that the difficulty produced by excising paragraph (b) is met by the inclusion of those persons in paragraph (e), because paragraph (e) is quite different. Under paragraph (b), as this Bill left this House, there was a direction that land should be provided for people of this class.
    I speak for a constituency in one parish of which alone, that is Magherow, in the Constituency of North Sligo, there are 32 landless families, and the heads of all those landless families, I know of my own knowledge and from personal experience, are people who are capable of managing economically and wisely any holdings that might be offered to them. On the other hand, I know that there are in that parish, and adjacent to the place where those people live, large tracts of land used for grazing purposes which might be advantageously split up in order to settle the question of congestion, which, in regard to those people, has arisen in an even more acute form than with a class of people called congests. I should like to ask why it is that landless people are so much looked down upon in Ireland, and so much condemned by the representatives of the Irish landlords in this House. In another part of the United Kingdom they made ample provisions for landless people. I am able to point out to the House that in the year 1897, when the strongest Conservative Government of a century was in power, and when Gentlemen who are now sitting or reclining on the Front Opposition Bench held high place in that Government, and when the Leader of the Opposition was the leading Member of that Government, provision was made to give allotments of land to landless people in the only other part of the United Kingdom which, on account of its condition, is comparable to Ireland. I refer to the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act of 1897. In that Act it was provided that land should be acquired by the Congested Districts Board of Scotland for sub-division amongst people who had no land. Of course, some people may say that that Act of Parliament is a dead letter, but it is nothing of the kind.
    I think it will be in the recollection of everyone in this House that a very short time ago, a few months ago, a number of the hardy landless people from the Isle of
    60
    Barra sailed across in their little "Mayflowers" to the lonely Island of Vatersay, armed to the teeth with their bagpipes. When they got to Vatersay, they did not content themselves with the driving of cattle. They settled down, actually took possession, of the land, and insisted on remaining there. What happened? The Scotch people are all for discipline and the formal observance of law. Summonses to the Court of Session were issued against some of the raiders in this land raid of the landless people in Scotland, and punishment more or loss mild, and certainly much milder than has been inflicted on cattle drivers in Ireland, was meted out to these people. What did the Government do? The Government, of which the principal Minister, so far as Ireland is concerned, moves to agree with the Lords Amendments here, said to these people: "You have done exceedingly well. We have punished you, but in principle you are quite right, and we have provision under an Act of Parliament to give land to landless people," and the present Government bought the Isle of Vatersay and divided it up among the landless people.
    It has been said in another place, and by hon. Members sitting in this House, that they are opposed to landless people because they commit the crime of cattle driving. No one in Ireland justifies cattle driving theoretically any more than the representatives of labour justify industrial strikes. Cattle driving in Ireland is the strike of the landless people, or of the sons of farmers who have no land, against the conditions under which they are forced to live, and it is a demand for better conditions for themselves. I think that the advocates of the landlords who have taken part in making a provision in another part of the United Kingdom similar to that we want show a great deal of inconsistency in their action in this matter. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill not to agree to the Lords Amendment, or to weaken in any way the provisions for meeting the claims of this very deserving class of people.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member who has just spoken has put his points with considerable force and great clearness, and I think he is perfectly accurate when he says that the adoption of this Amendment puts an end to the provision for landless men. What has the Chief Secretary told us? He has stated that paragraph (b) was originally intended to

    61
    make provision for the landless men in the distribution of this land, and that practically all that this Amendment does is to take the landless men out of paragraph (b) and to put them into paragraph (e). It will be in the recollection of the House that when we were discussing Clause 17 we were assured by the Chief Secretary that it had no application whatever to the landless men. He stated that there were always left certain portions of an estate which were non-agricultural—residential or otherwise unfit for ordinary farmers, and that nil that was intended by that paragraph was to enable the Commissioners to dispose of the non-agricultural portions amongst persons other than farmers. Therefore, according to the construction of the right hon. Gentleman, in the Bill as originally framed, the only paragraph in this Clause under which provision could be made for landless men was the paragraph it is now proposed to leave out. I think it is very properly proposed to leave out that paragraph, not because in any part of the House there is any hostility to these landless men, but simply because there is not enough land to go round. The idea has always been that the first and foremost claim upon the untenanted land is for the relief of congestion. It is conceded that if you are to provide for the landless men it can only be done at the expense of the congests. First of all, deal with the congests and get rid of the evil of congestion, and then later on, if you find you have land left, you can deal with the landless men. But I think it was a wise policy to exclude them from the operation of this Bill, one of the main principles of which is the relief of congestion. It would have been far better if the Chief Secretary had told us plainly that the purport of this Amendment is to exclude landless men from the benefit of the distribution under this Bill. That will undoubtedly be its effect, and I think it is an effect to be desired. It certainly will not be removed by the suggestion that these men can be brought in under the final paragraph if the assurance given by the Chief Secretary is correct, namely, that this Clause is intended to deal only with the fractions of an estate which are non-agricultural in their character. I think the Amendment is an improvement of the Bill, and I presume the Chief Secretary will adhere to it.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I desire to express my great disappointment at the action of the Chief Secretary. In a speech made
    62
    at Belfast about 12 months ago, at a time in our political history when the crusade of cattle-driving was attracting a good deal of attention, the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to the people of Ireland, to Nationalist Members of Parliament, and others who were taking any side in the matter, for a chance to pass a Land Bill, which would presumably give relief to the class of people affected by the omission of this paragraph. The right hon. Gentleman got that chance. The cattle-driving crusade was stopped; and it was stopped to a very large extent, if not entirely, on the basis of his appeal for a chance. We have been waiting 12 months for the fulfilment of his promise, and now the right hon. Gentleman asks us to adopt an Amendment of the House of Lords striking out these men from the operation of the Bill. That action profoundly disappoints me. I have taken part in cattle-driving. I do not boast of it; I do not want to continue it; I do not want to see it continued. I want to see the men affected by this paragraph, not driven out of the country, but given a chance to live on their own land. The right hon. Gentleman, however, after getting his own chance, is, byaccepting this Amendment, depriving these men of their chance. That is not playing the game. I protest against it. We are threatened by a General Election, in which anything may happen. The right hon. Gentleman may or may not be Chief Secretary. Whether he is or not, I say distinctly that, if the landless men are deprived of their chance of getting back to the land, there will be more cattle-driving in Ireland, and the next appeal for a chance may not be so effective as the last. In Clause 41 there is another Amendment in connection with this subject which further limits any benefit under the Bill by practically depriving every man outside the congested area, who is a landless man within the meaning of the Bill, of any chance of relief. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept that Amendment, but, judging by his action in the present case, I fear he will. But if he does, it is clear that outside the congested area there will be no relief under this Bill. That will be a terrible calamity. One half of my Constituency, for instance, on the edge of the mountains and bog, is tenanted by the great bulk of the people, while the other half is tenanted by the bullock and the rancher. The people living on the edge of the mountain and the bog are looking down on the fertile plains, which under the

    63
    Bill in its original shape could be acquired for their benefit; but they are now to be kept from going down. I hope they will raid them. If they take my advice, they will. These people are to be deprived of any relief except the emigrant ship. That is an appalling prospect; and I have risen to tell the right hon. Gentleman—for whose general desire for the welfare of Ireland I have nothing but feelings of gratitude, but whose mistaken policy in watering down this Bill at the instance of the Lords I deeply deplore—that whoever is Chief Secretary next year will have to appeal for another chance, and he may not get it so readily as the right hon. Gentleman did after his speech at Belfast.
    Mr. DILLON: It is very difficult to understand what is the policy of the right hon. Member for Trinity College (Mr. James Campbell). First of all, he delivered a philippic against any recognition of the rights of the landless men and then said, "First deal with the congests, and then, if you have any land left, deal with the landless men."
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I did not say under this Bill.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. DILLON: Under what other Bill can it be done? What other means are there of dealing with the landless men? The right hon. Gentleman absolutely contradicted himself. I am not surprised, because anybody who faced Ireland on the platform and cut off from all assistance those who are known as landless men, would have to face a campaign such as that indicated by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Farrell). Let me point out the origin of the landless man. He was called into existence as an element in the Irish situation by the Act of 1903. The audacity and the inconsistency of hon. Members above the Gangway in denouncing the provisions of this Bill as it left the House of Commons, in which the landless men were put in the second category of those for whom land should be provided, are amazing. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten that in the Act of 1903 these men were put by their own Government in exactly the same position. The provision in that Act, under which the whole of this machinery is set going, is that in the case of the sale of an estate advances may be made for the purchase of parcels of land for "the following persons … (b) being the son of a tenant" — otherwise, a landless man.
    64
    The only change the Government have made in the present Bill is not one in priority, because the landless man comes in under the second heading just as he does in the Act of 1903, but one introducing the £30 annual value, which is a most beneficial and proper change, because it confines the benefit to the sons of the smaller men. Therefore this paragraph which the Chief Secretary is going to leave out at the dictation of the House of Lords is a paragraph strictly founded on the Act of 1903, and where it does differ is slightly more restrictive. Is it therefore not a monstrous thing that these Gentlemen above the Gangway should raise this howl about the landless men on a policy which has been the creation of their own Government when they were in power? If hon. Members are somewhat taken aback in astonishment at the heat of the language used by the hon. Member for Longford, they must remember that what they are deliberately proposing to do now is to withdraw the privileges granted to these men under the Act of 1903. Ireland is not a very easy country to govern or to manage. I remember on one occasion remonstrating with a certain distinguished Indian gentleman of my acquaintance who was proceeding in Ireland on lines which induced me to say to him that he seemed to think that he was dealing with mild Hindus, whereas he was dealing with Irishmen. Supposing you put England or Scotland, or any other law-abiding country in the place of Ireland, and you proposed, in a Bill, to withdraw from an active and vigorous class the benefits which they have been in the enjoyment of for five years, do you imagine that they would take it lying down? Of course not. Really the stupidity of the House of Lords in these matters is beyond belief and comprehension. Paragraph (e) was put into this Bill and power given to the Estates Commissioners to give land to anybody under the conditions specified, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that when we were discussing this before there was no question of applying paragraph (e) to those who are now mentioned in paragraph (b).
    Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. Gentleman ought to quote me correctly. What I said was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary assured us that all that was proposed was that the paragraph should apply to the non-agricultural residue on the estate.
    Mr. DILLON: Certainly, because he had already provided for the others.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: That is what I said.
    Mr. DILLON: I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did not know that the Lords were going to stultify themselves, and to make asses and donkeys of themselves——
    Mr. SPEAKER: There ought to be some limit to the terms of abuse that hon. Members may use towards the other House. They would resent it very much if the same terms were applied to themselves.
    Mr. DILLON: I forgot, Sir, for a moment; but the right hon. Gentleman had no conception that the Lords would deliberately cut out paragraph (b), which was exactly framed after the similar paragraph in the Act of 1903. That Act was passed by a Tory Government. What the Lords profess to do is to alter the precedence in which these people are to be dealt with. They are not shutting out the landless men from the benefits of this Act! If the attempt were made it would be civil war in Ireland—to withdraw from these young men privileges that they enjoyed under a Tory Act of Parliament for the last five years. And to do that in a Bill which is supposed to be a Bill to extend these privileges in Ireland! The thing is unthinkable. What the right hon. Gentleman very fairly and rationally said was that the the Lords, under a pretended zeal for the "congests," and a newborn zeal for the evicted tenant, said that the landless men must not come under paragraph (b), but must be shifted down to the bottom of the list, and that they must be taken up in a different order. That is the way to interpret it. I object most strongly to the thing as it now stands. I do not go quite so far as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford, but I say that a more foolish campaign was never entered upon by the Government than to withdraw from these men the privileges they have enjoyed.
    Let me say this before I sit down about these landless men. I have heard most extraordinary things said about them. They are spoken of above the Gangway as if they were a set of robbers, or thieves, or ne'er-do-wells. I say that if there was an abundance of land in Ireland no Government could undertake a more beneficial or more beneficent task than supplying these landless men with land. Talk about "back to the land," and trying to recolonise England with the peasantry it has lost!
    66
    We in Ireland have got the peasantry, who live on the land, and cannote be divorced from it except by military force. These landless young men are the cream of our country. They are the sons of our farmers and understand farming, and have received in many cases some assistance from their farmers in the shape of stock. These are pouring now across the Atlantic in continual streams, and depleting the very best blood of our country. These landless men who desire to get upon these farms are talked about as if it were some infamous, lawless passion to wish to possess the land. It is a most laudable passion, and one which every intelligent Government should encourage. Therefore I hope it will be. clearly understood, if this Amendment is passed, that we are most irreconcileably opposed to it, even if it is passed with no question raised as to these landless men in Ireland having their privileges reduced, but simply shifted down to a lower scale in the list of priority.
    Mr. MOORE: I hope hon. Members in this House interested in this question will carefully study and carefully consider the perfervid criticism upon this Bill from below the Gangway. It is perfectly well known when the General Election approaches that the hon. Member for East Mayo and his following will go to their constituents and say, "Look at what we gained for you; look at this splendid Land Bill; look how much we have earned for you from the House of Commons; you have your Land Bill, and you ought to be happy for the rest of your lives." It is only here that you hear any suggestion of the infirmities of this Bill. The hon. Member for East Mayo gets up and talks about "this most monstrous and outrageous proceeding" of the House of Lords, forgetful of the fact that the Chief Secretary has moved it in this House. Hon. Members below the Gangway always ignore the fact that it is a monstrous and outrageous proceeding on the part of the Government to omit these landless men or put them at the bottom of the Clause. In Ireland, however, they will say: "Here is a Land Bill which is giving facilities for existing proprietors of £10 rateable value to have their holdings enlarged. That is the object of the Bill. It is better to add to the holdings of the men already in possession than to bring men in from the village corner. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is my opinion. I say it is much more desirable to give a man with a small holding an

    67
    additional 5 or 10 acres, and let him bring up his family on an economic holding than bring a gentleman in from the village corner and plant him on a holding alongside of perhaps five acres, with the consequence that both of them are confined to their small plots for the rest of their days, and you have two pauper families instead of one. That is commonsense. I am not going to suggest that all the landless men in Ireland are undesirable persons. I do not think any Member on these Benches has ever said so. But I do say this, that the bulk of the cattle-drivers over whom the hon. Member for East Mayo was so very discreetly silent are landless men. This Government has taught them if they agitate, and cattle-drive, and make a neighbourhood disturbed, that that is the way to get a grant of land from this Government. I say that those who are interested in the establishment of peasant proprietorship could not have taken any other course than what the House of Lords has done by this Amendment to secure first of all peasant proprietorship; secondly, that the man who has given up his farm to allow a congested farm to get more room should be considered; and, thirdly, that the evicted tenant should come first and be provided with an adequate holding before you bring in the young gentleman who has done cattle-driving or anything else, and whose desire, a very natural one, is to get a farm on State credit. I can quite understand that anything would be welcomed by hon. Members below the Gangway and by the hon. Member for East Mayo that would impede and block the work of purchase. The hon. Member for East Mayo has told the public that the Land Purchase Act was working too fast.
    Mr. DILLON: No, I did not say that; that is a gross misstatement.
    Mr. MOORE: The hon. Gentleman is doing himself an injustice and me an injustice. I will quote from "The Freeman's Journal," and then perhaps the hon. Gentleman will see if he can repudiate what I quote. In "The Freeman's Journal" for 12th September, 1906, the hon. Gentleman, speaking at Swinford, said:—
    "Attempts have been made from time to time to throw the blame on Michael Davitt, 'The Freeman's Journal; and myself, and it has been said that we have delayed the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, and obstructed the smooth working of the Act. I wish to Heaven we had the power to obstruct the smooth working of the Act more than we have. It has worked too smoothly, far too smoothly to my mind."
    68
    Then he went on to say in the same speech:—
    "Some men have complained within the past year, that the Land Act was not working fast enough. For my part, I look upon it as working a great deal too fast. Its pace has been ruinous to the people."
    Is that report accurate? I think the hon. Member for East Mayo did me an injustice when he complained of my quotation of his remarks. The other day I was interrupted by the hon. Member, and he then stated that he never said it. He got up and gave his reasons, but he cannot now dispute that he said what I have quoted from his own paper. Is this an accurate report or not?
    Mr. DILLON: I am not denying its accuracy, but what I said was that the hon. Member has grossly misrepresented me when he said that I obstructed land purchase. The context of my speech shows what I objected to was land purchase working smoothly at 24 years' purchase in districts where before the Act of 1903 it had worked at 13 years' purchase.
    Mr. MOORE: The hon. Member's memory is again at fault. When I spoke in reference to his desires for land purchase not being interrupted, I said he denounced the Act of 1903 as working too smoothly and too fast. He disputed that, and I thereupon fortified myself by quoting the actual words of his speech. I leave it to the judgment of the House to say whether the hon. Member for East Mayo was in error or was accurate when he denied that he had stated the Act was working too fast. This is all part of the same policy which is intended to stop and to obstruct land purchase whatever way it can. One moment it takes the form of an effort to abolish the zones; at present it is the effort to bring in the landless men. That will mean some delay and obstruction, and will bring some aid to the British Treasury. It is surprising how anxious hon. Members below the Gangway are to help the British Treasury. Bring in the landless men; that will stop purchase. It will keep the agitation on foot, and that is the breath of life of hon. Members below the Gangway, because it will make sure for them their seats in this House.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: The hon. Member who has just sat down taunts my hon. Friend the member for East Mayo with a desire to obstruct land purchase, and to obstruct it by bringing in the landless men. The hon. and learned Member must have a very short memory if he has forgotten how the landless men were first

    69
    heard of. The landless men were first heard of in acute controversy in connection with the Act of 1903, and therefore it is perfectly absurd at this time of day to suggest that it is we who have brought into being the landless men. It is also ridiculous for the hon. Member to suggest that there is now, as the Bill stands without the Lords Amendments, any conflict of interests between the congests and the landless men. He said, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College also said, let us first be satisfied that there is sufficient land for the men who have farms of £ or £10 valuation, and then, when that is done, and only then, seek the sons of tenants. Without any change in the Bill, that is precisely what is provided for. The priority which these hon. Gentlemen desire to give to the congests is provided for in the Bill as it stands, and therefore if that is really their object, and if that is all they desire, well, then, it is amply provided for, and there is nothing to need the change suggested by the Lords Amendments at all. But, of course, one cannot listen to Debates in this House or read the speeches and the writings of Unionist members in Unionist papers without seeing that their attitude goes far beyond any anxiety merely for the congests. It really is very difficult to understand their extraordinary hostility to what are called the landless men. If we were free to consider what would be the best for the economic salvation of Ireland, I suppose there is no class in the community for whom we ought to desire to cater more fully than just this very class who are called landless men, because it is through them, and them alone, that we can hope to stop emigration and to build up again a really strong agricultural system in Ireland.
    I have risen not so much to make these criticisms of hon. Members above the Gangway, but to say as a Member for a congested county that it is perfectly preposterous to suggest, as was suggested when the elective element of the Congested Districts Board was under consideration, that there would be a sort of conspiracy of Members representing Mayo, Galway, and Cork to defraud the congests out of their rights in order to bring in the landless men. Although, on the face of it, it is ridiculous to suggest that, we are all unanimous in our desire that when the prior rights, as they are prior rights, and ought to remain prior rights, of the congests are satisfied, the Estates Commissioners should then be free to provide as
    70
    far as may be for men who are likely in their opinion to make good use of the soil of the country. I cannot really understand why there is this extraordinary distrust so constantly shown by hon. Members above the Gangway of officials appointed by their own Government. This extraordinary desire constantly to tie the hands of their officials is very remarkable. I should think that the experience of the Land Tax in Ireland has shown over and over again the enormous amount of harm, delay, and trouble of all sorts which arises by the habit which Parliament has got into of constantly putting in ridiculous little limitations, attempting to foresee every possible eventuality, in such a manner that when those charged with doing the work come to do it they find themselves constantly hampered and unable to turn the land when it comes into their hands to the best use. Surely the best policy is to appoint the best men you can find to carry out these difficult operations, and having found them, then to trust them and to leave them as free as you reasonably can to carry out the operations to the best advantage of the country as a whole.
    Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: As the representative of a congested county, I wish to say a few words on behalf of the landless men. I hope that under Clause (e) the landless men will come in. One of the most vital principles of this Bill is that it provides for these so-called landless men. The whole object of this Bill, and the whole object of the great land movement in Ireland of which this Bill is a product, is what might be called the regeneration of Ireland, and in great part the regeneration of Ireland from within. In Ireland nowadays we see the population greatly reduced—almost reduced to half what it was 50 years ago—yet at the same time we know there is land enough in Ireland, and opportunity enough in Ireland, and resources enough in Ireland, to maintain not only the population which Ireland had 50 years ago, but a still greater population. The congests are sufficiently safeguarded in other ways, and it is absoluetly necessary also that the landless men should be provided for, and they will be provided for inevitably, legally or illegally. It is almost a matter of necessity, and in the course of time these landless men will be provided for. They have been pointed to as cattle-drivers, and cattle driving has been declared to be illegal. One would hardly condemn it on that ground alone. Previous Land Acts during a number of years past have very

    71
    often consecrated what were denounced as illegal measures before these Land Acts were passed. These measures, after all, are not illegal in the true sense. Illegality consists in preventing these men from having access to the land of their fathers, and which is really theirs. These people are suffering from a deep sense of iniquity and injustice in Ireland. I do not propose to speak further now on this subject, and I shall conclude with a quotation from a poet which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will greatly appreciate. I remember on a previous occasion, when this very poet, Oliver Goldsmith, was quoted by Mr. Gladstone, who found fault with him for his political economy, but the words of Oliver Goldsmith, which I now quote, are the words of a true political economist:—
    "Princes or lords may flourish or may fade.
    A breath can wake them as a breath has made
    But a bold peasantry their country's pride.
    When once destroyed can never be supplied."
    These words represent the feeling of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and these people, no matter what may be the fate of this Bill, or this particular Clause in the Bill, will never be satisfied until these men are provided for.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: In my humble opinion the Lords, by their Amendments, have made this Bill less unbearable than it was before it left this House. Where they have dealt with the proposals of the Bill with regard to the landless men, they have done a great service. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Donegal (Mr. Hugh Law) informed us that it was too late in the day now to raise the question as to who first tried to get landless men included under these Land Acts. I agree with him that it was under the Act of 1903 that the landless man was first turned into a living person, and I think a very great mistake was made by giving the landless man the status he was given under the Act of 1903. One of the, hon. Members who has spoken stated that the landless man and his treatment formed one of the vital principles of this particular Bill. Let the House consider that statement for a moment and remember what it was we were told was the vital object of the Bill, which we were promised so many months before this Bill was introduced. We were told that this Bill was simply a measure to facilitate the working of the Act of 1903, and to provide money to carry out that Act. We were also told that the
    72
    question of relieving the ratepayers owing to the loss on flotation was one of the things to be remedied. That was the feeling with regard to this Bill. It is quite true that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway took good care, by pressure upon the Chief Secretary, that the Bill should do a great deal more, and it is the fact of insisting upon having so much put into this measure that has made it doubtful whether it will ever pass into law. As far as I am concerned, I cannot conceive how this Bill will do any man any good at all.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. We are not now discussing the Bill.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I will confine myself to landless men. I would like to ask the Attorney-General how he proposes to deal with the next generation of landless men. How will his successors provide for them? According to this Bill and the views of hon. Members below the Gangway, every landless man in Galway, Con-naught, and every part of Ireland ought to have a right to go to the Estates Commissioners and say, "I am unable to make a livelihood, and therefore you must give me a farm." When these landless men have been provided with land, and when they have families of their own, how will the Estates Commissioners be able to fulfil their obligation of providing land for the sons of farmers. How will they be able to get sufficient land to supply such a demand? The right hon. Gentleman is getting land legislation in Ireland into a greater quagmire than ever it was in in the past by putting forward such provisions as are proposed in this Section. I am only sorry that another place did not go a little further in this direction. For these reasons I think it is unfair to provide that because a man does not already hold a farm, he should be able to go to the Estates Commissioners and get one. That will lead to the utmost confusion in the offices of the Estates Commissioners, and I most heartily support the proposition to leave that proposal out of the Bill.
    Mr. JOHN O'DOWD: I do not rise to advocate the claims of the landless men because I consider there are two prior claims, namely, those of the evicted tenants and the congests. I hope, upon the Motion before the House, I shall be permitted to give my views in a general way. I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to the thanks of the Irish people for the Land Bill which he has intro-

    73
    duced. As it was brought forward originally it would have satisfied the people of Ireland, and not only would it have satisfied the farmers, but also the landless men, the evicted tenants, and the congests. If the other House had ratified what was proposed and passed by this House everything would have been squared. The point I wish to make, however, is that we should put forward the claims of the congests and the evicted tenants. I know that, after all, these are mere matters of detail, but if the Bill as it went from this House had been ratified by the other House it would have put an end to the agrarian war, and we should not have had the land war entering upon a new phase.
    Mr. P. J. POWER: I think we must all come to the conclusion that by accepting the Amendments which have been made elsewhere the landless people will be in a much worse position than they were put in by the Tory Government in 1903. In the Debate which has taken place we have had the old charge reiterated against the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that he is opposed root and branch to the system of land purchase in Ireland. Those of us who happen to know my hon. Friend's views are aware that that is not the case at all, because my hon. Friend has always urged on the people that they should be very careful as regards the urns they offer; he believes that people who contract to pay certain instalments should be in a position to do so. Knowing that be believes in the system, I think it is too bad that these changes should be again reiterated. My hon. Friend wishes the people to be more careful in regard to what they do, and he desires them to enter into bargains which they can honestly carry out without having recourse to the ratepayers at all. I very much regret that the views of the House of Lords have been allowed to prevail so much with the Government. I do not know what the effect of their action will be in Ireland, but I know that we should never have had a Land League in Ireland of the strength to which it attained had it not been for the action of the House of Lords in regard to the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. I am fully aware of the claims of the congests and the evicted tenants, and I agree that they have a prior claim. Nevertheless, the landless men have some claim for consideration, because they are men of intelligence, with some capital, who understand
    74
    the working of the land. I think it would be greatly in the interests of the community if they were kept on the land and not forced to go abroad.
    Mr. W. J. DUFFY: I wish to address a few words to the House as the representative of a constituency in the West of Ireland where there are a large number of young men who have been looking forward confidently to the distribution of the grazing land. The decision which has just been announced will give rise to a considerable amount of dissatisfaction, and I am afraid that dissatisfaction will lead to something still worse. For a considerable length of time there has been an agitation in the West of Ireland in the direction of securing land for the sons of tenant farmers who have the means and who are competent to manage parcels of land, and when they come to know that steps have been taken by the House of Commons to deny them the prospect which was held out to them in the speech delivered by the Chief Secretary they will be very much disappointed. A large number of those in my own Constituency have been agitating on this question, and they have been very active in endeavouring to obtain the untenanted lands of the country for the sons of tenant farmers. From the time the speech of the Chief Secretary was made that agitation ceased in the West of Ireland, because these people were led to believe that steps would be taken to arm the Estates Commissioners with powers to take over that land for distribution amongst those men. To-morrow the minds of all those men will be filled with great alarm, and I am apprehensive of what is going to take place as a result of the action which I presume the House of Commons will take to-night. I wish to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that the greater portion of the untenanted lands in the West of Ireland have been brought into the market through the activity of the young men of the country. Who are the young men who brought the land in the neighbourhood of Loughrea into the hands of the Estates Commissioners? Was it not the young men of the district? If this particular Section was deleted, what position will it place these young men in? It will make it mandatory upon the Estates Commissioners, first of all, to enlarge the holdings of uneconomic tenants by giving them an additional slice of land where the valuation does not exceed £10. Secondly, it

    75
    will compel the Estates Commissioners to give over a share of the land to people imported from a distance for the purpose of relieving congestion. They may be people who have surrendered other holdings in different parts of the county a considerable distance away. The Subsection makes it mandatory upon the Estates Commissioners to import such people into a district where perhaps you may have plenty of young men competent to take possession of the land and thus you deny them the right to obtain possession of the land which they consider themselves entitled to on the strength of the statement which has been made during the past year. I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without telling the Chief Secretary that the action of the House of Lords and of the Ministry in acceding to the conditions laid down by that House will not only give rise to great dissatisfaction in the West of Ireland but will render the work of the Estates Commissioners very difficult indeed in the future. They have, goodness knows, been hampered up to the present time by conditions which we have all been anxious to remove. The Estates Commissioners have under trying and difficult circumstances done their best to distribute the untenanted land of the country. They have found themselves in
    a rather tight corner in the neighbourhood of Loughrea, and some of us have done our best, having co-operated with the Estate Commissioners, to allay fear and apprehension on the part of the people in the hope that the day would come when the Estate Commissioners would be given powers to enable them to distribute among the needy people of the locality a considerable share of the grazing lands. When they find, as the result of the compact entered into between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, that they will be denied all prospect of having any share in these lands, all I can say is that it will lead to great uneasiness and dissatisfaction. The Government are taking upon themselves a responsibility which I for one, if I were in their position, should regard as being very serious. Owing to the steps you are taking now, you must inevitably within a short time bring in another Land Bill for the purpose of making good the weaknesses of this Bill, because the young men of the country who have willingly gone into gaol and have faced all the terrors of imprisonment in order to secure such land will not rest satisfied.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 85.

    Division No. 899.]

    AYES

    [6.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Causton, Rt. Hen. Richard Knight

    Falconer, J.

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

    Cave, George

    Fenwick, Charles

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cawlcy, Sir Frederick

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Astbury, John Meir

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Forster, Henry Wiliam

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cleland, J. W.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Clough, William

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Barker, Sir John

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gretton, John

    Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

    Gulland, John W.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

    Hancock, J. G.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cox, Harold

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Branch, James

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Bright, J. A.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Helme, Nerval Watson

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

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

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

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Byles, William Pollard

    Elibank, Master of

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Cameron, Robert

    Erskine, David C.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hooper, A. G.

    Massie, J.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Horniman, Emslle John

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Middlebrook, William

    Seely, Colonel

    Illingworth, Percy H,

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Moore, William

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Morrell, Philip

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Morse, L. L,

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Kearley, Rt. Hon. Sir Hudson

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

    Tennant, H. J (Berwickshire)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Paul, Herbert

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Toulmin, George

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Vivian, Henry

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Lambert, George

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Radford, G. H.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Watt, Henry A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

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

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Rees, J. D.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Fenwick, George

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Lynch, H. B.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Winfrey, R.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Younger, George

    Maddison, Frederick

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Marnham, F. J.

    Rowlands, J.

    NOES.

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

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Malley, William

    Alden, Percy

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Neill, Charles

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Boland, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Pointer, J.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Keating, M.

    Reddy, M.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, T.

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Richardson, A.

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Kean, John

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Muldoon, John

    Stead man, W. C.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murnaghan, George

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Summerbell, T.

    Gilhooly, James

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Ginnell, L.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wardle, George J.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harrington, Timothy

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Dowd, John

    Hodge, John

    O'Grady, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Lords Amendments agreed to:
    In paragraph (e) leave out the word "considering" and insert instead thereof the words "adequate provision has been made to satisfy."
    In paragraph (c), after the word "of" ["requirements of persons"], insert the word "the."

    Clause 19.—(Facilities for the Planting and Preservation of Woods.)
    (1) Where a parcel of an estate is purchased or proposed to be purchased by trustees under Section four of the Act of 1903 for the purpose of the planting of trees or the preservation of woods or plantations, and the parcel is subject to any

    79
    grazing rights or easements appurtenant to holdings on the estate, the Land Commission may, if they think fit, on the application of the trustees, make an Order releasing that parcel from all or any of those rights and easements upon such terms as to compensation and otherwise as may be agreed upon by the parties interested or, in default of agreement, may be determined by the Land Commission; and any such Order shall be effectual to release the parcel from those rights and easements in the manner and to the extent therein specified.
    (2) Where any land is resold to the owner of an estate in pursuance of Section three or Section seventy-six of the Act of 1903, and the land is subject to any such rights or easements as aforesaid, the Land Commission may on the application of the owner exercise the powers conferred on them by the last preceding Subjection as regards those rights and easements, if and so far as they are satisfied that the land, or portion thereof, is required by the owner for any of the said purposes.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), after the word "grazing," to insert the words "or other."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House, I think, will have no difficulty in agreeing with two Amendments designed to afford facilities for the preservation and the planting of woods and plantations. The first is to enable the Land Commission to release land from other rights and easements, as well as from any grazing rights or easements which are found to interfere with the getting of land for this purpose, the owner, of course, to be compensated when injured; and the other Amendment provides that the landlord may resume a portion of a holding for the purpose of planting trees or preserving woods or plantations or growing timber on the following conditions: The Land Commission must be satisfied that it is desirable the resumption should be authorised, and that the value of the holding will not be materially diminished by reason of the resumption; and that the tenant should receive full compensation. We have reason to believe this Amendment will secure valuable plantations which might otherwise be sacrificed, and will also provide opportunities for obtaining suitable land for forestry purposes which otherwise would be lost. Anyone who knows Ire-
    80
    land knows how important it is to retain existing plantations and to obtain land for forestry purposes.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Everybody from Ireland, both above and below the Gangway, will agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he has just said as to the great need for something being done in Ireland to preserve the woods and forests and to increase tree plantation. A very short time ago a Departmental Committee sat in Dublin to take evidence on this question, and it furnished a Report which has met with general acceptance. Everybody in Ireland is most anxious that something should be done to increase afforestry in that country, which I may say is the most neglected land on the face of the earth in that respect with the exception of Iceland. In this country afforestry has been greatly neglected. The same is the case in Scotland and in Ireland, but the area under plantation in some parts of Ireland is less than that in Iceland. Afforestry is a source of wealth and employment. Everybody is most anxious that something should be done to promote it. At the same time I am not quite sure whether this Amendment will forward the object in view. As I understand it, Clause 19 of the Bill originally proposed to give power to authorities to acquire suitable land for the purpose of planting trees in Ireland. The idea was generally understood to be that the power of buying land for the purpose of tree planting was to be placed in the hands of the Agricultural Department in Ireland, which has within it a Department of Afforestry. Many people advocated that there should be established in Ireland anew authority to deal with woods and forests, but it was pointed out that that would require legislation. It was also pointed out that the Agricultural Department has already power to deal with woods and forests, and only requires funds and power to acquire land. I am quite in favour of power being given under this Bill to the Agricultural Department to acquire land for forestry. I think that Department could carry out the work in conjunction with the county councils and local authorities of Ireland. The Amendment, so far as I can understand it, goes further. It proposes to give power to landlords who are selling to resume that part of their property upon which woods and forests may be. I should be very glad to see landlords as well as other people I helping forward the work of afforestation

    81
    in Ireland. What I am doubtful about is whether this will have that effect. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might submit to his friends in the House of Lords—perhaps he may not have any friends there, but at any rate he might submit to his acquaintances the fact that the work of afforestry would be best promoted by not leaving it in the hands of the private landlord. I am not saying that many landlords are not as anxious for the preservation of our woods and forests as other people. Many are in fact undertaking this work and giving employment in consequence, but every country in the world has shown that this question of tree planting is a matter for a public authority, or for the State, and if you are to have a revival of afforestry in Ireland you will not get it if you leave it in private hands. I think it would be far better in the interests of afforestation if, instead of passing this Amendment, the House would agree to leave the whole of this matter in the hands of the Agricultural Department to work in conjunction with the county councils of Ireland. I say that as one who takes a deep interest in this question, and who happens to be a member of the Committee on Forestry, which handed in a Report that has met with general acceptance. Although the Agricultural Department had £6,000 a year given it for the purpose of acquiring land under the Land Act of 1903 for the purpose of tree planting and afforestation, I must say I think it would be far better to leave the whole matter in the hands of a public Department, and not leave it to be worked piecemeal by private individuals throughout the country.
    I know there is a great deal to be said on behalf of the landlord who sells his property, who has perhaps a considerable wood near his house or demesne in which he may take a great interest, and the control of which he does not wish to part with, but I honestly believe, if this work of replanting in Ireland, which all parties, North and South, are anxious to see carried out, is to be well done, it must be done throughout the country by some central authority, and it will not be well done if left to individual landlords here and there. Let the land, which it is proposed under this Amendment the landlord should be allowed to resume, be placed under the county council or under the Department of Agriculture directly, but do not leave it in private hands. If that is done there will be different systems here and there. I am anxious for the preservation of the woods
    82
    and forests of Ireland, and I would agree to any amendment, even if it came from the House of Lords, if I thought it would have that effect. But it is because I honestly believe that the intentions of the people will be frustrated if this Amendment is carried that I ask the Chief Secretary and the Government to consider whether it would not be better to proceed on uniform lines and to put the whole question under one authority instead of leaving it in the hands of private individuals.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: If the occasion were a fitting one, I would be glad to take this opportunity to say something on the whole policy of afforestation in Ireland, where I believe there is a greater field for work of this kind than in any other part of the United Kingdom. If afforestation is to be carried out in that country with a reasonable prospect of success, I say it certainly would be advantageous if it were directed from one of the Government Departments. But may I point out to those who criticise this Amendment that its acceptance does not interfere with the ultimate adoption in Ireland of a large scheme of afforestation such as that recommended by the Departmental Committee. Really all the Amendment does is to enable the Land Commission, if it thinks it desirable, to allow the landlord to resume his land. The hon. Member for East Clare will agree with me that since the last Act came into operation in a great many cases, through no fault whatever of the tenants, the conditions of trees in many cases have become worse on estates than before. I am confident that nobody who has really taken the trouble to study these questions throughout Ireland will deny the truth of the statement that in many cases the condition and supply of trees is worse than it was before. But it has not been the fault of the landowner; it has been his misfortune. I think it is desirable to give to owners of land, where they are willing, the power to carry out the work of afforestation and the extension of plantations or the creation of new ones. I have only one word to say in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for East Clare. Nobody on this side of the House would venture to bring so grave a charge against the Government as that which he made when he said the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, had nothing more than acquaintances in the House of Lords. When we remember that there are in the House of Lords gentlemen who sit in the same Cabinet, I must sug-

    83
    gest that my sympathies go out to the Chief Secretary when it is hinted that his relations with his colleagues are not more than those of mere acquaintanceship. I hope the Government will adhere to this Amendment. I do not think it interferes with the eventual application to Ireland of some large scheme of afforestation.
    Mr. W. MOORE: May I call attention to the fact that this whole Debate is proceeding on an Amendment to line 18, which simply deals with the question of grazing.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendments are moved together and can be discussed together.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I share the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin that the responsibility for injury done in the matter of afforestation in Ireland should be distributed, but I confess that I think that responsibility rests far more on the shoulders of the landlord than of any other class. It could not be otherwise. The landlords are human. They are dealing with their own property, and naturally wish to get the last penny out of it. It is perfectly true that the process of land purchase has injured afforestation in Ireland. Very often a tree in the middle of a field has been found to be a serious obstacle to cultivation and the tenant naturally has desired to get rid of it, so that between landlord and tenant there has been a considerable denudation of trees in the country. Some cases have been very bad. There was a notorious ease near Clonturk, where the tenant fought the landlord on the question of whether a portion of the property was residential or not. The owner had a very pretty house and nicely planted land, and the contention was raised in the Land Court that this holding was residential, and the landlord succeeded in the Land Court. What did the agent do when he sold the estate? He insisted upon cutting down every tree on the holding, and in utterly disfiguring it, and certainly proved the tenant's case that it was not residential, and it is the fact, whatever the cause may be, that land purchase has led to the denudation of the country of trees. I share the feelings and sympathise with the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. William Redmond) in regard to any scheme that will assist in putting an end to that process and get the country planted again, but I also share the view of the hon. Member that this Amendment is
    84
    not the best way to do it. I do not object to the first part of the Amendment, which deals with the cases where the land is vested in trustees, and I think there is nothing in that Amendment which is objectionable, although the addition of the word "grazing" somewhat extends its scope.
    As to the second part of the Amendment, however, I regard it with great dislike and suspicion. This is not the first time since the Land Act of 1881 was passed that there has been an attempt to make an inroad upon the rights of the tenant to hold his land as against the landlord. There was an attempt made under the Land Act of 1906 to give the Congested Districts Board power in the congested districts to put an end to statutory tenancies, and I was against taking from the Irish tenant any of the rights which he won after such a long struggle and after great self-sacrifice. Similarly, I myself, in these Debates, put forward the view that there should be express protection given to the tenant who has bought out his landlord, or who under any tenure was occupying and cultivating his land, and I suggested that that man should be expressly protected from any attempt to take it away from him. It may be said that this Clause will only operate in a very narrow class of case. I do not wish to say anything against the Irish landlords or to treat them otherwise than as good Irishmen, and it is not one landlord in ten thousand, once he has sold his estate, who will desire to plant any portion of it as a plantation, but the danger in this case is that this power will be used for some indirect object. That is the principal danger which existed in regard to the powers of the kind which were given under the Act of 1881. Under the Act of 1881 certain powers were given for the purpose of resumption of the holding in order to make a residence for the landlord, but the difficulty of all these cases is when, the landlord makes his application that the court has to find out not any objective facts, but what are the landlord's intentions, and the landlord succeeds not by proving anything that exists, but by proving his intention.
    Nothing is easier than for a landlord to say, "I would like this holding as a residence for myself," and nothing is easier for a landlord who has some indirect motive in his mind to say, "I want a part of that tenant's land for the purpose of a plantation," and I would ask the House to observe that the Clause is not limited, as the hon. Member for Clare seemed to sup-

    85
    pose, to land which is already planted. It is not limited to any portion of the tenant's holding which is already covered in. Therefore, any portion of the 100 acres of a man's land which never grew a tree can be taken, and the provision is absolutely without limit or qualification upon it. All the landlord has to say is, "Here is some land. There were never any trees planted upon it; there are no plantations upon it or in the locality; but it occurs to me that this would be a nice place in which to plant a plantation." All he has to do is to come into court, and if the Land Commissioners believe him, he has power to get his land back, and he may do so, and he can change his mind the next day. What is more, this Clause has no limitation in regard to the holding which the landlord is selling to the tenant. It is sufficient that the landlord is selling the estate, and if there is one dissentient tenant on the estate who is not buying and who is differing from the landlord as to price or for any other reason and is not buying, the landlord may select that one holding as the place on which to make an experiment of a plantation. See what a temptation it is to the landlord who wishes to put pressure upon the tenant. He may say, "You are not going to buy at the same rate as the other tenants. I have a plan for tree planting, and I shall apply to the Land Commission that 20, 30, or 40 acres of your holding, which would suit me very well, should be devoted to that purpose." I quite agree that the cases in which the landlord would act in that way would be very rare, and I do not think that a landlord who would do so would be a fair specimen of Irish landlords generally. But there are some landlords, and some land agents especially, who are not above conceiving a scheme of that kind if it would serve any particular purpose. I do not say this is a largo question. I do not say it is a great danger to Irish tenants, but it does tend to inroads upon their holdings against which I do most emphatically protest.
    Mr. CULLINAN: When this question of tampering with the holdings of purchasing tenants in Ireland was before the House on a previous occasion, I directed the attention of the Chief Secretary and of the Attorney-General for Ireland to the fact that I believed the occupiers of new holdings in Ireland would have a decided objection to it, but I really felt that it was a good thing to see that clearances should not be made by liberty being given to re-
    86
    move ornamental trees. There is no objection to the protection of ornamental trees, but there is a very strong feeling on the part of a large number of purchasers in Ireland, and I think very properly, against Parliament year after year sanctioning new inroads upon their rights. I know there are instances where there have been clearances of ornamental trees, but I also know of cases, in regard to which I addressed questions to the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, in which land agents would not under any circumstances sell to their tenants the beautiful plantations which had been made by their fathers or grandfathers, and actually destroyed those plantations. I certainly must protest against the statement or the insinuation, that since land purchase has considerably increased in Ireland the tenant purchasers are inclined to cut down the timber. In my experience it is the other way, and I say that the new purchasers are showing every disposition to improve, and beautify, and shelter, and make their holdings comfortable. For that reason I must say that I think this Amendment is most uncalled for, and, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) has said, there is no limitation in regard to it. What is the object? There is no object in it, except that some Members of the Upper House have in their eye some particular spot which when they sell their property they would like to get hold of and get back again. Take the case of a farmer who has a nice holding. Do you mean to tell me that the Irish tenant is going to be satisfied when in the very centre of the farm which he has purchased he is to hand over a portion to the landlord for the purpose of his planting it? I say that the purchasers would object, and would be perfectly justified in objecting, to such a course. You are getting rid of the landowners in Ireland at an extraordinary price, at much more than they are entitled to, and you talk about the British taxpayer and his giving credit for an amount which he should not be required to give. That being so, why should you, in order to satisfy the opinions of the landlords, give them any claim upon the land which they are parting with. If the Government agree to this Amendment it will cause great dissatisfaction, and I must say I think it is a proposal which is most uncalled for.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I think the condition of affairs which the hon. Member has put before the House is not likely to

