Sitting of 15 September 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Irvine Harbour Order Confirmation Bill— Read the third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Emigration from Central to South Africa.
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to a speech recently delivered by the President of the Chamber of Mines, Johannesburg, in which that gentleman said that before December next they would have 15,000 Central Africans on the Rand; and whether he can make any statement on the subject, or indicate whether the policy of the Government in respect of emigration from Central to South Africa has undergone any radical change?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Secretary of State's attention has been drawn to the speech mentioned by my hon. Friend. It is not clear what exactly is covered by the reference to "Central African" natives. The position is as follows in regard to the emigration to South Africa of labourers from the Nyassaland Protectorate, for the administration of which His Majesty's Government is directly responsible. As regards labour for Southern Rhodesia, emigration of labourers is proceeding on the lines laid down on pages 95–101 and 118 of Cd.3,993. As regards the Transvaal, it appeared after the publication of that paper that as a matter of fact a large number of labourers were finding their way from Nyassaland to the Rand at great risk to themselves. His Majesty's Government accordingly gave further consideration to the question whether it would not be proper, in the interests of the labourers themselves, for the Government to supervise an emigration which they found themselves unable to stop. Correspondence as to details is still in progress, but His
  2128
  Majesty's Government have, assented to an arrangement whereby, as in the case of Southern Rhodesia, passes will be issued by the Government to natives desirous of going to the Rand. Possession of these passes will ensure their transport under carefully safeguarded conditions and their employment on arrival. The number of passes has been limited to 3,000, and it is intended that, so far as it is possible to ensure it, passes shall be issued only to those natives who have already worked on the Rand. In order to give time for acclimatisation, it is intended that they shall arrive only between the months of October and December, they will work on the surface for one month, and will be subjected careful medical examination before departure from Nyassaland and while on the Rand. The results of the arrangement from the point of view of the health of the natives will continue to be most carefully watched by his Majesty's Government.
  Mr. REES: Is it intended to limit the number of passes; has any decision been arrived at on that?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, to 3,000.
  Mr. REES: Each year?
  Colonel SEELY: 3,000 now.

  North Pole (Canada's Claim).
  Lord BALCARRES (for Sir Gilbert Parker)asked whether Canada makes a claim upon all land intervening between the American border and the North Pole; and if that claim is made in any treaty or constitutional article or document?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State understands that the Canadian Government have not made a formal declaration of the exact limits of their possessions northwards, but it is believed that they consider themselves entitled to claim all the land referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

  Chinese in Transvaal (Repatriation).
  Lord BALCARRESasked the Undersecretary for the Colonies how many Chinese have been repatriated since 30th June last, and how many still remain in the Transvaal?
  Colonel SEELY: According to the Chamber of Mines' figures, 5,361 still remained in the country on 31st August, and there had been no repatriations since 30th June.

  Central African Natives for Transvaal Mines.
  Mr. MARKHAMasked the Undersecretary of the Colonies if he will say whether His Majesty's Government have sanctioned the recruiting of natives for the Transvaal mines from Central Africa; and will he say what has been the mortality per 1,000 during the past four years among natives from Central Africa working in the mines compared to Chinese labourers?
  Colonel SEELY: The following are the available figures of mortality from disease for Chinese and British Central Africa labourers on the Rand per 1,000 per annum:—Chinese, 1905, approximately, 12; 1906, approximately, 11; 1907, approximately, 9; 1908, approximately, 7.—British Central African: 1904–5, 118·3; 1905–6, 116·3; 1906–7, 52·8. In spite of the striking reduction in the death rate of these British Central African natives from 166 to 52 per 1,000 in the last year mentioned, the Secretary of State did not feel justified in continuing to permit recruiting under official sanction. But, as I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery Burghs, the only practical result of the prohibition has been that the natives, attracted by the high wages, have still continued to go to the Rand without leave or supervision, and at great risk to themselves. As a consequence, His Majesty's Government have been forced to the conclusion that the best course in the interests of the natives is to bring this emigration under careful official supervision, and to limit the number to the figure which commends itself to the Governor, who is carefully watching the matter, and is much concerned at the high mortality which has prevailed.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Will natives be allowed to be imported from Central Africa, not Nyassaland?
  Colonel SEELY: Not so far as we know; but it is very difficult to stop the immigration of natives who are in search of high wages.