    87
    arise. He says no tenant farmer would consent to a landlord commencing a plantation in the middle of his farm, but he has only to look at the Amendment to find that the Land Commission will only allow a landowner to resume possession on such terms as may be approved of by them, including full compensation to the tenant, and that they may apportion the rent and discharge that portion of the holding from the tenancy. It is quite clear that the Land Commission is not going to allow the landowner to resume possession of a plantation of trees without some stringent conditions that the piece of ground must be used for that purpose or some other purpose of the same nature. So far as what fell from the hon. Member for Clare is concerned, I thoroughly agree that we should do anything which would tend to encourage the growth of trees in Ireland, but I think that while that which he asked for would be a more perfect system than is contained in the Amendment before us now, a great deal more can be done than he seems to think by means of the latter, for the reason that the Land Commission have here power to lay down the terms and conditions on which land which is resumed for such a purpose shall be held, and it seems to me that if the Land Commission seriously desire, and I have no doubt they do, to have tree-culture encouraged in Ireland and to see Ireland become more covered with trees than, it is at present, they would proceed to lay down general rules and conditions under this Section. If they do so, if they draw up the rules under which it is known they are prepared to act unless the landlord is prepared to agree to those conditions, he will not be allowed to hold property for that purpose. Another hon Member said there would not be one landlord in 10,000 who would desire to hold property for the mere purpose of preserving trees, but surely every hon. Member below the Gangway can bring 10 his mind a case of demesnes in Ireland where the bulk of the trees are not close to the house, but are scattered about, it may be at a distance of half-a-mile, a mile, or even two miles. There are plantations which, though not actually part of the demesne, add very much to the beauty of the surroundings, and it would be a thousand pities if, when the ordinary tenanted lend is sold, these plantations should disappear. There could be no better way of securing that these plantations should continue to
    88
    exist than giving the Land Commissioners the very powers proposed to be given them by this Amendment, namely, to include these pieces of land which, although not actually part of the demesne land are in reality a part of it, in so far as they are ornamental grounds and had originally, probably, been planted in connection with plantations existing on the demesne. In very many cases it will be the greatest pity if these outlying plantations should be allowed to disappear, and of all the schemes which I have heard put forward, short of some general scheme for afforestation, for preserving trees, the scheme which is contained in this Amendment is by far the most practicable, and one which is much more likely to meet what are the views of every section of the House, namely, that as many trees as possible in Ireland should be preserved.
    Mr. P. J. POWER: I am anxious that we should preserve the few plantations and trees that we have in Ireland. They are not only an advantage to the scenery of the country, but if the country were more planted with trees it would have a most beneficial effect on the climate. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Clare in saying that if the thing is carried out well, it will be necessary to have some sort of uniform system, but at the same time, looking at this Amendment as it is on the Paper, I am inclined to be somewhat sceptical as to its use. I am afraid it may possibly lead to land being unreasonably taken from the farmers which they have already acquired. I hope it cannot have the effect of increasing the habit which some landlords have adopted in my Constituency, of planting farms from which people have been evicted. I had occasion to ask questions about Lord Ashdown's estate where farms were planted with trees and the reinstatement of the people thereby frustrated, and I am sorry to say the same system has been pursued by another landlord in the same neighbourhood. While very anxious to see the trees already there properly preserved and guarded, I should hesitate to give these somewhat plenary powers to the Land Commission. As to who has denuded the land of the timber, as a rule the Irish landlord is a poor man, and, when selling his land, he is tempted to turn into cash any plantation that he may have. Under the circumstances, I should think once, twice, or thrice before I would give these powers to the Commission.
    Mr. MOORE: I think hon. Members are unduly alarmed about this. The hon. Member (Mr. Maurice Healy) said the Amendment looked alright, but he was afraid there was something behind it, some ulterior motive by which it would be used to force a tenant to come to special terms or to pay a higher price for his holding. I cannot see that, because at present you have practically identical powers given to every landlord in the country. He can enter a tenant's holding at any hour of the day to resume under four or five different heads, and it is quite immaterial, if there is going to be pressure of this sort, that a sixth head should be added under the shape of giving power to resume for planting, because the machinery is already there, and, though I have a very considerable knowledge of sales through all parts of the country, I never heard of a case where the power to resume under the Act of 1881 was ever used for any purpose which has come into the head of the hon. Member. But then really there is very little scope left for the operation of this Clause. Fifty million pounds' worth of estates were sold before the Act of 1903, £23,000,000 worth of estates have been sold since then, and there are £62,000,000 worth agreed to be sold now lying in the offices of the Estates Commissioners, none of which can possibly be covered by this Clause. So that if the Clause is passed it would only apply to something less than a fourth of all the untenanted land of Ireland which remains to be sold.
    Then, when one comes to look at the Clause, it seems to me, as far as practical working goes, that it might mean nothing. Consider what sort of holdings this Clause can refer to. It can only refer to a holding where, when the landlord gets his land, the value of the holding will not be materially diminished by his doing so. What sort of holding is that? It cannot be a holding of which all the land is good, because, if you are going to plant, it is not worth while to go to the expense of draining and fencing off the new plantation. I do not think it would pay anyone to plant an area under at least 20 acres. By the time draining, fencing, thinning and everything else is done, and ground game kept out, it would not pay anyone to take up less than 20 acres. If there was any arable land or tillage land you could not get an ordinary tillage holding in which cutting 20 acres off would not materially diminish the value of the rest. The only sort of
    90
    holding which it could possibly apply to would be one, say, at the bottom of a valley, the low land all arable and a mountain thrown in for rough grazing, the sort of land useful for planting and of very small value to the holding. If the landlord was to be allowed to resume 100 acres of it for planting, leaving the tenant 10O acres for rough grazing, that is about the only case in which this Clause would apply. I quite differ from the experience of hon. members below the Gangway in saying that the disappearance of trees is entirely due to the acts of commission of the landlord. I know a part of the country very well where there are 7 miles and 10 miles between each landlord's place and nothing intervening but tenants and small proprietors, and there used to be a very fair amount of timber there, hedgerow, ash and timber of that sort, and since these people have become owners of their holdings—it is not really their fault, but you have agents from Liverpool and Glasgow and those places coming through the country tempting them with offers of 5s. or 7s. 6d. for an ash worth perhaps £1. and buying up all the hedgerow, ash and sycamore trees in the country. These people have never been tempted that way before, because while they were tenants they could not cut the trees, but the whole countryside has been cleared now by these people foolishly selling timber as they have done. It is entirely a mercantile transaction on the part of the tenant purchaser and not the landlords at all in that part of the country. It is one of the few good things in this Bill that at a later stage a new statutory condition has been imposed on tenant purchasers to prevent them from cutting down any of this timber on the holding they buy except with the consent of the Estates Commissioners.
    Lords Amendment, at the end of the Clause to insert, "(3) The Land Commission, on the application in the prescribed manner of any landlord who is desirous of selling an estate under the Land Purchase Acts, if they are satisfied that it is desirable that the landlord should be authorised to resume a portion of a holding upon the estate for the purpose of planting trees or preserving woods or plantations, or growing timber, and that the value of the holding will not be materially diminished by reason of the resumption, may authorise the landlord to resume that portion upon such terms as may be approved

    91
    of by the Land Commission, including full compensation to the tenant, and may make an order accordingly apportioning the rent and discharging that portion of the holding from the tenancy."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 81.

    Division No. 900.]

    AYES.

    [7.45 P.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Middlebrook, William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Moore, William

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Astbury, John Meir

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

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

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Gulland, John W.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hancock, J. G.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Barker, Sir John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Paul, Herbert

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Beale, W. P.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Radford, G. H.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

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

    Rees, J. D.

    Bring, John

    Henry, Charles S.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Bright, J. A.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Renwick, George

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hooper, A. G.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Robson, Sir Wm. Snowdon

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

    Cameron, Robert

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Rowlands, J.

    Cave, George

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Jackson, R. S.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Seely, Colonel

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Clough, William

    Keswick, William

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

    Lambert, George

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

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lamont, Norman

    Toulmin, George

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Vivian, Henry

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Cox, Harold

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Wardle, George J.

    Craig, Charles, Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Warrer, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lupton, Arnold

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

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Doughty, Sir George

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Winfrey, R.

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Elibank, Master of

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Younger, George

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Marnham, F. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Falconer, J.

    Massie, J.

    Fell, Arthur

    NOES.

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Crean, Eugene

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Boland, John

    Cullinan, J.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Delany, William

    Firench, Peter

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Dillon, John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M'Kean, John

    Reddy, M.

    Gilhooly, James

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Ginnell, L.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Glover, Thomas

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

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Mooney, J. J.

    Richardson, A.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Muldoon, John

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Harrington, Timothy

    Murnaghan, George

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hodge, John

    Nolan, Joseph

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

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sheehy, David

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F, (Leitrim, S.)

    Jordan, Jeremiah

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

    Steadman, W. C.

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Dowd, John

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Grady, J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Keating, M.

    O'Malley, William

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal West)

    O'Neill, Charles

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    London, T.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Pointer, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Clause 20.—(Equitable Price of Holdings.)
    (1) The Land Commission in determining under Sub-section (2) of Section one or under Section five of the Act of 1903 whether the agreed price of a holding is equitable shall have regard to the respective interests of the landlord and tenant in the holding and in the improvements thereon, and the price shall not be deemed to be equitable if it appears to the Land Commission that any substantial part thereof represents the value of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title for which he or they have not been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title.
    (2) Any question which may arise under this Section as to—

    (a) whether an improvement was or was not made by the tenant or his predecessors in title; or

    (b) whether the tenant or his predecessors in title have or have not been paid or compensated for any improvement;

    may (subject and without prejudice to any previous determination under the Land Law Acts) be determined by the Land Commission, who may, in their discretion, refer the question to a Legal Assistant Commissioner, and the determination of the Land Commission or such Commissioner, as the case may be, shall be final.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 20.
    Question proposed: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in said Amendment."
    Mr. BIRRELL: This is nearly the last, if not quite the last, of my broken eggs. I regret that the Clause should have been omitted, but I none the less ask the House to agree to the Amendment. The object
    94
    of the Clause was to meet the case where the calculation of the price of a holding included the price of the tenant's improvements which were the tenant's own property. I think it is only fair to say that such cases are admittedly not of frequent occurrence. There is no doubt that the force of the argument against this Clause consisted in the fact that it authorised the tearing up of contracts and involved offensive investigations by the rent-fixing tribunal. These are the objections involved in the Clause. I think they were overcome by the sense of equity in the nature of the transaction itself, but at the same time the Clause being one which excited the greatest opposition in the House of Lords, I have, for reasons which I need not refer to again, to ask the House to agree to the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. DILLON: I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman has consented to have this egg broken. It shows that the landlords understand their own interests exceedingly well. This Clause does more than the right hon. Gentleman alluded to in his statement. The real genesis of the Clause is to be found in Clause 5 of the Bill of of 1903, which is as follows:
    "In the case of the sale of an estate where an application for an advance, to which the provisions of Sub-section one of Section one of this Act do not apply, is made, the Land Commission may, subject to the limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, advance the whole or part of the purchase money if they are satisfied with the security and are of opinion that, having, regard to all the circumstances of the case, the agreed price is equitable."
    For some time the Estates Com sioners held the view—in fact, the it still—that the plain interprets

    95
    that Clause was that they were to have regard to all the circumstances before they agreed to advance the money for the price. Then came a decision—I forget whether it was by the Court of Appeal or by one of the judges—that that was not the meaning of these words. The Court held that the Commissioners were only to have regard to the rights of the remainder man, and not to the rights of the tenants, atlhough they were directed by the Clause to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. Clause 20 of this Bill is far more comprehensive than the Chief Secretary would have us believe. It is, first of all, a reversion of that judgment which deprived the tenant of the protection supposed to be given by the Act of 1903, and it directs the Commissioners in finding out whether the price is equitable that they shall have regard to the rights of the landlord and the tenant, and not only the remainder man. Then it goes on to say the price shall not be deemed to be equitable if it appears to the Land Commission that any substantial part thereof represents the value of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title for which he or they have not
    been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title." The Chief Secretary said that in his opinion such cases would be exceedingly few. I entirely differ. I think they form a large proportion of the sales in Ireland. The man who goes down to inspect for the Commission does not go into the question of the equity of the price; he goes into the question of security. It has over and over again been given in evidence that in considering the question of security the inspector takes into account the whole of the holding as it stands. We all know very well that a tenant's interest is sometimes more than half of the entire holding. Therefore I say that in many instances the unfortunate tenants in these sales are buying back their own improvements, which really ought to be their own property. This Clause, therefore, is not the small matter which the Chief Secretary tried to make out. In the first place, it restores what was originally supposed to be the meaning of Clause 5 of the Act of 1903, and it further says that in determining the equity of the price the Land Commission shall have regard to the tenant's improvements.
    The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 80.

    Division No. 901.]

    AYES.

    [8.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Clough, William

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Ainsworth, John St rling

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Astbury, John Meir

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Baker, Joseph A.

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

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Barker, Sir John

    Cox, Harold

    Hooper, A. G.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, s.)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Barnard, E. B.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Beale, W. P.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Jackson, R. S.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Keswick, William

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Elibank, Master of

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Brigg, John

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Bright, J. A.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

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

    Falconer, J.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

    Fell, Arthur

    Lamont, Norman

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Byles, William Pollard

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

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

    Cameron, Robert

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Gretton, John

    Lupton, Arnold

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Gulland, John W.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Cave, George

    Hancock, J. G.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. B.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Massle, J.

    Renwick, George

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

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Toulmin, George

    Middlebrook, William

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Vivian, Henry

    Moore, William

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Morse, L. L.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Waterlow, D. S.

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Myer, Horatio

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Rowlands, J.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Seaverns, J. H.

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Seely, Colonel

    Winfrey, R.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wood, T. McKinnon

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Younger, George

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

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Radford, G. H.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Rea, Rt. Hon, Russell (Gloucester)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Rees, J. D.

    NOES.

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

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Malley, William

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Neill, Charles

    Barnes, G. N.

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Roland, John

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Keating, M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Reddy, M.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, T.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

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

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Richardson, A.

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Kean, John

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Sheehy, David

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Muldoon, John

    Steadman, W. C.

    Gilhooly, James

    Murnaghan, George

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Ginnell, L

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Summerbell, T.

    Glover, Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hodge, John

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

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Captain Donelan.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, J.

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    CLAUSE 21.—(Congested Estates.)
    (1) In Sub-Section (5) of Section six of the Act of 1903 (which defines a congested estate) "ten pounds" shall be substituted for "five pounds"; and the consent of the owner required by Sub-Section (4) of that Section shall cease to be required.
    (2) Where an estate not being a congested estate within the meaning of the said Section as so amended, comprises within its area one or more congested townlands, the Land Commission, or in the case of townlands situated in a congested district county, the Congested Districts Board, may declare all or any one or more of such townlands to be a separate estate for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts, and such townland or townlands shall thereupon be deemed for those purposes to be a separate congested estate.
    (3) An estate which consists exclusively of one or more congested townlands shall be deemed to be a congested estate.
    (4) The expression "congested town-land" means a townland in which more than one half of the holdings are—

    (a) congested holdings; or

    (b) holdings whose aggregate rateable value when divided by their number gives a sum of less than ten pounds for each holding:

    The expression "congested holding" means—

    (a) a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value; and

    (b) a holding held in rundale or intermixed plots.

    Mr. BIRRELL: I have now to ask the attention of the House to a very important

    99
    matter indeed, and to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in its Amendment," and to insert another Amendment in lieu thereof, "To leave out £10, and to insert instead thereof £7."
    The effect of this Amendment, if you look at Clause 21, will be simply to restore the Clause as it was in the Bill, and substitute £7 for £10. There are two points I find of importance in this matter. These Amendments of the House of Lords were really of the most destructive character, and I am persuaded that they conceived the view which they took not at all from the desire of really destroying the work at present carried on by the Congested Districts Board in the relief of congestion, but simply because they did not appreciate fully the nature of the operations of that work. The view I found very prevalent among persons of authority was that the Congested Districts Board—this is important in relation to the pre-emption clauses—was bound to acquire, for the purpose of relieving congestion, estates which were largely composed of tenants having economic holdings and interfering with them. The answer to this was, "We quite appreciate that the object of the Congested Districts Board is to relieve the uneconomic holdings of a great number of very small persons, but that while the sum of £5 represents, no doubt, an uneconomic holding, £10 really does not," and they appeal with a certain amount of force to the fact, of which anybody conversant with legal affairs is aware, that a tenant with a £10 holding, although very poor, according to ordinary farming ideas, is nevertheless by no means necessarily a person who can properly be described as occupying a congested holding; and therefore they kept saying, "Why do you want to take hold of land above this £5 level? Why not be content, at all events for a great many years to come, with dealing with this very difficult problem and relieving the uneconomic plight of these £5 holdings, and why should you seek to have your area of choice and operation extended so far as £10, which is not really an uneconomic holding at all?"
    The answer to that is that in order to relieve congestion it is absolutely necessary for the Congested Districts Board to acquire estates, and to acquire estates not composed entirely of uneconomic holdings, but composed partly of persons who occupy uneconomic holdings or holdings of a very small character, and
    100
    also tenants of a somewhat larger kind. That is where the policy of migration comes in with some degree of fitness, because in the case of a person with a £10 holding a really practical farmer who is accustomed to till his farm and work it satisfactorily, although in a poverty-stricken neighbourhood and surrounded with persons on small economic holdings, you cannot tempt that person, with his knowledge, his experience, and his fitness for a larger farm, to go out of his holding unless you are able to give him out of the untenanted land you have acquired elsewhere a good holding. Having got rid of him from the congested estate, with all his knowledge, his character, and ability to work a farm some distance away, on a larger scale possibly, and tempted him in that way, you then use his farm for the purpose of increasing the uneconomic holdings of the small men. There is no use in sending away small men to a neighbourhood which will not welcome them. You may have to do it occasionally, but nobody would do it cheerfully, because they have to be supplied with money, and they will have to have farm buildings and stock, and they will have to be looked after and taught how to work for the first time an enlarged holding in a proper manner. Therefore, if you are tied down by the hard and fast operation of these Amendments, if you are tied down to £5 holdings, you are really crippled, and you almost, if not entirely, destroy the operations that have been carried on advantageously by the Congested Districts Board, although with very limited resources. Therefore, as anybody acquainted with these problems knows, two things are absolutely involved: You must have possession of holdings on a larger scale than the ordinary definition of £5 of an uneconomic holding.
    It is the person who is properly called a congest for whom you labour, whom you seek to put upon a better holding, and the only way to do that is to persuade the holder of a decently large farm, a different man with greater knowledge and greater fitness to go elsewhere. That has been done over and over again by the Congested Districts Board. They have got these people to go quite contentedly to a place perhaps no great distance away where they get holdings on a larger scale which they are able to operate without being looked after by the State official, and where they will be able to make the best of their land. But these operations are really the work of the Congested Dis-

    101
    tricts Board alone. They are complicated work, involving a knowledge not within the means of everybody to command. By cutting them down to £5 you really first of all take the very lowest limit of an uneconomic holding. Then you say that unless there is this large majority of holdings of such a character you are not to be in a position to carry out any improvement. Then comes in a question in which the House of Lords are going back on views to which they have given expression in legislation. I find, for example, in the Act of 1891 that the following definition is given: "The expression 'small holdings' means a holding of a rateable value of less than £10 or any higher sum fixed by the Congested Districts Board."
    Later on it was enacted that the Congested Districts Board should aim at the creation of holdings of not less than £10 annual value. Under Section 47, Sub-section (6) of the Act of 1896, the Land Commission were not to make any distinction in respect to any purchase for any tenant under the Board, and all small holdings were defined as in the Land Purchase Act of 1891. Therefore, we are really going back at the very time when we ought to be going forward; and, at the very time when we are receiving a large additional endowment for the Congested Districts Board in order to deal with this admittedly prolonged and only partially solvable problem, you are really, so I am assured by officials of the Congested Districts Board, and as I know of my own knowledge, rendering their task of relieving congestion practically impossible, if this definition be insisted on as now put upon us, and they will practically be worse off, or at all events no better off than they are now. As a compromise, I propose that the limit should be £7. Although I quite agree that a £10 holding is not in itself necessarily a holding which by any means can be described as uneconomic, the £10 holder, if looked at as an isolated individual, is a person who may get along for many a day, and may be regarded as prosperous in a country where food is cheap. It is because the Congested Districts Board must be able to get the use of this property in order to relieve congestion that I am anxious to make a compromise. It is a matter on which I know there is a great deal of feeling, and undoubtedly £7—although it will restrict very considerably the operations of the Congested Districts Board—includes a very large number of cases between £5 and £7. The number between £5 and £7
    102
    is a very great one. The number of holdings both in the existing area of the Congested Districts Board and in the new area, between £5 and £7, is much greater than the number between £7 and £10. Therefore £7 as a matter of practical concession is of very great importance. Then the other point is with reference to whether area or number should be the test of congestion. Everybody tells me—at all events, those who are beginning to have some inkling of the real bearing of these important questions—that the true test of whether an estate or town land is congested is not the area, but the number of uneconomic or insufficient holdings upon it.
    I have been supplied with a whole list of places where there are nests of holdings hung together in one corner, while the remainder of the area or estate, perhaps four-fifths of the entire area, is in the occupation of one large tenant. Under the Amendment of the Lords it would be no use to say, "Here is a number of small persons, the very persons whose interests the Congested Districts Board have at heart, and for whose relief Parliament is willing to give them these supplies." These are the very persons with whom they are to be at liberty to deal, but the definition would say that the town land as a whole was free from congestion. The unfortunate people are crowded in one part of the town land or estate, while there is ample room remaining for a few holders to expand and carry on their industry. These things are not inventions; there are not one case or two cases, but scores of cases all over the country meet the eye. There is a case of a town land of 300 acres, of which 250 acres are in the hands of five holders, while the remainder are held by small tenants. In another case only one-sixth of the area is occupied by congested tenants. I am certain that these Amendments made in another place are attributable partly to their not being very well acquainted with the nature of the operation, which has become quite a special one, and also I think to their being alarmed by the application to congested estates of pre-emption. But I do not think they give the Congested Districts Board that credit for ordinary business faculty which I am bound to say they have hitherto certainly exhibited in the management of their affairs. If they imagine that a Congested Districts Board is going to acquire land compulsorily, or to exercise the right of pre-emption over large and comfortable estates where there

    103
    is no possibility or desire on their part to interfere with the holdings on those estates, that is not their object, that is not their purpose, that is not the function assigned to them. But they do want to have the right of pre-emption over estates suitable for the relief of congestion, but the definition which the House of Lords has imposed would really be destructive of their usefulness in that matter. When the Dudley Commission put £10 as the annual value they did not mean to say that everybody that had a holding of £10 was in himself a person who should be removed in order that he might become an economic tenant. They were considering the margin necessary to be placed at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board in order to get the land required for economic holdings. While I myself think that £10 is a reasonable and proper limit, I also agree that £7 is enormously better than £5, because it includes a much larger number of holdings of the kind with which we wish to deal. I am sure if it were not for this bugbear of compulsion which people are frightened about, or pretend to be frightened about, or, I will not say pretend, but think they are frightened about, it would never have entered into the minds of the House of Lords to curtail the beneficial operations of the Board.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: The Chief Secretary began his speech by saying that we had come to one of the most serious of the proposed changes in the Bill, and I entirely concur. We have arrived at a question which certainly is of the most serious character, and in regard to which I confess I view with great apprehension and regret the course which the Government have adopted. The Chief Secretary says it may have been by accident that the words "consent of the landlord" are, as agreed upon, to be omitted; that is to say, in the Bill originally the valuation was raised from £5 to £10, and the consent of the landlord was required. Now the valuation is reduced to £5, and the consent of the landlord is not required. I understood him to say that he regarded the dropping of the consent of the landlord as part of the arrangement, independent altogether of the valuation standing at either £5 or £10. I think he must, so far as my information goes, appreciate the fact that if there is be a change in one part of the arrangement it does not necessarily follow that the dropping of the words "consent of the landlord" will be regarded as an arrange-
    104
    ment which stands. I only say that by way of caveat. It must be apparent to anybody, even the most casual spectator of our proceedings, that the inconvenience of this method of procedure is magnified in the highest possible degree. Here we are approaching, as the Chief Secretary has stated, one of the most important questions in the Bill, and we are now asked to discuss and consider Amendments of a very far-reaching character, which entirely alter again in another way this very important Clause, and we are asked to consider them, hearing them for the first time from the Chief Secretary in the speech he has just made. Personally I think we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the course he has adopted in unfolding the whole of his scheme to us, instead of disclosing it piecemeal with the Amendments as they were reached, because now we know exactly what the proposal of the Government is.
    The right hon. Gentleman tells us he thought that the Lords in another place had acted from ignorance. It is not for me to defend, but I should have thought that the majority of those who took part in that debate in another place were gentlemen who, by their previous life and experience, had as complete personal knowledge and experience of congestion, with its horrors and difficulties, as anyone inside or outside this House. Many of them are resident in the South and West, they have seen those things existing, they are familiar with them all their lives, and I do not think it is therefore ignorance. I think ignorance is there, but it is not the ignorance of those gentlemen in regard to congestion and its difficulties. The ignorance under which we suffer is this: That while the Government tell us that these Amendments are of the greatest and most far-reaching character, the statements made are of themselves contradictory, because, as the Chief Secretary told us in the speech he has just made, while this reduction from £10 to £5 strikes at the removal of congestion and makes the task practically impossible and offers an obstacle which is insuperable, yet at the same time, and almost in the same breath, he told us that this very work for which he seeks this increased valuation, that is the work of taking men who are stronger farmers than the congests and who can be moved to another locality, that is being done every day. If that be the case, are we not entitled to ask, what is the urgent I necessity for this Amendment?

    105
    The Chief Secretary went on to say that he thought there would be no opposition to this if it had not been for what he described as an unreasonable alarm on the part of the landlords and others in Ireland in reference to the prospective action of the Congested Districts Board. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the bugbear of compulsion in the whole of his speech, and yet in listening to his speech one would hardly be able to imagine what the real facts of the case are—namely, that under this Bill you are taking tremendous powers with which you are clothing a Government Department in Ireland. One of the Departments you are entirely recasting, and the Chief Secretary asks us to believe that the Congested Districts Board do not intend to do this, that, or the other; but, in doing so, he is asking us to give him a large measure of our confidence and belief, because he admits himself that under this Bill, as it has been altered, the constitution of the Congested Districts Board is to be radically changed. There is no security, and there can be no security, that even the personnel of it will be anything like what it is at present. The whole of the nominated members are to cease to hold office, and it is open to the Government to appoint ah entirely new body, in addition to which there are two additional members and two paid members. It may be the case, and I hope it is the case, that the newly constituted body with these large powers will follow the wise example set them by their predecessors. I only hope that their administration will be half as sound and as good and as successful as has been that of the Congested Districts Board. I am entitled to point out that this Bill is creating an entirely new authority, giving them enormous powers and enabling them, if they think necessary, to use this compulsion very widely in different areas. Under those circumstances I think the right hon. Gentleman is not quite entitled to come here and say, "Your fears are perfectly groundless as to compulsion; you have nothing to be afraid of," and to tell us that the Congested Districts Board do not intend to make use of those powers in a wide and rather loose fashion. It may be the case that they will be cautious and limited in the exercise of their powers, but we know these Debates have revealed, even if we did not know before, what congestion is and how it impresses those who are brought into contact with it, and how urgent they feel it to be. That being so, surely it is not a very rash fear on
    106
    our part if we anticipate that when you give the Board very wide powers you ought to pause before you double or treble the area over which they are to exercise authority.
    We have never been able to find out during these Debates the precise effects of an alteration like that suggested. We have asked for the information, but we have not been able to get it. The Chief Secretary quoted one or two general statements where he said that the area would not do, and that he must have numbers. He gave certain numbers, but we have had no information in these Debates as to what will be the effect in regard to the proposed alteration. So far as my information goes I believe it will double or treble the amount of country in Ireland which will be subject to the administration of the Congested Districts Board. Lord Macdonnell speaks with great authority as to the work of the Congested Districts Board during the four or five years he was connected with it, and he is never tired of telling us of the good work they have done and the immense effect they have had on congestion in various parts of Ireland, and how successfully they have been enabled to deal with congestion, as they certainly had been to my certain knowledge, in many parts of Ireland. Surely under those circumstances it ought to be necessary first of all to show us that they are now held up by new obstacles which can only be removed by such an Amendment as this, and that without this they cannot continue their work; but no such information is forthcoming. We have no knowledge in this House of the effects of such an Amendment, and the Government have not told us what will be the precise effect of reducing the valuation from £10 to £5. The Chief Secretary said that we are actually going back. We are doing nothing of the kind. He has referred to the constitution of small holdings, but that is a totally different thing from the standard which has always been accepted as the statutory standard of congestion. Before you reconstitute the Board, giving them much wider powers, and doubling or trebling the area they will have to administer, you ought, at all events, to show that they are worthy of the additional opportunities you propose to give them. In regard to the secondary question of the choice between area and numbers, the information given by the Chief Secretary certainly points in the direction of there being something to be

    107
    said for number as against area. But as to that I cannot speak, because here again, although I have made the best effort I could to get definite information on the subject, it has been impossible to obtain it. I can find nobody able to tell me what would be the practical effect in Ireland of substituting area for number or the reverse. The Chief Secretary said that in certain cases it would present a very serious difficulty. For my part I should be perfectly ready to consider that point. But when we are asked to reduce the valuation from £10 to £5, to abandon the requirement of the consent of the owner, and to make the change in regard to number or area, we are being asked to adopt very violent remedies which could only be justified by making it quite clear that without these great changes it would be impossible to deal with congestion. My own belief is that by making these changes, instead of facilitating the work of the Congested Districts Board, you are likely to render it more difficult and to retard the work of the relief of congestion. You are adding enormously to the liabilities and responsibilities of the Congested Districts Board; you are giving them fresh powers and new authority, and it would have been wiser to let the new Board get into their stride and to prove that they were capable of doing as good work as the old Board before you made changes so grave as are now indicated by the Chief Secretary. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to agree with the greater part of the Amendment as it reached us from another place, and I cannot conceal from myself that the course he has taken may present the greatest difficulties in the way of the passage of the Bill.
    Mr. DILLON: Although we differ very radically as to the necessity of this Amendment or even of this Clause, no one can fail to recognise the entirely friendly tone in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) has dealt with the work of the Congested Districts Board. I know perfectly well that when he was in Ireland he took a sincere interest in this body and sympathised with the work of the relief of congestion. But just now he made the strange statement that he could never get any information which would justify the demands of the Government and the changes they are making. I venture to say that if he applied to any single individual—I make no exception—who has been practi-
    108
    cally engaged in the work of the Congested Districts! Board in the country, he would be told that every one of these Amendments is absolutely essential to enable the work to be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman has not for the first time borne very generous testimony to the work of the Congested Districts Board. Everybody who has come in contact with that work has known that for years it has been a common subject of complaint with all the officials and with every member of the Board that the law was so unhappily framed as to hamper almost beyond expression the carrying out of the work. The Board were always running up against some limitation or restriction of a really heart-breaking character. I was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman did not pronounce implacably against the change as between number and area. Anyone who knows the West of Ireland is aware that it is quite common for three-fourths or four-fifths of the townland to consist of one or two large farms, and for the bog or the mountain side to be crowded with poor people who have been driven off the land. That is characteristic of the entire country. It is one of the horrible anomalies resulting from the working of unjust laws through generations. But where you have these nests of destitution and poverty on the very border of vast grass lands, you have the remedy and the evil side by side. You have not to transport the people to a distance. These are places where the remedy can be easily applied. In many cases the grass farms are held by men who have five, six, or seven grass lands in other parts of the country. They are professional graziers; and some of the farms might without hardship be taken from them at fair compensation. But under the present system these districts are outside the work of the Congested Districts Board. There are one or two rich graziers in the townland and 30 or 40 starving congests, and it is said that this is not a congested district at all, because a part of the area consists of economic holdings. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to discuss all these Amendments together. You require the conditions that have been put forward for the purpose of bringing the districts under the control of the Board. As the Chief Secretary has said—and he has had sufficient experience in the operations of the Board to understand that this is a cardinal point—when you come to the question of migration—and this is the view I took long years ago—it was not popular with the Board at first,

    109
    but as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin knows, it has become an adopted principle of the Board—if you are going to have successful migration, you must make the Board strong enough to compass all these circumstances. Supposing you have a man with a farm of 25 or 30 acres, and poor land at a distance. The man has stock, money, and skill. His farm divided will make economic farms for five or six small holders, whom you have not got to build new houses for, whereas if you take these five or six small men to a distance it would cost you possibly £100. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has truly said that if you want honestly to deal with the problem of congestion, you must give the Board power to obtain not only the slum areas—for if you confine them to the slum areas they can do nothing—you must give them power to obtain these lands for these holdings which are essential to the relief of the slum areas. In the past the Board has found itself face to face with a problem of enormous difficulty. It has been deprived of adequate funds and put under all kinds of absurd restrictions, due to ignorance of the problem. This Bill proposes to remove some of the most galling of these restrictions. I wish the Government had gone further, but I see the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman has had to face. I am content with the treatment given to this particular Clause, and I trust that the House will pass it.
    Mr. S. H. BUTCHER: The question of the standard of congestion, of £10, £7, or £5, is very closely bound up with the question of compulsion. That has already been recognised to some extent, but I would like to bring it out a little more clearly, because when once you make a new definition of a congested estate you enormously increase the area over which compulsion operates. I would like to remind the Committee of what the Lords have already done with a view to meeting this question of compulsion with a view to mitigate the misery of the congested districts. You will remember that in the first instance they agreed that compulsory powers should be allowed within congested districts wherever they were required for the relief of congestion. But then other facts were brought before their notice. For instance the Chief Secretary made a point, and I think an important point, when this matter was last under discusssion, that it was not sufficient to get compulsory powers to
    110
    acquire untenanted land which had been done in the first instance if you did not also give compulsory powers to acquire congested districts, because untenanted land was necessary to enlarge the holdings in the congested districts. That was also taken into consideration in another place, and as a result of it the fairness of that contention was recognised, and in the Amendment before us the principle of compulsion is extended so far as to embrace congested estates. Moreover, and thirdly, the Lords extended congestion outside the congested districts area. It was represented to them that here and there through Leland there were patches of congestion as well as in the congested districts area proper, and that similar powers of compulsion ought to be granted to acquire congested estates there. So we have those three several stages by which they have gradually enlarged the powers of compulsion given under this Bill, and I must say that, taking these altogether, it does seem to me that they have shown a most reasonable desire to meet any genuine case made out for the relief of congestion, whether in the congested area or outside of it. But we come to the question of the £10, £7, or £5. As I said, if you make £10 a definition you very greatly increase the whole area in which compulsion operates. If you make £7 a definition you increase it not so largely, but very considerably. If you go back to the old £5 you do make a somewhat strict limit for the field in which you are to give compulsory powers. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said one thing which I really could not understand. He said, "If you go back to the £5 limit you not only restrict the operations of the Congested Districts Board, but you make their task impossible." How can he maintain that in face of these facts when heretofore, without compulsion, and by voluntary sale, the Board has been enabled to carry out its relief of congestion upon a very considerable scale, and would have done it upon a much larger scale if they had had more money. Their powers are now being increased, more money is being given to them; and yet we are told that if we do not give them this new definition of £7 or £10 that we are restricting them in their operations! It is admitted that we are greatly improving the Board, and adding to their freedom. We are removing restrictions. We are giving them the compulsion they need. We are not raising, but we are keeping to the old limits of £5, and the question may fairly

    111
    be put: "Can they go on doing good work with that limit of £5." Well, my inquiries lead me to very different conclusions from those which have been stated on the other side. So far as I can learn, the Congested Districts Board, accepting the £5 limit, would have found for years and years to come slum areas in those congested districts which they could efficiently relieve. They would be able to concentrate themselves and work on the most urgent cases. To give them the larger power—and I do not say that it may not be necessary hereafter, but at present they have work for the next five or ten years which even with the increased income they will be fully occupied in discharging. I believe there is no ground whatever for this suggestion that we should be crippling or hampering them in their good work. Then there is the other point which has hardly been touced upon, that is the proposed change in the definition of congestion as affecting congested estates which are outside the congested districts area. I cannot help thinking that one of the reasons which perhaps may have induced the other House to have put in £5 instead of £10 was the proposed extension of compulsion to the whole of Ireland, and I imagine that they were rather fearful lest the whole of Ireland should be treated as a congested district. The parts of Ireland to which outside the congested areas this question would apply are holdings chiefly in the North of Ireland, which if you look merely at them from the point of view of valuation would be called congested holdings, but which in point of fact are very prosperous holdings. They are small holdings near the Northern towns, the valuation of which is very often near the limit of £10, but which from other causes, unknown in the poorer places, are quite unsuited to be dealt with from the point of view of compulsion for the relief of congestion. There are other sources of livelihood and other industries which swell the narrow means which the holding alone supplies. It seems to me not an unnatural precaution, if you are extending to the whole of Ireland the principle of compulsion and compulsion for the purpose of acquiring congested estates, to secure that these estates shall be really congested and not sham congested estates. No doubt these powers of compulsion I think will be exercised to a very limited degree outside the congested districts—at least I hope so. If I thought that a return to the old limit of £a for the next
    112
    five or ten years would hamper the good work which the Congested Districts Board have been doing, then I should vote in favour of £10, but I have no evidence to that effect, but quite the contrary, and I hope therefore that the Government will accept the £5 limit.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: I protest against the assumption which underlies the speeches to which we have just listened—that is, that it is a desirable thing that there should be continued tinkering legislation dealing with this land problem. It is assumed on all hands the Congested Districts Board has done good work. This Amendment is based upon the assumption that the elective element to which exception is taken is to be ruled out. I submit there is no reasonable man who will doubt that the Congested Districts Board as reconstituted will be more efficient and will have an admittedly important additional factor in its two official members, so that its work will go on continuously instead of spasmodically. I put it to the House that it is really short of insanity to hamper such a body when reconstituted. You can only defend these hampering restrictions on the ground that they can be removed in five or ten years when removing is proved to be necessary. Already all expert opinion declares that these restrictions will be harmful. Everyone who knows the West of Ireland knows that a stronger case could be made out for a £10 limit than for a £7 limit. I fully admit that £7 will get over a good number of cases of congestion, and that most of the holdings in the West are valued at a figure running between £5 and £7. The unit is a townland, not an estate, upon which congestion has been declared, and I most sincerely trust in this matter of compromise that the Government will adopt the plan of splitting the difference, and on the question as to whether it shall be area or numbers it seems to me plain that no reply has been offered to the facts with which everybody who knows the West of Ireland are familiar.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I do not want to pronounce any opinion upon the question of numbers. I have been very much influenced in regard to that by the opinion of hon. Members below the Gangway from Ireland, who are much better acquainted with the actual facts of congestion than I am; therefore I do not want to be taken as irreconciliable in regard to the sugges-

    113
    tion of numbers as against area; but I confess I cannot understand why the case has been raised for changing the valuation limit from £5 to £7. All parties must agree that in another place a very substantial departure from a very clear principle was made when the Lords agreed to the large scheme of compulsion in this measure in regard to congestion in the West. We know that to persons who entertain strong views as to the sanctity of property the idea of compulsion as applied to owners of it is very repugnant, and I do not think that anyone can say for a moment that there was not a very considerable sacrifice of principle made when in another place the idea of compulsion was accepted on such an exceedingly large scale for the purposes of the relief of congestion. I think when we are asked to make a very substantial departure from an Amendment adopted in another place and to raise the limit from £5 to £7, we ought at least to have been told how much additional land that would bring within the area of compulsion. I am told that the number of estates in Ireland in the West or anywhere else on which one-fourth or more of the holdings are of £5 valuation is small, but that curiously enough when you depart from £5 and come up to £7 you bring in an enormous area of Ireland. The facts as regards this matter ought to be in possession of the Chief Secretary, and I think we ought to have been told before being asked to disagree with the Amendment of the Lords what additional land would be brought within this principle of compulsion if we were to raise the limit from £5 to £7. I do not want to dogmatise on the matter, but I am told that if the true facts were known as to the extension of the area the House would be surprised, and not only would it be doubled, but it would be trebled, as compared with the £5 valuation. That is a serious matter, and the facts ought to be in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I think the Chief Secretary ought to give some information to the House as to what will be the quantity of land brought within the operation of these compulsory powers by increasing the valuation from £5 to £7. If my information is correct, it means an amount far in excess of what one would gather from the mere difference between £5 and £7. The main objection that I have to this proposal is that it is a very large sacrifice indeed on the part of the owners of congested estates that all this should be done without their consent. I would
    114
    far rather see the limit raised to £10, and the consent restored, than to have the limit raised from £5 to £7, and have all this done against the consent of the owners.
    Mr. DILLON: They will never consent.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: That is not my own experience, and I can give facts quite different. I know an owner in the West of Ireland who is very anxious to sell his property to the Congested Districts Board, but his solicitor could not get them to come to terms. The Board were asked in February why they had not replied, and the solicitor received a letter stating that they had had 120 estates offered to them for voluntary acquisition in the West of Ireland, and there was not one which they could approach because they had not got the necessary funds. [An Hon. Member: "That is a different point."] The Chief Secretary said that in order to deal with the actual congest on the basis of a £5 limit they must have power to deal with estates where the holdings are not uneconomic, but of a character to hold out sufficient inducement to the tenants to migrate. Surely he does not pretend that they have not at least 100 estates on the list which they could voluntarily acquire to-morrow. But if you are going to say "No, we will not work on that principle, and we must have compulsory powers," then I say leave it at the limit under the old Act, and if you are going to extend it put it up to £10, but make it subject to the consent of the owner. I would prefer it raised from £5 to £10 provided you make it subject to the consent of the owner rather than take away all power from the owner, and raise it from £5 to £7. I do desire to see this question of the congests dealt with on a broad and scientific basis. I agree that we cannot deal with it piecemeal. It seems to me to be a matter upon which all parties are anxious to come to a settlement, and I should be glad to see it settled upon a large and liberal basis. At the same time I think if you want to deal with these holdings on a definition that extends the idea of an uneconomic holding beyond what it has been considered and ruled to be in the legislation of the past, you ought not to do it against the consent of the owners, where it is plain that so far as land-owners in the west of Ireland are concerned, speaking for the bulk of them, it is not a question of unwillingness to sell but a question of price. I believe the Chief Secretary is seriously imperilling the chances and the fate of his

    115
    Bill by this proposal, although I am sure he is desirous of seeing this measure passed into law. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is imperilling the chances of this Bill by asking that this change from £5 to £7 should be made. I think the change is not required, and for many years to come, and for our generation at least under a £5 limit there will be ample material to keep this new Congested Districts Board as busy as it can be from morning to night.
    Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: I think it is agreed now that compulsion in this matter is absolutely necessary. If we are to make any attempt to solve it once and for all we should not leave it in such a condition that another Bill will be necessary to deal with congestion later on upon a higher limit than £5. In County Clare there are some 10,000 holdings under 30 acres.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: There are a lot more.
    Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: I believe there are also 4,767 holdings under 5 acres, so that if the problem be dealt with on the £5 basis you will only deal with the fringe of this question. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about compromise being in the air. I can understand compromise upon certain questions of principles, but not upon a question of method which would necessitate a special Bill for dealing with that part of the question to be left over. It is said that this matter is bound up with the question of compulsion and that there is a general disposition on the part of landlords to sell. Frequently landlords seem to act in opposition to their own interests. I can cite many instances in West Clare where landlords have refused even very good terms. A landlord has negotiated with his tenants for a long time, and has arrived at what might be understood by both parties to be practically an agreement, and then on some question of detail he has suddenly defused to continue the negotiations. Other landlords have raised difficulties by asking for a greater number of years' purchase than is usual. The singular thing is that there is more difficulty in selling in West Clare, where the estates are not so good, and where the security might be thought to be not so good as in more prosperous counties, like Limerick. The Government has now an opportunity of clearing away this difficulty once and for all, and I hope that, instead of making
    116
    two bites at a cherry, they will rise to the occasion, and in a statesmanlike way see if they cannot settle the whole mater.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will give the House, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell), such figures as I have been able rapidly to collect. It is a little bit difficult to get figures, but still I have before me some supplied by the Congested Districts Board, and I will just state their effect. The following table shows what figures can be obtained as to the number of holdings in the present area and in the added area:

    "Present Area.

    Added Area.

    Total.

    "1. Not exceeding £4 valuation

    45,059

    …

    22,742

    …

    67,801

    2. Over £4 and not exceeding £10

    29,130

    …

    34,385

    …

    63,515

    3. Over £10

    10,367

    …

    38,637

    …

    49,004

    Totals

    84,556

    95,764

    180,320

    "These figures show that the new area contains 95,764 holdings, against 84,556 in the present area; that the number (45,059) of slum holdings is enormously larger in the present area than in the proposed addition (22,742): and therefore, that much less can be done for the small holders in the present area by increasing the size of holdings unless the two areas can be dealt with as a whole.
    "In order to make a rough estimate of the number of holdings that are at or under £7 annual valuation in the entire proposed new area, the following calculation resting on personal judgment only, is submitted:—

    "Under £4 valuation in present congested area

    45,059

    Do., new proposed addition

    22,742

    Estimated number between £4 and £7 in present area

    14,565

    Do., new area

    11,371

    Total

    93,737

    "Therefore, it is calculated that half of the holdings between £4 and £10 valuation will be between £4 and £7."
    I therefore said, in opening, that £7 was a very important figure to take, because, although it does exclude a number I should be glad to see included, I have no doubt it does include the larger number. With regard to the consent of the owner, the House should understand that that consent is really a very technical thing. The consent of the owner under Section (6) of the Act of 1903 is really a consent in the withholding of which the owner is not much interested.
    "3. The Lord Lieutenant may, under special circumstances, and with the approval of the Treasury, dispense with the conditions in the last preceeding Sub-section as to undertakings to purchase holdings where the Land Commission certify to him that they are of opinion that the re-sale of the estate can be effected without prospect of loss."
    This enables the Lord Lieutenant to go to the Treasury and say, "Although, as a rule, you do not consent to things of this sort unless there is an opportunity of reselling without a loss, still, when the cir-

    117
    cumstances are such as to satisfy the Lord Lieutenant that the sale is a necessary one, then, if the landlord consents, you will purchase, even although there may be a loss on the resale." A landlord has really not much interest in withholding his consent when it is simply a question of enabling the Lord Lieutenant to obtain from the Treasury a relaxation of a rule. It is not a consent to sell, but merely a consent that would enable the landlord to say, "Here is a congested estate, and you can buy it, it is true, but, when you come to resell it, you will inflict a loss on the Treasury. I am quite willing to give my consent that
    that loss should be incurred." The consent is not quite of the important character that might be supposed from the reference made to it by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want it to be supposed that it is anything more than of the general character to which I have referred. I hope, therefore, the House will assent to the proposal I make.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 20.

    Division No. 902.]

    AYES.

    [9.25 p.m.

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

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lundon, T.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lupton, Arnold

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lynch, H. B.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Flynn, James Christopher

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Astbury, John Meir

    Fullerton, Hugh

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Gilhooly, James

    M'Callum, John M.

    Barker, Sir John

    Ginnell, L.

    M'Kean, John

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Glover, Thomas

    Maddison, Frederick

    Barnes, G. N.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Massie, J.

    Beale, W. P.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Meagher, Michael

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Middlebrook, William

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Boland, John

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Harrington, Timothy

    Morse, L. L.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Muldoon, John

    Bring, John

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Murnaghan, George

    Bright, J. A.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Nuttall, Harry

    Byles, William Pollard

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cameron, Robert

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hodge, John

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    Cleland, J. W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Grady, J.

    Clough, William

    Hooper, A. G.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Malley, William

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

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Neill, Charles

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jenkins, J.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Crean, Eugene

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Pointer, J.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cullinan, J.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Radford, G. H.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Keating, M.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Delany, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Reddy, M.

    Dillon, John

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Laid law, Robert

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lamb, Edmund G. Leominster)

    Rees, J. D.

    Duffy, William J.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lamont, Norman

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Summerbell, T.

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    Rowlands, J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Seaverns, J. H.

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

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

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sheehy, David

    Toulmin, George

    Winfrey, R.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Verney, F. W.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Vivian, Henry

    Steadman, W. C.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Doughty, Sir George

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Fell, Arthur

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Cave, George

    Gretton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. Craig and Mr. Moore.

    Clark, George Smith

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Amendment proposed to the Bill, instead of the words so disagreed to, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "seven"—[Mr. Birrell]—instead thereof.
    Question, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' be there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 149: Noes, 18.

    Division No. 903.]

    AYES.

    [9.35 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pointer, J.

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

    Barker, Sir John

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Radford, G. H.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Rees, J. D.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Beale, W. P.

    Helme, Norval Watson

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

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hodge, John

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Brigg, John

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rowlands, J.

    Bright, J. A.

    Hudson, Walter

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

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

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

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Jackson, R. S.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cameron, Robert

    Jenkins, J.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allsten

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Summerbell, T.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Clough, William

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

    Lamont, Norman

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

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

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Toulmin, George

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Verney, F. W.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Vivian, Henry

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    M'Callum, John M.

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Wiles, Thomas

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Elibank, Master of

    Massie, J.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Middlebrook, William

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

    Evans. Sir S. T.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Morse, L. L.

    Winfrey, R.

    Fenwick, Charles

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

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Glover, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Bighold, Sir Arthur

    Doughty, Sir George

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carlile, E. Mildred

    Fell, Arthur

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Cave, George

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Clark, George Smith

    Gretton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Moore and Mr. C. Craig.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2) leave out "as so amended" ["within the meaning of the said Section as so amended"].
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. CAMPBELL: We have on this side of the House registered our protest on two occasions in regard to the principle involved, and these other proposals are consequential to the other Amendments which we have already adopted. I do not propose to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-Section (4) leave out, "in which more than one half of the holdings are—" ["The expression 'congested townland' means a townland in which more than one half of the buildings are—"] and insert: "more than one quarter of the area of which consists of."
    Lords Amendment: Paragraph (b), leave out "ten pounds" ["gives a sum of less than ten pounds for each holding"] and insert "five pounds."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved to amend the Lords Amendment by substituting "seven pounds" for the words proposed to be inserted.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    House agreed with Lords in said Amendment, as amended.
    Lords Amendment: Paragraph (a), leave out "ten pounds" ["a holding not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value"], and insert "five pounds."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved to amend the Lords Amendment by substituting "seven pounds" for the words proposed to be inserted.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    House agreed with Lords in said Amendment, as amended.

    Clause 27.—(Delegation of Powers of Estates Commissioners.)
    The Estates Commissioners may, by order, delegate all or any of their powers to any one or two of their number, and anything done by any one or two of the Estates Commissioners in pursuance of any such delegation shall be as valid and effectual as if it were done by all the Estates Commissioners.
    Lords Amendment: To leave out Clause 27.
    Mr. BIRRELL: This was an excellent Clause, a suggestion of my own, with a view to facilitating the transaction of business and getting rid of the block which every one laments, but it was rejected by both sides, and I now move to agree with the Lords Amendment to leave out the Clause.

    Clause 34.—(Amendment of 3 Edw. 7. c. 37. s. 54.)
    (1) As between the Land Commission and the proprietor for the time being of any holding for the purchase of which the Land Commission have, after the passing of this Act, made any advance under the Land Purchase Acts, the following conditions shall be imposed in addition to the conditions mentioned in Section fifty-four of the Act of 1903, namely:—

    (a) The proprietor shall not without the consent of the Land Commission acquire by purchase any other holding for the purchase of which an advance has been made under the Land Purchase Acts if the amount of that advance then outstanding, when added to the amount of the advance or advances made in respect of the holding or holdings then held by the proprietor, would exceed the sum of five thousand pounds, and if any proprietor acquires any holding in violation of this condition the Land Commission may cause that holding to be sold:

    (b) The proprietor shall not, without the consent in writing in the prescribed

    123
    form of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, cut down or uproot, or permit to be cut down or uprooted, any tree (other than a fruit tree or osier) upon the holding which is necessary for the ornament or shelter of the holding; and if any such tree is cut down or uprooted in violation of this condition, the proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds for each tree so cut down or uprooted, unless he satisfies the court that he received the prescribed consent.

    Lords Amendment: In paragraph (a) leave out "five" ["the sum of five thousand pounds"] and insert "seven."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House of Lords originally omitted the entire paragraph, which was designed
    to prevent a tenant purchaser acquiring a number of holdings whose aggregate value would exceed £5,000. There was a good deal of difference of opinion, I dare say, in many quarters of the House with regard to this matter as to what the limit should be upon acquisitions under the provisions of the Act of 1903. As a compromise the £5,000 was increased to £7,000.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I personally cannot agree with this Amendment. My colleagues and I are of opinion that the limit ought to remain as it is. Five thousand is quite enough for one man to have, and under these circumstances. I suppose it is useless at this stage to urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision, but we must register our opinion strongly on the other side and divide against it.
    Question put, "That this House doth I agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 80.

    Division No. 904.]

    AYES.

    [9.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lamont, Norman

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Astbury, John Meir

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

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

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Balcarres, Lord

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Elibank, Master of

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Barker, Sir John

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    M'Callum, John M.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Beale, W. P.

    Falconer, James

    Marnham, F. J.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Fell, Arthur

    Massie, J.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Middlebrook, William

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Moore, William

    Brigg, John

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Bright, J. A.

    Gretton, John

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Morse, L. L.

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Myer, Horatio

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Byles, William Pollard

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cameron, Robert

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Pearce, William (Llmehouse)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Cave, George

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Charming. Sir Francis Allston

    Higham, John Sharp

    Radford, G. H.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Clark, George Smith

    Hooper, A. G.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clough, William

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Jackson, R. S.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Rowlands, J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Seely, Colonel

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Toulmin, George

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Verney, F. W.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Vivian, Henry

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

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Winfrey, R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

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

    Wiles, Thomas

    NOES.

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

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Malley, William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Neill, Charles

    Boland, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Pointer, J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Kean, John

    Sheehy, David

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Meagher, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Meenan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Gilhooly, James

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

    Summerbell, T.

    Ginnell, L.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Glover, Thomas

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Murnaghan, George

    Walsh, Stephen

    Hancock, J. G.

    Nannettl, Joseph P.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hodge, John

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, J.

    Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Lords Amendment: After Clause 34 insert following new Clause: "Sub-section (3) of Section sixty-seven of the Act of 1903 shall not apply to any land or holding subject to a purchase annuity unless the Land Commission deem it expedient, having regard to the situation, size, and character of such land or holding, to apply the provisions of the said Sub-section thereto."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in said Amendment."
    Mr. BIRRELL: This new Clause, although rather complicated in appearance, is really purely administrative.
    Further Lords Amendment: After Clause 40 insert following new Clause: "Where the immediate landlord of any holding or holdings has not an interest sufficient to constitute him a person having power to sell to tenants under the Land Purchase Acts, the next superior landlord having such an interest shall be deemed to be a person having power to sell to occupying tenants under the said Acts, notwithstanding that the said holding or holdings constitute the whole estate of such superior landlord,
    126
    and Section fifteen of the Act of 1903 shall apply accordingly."
    Further Lords Amendment. After Clause last added, insert following new Clause: "(1) Where any land sold under the Land Purchase Acts is subject to any rent reserved under a lease, and no payment on foot of such rent has been made for a period of forty years prior to such sale, such rent shall, for the purposes of such sale and the distribution of the purchase money, be deemed to have been released.
    (2) Where portions of any such rent have become vested in different owners, this Section shall apply to any portion of such rent as if it was a separate rent."

    Clause 41.—(Proposals for Purchase by Estates Commissioners.)
    (1) The Estates Commissioners may make proposals and enter into negotiations—

    (a) For the purchase, under Section six of the Act of 1903, of any estate not situated in a congested districts county, notwithstanding that an appli-

    127
    cation has not been made to them by the owner under that Section;

    (b) For the purchase, under Section eight, of the Act of 1903, of any untenanted land not situated in a congested districts county, whether required for the purposes mentioned in that Section or for the purpose of resale to any persons to whom parcels of land may be sold under this Act.

    (2) For the purpose of enabling the Estates Commissioners to ascertain the boundaries, extent, and character of any estate or untenanted land which they propose to purchase and to estimate the price to be offered for the same, any inspectors or other persons appointed by the Commissioners may, after notice sent by post to the person who appears to the Commissioners to be the owner thereof, enter upon the estate or untenanted land and make all such inquiries and do all such things as may be necessary for the purpose aforesaid.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) leave out paragraph (b).
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is preliminary to the general consequences, which come afterwards.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: This is the first point on which the exclusion of the general powers of compulsory purchase arises. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is preliminary, but this is the point on which we must take the discussion so far as I can see. My colleagues and I are vehemently opposed to the change which the Lords have made in the Bill. The powers of compulsion, as contained in the Bill, if the Amendment of the Lords is carried, will be confined entirely to compulsory purchase in respect of congestion. We are of opinion that general powers of compulsion, apart altogether from congestion, should be created. I suppose no one denies that sooner or later general powers of compulsion dealing with landlords who will not sell voluntarily will have to be carried. The landlords themselves say that there will remain a certain remnant of Irish landlords who will not freely sell and who must be dealt with by general powers of compulsion. There are landlords at the present moment who are refusing to sell, and who cannot be allowed to continue this refusal for years to
    128
    come. The case must be dealt with at once. Take the historical case. Lord Clanricarde will not sell until he is compelled to sell, and so long as Lord Clanricarde is allowed to remain in possession of estates, there will be a plague spot and a centre of disturbance in Ireland. I have always held the view that general powers of compulsion would be very little used. The moment you create the weapon of compulsion and put it into the hands of the Estates Commissioners, estates will come in under voluntary settlement. I think it is the greatest possible misfortune that the Government think they are obliged to agree to the Lords Amendment in regard to these powers of compulsion. I am one of those who believe that the concession of the principle of compulsory purchase all over Ireland wherever congestion is to be found is a most important matter. It can be brought into operation in every county in Ireland with reference to the acquisition of untenanted land. I do not at all say that if the Amendment is carried the compulsory power remaining in the Bill would not be of enormous advantage. But it would not settle the question. Surely it is the desire of the Government that this Bill should come as near a settlement as possible. What is the use of this Parliament continuing its old tradition of giving half measures which do not satisfy anybody and which do not settle anything. If this Bill is carried in its maimed form you will not settle the trouble in Ireland, and you will get no gratitude in Ireland. You make concessions always in such a way as not to conciliate the people to whom you are giving them, and not to create the sense that they have been fairly dealt with. You make half concessions, and you do not conciliate Ireland. If you agree to this Amendment you will be faced next year or the year after with the necessity for another Bill. That has been the old tradition of this House for the last 50 years in reference to this. Surely now a new departure ought to be made. I protest most vehemently against this mutilation of the Bill in depriving it of the advantage of a general power of compulsion. I know that the Chief Secretary naturally wants to get his Bill through, and I suppose he feels that he cannot get it through at all unless he makes these concessions, but I am bound to say that while he has been making these concessions all the evening, we have not got any concessions at all from hon. Mem-

    129
    bers above the Gangway. I know not what the future may have in store. Further concessions may be made by them, but at any rate it is a very serious thing for the Government to be thowing overboard the most valuable parts of the cargo. For my part, on behalf of the Irish Members on these benches I should be guilty of a want of duty to the Irish people if I did not at any rate make it pretty plain that our position is a perfectly simple one. We tell you that without this provision and similar provisions this Bill will not satisfy people in Ireland. It will not settle the question. It will not be a Bill in such a shape that we can take any responsibility for it at all if it is passed. The whole responsibility must rest on the Government which accepts those Amendments, and on those who forced them on the Government. We at any rate will be free of all responsibility, and will be in a position to go back to the Irish people and tell them that although we have done our best, and although we have to a certain extent succeeded we have not succeeded in getting from this Parliament, as indeed we have never succeeded on any similar occasion in the past, a measure which satisfies the needs of the case and which settles the Irish land question.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I hope that the speech to which we have just listened will satisfy the Chief Secretary that the wisest course for him to adopt is not as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Redmond) suggests to make new proposals by way of compromise which are themselves objectionable, but to take his stand on what he believes to be a legitimate extension of the law in regard to land purchase.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: That is his view.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: The hon. and learned Gentleman told us quite plainly that whatever the Chief Secretary passes he need not look for gratitude from Ireland.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I never said any such thing. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously say that I asserted that whatever the Chief Secretary passes he need not look for gratitude from Ireland? He has done many things for which the Irish people are most grateful.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: Of course it is quite obvious that I was talking about the Amendment now before this House. The hon. Gentleman's whole speech was addressed to that Amendment and
    130
    not to the general speech. It is quite obvious that my remark has reference to that and not to the whole policy of the Irish Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman reminded the Chief Secretary that the House will never satisfy Ireland because we will not give them all they ask. That is a remark that is cheered on the other side of the House. Let English, Scotch and Welsh Members realise what they are asked to do now. They are giving under this Bill compulsory powers with regard to the acquisition of land which have no parallel in any other part of the United Kingdom. They are under this Bill, placing in a Government Department, which is not represented in this House, and has no Minister except the Chief Secretary to speak for it, and over which there would be no control, compulsory powers which are exercised practically over all Ireland for the relief of congestion, and when they are doing that, taking this enormous stride because of the exceptional conditions in Ireland, they are told by the representatives of the majority in Ireland, the Nationalist party, that they are doing that for which they will receive no gratitude, and that further demands will be made upon them. I say that this should strengthen the position of the Government, and I hope that they, at all events, will stand by their position in regard to this particular question. In reference to our attitude the hon. and learned Gentleman says we have made no concession, that no concessions have been made by those who represent the landlords in Ireland. I say that very large concessions have been made. A great part of this Bill goes far beyond, in our judgment, what is necessary or what is right. But as we have said before, so we say now. We have pressed our views before this House. But we have certainly accepted proposals coming from the Government to which we object, and which we think dangerous, and we have done so because we realise that it is necessary to improve the rate of land purchase and necessary and urgent to deal with congestion; and although we do not approve of a great deal which the Government has suggested, we have not offered to a great part of the proposals any strenuous opposition, and, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong when he says that there is nothing in the shape of concessions in the attitude which we have adopted.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not want in any way to be a bone of contention between right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am

    131
    quite aware that I need not expect any gratitude on this transaction unless what will come to me in the Kingdom of Heaven. The right hon. Gentleman is no authority on the Kingdom of Heaven, though he may know something about the kingdom of Ireland; but I would wish to point out to him that when he says "we this" and "we that," he is not speaking of the House of Commons, because in the House of Commons I got the Bill in the shape in which I wanted it. It is only when I go elsewhere——
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I am speaking for those whom I represent j I am not entitled to speak for the House of Commons.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am ready to acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's claim to speak for himself. In this House he speaks for himself with great ability, and urges his case with great force and eloquence. But in this House he was beaten, and therefore when he called my attention to the fact that "we did this" and "we did that," he means his friends elsewhere. He does not mean his Friends here, because his Friends here made a very fine fight of it, and were beaten; and but for another place they would have had to acknowledge their defeat, and the law would have taken its course; and though it is not very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to avoid referring to his forces elsewhere as if they were here on the floor of the House, which, of course, they are not, yet as this compulsory purchase outside congested areas and all over Ireland is to be confined to the relief of congestion, I do not think there is much use in the right hon. Gentleman referring to England, Scotland, and Wales, and saying what would they give if only we gave powers of the same kind, because the congestion exists in Ireland and does not exist in these countries to anything like the same extent, or indeed at all. Therefore compulsory purchase limited to the relief of congestion may be useful, and I think it is useful, and I do hope that the House will secure that it is retained in Ireland; but at the same time there is no use in saying that compulsory purchase limited to congestion is a thing which my Friends behind me representing English or Scotch constituencies will be wildly desirous of acquiring, because it would be no use. It is not for the relief of congestion that people desire compulsory purchase, if they do desire it, outside
    132
    Ireland. It is for quite other purposes—for the acquisition of small holdings and the like. This is limited to the curing of a particular disease, a disease which I am happy to say does not exist in any other country except Ireland. This particular kind of congestion for which alone these powers are to be now confirmed deals with an Irish problem, and in no sense is-an English, Scotch, or Welsh problem. Therefore I fail to see the relevance of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, I have to take what I can get, and I do feel that, limited though they be, the legislative provisions which the House of Lords have been good enough to place at our disposal are such as we should take.
    Mr. MOORE: There is no such thing in the Bill as compulsory purchase, but there is compulsory sale, and when people talk of compulsory purchase instead of compulsory sale one cannot value very much the profundity of their deductions in regard to other parts of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) really did not address this House but his constituents, before whom he hopes in a short time to have the pleasure of appearing. His observations were not meant for consumption here. I noticed that he said in a loud voice that he would take no responsibility for this Bill. It is a very fatal thing for any Government when the hon. and learned Member for Waterford refuses to take responsibility, though he takes the £250,000 for congested districts.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: What about the millions to the landlords?
    Mr. MOORE: If the hon. and learned Member rejects the responsibility, why does he accept the money? He repudiates responsibility and says that in Ireland the last case will be worse than the first. But the last thing he will get up and say is that he and his party will not take the Bill. Of Amendment after Amendment hon. Members below the Gangway have said that it will ruin the Bill, and that it is a blot upon it, but they always stop short at the point of saying that they will not take the Bill, for the simple reason that they are afraid to go back to Ireland without it.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his friends are not satisfied with the Bill, especially with the proposed Amendment moved by the Chief Secretary. My ex-

    133
    perience of hon. Members below the Gangway is that they are very rarely satisfied with any Bill. The nearest approach that I can remember to satisfaction with Irish legislation was in connection with the Bill of 1903. Those who were in the House at that time will remember that hon. Members below the Gangway came as near, I think, as could ever be hoped for to unqualified satisfaction with what was given by a British Government. I remember well that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford himself, on the third reading of that Bill, thanked the Government of the day most heartily and sincerely for what they had done for Ireland. He practically told the House of Commons of that day that the system of voluntary sale and voluntary purchase was to have fair and exhaustive trial. We have passed now through six years in which voluntary purchase and sale has had a trial, and I confidently assert to this House that it has been in a very great degree successful, absolutely successful so far as anything that could be done by either Irish tenants or Irish landlords. We all know, unfortunately, that the only blot in the Act has been that the money has not been forthcoming. Roughly speaking, I submit that is the only blot in the Act of 1903. Hon. Members below the Gangway declared themselves to be as nearly satisfied with that Act as it was possible for them to be. Yet after six short years, when I say that the Act has worked as well as it could possibly work, they come here and force the hands of the Chief Secretary—for that is what it comes to—to bring in this Bill, which is a complete overturning and absolute reversal of the Act of 1903. If that is the result of satisfaction, then what will be the result of want of satisfaction with the present Bill? We all know what the words of the hon. and learned Member mean. They always express dissatisfaction with anything they get; but at the same time they grasp it greedily, and they take the last penny they can get out of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member and other Members said that we had made no concessions in this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "You had not the power."] It is very true so far as we above the Gangway are concerned, but fortunately there are other people: I say it is absolutely contrary to the truth that the Unionist party, whether in this or another place, have made no concessions in this Bill.
    Everybody knows that, especially since the passing of the Act of 1903, so long as
    134
    that Act has been working satisfactorily, one of the most important points we have insisted on is that voluntary sale must still be given the opportunity of working out the land question in Ireland. Although we are accused of making no concessions, we have made this concession that we have admitted the principle of compulsory purchase for the purpose of relieving congestion. I say that that is a most important concession. It is one which, if I personally had anything to say in the matter, I would not have conceded, because my not very long experience of Parliament, especially of Irish politics, leads me to the conclusion that this is a very big "thin end of the wedge," and as it is granted in this case, I am afraid hon. Members below the Gangway will not rest until they have shoved that wedge in very much further. Be that so or not, there can be no question whatever that the admission of this principle, even in what hon. Members call the limited form in the Bill, is a very great concession, and therefore it is quite wrong to say that the Unionist Party have made no concession. With regard to compulsory sale and purchase, which is excluded from the Bill, I would like to ask once more the question asked by myself and a number of my hon. Friends during the Debate in the Committee stage of the Bill, What is the case that is put forward by the Chief Secretary or by hon. Members below the Gangway for general compulsory sale? What has invariably been the answer? One solitary case is given by hon. Members below the Gangway, that of Lord Clanricarde, and one solitary case adduced by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture. Those are the two solitary cases held up as the argument and justification for the introduction of a compulsory purchase system which exists nowhere else in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I am open to correction.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: What about Australia, which is in the world?
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I will qualify my assumption and say nowhere in the wide world nearer than Australia.
    Mr. LONSDALE: It does not exist there.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I am afraid I do not know which hon. Member is correct. At any rate, it does not exist in Europe or America. Less than six years ago the House of Commons distinctly and solemnly

    135
    pledged itself to the existing system of voluntary purchase being given a full and proper trial. That trial has proved so successful and has carried out the objects of the framers of the system to such an extent, that its success has been its only fault. At present landlords and tenants, in spite of all that hon. Members below the Gangway may do, are falling over one another to get the benefits of the Act of 1903. Had the 112 or 150 millions sterling, whatever would have been the amount necessary, been procurable during the last six years, I am confident that there would now be only a few thousand acres of ordinary tenanted land in Ireland which had not passed from landlord to tenant. I am not going into the question whether tenants are paying too much for their farms or landlords receiving too much for their estates. The fact remains that there has been the greatest desire on the part of landlords and tenants to come to an agreement. That being so, no argument has been adduced which ought to in-
    fluence any House of Commons to introduce compulsory purchase clauses, at least so far as concerns ordinary tenanted land. As regards other land, I am sorry that Noble Lords have, for some reason best known to themselves, thought fit to allow this provision to remain in the Bill. We are not going to run counter to their wish, because it would be no use our doing so. But if I had the command of a couple of hundred votes I would certainly go into the Lobby against it. I rose, however, to show that the claim of hon. Members below the Gangway that these rights of compulsory purchase should be extended from their present limited area to the whole of Ireland are entirely uncalled for, and that it is not open to them to ask for that extension in view of the attitude which they took up in the discussions in 1903.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 81.

    Division No. 905.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cowan, W. H.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Astbury, John Meir

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lambert, George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lamont, Norman

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Duncan. Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barker, Sir John

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

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

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Beale, W. P.

    Falconer, James

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Fell, Arthur

    Maclean, Donald

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Callum, John M.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Maddison, Frederick

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Brigg, John

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Bright, J. A.

    Gretton, John

    Massie, J.

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

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Middlebrook, William

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

    Hancock, J. G.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Moore, William

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Morrell, Philip

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morse, L. L.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Cave, George

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hedges, A. Paget

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hills, J. W.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Clark, George Smith

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Clough, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Rowlands, J.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

    Winfrey, R.

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Seaverns, J. H,

    Toulmin, George

    Seely, Colonel

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fuller and Mr. Gulland.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    NOES.

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

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Kelly. James (Roscommon, N.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Malley, William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Neill, Charles

    Boland, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Pointer, J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dillon, John

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

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

    Duffy, William J.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Sheehy, David

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Muldoon, John

    Steadman, W. C.

    Gilhooly, James

    Murnaghan, George

    Summerbell, T.

    Ginnell, L.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Glover, Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hodge, John

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

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, J.

    Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

    Lords Amendments: Leave out paragraph (b), and insert instead therof "If the owner of the estate accepts such proposal, or consents to enter into negotiations with the Estates Commissioners."
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments," and I will then move to insert after the word "any," in Subsection (2), the word "congested," so that it would read: "For the purpose of enabling the Estates Commissioners to ascertain the boundaries, extent and character of any congested estate or untenanted land which they propose to purchase," etc.
    There was evidently some confusion in the minds of Noble Lords in another place with regard to this Amendment. Compulsory powers being now limited to the congested estates, the Amendment of the Lords is unnecessary. The object of the Amendment of Lord Atkinson was to limit the operations of the Sub-section to cases in which the vendor was willing to enter into negotiations. Lord Atkinson's Amendment was not well adapted to carry out the object he had in view. If the Amendment I suggest is inserted there would be power
    138
    to enter upon these estates for the purpose stated in Sub-section 2. In those cases where the vendor refused to proceed any further it is within the power of the Estates Commissioners to acquire the land by compulsion. I therefore propose to disagree with the Lords in these two Amendments for the purpose of inserting my Amendment.
    Mr. MOORE: I do not quite follow the Chief Secretary's argument. Untenanted land cannot be congested, because there is no population upon it. Surely he does not mean that there shall be compulsory entry upon all untenanted land. I think if we put these words after "estate" and before "untenanted land" it would carry out what the right hon. Gentleman desires.
    Lords further Amendment agreed to: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "the Estate Commissioners" ["for the purpose of enabling the Estates Commissioners"] and insert instead thereof the word "them."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved to leave out Clause 42 (Amendment and Withdrawal of Proposals of the Estates Commissioners).
    This is only the preliminary to the new provision which appears later on.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 43.—(Procedure of the Estates Commissioners on Failure of Negotiations to Purchase.)
    (1) Where negotiations have been entered into or proposals have been made for the purchase under the Land Purchase Acts of any estate or untenanted land not situated in a congested districts county and no agreement has been arrived at, the Estates Commissioners may, if they think fit, send in the prescribed manner to the person who appears to them to be the owner a final offer in writing for the purchase of the estate or untenanted land.
    (2) The final offer shall contain the following particulars:—

    (a) A description of the estate or untenanted land to which the offer relates;

    (b) The amount of the price which the Estates Commissioners are willing to give for the estate or untenanted land, subject—

    (i.) to any public rights affecting the estate or untenanted land;

    (ii.) to any maintenance charges under the Public Works Acts; and (in the case of an estate);

    (iii.) to any interests of the tenants or of persons having any claims upon those interests, and to any easements, rights, and appurtenances mentioned in Section thirty-four of the Act of 1896:

    but save as aforesaid, and subject to the provisions of the Act of 1903 with respect to minerals discharged from the claims of all persons who are interested in the estate or untenanted land, whether in respect of superior or intervening interests or incumbrances or otherwise; and

    (c) The time within which the offer may be accepted.

    (3) If within the time specified in that behalf in the final offer, the offer is accepted in writing by any person who within the prescribed period satisfies the Estates Commissioners that he may be dealt with as the owner of the estate or untenanted land under Section seventeen of the Act of 1903, the offer and acceptance shall as
    140
    from the date upon which the Estates Commissioners certify that they are so satisfied, have the same effect as an agreement for the purchase of the estate or untenanted land under the said Act as amended by this Act, and the like consequences shall ensue and the like proceedings shall be carried on as in the case of such an agreement save that the advance for the purpose of the purchase shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, be made by means of money and not by means of stock, except in cases where the vendor agrees to accept in lieu of cash an amount of guaranteed three per cent, stock equal in nominal amount to the sum to be advanced, and carrying dividends as from the date of the advance, and the Estates Commissioners agree that the advance shall be made in that manner.
    (4) If the said offer is not accepted as aforesaid the Estates Commissioners may, if they think fit, proceed to acquire the estate or untenanted land compulsorily in manner provided by Part IV. of this Act.
    (5) In estimating the price to be named in the final offer the Estates Commissioners shall have regard to the provisions of the Act of 1903, as amended by this Act, in respect of advances and to the prices which the tenants and other persons are willing to give for the holdings (if any) and parcels of land comprised in the estate or untenanted land.
    Lords Amendments agreed to: In Subsection (1) after the word "any" ["any estate or untenanted land"] insert the word "congested."
    In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "if they think fit" ["the Estates Commissioners, if they think fit"] and insert instead thereof the words "if in their opinion it is desirable that the estate or untenanted land should be purchased for the purpose of relieving congestion."

    CLAUSE 45.—(Reconstitution of the Board.)
    (1) From and after the appointed day, the Congested Districts Board shall consist of the following members:—

    (a) The Chief Secretary, the Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, who shall be ex-officio-members:

    (b) Five members appointed by His Majesty (in this Act referred to as appointed members):

    141

    (c) Nine members representing the congested districts counties, of whom one shall be elected by the local authority of each congested districts county (in this Act referred to as representative members):

    (d) Two paid members appointed by His Majesty (in this Act referred to as permanent members).

    (2) An appointed member shall hold office for four years and shall be eligible for re-appointment.
    (3) Each of the permanent members shall hold office during pleasure, and shall be paid by the Board out of the funds at their disposal an annual salary of two thousand pounds:
    Provided that a permanent member shall not be removed from his office except by an Order in Council, and any such Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat after any such Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, and it shall thenceforth be void.
    (4) His Majesty may fill any casual vacancy in the office of appointed or permanent member by appointing a member in the place of the member whose office is vacant.
    (5) Every existing member of the Congested Districts Board who is not an ex-officio member, or is not appointed or elected under or in pursuance of this Section, shall cease to hold office on the appointed day.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), leave out "five" and insert "eight."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved to leave out "eight" and insert "nine."
    We are now coming to the provisions with regard to the composition of the Congested Districts Board. The theory to start with was that there should be three ex-officio members, nine elected members, and two permanent members. The elected members have disappeared somewhere between here and the other House. They are now abandoned, and the proposal as it appears on the Paper is to constitute a Board of three ex-officio members, eight appointed members, and two permanent members. Eight, three, and two are thirteen, and, although I am in these matters perfectly opaque, and do not quite
    142
    comprehend why there should be any difficulty to a Board composed of 13 members, still I am bound to confess that that objection to it is widely spread, and I am very anxious there should be full attendances at this Board, and that every member should feel it his duty, as far as he possibly can, to attend it. I am told, and I am bound to say I recognise, that a Board of 13 is not a convenient number. It so happens that we have now practically included Clare.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: No.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Well, the greater part at all events, of the County of Clare, is included in the area, though not the best part, of course, and the whole of the counties which were to have the honour of sending the nine representatives who are to be included in the new Board. Although I am animated in this matter by the desire to avoid the number 13, the unlucky number, I feel there is a certain force in the point that, having regard to the extended area, we ought to have nine members, only they will be appointed instead of elected. That will make the number 14. I therefore move to leave out 5 and insert 9. It is a departure from the proceedings which took place in the other place, but, having regard to the fact that Clare is now, barring the omission I have mentioned, practically included within the area, I do not think there ought to be any objection in any quarter to the insertion of the figure 9 instead of 5. That will constitute a Board of 14 members.
    Mr. DILLON: This Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment raises the question of the dropping of the representative element of the Congested Districts Board, and that is a claim made by the House of Lords against which I desire to enter my most emphatic protect. The objection shown by the House of Lords and by hon. Members above the Gangway to the representative element is to me most extraordinary and unconstitional. After all, these representatives would have been elected by the County Councils who were constituted by the Tory party, and any Members who are old enough to recollect the Debates which took place when the Bill was before the House will remember the extraordinary prophecies of evil which came from some of the Members of the Tory party. We were told that the new bodies would be examples of corruption and extravagance, and that the ratepayers would be ruined, and the busi-

    143
    ness of the country disgracefully mismanaged. What has happened? All these prophecies of evil to which we have listened year after year when we were introducing Bills have been absolutely falsified, and the Local Government Board and hon. Members above the Gangway on the Unionist side of the House are obliged to admit that the business is now better done than ever before.
    Mr. MOORE: What about the County Council of Mayo?
    Mr. DILLON: I say that the business of the county is better and more economically done than it was under the old plan, and that is a lesson showing the stupidity of this continual opposition in every department of public life in Ireland to the representative and democratic principle. I can only say, in reply to what has fallen from the hon. Member for North Armagh, that the moment you give the people authority, religious advocacy and trouble disappears. I regard it as one of the greatest triumphs of the Chief Secretary that a Catholic has been elected in Belfast to teach scholastic philosophy: that is the beginning of peace in Ireland. I only alluded to that in order to point the moral—the responsibility must be fixed on the men who have the responsibility: a Board which is popularly elected is more responsible than a nominated Board. My own belief is that the very best way of smoothing and rendering easy the task of the Congested Districts Board will be to bring in the local leaders and put the responsibility of the work on them Under the original constitution there was ample safeguard for the control of the expenditure of public money. Therefore there is no real reason for saying that there was the least shadow of danger of local men being able to job public money. Let me say this, that after the Councils Bill which hon. Members above the Gangway are not responsible for, but which the Government are responsible for and Lord Macdonnell was responsible for, I cannot understand why objection should be taken by men like Lord Macdonnell to admitting elected members on the Congested Districts Board when they proposed in that Bill to place the entire control and management of that Board in the hands of a council which was pre-eminently an elective body. For my part I do not consider the matter is absolutely vital to the Bill. I do not say it would kill the Bill or that if I had the power I would kill or
    144
    reject the Bill rather than sacrifice this power, but I say it is another illustration of the incurable distrust of popular control which resides in the other House across the Lobby that they have resisted in this intractable way the elective settlement which I am convinced would lead to the smooth working of the Congested Districts Board. I therefore enter my strong protest against this proposal.
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House and his Friends offered some advice to the Chief Secretary a few moments ago as to his prospects of gratitude and his chances of finally solving the difficulties which have arisen in Ireland by this Bill, and let me also offer him a little bit of advice, which has, at all events, the advantage of being gratis, and that is that he will find the same experience here that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway prophesied with regard to other proposals. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who represents the party, has told him that if he only would associate the popular element with the Congested Districts-Board he would be quite certain, or, at all events, humanly speaking, quite certain, of the success of that Department. We have had a little experience on this matter. The Board of Agriculture and Technical Education in Ireland has popular representation upon it, and in the earlier stages of this Bill we were told by the Government, and on more than one occasion by the Vice-President of that Department, that the powers which it was proposed to give to the elective element on the Congested Districts Board in the future were the same as those enjoyed by the popular control of his Department. I do not think that is quite correct, but it is accurate to say that the Department of Agriculture and Technical instruction has associated with it a considerable popular element representative of the county councils, and during the time that I was Chief Secretary and during the time of my predecessor, and during a very considerable portion of the time of the present Chief Secretary and his immediate predecessor, the criticisms which came from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in regard to the administration of the Department were as severe and as frequent as any criticisms addressed to the Irish Government in respect to any branch of their work. Therefore to suggest that by the association of the popular element

    145
    with this Congested Districts Board you are going to avoid criticism and secure success is to make a suggestion which has no foundation in the experience of the past.
    The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) suggests that we in this House—and in order to make my position perfectly clear, as the Chief Secretary unwittingly but very successfully misrepresented me on the last occasion, when I say we I speak for my hon. Friends on this side of the House—are taking now exactly the same line that we took on the earlier stages of this Bill. We oppose the popular element, not because we have any want of confidence in popular representation, not because we attempt to decry the work that has been done by the Irish county councils. I could not go as far as the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) either in saying that they had done better or more economical work than the grand juries or that they had been more successful than other popularly elected bodies elsewhere, but I admit that they have done their work very well and have been extremely economical, and, subject to this one reservation, that they have excluded from their membership those who represent views different from theirs in politics, I admit that the county councils have done their work well. We have continuously opposed the suggestion that there should be popularly elected bodies on the Congested Districts Board solely because all experience shows that, where you have a body whose business it is to administer and deal with funds which are to be applied to the relief of local difficulties, such as congestion, if you have properly elected bodies you do not bring about corruption or jobbery—we have never made any suggestion of that kind—but you bring about paralysis of administration. If you put representatives of the various county councils on to a body of this kind let the House remember what is the work they will have to perform. They are to be charged with the expenditure of a very large sum of money which is to be spent upon the relief of congestion. It does not mean that we are implying jobbery or corruption or any intention to do anything which is improper when we say that it is inevitable that those who represent particular districts will say, "In our district congestion is worse, we want the most relief, and you must give something to us first."
    The result of that will be that you will not have the careful consideration of an
    146
    abstract character of the claims of the different districts and the possibility of meeting those claims, but you will have constant debates upon the requirements of each district, and finally a sort of solution on the principle of "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours," which will ultimately result in money being spent, not to the best possible advantage but in this district to-day on the understanding that it is to be spent in that district to-morrow, and so on. I do not believe there is anyone who has ever been connected with the administration of Government Departments who will not endorse that view. The Chief Secretary has abandoned that altogether, I am glad to say and he proposes now to add to the nominated members. The number we had anticipated he would suggest was eight. He proposes to make nine. I suppose we cannot quarrel with him for that. He is in the unpleasant position of a dispenser of public patronage, and. no doubt the claims upon his benevolence have been so numerous that he finds eight nominated members would not be sufficient, and therefore he has had to increase, them to nine. He might have done that by reducing the number to seven. He has chosen to do it by increasing rather than decreasing the number. I am one of those old-fashioned people who believe that a small body would be more likely to administer successfully than a large one. I do not believe that you get good administration by adding to the number. I think a Congested Districts Board of eight or nine would be much more likely to do the work successfully and with advantage to Ireland, than a Board of 14. I rejoice in the interest of what I believe to be good administration that the Government have abandoned the representative element of the county councils, not because I and those for whom I speak have any mistrust of properly elected bodies or of the representatives of county councils, but because we believe that, if the work is to be well done, it would be better to adhere to the old model than to depart from it entirely.
    Mr. MOORE: I think on this occasion the protest of hon. Members below the Gangway has been more hollow than usual. What is the grievance? It is that the county councils are not to nominate nine gentlemen. I venture to say that the Chief Secretary will not nominate a single one of these gentlemen without the concurrence

    147
    of hon. Members below the Gangway. The Board will have control of £250,000. Is the House going to pass this Amendment without knowing who the nine gentlemen are to be? I have known occasions when if there was a proposal to appoint anyone to a position under land legislation none would have been louder than hon. Members below the Gangway to know the name, pedigree, sire, and dam of the man. On this occasion they pass the proposal sub silentio. The nine people are to be appointed by the Chief Secretary, and hon. Members do not inquire who the worthies are to be. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in making the appointments to see that the minority are protected? Will he give any representation to the unfortunate owners of land who are to be absolutely expropriated? Are these nominated members to represent exclusively the views of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and his friends? No one is more strongly in favour of popular representation than I am when it goes with popular taxation, but in this case not a penny of the money is collected from the locality. This is a Board appointed to expend Government money. I would much rather have a Government Board if I were sure that the Government would appoint impartially representatives of all interests. Will the Chief Secretary tell us the minority representatives? It is not an unreasonable thing. Are the minority to suffer in this case as he said they were to suffer in other cases?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I never said that they ought to suffer.
    Mr. MOORE: He said that they have to suffer, and he would not lift a finger to prevent it.
    Word "eight" inserted by the Lords left out, and word "nine" inserted—[Mr. Birrell]—instead thereof:
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved to agree with the Lords Amendment, to leave out paragraph (c).
    This Amendment omits the provision for providing representation of the county councils. I have no desire to say anything on this subject. I did the best I could and had the House with me on the original proposal in the Bill. After all the House of Commons counts for something, even when the Liberals have a majority in it. From the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Moore) we could gather what an excellent proposal it was. He rejoiced to note that the House of Lords had destroyed the responsibility that was imposed by the original provisions of the Bill upon the county councils of selecting either from their own number or outside some competent persons to represent them on this Board. Having got rid of that, there was no other course open to the House of Lords but to trust the executive Government for the time being to exercise the patronage. I very much regret the decision of the House of Lords. I believe that the county councils are far better persons, are better qualified, not only than myself but than any possible successor of mine, to whatever Party he may belong, to discharge this important duty. But as the House of Lords will not hear of the county councils, and as there is no other alternative but to fall back on the executive Government of the time being, all I can say is that I shall discharge the duty if it falls to my lot as well as I can. When the hon. and learned Gentleman asks me to name the nine gentlemen, I have not the faintest idea at the present moment of who the nine gentlemen are—not one. I only say that I shall discharge the duty reluctantly which has been imposed on me through the House of Lords not trusting to their own body, for whom in a sense they are responsible and who would discharge this duty far better than any executive officer.
    The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 78.