  Chinese Railways.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the annual loss and the total loss to date sustained by the Chinese Government on the bonds, maintenance, and expenses of working under a British staff the railway constructed by the Peking syndicate, for which the Chinese Government have been forced to accept responsibility, seeing that
  2130
  the Chinese contention that this railway can never pay has been proved by experience to be correct; and, in view of the hardship of raising taxes from the Chinese people for those purposes from which no return is expected, whether His Majesty's Government intend to have the bonds and agreements in this matter set aside for mala fides; and, if not, whether the assistance of this Government will still be given to the syndicate in enforcing its terms against China?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. MCKINNON Wood): This railway, which was only made for the transport of the syndicate's coal from their mines, was taken over by the Chinese Government in 1905. I am, of course, not in a position to furnish the figures desired. The imputations in the question, which appear to be offensive, are without foundation.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to state how much of the working expenses of this line are paid annually by the Chinese in addition to the £35,000 interest on the bonds?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: Certainly not. The Chinese Government made an arrangement with a syndicate to which His Majesty's Government was not a partner.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the total amount of loss sustained by the Chinese Government on the Shanghai-Nanking Railway since its opening for traffic; whether this has been paid out of taxes imposed upon the Chinese people; whether the control of the administration and working is still retained in British hands; and if he will state the grounds upon which His Majesty's Government assist in imposing this burden upon China?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: I am unable to state the amount of loss, if any, sustained by the Chinese Government on this railway, since its opening for traffic in March, 1908. The system of control established by the Loan Agreement in the form of a Board of Commissioners (Chinese and British) was suspended shortly afterwards by mutual consent, and its powers were delegated to its Chinese chairman. He, as managing director, was henceforth responsible for the working of the railway. The suggestion contained in the last sentence of the question has no justification.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is it not a fact that the Chinese managing director is in a minority of one against four on the Board?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: If the hon. Member wishes an answer, will he kindly put down a question?
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to explain the existence of what are called "profit certificates" issuing out of this project, on which a substantial dividend is paid, while the railway is being worked at a huge loss?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: I can only give the hon. Member the same answer as I gave to his last supplementary question.

  Rosyth Dockyard (Water Supply).
  Mr. YOUNGER (for Major Anstruther-Gray)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the water supply at Rosyth is now in a satisfactory condition?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The arrangements for the supply of water at Rosyth for the purpose of the contractors are now satisfactory.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reservoir is completed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot say; I will inquire.

  H.M. Destroyer "Gipsy."
  Mr. YOUNGERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can furnish any information as to the recent accident to H.M. Destroyer "Gipsy," and the nature of the damage, and the length of time it will take to repair it?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "Gipsy" grounded in a fog near Corsewall Point at 5.30 p.m. on the 10th of this month. Two holes were made in the bottom, and the bottom plating was indented between frames. Both propellers were damaged and one propeller shaft was bent. The vessel has been placed in dock at Belfast, and temporary repairs are being carried out, which will be completed on the 17th of this month, so as to allow the vessel to resume her ordinary duties. Permanent repairs will be carried out when the vessel comes in hand in the ordinary course, probably in December.

  Coastguard Stations (Scotland).
  Mr. YOUNGERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any further reduc-
  2132
  tions are contemplated with regard to coastguards and coastguard stations in Scotland; and, if so, will he specify them?
  Mr. McKENNA: No further reductions are at present contemplated with regard to coastguard men or coastguard stations in Scotland.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the number of coast-guardsmen per length of the coast line is or is not smaller in Scotland than in England?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is a question that I will require to have notice of.