    Division No. 906.]

    AYES.

    [11.15 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Bytes, William Pollard

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bonn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

    Cave, George

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Astbury, John Meir

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Baker, Joseph A.

    Bright, J. A.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Clough, William

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

    Barker, Sir John

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, Noarth)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Firie, Duncan V.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hunt, Rowland

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

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Rondall, Athelstan

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Laidlaw, Sir Robert

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Lambert, George

    Roc, Sir Thomas

    Elibank, Master of

    Lamont, Norman

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Rowlands, J.

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Falconer, J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Fell, Arthur

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

    Forster, Henry William

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Gretton, John

    Maddison, Frederick

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Gulland, John W

    Massie, J.

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Middlebrook, William

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Moore, William

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

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Morrell, Philip

    Toulmin, George

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morse, L. L.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

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

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Helme, Nerval Watson

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Wood, T. McKinnon

    Hills, J. W.

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Holt, Richard Durning

    NOES.

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

    Hudson, Walter

    O' Grady, J.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Jowett, F. W.

    O' Malley, William

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Joyce, Michael

    O' Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Boland, John

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Keating, M.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pointer, J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, T.

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegol, E.)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Kean, John

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Sheehy, David

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Muldoon, John

    Steadman, W. C.

    Gilhooly, James

    Murnaghan, George

    Summerbell, T.

    Ginnell, L.

    Nannetti, Joseph

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Glover, Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Walsh, Stephen

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Hodge, John

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    Lords Amendments agreed to: Leave out Sub-section (2) and insert, "An appointed member shall hold office for five years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment. On a casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation, or incapacity of an appointed member or otherwise, the person appointed by His Majesty to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the member in whose place he was appointed would have retired, and shall then retire."
    Leave out Sub-section (4).
    Leave out Clause 46 (Duration of Office of Representative Members and Casual Vacancies).
    Leave out Clause 47 (Administrative Committee).

    CLAUSE 48.—(Congested Districts, Counties and Local Authorities.)
    (1) For the purposes of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts, as amended

    151
    by this Act, each of the following administrative counties, that is to say, the counties of Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, Clare, and Kerry, shall be a congested districts county, and the four rural districts of Bantry, Castletown, Schull, and Skibbereen, in the county of Cork, shall together form one congested districts county.
    (2) The council of the administrative county shall be the local authority of the congested districts county, except in the case of the congested districts county in the county of Cork.
    (3) For the purposes of this part of this Act there shall be a joint committee of the councils of the rural districts of Bantry, Castletown, Schull, and Skibbereen, consisting of two persons chosen out of their body by each of the said councils, and that committee shall be the local authority of the congested districts county in the county of Cork.
    (4) No electoral division shall, after the passing of this Act, be or form part of a congested districts county, unless it is included in a congested districts county constituted under this Section.
    (5) The Local Government Board for Ireland may make rules regulating the election, meetings, and procedure of the said joint committee.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "Clare."
    Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL moved "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Although the word has a warlike sound I think I shall be able to show, having regard to the Amendments which I propose to move, that after all this is not quite so formidable as it looks. I am, of course, very sorry that in another place they did not agree to what was the Report of the Dudley Commission: that Clare should be included as a whole. [MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: "Put it back."] It is only fair, however, to say that I find in that Royal Commission Report that Clare was included with some hesitation. Of course, it will not be denied that Clare is a county differing in many important respects, especially having regard to the congestion within its borders, from other counties which are included under this Bill. At the same time, in view of its geographical situation, surrounded as it is by counties included in the congested area, it is rather unfortunate that we should have this difficulty. It was found impracticable to
    152
    obtain the necessary consent to the inclusion of Clare as a whole, on the ground that it was not, properly speaking, a congested county or one which ought to be included within the congested area. It therefore became a question whether some portions of Clare ought not properly to be so included. We had not much time to determine what those portions were, but it was agreed that Ballyvaghan, Ennisky-mon, Kilrush, and Killadysert should together form one congested districts county. After that I made careful inquiry of the Local Government Board in Ireland, who know a great deal more about the poverty of Ireland than any other Board and much more than anybody else, having the Poor Law administration in their hands, and they were unanimously of opinion that Scariff and Tulla were as much entitled to be included within the provisions of this Bill as Ballyvaghan, Enniskymon, Kilrush, and Killadysert. Therefore the proposals we make amount to this—that six rural districts, namely, Ballyvaghan, Enniskymon, Kilrush, Scariff, Tulla, and Killadysert, shall together form one congested districts county. That excludes two rural districts—Ennis and Corofin—from the new congested district area; but the whole of the sea coast of Clare will be within the jurisdiction of the Congested Districts Board. I sympathise with the anxiety of the whole of county Clare to be placed under the beneficent rule and sway of the Board—and it is a tribute to the popularity of the Board that that feeling should exist throughout the whole of the county—but, having obtained the inclusion of two-thirds of the county, which was included only with some diffidence by the Dudley Commission, I think that that ought, at all events for the present, to satisfy even the most grasping and patriotic Clare man. I hope, therefore, the House will support me when I move to substitute "six" for "four" rural districts, and to insert the names "Scariff" and "Tulla."
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I do not know who is here prepared to agree with the Amendment of the Lords in this respect. But I lose no time in saying at once that I for one am not going to agree with the Lords. I think that the Chief Secretary and the Government—certainly the Government—have treated the county of Clare extremely badly in this matter. And I must say that when I took up the newspaper in Dublin the other day, after the proceedings in the House of Lords, and found that Lord Crewe had got up in his place and calmly proposed to exclude the

    153
    greater portion of East Clare, I was more than astonished: I was indignant. I venture to tell the Chief Secretary that my indignation is shared to the fullest extent by every person in the county of Clare, and particularly East Clare. What are the facts of the case? After a long and exhaustive inquiry extending over years, embracing visits to every part of Ireland, and taking evidence in the most exhaustive way, the Commission, presided over by Lord Dudley, issued their report. They recommended unanimously that amongst the new districts to be put under the supervision of the Congested Districts Board should be the whole of the county of Clare. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary seeks to justify the action of the House of Lords in leaving out the greater portion of the county of Clare by saying that the Dudley Commission recommended the inclusion of the whole county with some hesitation. I think if he was going to refer to that he might have quoted the recommendation of the Dudley Commission with regard to the county of Clare. If he had done so he would have informed the House that after very close and careful inquiry, after considering all the circumstances of the case, the Commission came to the conclusion that it was desirable in the general interest to include the whole of the county of Clare in the new congested area. They pointed out that if Clare was not included it would be practically the only county in the West of Ireland that was not so included. Moreover, they pointed out, as regards East Clare, which I represent, that if the congestion there was not so accentuated as in West Clare and other portions of the West of Ireland, it was most important that it should be brought within the operations of the Congested Districts Board, because there there were large tracts of grass land or untenanted land which were absolutely essential for the relief of congestion in other portions of the county of Clare.
    Yet, in face of the recommendation unanimously given by this Commission, representative of all the parties in this House, and founded on the closest and most exhaustive inquiry, the House of Lords refuses to include the county of Clare in the new congested area, and we are asked to agree with the action of the House of Lords in this matter. I cannot understand the meaning of this at all. The new congested area comprises nine counties. The new areas agreed to by the House of Lords to come under the sway
    154
    of the new Congested Districts Board are very large. Yet out of all the immense district recommended by the Dudley Commission, the House of Lords have fixed, and fixed alone, upon this particular district which is represented by me in this House. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Some one says "Hear, hear." But the Chief Secretary has not explained. I should like to know who it was in the House of Lords that put up Lord Crewe to move the exclusion of East Clare. I venture to say that it was two or three Lords who are landlords in East Clare, and I ask the Chief Secretary to ask Lord Crewe. If I have the opportunity I will ask Lord Crewe myself. I would like the Chief Secretary to find out whether any landlords in East Clare had anything to do with the exclusion. I say if they had it is an outrageous scandal and a disgrace. We say that men interested in legislation in this House, men whose private affairs are concerned, are not to take part in the discussions and divisions in this House. On a Committee of this House a Member would not be allowed to act if the matter for consideration was one in which he himself was personally interested, or if he had any financial interest in it. Yet in the House of Lords we find that some landlords who are directly interested, who have a financial interest in this matter, are allowed to have their way, and are able to have excluded large districts from the operations of this Act simply because they consider that their own lands might be dealt with, and their own financial interests might be interfered with. That is, in my opinion, an outrageous scandal and a monstrous shame. I venture to tell the Chief Secretary perfectly frankly and straightforwardly that if this course is persisted in, and if the whole county of Clare is not included, it will give rise to no end of trouble and disturbance in the county.
    I have received to-day communications from Gentlemen representing absolutely the whole population of the district. I have a Resolution which I showed to the Chief Secretary this morning, proposed by the Bishop of Killaloe, and seconded by the chairman and the County Council of Clare at a meeting of the Clare County Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and this Resolution, proposed and seconded by those Gentlemen—the two most representative and responsible men in the whole county—declares that from their intimate knowledge of the county that the exclusion of this district will cause great trouble and prevent the

    155
    Congested Districts Board from relieving congestion in the western portion of the county and other districts. From every part of the constituency, from every part of the district, representations have gone forth protesting against the action of Lord Crewe in excluding this district. I venture to say if the Government persist in this Clause they will be simply laving by for themselves much trouble in the future. Imagine how absurd the thing is. Here you are taking not merely a county and dividing it, but you are sub-dividing half a county. East Clare is to be divided into different portions. In one Poor Law Union the people are to be told they will be dealt with by the Congested Districts Board and have the administration of that Board; in another Poor Law Union across the road the people are to be told: "You are not to be dealt with by the Congested Districts Board, you must take your chance in the ordinary way with your landlords." Under these circumstances does any reasonable man in this House expect there will be anything but discontent and dissatisfaction when the people find they are not dealt with as a whole in the county in the same way but that the people in one district have great advantages over the people in another.
    We are told sometimes that the county of Clare is really not a congested district at all and that the recommendation to include it in the congested area was only arrived at after hesitation. I really do not know what is the true definition of a congested district, but the holdings throughout the county are miserably small, and in this district you are now excluding there are thousands and thousands of acres of good land practically deserted and bereft of human occupations or habitations. Allow me to give a few figures. There are in this county nearly 2,000 holdings which do not exceed one acre; there are above one acre and not exceeding five acres something between 1,500 and 2,000 holdings; above five acres and not exceeding 10 or 15 acres there are something like 4,000 holdings. If we take the holdings throughout the county which are not more than 30 acres we find that there are between 11,000 and 12,000, and yet in the case of the people who are endeavouring to eke out a miserable existence upon holdings not exceeding one acre in extent—and thousands of them do not exceed five acres—we are told they are not worthy of being dealt with by the Congested Districts Board; we
    156
    are told that they are not to have any hope of having their holdings enlarged or of getting a share of the large grass lands. Under these circumstances can anyone possibly expect that there will be anything but dissatisfaction and discontent. I say to the Chief Secretary quite plainly that I do not think he believes that this course is the right one. I do not believe that if the right hon. Gentleman took up a strong position the House of Lords would wreck this Bill on the question of whether a few districts in one county in Ireland were to be included within the congested area or not. I am obliged to come to the conclusion that two or three landlords interested in the county of Clare have worked this extraordinary change.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary whether they can speak for Lord Crewe on this point?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, yes. I can assure the hon. Member that Lord Crewe had no negotiations, relations, or interviews with any Clare landlords on this question. I cannot tell how other persons may have been influenced by representations from-different parts of Ireland, but the hon. Member is in error—I am as responsible for what Lord Crewe did in this matter in the House of Lords as I am for what is done here—because no influence of any sort or kind has been brought directly to bear upon Lord Crewe by any of the Clare landlords.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I know that there were no Clare landlords at the Conference, but Lord Lansdowne was there. Did any of the Clare landlords approach Lord Lansdowne? Perhaps the Attorney-General can tell us why it was that of all the large areas recommended by the Dudley Commission to be put under the Congested Districts Board this one particular portion of one particular county was singled out.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Our great difficulty was to get Clare in at all. The feeling was that it should not be included because it was not, properly speaking, a congested district at all, and we tried to get as much of Clare in as possible. As a matter of fact, I have been the champion of Clare in this matter, and to the extent of two-thirds I have succeeded. Had it not been for such energy as Lord Crewe and I exhibited in regard to this matter no part of Clare would have been included.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state what were the reasons given by Lord Lansdowne and those who objected to the inclusion of County Clare? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] This matter affects my constituency, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench that I will have my say and will not be put down. The more they interfere, just the more will I say, and I repeat that this is no mere coincidence. The right hon. Gentleman says the great difficulty was to get County Clare included at all. Why should there have been this difficulty with regard to Clare when the question of its suitability for inclusion was carefully considered by the Dudley Commission and when they reported favourably? It is said it is not suitable. That was the business of the Dudley Commission, and they are better judges in the matter than Lord Lansdowne or any Gentleman who so strongly objected to the inclusion of county Clare. I do not know whether it is possible to hope that there may be any alteration in this matter or not, but I tell the Chief Secretary, the Attorney-General, who is soon to be a judge and leave us—I am sorry to part with him personally—the Solicitor-General, who, I suppose, will be the Attorney-General in a day or two, and everybody responsible for the government of Ireland that if this is persisted in and the people of this district in Clare are treated with this injustice that so far from tending to settle in any one way the land question in the County of Clare, this Bill, for the injustice it does to a portion of the people, will cause discontent and fresh agitation; and I venture to predict that in a very short time the exclusion of Clare will be altered and the whole county will have to be included in the congested areas. I will make this attempt to alter the injustice which is proposed. I will propose to amend the Amendment of the Chief Secretary by including two other districts in the county. He has moved to include the districts of Scariff and Tulla. I will move to include the rural districts of Ennis and Corofin. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Gentlemen in the House of Lords who have to decide this question pay no respect whatever to what I say, I would ask them at least to pay some attention to the representative men in the county who have spoken in this matter.
    Whatever may be thought of what I might say here, I doubt whether there is any man even in the other place who will be
    158
    inclined to disregard the Bishop of the district, the Most Rev. Bishop of Killaloe, and the Chairman of the County Council. These two gentlemen may be fairly said to represent the feeling of the population, and I would urge the Chief Secretary to use what influence he can in another place so that the wishes of the people may be met and that this injustice may not be done. There is more behind the exclusion of Clare than appears on the surface. Strenuous attempts have been made to blacken the character of the county of Clare. The press of this country have been filled with exaggerated reports of what has happened in Clare. Anything which happens in the county is magnified into a great outrage, and I am really afraid that to some extent the county is being punished for a reputation which it does not deserve. I can only tell the Chief Secretary that so far as I am concerned when I return to Clare next week I will tell the people there that they have been treated with the most infamous injustice and that as it stands they can have no hope of any considerable relief with regard to their land tenure by the passage of this Bill. What makes the matter all the more cruel is there is not a district in the whole of Ireland which has been left so untouched by the Act of 1903 as the county of Clare. In other districts landlords have, to some extent, shown themselves reasonable, or at any rate they have agreed to sell on certain terms. But a large section—the vast majority of the landlords in the county of Clare—have practically refused to sell on any terms at all. The result is that whereas in other parts of Ireland progress is being made with the transfer of land, in the county of Clare there is little or none. We all hoped that the Chief Secretary would adhere to the recommendation of the Dudley Commission and place the county of Clare under the administration of the Congested Districts Board. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman it was most pathetic to watch the anxiety with which the small landholders in this great county looked forward to the day when they would come under the control of that Board. From the moment this Bill was introduced into this House their delight and satisfaction was unbounded, because they felt that under the operations of the Congested Districts Board the transfer of land would proceed rapidly. But at the very moment the people hoped and believed the Bill would become law they found to their astonishment and their horror that of all parts of Ireland which had been recommended for inclusion in the administration of the

    159
    Board, this portion, and this portion alone, had been struck out by the House of Lords.
    No hon. Member representing a constituency treated in this way could do otherwise than enter a strong and emphatic protest. No reason whatever is given for this proposal to strike out county Clare; no arguments have been advanced in justification of it; it is simply put forward with cold brutality, and all I have to say is that from the days of Daniel O'Connell—from the days when Catholic Emancipation was passed—it has never been found easy to ignore county Clare, and the House of Lords even yet may find that, while they are tearing the British Constitution into a thousand pieces, they will not be able to "leave out county Clare." I say to the right hon. Gentleman when next he sees Lord Crewe let him tell the Noble Lord and ask him to tell the Marquess of Lansdowne, with my compliments, that whatever the outcome of this constitutional struggle which is now going on may be, whatever happens to the House of Lords, whether it goes on, or whether it goes down, the county of Clare will be there, and I will take very good care that the farmers and labourers of the county of Clare will look after their own interests, protect their homes and take whatever steps they may consider necessary for the welfare of themselves and their families until the day comes—and it speedily will come—when some Minister will have to come down and admit that the recommendation of the Dudley Commission was right, and the action of the House of Lords in leaving out Clare was wrong.
    Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: The question is not one which affects East Clare alone, because the interests of East Clare and West Clare are inseparable. Moreover, it is not one which affects Clare alone, but the whole of Ireland. I am reminded in this connection that when the American Act of Independence was signed, Benjamin Franklin, who was one of those men with a certain amount of wit, said, "Now, Gentlemen, if we don't hang together we will hang separately," and that is also the position of all the constituencies in Ireland. We say East Clare and West Clare hang together like the representatives of the Nationalist party in Ireland hold together in one indissoluble unity. On this question of leaving out Clare I do not propose to add much, and it would be utterly impossible to do so to the eloquent speech which we have just heard from my
    160
    hon. and learned Friend. This question of congestion in Clare involves also the question of compulsion, because the reason for excluding one and including the other is to bring it within the operation of this Clause or exclude it. The other day an hon. Gentleman above the Gangway said we were always depending upon and having recourse to one example, but I am able to give a number of cases of landlords who have refused to sell, not only in contravention of the interests of their tenants, but in violation of their own. One is the estate of Charles MacDonnell, New Hall, Ennis, who absolutely refused to sell. Offers were made to purchase and negotiations proceeded up to almost the carrying through of the business when the landlord withdrew from the operation on the ground that he must sell his turbary first. Another landlord refused to sell unless he got 27½ years' purchase, and yet another refused to accept less than 24½ years for his estate which simply consisted of bog. In another place the landlord refused to sell at less than 24½ years' purchase; and then again there is the estate of H. B. Macnamara, of Ennistymon, who has refused to sell; and Lord Leconfield, near Miltown Malbay, is in the same position.
    12.0 P.M.
    In another place Lord Lansdowne said the landlord regards his grazing lands somewhat in the frame of mind in which a connoisseur regards a fine piece of old china. Men of the stamp of Lord Lansdowne find it a sufficient reason to refuse the just rights of the people that they find an æsthetic delight in the contemplation of their rolling grass lands, while the son of a poor tenant farmer has to choose between two alternatives, one to wrench himself away from his family and his home to seek his fortune in another land, or to live in poverty, eking out a miserable existence in his ancestral home, and when you find that man's case could be met by the extension of benefits, such as including the whole of Clare in the congested districts, that must make an extremely forcible appeal to a man who is so sympathetically inclined to Ireland as the Chief Secretary. The Government has included West Clare in the congested districts, and has excluded a great part of East Clare; but suppose the operations of the Congested Districts Act have full play in Clare, and there is a great desire to give free play to the beneficent operations of that Act, where is the land to be found for the people in West Clare? A man does not

    161
    like to leave his country, and if he has to migrate it is easier after all to migrate to America, which they call in West Clare the nearest parish of the West, and if there is a real desire to benefit West Clare where is the land to be found to satisfy the needs of the poor landless man, when the great part of East Clare is removed

    CLAUSE 48.—(Congested Districts, Counties, and Local Authorities.)
    (1) For the purposes of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts, as amended
    from the scope of the operation of the Act?
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 74.

    Division No. 907.]

    AYES.

    [12.6 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Marnham, F. J.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Massie, J.

    Anson, Sir William Reyneil

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Middlebrook, William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Elibank, Master of

    Moore, William

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Falconer, J.

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

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Forster, Henry William

    Nussey, Sir Willans

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Nuttall, Ha y

    Beale, W. P.

    Gretton, John

    Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Gulland, John W.

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon, Sydney Charles

    Higham, John Sharp

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hills, J. W.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cave, George

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Horniman, Emslie John

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Toulmin, George

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Clough, William

    Kerry, Earl of

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Lambert, George

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lamont, Norman

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Wood, T. M'Kinnen

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Crosfield, A. H.

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

    NOES.

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

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, J.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Boland, John

    Jowett, F. W.

    O'Malley, William

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allsten

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Keating, M.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pointer, J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, T.

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Duffy, Willam J.

    MacVelgh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    M'Kean, John

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, J. J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Muldoon, John

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gilhooly, James

    Murnaghan, George

    Walsh, Stephen

    Ginnell, L.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Hodge, John

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Hogan, Michael

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

    by this Act, each of the following administrative counties, that is to say, the counties of Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, Clare, and Kerry,

    163
    shall be a congested districts county, and the four rural districts of Bantry, Castletown, Schull, and Skibbereen, in the county of Cork, shall together form one congested districts county.
    (2) The council of the administrative county shall be the local authority of the congested districts county, except in the case of the congested districts county in the county of Cork.
    (3) For the purposes of this Part of this Act there shall be a joint committee of the councils of the rural districts of Bantry, Castledown, Schull, and Skibbereen, consisting of two persons chosen out of their body by each of the said councils, and that committee shall be the local authority of the congested districts county in the county of Cork.
    (4) No electoral division shall, after passing of this Act, be or form part of a congested districts county, unless it is included in a congested districts county constituted under this section.
    (5) The Local Government Board for Ireland may make rules regulating the election, meetings, and procedure of the said joint committee.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), after the word "county" ["shall be a congested district county"] insert "the four rural districts of Ballyvaghan, Ennistymon, Kilrush, and Killadysert in the county of Clare, shall together form one congested districts county."
    Mr. BIRRELL: I move to leave out the word "four" ["four rural districts"] and insert instead thereof the word "six," in order that later on, after the word "Kilrush," we may insert Scariff and Tulla.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave our, "six" and insert "eight."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott): I am afraid that that cannot be done now. First of all we must leave out the word "four." When we are dealing with the insertion of the word "six" the hon. Member can vote against it.
    Question, "That the word 'four' stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'six' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move, after the word "Kilrush," to insert the words "Scariff" and "Tulla."
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment, as amended," put, and agreed to.
    Further Lords Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 55.—(Sales of Parcels of Land by Congested Districts Board.)
    (1) The Board may sell any parcels of any land purchased by them whether before or after the passing of this Act or purchased on their requisition under this Act to any tenants or proprietors of holdings in a congested districts county.
    (2) If any parcels of such land are not required for, or having regard to the circumstances of the estate, land, or district cannot advantageously be sold to, such tenants or proprietors, the Board may sell those parcels to any sons of tenants or proprietors of holdings situated in a congested districts county and not exceeding ten pounds in rateable value.
    (3) Where the Congested Districts Board sell any parcel of land to the son of any tenant or proprietor under this section, they shall insert in their annual report to the Lord Lieutenant full particulars of the sale and the circumstances in which the same was made.
    (4) The provisions of this Act with respect to the application of the Land Purchase Acts to parcels of land shall apply in the case of the sale of any parcel of land under this Section.
    (5) Section seventy-five of the Act of 1903 shall cease to have effect.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "whether before or after the passing of this Act, or purchased on their requisition under this Act," and insert, "after the passing of this Act."
    Mr. CHERRY: I move to agree. The object of this Amendment is to limit the power of the Congested Districts Board as regards the selling of land.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment agreed to: At end of Sub-section (1) insert the words "or to any herdsmen employed on or in connection with the land."
    Lords Amendment: Leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3).
    Mr. CHERRY Mr. CHERRY moved to agree.
    Mr. DILLON: I do not intend to divide the House against this Amendment, but I strongly protest against it. I believe the omission of these Sub-sections will make the work of the Board very much more difficult.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment agreed to: At end of Sub-section (5) insert the words "save as respects sales of parcels of land purchased by the Board before the passing of this Act."

    CLAUSE 60.—(Restrictions on Sales of Land in Congested Districts Counties.)
    (1) The Land Commission shall not, after the passing of this Act, enter into an agreement for the purchase of any land situated in the congested districts county, save with the consent of the Congested Districts Board: Provided that this Subsection shall not apply in the case of land required for the purposes of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907.
    (2) No estate situated in a congested districts county shall, after the passing of this Act, be sold under the Land Purchase Acts, to persons other than the Congested Districts Board without the consent of that Board, which consent shall not be withheld unless the Board undertake to purchase the estate within a reasonable time: Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply in the case of any sale of a congested estate in pursuance of an originating application or request lodged before the passing of this Act.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2), after the word "No," insert the word "congested."
    Mr. CHERRY: I move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. DILLON: This is an Amendment of the very first importance, and it is a most mischievous one. In fact, there are few points to which I attach greater importance than the proposal to insert this Amendment. As the Bill now stands, any estate, being outside any congested district, can be sold to any person except the Congested Districts Board. In other words, the Board has the right of preemption throughout congested districts, but by the insertion of this word, that right will be confined to congested districts,
    166
    and the Board would have the right to purchase congested portions of estates in congested districts, but would not have the right of pre-emption over other parts. It has been argued, I know, both in this House and in the other House, that there is no reason why the Board should have the right of pre-emption over estates which are not congested estates. I will be able to show that there is every reason why the Board must have that right. What is going on at the present moment, and what has been going on for the last two years? In the first place, one of the facts brought out at the Dudley Commission was that the amount of grass land unoccupied in the West of Ireland is absolutely insufficient to solve the problem of congestion in that province. Every acre is required, and even if every acre was available it would be insufficient. Under the present system the better-class estates, those on which there are large and extensive grass lands, which could be of use and made available for the relief of congestion, are passing rapidly away and are being sold to substantial farmers, and are being lost for ever for the relief of congestion.
    Let me point out, and this is really a matter of primary importance, that there are two classes of holdings in the West of Ireland that might be used for the relief of congestion. First of all, there are what are known as untenanted grass lands, the vast tracts of land which are out of the occupation of the owners and which are used for grazing purposes, and there are immense tracts of land which are tenanted grass lands, and which do not come under the denomination of untenanted lands, and which yet could be made available if the power of pre-emption is preserved to the Congested Districts Board, with no injustice or hardship to anyone. Those tenanted grass lands are great grazing farms held by yearly tenancies by the great graziers of Connaught, who are men, many of whom occupy six, seven, and I have known them to occupy twelve great grass farms in different parts of the country. They are men whose profession is that of grazier. They pick up those tracts and some of them occupy as many as five and six thousand acres in different large tracts in different parts of the country. They have no tenancy of those tracts, they hold them by yearly letting. Some of them have them for a great many years, and the Land Acts do not apply to them, and they cannot get judicial rents fixed. The Land Acts draw the line when

    167
    they are upwards of £200 valuation, and mainly pasture, and they are not subject to the Land Acts. The tenant cannot get security of tenure, and we never desired to give security of tenure to those great graziers in different parts of Ireland. Half the grass lands of Connaught, at least, are held by those great grazing tenants. I do not for a single moment propose that those men should be stripped of all their lands, but I do say that in view of the great sacrifices made by this House and the public funds to redeem the population of Connaught from a horrid condition of things, that it would be nothing short of an outrage to allow these vast grass lands to be withdrawn for the relief of congestion. If they are allowed to be withdrawn the problem cannot be solved or nearly solved. Remember that it is impossible with all land to solve this question, but the Lords say that the Congested Districts Board are not to have the right of pre-emption on any estate which is not a congested estate. Most of these great grass farms are situated on estates which are not congested estates, even within the £10 definition. The larger farmers, including the great grass farmers, get up an agitation to have a "direct sale," so that they may be relieved from any danger of losing their large grass farms, and they use every means at their disposal to induce the tenants to agree.
    Let me give a typical case. The Lynch Blosse estate was not a congested estate, the tenants were nearly all substantial. Sir Robert Lynch Blosse sold the estate by voluntary sale to the Congested Districts Board. If the estate had been sold by direct sale, as is the case with most estates of a similar character in Con-naught, all the grass farms would have passed away for ever from the control of the Congested Districts Board. They were all tenanted farms; but I am informed that the Board succeeded in obtaining 2,000 acres of most excellent grass land in Mayo for distribution amongst the neighbouring congested districts by getting rid of some of the graziers. The Board did not effect that without compensation, but as the graziers had no tenure they were able to get the lands on reasonable compensation. In the case of many other similar estates direct sale has taken place, and the Board have lost the chance of settling many families on holdings. The supply of land necessary to solve this problem is passing away, and once it
    168
    passes away into the hands of the large farmers it has gone for ever. As the Bill left the House of Commons the Congested Districts Board was given power to considerably stop this process of the passing of the land. Wherever there was an estate on which there were these grasslands suitable for their purpose they could object to that sale, and say, "We will buy it for our purposes." Now I think it is a most deplorable thing that the Lords, while professing their zeal for the relief of congestion, should by this and many other Amendments show a determination, a most vicious determination, to do everything in their power to prevent the possibility of the Board solving this question. Of all the Amendments this is one of the most mischievous. What I wish to impress upon the House is this: That it is no use, but quite the contrary, to tell the Congested Districts Board that they can acquire by right of pre-emption or of compulsory purchase these slum estates—these portions of land which are absolutely essential for relief. In all the official experience of the Members of the Board this particular provision was looked upon as a most valuable one. The compulsory Clauses were regarded by the officials as among the most valuable so far as the West was concerned. They said, "We are not afraid of time—our work is slow—provided you do not allow the land to be sold away from us. We are content to take a considerable number of years to complete our work, but for Heaven's sake do not allow the land to be seized upon by these large farmers, so that it prevents our work."
    It is these small Amendments, the insertion of a single word, that have done infinite mischief to the cause of the relief of congestion. I have, I am sorry to say, become a veteran in these fights in the House in the long history of trying to solve the Irish land question. I have been a Member of this House for 28 years. I remember the Act of 1881, and the twenty Acts that have been passed since. I say that without an exception there is not a single Act that the Lords have not put poison into. In every single one they have left their traces, and if Ireland has been disturbed and tortured by crime for the last 27 years, it is the work of the Lords from beginning to end. Whenever this House has addressed itself to the task, as it has been compelled to do year after year, all who were most anxious to rescue the Irish people from the horrible oppression of the landlords have been thwarted

    169
    in all their efforts by the House of Lords, who, in their infinite and diabolical ingenuity and small insignificant-looking and apparently trifling Amendments, like the insertion of a certain word, have done almost unbelievable and incomprehensible mischief. Now they are at their old work again. I wish to bear my testimony to the Chief Secretary for his conduct of this Bill. He has fought very hard for the people, though I am sorry he has given way on some of these Amendments. But his exertions, like those of his predecessors who have tried to solve this Irish land question, have been to a large extent baffled and paralysed by the interference of those gentlemen across
    the Lobby. I believe that Irish land troubles are to be continued. If so you will find that just as in the old days, when birth was given to the Land League by the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill—and they have repeated their operations on many subsequent occasions—so on the present occasion. They will leave a root of bitterness behind by their Amendments which will rise into serious disorder and trouble in Ireland.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 67.

    Division No. 908.]

    AYES.

    [12.37 a.m.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Marnham, F. J.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Massie, J.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

    Middlebrook, William

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Elibank, Master of

    Moore, William

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Falconer, James

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

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Beale, W. P.

    Fuilerton, Hugh

    Nuttall, Harry

    Bennett, E. N.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Gulland, John W.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Higham, John Sharp

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hills, J. W.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Cave, George

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Toulmin, George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Horniman, Emslle John

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

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Clough, William

    Kerry, Earl of

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lambert, George

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

    Lamont, Norman

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    NOES.

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

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    O'Malley, William

    Boland, John

    Keating, M.

    O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lundon, T.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cullinan, J.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Reddy, M.

    Delany, William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Kean, John

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Sheehy, David

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Gilhooly, James

    Muldoon, John

    Summerbell, T.

    Ginnell, L.

    Murnaghan, George

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Harrington, Timothy

    Nolan, Joseph

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Jordan, Jeremiah

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Mr. WALTER LONG: I think it must be obvious to the House that we have arrived at a time when the Government should tell us what their intentions are for the rest of the morning. I myself have been here since 3.15, and we have been for more than nine hours engaged in the discussion of this Bill. I may point out that we are now approaching one of the most important questions in the Bill, which I think ought to be debated, I will not say in the daylight, but at any rate when hon. Members are not so fatigued as they must be at this moment. I wish to call attention to the fact that the numbers in the last two divisions have disclosed to everybody that if 50 Members of the Opposition had chosen to transfer their votes for the purpose of gaining a temporary party advantage the Government would have been placed in a serious position, Such things have been done for the mere purpose of scoring against the Government of the day, and it is quite obvious it could be done now. We do not, of course, suggest anything of the kind. Whatever time the Government propose to sit we shall vote without any regard to the existing position of the parties. It is not decent, however, that we should go on when the Government by the fatigue of Members are reduced to the numbers they can now command. I submit, having regard also to the question we have to discuss and decide, that we have arrived at a time when we might very well adjourn. We have been through 60 Clauses and there are some 10 or 15 more, including the most important one of all. So far there has been no factious opposition or anything which could be described as obstruction. It has been a perfectly businesslike discussion, and I should think a couple of hours at a time when we could discuss the matter in a better form would suffice to dispose of the remaining Amendments. I therefore move the adjournment of the Debate.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I should like to say a word in support of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. My colleagues and I have been at work in this House since noon yesterday, and I do not think it is fair to ask us to go on. There is only one important point remaining, and in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that a couple of hours would dispose of that I think it is eminently reasonable to ask that we should be allowed to adjourn now.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Hon Members speak to very willing ears when they speak to me on this subject. I have been hard at work on this thing from a very early hour yesterday morning. I quite agree that on the whole we have made marvellously good progress, and I am quite sure there has not been a word said which could reasonably have been omitted. We are, however, peculiarly situated. Our days are numbered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, there is the chance of a joyful resurrection—I mean in this Parliament. We really have only one subject left, the important and considerable subject of the tribunal; but, when I have stated what our proposals are, although they may give rise to some discussion, I think an hour and a-half ought to be quite sufficient to get rid of it. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to pledge himself to a minute or two, but it would be a disastrous thing for other important measures on the Paper to-morrow if there were to be any undue prolongation of that time. I am quite sure that if to-morrow the same spirit is evinced as has been shown to-day, an hour and a-half or two hours will be quite sufficient after the statement which will be made on behalf of the Government to finish off this Bill. If that view is accepted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I shall be willing to agree to the motion that the further proceedings on the Lords Amendments be now adjourned.
    Question, "That further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments to be further considered to-morrow (Wednesday).

TRUSTEES ACCOUNTS BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir F. BANBURY: Before this Bill is read the third time, I wish to say a few words. The Patronage Secretary to the Treasury knows I have always had certain objections to this measure to which I believe there are four Amendments down, one to recommit and another to read the Bill this day three months. I admit the provisions are of a very important nature. But on the other hand it must be remembered that the Bill creates certain duties with regard to trusteeships and imposes penalties upon trustees in the event of

173
their failing to carry them out. As a. result the conscientious trustee will be put to very considerable trouble in complying with the provisions of the Bill. He will have to keep accounts, to produce vouchers relating to his trust and do all sorts of things which while adding to his labours will not in any way benefit the beneficiaries. One trustee may comply with the provisions of the Bill should it become an Act of Parliament, but another may not be inclined to do so, yet I do not believe there is any power included in the Bill to compel him to do so. The Act will therefore become a dead letter. More than that the Bill is calculated to create not a little friction, and under these circumstances I do not think the Government should press its consideration on the House at this hour of the night. They must remember that this is not a Government Bill at all, but a private Members', and I really do not think the Government in regard to such a Bill as this ought to press the third reading at five minutes to one o'clock. The Prime Minister this afternoon said he proposed to take the Lords Amendments to the Irish Land Bill, and if there was time the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and this particular Bill, and you can hardly call five minutes to one time. Under these circumstances I move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Mr. CARLILE: I second the motion for adjournment.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and forty Members being found present——
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease): I hope the hon. Member will not press this Motion. I endeavoured to find out what the extent of the opposition to this small Bill was and found it was of a very limited character.
The opportunities for passing the Bill are also limited, and, it having gone through its various stages, I hope the House will give it a third reading.
1.0 A.M.
Mr. J. J. MOONEY: I cannot agree that this is a very small Bill and I cannot understand how it comes into the category of unimportant, as it is a measure which is going to put a very heavy burden upon trustees. Clause 3 of the Bill indeed states that no increased burdens shall be put upon trustees, but Clauses 1 and 2 do nothing else but put them on. The Bill is one of a technical character and there is no representative of the law present to tell us what it is about, and I do not think it reasonable to ask the House of Commons at one minute to one o'clock to pass a Bill of this kind, which calls upon trustees to account in a detailed form for every penny of their trust and places them under a heavy penalty for not keeping vouchers and accounts. Are we to pass a Bill upsetting the whole of the law relating to trustees without any assistance from the Law Officers for England. The Law Officers for Ireland are here, and apparently have not heard of the Bill or seen it. I cannot understand what the Bill means. It provides that it shall be the duty of trustees to keep accurate accounts, and that they shall keep vouchers for a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time? Some authority might say that three months is a reasonable time, and another might say three years. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he knows nothing about the Bill. Is it right that we should be asked to pass a measure without there being anybody on the Treasury Bench who knows anything about it? If my hon. Friend goes to a division I shall support him.
Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided: Ayes, 7; Noes, 60

Division No. 909.]

AYES.

[1.5 a.m.

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Mooney, J. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Carlile.

Courthope, G. Loyd

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

NOES

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Elibank, Master of

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Falconer, James

Beale, W. P.

Clough, William

Ffrench, Peter

Bennett, E. N.

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Gulland, John W.

Bowerman, C. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

Harrington, Timothy

Layland-Barrattt, Sir Francis

Redmond, William Clare

Haworth, Arthur A.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Hedges, A. Paget

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

Helme, Norval Watson

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Higham, John Sharp

M'Kean, John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Maddison, Frederick

Scanian, Thomas

Holt, Richard Durning

Marnham, F. J.

Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Massie, J.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Middlebrook, William

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Jowett, F. W.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Toulmin, George

Keating, M.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lambert, George

Nolan, Joseph

Lamont, Norman

Nuttall, Harry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal West)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Original Question put and agreed to; Bill read the third time, and passed.
Whereupon MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Eleven minutes after One a.m., Wednesday. 24th November.

FINANCE BILL.
  DUTY PAID ON SPIRITS.
  DUTY PAID ON SPIRITS.
  LAND VALUE DUTY.
  LAND VALUE DUTY.
  German Empire (Revenue).
  German Empire (Revenue).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Irish Teachers' Pension Fund.
  Irish Teachers' Pension Fund.
  Sale of Estate (Ireland).
  Sale of Estate (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (County Kerry).
  Evicted Tenants (County Kerry).
  Ormathwaite Estate, North Kerry.
  Ormathwaite Estate, North Kerry.
  Trial of Police Inspector Montgomery (Newtownstewart, Tyrone).
  Trial of Police Inspector Montgomery (Newtownstewart, Tyrone).
  Intermediate Education Examinations (Ireland).
  Intermediate Education Examinations (Ireland).
  Heating and Cleaning Schools (Ireland).
  Heating and Cleaning Schools (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Application, Ballymorris, Longford.
  Reinstatement Application, Ballymorris, Longford.
  Patriotic Fund Allowance (Mrs. Quinn).
  Patriotic Fund Allowance (Mrs. Quinn).
  Ordnance Survey (Temporary Assistant).
  Ordnance Survey (Temporary Assistant).
  Naval Expenditure ("Dreadnought" Class).
  Naval Expenditure ("Dreadnought" Class).
  Indian Medical Service.
  Indian Medical Service.
  Railway Returns (Pooling Arrangements).
  Railway Returns (Pooling Arrangements).
  Midland Great Western Railway (Ireland).
  Midland Great Western Railway (Ireland).
  Vaccination and Small Pox.
  Vaccination and Small Pox.
  Meat Inspection.
  Meat Inspection.
  Local Government Board (Upper Division Clerks).
  Local Government Board (Upper Division Clerks).
  Post Offices (Tadcaster and Wetherby).
  Post Offices (Tadcaster and Wetherby).
  Second Division Clerks (Post Office).
  Second Division Clerks (Post Office).
  Campbeltown and Glasgow Steam Packet Company.
  Campbeltown and Glasgow Steam Packet Company.

FINANCE BILL.
Petitions against; of persons signing (64);—the Incorporated Association for the Protection of Property Owners, Limited;—the Scottish Licensed Trade Defence Association;—the Moray and Nairn Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Defence Association;—the Harrow Division of Middlesex Central Conservative Association;—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table:
Petition for amendment of; of the Yorkshire Branch of the Central Land Association; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

FINANCE BILL.
Debate on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne to the Motion that the Bill be now read 2a resumed (according to order).
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, in the brief observations which I am about to address to your Lordships, I do not propose any more than in the case of other speakers who have preceded me, to examine the present Budget in any sort of detail. The question we have to decide is eminently one of principle and not of detail. Moreover, the real point at issue is not whether, collectively or individually, we think this Budget good, bad, or indifferent, but whether we are justified in taking the very grave step of insisting that the matter should be referred to the decision of the nation. Nevertheless, my Lords, I should like to make a very few remarks on the financial proposals of His Majesty's Government, considered on their own merits. There are some good points in those proposals, and I cannot help thinking that the idea is rather exaggerated to hold that black ruin stares in the face of those on whom the burthen of the new taxation will more especially fall.
For my own part I have nothing to say against the principle involved in the Income Tax proposals, and I do not entertain any objections to them, although I think the Super Tax will be extremely difficult to collect, and will probably be evaded by
822
many of those whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer most wishes to reach. Moreover, in spite of the explanations which have been given on this subject, I cannot help looking with some apprehension on the inroad which will be made on the main fiscal reserve on which we are accustomed to rely in time of war. Nevertheless, the principle involved in this part of the Budget is, in my opinion, sound enough. It is that the burthen of taxation is to be placed on the shoulders of those most capable of bearing it, and whatever theoretical arguments may be urged against the adoption of this principle, it is a practical fact that a man with £5,000 a year can well afford to bear a higher proportionate rate of taxation than a man with £500 or £1,000.
But, in spite of this and some other points to which I do not think serious exception can be taken, I must say that the general financial policy of the Government inspires me with no confidence whatsoever. In the first place, my Lords, I should like to point out that the Budget in the form in which it was originally brought forward in the other House bore the evident marks of a light-hearted want of care and foresight, which is simply amazing, considering the gravity of the interests concerned. A good deal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's cargo had to be thrown overboard in order to lighten the ship during its passage through the other House. How, I would ask, could any serious financier think that any assembly of thinking men would ever agree to a man being taxed on the off-chance of his possessing minerals of questionable existence and of unknown value at an unknown depth in the bowels of the earth, or that Parliament would ever agree to allow the old Sinking Fund to be diverted from its proper and legitimate object—that is to say, the reduction of the National Debt? Then, my Lords, as regards the Revenue Estimates. I was at first inclined to share the opinion that I think was very commonly held that the revenue had been very greatly under-estimated. Now we are told that such is not the case. One thing, however, is clear, and that is that the original Estimates were very faulty. Why is this? Experts will, I do not doubt, be able to give explanations under each separate head of account, but I cannot help thinking that there is one general explanation winch applies in a greater or less degree, in every case. That explanation is that by drifting into a position which necessitates casting

823
the whole fiscal system of the country into the melting pot, and also by bringing forward proposals which, even if they are assumed to be innocuous in themselves, are supported by rancorous language evidently calculated to alarm all those classes on whom the national wealth, and, therefore, the national revenue mainly depends, the Chancellor of the Exchequer got himself into a position which has rendered the task of framing any trustworthy Estimates well-nigh impossible. Then, my Lords, I justify my want of confidence in the financial policy of the Government on the further ground that although they came into office pledged as a matter of fact to retrenchment they have thrown economy to the winds. Former Liberal Governments were economical because they were Free Traders, and I ought also to add they were able to be Free Traders because they were economical. They fully recognised that these two subjects—economy in expenditure and Free Trade—hung together. The present Government has endeavoured to be spendthrift and Free Traders, and the two characters do not harmonise.
I know how useless it is to preach on this subject. I know and fully admit the urgency of social reform—that is to say, reasonable social reform. I know that a great wave of extravagance is now passing over this country, which can only be arrested when bitter experience has shown that a nation, like an individual, must cut its coat according to its cloth. At the same time, I cannot allow this occasion to pass without uttering an old-fashioned protest against what appears to me to be the recklessness with which the finances of the State are now administered. Whether a resort be had to direct or to indirect taxation, no nation, however prosperous it may be, can with impunity go on living for long as we have been living for the last few years, without landing itself in great embarrassments, and this remark applies quite as much to local as to Imperial finance. Whatever may be the objects on which it is proposed to spend the money, I contend that it is unsound finance to incur heavy liabilities without having any idea as to how those liabilities are to be met, as was done last year, and at the same time to reduce taxation, as was done in the case of the Sugar Duties, which, although possibly open to some objections, did not constitute a serious burthen on the country or weigh very materially upon the taxpayers. The result
824
naturally is a recourse to desperate expedients, such as the heavy Death Duties which, at the proposed rates, as has been frequently pointed out in the course of this debate, simply mean that the country will, to a great extent, be living on its capital.
I now turn to another point—namely, the land clauses. We have been reminded in the course of the debate that your Lordships' House is often accused of being an assembly of landowners. You may therefore like to hear the opinion of one of your members who does not possess, and is never likely to possess, a single acre of land in this or in any other country. The only tax in the Budget which affects me personally is the increased Income Tax, which I have already said meets with my cordial approval because it is based on the principle that the man who is relatively rich should pay more than the man who is relatively poor. I contend, as was contended by the noble Marquess last night, that as regards the land clauses they are a flagrant violation of that very sound principle. It is not proposed to tax a man according to his wealth, I but according to the special form in which, I whether he be rich or poor, his wealth is invested. I think, my Lords, that this principle is thoroughly unsound. Neither would any modification of the details reconcile me to its adoption. I do not doubt that the laws regulating the tenure of land in this country are far from perfect, and are capable of being amended. Notably, I should be glad to see something done to strengthen the position of leaseholders in towns against ground landlords. But if this is to be done, let it be done in the ordinary way, that is to say, by introducing a Bill which both Houses of Parliament will be free to examine both in principle and in detail. Whatever may be the constitutional practice or precepts on this subject, I cannot help thinking that to bring forward a measure of this sort in the garb of a Finance Bill, and thus endeavour to stifle the opinions of those who are not only most interested, but best informed on all matters connected with the land system, is a very great abuse of power.
What, however, is to be said of a procedure of this nature when it is recognised that the proposals of the Government under this head will do little, if anything, to solve the financial difficulties of the moment?

825
The fact is, that it is a mere abuse of terms to speak of the land clauses in the Bill as genuine financial measures. With the evidence now before us, it is impossible not to conclude that the primary object in introducing them is not to obtain revenue, but to pave the way for the introduction of profound changes of a Socialistic character in the system under which landed property is held in this country. This is all I have to say upon the Budget considered on its own merits. I now pass to the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
My Lords, if we arrive at a faulty conclusion on this subject, it will certainly not be from want of advice. For months past we have been bombarded from all quarters with advice, not infrequently taking the form of menaces, which I agree with other speakers should be entirely disregarded. On the one hand, we have been told that those who, like myself, demur to the total rejection of this Budget are wanting in moral courage—an argument to which I attach but slight importance; and we are also told that by the adoption of this view we should abdicate the special functions for which a Second Chamber is created—an argument which, I fully admit, is of great weight and potency. On the other hand, the very unworthy insinuation is made that those of your Lordships who conscientiously hold a different opinion are animated by some motives of personal interest, and they are warned that if they insist on this view the time-honoured institution to which we belong will fall at the blast of the Limehouse and Newcastle trumpet. In view of the extreme gravity of this question and of the fact that it certainly rises in importances far above that of ordinary Party issues, I have—like, I do not doubt, others of your Lordships—endeavoured as an independent member to form a calm, dispassionate and independent judgment on this subject, unswayed by outside influences, and the result of my deliberations, which I state with great and unfeigned regret, is that in spite of the cogency of the arguments advanced by the noble Marquess, I am unable on this occasion to follow him into the Lobby. On the other hand, inasmuch as a vote adverse to the proposal of the noble Marquess might be construed into approval of a measure of which I wholly disapprove, I am reluctantly constrained to abstain from voting at all.
826
The main consideration which has led me to this conclusion is one to which I do not think adequate attention has been paid in the course of the recent discussions. Although at this moment all European nations, including ourselves, are fortunately at peace, I cannot say that the general state of Europe is such as to render it possible to regard without some apprehension the inauguration of a state of things which, by producing acute and prolonged dissentions in this country, may not improbably cripple us to a certain extent in the event of any great national emergency arising. And, my Lords, it cannot, I think, be doubted that the result of throwing out this Bill will be to produce acute and prolonged dissensions, for it will almost oblige even the most moderate members of the Liberal Party to engage in a ceaseless agitation in order to secure a material alteration, not merely in the composition, but the functions of the Second Chamber. I consider that the first and greatest national necessity at this moment is to provide, both from a naval and military point of view, for the adequate defence of this country, and I should more especially view with a feeling little short of dismay anything calculated to risk a break in the continuity of that naval policy as to the main principles of which both Parties in the State are now agreed. I may be right or wrong in pushing this view to the extent to which I push it, and I am quite free to admit that I hold this opinion so strongly that it colours my views on all other political matters, and makes them subordinate to that one great consideration. I am, of course, perfectly aware that I shall be told that if it actually came to a case of war, the voice of faction would be hushed, and that all Parties in the country would be united. I hope, and believe, that will be the case, but that is not what I fear. What I do fear is that in the presence of distracted counsels, and of the great temptation which will be presented on both sides to influence and conciliate the mass of the electors by incurring not reasonable but extravagant expenditure on social reforms, the main duty of the nation, which is to render its own existence secure, will be rather lost sight of in the constitutional struggle which must ensue; and pray bear in mind, my Lords, that any lapse, even any temporary lapse, from a state of preparedness for war will, of itself, increase the probability that war will occur.

827
On the whole, therefore, I have come to the conclusion that, objectionable as this Budget is, we cannot reject it without incurring other and more formidable risks than would be involved in its acceptance. Let me add that I have come to this conclusion in my own mind quite irrespective of the question of Free Trade versus Tariff Reform. Important though that issue is, it appears to me almost to sink into insignificance by the side of the further and very important issues which will now be raised.
Before I sit down, I trust it will not be thought irrelevent to the present discussion if I allude briefly to the position of Unionist Free Traders in respect to this Budget, and also generally with regard to the contest which now awaits us. That position is, I fully admit, one of some difficulty. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I do not in any way profess to represent the views of Unionist Free Traders generally. Although I happen, as President of the Unionist Free Trade Club, to be the very unworthy successor of the late Duke of Devonshire, whose wise counsels and statesmanlike voice were assuredly never more missed than on the present occasion, I have no sort of mandate to represent the members of that club. I wish it, therefore, to be very clearly understood that I am only giving my opinion as an individual Unionist Free Trader for what it is worth. My individual opinion is that in the coming General Election a Unionist Free Trade voter who, in the absence of a candidate who fully represents his own views, votes for a Tariff Reform candidate, as I should certainly do if I had a vote, need not abandon one iota of his Free Trade principles any more than I abandon mine. I wish, my Lords, to make my own attitude in connection with this matter quite clear.
I do not doubt that it will be necessary to impose indirect taxes for revenue purposes—a necessity to which, although he may regret it, no Free Trader can take any exception on Free Trade principles. But I hold just as strongly as ever that Protection is not the proper weapon by which Socialism can be combated. I scout now, as much as ever, the idea that the unemployment problem can be solved by the adoption of a Protectionist policy.
828
I still maintain that Colonial preference is not merely objectionable on fiscal grounds, but that it is an error to suppose that it will do anything towards cementing the different parts of the Empire any more than was the case when it was tried sixty years ago. I still entertain the strongest objection against taxes on food or raw material, and I still hold as strongly as ever that the adoption of a Protective policy is calculated to demoralise public life in this country, as it has demoralised that of the United States. As to Retaliation, I have not the least objection, provided that there is a reasonable prospect held out to us that, by the adoption of such a measure, we shall not do ourselves more harm than good, and provided also that we maintain a Navy of over-powering strength, a consideration which, if a retaliatory policy is pursued, will become one even of more vital importance than it is at present. Personally, I do not take nearly so gloomy a view of the prospects of Free Trade as that held by some other Free Traders. I cannot in the least accept the view that there is no other alternative than either the acceptance of the present Budget or the adoption of anything like an extreme Tariff Reform policy, and it is an extreme Tariff Reform policy to which I and others object, not so much to a moderate policy of Tariff Reform. It is absurd to suppose that any such policy can be carried out, involving as it does something like a fiscal revolution, without a much more decisive expression of public opinion in its favour than has yet been obtained, or is at all likely to be obtained. I repeat that in my view Unionist Free Traders who are in the position, as they often must be, that they must either abstain from voting or else vote for a Tariff Reformer, need not, in choosing the latter alternative, abandon any one of their essential principles, but may well adopt the latter course with a perfectly clear conscience. Voting for a Tariff Reformer is by no means the same thing as voting for Tariff Reform. It will merely imply that the Unionist Free Trader is prepared to proclaim a truce, and will lay aside his special ideas in order to subserve other, and, as I consider, even more important ends.
And what are those ends? The first and perhaps most important of all, is to ensure the continued existence of the effective Second Chamber The second

829
is to maintain the union with Ireland and thus prevent the disruption of the Empire. The two issues, that of the Second Chamber and the maintenance of the Empire, are intimately connected. This has been fully recognised by the leaders of the Irish Nationalist Party. A third end is to ensure the existence of the Established Church and to prevent the secularisation of education; and a fourth end is to combat Socialism. My Lords, I wish I could share the optimist view that is often expressed that Socialism in this country is a bugbear, but I am afraid that I am unable to do so. We have been living for the last half century and more relying on the very comfortable assurance that the good sense of the British nation and the free-play of our time-honoured institutions will always conjure any Socialistic dangers. I hope that may be the case. I cannot, however, forget that the main apostle and creator of Socialism, Earl Marx, who was a man of great ability and foresight, writing more than half a century ago, looked on Great Britain as a far more hopeful field for the development of his most pernicious theories than any Continental country. I cannot forget that many of the older economists, looking more especially to the unequal distribution of property in this country, shared this view, although they disagreed with Karl Marx on every other point.
I cannot blind myself to the fact that Socialism has made enormous strides in this country during the last few years. I do not mean revolutionary Socialism, of which I have little fear—indeed, I should be rather glad if we had a few more Victor Graysons in this country because they prove very useful danger signals—but rather the advance of those plausible and insiduous methods for making the worse appear the better cause, which have converted thousands of excellent and well-intentioned people to Socialism who would warmly resent the idea of being called Socialists. There are a very large number of people in this country who are Socialists without in the least knowing it, and I fear their number is increasing daily. I know that Unionist Free Traders are told that they should support the present Government, as the defenders of free imports, and because the Tariff Reformers are themselves tainted with Socialist ideas. I venture to express a hope that Unionist Free Traders will not be led away by this
830
very fallacious argument. I am perfectly well aware that from time immemorial there has always been a distinct connection between Protection and Socialism, but I would ask Unionist Free Traders to consider on which side the main danger really lies.
On the one hand you have a Party who are certainly not Socialists, but advocates of social reform, and every reasonable man and practical politician must admit that the extreme individualism of some fifty or sixty years ago has to be abandoned, and you also have a body of men as to whom I still cherish a hope that they may eventually bring forward some fiscal proposals to which no reasonable Free Trader can take any serious or reasonable exception. On the other hand, you have a Government which by its acts has done more to imperil the cause of Free Trade than all the arguments of the Tariff Reformers put together, and which, although it may have preserved free imports has, in my opinion, run counter to many of the leading principles of that economic system of which free imports merely constitute a part. When we see, not merely the rank and file, but even some of the leading members of the Radical Party coquetting with such questions as land and railway nationalisation, I say it is impossible to doubt on which side the main danger lies.
These, my Lords, broadly speaking, are, in my opinion, the main considerations which should be present to the mind of the Unionist Free Trader during the coming struggle. But let me add that they have, I venture to think, a right to ask for some amount of reciprocity. We Unionist Free Traders, holding, as we do, to opinions which it must be borne in mind were but yesterday those of the entire nation, think that we have at times not been treated with much fairness or consideration by some sections of the Unionist Party, and if I do not dwell on these grievances any more it is because I think that the present is a moment to assuage rather than to aggravate differences in the ranks of the Unionist Party. The struggle in which the Unionist Party is about to be engaged will be arduous, probably more so than any of years past. It appears to me that the chances of success will be enormously diminished by anything approaching to disunion. The Unionist Party will require,

831
not only every vote, but every voice it can obtain. The importance of this question is not to be measured by the loss or gain of some two or three seats. It is much more far-reaching. There are a good many Free Trade Unionists—far more, I believe, than is generally supposed—scattered about the constituencies. There are also a great many moderate men who, without being avowed Free Traders, are by no means ardent Tariff Reformers, and who, I have every reason to believe, in common with many Unionist Free Traders, are inclined to deeply resent the somewhat shortsighted, and, as I think, vindictive policy which has been adopted towards Unionist Free Traders by a few extreme sections of the Tariff Reform Party. I would ask, my Lords, is it wise, is it politic, just, or generous at the bidding of a few, who, without wishing to be discourteous, I really must call fanatics, to cast out from the Unionist Party such men as Lord Robert Cecil, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Bowles, and others, who have done yeoman service in the cause of the Unionist Party in Parliament, and whose only fault is that they have had the courage of their opinions and are not prepared to bow to the iron tyranny of the caucus? I cannot think that is wise, and inasmuch as I, and I think some other Unionist Free Traders, are prepared to use whatever influence we possess in the sense of promoting unity of action, I appeal confidently to those of your Lordships and others outside this House who do not share our views on the fiscal question, to reciprocate in the sense of doing whatever is possible to ensure that union which will, in itself, be an earnest of success. In any case, I wish to make it quite clear that, albeit I fully maintain my allegiance to Free Trade principles, I cannot, in the struggle which is now about to take place, in any way associate myself with measures calculated to embarrass the action of the noble Marquess behind me and his friends, and I earnestly hope that other Unionist Free Traders will follow my example.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I will not attempt to follow the noble Earl into the political views which he has expressed this afternoon. Suffice it for me to say that we always listen to the noble Earl in this House with profound respect. We recognise that his financial knowledge and experience are vast and profound, and
832
consequently I for my part was glad to hear that the noble Earl after mature consideration, found that he was not in favour of the financial proposals which are before us. I will not detain your Lordships in the remarks that I venture to make more than a brief space of time. I will, in the first place, examine the proposals of His Majesty's Government in the light of their effect on the finances of the country, and then I will examine them in the light of their effect on the position of your Lordships' House.
The financial proposals before us affect three classes of His Majesty's, subjects—the taxpayer, the labourer, and the financier. Closely connected with the interests of the taxpayer is the question of the relation between direct and indirect taxation. Let us bear in mind that at the beginning of the nineteenth century indirect taxation largely exceeded direct taxation. It was the aim of Liberal Statesmen and financiers to try and reduce that inequality, and Mr. Gladstone in 1861 spoke of the importance of preserving a just balance. He could not think, he said, of direct and indirect taxation without comparing them to two attractive sisters who had been introduced into the gay world of London each with an ample fortune and differing only in the respect that one was of a light and another of a dark complexion, or in some variety of manner, one being open and the other shy, retiring, and insinuating, and Mr. Gladstone went on to say that as Chancellor of the Exchequer, if not as a member of Parliament, he always thought it not only allowable but even an act of duty to pay his addresses to both. Later on Mr. Gladstone's example was followed by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, who, during the South African war, increased the Income Tax and at the same time imposed a duty on sugar, and up to this present time the Government have faithfully followed the traditions of their predecessors. So that to-day the relation between direct and indirect taxation is about equal.
But, my Lords, when we come to examine the proposals which are before us, and which we are called upon to pass, what are the facts which present themselves to our notice? They are that whereas the ratio between direct and indirect taxation, was about equal, the acceptance of the present I proposals would create a ratio of fifty-seven for direct taxation to forty-three for indirect taxation. No doubt it wall be claimed

833
by noble Lords opposite that this is sound finance. It is what they term "placing the burden on the broadest shoulders," making those taxpayers pay whom they consider most capable of bearing the taxes. Let us examine this contention a little more closely. If a citizen is called upon to pay increased contributions under the heading of direct taxation, surely he retrenches by reducing his expenditure on those simple luxuries such as wine, whisky, and tobacco which form the basis of indirect taxation; the result, therefore, is that excessive direct taxation tends to lower the yield of indirect taxation. Your Lordships will notice that the Government propose to get over this difficulty by increasing the Death Duties, raising the Income Tax, and imposing a Super Tax; so that they intend to increase the disparity and not in any way to restore the balance. In other words, the fiscal disease is to be cured by accentuating its cause.
Let me examine the effect of this inequality between direct and indirect taxation on the economic welfare of the country. Let me deal first of all with the Income Tax payer. The consideration of the Income Tax reminds me that we enjoy in this country 110 or 120 millions of money the result of income derived from foreign investments. It is calculated, I believe, that out of that sum eighty millions come to Great Britain and are taxed at the banks and thus brought within the area of the taxation of the Exchequer. But what would be the effect of those proposals for graduating and increasing the Income Tax as is specified in Clauses 65 and 66 of this Bill. The average citizen will think twice before he allows his income to be brought under the jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he may resort to perfectly legal methods to evade his national contributions to the State. There are many methods which have been suggested, some of them even by those who are supporters of noble Lords opposite. Income can be brought into this country, I believe in the shape of bullion or of pictures, or in the form of works of art, or of commodities, and then re-sold, and so far as I am aware that is a perfectly legitimate method and would defy detection. Again, if moneys the result of interest on foreign securities are reinvested abroad, only for quite a short period, only a year, is it not possible to bring those moneys back again into this country in the shape of capital, and consequently they would not come under the
834
system of taxation proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So much for income tax.
What are the Death Duties as amended in Clause 54, Schedule 2, of this Bill? Do not the same considerations apply equally to the accumulation of capital at the death of an individual? Moneys, for instance, which have been accumulated by an individual and which remain in a foreign bank under the account of two joint individuals, at the death of one of them, it seems to me, would not come under the area of the jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even the Government themselves have betrayed their anxiety in this matter. Is it not the fact that they have invited the co-operation of foreign Governments to disclose the private affairs of the citizens of their respective countries, and that these proposals on the part of His Majesty's Government have not been accepted by foreign Powers except in the case of France? I do not doubt it will be urged that it is unpatriotic on the part of any citizen to attempt to evade his proper contributions to the State. I am not hereto defend that proposition. We are not moralists here, we are legislators and the considerations before us are simply these, that opportunities do exist for the evasion of one particular form of tax by a certain section of His Majesty's subjects who are in possession of fluid and fugitive capital, while another section of the community who are in the enjoyment of revenue which by virtue of its immobility cannot escape but must bear the full force and weight of the tax. I leave the discussion of this particular tax with this final observation, that it is impossible to view a tax as equitable when it is clear that its imposition might be followed by a whole series of legal evasions on the part of those citizens upon whom it is designed to fall. The point is a pertinent one because it is supported by the collective wisdom of His Majesty's Government themselves. Clause 95 of this Bill displays an official fear of evasion, for it lays down that a penalty of imprisonment is to be enforced upon those citizens who, being less astute than their neighbours, fail to invoke the law sufficiently to their aid.
I now come to the case of the labourer, the wage-earner who is dependent upon capital. I do not think that it can be a source of anxiety to us if capital should leave these shores if we are assured that this country has got as much capital as it requires, and that it cannot reasonably

835
absorb any more. That point was most lucidly brought out last night by the noble Lord who spoke from the Back Benches, but when we hear the Prime Minister rejoicing at the departure of capital, surely we may ask whether its emigration is due to the fact that capital can no longer find suitable investment in this country, owing to its abundance here already. The answer seems pretty clear. The high rate of interest upon Consolidated Stock, combined with the exceptionally high percentage of skilled artisans who are out of employment—7·7—clearly and conclusively proves that that is not the case. My Lords, I have always understood that the citizen would much sooner invest his money at home where it is under his immediate control and supervision. The facts which I venture to bring to your Lordships' notice place it beyond doubt that there is a field for investment in this country.
Why, then, is capital going abroad? It is going abroad because it is safer abroad. But why is it more secure abroad? The inroads upon capital under the terms of Part III and Part IV of this Finance Bill are so severe relative to the demands made upon capital by Exchequers in other parts of the world, that it is no exaggeration to say that His Majesty's Government have by their financial proposals succeeded in displacing the centre of financial security. I would not have ventured to deal with this subject of capital, in which no doubt we are considered to be peculiarly and personally interested, were it not that the relations between capital and labour are so closely interwoven. It cannot be a matter of indifference to the citizen of this country if the interest on foreign investments alone is spent in Great Britain, or whether the capital itself is invested in this country, and if it be true that capital and labour are inseparably bound up together, if it be true that they are mutually interdependent, then if one party to the bargain goes away to different lands and takes his money with him, the other party—the wage-earner—must either be left at home to starve or emigrate. The latter alternative seems the more probable one to be adopted; but, surely, my Lords, the international position of our country is not such that we can contemplate to-day a stationary population with equanimity.
My Lords, I pass to the final consideration,
836
that of the financier, and I only allude to it in order to show your Lordships that the attack of the Government on capital is complete. Lord Revelstoke pointed out last night the position of the foreign market, and I believe it is a fact to-day that the American stock market has gained a prominence verging on predominance in South America, and, indeed, even in the Far East. In these distant fields it is becoming more difficult every day for Great Britain to maintain a strong position. The imposition of new and heavy Stamp Duties under Clauses 73 to 79 of this Bill may suffice to turn the issue definitely against us. I believe that these fears are shared by many; they certainly were shared by Lord Revelstoke last night, and it is a significant fact that the opposition to these particular proposals of the Finance Bill has been strongly endorsed by the majority of those, irrespective of Party, whose names rightly represent the collective wisdom of the City.
Let me pass quite briefly over the second aspect of the case. The first fifty-four clauses of this Finance Bill, tending as they do to single out two classes of the community for exceptional financial treatment, are brought forward with intent to undermine the political power of your Lordships' House. It is within your Lordships' recollection that the Licensing Bill of last year sought to reduce by its proposals one-third of the existing licences within fourteen years, and that at the end of eighteen or twenty years all licences should revert absolutely to the State. On that measure being rejected by this House we believe that the country supported us, and we still have every ground for belief that that action was in harmony with popular wishes. But under the proposals in Clauses 43 and 44 of this Bill, if they were allowed to come into operation, the position of the brewer would be absolutely crippled, and certainly one-third of the licences in the period of years contemplated under the Bill would be reduced. You will therefore notice that the end aimed at in the proposals which were rejected by your Lordships last year are now to be attained under the guise and under the supposed safe conduct of a Finance Bill. The Government are trying to make your Lordships stultify your decision of last year. Either in order to penalise a class or to gain a Party end, Ministers have called to their aid a constitutional weapon such as no previous Administration have ventured to employ.

837
But the spirit of Party vindictiveness failed to find full expression in an attack upon a single class. It was only by an attack upon the licensed trade together with a campaign against the landed interest that the Government could insure that whatever the decision of your Lordships with regard to this Finance Bill was, they could claim that that decision was based on selfish considerations.
My Lords, we are to be placed in a political dilemma. If we accept the financial proposals before us we shall be told that we have sacrificed those whom noble Lords opposite call our political allies in obedience to an instinct of self-preservation. If, on the other hand, we reject these proposals we shall be told that we have done so out of selfish and egotistical considerations, and not with a view to the welfare and prosperity of the community as a whole. My Lords, for fear of being denounced as an egoist, and one deeply interested in land monopoly, I will not discuss the details of the land clauses. They were fully dealt with last night by the noble Marquess. It is sufficient for me to say this, that involving as they do the maximum of expenditure by the State for a minimum return to the Exchequer, they seem to me to be the most curious financial proposals ever submitted to your Lordships' House. The only other comment I make upon them is that they have been supported by language of peculiar vindictiveness and remarkable abuse unparalleled, so far as I am aware, in our public and our political controversies. These sections of the community, the land interest and the licensed trade, have been singled out to bear a special degree of increased taxation without one single sober piece of evidence having been produced throughout the whole of this debate to show that the increased burdens imposed on these two sections of the community would in the long run be of benefit to the country at large. I have ventured to point out that the character of these proposals, destroying as they do the balance between direct and indirect taxation, is injurious alike to the capitalists and to the wage-earning classes, and that it threatens the position of the British money market. I have ventured to show, too, that the motive which inspires those actions is not a single-minded pursuit of the national welfare, but is tainted by a desire to strike at those whose existence is a bar to the dominion of the demagogue; and I say,
838
both by virtue of their character and their motives, that these proposals should not pass into law until they have been submitted to the judgment of the people of this country.
Will your Lordships permit me to go one step further? These financial proposals, tested by a standard by which the Government themselves would claim to be judged, mark a breach in our financial traditions. The canons of taxation laid down by Adam Smith are always accepted by noble Lords opposite and by all Free-Traders as a direct economic revelation. Adam Smith said that taxation should be equal. This Budget discriminates against classes. Adam Smith said that taxation should be certain. The sudden imposition of a Super Tax is arbitrary. Adam Smith said that taxes should be levied at a convenient moment. The increased Death Duties would fall at a time of inevitable financial disorganisation. Adam Smith said that taxation should be cheap to collect. The land taxes are dear to collect. Surely, my Lords, when the Government bring forward financial proposals which, as this debate has shown, have not received the mead of approval from the majority of your Lordships, and in addition it is clear that these proposals violate the financial doctrines which they themselves were elected to uphold, surely the Government need a special degree of assurance that the people of England are in agreement with them? But in spite of the special need of such an assurance His Majesty's Ministers steadfastly refuse to refer to the country, except, of course, in their perorations. The question, therefore, is whether we have the right to step in and claim that the people should be consulted.
Last night the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack dealt at great length with matters referring to the Paper Duties Bill of 1860, and I must ask your Lordships to kindly permit me to read one or two extracts which are very pertinent to the consideration of this matter. In moving the Second Reading of that Bill in 1860, Lord Granville, the Government spokesman, said—
"The legal technical right of rejecting I do not deny. The very preamble of the Bill shows it. The question being put four times to your Lordships' House shows it."
The constitutional aspect of this question was examined with great erudition by Lord

839
Lyndhurst, one of the most honourable and venerable members of your Lordships' House, in a speech delivered on his eighty-ninth birthday. "I take leave to say," declared Lord Lyndhurst—
"that there is not an instance to be found in which the House of Commons has controverted our right to reject Money Bills."
Lord Lyndhurst propounded a doctrine which will be endorsed by every noble Lord in this House who proposes to vote for the Amendment. "We exercise those rights," he said "not for ourselves, but for the people." The Bill was rejected, and in the following July the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, moved three Resolutions in the House of Commons, the second of which explicitly lays down and admits your Lordships' right to reject Money Bills, though it goes on to observe that the exercise of this right has always been viewed with peculiar jealousy by the House of Commons. I must confess, when I listened to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack last night and he reminded your Lordships of those Resolutions, that I was anxious to hear the noble and learned Lord read that second Resolution, and I felt when he quoted the Resolutions in their general form that his researches had been of too discriminating a character. My Lords, the Prime Minister's words on this occasion were emphatic. He said—
"It is well known that the Bills so prepared and framed by us cannot pass into law without the assent of the Lords; and it is clear that an authority whose assent is necessary to give a proposal the force of law must, by the very nature of things, be at liberty to dissent and refuse its sanction. To take from the Lords the power of dissenting to a Bill to which their assent is now required you would need an Act of Parliament to which they must themselves be a party, or you must by a revolutionary proceeding subvert our existing Constitution."
There are to-day some who, anxious to turn constitutional theory to their own ends, are willing to assert that it is your Lordships' House which now intends by a revolutionary proceeding to subvert our existing Constitution. The debate on the Resolutions led to a speech from Mr. Disraeli, which was of special interest because he considered the method of combining all the Tax Bills into a single Finance Bill, which was actually adopted in the following year. He said—
"We do not—at least I, for one, and the Prime Minister, for another, do not—question the right of the House of Lords to reject such a Bill."
Mr. Disraeli went on to foreshadow a
840
Budget which it would be absurd to deny the rights of your Lordships' House to reject, and his description of that Budget was very similar to that of the Budget now before the House. In the following year the various separate proposals were combined into a single measure, and this was the comment on the manœuvre offered by Lord Robert Cecil, the father of the noble Marquess sitting behind me—
"Nothing can be more vain and more futile than the device by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempts to fetter the action of the House of Lords for future years. Why, Sir, if the occasion should again happen—which I pray may not be the case—that the House of Commons should act so madly and improperly as it acted last year, and that it should call down upon itself the condemnation of the public, the House of Lords will not be fettered by this or any other form from taking its legitimate operation."
I cannot help feeling that the views which Mr. Disraeli expressed in 1860 on the constitutional position of your Lordships' House are indeed different from those laid down by the noble and learned Lord last night. When that Bill came back to your Lordships' House in 1861, the Duke of Rutland moved its rejection, and although it was not pressed to a Division the constitutional legality of that action was accepted by men like Lord Granville, Lord Derby, the Duke of Argyll and Lord Grey. The cumulative effect of the views expressed in 1860 and 1861 are, to my mind, overwhelming, and I venture to say your Lordships will not find a right more definitely established by law, more absolutely justified by custom, practice and tradition, or more conclusively endorsed by leading statesmen of both Parties in either House than the right of your Lordships to reject a Money Bill.
Taking this point as proved, the question which now arises for your Lordships is whether this occasion is one on which we should exercise the right which we possess, but which, like all rights, should be used, as the noble Marquess reminded us last night, with circumspection and with extreme discretion. My Lords, we have had occasion in previous debates to notice the growing power of the bureaucracy. It is now urged that our political activities should be suspended, our political functions interrupted, and our political rights abrogated, because their exercise is in conflict with the convenience of the bureaucracy. The Government, together with the bureaucracy, claim to override the sentiments

841
of your Lordships' House, forgetting that the assertion of such a claim is to ignore the fact that ultimate sovereignty resides—I use a constitutional phrase—not with the King in Council but with the King in Parliament. My Lords, if such a doctrine were allowed to prevail, it would profoundly affect the position of your Lordships' House. For what is the position you find yourselves in to-day? The relations of this House with the lower House, which the Government propose to disturb, are in themselves a monument to the political sagacity of the British people. Their adjustment has been perfected by the genius of great men. That subtle and delicate equipoise has been preserved practically unchanged during centuries by the statecraft of leading men in either House, so that to-day it bears something of that mysterious sanctity which time alone can give. It is as with the Abbey within whose shadow we deliberate. Inspired architects planned its noble outline, its solid walls, its flowing buttresses, and its dominating towers. Zealous masons laboured to transmute the architectural vision into the reality of solid stone. But not all the splendour of the initial conception nor the patient services of its builders could have sufficed to win for the Abbey the place which it holds in our hearts to-day. Time has touched it with his finger, and to his ineffable touch it owes its ultimate consecration. So I say it is with the relations between the two Houses of Parliament in the vital matter of finance. They, too, are the result of a noble political inspiration. They, too, have been slowly upreared in the passage of the centuries. They, too, have been hallowed by tradition. Yet to-day the Government, acting through the Lower House, are prepared to lay rude and irreverent hands upon a political fabric which has won the admiration of the civilised world. This magnificent monument, this unique expression of the temperament of our people is to be shattered at the bidding of a demagogue from Wales, and may I respectfully add, by the threat of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I made no threat.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Neither the words of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, nor the silence of the noble Earl, Lord Crewe—a self-constituted
842
mute at the obsequies of the British Constitution—non the remarks of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches have in any way shaken my confidence that the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, ought to receive our united and unanimous support.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, in the peroration which he has addressed to the House, the noble Duke who has just sat down made two mistakes which it seems to me to fall to my duty to correct. By his characterisation of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who so far as his own personal responsibility in this matter is concerned is well able to defend himself, the noble Duke implied that this measure came up to your Lordships' House at the bidding of my right hon. friend and of him alone. Let me disabuse the noble Duke, if I can, of any such notion. This Budget has behind it the united and unanimous support of His Majesty's Government, and it is with the support, and the overwhelming support, of the House of Commons, that it comes to your Lordships' House. Another notion, which I seem to detect in the peroration of the noble Duke was this, that in his view we, the Government, are the aggressors, and the challengers in this quarrel. That is not our view, and I shall endeavour to show why it is not our view in the course of the observations which I shall ask leave to address, to your Lordships.
The noble Duke travelled over a somewhat wide field. He condemned the the alteration in the balance between direct and indirect taxation which has been brought about by this Budget, and he seemed to think that because a certain percentage of the national revenue was collected in indirect taxation, and a certain percentage in direct taxation, that that ended the matter. My Lords, we have to see on whose shoulders these burdens are laid. It is a fact that four-fifths of the indirect taxation of this country is paid by the working classes, and if your Lordships wish to inquire what additional burden is laid upon the working classes as compared with the rich, I will give you one figure by which you can test it. The extra burden laid upon the working man with a wage of 30 s. per week is 2d. in the pound. In the case of a person with an income of £5,000 a year, the extra taxation

843
which he is called upon to bear is 5d. in the pound. Is there any one of your Lordships who will deny that the man with £5,000 a year is far better able to bear the additional burden laid upon him, although it is more than double that which is laid upon the working man, than the man with 30 s. a week? In the one case it is some slight subtraction from the margin of income which is spent on luxury, or in whatever way you like. Would any of your Lordships maintain that the man with £5,000 a year must suffer in the necessaries of life because 5d. in the pound is taken from him as an additional sum in taxation? But, my Lords, in the case of the working man, it is very different. Take 2d. in the pound from the working man, and you touch possibly his house accommodation, his food, his education for his children; you cripple that man's expenditure, and when you look at the burden of direct and indirect taxation—I do not wish to trouble further with regard to this matter on this occasion, but the noble Duke alluded to it—you must look upon whose shoulders you place the burden before you can determine whether the burden is a just one or not.
Then the noble Duke went on to characterise our proposals as an attack upon capital. The noble Marquess last night gave some figures with regard to the public issues of capital for home undertakings, which I confess I was not able to follow or to understand. He said that while in the year 1908 fifty-five millions was the total of public issues for home undertakings, in the first ten months of 1909 that fifty-five millions was represented by a sum of twenty millions. I have done my best to verify those figures. I cannot understand where they came from, but I have ascertained this, that so far as public issues are concerned—and that does not represent the measure of industrial enterprise at all—they have not varied very greatly during the last six years for home undertakings. But if we must be particular, if your Lordships will look at the figures you will find that in spite of a high bank rate, and in spite of the American financial catastrophe of two years ago, the public issues for home undertakings during the last three years are considerably greater in amount than they were during the previous three years, which, be it noted, were the last three years of the late Unionist Administration. But, my Lords, if the noble Marquess's figures are right, what
844
do they mean? They mean probably—I am hazarding the view—that the proportion between the money raised publicly for home industrial undertakings and that raised privately has varied. The figures afford no proof whatever that there has been a reduction in the amount of money raised for home undertakings, for, as your Lordships are well aware, not all industrial undertakings come to London for their money, and not all of those undertakings raise their money publicly; they are subscribed for privately, and their figures are therefore not obtainable and consequently not comparable.
The noble Lord, Lord Revelstoke, said last night that he was bound to protest, and to point out to your Lordships that Consols had fallen from eighty-nine to eighty-three. I should have liked to ask the noble Lord whether he would have protested equally strongly when some years ago Consols fell from 113 or 114 to eighty-nine, a much greater fall and the cause of which is much more easily traced than the cause of the fall at present. Then it has been hinted in this debate, and it has been widely alleged outside, that the fact that British capital goes abroad is a bad sign. Surely it is the other way. The fact that there is British capital floating into foreign undertakings is an index of the prosperity and the financial welfare of this country, and so long as industrial undertakings in this country can borrow for their purposes at a lower rate than the German Empire can upon its public credit, I do not think that there is much wrong with the financial position of this country. The corollary, of course, of the implication in this statement with regard to British capital is that this country is not a desirable country for men of great wealth to live in. I ask your Lordships to think in what other country there is the same security, the same protection, as there is in this country for men of large wealth and great means to live in. There is one cause, and it is a temporary cause, of disturbance of the business interests of this country at this moment, and that is the fear of a General Election. A disturbance and interruption of the trade of the country has been unexpectedly thrust upon the people; let me add, not by the action of the Government, but by those who are its critics.
I think I have said enough to indicate that I share the opinion of the noble Earl

845
who opened the debate this afternoon, and I think I may quote what he said in support of what I have now urged upon your Lordships' attention when he used the words "that he was not of opinion that black ruin stared us in the face in this country." But I confess, if there has been too much emphasis in my humble judgment laid on this aspect of the case, there has in other respects been no adequate recognition of the gravity of the case which we are now arguing. The question whether your Lordships' House can, as the noble Marquess put it, legally reject this or any other Money Bill, does not seem to me to be much more than a purely academic one. That is admitted on all hands; but when we go on to discuss the further question whether your Lordships ought, as the noble Marquess puts it, to reject this Bill, it is perhaps permissible to point out that the noble Marquess could not quote one single instance nor one single authority in support of what he urged upon your Lordships, for the very good reason that what you propose has never been done before. Parliament has never, in all its history, at the bidding of the House of Lords refused Supplies to the Crown. There have been various changes in the form of procedure in regard to Money Bills, but during all the centuries through which this ancient and honourable House has lived, it has never taken the step which your Lordships propose to take at the suggestion of the noble Marquess.
The noble Marquess said that there would be "a little chaos." He suggested that with the co-operation of the Government that chaos could be avoided. The noble Marquess must know very well that to anything which savours of tampering with the privileges of the House of Commons the Government can be no party. The relations between the two Houses of Parliament have for years subsisted on the principle of give and take. The noble Marquess seems to think that some Budget might be patched up—some accommodation, I believe is the financial term, some temporary accommodation might be provided—and he seemed to indicate that there the trouble and the difficulty would end. My Lords, if you take this step, it is an irrevocable one. Things can never be again what they once were. In the first instance, you destroy the authority which has hitherto attached to Resolutions of the House of Commons in the matter of
846
raising taxation. You destroy the control of the House of Commons—the exclusive control which the House of Commons has hitherto exercised over expenditure. You paralyse the Executive. You may have financial chaos; you will certainly have what I may call constitutional chaos; for you propose to abrogate the cardinal constitutional convention which has hitherto regulated the relations between the two Houses. And if you once take that step you bring things to a deadlock from which there is no escape but by some revolutionary change. The Constitution of this country is surely devised so that we may ascertain the will of the people through the elected House of Parliament. That, I take it, is the meaning of living under representative Government.
The Resolution which the noble Marquess has moved plausibly seeks to identify his purpose with that which is the purpose, of our Constitution. The same plea might be urged about any Bill. The same plea might be urged every session about every Bill until you come to not Government by representation but Government by plebiscite. Added to that, it is surely doubtful whether any General Election gives an utterly decisive vote on any particular issue. You have financial confusion, and you have constitutional confusion, and you have what I may call parliamentary confusion by this step.
Now, the noble Marquess in his speech, if I may turn to that for a moment, made a skilful appeal to all your Lordships who may be inclined to follow him. I have heard of an Omnibus Bill and an Omnibus Resolution. The noble Marquess's speech was certainly an Omnibus Speech. He tried in the case of those who had objections to any of the proposals contained in the Finance Bill, to attract them all to his standard. He mentioned first the Death Duties; called them odious and capricious. My Lords, the principle of the Death Duties is the same now as it was fifteen years ago when they were first enacted, and during twelve of those fifteen years the Party which noble Lords opposite support has been in power. They have had their own opportunity of altering or modifying the Death Duties. But let me remind noble Lords opposite that there are others besides the noble Marquess who will have something to say to these proposals. It is common

847
knowledge that the Leader in the House of Commons, whatever might be thought by your Lordships here, while he has strenuously objected to the land proposals and the licensing proposals has certainly thrown his ægis over the Super Tax proposals, the Income Tax proposals, and possibly over the Death Duties.
We have heard of dishing the Whigs, but it occurs to me that some of your Lordships may possibly in years to come, if the event should fall out other than we hope and expect, find yourselves whatever occurs in the dilemma of being asked by your own leaders to support what may not differ except possibly in degree from the proposals which are now before you for additional Income Tax and Super Tax and Death Duty. So that really, if we come to look at it, the objection to the Budget, if we are obliged to discuss merits, centres in the land and licensing proposals. Let me say a word about them. Your Lordships will remember the Land Valuation Bill which came before your Lordships' House a couple of years ago. What was the criticism levelled at that Bill? The criticism was, "This is taxation in disguise; this taxation is for no purpose unless it is for the purpose of levying taxation; we will not pass this Bill; it does not disclose your whole plan; we want to see your whole scheme, and then we will consider it."
Now, my Lords, you have before you the whole scheme. There is a tax which is proposed to be levied and that tax finds its place, as all taxes do, in the Finance Bill of the year. But now, forsooth, your objection is that valuation, which your Lordships know is a necessary concomitant of any such tax, is attached to this tax, and, on so slender a foundation as that, some critics of the Budget found the accusation that what is called "tacking" is a part of this Budget. Let me say a word about these valuation proposals. It cannot be said that they are new to the country. On four separate occasions before the last General Election they were discussed and divided on in the House of Commons during the time of the late Unionist Administration. On the two latest of these occasions they were carried by majorities in the House of Commons, and on one occasion the seconder of the Motion, that the Bill be read a second time, was a member of the Unionist Party. It is well known that all great municipalities favour these proposals. Do
848
your Lordships think that you have a very strong case in resisting these proposals, a case that will be considered when it is referred to the country by those whose judgment you seek? Will you be able to make out that this is a novel proposal? Will you be able to maintain that it was not before the country at the last Election? I confess I should like a stronger foundation for a great constitutional change such as you now propose.
Now, let me say a word about the other land taxes which excite great animosity. I cannot myself believe that your Lordships have realised the import and the scope of these taxes. Certain lands are taxed, but the values accruing to this present hour are all exempt. The value of no land to the date upon which the Bill comes into operation is touched. There is nothing whatever to shake the security of any investments of any property held in land, whether it be held by high or low, from one end of the country to the other. There is another exemption. All improvements which are due to the expenditure of the owner are exempt. Urban land which is built upon and fully developed is exempt. Not a penny more is placed upon urban land by this Budget so long as it is fully developed and built upon. What is proposed is this, and this alone. Starting from the present accrued value and excluding all future value I due to his own outlay, in the case of land which might be developed or is withheld, for whatever reason, from the market, it is proposed that one halfpenny in the pound on capital value shall be the owner's contribution to public funds in respect of that land, and that when he realises it, twenty per cent. of the increment which he then receives shall be contributed to the public funds. Those and those alone are the limits of what is proposed in this Budget in regard to land. "Ah," noble Lords will say—and this was implied by the speech of the noble Marquess last night—" but you will ruin agriculture." The noble Marquess said, "You have singled out for taxation a form of wealth derived from an enterprise in which the profits are relatively small and uncertain," and from the context, which I have read carefully more than once, because I would be the last to misinterpret the noble Marquess's words, I have no doubt he means agricultural land. My Lords, all agricultural land is exempt from these new burdens. There is not a penny placed upon agricultural land by the Budget, as my