  Chinese Railways.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that concessions for the making of railways in China have been obtained by financial pressure, bribery, and other improper methods, and British diplomatic pressure afterwards successfully invoked to enforce the terms of such concessions; and whether, in order to revive Chinese confidence in British enterprise, he proposes in future to make an independent investigation and favourable report a condition precedent to assisting in the enforcement of the terms of any project for a railway in China?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: No, Sir; I am not aware that British concessions for railways in China have ever been obtained by the methods indicated by the hon. Member. Nor has diplomatic pressure been applied in respect of such concessions, except in cases where the Chinese authorities have manifestly failed to comply with the terms to which they had voluntarily agreed.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether His Majesty's Government have any report from an independent source that the railway from Canton to the Kowloon territory can ever repay the principal or pay interest on the outlay in its construction and its working expenses; whether he is aware of the contention of the Chinese Government that this railway, forced upon them by speculative adventurers without any authentic Chinese approval, can never meet those liabilities, and that they can be paid only by taxes imposed upon the Chinese people; and whether independent evidence in support of this view is available to His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: We have received no such report. At present, the construction has been little more than begun, and time only can prove what the financial results will be. I have not heard before of the suggestion made by the hon. Member that the Chinese Government contends that the railway can never meet its liabilities. I have no reason to suppose that it represents the views of that Government. The agreement for the construction of the railway was signed and ratified by Imperial Edict at Peking in the spring of 1907.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether, in the interest of China and of legitimate foreign enterprise in that country, His Majesty's Government will require the Peking Syndicate and the persons controlling and profiting by the Shanghai-Nanking and the Canton-Kowloon Railways to make restitution to China out of the proceeds of their respective projects; and, if not, whether the support of His Majesty's Government is to continue available for forcing foreign loans upon China for unremunerative purposes?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The Shanghai-Nanking and Canton-Kowloon lines are both Chinese Government railways, though constructed by means of loans raised in this country, and any profit or loss arising out of their working would accrue to or be defrayed by China, I would add that His Majesty's Government have never forced foreign loans upon China for unremunerative purposes, nor is there any intention of doing so.
  Mr. REES: Is there any reason to suppose that British Concessionnaires in China receive more assistance from their Government than other Concessionnaires receive from their Governments?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: Certainly not.

  Egyptian Crime Statistics.
  Mr. LUPTONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that the amount of serious crime in Egypt in 1908 was not 2 per cent in excess of the crime in 1908, and that the total of crimes and minor offences in 1908 was actually less than in 1907; if he is aware that the Judicial Adviser of the Egyptian Government, in his last Report, said that real crime was exaggerated by the statistics, that his own impression was
  2134
  that the proportion of unreported crime had not been at any time so small, and that there were very few crimes of brigandage and highway robbery by armed bands such as filled the criminal calendars some 20 years ago; and will he say if the Ordinance of 4th July, under which persons can be condemned to banishment and detention without being convicted of any offence, is founded upon these statistics and this Report of the Judicial Adviser?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: As stated in the reply to the hon. Member's question of the 7th inst., the statistics of crime in Egypt for the last three years will be found in Sir Eldon Gorst's last annual Report. I have since received further information from His Majesty's Acting Agent and Consul-General at Cairo giving the number of crimes committed during the first seven months of each of the years 1907, 1908, and 1909. The total of crimes during these periods increased from 1,821 in 1907 to 2,010 in 1908, and to 2,353 in 1909; while the number of homicides and attempted homicides, which it is hoped the new law will be especially efficacious in checking, increased from 598 in 1907 to 721 in 1908, and to 923 in the present year. The hon. Member has correctly quoted certain statements from the Report of the Judicial Adviser to the Egyptian Government, but he has omitted the important statement that "the real increase in crime has undoubtedly been considerable." The new law is not founded on any special report, and, as far as statistics are concerned, it must be remembered that it is mainly aimed at offences of the most serious class. On the difficulty of obtaining evidence in such cases, the hon. Member will find much information in the last Report of the Judicial Adviser, from which he has quoted.
  Mr. LUPTON: Is it true that the Judicial Adviser of the Egyptian Government said that the real crime was exaggerated by the statistics?
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: I think that remark must be qualified by the remark I quoted from the same authority, that "the real increase in crime has undoubtedly been considerable."