849
noble friend Lord Ribblesdale pointed out last night. What is more, this Budget, as he also pointed out, is the vehicle of great benefits to the agricultural interest and to the owners of land. The allowance under the Income Tax Schedule for maintenance and repairs which has hitherto stood at the limit of twelve and a-half per cent. is now to be increased to a limit of twenty-five per cent., and in the Development proposals, and in the Road proposals which are linked to this Finance Bill, agriculturists outside this House have recognised this Budget as conveying great benefits to the agricultural industry and to the owners of land.
Then, my Lords, there are other objections which your Lordships take to this Budget, namely, with regard to the Licensing proposals. I say the case is equally strong with regard to the Licensing proposals as it is in regard to land. It is absolutely impossible to my mind to obtain a secure foundation for so great a constitutional change as is suggested from these Licensing proposals. For twenty-five years, I think the noble Lord on the Woolsack said last night, the question of licensing has been before the public of this country; and however strong the objections of noble Lords, or those otherwise interested in these proposals may be, it would surely have been possible for them to have accepted the proposals as they are, and to have modified them if experience had shown that they were unduly hard, but they are certainly not novel. My Lords, that is the case which the noble Marquess put forward last night for what he has proposed to your Lordships.
I should like to be permitted to make two observations upon the situation which is disclosed. In my opinion, the electorate will be right if they take the view which I have already expressed, that the Opposition are the aggressors in this matter. There is in this country a strong sense of fairplay, and I doubt whether your Lordships quite recognise the position of any Liberal Government under the present situation. It has been put before your Lordships in language and with power and force, which I cannot pretend to exercise, by noble Lords who are present on this occasion, that you will never get the people of this country—and it will be a sad day for this country if you ever were to get them—to fail to recognise the essential unfairness of the position (which we were reminded last night is only
850
of comparatively recent date) under which there is a permanent and overwhelming majority in this House opposed to the Liberal Party. The essential unfairness of the position is that in a system which affects to be just to both Parties, we should go through all the turmoil and expense and labour of a General Election, and in the case of a Conservative victory we should meet with no check and no opposition from your Lordships' House, while in the case of a Liberal victory we should meet with nothing but opposition, as we have met with during the last four years from the same House. I believe it is true that since the year 1864 only one Bill reaching your Lordships from a Government with which you sympathised has been substantially altered. It is certainly otherwise with Liberal administrations. These two subjects which I have mentioned, Land and Licensing, and I might mention many others, have already been the subject of consideration by your Lordships at the instance of this Government, and your Lordships have rejected proposals made immediately after the fresh sense of the country had been taken upon them, and with all the impulse behind them of a new Parliament with an overwhelming majority in support of the Government. In my view, I maintain that the action of your Lordships is a gratuitous attack upon the present situation, a gratuitous extension of what is considered to be the privilege of this House in the Constitution of this country, and an unprovoked attack upon the position of the other House in the Constitution of the country.
The second point I would like to mention is this, that once this has been broached, we are done for ever with the old state of things. By refraining from the exercise of the full legal rights of this House, by custom, by convention, by tolerance, by forbearance, by the exercise of sagacity and true public spirit, subordinating in the end, on some occasions not without pressure, other interests, the relations of the two Houses have been left as they are at this moment. The character of this House may alter. Nobody can be blind to the fact that, whereas we have heard little of it in this House, there is a raging, tearing propaganda throughout the country in favour of Tariff Reform. We know enough of Tariff Reform, or of Protection, which is its real name and its operations in other countries, to be apprehensive that if any such system

851
should ever be established in this country, it would inevitably profoundly alter the character of the constitution of your Lordships' House. There is no elected element in this House, and as I say the difficulties between the two Houses have been got over in the past by mutual forbearance. Whatever may be the outcome of this conflict, I cannot believe that permanently the forty-two millions of the people of this country will allow 600 or more of your Lordships to assume control over the finance and the taxation which they have to bear. A noble Lord last night quarrelled with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for saying that any future Liberal Government must secure itself against future dangers which he anticipated. He was rebuked by one of your Lordships for so saying. Your Lordships know perfectly well that no Liberal Government will ever be placed in power in this country, unless it is ready to take such steps as will secure itself in future from the harassing opposition to which the present Government has been subjected. The relations of these Houses—if the Constitution is to be thrown into the melting pot—must be modified. How and when remains to be seen, but modified they certainly must be. Noble Lords do not contradict that statement.
You have a choice of two ways. You have the old way, the traditional way, in consonance with the history of this country, which shows the gradual broadening of the liberties of the people; or you have the violent unconstitutional revolution which you now seek to provoke. My Lords, I prefer the former way. I urge your Lordships to reject this Amendment not because as a member of the Liberal Government I am not ready to take up the challenge—I am as ready as any man here, and as strong a Party man as any man here—but I do see that in this step there is a grave departure, the consequences of which no man in this House can at present foresee. The noble Earl who opened the debate this afternoon alleged as one of his reasons for withdrawing his support from the noble Marquess that he considered that there might be grave embarrassment to this country in time of war if it were involved in a prolonged and severe constitutional struggle. America, we all know, lost its shipping during the Civil War; and it is common knowledge that we ourselves are still severely handicapped industrially and financially by the leeway which we lost during the South African war.
852
And it may be only too true what the noble Earl urged upon your Lordships' attention that the existence of a long constitutional struggle might seriously prejudice this country in time of war if that should come. But there are other interests and there are other developments besides the incidents of war. Two or three years ago only this country was ringing from end to end with criticisms of our educational inefficiency, of the backwardness of this country in regard to education. Your Lordships heard last night from the right rev. Prelate his view of the social condition of the people, and there is no doubt much to be done for the development of the full strength of this country physically as well as mentally. Do you believe you will ever get the attention of this country to self-improvement and to self-development if, for the next five or more years, we are engaged in a prolonged constitutional struggle? My Lords, I believe that the gravity of the issues which we are debating is hidden from us because we do not know what the future may unfold, but I would appeal to your Lordships to consider whether you must take this irrevocable step, not only whether the case is a slender one on which to base what you propose, but whether the penalty may not be one altogether disproportionate to the offence.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, it is with very considerable trepidation and perturbation that I rise to address your Lordships after the terrible philippic which has just been delivered to us. I do not know whether I shall be even able to leave this House in safety. I came here believing that what we were going to discuss was as to whether this Budget was fair to certain classes of persons who are to be taxed under it; but if we are to be guided by the noble Lord, it appears to be that the issue is not fairplay to any taxpayers, but fairplay to any possible Liberal Government. My Lords, if your Lordships dare vote for this Amendment which has been laid before you to-night you have done for ever with the old state of things. What is to follow? The noble Lord does not tell us. He says that such steps will be taken as are necessary. Pray, what steps? Because it would be interesting to know. He said that your Lordships ignore the force of a Resolution of the House of Commons. Pray, what force has a Resolution of the House of Commons over this House? My Lords, when this

853
matter is taken up in the sense in which the noble Lord proposes it shall be taken up, he will find that what will be required will be an Act of Parliament, and not a mere Resolution of the House of Commons.
I do not know that your Lordships will expect me to go at any great length into the speech which we have just listened to. It began by depicting to the House a delightful economic state of things in this country at the present time. The noble Lord, if I remember right, contrasted the public financial issues of the last three years with the public financial issues of the last three years of the administration of the preceding Government. I do not know where he got his figures from, and therefore I am not able to check them, but he said to this side of the House "Remember this, that Consols which stood at 113 fell to eighty-nine." Does not the noble Lord remember that when they were at 113 the interest was two and three-quarters per cent., and with regard to the state of financial affairs at the present time, I must confess that if it ever fell to me to require financial advice, I think I should prefer to consult Lord Revelstoke before I took the opinion of the noble Lord opposite on such matters. But, my Lords, I leave that.
The noble Lord made a statement, and said we could contradict it. The question, it seems to me, is if I were going to contradict the noble Lord's statements I do not know which I should begin by contradicting first. What I should like to do would be to have the noble Lord in Committee on the clauses of this Bill, because the language that he used with regard to this Bill I can only say was not consistent with the way in which I have read it. I will just give him a single instance. He said that on land which might be developed a duty of ½d. in the pound was to be imposed. It is on all undeveloped land, and undeveloped land is stated in the Bill to mean all land which is not covered with buildings. The noble Lord shakes his head. I should be glad if he would correct me if I am wrong.
LORD PENTLAND: Land which has nothing but a purely agricultural value has no taxation upon it. It is only when the land has a prospective building value, and, therefore, in my language, might be developed, that it is subject to this tax.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I did not know that the noble Lord was speaking
854
of agricultural land only, and moreover, I do not think that la; was. What he was speaking of was the tax on undeveloped land, and undeveloped land, as I said just now, is the land which under the Bill is not covered with buildings. But, as I say, we are not in Committee. I very much wish that we were. The noble Lord and I have had some conversations before, and I daresay we may have some more, but at the present time I am dealing with this Bill, and perhaps the only further objection that I would take to the noble Lord himself is to the statement he made that he was afraid your Lordships do not realise the responsibility which attaches to you for the course that you may take with regard to this Bill. My Lords, I can only say for myself, that having been for a very long time a member of your Lordships' House I have never entered on the consideration of any question with more responsibility. I do not think I have ever entered on the consideration of any question with so deep a sense of responsibility as I have with regard to this matter. Undoubtedly this Bill is a most important Bill. This debate is a most important debate, and I am ready to confess to your Lordships that for a long time after this subject was before the other House of Parliament up to a very recent date, which may be measured only by three or four weeks, I have been anxious to pass the Bill, because I am so well aware of the gravity of the circumstances which must arise if we differ on this point from the House of Commons. I regret to say that after considering every circumstance of the case, after reading, I believe, every debate that took place on it in the House of Commons, I have been reluctantly driven to the conclusion that there is no other course possible except to adopt that which is indicated in this Amendment.
This Amendment exactly expresses—and I thank the noble Marquess for it personally—the attitude of my mind towards this question. I should be sorry to see a word taken from the Amendment or a word added to it. There are no theatrical epithets in it. There is nothing in it which anyone, however malignant his intentions may be, can say contains any threat, veiled or direct, to the House of Commons. It simply expresses the opinion of your Lordships that, you would not be justified in passing this Bill without its being laid before the people. I confess

855
that I was considerably confirmed in my opinion after very carefully listening to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack last night. What did he say? He admitted that your Lordships have a perfect right to reject this Bill or to dispose of it by means of an Amendment, but what he said was that it would not be constitutional for your Lordships to do it. If that is the only argument that can be brought against the conduct of the Opposition in this matter, there is very little to be said, I am convinced, in favour of that contention. It eases my mind very much indeed. The noble Lord said that there is no precedent for action of this kind on the part of the House of Lords. If there is no parallel and if there is no precedent for the action of the House of Lords in this matter, is there any parallel or is there any precedent for the action of the House of Commons in putting forward such a Budget? This Budget is not a mere statement of the money which is required for the financial conditions of the year. It is rather a Liberal programme. It is a statement of a new policy. It is a policy which would necessarily occupy several years to develop. There are objections to it, and the first I will take to it is—I do not know whether this will be grateful to noble Lords opposite—that the first and the greatest objection to the Bill is that it is a distinct advance and a long step in the direction of Socialism. I do not make that statement on my own authority. I make it on the authority of the Socialist members of the House of Commons. Here is one. This is what Mr. Barnes said a few days ago in Scarborough:—
"Five years ago the idea of a Liberal Government introducing such a measure as the present Finance Bill would have been deemed outside practical politics. It occurs to me that having regard to the fact that we have got a Budget which does give us a chunk of Socialism we, as consistent Socialists, ought to vote for the Party which is pledged to it."
Mr. Keir Hardie said on September 20:—
"We are supporting this Budget well knowing that it is the first step towards the ideal which we have in view—the absorption by the community for the use of the community of unearned incomes whether derived from land or from other sources."
This Bill, no doubt, only deals with land. "Other sources" will follow. And Mr. Barnes, speaking on this occasion in the House of Commons, said:—
"This new tax on land, I agree, is to insert the thin end of the wedge. We have the thin end of the wedge driven in this year, and we shall be able to drive that wedge home in future."
856
I could go on quoting to your Lordships. I have many more of those statements here, I think, however, I have quoted enough. But it is not merely the Socialist members who consider that this Budget is of a Socialist character. It is considered Socialistic by members of Parliament, and by no less a person—I do not see him present—than one of the newly-made Peers in your Lordships' House. What did Lord Joicey say of this Bill? He said—
"In my judgment the Budget violates many I principles which I have always considered necessary to sound finance and is a complete surrender to Socialism. It sacrifices principles to popularity. It asserts that it is almost criminal to accumulate in order to provide for one's family. It deprives the industrious of the fruits of their industry largely for the benefit of the thriftless and idle. It encourages reckless expenditure by all bodies spending the public money. It will render life to certain individuals almost intolerable by the constant inquisitorial interference of officials."
Is not that true? I suppose that Lord Joicey is already tainted with that original sin, which, in the opinion of some of your Lordships—I do not know whether it includes the noble Lord who has just spoken—appertains to this House. Make as many Liberal Peers as you like, but as soon as they come here, they begin to recover their senses ! Liberal Governments have made many more Peers in the last fifty years than Conservative Governments, and what is the result? That when you introduce some new measure which the people are unable to swallow, they go over to the other side of the House. I very much question, even at this moment, if we could only remove from the House all the noble Lords who sit on this side, and if we could leave the fate of this Budget to be decided by ballot, I am by no means sure that this Budget would pass.
There are plenty to be found in the other House of Parliament who do not like this Budget, yet who voted for it. I will be responsible for saying that there are many sitting on that side of the House whom I see before me, who are not enamoured of it. But it is not merely in this House that this Budget is thought Socialistic. Take Sir Robert Perks, whom I suppose noble Lords opposite will deem still a Liberal. How long he may continue to be so it is impossible to say. But listen to what he says:—
"I do not approve of the recent financial proposals of the Government, and as you are aware I did not vote for the Finance Bill. Still less do I

857
approve of the policy foreshadowed in the recent speeches made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and she President of the Board of Trade."
Those two speakers are the most important speakers on behalf of the Government, and I say that for this reason, that it is their policy which is always carried out; it is their policy which is embodied in this Bill.
Coming to the President of the Board of Trade; it is very difficult to say which members of the Government express the opinions of the Government and which do not. We have tried on one occasion to find out. Your Lordships will remember when the noble Earl the Leader of the House was asked what he thought of the Lord Advocate's opinions that he preserved a discreet silence. I am afraid if I were to ask the noble Earl what he thought of Mr. Lloyd-George's speech at Limehouse, or Mr. Churchill's speech at Leicester, I should not be any more fortunate; and therefore I do not propose to put the question to him. But if Mr. Churchill is to be taken as in any way expounding the views of the Government, he has said, "It is not your money that we are taxing. It is the source it comes from." The question used to be, "How much money have you got?" But the question now is, "How did you get it?" Further than that, he has announced in the other House of Parliament that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to do away with indirect taxation altogether in the end, and to place the whole charge upon capital.
Let me say a word or two on this Budget. I do not propose to go into it in detail, but the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack last night said, "There are some taxes on capital and there are some taxes on income." I propose to add further words to that. I propose to say that there are taxes both on capital and on income. Let us take the particular case of undeveloped land. You propose to place upon undeveloped land a duty of ½d. in the pound. A copper it is called. A copper! My Lords, it sounds the sort of thing that is only fit to give to a crossing-sweeper; but examine that copper in the sense in which it will be applied to land after it has been valued by the valuers, who, I may term, will be the Government's £300 to £500 a year men. If, unfortunately, they happen to take it into their heads that land which is only used for agricultural purposes possesses a
858
potential value hereafter for building purposes, they may place upon the land a capital selling value of say £300, and that means 300 halfpennies, or 150 pennies. If you put a Government tax of 150 pence upon land which is very likely let at £2 an acre, then it constitutes a very serious additional burden upon capital which is incapable of realisation at the time at which the charge is imposed. That is the way you place upon land the capital tax up to the time it is finally developed, and what do you say then? Why, on that portion of the land which is developed, you immediately impose an income tax upon the whole created value of the land, and therefore, while you have been taxing the man out of his capital value—and mind, if that land is not developed for a considerable number of years, you have taken a considerable portion of the capital value of the land in the form of the tax—as soon as it is built upon, you turn upon him and tax him upon the whole realised income. The absurdity and the injustice of a tax of this sort your Lordships have demonstrated in regard to this Budget.
There was a similar tax upon undeveloped minerals. What has become of that tax? It has been taken away because it has been found to be so impossible and so unjust. The noble Lord also spoke of duties with regard to licensing, and he said that these additional duties which it is proposed to impose upon that trade were amply justified; and he said that, after all, it was in your Lordships' power to modify those proposals after a year or two. The objection to that statement is that it is not in your Lordships' power to modify those proposals; and moreover, it is a declining trade. It has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself that it is a declining trade, and yet he imposes upon it large additional burdens. That trade is very heavily taxed at the present time, and this Bill proposes to place upon it such burdens that within two years time, it may be even in six months time, many of those engaged in that trade will be ruined.
The noble Lords who support this Bill say, "We do not in any way interfere with trade." Don't you? I appeal to the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, and I know it is an appeal which meets with sympathy, I believe that he prides himself greatly on Free Trade. May I ask him, what does he

859
think of doubling the Stamp Duty on every transaction connected with land, either for sale or for lease? How does he think—or does he think?—that it will assist his favourite policy of small holdings? The Government say that they do nothing to interfere with trade. Pray, how about the building trade? The building trade exists almost entirely upon borrowed capital, and upon land which will be described in future as undeveloped land. Do you suppose that men will, in future, lend builders capital at the same rates at which they have lent capital before when they have the prospect of Mr. Lloyd-George before their eyes? And do you suppose that a builder is so likely to build houses when he knows perfectly well that if he makes a profit, twenty per cent. of it will have to go into the Exchequer, and if he makes a loss, that the burden will fall upon his own shoulders? The fact is that if he has two transactions, one of which is a gain and the other is a loss, he is not to be permitted to put one against the other. At all events, if that is the opinion of the noble Lord, it is not the opinion of auctioneers and surveyors and valuers or of any professional men of that description. And remember what is to be the cost of the proposed Government valuation—two millions! Is there anyone who really has any professional knowledge or experience who will tell you that it can be done for two million pounds? Depend upon it, you will find, in the first place, that it will take a much longer time than you expect; and in the next place the cost will be much nearer twenty millions than two millions.
But before I leave this part of the Budget, there is one thing to which I would like to call your Lordships' attention. It is a very important matter because it conveys to my mind an impression of what I may term the levity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with these matters. When the Budget was introduced, Mr. Lloyd-George proposed to divert the old Sinking Fund from the purpose to which it is at present applied, namely, that of paying off debt, and to hand it over to a Development Fund. That proposition met with such universal disapproval, that even in the House of Commons nothing more was heard of it. Lord Welby, who was speaking last night, spoke of his experience of different Chancellors of the Exchequer. There were five or six of them, and he said who they were. I should like
860
to know whether any one of those five or six Chancellors of the Exchequer, in pro-posing their Budgets, introduced a proposal so momentous, and dropped it so quickly as has been done in the case of this old Sinking Fund? I have studied the utterances of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his writings and his speeches in the House of Commons, and I very much question whether anyone who will follow that same course, will come to a conclusion different from that to which I have been driven, which is, that the present I Chancellor of the Exchequer's powers of vituperation largely exceed his fitness and his power to deal with finance, and that he finds himself more at home on some country platform than in dealing in the House of Commons with important statements relating to finance.
Your Lordships will not have forgotten I all that was said about economy when this Government entered into office. Where I have their professions gone? What is their expenditure at the present time? Is it not much larger than that incurred by their predecessors whose extravagance they reviled? And for what are they making these large demands upon the individual? Have they so far changed the whole of their Liberal opinions that they have arrived at the conclusion that the State can take money out of an individual's pocket and spend it for him on a social programme much better than he could spend that money for himself? Noble Lords opposite ask us to pass this Budget now. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack addressed us on that question last night. He said there were only two years more, and that, after all, it is very easy to reverse anything that may be done now. Yes; but if you pass the Second Reading of this Bill, you will have accepted the principle, and will it not be always I thrown in your teeth for all time to come that you had accepted the principle and that therefore it is impossible and unreasonable that you should object to the further development?
When one is in a difficulty there are two ways of facing it. You may meet it at once, or you may postpone it. I believe that when trouble is before you, by far the best and decidedly by far the most courageous plan, is to face it at once. We have been told that our future prospects are uncertain. If the popularity of this

861
Budget is such as has been claimed for it by the last speaker, then the people will say that they wish the Budget to pass, and the Budget will be passed by this House, however bad we may believe it to be. Then the responsibility will rest upon the people. It is the people who will have done it, but when the noble and learned Lord says, "We are the representatives of the people," I should like to ask him, does he believe that the majority in the country in favour of this Budget is as large as the majority who voted in favour of this Budget in the House of Commons.
With regard to what fell from the Lord Chancellor last night respecting the consequences which may fall upon your Lordships in case you vote for this Amendment, I believe the Lord Chancellor well understands and appreciates this House. I believe I may also say, without presumption, that this House understands and appreciates the Lord Chancellor; but at the same time I do think that last night—I know he meant it well—but last night in asking your Lordships whether you had fully measured the consequences of this Amendment, and whether your Lordships were prepared to take the responsibility which would be cast upon you, he addressed an argument to your Lordships which is not an argument at all. At least, it is not an argument which I should have addressed to your Lordships if I were endeavouring to dissuade you from a course which you were likely to take. This House has nothing to do with consequences. Let consequences take care of themselves. The pride of this House is that we are entrusted with a public duty; and in such a case as this it seems to me that our course is so simple and so plain that anyone who runs may understand it. I believe it has been the practice ever since I have been in this House, and I hope and believe it will be always the practice in this House in such cases as the present, to thoroughly consider all the circumstances, to recognise the gravity of such a position as this, to consider what is your public duty as members of the Second Chamber; and then when you have thoroughly made up your minds, to do your duty according to your lights, without any regard to what may thereafter follow.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down accused us on these Benches of being composed partly of
862
faint hearts, and as to at least half the remainder, of being hypocrites. The noble Lord said we should not vote for this Bill if we were not voting in the light of day with our votes recorded. I think I need not trouble to deal with that charge, but it is true undoubtedly that a certain amount of corruption seems to be exercised by the atmosphere of your Lordships' House upon Liberal Peers. I can only hope that I may have succeeded in developing some sort of protective inoculation which will secure me against that corruption. The noble Lord concluded his address by saying that he conceived that the course he was going to take was so clear and plain that anyone who ran might read. I find it hard to reconcile that with an earlier statement in the noble Lord's speech, to the effect that this had given him much anxious consideration, and that until three weeks ago he had not been able to come to a plain conclusion on the matter. At the end of his remarks the noble Lord also referred to the great increase in expenditure, and if I may deal for a moment with this Bill as if it were a Bill which we are able to discuss and deal with effectively—although I suggest it is not—may I say that I stand perhaps almost alone in objecting to two of the largest items of expenditure, namely, the expenditure upon the Army and the expenditure upon the Navy? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other House said that everybody on both sides wanted this expenditure, but was not willing to pay for it. It is perfectly true that there was a great clamour for largely increased expenditure on the Navy, and principally by those who are now reluctant to pay for it. I feel that that may be carried too far, that it is possible to spend upon what is called national defence a larger sum than it is necessary to expend. I think that the fact that these large sums are always available, almost without criticism, and that anyone who criticises them is regarded as failing in his duty as a patriot, tends to extravagance in both these services.
Looking at the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the expenditure on the Army this year was twenty-seven and a-half millions, and on the Navy thirty-five millions, while last year the figures were twenty-seven millions for the Army and thirty-two millions for the Navy. That represents a very considerable increase and that increase in the expenditure on those two services has been going on continuously

863
and unchecked for many years. It is alleged that it is very easy for anyone to say that you should reduce expenditure on armaments, but that it is impossible to do it. If it is impossible to do it, I think it is a reflection upon the civilisation of the present day. There is to my mind nothing reasonable in nations behaving themselves as if they were two armed desperadoes sitting on a bench, each waiting to see which would make the first move. Surely we can devise a better system than that. But all this expenditure is unproductive, and it tends in some cases to produce, or is likely to produce, the very conflicts which it is said to be designed to avoid. These opinions, I know, are not popular, but I think this is a matter to which some more regard should be had than that lip service which is rendered to it constantly at Hague Conferences and such places. No such objection applies to expenditure on social progress and social amelioration. That expenditure is productive of economy, not only of a direct and tangible character, as is the case with Old Age Pensions, which reduces the amount chargeable to the Poor Bate, but it is still more productive in indirect methods, and in the improvement of the opportunities which the population has of earning money and of being productive. A portion of the large amount which has been spent upon education in this country has been saved in the expenditure upon prisons and lunatic asylums. This directly productive expenditure makes for the benefit of the people, and for the health and the advantage of the nation as a whole. But the expenditure being there, it becomes the duty of another House to provide the money and to find a revenue.
The right rev. Prelate who spoke last night said he did regard this Budget, which was intended to provide for that expenditure, which in itself was not seriously objected to by anyone, as an oppressive and revolutionary Budget. Is that so? It is oppressive in the sense, of course, that it is always unpleasant to have to pay additional taxes. Neither your Lordships nor the public like it, but the money has to be raised. I have not heard any of the items of expenditure pointed to as items which might be reduced in order to enable less money to be raised, and the method of raising it consists to a very large extent in increasing the yield of already existing taxes, the principle of which is already admitted. That yield has to be increased
864
to provide for these services. There are, of course, limits beyond which taxation may easily become oppressive. I think those limits have been reached to some extent in foreign countries, where taxation does actually harass and hamper industry and trade by its oppressive character. I think no one can honestly say in this country that we are not still very far from those limits. The Stamp Duties have been increased, and one noble Lord asked whether it was consistent with a desire to cheapen the transfer of land to double the duty upon every conveyance. That is a part of the cost of transferring land, but my own experience, and I think the experience of most of your Lordships, will be that the Stamp Duty is the least portion of the cost of transferring land in this country, and that it does not add a very large percentage to the total cost which any person who deals in land has to pay.
It is said that the Death Duties are oppressive, and I confess, speaking entirely for myself, that the Death Duties at their lower scale may possibly involve some hardships, but I must say that I contemplate the Death Duties for a millionaire with great satisfaction. Personally, I am very willing to extract from a millionaire a very large sum of money, and when we hear about these duties interfering with people providing for their families, there is some difference between providing for them in the sense of keeping them but of the workhouse and leaving them a million diminished by fifteen per cent. The same observations apply to the Super Tax. The Super Tax is a tax which I do not doubt is unpleasant for those who have to bear it. It adds a very considerable proportion to their burdens but it has not been suggested even, as I understand, in another place, that that tax is in itself an unjust tax, and that it is not a fair thing that those who have larger incomes should contribute a larger sum. I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech which opened your Lordships' debate this afternoon by the noble Earl who sits on the Cross Benches, Lord Cromer, who danced a careful sword dance, as it were, amongst these taxes, and ended his observations with a bow to the Tariff Reform Party, offering them his vote in one hand, and a treaty of peace in the other. I did not hear that the noble Lord objected to any of these taxes in themselves, and I heard him deal with the taxes one after the other; but I was somewhat startled to hear him say at

865
the end of his speech that he would support the Motion before your Lordships' House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
EARL RUSSELL: Well, he said he would abstain from voting, but I did not quite gather why he was unable to support the Budget. The noble Lord concluded by saying that he regarded this Budget as a dangerous one, and that he could not support it. I was not able; either to follow the argument which he addressed—although it is a matter rather for other people's concern than ourselves—that a vote given to a Tariff Reformer was not a vote given to Tariff Reform. It is true, if I may take another illustration, that a vote given to a drunkard is not a vote given to drink, but a vote given to a man in the liquor interest, who stood in the liquor interest and was going to defend it, I should have thought was a vote given to the liquor interest. If you give a vote to a man who is supporting Tariff Reform and who says he is going to support and stand for it, that constitutes a vote for Tariff Reform. That is a matter, no doubt, which the noble Earl and those who agree with him will settle for themselves. The position of the unfortunate people in the opposite Party who find themselves Free Traders is already so unpleasant that one would not wish to aggravate it.
Then I take another of the taxes. We have an increase in the Licence Duties, and on that you are told that those taxes are not to be imposed upon the trade, partly because they are oppressive, but partly because more or less similar proposals have been presented to you before in the form of a Licensing Bill. Your Lordships refused to agree with that Licensing Bill, and you complain now that you find the same taxes in the Budget. Why you should think that it is not a fair thing to increase existing taxes which are imposed upon the liquor trade I do not understand. You may think that your Lordships' House is being jockeyed out of its rights by haying this matter inserted in the Finance Bill, but I do not think anyone has gone so far as to say that the Licence Duties in the Finance Bill constitute tacking. That would be an impossible charge. I admit I am not qualified to discuss with any degree of fairness the taxes upon liquor. I regard the liquor trade as being the curse of the country.
866
I regard the sellers of drink as being the licensed sellers of poison, and on that matter I confess I am a fanatic, and I am not able to discuss it with any degree of fairness. It seems to me that no restrictions that could be put upon them would be too great, and that the existing system of tied houses, by which persons are forced to drink more than they want to in the interests of the landlord, is a system that ought to be put an end to, confiscation or not, at the earliest possible moment. These are views which even the corrupting I influence of your Lordships' House has not succeeding in removing, but rather in strengthening and accentuating.
Then we are told by a great many speakers that, apart from the taxes altogether, the objection to the Budget as a whole is that it is a, Socialistic Budget, and that it constitutes the beginning of Socialism. The noble Earl who last spoke, Lord Camperdown, quoted several remarks from Socialistic leaders to show that they accepted it as only an instalment of Socialism. For a great many years I have always indignantly denied that I was a Socialist, but quite recently I received some literature and an invitation to join the Anti-Socialist Union. I confess that after I had read that literature, I conceived that I must be a Socialist, for I was entirely unable to agree with any of their propositions, and therefore if the Budget is Socialistic in that sense, then I am a Socialist and support the Budget on that ground. The Liberal Party is not Socialistic. There is no question, I think, about that. The Liberal Party is still the support of individualism and of individualism in property, but the State as a whole and both Parties in the State are obviously, to any fair-minded observer, becoming more Socialistic in this sense, that things are being done now by the community which were before left to private enterprise, and we have common action in a great many things in which we did not have it before. I think both Parties have taken to that course. These social services, as the right rev. Prelate said last night, cost money, and in the course of finding money for these objects there will undoubtedly be hardships upon individuals, and complaints from those who have property, and who find it much more heavily taxed than it used to be. I am afraid that that is an almost necessary incident in anything in the nature of the

867
sort of transition state which I venture to I think we are now in. No great Party in the State has adopted the communal ideal at present, but both have done things which savour of Socialism and Communism, and in the transition a great many social services are being put on the rates and taxes which before were left to private enterprise, and which necessarily increase individual burdens.
In this Finance Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to put in the form of legislation a large number of ideals, many of them ideals of social progress with which few of your Lordships would be willing to express your disagreement. There is an inherent difficulty in translating social ideals into legislation, and putting them into the text of a Finance Bill. It is said that the Bill has shown signs of hasty draftsmanship. It is true that it has been much amended, but it is a vast and complex Bill, and we all know from the ordinary sources of public information that it received great consideration before it was introduced, and we certainly know that it has received very great and very careful consideration since it was introduced. In the face of that, and in the face of the majority by which it passed the other House, are you not taking rather a strong course in saying when it comes here that it is hasty and ill-considered legislation, and that you are not justified in passing it until the country has been consulted?
Can your Lordships provide an alternative? None has been put forward officially in this debate. None is before your Lordships' House, and I have not yet seen a constructive alternative with which you are going to the country to raise this money. One of the ideals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set before him, and which I believe has been realised in this Bill, I will quote to you in his own words. I will quote it from the Limehouse speech. It is not the portion which has attracted most attention possibly, but it is a portion which I think is, perhaps, even more important. The right hon. gentleman said that when he took charge of the National Exchequer at a time of great difficulty he made up his mind, in framing the Budget, that at any rate no cupboard should be the barer, and that no lot would be harder for his Budget. Is that not the principle that has been kept in view in this Budget—that the taxes shall be nut upon
868
those shoulders that are best able to bear them?
We had yesterday a very interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Revel-stoke, than whom nobody could give us a better picture from the financial point of view. The noble Lord need not in the least have been afraid that he did not make himself perfectly clear to your Lordships. He gave us a picture from the City point of view which was perfectly clear and perfectly intelligible. He told us how capital was doing this and that, how people who had money to invest were asking this and that, how capital was leaving the country, and how there was a feeling of insecurity. The noble Lord showed us all the columns of the Temple of Mammon—totus teres atque rotundus—with its swept courts, its strong walls and protecting fences, and asked whether it was right that anything should be done to disturb the security of this temple. Are you justified, he asked, in doing this by your Budget? That explained to me more fully than I have ever understood before why it is that the City as a whole is always found in the rear of social progress and advance, because although the view was clear cut, it was a view which was obviously a narrow and a limited one. It was cut off at one point. It by no means embraced the country or the inhabitants of this country as a whole.
To some of us, hypocrites though the noble Lord may think us, there also arose a vision, not only of these slightly-disturbed financiers, of these unfortunate people who make a quarter per cent. less on their money, and whose securities have fallen by so much per cent., but of those people who are to be seen homeless every night on the Embankment, of those who are unemployed up and down the country, of those who are starving, of those who are being sweated and are unable to compete on fair terms for a livelihood in the labour market of the world; and some of us felt that a slight disturbance in the temples of high finance is worth while if something is done to alleviate the lot of those unfortunate people, and to bring stability and enjoyment of life to a larger portion of the population of this country. The noble Lord ventured to doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer understood the meaning of the word credit. May I venture to doubt whether the spirit of the City which was there expounded quite understands what some of us mean by

869
social service and social improvement? There is as much to be learned on one side as on the other.
I must pass over entirely some of the taxes in this Bill which I should like to speak upon, because I do not agree with the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Cromer, in saying that our object is to discuss the fairness of the Budget. I think that is exactly what is not our object. Our object is rather to discuss whether your Lordships' House is justified or is right in the course which it is now proposed to take. There is no precedent for such a course. Your Lordships have been told that the course is not illegal. And no more it is. You have been told that it is unconstitutional. Well, we have no written Constitution, but we have a Constitution which is limited and guarded by custom, and which has hitherto proved sufficient to meet the strains which have been put upon it. I am no friend of written Constitutions. In America, where they have a written Constitution, you find it is being constantly interpreted there by the letter of the law. The spirit dies and the letter remains, and it is so interpreted, and there is a constant series of evasions. In this country, the greater part of our government rests upon understandings and conventions and customs, which have almost a greater force than any written Statute which has ever been placed on the Statute Book. Those conventions and customs are being disregarded by the Amendment which is now before the House. Your Lordships are seeking to destroy, and assuming the right to destroy, the work of an arduous year, and the work of the large majority in the elected and representative House, which has admittedly the right to deal with finance; and it seems to me from some of the speeches to which I have listened, that you are destroying it very lightheartedly, and without having fully considered the consequences.
You say you are not afraid of the consequences. Well, I should hope not. The aristocrats in the Reign of Terror were not afraid of the guillotine, but the knife fell none the less, and the action which your Lordships are now taking is, I think, the beginning of the end of these understandings in our Constitution and between both Houses. Your Lordships have inaugurated a revolution. You have put an end to these understandings and made them impossible. Can any of us doubt, whichever
870
side succeeds at the next election, that sooner or later there will come a readjustment which will leave this House powerless, as we on this side of the House think, for evil? Personally, I do not regret it. From my point of view this House has always been in favour of reaction. Its history stands out as a constant barrier to progress. It is represented sometimes as a deliberative and revising Chamber which provides a very useful check upon measures that come from another place, and licks them into shape or defers them. But this House has done much more than that. It has delayed measures of reform of every character, and dealing with every kind of subject. It has delayed and destroyed them again and again. Its history is a record of interference with the course of progress. It is said that progress may be too rapid without the check of this House. That may be so. Too rapid, no doubt, for some of the faint hearts to whom the noble Lord opposite referred. Too rapid, perhaps, for some even on this side of the House, but we live nominally, and your Lordships will find we live really, under the control of the democracy of this country, and I think your Lordships will find that that democracy intends to govern itself, and intends to have the expression of its will obeyed and observed.
In the action which it is now proposed to take, I say you are putting an end to all possibility of these understandings subsisting in future, and all possibility of any useful check being exercised by this House. If any useful check has been exercised in the past, your Lordships will not have the chance of exercising it again. You are introducing a new era; you are, in fact playing into the hands of those whom you say you are afraid of—the democracy, and giving it the opportunity which it has long wanted. This conflict has threatened for some time, and few of us on this side of the House will regret that the conflict should come, and that it should be at an end. People in the country do not know, and even in the course of the election will not learn, how constantly the influence of your House has been exercised against progress Not merely have Bills of first class rank, to which attention has been called, been thrown out, but it is in the consideration that has to be given to meet your Lordships' views and in other ways that the country is unaware of how constantly legislation has been cheeked. I shall rejoice to see the veto of this House swept away. To my

871
mind that is the only good thing we can hope for from the Amendment which has been put before us. Your Lordships have inaugurated a course of events of which you cannot foresee the exact termination. I welcome it because I believe its ultimate effect will be to make for progress, but your Lordships who have initiated it will not all be pleased with the ultimate result.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken accused noble Lords on this side of the House of having asked for expenditure that they were not willing to pay for, and towards the conclusion of his speech the noble Earl implied that the opponents of this Budget had no conception of the meaning of the words "social service" and "social reform." I entirely repudiate both those assertions. This argument has been used frequently outside this House, but it has not yet been used within these walls. I do not think a single speech has been made on this side of the House which could in any way justify either of those assertions. I do not yield to the noble Earl either in the knowledge of the meaning of the words "social service," or in an appreciation of the meaning of those words, and in the only part of this Bill to which I shall refer at all closely, I hope I shall be able to show him that if we attack the proposals which it contains, it is only because we believe that there are alternative methods of meeting this necessary expenditure. There is another theory which has been constantly used outside this House, but which I do not think has been used in the course of this debate so far, and that is the suggestion that this House cannot be trusted to discuss fairly or impartially those portions of the Finance Bill which refer to land, or liquor licences, and that any criticisms which might be offered upon either of those two sections of the Bill must be biassed by self-interest. I should like to ask why in politics it should be considered fair and legitimate to attack certain interests against which you are known to have political prejudices, and why it should be so improper and so wrong for the interests which are so attacked to defend themselves. No one, I think, doubts that the Government have a political prejudice against those who are engaged in the liquor trade, and also against those who are owners of land. They do not deny it themselves.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his
872
" half-pantaloon and half-highwayman's style," as Lord Ribblesdale called it, in defending this Budget spoke about land-owners as "blackmailers," and declared that his Budget and his policy were going to provide "a day of reckoning" for brewers and capitalists et hoc genus omne. If labour legislation is introduced into the House of Commons, it is not considered improper for the representatives of that class who are going to benefit by that legislation to speak upon it, and even to propose Amendments which will increase the benefits which they are going to receive from it. And if those interests were attacked by any Government in power, do you suppose that they would not take the opportunity to defend themselves? The fact is that those who seek to prejudice the actions and opinions of opponents of the Finance Bill by accusations of self-interest, are really advancing one of two theories—either that legislation which benefits any particular class or interest may be discussed by the class or interest so benefited, but that legislation which has an injurious effect may not be discussed by the class which is going to suffer; the other theory is that what is proper for one class is highly improper for another. What is permissible for a Trade Unionist to do, say, in the case of labour legislation is not permissible for a landlord, and what is right and proper for Nonconformists is altogether wrong and improper for the Established Church.
Against both those theories I protest most emphatically, and I assert, whether the action this House is going to take is right or wrong, wise or unwise, it is, at any rate, dictated by just as strong a regard for the public interest as that which animates either the Government or the House of Commons. If this House is critical of this Bill, it is not merely because it is going to affect the pockets of noble Lords. It is not only upon ground of self-interest. It is true—I am not prepared to deny it—that the Land Clauses and the Licensing Clauses in this Bill do arouse a degree of hostility which is not created by any other clauses in the Bill; but it is not because the effect of those taxes is going to fall upon members of this House. We shall bear the burdens of the Income Tax and the Death Duties and other portions of the Finance Bill, but there is something inherent in these two sections of the Bill which roused greater hostility

873
than the other sections, and I think I might say, without fear of contradiction, that if those two sets of clauses had not been included in the Bill, the Amendment of the noble Marquess would never have been put on the Paper. But if it be true, why is it? It is because those clauses more than any other parts of the Bill bear unmistakable evidence of having been actuated by political rather than by financial reasons. I look to the speeches by which these sections in particular are defended, and the "envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness" shown in the speeches in defence of these clauses bear unmistakable proof that they have been drafted, not for financial needs, but in order to secure political objects at the expense of certain interests against which the Government has a political prejudice. There is another feature which is common to these clauses, and it is that in both cases, in order to raise these taxes, you are going to set up a costly system of valuation which will eat up all the revenue that will be derived from them for some years to come.
The noble Marquess, in moving his Amendment last night, showed very clearly how this would happen with regard to the land taxes. I want to say one word in proof of the same thing, and in regard to the same clauses which deal with the imposition of the Licence Duties. The duties imposed in the First Schedule of the Bill amount to fifty per cent. of the annual value of the licence, and at the present moment, so far as this year is concerned, the annual value of the licence bears no relation to the alcoholic trade which is done in a particular house, and therefore, the result is that these proposals will fall with great severity upon all public houses which have costly and commodious premises, and will leave practically untouched premises which are poor, although the trade in the latter may be great. I could make it clear by a great many instances.
I shall only quote two as an illustration of the argument I am advancing. They are both taken from facts within my own knowledge. There is a working man's public-house which does a trade in alcoholics amounting to £2,900 a year. The duty imposed upon that house under this Bill would be only £24, or 2d. in the pound on the sales. On the other hand, a country
874
inn in the same county which does a large non-alcoholic trade, and in which non-alcoholic articles are of more importance than the trade in alcohols, will pay a duty of 2s. 1d. in the pound. This instance which I will give to the House is even more striking. It is that of a house in which the premises are very poor indeed, but it I is situated in a district which enables it to earn annually no less than £6,000 from the sale of alcoholic liquor. The duty on that house would be only £25 a year, while a commercial hotel in the same district, which cost many thousands of pounds to build, and where the alcoholic trade only amounts to £450 a year, would pay a duty of £150. In one case the duty would be equivalent to a tax of about 1½d. in the pound, and the other equivalent to a tax of 6s. 8d. in the pound. That policy is altogether indefensible. What is the good of talking about the shoulders best able to bear it, and the only alternative being to tax poverty? I am objecting to these taxes, not because they are placed upon the liquor trade, for I think when a largo sum of money has to be raised that trade might quite fairly be expected to pay I its proper share. But I am objecting to the system under which these taxes are to be imposed, and I say, so far as this Bill is concerned, these taxes are illogical, they are unjust in their incidence, they are bad finance and bad temperance reform. They are indefensible, and the Government themselves have not attempted to defend them. I know I shall be told that this is only a temporary measure, and that the whole assessment will be altered in the course of next year. I should like to ask why a system so utterly indefensible from any point of view, should be established for twelve or six months, or even for any time.
Let me deal with the proposal which is to take place under Clause 44. Under that clause a new system of valuation is to be set up, according to which the annual value of the licence is to be calculated on the basis which was adopted in the Act of 1904, for the purpose of assessing value for compensation, and the effect will be to make the annual value of the house bear some relation to the trade carried on in the premises, and will consequently remove the objections which I have just made. But that system is open to the same objection as was made by the noble Marquess last night when speaking of the land valuation proposals of the Government. It will be extremely