  Public Trustee Act (Supply of Copies).
  Mr. LLOYD MORGANasked the Postmaster-General whether he has given orders for ceasing to supply copies of the Public Trustee Act and the explanation of its working; if so, whether he will give the date of such order and the reasons for

  2135
  it; and whether the demand for such copies and information had steadily increased during the past 18 months and the benefits of the Act have become more appreciated?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): Under arrangement with the Public Trustee, notices accompanied by a certain number of pamphlets relative to the Public Trustee Act were issued last year to various post offices. It was stated on the notices that additional copies of the pamphlet could be obtained from the Public Trustee. No orders have been given to put a stop to this arrangement. The Public Trustee has asked for certain additional facilities, and I am considering whether these can be granted without undue inconvenience to the Post Office service.

  Belfast Mail-Drivers (Wages and Uniform).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are 11 mail-drivers in Belfast employed as follows: Two who work 93 hours each for 21s. 6d., four who work 86, 84½, 84, and 79¾ hours for 21s. 6d., four others who work 86½, 76½, 61½, and 57 hours each for 20s., and one man who works 49 hours for 12s.; whether he is aware that the uniform of these men consists of coat, vest, and cap only, whereas the ordinary postmen receive two full suits, including overcoat, waterproof cape, and boots, per year; whether he is aware that the recent inquiry held in Belfast respecting this matter consisted of calling in the contractor's foreman and accepting his statement, without in any way approaching the persons employed; and whether, in view of the statement that the hours worked by mail-cart drivers in Belfast were 60 per week for 21s. 6d., with uniform, he will take the necessary steps to enforce the hours and wages as aforesaid, with the addition to the uniform of trousers, boots, overcoat, and waterproof cape?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have made further inquiry into the conditions of employment of the Belfast mail-cart drivers. I am informed that the average duration of the duties of the 11 full-time drivers is about 65 hours a week. I find that the duty of one of the drivers—73 hours—is excessive, and I am calling upon the contractor to reduce it at once. As regards the payment, the wages, I am assured, after the first six months, are 21s. 6d., together with the
  2136
  ordinary uniform, valued at 1s. a week. I have, however, requested the Board of Trade to ascertain the current wages and hours of duty of van-drivers at Belfast; and, on receipt of this information, I shall be able to determine whether any further alteration in the conditions of employment of the mail-cart drivers is necessary.
  Mr. RICHARDS: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration that portion of the question with regard to the uniform and the answer given in this House some months ago, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman of what the uniform consists?
  Mr. BUXTON: The uniform as a rule consists of a coat, hat, and sometimes trousers; but the value of the uniform is a point I want to consider when I get the information from the Board of Trade. I shall then be able to see whether the contractor has made a proper estimate.
  Mr. CURRAN: What are the average wages paid to men in London by contractors?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
  Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered the advisability of doing this work without the intervention of contractors?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is a question that hardly arises. It is a much bigger question than the one on the Paper.

  Penny Post (Constantinople).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that the penny post with the United States of America was agreed to without waiting for the adoption of a universal penny post, and that the penny post has been adopted with Egypt as well as at the treaty ports in China, he will consider the advisability of making the same arrangement with Constantinople?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have nothing to add to my answer to my hon. Friend of the 7th inst.
  Mr. MORTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be wise, in connection with penny post, to take one step at a time?
  Mr. BUXTON: That undoubtedly ought to be done, but the difficulty about taking one step at a time is that one step neces-

  2137
  sarily leads to others. As I pointed out to the House the other day, while I hope it may be possible to do this some day, at the same time, if it is granted to one European nation it could not be refused to others, and the cost of that would be £350,000 a year. In the present state of the finances of the country that is an amount I could hardly ask the Treasury for this year.
  Mr. MORTON: The right hon. Gentleman has already taken this step with regard to the United States and also with regard to Egypt.
  Mr. BUXTON: It would hardly be an argument that would weigh with the Treasury if I were to say: "I have already spent £150,000; therefore, give me another £350,000." They would probably say: "We gave you enough."

  Scottish Prisons Commission.
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether the post of chairman of the Prisons Commission has now been filled; if so, by whom; and will he say what are the qualifications of the new chairman which led to his appointment?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Arthur Dewar): The post has been filled by the appointment of the Master of Polwarth, who is well known throughout Scotland for his activities in social and philanthropic work, and who, in addition to his general knowledge of public affairs, has, during the last 12 years, acquired a large experience of kindred administrative duties in the unpaid office of chairman of the Lunacy Board for Scotland.
  Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the particular claim of the gentleman to this post in the eyes of the Secretary for Scotland is that he had been three times a Conservative candidate?
  Mr. MORTON: I should like to ask the hon. Member whether it would not have been better for the Government to have appointed a non-politician to an office of this sort?
  Mr. DEWAR: They have not appointed a politician at all; they have appointed a gentleman well qualified for the post.
  Mr. MORTON: Is it not true that this gentleman fought two or three elections, and does not that make him a politician?