875
costly. It will lead to no end of controversy and friction, and it will take many years to carry out. Anybody who has had experience of the process of assessing compensation under the Act of 1904: will know that it is a matter which bristles with difficulties and controversies and complexities. But the Government proposed to do this, not for one particular house at a time, in a particular district, where all the circumstances are known, but for all the public-houses in the country at one given moment. This will involve an examination of the conditions of tenure, locality, trade and so forth of 90,000 public-houses. The valuation of these public-houses will cost considerably over a million of money, and will take a great many years to carry out. No Government which was actuated simply by financial considerations would ever have dreamt of putting forward such a proposal. Even from their own standpoint—even if they desire to raise a sum out of the liquor trade, this costly valuation is altogether unnecessary.
The imposition of a simple poundage duty upon the liquor purchases which are made in the premises where liquor is sold, whether clubs or public-houses, would yield the Government all the revenue which it requires. It would save friction and controversy; and, above all things, it would save considerable expense. I gather that the Government estimate they will receive £4,000,000 from their licence duties, and a duty of 1s. in the pound on all purchases of beer and spirits alone would yield £3,850,000 or £150,000 short of the sum they are expecting to raise, without touching wine at all. That is a perfectly practical proposal. It has been adopted by the Government in Clause 48 of the Bill in dealing with clubs, and the only reasons why this system of duties is not applied to public-houses are political and not financial reasons. I am amazed that a Government which came into office pledged to check the extravagant expenditure of its predecessors, should go out of its way, when it is in financial difficulties, and has a large sum of money to raise, to incur an extra liability of at least £3,000,000, and probably a great deal more, to set up this unnecessary system of valuation both in regard to licences and the land taxes. I repeat that these clauses of the Bill which refer to land and licences are not bona fide financial propositions at all, and I presume that that is the reason why we are asked
876
to take this unusual and unprecedented step of referring this Bill to the will of the people.
I think I have said enough to show why I am not prepared to vote for this Bill If it were an ordinary legislative measure, I should have no hesitation in voting for the Amendment of the noble Marquess, but it is not such an ordinary legislative measure. In my opinion the difference between the action which this House proposes to take in the case of an ordinary measure of legislation and the Finance Bill is so great that I hardly feel prepared to follow the course which has been recommended to this House. In my view the action which we are asked to take, to reject a Finance Bill, and thereby to refuse Supplies to the Government of the day, and bring about an immediate Dissolution—such a course as that is so unusual and so serious that in my opinion it could only be justified by one condition, and that condition is, that there should be unmistakable proof that the country will have nothing to do with the Bill. Now, my Lords, in the present case I do not find that that proof is forthcoming, or that that condition is fulfilled. On the contrary, I believe that the Budget of the year has found more favour with the electors of this country than any other proposals which the Government has put forward since it came into office. Considering the misleading manner in which this Bill has been defended, both by Liberal speakers and by the Liberal Press, that does not seem very surprising. If the people are in favour of this Budget, it is because they are constantly told that the only alternative is between a Government on the one hand anxious to tax the superfluities of the rich, and the Opposition on the other hand dying to tax the necessities of the poor. I consider that last statement a gross perversion of the truth, but so long as that fiction is going about, it is idle to suppose that this Finance Bill is odious to the people of this country, or that the demand for its rejection is emphatic or widespread.
I say nothing about the financial difficulty which will be created. The noble Marquess said last night in regard to the financial situation which would be created by the adoption of his Amendment that he preferred the temporary chaos and confusion to the permanent confusion and chaos that would

877
follow if this Bill were allowed to puss into law. I agree with him, but is it certain that we are taking the best course to prevent that permanent evil which the noble Marquess desires to avoid? If I were convinced that the rejection of this Bill was demanded by the people of this country, and that the result of the election which will follow from the action of this House would put an end to this Bill, then I should be ready to follow the course which we are asked to adopt by the noble Marquess. But it is because I feet grave doubts on that point, and because, on the contrary, I feel that we are taking the very worst possible course in the circumstances, that I prefer to follow the line of action recommended by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Cromer.
I do not want to dwell upon my difference with noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, because I consider that any such difference of opinion is completely overshadowed by the far larger issues which lie in the background. Like the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, I have little faith in the alternative proposal recommended by noble Lords on this side of the House, but I am glad that the noble Earl made a strong appeal in the course of his speech to Unionist Free Traders throughout the country. Whether the action which this House is going to take is wise or unwise, there can be no difference of opinion as to what will be the consequences. We are faced now with a struggle which may be long or short, but which, while it lasts, will overshadow all other considerations. We have against us a Government which openly avows its intention of destroying the constitutional position of this House. In such a struggle as that, there is only room for two sides, and therefore, I say I welcome the words spoken by the noble Earl. He was taken to task by Earl Russell for saying that a vote given to a Tariff Reformer was not necessarily a vote given to Tariff Reform. Earl Russell said he could not understand what was meant by such words. I understood those words perfectly well; and what they meant, I believe, was that, whatever our views might be upon the questions of Free Trade or Tariff Reform, when face to face with a great constitutional struggle such as this, it was, in his view, necessary to sink all minor differences of opinion on fiscal or other matters, and take our stand in the fighting line in defence of the Constitution. I feel every one who is
878
not prepared to establish permanently what the noble Marquess referred to last night as described by Oliver Cromwell "the horridest arbitrariness that ever existed in the world" must come forward and step into the fighting line at the present moment.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said he did not regret this struggle. He welcomed it, and said he was glad of it. I do not agree with him. I regret, infinitely regret, the struggle upon which we are now entering. I see that it is bound to stand in the way, for a great many years to come, of a great deal of very useful work, even if it has not the effect of possibly embarrassing us in our relations abroad. I regret that this struggle should have come; but I disclaim all responsibility for having brought that struggle about. The noble Lord who spoke from the Government Benches just now, declared that that struggle was directly sought by noble Lords on this side of the House. He seems to forget that this struggle was threatened. He seems to forget that the change in the constitutional position of this House was embarked upon by the present Government long before the financial proposals of the year were introduced. As I say, I disclaim all responsibility for that struggle. I regret that it should have come about, but since we are face to face with it at the present moment, I hope that all those who since the death of the late Duke of Devonshire have looked to the noble Earl on the Cross Benches to lead them in their opinions, will bear in mind the words which he addressed to them to-night, and irrespective of their opinions on fiscal or other matters, and whatever their differences may be in other directions, will, in the course of the struggle upon which we are now embarking, come forward and fight in defence of the Constitution of this country.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I confess that to any one who had not had as long an experience as I have, I regret to say, of your Lordships House, it would be a great difficulty to I address a House so empty as this. Therefore it might be well in future if your Lordships allowed a little longer adjournment for the dinner hour. Being an old habitué of the House I do not feel that cold chill that runs through a young

879
member in addressing a House with empty Benches. I need hardly say that I rise to endorse with all the force I have at command the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. He stated in a most statesmanlike manner, if I may use the expression, the reasons why your Lordships should not allow the Finance Bill that has come up to your Lordships' House to be passed without consulting the people of the country as to what their views and ideas are upon the subject. It has been stated very frequently both before this debate was inaugurated and since, that the action of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne was absolutely without precedent in proposing that the Budget Bill should be submitted to the judgment of the country before it was passed by your Lordships' House. Whether that is without precedent or not I raise no argument. We believe it absolutely without precedent that such a Bill should be submitted to your Lordships' House. This I do say, that the Bill which has been sent up from the House of Commons is absolutely without precedent. Your Lordships have never been asked before to pass a Budget Bill based on principles so absolutely contrary to the Constitution and the desire of the country on this subject.
I venture to think that the introduction of this Finance Bill is, in the first place, absolutely unconstitutional. I have looked up, as I dare say many of your Lordships have, various precedents, and I have never yet been able to find that a Budget introduced into the House of Commons and sent to your Lordships' House has been of a character such as that which is now submitted for your Lordships' consideration. I venture to say, therefore, that the Bill now before us is absolutely unconstitutional. The Budget Bill, or the Finance Bill, whichever you like to call it, when it comes up to your Lordships' House has always been founded on the principle that money is required for the time, and the time only, to meet the requirements of the expenditure of the country, and never has it gone beyond that.
This is an unconstitutional Bill because there have been "tacked on" a number of Bills which your Lordships have considered in this House and which you have rejected. So far as we can gather, whenever an opportunity has been given to the country to
880
speak on this subject the rejection of those Bills has not been unpopular. On the contrary the rejection of those Bills has been approved as shown at by-elections which have taken place, and it has been proved that your Lordships in rejecting those Bills have been far more in touch with the feeling of the country than are the members of His Majesty's Government. I have always understood that when the Budget has been introduced into the House of Commons and sent up to your Lordships' House it is for the purpose of obtaining revenue and revenue only. I do not think any noble Lord opposite will contradict me when I say that this Bill is not a Bill really for the purpose of obtaining revenue for the expenditure of the country, which I know is large. But this Bill had tacked on to it those Bills to which I have alluded. Consequently I say the procedure is absolutely unconstitutional, and being unconstitutional it is not a question as to whether your Lordships reject or accept the Budget, but, in the words of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, it is a question for the country to decide whether the Budget should be accepted or rejected. Now the Budget Bill as it comes up to your Lordships' House contains a certain number of Bills which your Lordships have already rejected, and I maintain that that is absolutely unconstitutional. In addition to that we find there is also in the Budget a system of taxation which is to be imposed, as my noble friend Lord Lytton, who spoke last, said, on a certain class of the community whom the Government at the present day regard as hostile to themselves and antagonistic to their political views. Now the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has alluded, as a great number of those who addressed your Lordships have alluded, to the manner in which this Budget Bill was introduced to attack certain owners of property, who as I have stated are hostile to the views of His Majesty's Government.
First of all I wish to deal, I hope not at too great length, with the question of the Land Tax. Land has been taxed in a manner that I think all unprejudiced people will say is entirely out of proportion to the amount the owners of land should be taxed. Why is that? The noble Lord told us. It is because the owners of land are supposed to be not altogether friendly but hostile to the views of the Government. In the few moments I propose to devote to the question I will deal with that part of it. In the

881
Budget Bill sent up to us we find that taxation is imposed on the increasing value of land, and land has been singled out by the Government for this increase. I would like to ask the noble Lord who follows me why has land been singled out for this increased taxation? That it has been singled out I do not think anybody will deny; but why has it been singled out when we think of the enormous amount of property unconnected with land which it is not proposed by this Budget Bill to tax? We know full well that a great amount of money is invested which brings in dividends on shares. Why has this not been selected to be taxed equally? I do not think any member of His Majesty's Government can show me that the increment of land is so far above the increment earned by other investments. But land is selected, and land only; and undoubtedly whatever the revenue may be it will, as has been shown by speakers who have preceded me, be swallowed up in the collection and valuation expenses.
Therefore, I venture to say the object of this Budget is not only unconstitutional but it is unjust, and, if I may use the expression, it is vindictive towards a certain class of the community who are hostile to His Majesty's Government. I know there are some who hold optimistic views supporters of the Government who declare that it is possible out of this taxation of land to produce the amount of money which it is hoped will accrue. I shall be glad to hear from those who will follow me whether that optimistic view is absolutely correct. I should like to hear whether the permanent officials of the Treasury, who are naturally reticent with regard to the views they hold, believe that the large amount of money which is required to meet this extra expenditure is to be made out of the taxation of land. I cannot help thinking that His Majesty's Government do not for one moment expect to make a large amount of revenue out of the taxation of land. I think, on the contrary, that they believe that by taxing undeveloped land they will bring into the market a large amount of land which at the present moment is what is called "held up," or is not open to the public for purchase. If that is the case the whole argument for its inclusion in the Budget falls to the ground. A Budget to my mind, is not supposed to bring into the market land, but only to produce from that land the amount of money that is required to meet the exigencies of the moment. Therefore, I say if that is the
882
case the Government by taxing land are not endeavouring to bring in revenue, but they are endeavouring, contrary to every principle on which a Budget should be brought in, to force land into the market to be sold at a price and to be developed. If that be the case, and I maintain it is, it must be obvious that the tax can only carry out the intention of the Government as long as the yield of that land is small. If a large revenue is derived from that land which I maintain the object of the Government is to force into the market then the purpose of the Government entirely fails, because the land that is to be taxed, being incapable of development, is taxed beyond its value. If that land is developed to avoid the tax then I say the revenue under the Land Tax cannot possibly be large. I hope I have made myself clear. I should like whoever follows me to explain that to us.
What is the reason for taxing landowners? The answer to that question, to my mind, is very simple. It is that at the present moment the Government have but one idea in their minds. It is not to collect revenue from the tax they propose to impose upon land, but simply for the purpose of nationalising the land in future. And they desire, as far as I can gather from the Budget proposals, to have the owner of land replaced by the State. If that is the case, I should like to have an answer to it when I sit down. If that is what they want then the Budget, as at the present moment before your Lordships' House, is the first step in that direction, because the Government have insisted that there should be a valuation of all land, whether those lands come under taxation or whether they are exempted from taxation by Statute. As far as I can gather, the main principle of the Budget Bill with regard to land is that there should be a valuation and a valuation only. Valuation is their first principle. Revenue for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the country is a very secondary one. Therefore I cannot but think that this question of the valuation of all classes of land, whether it comes under the Budget or is exempted by Statute, is not really for revenue but merely the paving of the way for the nationalisation of land. I may be asked why I make that statement. I make it because I have read an article by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which appeared in the Nation, a few weeks ago. There the Chancellor of the Exchequer states:—

883
"The Budget campaign must be the beginning and not the end of the Liberal effort in land reform. The new State valuation must be the basis of all plans of communal purchase. On this basis municipalities ought to buy the land which is essential to the development of their towns; and the State could also buy up land necessary to the policy of re-creating rural life in Britain."
Well, that to my mind, is simply making the position of the owner of land an impossible one. They propose under this Bill virtually to place on owners a tax of, I may say, a ruinous character, so that eventually, if we read aright the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the owner of land will be so over-taxed, out-taxed out of possession of his property, that be will be glad then to go to the State and ask the State to buy him out on any terms they choose to offer. That is the policy of His Majesty's Government as I read it in their Budget at the present moment.
But, my Lords, that is not a new policy. It was the policy introduced by Mr. Henry George many years ago, and it has never been accepted or taken up by the people of this country. Consequently when we hear that it is proposed to extract money for revenue purposes, and revenue purposes only, out of land, I venture to ask how do the Government reconcile the question of revenue from land with these proposals, which are nothing more or less than the proposals of Mr. Henry George many years ago? The Bill, we are told, is only a Finance Bill. To my mind the Land Clauses of this Finance Bill are, in effect, simply this: "How can we get rid of the landowners?" And if we want anything more to prove that, we have only got to read the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Limehouse and Newcastle. I do not know whether the noble Earl opposite who is taking notes will endorse those speeches, but we must realise that the one idea of this Budget Bill is to carry out the proposals made by Mr. Henry George some years ago, proposals which have never been confirmed or assented to by the people of this country. Therefore I say with regard to the question of land the Finance Bill is merely a matter of form. It is not really a Finance Bill. What the Government are considering is how they can get rid of the landowners and how they can nationalise the land.
I pass on to another proposal which I
884
think is unjust, as I think the Land Clauses are vindictive. I mean the proposals in the Budget Bill with regard to what are called the Licensing Taxes. I say at once that I think the Licensing Taxes are not only unjust but absolutely vindictive. In all probability noble Lords opposite and their supporters will deny that statement and declare that they are only introduced for the purposes of revenue. But I should like to ask them how they reconcile that view with the statements made by some of their leading colleagues in another place. I find Mr. McKenna, speaking at Manchester on December 4, said: "Our hearts are filled with rage at the loss of the Licensing Bill." I find Mr. Pease, the Chief Whip of the Party opposite, said "He imagined the people would expect that Mr. Lloyd-George would cause the abolition of redundant licences by placing taxation on them so that the people might get back their own." It seems to me it is the Government who appear to be getting back their own on the publicans for their refusal to be ruined by the Licensing Bill which your Lordships rejected in this House. Is it possible, after reading those speeches and carefully considering them, that His Majesty's Government fancy that the people of this country can be so fooled and beguiled as not to realise that within a very short time—comparatively a few weeks—of these, as I call them, vindictive speeches being made there is introduced into the Budget Bill clauses to deal, as they had told us they would do, vindictively with those people who opposed them with regard to the Licensing Bill?
I cannot for a moment believe that the people of this country, who have endorsed, whenever the opportunity has arisen, the action of your Lordships' House in rejecting the Licensing Bill, will agree that the object of His Majesty's Ministers in introducing these clauses in a fresh Bill—after the vindictive statements made—was merely in the interests of reducing drunkenness and promoting temperance, and not because they are vindictive to a particular class of persons hostile to them. The Licensing Bill, as it came up to your Lordships' House, gave a certain amount of compensation to licence holders. That Bill was rejected. What do the Government now propose to do? They propose to tax the property of these licence holders and give them no compensation whatever.

885
Therefore, I say it is absolutely unconstitutional to tack on to the Budget Bill another Bill which has been rejected by your Lordships, whose action was endorsed by the country. So far as I can see, the Government deal more harshly with these people in the Budget than they did in their original Licensing Bill. That Bill we rejected in this House. We may have rejected rightly or wrongly; but I believe that we rejected it absolutely rightly, and if your Lordships choose to look at the opinions given by the country whenever the opportunity has been presented, I think you will not deny that we had the weight of the country at our back in the course we took. I know that it is said, "The Trade," as they are called, must pay their share. I do not hesitate to say there is no member of your Lordships' House, or of any trade, who is not perfectly willing and anxious to pay his fair share of the taxes imposed upon him, according to his ability; but to ask people to pay as their share a tax put upon them, as I say vindictively, is not, to my mind, an act of which any Government should feel proud.
To go back to what I was saying about the trade paying their share, I think the licensing trade do pay their share to a very great extent, an enormous extent. I will not give your Lordships my own views on the subject. Naturally I have not experience on the subject; but I should like to bring under your Lordships' notice what the trade do pay so as to show that they are bearing their fair share of the taxation. The trade, as a matter of fact, already bear a very heavy share of the taxation of the country. The State now takes from the trade thirty-seven and a-half million pounds in the shape of taxation. And yet the Government talk about the necessity of making it pay a fair share ! I would like to remind your Lordships, too, that extra taxes were put on the trade in 1900. They were then told distinctly that they were war taxes, but Mr. Asquith has made them permanent. They have also to bear the annual charge of over £1,000,000 for the Compensation Fund under the Act of 1904. Therefore, I say from the standpoint of justice, it is impossible to defend these taxes. Is it easier to defend them from a financial point of view? The reason members of this trade are so heavily taxed is, to my mind, because they are obnoxious to the
886
Party opposite and because they ventured to object to their property being attacked. Consequently they are supporters of the Party behind me. I venture to say the taxes proposed in the Budget on land and licensing are unjust and very vindictive, and consequently I support the proposal of my noble friend behind me that this matter should be entrusted to the verdict of the country. I maintain that the Land Taxes are merely proposed for the purpose of bringing about the nationalisation of the land, while the Licensing Taxes are vindictive and unjust to a body who are supposed to be opposed to the Government.
I now cut myself adrift from the taxes, which I have said are unjust and vindictive, and I turn to another side of the question introduced into the Budget Bill. That is the taxation of minerals. I speak with a certain amount of diffidence and at the same time confidence, on this subject because I am myself very closely associated with the coal trade of the North of England. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, on that account, I deal with this question at greater length than I ordinarily should. The Budget Bill, as at first introduced, proposed to put a tax on Ungotten Minerals. I can only tell your Lordships that when that proposal was recognised and realised by people who either owned or did not own "ungotten minerals," it could hardly be believed that such a proposal could emanate from any one who had any knowledge of any sort or kind whatever in connection with minerals. Look what might have happened ! An agricultural landowner might be told that there were minerals under his land. That unfortunate landowner would be only too pleased to have his minerals worked, but he has not the capital to work them and no company would possibly work them. And yet that unfortunate man was to be taxed for those ungotten minerals because it was supposed—only supposed—that there were minerals underlying his land. When you think that over, your Lordships must realise that it was a proposal too ridiculous to be considered by any practical man.
It was ridiculed out of court, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer naturally seeing how ridiculous were his proposals cast about to see what he could do to obtain from another source the revenue he had hoped to get from minerals. He

887
then turned round and taxed royalties and wayleaves, exactly the contrary to what he had proposed in his original Bill. First, he proposed to tax owners who had "ungotten minerals" in the hope of making the unfortunate people pay who could not work them themselves or get any one else to work those minerals, and he now taxes the royalty owners and leaves untaxed those mineral owners who do not or cannot or will not work their own minerals. There never was such a change of front, I should think, in the annals of any Chancellor of the Exchequer ! Even that staunch supporter of the Government, Mr. Hemmerde, said in the House of Commons, "He was unable to understand how a tax on mining royalties could take the place of a tax on ' ungotten minerals ' consistently with the principles of the Bill. One of the great principles that ran all through the Bill was that whether a man was working his land or not, he should pay a tax upon its value. What the Government now proposed to do was to tax those who were working their mining land even more than they were originally going to tax those who were not working it. That was a startling theory." I should like to hear from the noble Lord who will answer me how he reconciles this extraordinary change of front, and how he reconciles the statement of Mr. Hemmerde with the proposals in the Budget Bill at the present moment.
Then again, supporters of noble. Lords opposite declare that royalty owners pay next to nothing; that they derive an enormous amount of benefit from the minerals worked underneath their land to which they have contributed nothing. Here I will quote the words of Mr. John Wilson. I am bound to say he is a Liberal Unionist, but he is a very great and important authority on all matters connected with the working of coal in Scotland. In reply to the query, "What does the royalty owner do?" he says, "He pays Income Tax just as any other form of income does, and in Scotland the exact amount of all royalties received by the proprietor is entered on the valuation roll, and local rates, poor, education and sanitary, &c, are paid on every farthing thereof by him to the extent of one half of the burden, the mineral lessee only paying the other half." I think that that entirely disposes of the statement that the royalty owner pays nothing towards the taxes of the country owing to the minerals being worked under his own land.
888
Now I go a step further, and I will deal for a few moments with the result which will accrue from the tax that is put upon mining royalties. There can be no doubt whatever that this tax on royalties must raise the price of coal, and if your Lordships carefully consider the matter you must realise that almost all our great industries are dependent to a very great extent on coal. If the price of coal is increased the cost of production in all those industries to which I have alluded must necessarily be increased. Not only that, but it places all those industries which are dependent on coal upon unfair terms as regards the competition of foreign countries. What a higher price of coal means to the poor people of this country I am sure will appeal to your Lordships' sympathy. You must see that if the cost of production of coal is increased the price of coal must increase, and naturally it will reflect on the poorer classes. There are a great number of important industries that depend on coal. One of the most important in this country is the steel trade. That trade will be especially affected if the, price of coal is raised, owing to the increased cost of production. The steel trade will have to bear an additional burden in respect of paying a higher price for the coal they have to buy, and in addition to that they will have to suffer the disability of having to pay an increased price for ore. Ore is absolutely essential to the steel industry, and consequently if you increase the cost of production of that most important branch of industry in this country it must naturally raise its price. I should like again to quote an authority better than myself—I quote authorities always if I can do so, preferably of gentlemen opposed to me in politics. I find that Mr. Wedgwood, who is a member of Parliament and a supporter of noble Lords opposite and an enthusiastic Land Tax reformer, made a speech in which he dealt with the proposal to substitute a tax on mining royalties for the duty on ungotten minerals. He said:—
"The proposed change is that the tax shall be levied only on minerals which are worked, thereby penalising production, and in the long run transferring the tax to the consumer. Directly you arrange your tax so that the price of coal will be enhanced, you will be inflicting a most serious blow on the industries of this country."
That, to my mind, is a most serious state of affairs, and I really think the Government should look into it before they ask your Lordships to pass the Bill.
Now I go on to another point as to what

889
is the amount of revenue to be derived from this tax on these royalties, and I am sure the noble Earl who leads your Lordships' House will forgive me when I say there seems to me the most absolute confusion in the minds of the Government, their advisers and everybody else as to what this tax on royalties will bring in. I should like to have a definite answer from whoever replies to me as to what the Government imagine will be the amount of revenue brought in by these royalties. It is a very important question because so far as I can gather, at the present moment the Government seem to be in a state of utter confusion as to what that revenue is to be. I do hope I shall get an answer on this point. Mr. Lloyd-George, speaking at Limehouse, said the landlords received £8,000,000 a year from royalties. The September number of the Liberal Monthly, the organ of the Liberal Federation, informed a correspondent that the latest available figures as to the royalties and wayleaves in the United Kingdom are those given in the Mining Royalties Commission Report of 1903. Those figures show a total of £4,873,000 from royalties and wayleaves on coal, ironstone, iron ore and other metals. That is one statement. I then turn to the official handbook to the Budget issued by the Budget League. On every ton of iron ore the royalty is said to be 2s. 6d. and on every ton of coal 9d. Since 268,000,000 tons of coal and about 10,000,000 tons of iron were obtained from British mines in 1907 the royalties in that year on those two minerals alone must have totalled £11,300,000. Finally, we may note that Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister, estimated to get £325,000 from a five per cent. tax on royalties which points to about £6,500,000 of royalties. What I want to ask is, which of those estimates is correct? The official return says £4,873,000; Mr. Asquith says £6,500,000; Mr. Lloyd-George says £8,000,000; and the Budget League says £11,300,000. I will give those figures to the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, and I will ask him to answer me because I think we ought to have something definite as to the amount that will be derived from the proposed taxes on royalties.
Now I turn to another point, that of capital leaving this country. My noble friend Lord Revelstoke, whom I congratulate on the masterly speech he made last night, dealt with the question of capital flying from this country so that I hardly need do more than touch upon it. But I do not think that those who have submitted
890
this Budget to your Lordships' House are realising the great danger they are risking by forcing and driving capital out of this country. I do not think they realise how the industry of this country depends entirely on the flow of capital being spent in this country. I know that the supporters of His Majesty's Government declare that if only wealth is taxed it is wealth, and wealth only, which will pay. I have other views on this subject, and Mr. Harold Cox holds the same views as I do. Mr. Harold Cox says:—
"Many people seem to imagine that if a tax is paid only by the rich it is the rich alone who feel it. That is not so. So far as the question of employment is concerned, the effect of a tax is the same, whether it is paid by rich or poor. If a rich man has to pay an extra £50 a year for income tax, he has £50 less to spend on the multifarious industries that minister directly or indirectly to his comfort. The, people he was employing are thrown out of work."
That was stated by Mr. Harold Cox in a pamphlet issued by the Liberal Publication Department in 1905. I do not wish to eulogise capitalists. I suppose I shall be told I am a capitalist myself. I hope I and those who have gone before me have so spent our capital as to have produced an enormous amount of work and labour for the working-classes in the districts in which we have lived. But I am not singular in this. I suppose a vast number of your Lordships and your predecessors have done exactly the same. But let me point out to your Lordships that if capital is reduced there must be less work, there must be less wages, and there must be more unemployment.
What is the position in regard to unemployment at the present moment? I live in the North of England, near the Tyne, the Tees and the Wear, and unemployment is rife in all those districts. Are you justified in driving capital out of the country? It might mean giving employment to those people. As capital goes out of the country the ranks of the unemployed must be swelled weekly and almost hourly. I know that in the North of England, in the district in which I live, there are hundreds of men anxious to get employment. But how can they get employment if capital is not expended? How are the factories to be maintained? How is the machinery to be maintained? How are even the tools to be maintained to give work to those men if capital is flying out of the country? Let me remind your Lordships that the State has never been, and is not, responsible for the

891
great centres which at the present moment give employment to so many people. Look at your coal mines, iron works, telegraphs, telephones, and any other industries you may choose to select. Have they been developed by the State? Not at all. They have been developed by private enterprise, by the outlay of capital, and if once that capital begins to fly, and continues to fly, naturally all those great industries must languish. Why? Because there is no money to be invested in them and to give employment to those who naturally depend upon them. I read the other day a speech by Mr. Hobhouse, with whom no one will accuse me of being a sympathiser; he is a colleague of noble Lords opposite. What did Mr. Hobhouse say? He said:—
"There were some people, equally unwise, who thought you could put capital on one side and labour on the other. In his judgment, there was the closest possible relation between capital and labour, and each lived by the other; and if we were to do anything which would drive capital, permanently or temporarily, from this country, we should undoubtedly inflict a lasting blow on all who laboured by hand or brain."
Therefore are you justified, either by your previous policy or by your policy as shown in the Budget at the present moment, in driving capital out of this country?
I should like to hear from noble Lords who will follow me whether they deny the statement that capital is flying from this country. I know full well that the Prime Minister stated that he did not seem to mind if capital were flying from this country. I thought it an extraordinary remark for a man in his position to make. Then I read also a speech by Mr. Winston Churchill in which he denied that capital was flying from this country. The ways of the present Cabinet are somewhat difficult to understand. Who represents the Cabinet at the present moment? Whether it is Mr. Asquith or Mr. Churchill seems to us outsiders a difficult point to decide. At any rate, I think it is a little difficult to reconcile the two statements of those very eminent members of His Majesty's Government. But that capital is flying out of the country I do not think anybody will deny. I had brought under my notice the other day a statement by no less an authority than the Chairman of Parr's Bank who, on January 28, of this year, said—
"A feature of the year had been the small proportion of British capital which had been invested in home industries. Out of a total of £203,000,000 no less than £148,000,000 had gone abroad into foreign or Colonial investments."
892
In view of that statement, from a man in that position, surely we are justified in saying that if capital is leaving the country at this extraordinary rate, it is not altogether to be wondered at that the condition of unemployment is what it is at the present moment.
Therefore I say that this Budget should be referred to the people of this country to let them really recognise for themselves what the policy of the present Government is and to say whether it is to be continued in the future as it has been in the past. There is only one word I need to say as to the reasons why I support the Amendment of the noble Marquess referring this matter to the country. One reason is that I think these proposals are based on Socialistic grounds. I know full well that I shall be told by noble Lords opposite and by their colleagues in another place that they repudiate Socialism entirely. I need only say that much as I respect them I prefer to take the word of the leading Socialist, Mr. Snowden. He informed us in a speech that a number of the measures that are introduced into this Budget were proposed by him to Mr. Lloyd-George. I do not think any noble Lord will contradict me when I say that Mr. Snowden has been really more or less responsible for this Socialistic Budget. I feel I shall be endorsed by Mr. Snowden's own words. These are his words—
"The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year said that the suggestions I had put forward might be useful for some future Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to congratulate him upon being a great and apt pupil, and for not having waited to allow a future Chancellor of the Exchequer to begin to put those suggestions into practice."
If after that I call the Budget a Socialistic Budget I am endorsed by Mr. Snowden's own words.
Again I say I cordially, and to the best of my ability, endorse the Amendment of the noble Marquess. I object to this Budget because I consider it is unconstitutional, it is unjust, and it is vindictive. On those grounds I think the noble Marquess, in the interests constitutionally of your Lordships' House, was bound to move the Amendment he has submitted. But I think he has done more and wisely done more. He has taken this Budget out of the hands of your Lordships. It cannot be said that your Lordships have rejected this measure. I know there are a great many of your Lordships who would have liked to have seen it rejected. Whether they are right or wrong, I offer no opinion;

893
but the noble Marquess has taken the line of appealing to the country. He would appeal to the people, in whom he has confidence. The position of your Lordships' House has always been a great one in the minds of the people of this country because you have never refused to accept any measure when the people had an opportunity of speaking and have spoken in its favour. Now the people will decide whether this Budget: should become the law of the land or whether it should not. I cordially endorse the Amendment of the noble Marquess, firmly believing that whatever the decision of the people is your Lordships will most loyally and heartily abide by it.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am one of those who would have preferred to amend the Finance Bill, retaining the existing taxes and some of those now pro-posed; but after the repeated declarations made by the Government that they would admit no amendment, however reasonable, I can well understand that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition thinks that this would be a waste of time. I hold in my hand quotations from Mr. Gladstone in which he took the view that your Lordships had exactly the same power of amendment as you have of rejection, but in existing circumstances I will not trouble you with those quotations in view of the repeated declarations of the Government to which I have referred. The extreme violence of the speeches in which your Lordships have been attacked for months past has fallen very flat. They will not hurt your Lordships, and I think the country will draw the obvious conclusion that it is impossible to find arguments in defence of the Budget. Moreover, we have not only just right to protest against speeches of extreme violence, tending to set class against class, but also against statements either very much exaggerated, or in some cases altogether without foundation. Even my noble friend Lord Welby, who is generally so cautious, has actually told the Westminster Gazette that in adopting Lord Lansdowne's Amendment "the Lords in one day will add between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 to the national liabilities." But in his interesting speech last night my noble friend did not adhere to this statement. I do not think that he will contradict me when I say that the Resolution will not add a penny to the national liabilities. What my noble friend, I think,
894
meant to say was that it would affect that amount of taxation. But he knows very well that, even that is only technically correct, and if there should be any chaos in the finances of the country it could only be by the action of His Majesty's Government.
But first of all, my Lords, I should like to point out that—as it seems to me at least—the Bill does not come to us with any moral force. Ever since its introduction elections have been going against the Government. Moreover, look at the majorities by which the several clauses of the Finance Bill have been carried in the House of Commons. The system under which the House of Commons is elected is by no means satisfactory. Twice in recent elections a minority in the country has secured a majority in the House of Commons. At the last General Election, on the contrary, it so happened that the majority in the country obtained a far larger proportional majority in the House. In 1906, according to the poll-book issued by the Liberal Publication Department, the Radicals polled 3,044,000 votes and secured 428 representatives, while the Unionists polled 2,400,000 and only obtained 139 representatives. "If," says the Report, "the Government only held as many seats as this vote majority entitled it to proportionately, this seat majority would be ninety-four. As a fact it is 354." That is to say the Government have 260 more votes in the House of Commons than they are entitled to by the votes given in the country. But their majorities in the Divisions on the Budget clauses have never reached to anything like this figure. They have ranged up to 180 and fallen below forty. If, then, the Government had only a majority in the House of Commons corresponding to their majority in the country, they would have been unable to pass the Bill. So far as arithmetic goes, we are entitled to say that the country is against the Bill.
The Bill is so far-reaching that it is impossible to deal with all the problems raised, and I will not refer to the additional taxes on alcohol and tobacco, except to guard myself against being supposed to approve them, though some increase may be desirable. Nor will I follow Lord Lansdowne into his remarks about Tariff Reform except to say that while any general imposition of duties

895
would lead to the evils pointed out in the excellent Report of the Committee on Direct and Indirect Taxation of 1840; additional Customs Duties will clearly bring in more if they are supplemented by Excise Duties and in that case, would involve no abandonment of Free Trade.
I now come to the proportion between direct and indirect taxation. The Prime Minister in his speech at Sheffield in May took the produce of the new indirect taxes at £6,100,000 and of direct taxes at £6,850,000. This he considered was a fair proportion. But it will be observed that this figure is only that for the present year, and as Lord George Hamilton has shown, the real amount from direct taxes will be over £25,000,000, which by the showing of the Prime Minister himself is most unfair. Sir Robert Giffen, who certainly will be admitted to be one of the highest authorities, in a recent article on the Budget has expressed the same opinion. He said—
"The indirect taxes are obviously too low in proportion to the Income Tax and Death Duties."
Moreover, the fact that they are too heavy is not, as Sir Robert has also pointed out, the only objection to the Income Tax and Death Duties. In the first place the Income Tax is in many cases a tax not really on income, but on capital. This is the case as regards all incomes from wasting securities. So far as the present tax is concerned, of course the Government are not responsible. The injustice has always been admitted, and so far no remedy has been found. It has always been admitted to be a strong reason for keeping the tax low; but the Government are now raising it heavily without making the slightest effort to remove the injustice. The second reason for keeping the tax low is that it is a reserve in times of difficulty and in case of war, but the Government now are raising it in a time of peace almost as high as, and indeed in some cases higher than, it has ever before been in a time of war.
Now, my Lords, I am not going into the question of the land taxes, because that has been dealt with by speakers more able to speak with authority on the subject than I am; but I should like to say a few words on the question of graduation. I fear that I shall not carry all of your Lordships, even on this side of the House, with me in objecting to the principle of graduation. No doubt Government are not open
896
to the charge of introducing the system. They are, however, seriously aggravating the injustice commenced by their predecessors. But that is precisely the danger of graduation. It has always been objected to by the highest authorities because if you once begin there is no logical reason why you should stop. This is the second graduation of Income Tax, and the third of the Death Duties. Moreover, several members of the Government have warned us that if they have their will, others are in store. John Stuart Mill, himself a strong Radical, lays it down as an axiom that—
"to tax the larger income at a higher percentage than the smaller is to levy a tax on industry and economy, to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbours. It is a partial taxation, which is a mild form of robbery … A just and wise administration would abstain from holding out motives for dissipating rather than saving the earnings of honest exertion."
Another high authority, Mr. Lecky, in his work on Democracy, says that—
"it is obvious that a graduated tax is a direct penalty imposed on saving and industry, a direct premium offered to idleness and extravagance. It discourages the very habits and qualities which it is most in the interest of the Stale to foster … It is at the same time perfectly arbitrary … . Highly graduated taxation realises most completely the supreme danger of democracy, creating a state of things in which one class imposes on another burdens which it is not asked to share, and compels the State into vast schemes of extravagance, under the belief that the whole cost will be thrown upon others … . Yet no truth of political economy is more certain than that a heavy taxation of capital will fall most severely on the poor."
I should like again to quote Sir Robert Giffen, who, in a recent article in the Quarterly, lays it down that—
"all graduation is an interference with individual right which it is one of the main functions of the State to support."
Every step taken in this direction makes it more difficult to resist the next. If you agree to the proposals in this Budget you will have no logical basis for objecting to a further step in the same direction. Graduation not only takes an unfair part of a man's property, but lowers the value of the rest, because it strikes a blow at all security of possession. It necessarily creates a want of confidence and a feeling of insecurity. The idea is that you are going to remedy an injustice. How is that done? At present the figures are £5,000 and 6d. Why are these figures taken? Perhaps the Government will explain. I can only suggest that as there are said to be only from 10,000 to

897
12,000 persons with over £5,000 a year—a number which seems to me to be below the mark—the Government consider that it is safe to tax—might I not have said "rob"?—them. I do not think the Government will find it possible to give any logical reason for the figures they have chosen. But no doubt they will tell us that I graduation places the burden on the shoulders best able to bear it. How do they know that? They assume that a man with £5,000 a year is richer than one with £4,000 a year. But this is to fall into the fundamental error of looking at one side only of the account. They take the incoming and ignore the outgoing. They look only at the assets and ignore the liabilities. A bachelor with £4,000 a year is better off—I mean, of course, only financially—than a man, with a wife and family, who has £5,000. And yet the man who is really the richer of the two will pay Jess Income Tax. The man with £4,000 a year may support the Government proposals now, and deem himself fortunate in escaping the Super Tax which the man with £5,000 has to pay. But how long will he escape? His turn will inevitably come; then that of the man with £3,000, and so on.
Then I come to the Death Duties, and I will take the case of three men each inherit-lug £20,000. One is an only son whose father left £20,000, and he will have paid £1,000. The second is one of five children whose father leaves £100,000; they also will each receive £20,000, but they will each have paid £1,600. The third is one of ten children whose father leaves £200,000; they also will each get £20,000 but they will each have paid £2,000! I should have said, what can be more absurd and ridiculous, if it were not so serious. But what can be more unfair and unjust? If you are to graduate at all it should obviously be on the sum a man inherits, not on the size of the estate from which it is derived. Graduation, therefore, not only leads logically to Socialism, but creates many cases of hardship and injustice—as many as, and perhaps even more than, it redresses.
The Government, I believe, consider that the Budget will, first, provide for the immense addition to our expenditure for which they are responsible with as little disturbance as possible to business—to our manufacturing and commercial interests; secondly, that it will promote building, and tend to improve
898
the dwellings of the poor; and, thirdly, that it will throw the burden of taxation on the rich and spare the poor. These are excellent intentions; if I thought they would be fulfilled I would unquestionably vote for the Bill. But before sitting down I will endeavour to show that, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge, the provisions of the Bill will have the very opposite effect.
We are told that the House of Lords has never before thrown out a Finance Bill, But the House has never before had such a Bill to consider. The bankers and merchants of London have never before denounced a Budget. We are divided in political opinions and have never before as a body taken such a step. But they felt so strongly that the present Budget would be disastrous to our commerce that they drew up a remonstrance to the Government in which among other arguments against the Budget they say—
"The great increase and graduation of the Death Duties—already materially raised but two years ago—and of the income tax coupled with the super tax, will, we are confident, prove seriously injurious to the commerce and industries of the country."
That was signed by representatives of every bank in London and almost all the great-mercantile houses. It was no political demonstration; it was signed by the late Liberal candidate for the City and the Chairman of the City Liberal Association. Not content with that, a great meeting in the City was called. They invited no great Statesman. It was purely a business and City meeting. But the great hall at Cannon-street was crowded. Lord Rothschild presided, and was supported by the leading bankers, merchants, and others intimately associated with the trade and commerce of London. Almost every important City house and institution was represented. Representatives of every great bank and insurance office were present, and the following resolution was unanimously passed—
"That this meeting, while recognising the necessity for increased taxation, is of opinion that the cumulative effect of the proposed heavy charges on both capital and income will be to discourage enterprise and thrift, and will prove seriously injurious to the commerce and industries of the country."
No doubt a subsequent meeting was held to support the Budget, but with one or two exceptions, easy to account for, those responsible for the trade and commerce of the country were conspicuous by their absence.