  Liverpool Disturbances.
  Mr. M'ARTHURasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now give the name of the Commissioner who will investigate the recent disturbances in Liverpool, and state the terms of reference under which the inquiry is to be conducted?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Gladstone): I am in communication in this matter with the City Council of Liverpool, and until I hear from them that they are prepared to make the necessary arrangements for the inquiry I cannot take any steps towards appointing the Commissioner.
  Mr. M'ARTHUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No, Sir.

  Motors in Mines.
  Mr. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he say what is the definition of a completely enclosed motor in the Home Office Rules relating to electricity in mines; and whether a flame-proof motor not totally enclosed is covered by the definition completely enclosed?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I am advised that the enclosure required by special Rule 37 is total enclosure, and this, I understand, is the view generally taken in the industry. The case of a "flame-proof motor not totally enclosed" would not, therefore, be a compliance with the rule; but the point has been noted for reference to the Committee on the Rules which I am about to appoint.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Member of the Committee which drew up these rules stated that "completely enclosed" meant nothing to the mind of the Commissioners more than "totally enclosed"?
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: In view of the loss of life which has occurred recently in mines which is attributed to electricity, I wish to know if the Government are prepared to undertake some experiments with regard to electricity in mines?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: As I have already stated, I am about to appoint a Committee, and it is extremely probable that Committee will extend its inquiries to this question.

  Mines Royal Commission (Second Report).
  Mr. MARKHAMasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the second Report of the Mines Royal Commission, issued last week, recommending an immediate increase of inspectors, he will say how many additional inspectors he proposes appointing; how many of these will be men who have had a practical knowledge of working in the coal face; and whether he has applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the necessary funds to enable him to make these appointments, and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The Commission found that the time has arrived for increasing the number of inspectors. The Report and Memoranda contain more than one proposal with regard to the creation of new classes of inspectors, and a unanimous recommendation for the re-division of the country into districts. The Report was only issued last week, and the recommendations made and arguments used are under consideration.

  School Gardens.
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a paper on school gardens by Mr. J. Haslam, one of the junior inspectors of the Board of Education; and whether, in view of the growing importance of this subject, he will lay Mr. Haslam's paper upon the Table of the House?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The paper referred to is a Report on Gardening Classes in Cambridgeshire Schools. I do not think it is of sufficient general interest to justify the expense of publication.

  English-Grown Potatoes.
  Mr. STANIERasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the notice issued by the Department of Agriculture of Ireland warning the Irish importers to avoid English-grown potatoes; if the Board of Agriculture have yet any information regarding the spread of black scab in potatoes; and if the Board are taking any steps to prevent this disease spreading other than leaflets?
  Captain NORTON (Lord of the Treasury): We have not seen the notice to which the hon. Member refers, but we will
  2140
  communicate with the Department of Agriculture for Ireland on the subject. Inquiries are being made as to the extent of the spread of black scab, but until the crop has been harvested we shall not be in a position to give definite information on this point. In addition to our publication of leaflets we are endeavouring through our inspectors, officers of local authorities and members of the staff of agricultural colleges, to advise potato-growers as to the nature of the disease and the precautions to be taken to prevent its spread.
  Mr. STANIER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman call the attention of the hon. Member for South Somerset to the fact that I sent him this notice myself?
  Captain NORTON: Certainly.

  Labour Exchanges (Staff Applications).
  Mr. COURTHOPEasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received for posts under the Labour Exchanges Bill?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): Nearly 3,000.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: How are the appointments going to be made?
  Mr. TENNANT: About 200 of them will be made during the present financial year.

  Aden Port Trust Committee.
  Mr. MacCAWasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the present composition of the Aden Port Trust and Aden Settlement Committee respectively; and what steps are taken to ensure that the commercial interests of that port are adequately represented on these Boards?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The Aden Port Trust at present consists of an official as chairman with two ex-official members and six nominated members of whom three are also members of the committee of the Chamber of Commerce. The executive committee of the Settlement consists of a chairman, who must under the rules be an official, and from four to six appointed members, of whom one-half must be non-officials. I have no reason to believe that commercial interests are neglected in either case in the appointment of the non-official members. The circumstances of Aden are exceptional, and the Government must reserve the control of the affairs of the port.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. KILBRIDEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether an application for reinstatement was received by the Estates Commissioners from Michael Merrins, Kildoon, county Kildare; whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired untenanted land at Mullmoy and Bally-shannon, near the place where Michael Merrins lives; whether 30 acres of the best portion of Mullmoy Farm was allotted to Shirley, the present tenant of Pat Toole's farm at Ballyquorn; can he say on what grounds Merrins's claim was passed over and this tenant given land by the Estates Commissioners, contrary to the intention of Parliament when passing recent land legislation; who was the inspector who divided and allotted those lands; and whether the claims of Michael Merrins will be taken into consideration?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry): Merrin's application was not received by the Estates Commissioners within the time prescribed by the Evicted Tenants Act, and the Commissioners are therefore unable to consider it in connection with the allotment of land acquired under that Act. The lands in question were so acquired, and the allotment referred to by the hon. Member was made by the Commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion to an evicted tenant coming within the provisions of the Act, and not by any inspector. Merrin's application will be inquired into when the estate on which his former holding is situate is being dealt with by the Commissioners under the Irish Land Act, 1903.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Are we to understand that it is the settled policy in Ireland of the inspectors, confirmed by the Estates Commissioners, that professional emergency men and land grabbers for the last 35 years are to be rewarded under this legislation?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am not aware of anything more than I have already stated.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Shirley was an emergency man and a land grabber?
  Mr. CHERRY: I was not aware of that fact.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Well, I am.
  Mr. W. ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary whether he can now state
  2142
  the price of the farm of 119 acres of the untenanted lands of Kildrum, on the Kingston estate, allotted to Thomas Robinson in the scheme of division prepared by Mr. Sydney Smith, and how many applicants for parcels of land were refused allotments; and whether the inspector, when, submitting his scheme for the approval of the Estates Commissioners, made them acquainted with the fact that Thomas Robinson had offered £3,000 for a farm and was a man of ample means?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the price of the farm allotted to Thomas Robinson is £2,350. The Commissioners did not consider it desirable to sub-divide the farm. They received 36 applications in writing for allotments, eight of which were granted. The answer to the concluding portion of the question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. DILLON: On what ground was this farm given to Thomas Robinson?
  Mr. CHERRY: As far as I understand the matter, it was a large farm, and was only worked as a large farm. There were large buildings attached to it, and the Commissioners say that if they divided up the farm into a number of farms it would have incurred a great deal of expense, because roads would have to be made and other expenditure incurred.
  Mr. DILLON: As there are many evicted tenants waiting for accommodation, I wish to know on what grounds Thomas Robinson has been given this farm, he being a man of large means?
  Mr. CHERRY: I cannot say anything more than I have already said. These matters are in the hands of the Commissioners, and the Government cannot interfere with them. The Commissioners must be left to use their own discretion with, regard to the allotting of farms.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary whether he will give the date of the eviction of the parent of Thomas Robinson, land steward to Lady Kingston, who has been allotted 119 acres of the Kildrum farm on the Kingston estate; if he will state the name of the evicting landlord and the county in which the holding was situated; whether Thomas Robinson made an application for reinstatement to the Commissioners as the representative of the evicted tenant; and whether the application was refused on the