899
I believe, for instance, that not a single chairman of a bank, of an insurance company, or, indeed, of any great commercial institution attended to support the Prime Minister.
We maintain that the policy of the Governmen has lowered the value of every one's property. While the securities of almost every foreign Government have risen Consols have fallen, so that every new loan—those for Irish Land purchase, for instance—will have to be raised on more onerous terms. Municipal securities have fallen, partly, no doubt, on account of increased expenditure, but partly from want of confidence. Members of the Stock Exchange may not be great authorities on political economy, but they are petty good judges as to prices, and they are certainly of opinion that the policy of the Government has lowered prices and that they would rise if the Government went out. It cannot be denied that the Budget has created a general feeling of unrest and insecurity, and this cannot be good for the country. There is, moreover, a general consensus of opinion that capital is leaving the country. The Government have evidently not considered what this means. The Prime Minister has made two contradictory statements in one speech. First he ridiculed the idea, and asked with an air of triumph, Where is it going to? He, however, gave the answer himself a few sentences later. "It is a fact," he said, "that we have sent millions of British capital into the uttermost corners of the earth." I will ask the House to consider the effect of this in a few moments. But I must point out that it is not a question of British capital only. Hitherto, much foreign capital has been invested here to the great advantage of the country. The Budget is putting an end to that satisfactory state of things. The noble Earl, Lord Crewe, may say that the commercial community do not understand their own business, but he cannot deny that an overwhelming majority of those concerned believe that the Budget will deal a heavy blow to the trade and commerce of the country.
I come now to the second object, a very excellent object, which the Government have in view—to encourage building and thus improve the dwellings of the working classes. Here, again, I submit that expert opinion is almost unanimous against the land proposals in the Budget. The Law Society appointed
900
a committee to examine and report upon the Bill. The Committee have made a valuable report criticising the Bill severely. They say that—
"They regard them [i.e., the land clauses] as unjust in principle, in that they are specially directed against owners or a particular class of property, and one which already bears its fair share of Imperial and local burdens, as unnecessary from a purely financial point of view, as seeking to bring about under the pretext of taxation results which, if deemed desirable, should be openly pursued by substantive legislation, and as calculated to cause dislocation of business and to augment unemployment."
And again—
"A change of such importance ought not to be brought forward as part of a financial measure. If for purposes of public policy the owners of land are to be deprived of part of their property, it should be upon terms of payment of a reasonable price, and not by taking the property without compensation and calling the process taxation."
The Law Society of Ireland have expressed very similar opinions, and they add that I some of the proposals "will weigh with special severity on the tenant farmers of Ireland." The Land Agents' Society have issued a Memorandum in which they point out that the "so-called unearned increment" does not, and is never likely to, exist, except in the shape of accumulated interest on locked up capital; that "the Ministerial estimate of £2,000,000 as the cost of the valuation of the land … is wholly inadequate." They believe—
"that the view is held in some quarters that the increased burdens imposed upon the land by the Bill will affect large landowners only. Nothing, in their opinion, could be further from the truth. On the contrary, in many respects—such as, for instance, valuation—the cost to a small owner must necessarily be relatively very much greater than to a large owner. In the opinion of the Committee no landlord, however small, will be able in prudence to dispense with the services of a skilled valuer."
The Society of Auctioneers, which was founded more than a hundred years ago, express the opinion that—
"The cost both to the nation and private owners will be enormous, and altogether out of proportion to the revenue obtained. The valuations will be very complicated, and in many cases there will be conflicting interests in connection with the same property. The effect of the Bill will be to create distrust and uncertainty with regard to the tenure of land, and will lead capitalists and others to abandon land as a subject for investment."
The Surveyors' Association have issued a statement, in which they point out that—
"At the present time, owing to the great decrease in the value of property, the margin on

901
many mortgages lifts boon reduced below the statutory one-third, and the imposition of the proposed duties will cause a still further reduction, so that trustees and others who have hitherto regarded mortgages as one of the soundest forms of investment will he compelled to call in their capital and invest it in other securities; the result being great hardship on, and expense to, the owners of property, and restriction of the capital available for investment of land."
The Valuers' Association sent out a circular to all their members, and received 421 replies. Of these 411 condemn the land clauses and only ten support them. They say that the Finance Bill has already had a deterrent effect on the letting of building land, and some of the signatories have experienced instances where contracts which were on the eve of completion have been annulled on account of the cumulative taxes proposed, and the cancelling of these agreements will cause an enormous amount of unemployment in the building and allied trades.
I have the honour to be, and to have been for twenty-five years, president of the Building Societies Association. The societies of which it is composed have over £70,000,000 sterling invested in such securities, and they will also be very adversely affected. For instance, the secretaries and surveyors of the Bradford Equitable, in their Report to the Society, point out that—
"The Budget suggestions for Land taxation are so complicated and apparently unworkable that there appears to be no possibility of making any useful suggestion for their amendment, and the probability of further legislation on similar lines, increasing the amount of the taxes, will for a considerable time seriously unsettle the property market and reduce the selling value of all real estate far beyond the amount of the proposed taxes. This state will certainly continue until buyers can estimate with a fair amount of accuracy the full effect of such legislation."
The Government proposals were put forward with the view of encouraging the building trade. But what has been the result? The London builders have issued a manifesto in which after saying that they have had a long experience and employ many thousands of workmen, they add that their business has been paralysed by the Budget—
"Since the Budget proposals have been placed before the public no one of us has taken up any land for building purposes. The reason for this is that while we, as traders, are as desirous as ever we were to do business, we are unable to entertain proposals which would result in nothing but a serious loss. The increment duty of twenty per cent. and the 100 per cent. increase in Stamp Duties are, perhaps, the direct causes of the paralysis of our industries and the demoralisation
902
of those who have been accustomed to invest their money in building. Beyond this, the little man who builds a house, frequently paying for it in instalments, will no longer dream of investing his savings or committing himself financially by dealing in house property, The actual result is that with an immediately diminishing number of workers we are merely completing existing contracts; and seeing that not one of us has bought a single estate since the Budget was introduced, the outlook for the winter months, so far as the worker is concerned, is grave beyond any possibility of exaggeration. We are anxious to continue business; we are wishful of finding further work for our men, some of whom have been with us many years; but this is impossible; and we give this warning of the general collapse in the building trade in the hope that something may yet be done to avert what cannot but prove to be a terrible industrial calamity."
There is, in fact, a most remarkable consensus of opinion amongst those best qualified to judge, that the effects of the proposals will be disastrous. Those who have issued these protests against the land clauses are not millionaires or large landowners, but hard-headed men of business speaking of what is within their own knowledge.
I now come to the last point. The Government maintain that the Bill will benefit the poor at the expense of the rich. When members of the Government at public meetings can spare a few moments from the abuse of their opponents to the defence of their Bill, they generally sum up their remarks by declaring, without showing how, that it is a "poor man's Budget." My Lords, it is nothing of the kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think that to diminish wealth is to diminish poverty. It would be truer to say that if you diminish wealth, you increase poverty. The Government may, and will, ruin many of those who now consider themselves well off, but it is not in the power of any Government permanently to alter the incidence of taxation. The effect is being constantly modified by change in wages, in hours of work, by special allowances, and in other ways. But though it is not in the power of Government to affect permanently the incidence of taxation, it is in their power to affect for good or evil the prosperity of the country. It can hardly be denied that, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge, the effect of the Budget on trade and commerce of the country will be disastrous. So far from encouraging building, the Budget, in the opinion of builders, is doing and will do the very reverse. It has paralysed their business and would throw thousands out of employment.

903
So far as land is concerned, I have shown that in the opinion, not of great landowners, but in that of those practically concerned in land management, the Bill will be disastrous. Moreover, it is entirely an error to suppose that it will affect large landowners only. On the contrary, the cost to small owners will be proportionally more heavy, and the general effect more injurious. Building, again, has been seriously checked. So far as London is concerned, little land has lately been taken up for building; if the Bill passes, we shall have to face a general collapse of the business and thousands will be thrown out of employment. That, again, is not merely my own opinion, which would be of little importance, but is that of the highest authorities in the City. They said in their weighty remonstrance—
"In conclusion, we would point out that, though the taxes to which we have taken exception will, in the first instance, fall with excessive severity on capital, they will also in our opinion tend to discourage private enterprise and thrift, thus in the long run diminishing employment and reducing wages."
Of course, they may be quite mistaken, but that is their opinion. Again, the Budget is a discouragement to thrift and industry. As men advance in life they naturally begin to consider when they should retire from work, whether what they expect to make will repay the effort. But if Government are going to take a shilling and eightpence per cent. for income tax, naturally men will retire earlier. The whole nation will be the poorer, and in this way again the employment of artisans will be diminshed.
The attempt to delude the working classes into the idea that these taxes fall exclusively on the rich will have another unfortunate effect. It will tend to promote extravagance and discourage economy. We have seen the malign influence of the compound householder on municipal expenditure, and are paying heavier rates because so many electors are under the impression that they have no interest in economy. In the same way, if Parliamentary electors are persuaded that it is in the power of Government to throw taxation on the rich, it will become even more difficult to resist excessive national expenditure. I do not for a moment question the desire of the Government to benefit the poor, but am persuaded that they are going the wrong way to work. Real charity is that which makes the recipients more independent; unwise charity makes them more dependent.
904
The tendency of legislation under the present Government is to make our poor more dependent—less independent.
Lastly, more capital in the country means more employment. If capital comes into the country it is spent in paying for labour, and wages tend to rise; when capital leaves the country there is less demand for labour, and wages fall. My Lords, when we find that the effect of this Bill, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge, must necessarily be to drive capital out of the country, to create a feeling of insecurity and want of confidence, to lower the value of property, check industry and discourage thrift, diminish employment and lower wages, we cannot surely, in the interests of the whole community, take the responsibility of passing the Bill as it stands. Since the Government tell us that under no circumstances will they accept any amendment, we are not only entitled, but bound, to submit these facts and arguments for the consideration of our countrymen, and to secure for them the opportunity of deciding for themselves.
THE LORD STEWARD (EARL BEAUCHAMP): With the permission of your Lordships I should like, as my first duty, to express regret at the absence of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and for the cause of it. The noble Marquess's gallant effort yesterday afternoon to overcome the obvious physical discomfort from which he was suffering, was as much admired on the Government side of the House as on the other. Even in the midst of this controversy we may all join in the hope that he will not be long incapacitated from joining in debates in the House. My second duty is to answer some observations which were addressed to me earlier in the evening by Lord Londonderry, one of which I will answer at once by handing to him the financial statement which has been issued as a White Paper by another place, which is numbered 116, and which contains the information he asked for in the paper which he handed to me across the Table.
Now it seems to me that there is on this subject—it is common to both sides of the House—a vast quantity of theory. There is also a vast quantity of fact as to which there can be no dispute, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I try to confine myself first to that part of the subject which deals with hard dry facts rather than with large constitutional theories. An admission was made, I think, by the noble Marquess

905
the Leader of the Oppostion, and it was re-echoed by other speakers on that side of the House, that the Amendment we are now discussing is without; precedent. But it was also contended that the provisions of the Budget are also without precedent; that they are revolutionary and Socialistic. That being the noble Lord's contention, I hope I may be allowed to go into the matter in some detail and to ask your Lordships where there is anything revolutionary or where the Government have taken any improper step.
We know there is a deficit, almost unexampled in time of peace, of £16,000,000. We know it is due in part to Old Age Pensions and in part to the increased requirements of the Navy. Noble Lords on both sides of the House have agreed to it, and I think there is no large body of opinion on either side of the House which is opposed to this increased expenditure. The Government propose to meet that deficit by reducing the Sinking Fund and by imposing various duties on stamps partly, and on motor cars, and increased duties on tobacco. Then we come to the more important duties. In the first place, there are the Death Duties, and in the course of this debate I have been sorry to see that no noble Lord opposite has made any reference to the fact that there has been some concession made in the direction of works of art, in the shape of a deduction proposed in the Finance Bill. I think, if I may say so, a very proper deduction in regard to works of art which are not the subject of a settlement has been made in this Budget, and that has not been acknowledged by noble Lords, who have found every objection they could to it.
The Death Duties, though increased in amount, introduce no new principle, and cannot, therefore, be called revolutionary. Then when we come to the Income Tax and the Super Tax there are the allowances to the extent of twenty-five per cent. for the management of landed property. The noble Lord who has just sat down objected to the Super Tax and Graduated Income Tax. His arguments might properly have been addressed to noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, for I do not understand that they have any serious objection to the one or the other. The noble Lord said that it was impossible for the tax collector to be sure that a man with £5,000 a year is better off than another man with £4,000 a year. That is quite true. I do not know that Mr. Rockefeller is any better off than I am
906
myself, but I have a shrewd suspicion that he is, and I have a shrewd suspicion that a man with £5,000 a year is better off than a man with £4,000.
With regard to the Licence Duties, I do not intend now to follow the noble Lord on the Cross Benches who spoke just before dinner, but I desire to give a few figures in regard to these duties. These taxes are complained of, I think, by Lord Londonderry, who said that we had in the Finance Bill included the provisions of the Licensing Bill, and that these should have been in a separate measure. I am quite unable to understand arguments which are addressed to the House on those lines. The headings of the Licensing Bill included statutory deductions, local option as to prohibition, grant of licences, time limit, discretion of local licensing justices, schemes for statutory reduction, and reduction of amount of compensation, &c. If there is anything from the Licensing Bill tacked on to the Finance Bill I would like to know the line and clause of the Finance Bill which contains it. The main principle which has actuated the Government in the revised scheme of licence duties is that the bigger houses should pay more than at present, and on a scale similar to that of the smaller houses. Under the scale proposed five per cent. of the public-houses will actually have their Licence Duty reduced, twenty-eight per cent. will have an increased duty of from 5s. to 10 s. per annum, eight and a-half per cent. will have an increased duty of from £1 to £2 10 s., while in the case of another six per cent. the amount of the average increase will range from £3 to £7. In the case of a further twenty-three and a-half per cent. the average increases range from £9 to £12 10 s. a year; so that, in other words, no less than seven-tenths of the public-houses would have their Licence Duties reduced or they would have imposed upon them an average increase not exceeding £12 10 s. a year. Setting aside some smaller licences which came between that figure and the next, thirteen per cent. would have their licences increased by an average sum of £45 per annum. These figures represent altogether eighty-four per cent. of the total number of the public-houses in the country. The heavily taxed houses are therefore relatively few, but these taxes are designed and meant to hit the immense new hotels which are a feature of modern life, which did not exist at the

907
time when Licence Duties were first introduced, and which, being new features in our modern life, have not been provided for in legislation in times gone by. Houses of that kind are obviously a very proper object of taxation on a higher scale, as compared with the taxation put upon smaller houses. In any case this extra taxation of big houses is after all no matter of new principle. Under those circumstances I think we are thrown back upon the last item in the Budget to find why it is that noble Lords opposite consider the Finance Bill revolutionary and Socialistic.
Now we come to the Land Taxes. It is with very great surprise that I heard the Leader of the Opposition last night speak of these taxes as falling really upon an enterprise which fills relatively a much smaller place in the wealth of the country than it did forty or fifty years ago. The values which the Government propose to tax hardly existed forty or fifty years ago. This taxation of land values is not a taxation of agricultural land values, nor of the land throughout the country; it is the taxation of urban land values. Indeed, every Amendment which was suggested by the friends of noble Lords opposite designed to protect agriculture was, as far as possible, accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Clause 7, dealing with increment value, gives an exemption to agricultural land; Clause 14 (the reversion duty) and Clause 17 (undeveloped land duty) also exempt agricultural land. There is, therefore, here no question of the taxation of agricultural values. We are dealing with urban values, and what the Government propose to do is to ask that this vast wealth should contribute its fair share to the taxation of the country. This wealth, which was hardly known forty or fifty years ago, has grown, to the knowledge of every member of this House, almost beyond the dreams of avarice. Hardly any form of wealth in this country is so immense as the possession of land in urban areas. It has escaped up to the present moment not only its fair share towards the taxation of the country, but also towards rating. Here in the Finance Bill of this year is the attempt on the part of His Majesty's Government to ask owners of urban land values for the first time to pay some small portion of their immense wealth to the common stock of the country, and that is
908
the proposal that is an offence to noble Lords opposite.
Now let me turn to these various land taxes and give some examples of how our old land system has operated in the past, and how it is not unjust that these taxes should really force these landowners to pay something more towards the taxation of the country. To guard myself against any misconception, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say that in any instance given I do not desire or intend to attack any individual. It is the system that makes it possible, and it is against that system, quite apart from any individual, that this taxation is proposed. These land taxes are four in number. In the first place, there is the Increment Value Duty which exempts agricultural land. Then His Majesty's Government propose to value the land of the country, and its value to-day will be stated. When on any future occasion property changes hands and it appears that it has increased in value, then, subject to certain deductions, the Government propose that twenty per cent. of that increase should be a contribution to the National Exchequer. There is no confiscation; no taking away of anything that now belongs to any landlord in the country. The only part which is made subject to taxation is any future increase that may happen. We are not dealing with present values or prairie value. We take a percentage of the future profit which is not due to any expenditure on the part of the landlord himself.
Let me give one or two instances. Thirty years ago on the failure of a prominent financier in the City of London his business premises in Lombard Street were sold for about £37 per foot; rather an extravagant price for that day. Now, so far as can be judged from sales in the City, land in that neighbourhood is being sold at no less than £50 per foot. Considering the fact that the landlord has made no contribution to increase the value of that land, that seems to us to be a proper subject for taxation. Then there is another instance. In 1865 a piece of land on the foreshore of the Thames near the Temple changed hands for £8,250. In 1870, at the cost of the ratepayers, the Victoria Embankment was built. A year afterwards the London School Board bought that same piece of land and had to pay no less than £26,420. We say, and who can

909
deny? that that vast increase in five years was a proper subject for taxation.
But this question does not affect only London. Let us take Manchester. In 1780 land at the corner of Piccadilly and Mosley Street was sold for a little under 1s. 6d. a yard. Six years ago that same land was sold at the rate of from £59 to £70 a yard. There was some land in Cross-street which was sold in 1881 at the rate of £60 a yard. In May, 1900, it was sold at the rate of £120 a yard. There was also another case in which, I think, in a short period the amount which was given for a piece of land in. Manchester was even larger. I quote these increases as examples of what in the opinion of His Majesty's Government are proper subjects of taxation.
Now, let us turn to the Reversion Duty, a duty on leases, in which again there are exemptions for agricultural property and certain other exemptions to which I need not now refer. On the determination of any lease ten per cent. is payable upon the increased value. Here again, let us take the provinces. In South-street and Broad-street, Sheffield, a gentleman held land at a ground rent of £5 1s. per annum. For the renewal of that lease a sum of no less than £150 was paid. There is no question here of what the gentleman in possession may have been paying to middlemen. That will not become subject to taxation. What will be subject to taxation is the difference between the £5 and the £150, upon which, in our opinion, it is only fair the ground landlord should pay ten per cent. In Birmingham four years ago there were some premises in New-street, the ground rent of which was £975, which was fourteen times more than had been paid before. In Broad-street there was a public-house of which the ground rent had been £40 per annum. It was put up to auction and no less than £840 per annum was given for that lease.
Then we come to the Undeveloped Land Duty, and I cannot help thinking from what has been said chiefly by Lord Camperdown that it is this duty against which most of the objections of noble Lords opposite are directed. This is a duty of one halfpenny on the site value. Here, again, there are exemptions in favour of agricultural land. I do not know that there is a tax in the whole programme of His Majesty's Government which has been more urgently demanded
910
by municipalities throughout the country than this tax on undeveloped land. I will show shortly why it is that this is asked for. There was a debate in the House of Commons some years ago upon a Bill for the taxation of these values, and Sir Albert Rollit, then the Conservative member for South Islington, spoke in favour of the Bill and quoted the following resolution, which had been unanimously adopted by the Association of Municipal Corporations:—" That it is urgent to provide some means by which owners of land, whether occupied or vacant, shall contribute directly to local rates." I hope your Lordships will bear with me while I give one or two illustrations as to the way in which it will work. At Felixstowe a certain plot of one and a-half acres of undeveloped land paid only a few shillings in rates and taxes. That land was wanted for the site of an hotel, and the terms of purchase were that £2,000 should be paid for the land and £500 more when the magistrates granted a licence for the building. In that case the plot was wanted for the development of the town, and the land was worth apparently not less than £1,400 an acre. It was withheld, and paid only a few shillings in rates and taxes. Is it an extreme or revolutionary proposal that the landlord should pay in proportion to the value of the land? The taxation proposed in the Budget would have amounted to only £5 a year in that case.
The demand for this tax comes from all parts of the country. The demand which has come specially under my notice is that from watering places, which suffer considerably when the owners of land outside the towns refuse to allow that land to be built upon. As a result the rates in the towns are heavier than they need be. The land is held up until a very large sum—often a fancy price—is paid for it. We do not object to a fancy price being obtained, but we say that until the owners get those fancy prices they ought to pay their proportion towards the rates which their neighbours have to bear.
I shall now read to your Lordships a rather long quotation from the Report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, which reported in favour of the rating of undeveloped land in 1885—
"At present, land available for building in the neighbourhood of our populous centres, though its capital value is very great, is probably producing

911
a small yearly return until it is let for building. The owners of this land are rated, not in relation to the real value, but to the actual annual income. They can thus afford to keep their land out of the market, and to part with only small quantities, so as to raise the price beyond the actual monopoly price which the land would command by its advantages of position. Meantime, the general expenditure of the town on improvements is increasing the value of their property, If this land were rated at, say, four per cent. on its selling value, the owners would have a more direct incentive to part with it to those who are desirous of building, and a two-fold advantage would result to the community. First, all the valuable property would contribute to the rates, and thus the burden on the occupiers would be diminished by the increase in the rateable property. Secondly, the owners of the building land would he forced to offer their land for sale, and thus their competition with one another would bring down the price of building land, and so diminish the tax in the shape of ground rent, or price paid for land which is now levied on urban enterprise by the adjacent land owners, a tax, be it remembered, which is no recompense for any industry or expenditure on their part, but is the natural result of the industry and activity of the townspeople themselves. Your Majesty's Commissioners would recommend that these matters should be included in legislation when the law of rating comes to be dealt with by Parliament."
With regard to wayleaves, there is an almost classic example of their value and it is the only example I shall inflict on your Lordships. It is a case in Monmouthshire in which it is stated that the landlord receives no less than £12,300 per annum in respect of the tolls levied on coal carried on a railway through his park. Five per cent. is not a revolutionary amount to take from such wealth.
Now we come to the question of Land Valuation which, as I understand when the matter is generally considered, is the only part of the attack which is seriously alleged against the Government. Now with regard to that, it is perfectly obvious that you cannot possibly raise the money on these various Land Taxes unless you begin by valuing the land. Then where is the "tacking?" In the course of the debate noble Lords sitting opposite have charged the Government with tacking. Will they explain exactly to what section of the Finance Bill they refer and what portions of the Bill could possibly have been left out in view of the demand there is this year for increased revenue? The fact of the matter is that what we need most of all in regard to land is a new standard—that we should have the same standard of value when the landlord pays to the community as when the community pays to the landlord. At the present moment the two amounts are
912
flagrantly different. There was a meeting of the Glasgow Town Council in 1908 at which a resolution was adopted by thirty to fourteen in favour of the principle of the taxation of land values. It is no wonder they should do that in Glasgow, which suffers so largely from most of the evils of overcrowding and of slums to which our large towns are so subject.
In London one-fifth of the land within the boundaries of the County is vacant land. Let us think of the result of that on the rates of London. That land escapes paying on its real value towards the rates of the County of London. It is not surprising that eminent financiers and economists should desire that these people should pay according to the actual value of their land. Complaints come from every part of the County. I will take an example from Oxted. Land is there rated at 13 s. 7d. per acre; the landlord when he was going to sell it asked £600 per acre and made various demands and restrictions with regard to its use. That is an example of the different standard adopted by the landlord when he is asking the community to pay him money and when it is a question of paying rates for the benefit of the community. That is an inconsistency which the Government would be very glad in some measure to see altered. We have this demand from the municipalities of the country. The system is not uncommon either abroad or in the Colonies. I regret to notice among the absences from the Front Bench opposite that of Viscount St. Aldwyn. It is easier to praise him in his absence than in his presence, but I may say he is an almost unrivalled authority on matters of finance. We regret the noble Viscount's absence because he never speaks without commanding respect on both sides of the House. He has expressed himself in times gone by as not wholly opposed to this system of taxation or some attempt to secure some part of the value for the benefit of the community. May I give one or two instances how this tax proposed by the Government will work in actual practice?
I have taken the practical effects of the Budget upon an agricultural estate within my own acquaintance. It is an agricultural estate which comprises some small amount of land near towns. At the present moment the Income Tax payable upon that estate, which has a gross rental of £22,900, is £897. Now, in the future the tax on that with the Super Tax added to it will amount

913
to £1,170—an increase of only £273. That, really considering the large deficit and the demands that are being made upon every section of the community, does not seem to me to be a very large demand to make upon agriculture even in its present depressed condition. There are some small parts of the estate near towns, some thirty or forty acres, or at the utmost a total of fifty-six acres. These fifty-six acres are worth £10,000 for the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty, and upon them the total duty payable, comes to £20 16 s. 8d. I should like to point out, in this connection, that it is always possible for a landowner who finds himself in the position of being expected to pay Undeveloped Land Duty to rid himself of that painful necessity either by developing the land or by selling it to somebody else.
A NOBLE LORD: Find someone to buy it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If no one buys it, it has not a market value and therefore the owner does not have to pay any Undeveloped Land Duty. [Cries of dissent.] I begin to understand the hostility of noble Lords opposite to this duty, but I do not think the colleagues of the noble Lords in another place imagine that if land is not worth the money, taxes are payable. The valuers to be appointed are going to treat it subject to the various rights of appeal which are given, and if the noble Lord wall turn to Section 16, subsection 2, of the Act, he will see that land which is not developed and which cannot be developed by the erection of dwelling-houses and buildings for trade and industry other than agriculture, will not be liable to this Undeveloped Land Duty. I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite will take the opportunity to-morrow to consult their friends as to whether this is accurate or not. I have a Return here which was made to your Lordships on the subject of Scottish estates; but I will not deal with that at this late hour of the night. I will make the briefest reference to the Return moved for by Mr. Walter Long and which is to be found on "White Paper 225." It deals with the amount of public charges falling on owners of property worth £100, £1,000, £10,000 and £100,000, or if invested in Consols and Ordinary Shares of an Industrial Company yielding five per cent.
This is a very instructive Return and I hope your Lordships will interest yourselves
914
in it because the information it contains will go far to allay the fears which undoubtedly exist as to the operation of the Budget. But there is one set of figures in my possession which are not the subject of a Parliamentary Return. They are important because they deal with the comparative annual burdens imposed by the Budget proposals this year and last year in respect of Income Tax, Super Tax, and Death Duties on estates of the capital value of £50,000, £100,000, £250,000, £500,000 and £1,000,000. Each of these estates, for the purposes of comparison, has been taken as yielding an average return of three per cent., and, in order to bring in the Death Duties, the owner is taken as insuring himself against Death Duties on a 3 per cent. basis with an assumed expectation of life at twenty years, and leaving the net capital value unaltered after payment of the Death Duties. Take, first of all, the capital value of £50,000. Last year that would have paid in Income Tax and an insurance against Death Duties, £168 2s. Under the proposals of the Government that same estate will now pay £240 1s. On an estate of £100,000 the previous year's charge was £375 3s.; under our proposals it will be £567 7s. On an estate of £250,000 the tax payable last year was £1,144; this year it will be £1,714. On an estate of half a million the burden last year would have been £2,498, while now it will be £3,746; and on an estate of the value of one million the Income Tax and insurance against Death Duties together last year would have been £5,472, whilst under the present proposals it will be £9,096 7s. We fully realise, especially when we come to larger amounts, that there is a much larger burden put upon these estates, but, in our opinion, it is on those larger estates that the larger amounts ought to be paid. And really, taking into consideration the total value of an estate of not less than one million, I do not know that the annual charge of £9,096 can be described as excessive. We admit quite freely and frankly that we intend and wish to see that wealth shall pay its share towards the general taxation of the country.
Let me answer one or two questions which were put by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry. He made a special point about the Budget proposals being unpopular in the country. I have not discovered that. Certainly the by-elections since the Budget proposals have been before the country do

915
not show anything of the sort. Whatever may have been the result as between the two wings of the progressive forces, it is clear that in Bermondsey, the High Peak, Cleveland, and the Mid Division of Derbyshire there have been majorities in favour of the Budget proposals. The noble Marquess spoke of the amount of unemployment in the Wear District. Employment in the shipbuilding districts generally is better than it was a year ago in spite of the Budget. The percentage of unemployment in the Wear district at the end of October, 1909, was thirty-two per cent. whilst at the end of October, 1908, it was fifty per cent. It follows that unemployment there has considerably diminished since a year ago in spite of the Budget proposals. A special reference was made to the building trade; but here again we find that although employment in October last was slack it was rather better than it was a year ago.
Now, I may perhaps be excused if, even in his absence, I make one reference to the speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in this House. He told us that if any speech had been made by the Leader of the House he would have expected to have been asked the question as to what alternative plan would be suggested by the Opposition. It would not have occurred to me to put such a question. I should not have expected to find in the noble Marquess or in his noble colleagues who sit beside him, a new Chancellor of the Exchequer available for the next Conservative Administration. We seem to be writing our new constitutional history rather quickly. Last week we had this unprecedented Amendment put down, and this week we have the financial proposals of the Conservative Party outlined in the House of Lords. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has told us, quite frankly, that he is in favour of a tax upon imports. His alternative to a tax upon Urban Land Values is a tax upon manufactured goods, and his alternative for the Budget taxes is a tax upon food. Well, if that is the cry with which the next Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Conservative Administration is going to the country, noble Lords on this side of the House have no reason to quarrel with the programme which he has put forward. But it seems to me that noble Lords opposite have made very light of the chaos that will ensue from the adoption of this Amendment. They have offered their
916
assistance in order to help the Government to reduce the chaos to the least possible amount; but I do not think noble Lords opposite exactly realise what that offer involves.
Do they really suppose that the Commons of England will appear at the Bar of of the House of Lords next week, on bended knee and with cap in hand, and ask your Lordships to be good enough to pass a Budget which will commend itself to your Lordships—a Budget which will include the tobacco tax, because it seems you do not object to that, but which, apparently with the exception of the duties on stamps, petrol, and motor cars, will cut out every other financial provision suggested by the Government? Do noble Lords see that such an action will be to make this House supreme in financial affairs, and to give the House of Lords the power of the purse? Is it likely, at the beginning of the twentieth century that to this House—a non-elective and non-representative House—the Commons of the Realm will surrender the power of the purse? No, it is quite certain that whatever their action may be, it will not be on those lines. I do not hesitate to say that no more momentous or far-reaching step has been taken in the history of this country since Charles I raised his standard at Nottingham. Noble Lords opposite said, and said quite rightly, that they cared for no threats. None have yet been made. We do not wish to offer any threat. We content ourselves with a perfectly plain I statement of facts. And it is this. In the opinion of the Liberal Party—I believe the unanimous opinion—this House with its past record, with its present constitution, and with its powers as they exist at present, is unworthy and incapable of guiding the destinies of a great and mighty Empire.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl began his speech by telling us that there had been no gratitude shown for the concession in the Budget made by the Government in regard to works of art. I always sympathise with a good man with a genuine grievance, and I am ready to extend to him my fullest gratitude; but I do not think it was a reasonable grievance, because this concession does not very much affect the main principles of the Budget, and it is to that main principle that the debate has been chiefly confined. The noble Earl commenced his speech with that good-natured grievance,

917
but he finished with a not too good-natured sneer at the state of affairs which neither the Leader of the Opposition nor noble Lords on this side of the House ever pictured to themselves as a desirable state of affairs. I do not know why the noble Earl has drawn a picture of the House of Commons kneeling at the Bar of the House in complete submission to your Lordships. I only hope it is not his desire that the picture shall be reproduced in posters during the forthcoming General Election.
I hope your Lordships will excuse me from following the noble Earl in his discussion on the series of taxes to which he has addressed himself. I quite admit that it is possible to minimise the effect of this Budget by taking the taxes singly. In some cases the effect of the tax is not very great, but in others it is very great, while the cumulative effect of all the taxes is stupendous. That is the case of the Opposition in both Houses, and it is one to which no answer has yet been attempted in this debate. The noble Earl spoke a great deal on the subject of urban land, and his excuse for placing the tax upon it is that hitherto this land has escaped its fair share of taxation. I am not an unfortunate owner of urban land, but I felt considerable surprise at the statement of the noble Earl. It is not true that urban land has hitherto escaped its fair share of taxation. Have profits on urban land paid no Income Tax? Have sales of urban land entailed no Stamp Duty? Have no Estate Duties, Succession Duties, or Death Duties been paid on urban land? Surely urban land has paid exactly the same proportionate contribution to the Revenue as other kinds of property, and therein lies the injustice of the additional taxation. Our case is that you are putting more than one extra tax on urban land, and again I say therein lies the injustice of your proposals. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, quoted one or two cases and it was difficult to follow the figures, but I could not help feeling that in his Lombard-street case he gave us no reason why the increase in value of 1s. even should have been met by a fine to the Imperial Treasury. There may have been reasons, but the noble Earl did not tell us of them. The noble Earl quoted these cases as cases of a kind which the municipal authorities have desired to have power to deal with for years. My impression is that wherever in former years
918
municipal authorities have desired to inflict the fine in a case such as that stated by the noble Earl, their desire was to obtain that power in order to relieve the local rates in the particular locality; but that is not in the least the desire of the Government in this Budget.
I do not desire to enter into details on the constitutional question, but I feel I am entitled at this period of the debate to call your Lordships' attention to one important matter to which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition drew attention yesterday. The noble Marquess cited two passages from the speeches of former Leaders of this House—Earl Spencer and the late Marquess of Ripon—laying it down conclusively that the Lords had a right to reject a Money Bill. That right was disputed by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, but although we have since had speeches from three members of the Government, not once has there been any attempt to prove that those former Leaders did not know their business, and until that has been proved those quotations hold the field and prove our right to reject this or any other Finance Bill. I admit the astuteness with which that has been avoided, and also the astuteness of the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, who was inclined to argue that it was even beyond our powers to discuss these Duties.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I said that we had a legal right, but I did not think we had a constitutional right.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Whatever may be our disabilities the noble Lord pushed them to the extreme, because he even refused to argue the details of this Bill. This seems to me to be a pushing of the privilege of another place to a farcical extreme. My Lords, an attempt has been made to persuade as that there is no "tacking" in this Budget, and Lord Beauchamp went so far as to maintain that the valuation question was the only one even in the view of the Opposition which involved tacking. I say that it is not so; there has been tacking in the valuation proposals and there has also been tacking in the licensing proposals of the Budget. The noble Earl argued this question somewhat in detail and challenged us to prove in any way that there was "tacking" in the licensing proposals

919
No one on this side of the House is in the Cabinet secrets, but I think I can supply a little evidence which bears most forcibly on this point. Your Lordships will remember the circumstances attending the Licensing Bill of last year. The Prime Minister stated that he intended to "stand or fall" by it. He did not fall, and I am not assuming too much in saying therefore that he stood by it. Some of his colleagues went farther, and actually threatened your Lordships and the brewers that if the Licensing Bill was not passed last year it would be included in a future Budget. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in London in June, 1908, said that their brewing friends should remember that Budgets were beyond the control of the Lords, and that if the licensing trade refused the just and considerate provisions of this great temperance measure they would surely find that they had leapt from the frying pan into the fire. That was not an isolated statement. The First Lord of the Admiralty and other members of the Government made similar statements. It may be that these considerations were not in the least in the minds of Ministers when they drafted this part of the Finance Bill, but if that is so we have the right to ask at what particular date it was decided to throw over these declarations of policy by Cabinet Ministers of last year, and when it was definitely decided, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, that these duties were nothing but "pure finance."
I desire very briefly to deal with the special way in which Ireland is affected by this Budget. I hope to show that I am not confining myself solely to Irish interests, but to throw a side light on the way in which it affects not only Ireland but other parts of the United Kingdom. There is no question whatever that this Budget is unpopular in Ireland. It is quite true that the Nationalist Members abstained from the Division on the Third Beading, but since then a great deal has happened, and a very large number of public authorities in Ireland have not only passed resolutions against the Budget, but have written letters to members of your Lordships' House who are strongly opposed to them in politics, beseeching them to do all they could to throw out this Budget. I have here a Nationalist paper, published in County Kilkenny and dated Saturday, Nov. 20, in which there are reports of meetings of six public bodies, all calling on the House of Lords to reject this
920
measure because of its injustice to Ireland. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of these resolutions. Those of us who live in Ireland are more accustomed to see ourselves condemned than called on to take action, but it is fair to argue from these resolutions that there is very considerable dissatisfaction with this Budget in Ireland. This is rather peculiar because, as a matter of fact, as regards one particular tax, we ought to be very grateful, for under its licensing clauses we have been given very favourable special terms.
On page 83 of the Bill you will find Scale 3, which is the scale of minimum licences to be paid both in the cases of publicans' licences and beerhouse licences. In Great Britain the minimum duty is £5 in non-urban areas and urban areas up to a population of 2,000, while in Ireland the £5 minimum extends to urban areas up to a population of 10,000. In Great Britain the minimum scale advances by degrees to £35; but in Ireland it never goes beyond £7 10 s. With regard to beerhouse licences in Great Britain, the minimum duty fluctuates from £3 to £23; in Ireland it begins at £3, and never goes above £4. Your Lordships will see what a considerable concession this means to Ireland. Taking the three representative towns of Clonmel, with 11,000 inhabitants, of Cork, with 76,000, and of Dublin, with 290,000, the minimum publican's licence in all these cases will not go beyond £7 10 s., whereas in similar towns in England it will be £20, £30 and £35; while the minimum beerhouse licences in Ireland will in all cases be £4, and in England £13, £20, and £23 10 s. I can assure those of your Lordships who do not live in Ireland that there is no reason why we should be given this preferential treatment unless it be the fact that His Majesty's Government have always been very tender of Nationalist criticism in another place. But in spite of this concession, curiously enough the Budget is unpopular in Ireland, because it is realised that these duties are very high and are going to be very severe. Ireland is being punished by heavier duties because of the fact that the Licensing Bill was thrown out by your Lordships last year—a Licensing Bill, by the way, that did not apply to Ireland. That is an eloquent reason for the unpopularity shown towards the Budget in Ireland.
One effect of this Budget cannot have been realised by the Government, and though it

921
is not very important, perhaps one may be I forgiven for mentioning it as a sidelight upon the ignorance of the Government as regards their own proposals. One effect of the Budget has been to send up the price of milk. It is difficult to realise how that happened, but it appears that in Drogheda, where there is a consider-able brewing industry, the refuse from the mash-tun of the brewery provided the chief food for the cattle. The effect of these duties has been to very considerably decrease the output and, therefore to decrease the refuse from the mash-tun. The result has been that the cow-keepers have had to advance the price of milk by ½d. per gallon. Your Lordships will remember that this is temperance legislation; this is driving people to drink water with a vengeance. Another point which concerns Ireland to which I wish to draw attention is the effect of the mineral duties. The provision in this Budget relating to these duties amounts to a breach of faith with which I beg to charge the Government. In the Land Act of 1903 provision was made that minerals, in the case of the sale of an estate, were to be reserved to the Land Commission, and it was further provided that, where these minerals were subsequently worked, if there was a profit the Land Commission were to take seventy-five per cent. and the original vendor was to get the remaining twenty-five per cent. The effect of the Government's Royalty Tax will be to reduce that twenty-five per cent., which was guaranteed to the vendor as the result of a Parliamentary bargain in 1903 by one and a-quarter per cent. It may be desirable that this reduction should be made, but it should not have been altered sub silentio, and without a single reference to the fact being made, so far as I am aware, by any member of the Government.
I want now to draw attention to some very remarkable figures brought forward by the Secretary for Scotland this afternoon. He was comparing the effect of the Budget upon the poor man and upon the rich man, and he said that the poor man earning 30 s. a week would pay 2d. in the pound in extra taxation while a rich man with £5,000 a year would only have to pay an extra 5d. in the pound. Why should the noble Lord select £5,000 and not £5,001? Was it because £5,000 just escaped the Super Tax, and £5,001 would have come within it? If we had been given £5,001 as well as £5,000 it would have
922
helped us to make a comparison, and the proportion of taxation would have been very different. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has given us some other figures, and I hope they will be presented to Parliament, because unless they are before us in print it is difficult to follow them. It appears that the amount to be contributed by the owner of £1,000,000 will be £9,096. That seems to me a fairly high proportion of an income of £30,000 to go in taxes, and it must have an effect upon his spending and his employing power.
The noble Earl told us that the Government were determined that wealth should pay its proportion of taxation. I noticed that there was no cheer to that statement from several of the very rich members of your Lordships' House who were sitting behind him at the time. It may not appear that 5d. in the pound is a very heavy increase for a rich man to bear, but Sir Felix Schuster, in an article in the Nineteenth Century, has cited figures which give a very different impression from that given by the Secretary for Scotland. Sir Felix calculates that the Income Tax and provision for Death Duties alone upon an industry with a capital of half a million will swallow up £65,000 of that capital, or thirteen per cent. of it. That is only one figure of a great many that he has given. I desire to make this caveat, and to point out that there are figures in existence which give the impression that the effect of the new taxation is very much more severe than your Lordships would judge from the figures of the Secretary for Scotland.
A great deal has been made by the Government of the point that this Budget puts no-new taxation on agricultural land. I shall be able to show that it puts very severe taxation on the occupiers of agricultural land in Ireland, and I think you will find comparable cases on this side of the water. Your Lordships are aware that there is a special form of ownership known in Ireland as tenant right. The Courts have told us that it was not the intention of Sir William Harcourt in 1894 that this tenant right should pay Death Duty. It was believed in Ireland at the time that this property was not to pay the duty, but the Commissioners merrily collected it until a test case—the Attorney-General v. Robinson—was tried in 1900, when it was laid down that this property was not liable for Death.

923
Duty. This Budget reverses that decision, with the result that five millions worth of agricultural property in Ireland will be liable for Death Duty annually. I have a concrete case which appeared in the Dublin papers, on the authority of a well-known solicitor practising in Sackville-street. It shows that in Ireland the pressure of this Budget is going to be very severe. The father of a family died prior to the introduction of the Budget, leaving to his son a farm of ninety acres—a nice farm, but by no means exceptional in that country. The Poor Law valuation of the farm was £199 15 s. and the judicial rent was £176 8s. 6d. For the purposes of duty before the introduction of the Budget the value was £583 2s. 6d., and that sum was taken on the basis of a twenty-five years purchase at £23 6s. 6d., the difference between the Poor Law valuation and the judicial rent. The Estate Duty on that sum worked out at £11 11 s. 7d. and the Legacy and Succession Duties were nil, so that the total duty payable was only £11 11 s. 7d. The son then agreed to purchase his holding, and obtained a twenty per cent. reduction—a not unusual figure. The son died since the introduction of the Budget leaving the farm to his sister. In this case the duty, instead of being £11 11 s. 7d., is as follows. Under the Budget the Inland Revenue authorities say that the value of the tenant right is £1,500, and it will be noted that hitherto that was not assessed at all. The Estate Duty of three per cent. on £1,500 will be £45, and the Succession Duty at five per cent. on the same amount will be £75, so that the duty to be paid by the sister will be £120 in place of the £11 11 s. 7d. that was paid previously, or an increase of ten times the original amount. Yet the Government say that this Budget places no further burden on agricultural land !
Let us carry it farther. It is possible that as the daughter is a married woman she may desire to transfer the farm to her husband. This kind of thing is frequently
924
done in Ireland for family convenience, and hitherto it has been done under the authority of a 10 s. stamp, but the charge will now be in this case £56 10 s. 0d. under this Budget, which the Government contend puts no further duties on agricultural land. Perhaps not, but it puts very severe duties on the people whose sole livelihood is derived from agricultural land. Let us sum up the whole situation. There are these new Stamp Duties, which will apply, I take it, to agricultural land in England, Scotland and Wales just as much as to Ireland, and at the same time you have 125 millions worth of property, taking the average time at which a particular property pays Estate, Succession, and Death Duties as once in every twenty-five years, which has been brought into the taxable area and which has never been in it before. A struggling industry like the Irish land industry, emerging as it is now from thirty years of depression and dissatisfaction, largely due to British legislation, is to have this further burden put upon it just at the moment when it is finding its feet. We in Ireland have been reminded very much lately of the generosity of the British Exchequer in financing the Land Act, but we cannot help noticing that the British Exchequer is doing its best to get something back at the very same moment. I regret to have troubled your Lordships at this late hour of the night, but I did not feel justified in giving a silent vote on this question under the special circumstances of the case bearing upon Ireland. Many people in that country who are not politically and naturally favourable to your Lordships' House are now appealing to your Lordships to at any rate give them a chance to make some declaration on the policy of this Budget—a Budget which they believe to be very inimical to their best interests and to the welfare of the country.
Debate again adjourned till To-morrow.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.