  2143
  ground that it did not come within the provisions of the Act of Parliament, the eviction having taken place before 1st May, 1879, or for what other reason?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Robinson's mother was evicted from a holding on the Bruen estate, county Wexford, in the year 1879 and within the period mentioned in Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. His application for reinstatement was not refused.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Did this man make any application to be reinstated.
  Mr. CHERRY: I presume he did. In fact, he must have done so, because my answer states his application was not refused.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: The right hon. Gentleman mentions the year 1879. Could he not mention the date, because the Act only applies to those evicted since 1st May, 1879?
  Mr. CHERRY: The hon. Member is wrong. The date is 14th August, 1878, or 25 years before the passing of the Land Act of 1903. The Land Act was passed on 14th August and it goes back to the year 1878.
  Mr. DILLON: Is it not a fact that Thomas Robinson is a land agent, and, if that is so, on what ground is public money being used to provide him with a large farm which ought to be occupied by evicted tenants?
  Mr. CHERRY: I know nothing about this gentleman except that the estates Commissioners have placed him in possession of this farm, and they have given their reasons for so doing. I have given those reasons to the House, and that is all the information I have on the subject.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement made by the inspector that Thomas Robinson is the son of an evicted tenant is a mere subterfuge?
  Mr. CHERRY: The hon. Member appears to know more about the matter than I do. I have already stated in my reply to the hon. Member's question that "Robinson's mother was evicted from a holding on the Bruen estate, county Wexford, in the year 1879." That is all I know.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inspector, Mr. Sidney Smith, is a prominent member of the Orange Association in Ireland, and that all these people are also members of that association?

  Land Purchase Act (Estate of Mr. P. G. Mahony, Cordal, Kerry).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what was the total amount of the purchase money and the number of years' purchase required by Mr. Pierce Gun Mahony from Mr. Richard J. Walsh, of Cordal, county Kerry, in the first instance; and what was the purchase money and the number of years' purchase that Mr. Howard, the Estates Commissioners' inspector, reported would be a fair price?
  Mr. CHERRY: I have nothing to add to my reply to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member on the list instant.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to give an answer as to what amount of purchase money the laud-owner wanted?
  Mr. CHERRY: I have already given that information. My answer of 1st September mentioned the exact amount. I gave the number of years' purchase.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can ascertain the name of the inspector of the Estates Commissioners who reported on the Gun Mahony estate at Cordal, county Kerry, in the first instance; and whether, having regard to the untruthful statements made by him against Mr. Richard J. Walsh and other tenants, any action has been taken in the matter?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate was only visited by one inspector. The official who preceded him was a surveyor who was sent in accordance with the settled procedure to check the boundaries of the lands. The Commissioners are not aware of any statements having been made of the kind referred to in the question.
  Mr. MURPHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the name of the official of the Estates Commissioners who visited the land in the first instance?
  Mr CHERRY: No, Sir; I do not think it is desirable to give the names of the officals the Estates Commissioners send down

  2145
  as delegates. If their reports are adopted, the Estates Commissioners, and not the inspectors, are responsible.
  Mr. J. C. LARDNER: Am I right in understanding that this official is a surveyor, and that the Estates Commissioners decline to give the name of the person who surveyed the landowner's estate for the purpose of sale?
  Mr. CHERRY: It is very much better not to mention the names of subordinates. The Estates Commissioners are responsible. Everything done is done by them; and, if they send down their servants, I do not think it fair that the name of a particular servant should be mentioned in this House.
  Mr. LARDNER: Do you object to giving the name of the skilled professional surveyor who surveyed the landowner's estate for the purpose of sale?
  Mr. CHERRY: If you give the name of one surveyor or one official, you will have to give the names of all.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHY: Having regard to the fact that this surveyor made statements about the tenants which were untrue, according to the sworn evidence of the district inspector of police and according to the Estate Commissioners' second inspector, does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to make any inquiry, or is this surveyor to continue in the service of the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. CHERRY: I do not know his name, and I do not propose to inquire. Whatever he did has been adopted by the Estates Commissioners, and it is their responsibility.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether there is any—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has given the same answer three times. If the hon. Member wants to ask anything further, I think he had better put it down.

  Heating and Cleansing of Schools (Ireland).
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Catholic Clerical Managers' Association and other similar bodies, having expressed their readiness to carry out the proposals made as to the heating and cleansing of schools, are expected to prepare any definite plans for doing so for consideration by the
  2146
  Treasury; if so, why have they not been asked to do so by the Irish Government; and whether the Irish Government has any intention of carrying out the proposals as to heating and cleansing, so that the matter may be arranged before next winter?
  Mr. CHERRY: It is for the managers of all denominations to consider whether they can devise a practical solution of this question. My right hon. Friend has already stated that he is prepared to give full consideration to any such solution on which they may be agreed, but, as he pointed out in his reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on the 3rd inst., it must not be assumed that the Treasury are as yet in any way committed to the basis of negotiations. It is obviously out of the question to think of legislation on the subject during the present Session.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act (late Mr. Andrew Gilligan's Estate, County Cavan).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether it is intended to reinstate John M'Girney, who was evicted from his farm in Corraweelis, county Cavan, on the estate of the late Andrew Gilligan?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have not reveived any application from John McGirney for reinstatement in a farm at the place mentioned on the estate of the late Andrew Gilligan.

  London Elections Bill.
  Mr. T. HART-DAVIESasked when it is intended to proceed with the further stages of the London Elections Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to when this Bill will be taken.

  Poor in Scotland (Report of Commissioners).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the approximate date of the publication of the Report of the Commissioners on the laws relating to the poor in Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that no definite date can be given for the publication of the Report referred to by my hon. Friend, but that it will not be before October.

  Housing of the Working Classes Act (Cavan).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the date on which an application for a loan was received from the Cavan Urban Council under the Housing of the Working Classes Act; when was the same acknowledged; and will he say why this case was not included in those set out in a recent statement?
  Mr. CHERRY: An application for a loan of £3,500 was received by the Local Government Board from the Cavan Urban District Council on the 22nd February, and was acknowledged on the 3rd March last. This case should have appeared in the statement referred to as one of the applications received by the Board.

  Military Operations (Signalling Lamps).
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, owing to the recent dull weather, the lack of lamps for signalling by day is being found prejudicial to the carrying out of the military operations now in progress; and, if so, whether he will take steps to make sufficient provision at the earliest possible date?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): A suitable pattern of lamp which could be used in lieu of a helio in dull weather has not yet been decided on, but the matter is under consideration, and lamps have been ordered for trial. They have not, however, been obtained in time for trial on these manœuvres.

  Naval Manœuvres (Army Staff Officer).
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether any officer of the General Staff was attached to the Fleet during naval manœuvres; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of doing so in the future?
  Mr. HALDANE: No officer of the General Staff was attached to the Fleet during this year's naval manœuvres. Officers have been attached in former years, and doubtless opportunities will arise for attaching such officers again. The desirability of taking the action suggested will be considered on any occasion when there should appear to be any advantage to either service from such a course.

  Army Manœuvres (Boy Scouts).
  Mr. STEPHEN COLLINSasked if the War Office has issued instructions for a
  2148
  number of boy scouts to take part in the Army manœuvres; and, if so, how many toys will take part and of what age will they be?
  Mr. HALDANE: Permission was, in fact, given to some boy scouts to be employed in the forthcoming manœuvres. There is some doubt whether this should have been done, as these boy scouts are not subject to military law, and it has been thought best to cancel the permission. But this must not be taken to imply that the War Office does not greatly appreciate the value of the boy scout training.
  Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware how long the promoters of this movement have encouraged the military training of these boy scouts?
  Mr. HALDANE: I think there is a great deal of nonsense talked in connection with the boy scouts. It is one of the most valuable movements we have going on just now for the general development and the training of boys.

  Army Horses.
  Lord BALCARRES (for Major Anstruther-Gray)asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the actual number of horses now allowed to be cast per annum per squadron and per battery respectively?
  Mr. HALDANE: In the cavalry 27 per regiment of Household Cavalry and 51 per regiment of the line are allowed to be cast, i.e., 10 per cent. of the establishment. In the Artillery the same percentage is allowed—in the Horse Artillery 13 per battery of higher establishment, and 9 of lower establishment, and in the Field Artillery 9 per battery of higher establishment and 6 of lower establishment. In each case the numbers allowed to be cast are diminished by the number of deaths occurring during the financial year.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this very low standard of casting horses may be retained in the batteries for thirty years?
  Mr. HALDANE: I should like to have notice of that question.
  Lord BALCARRES (for Major Anstruther-Gray)asked how many horses in the Household Cavalry, the cavalry of the line, the Royal Horse Artillery, and the Royal Field Artillery, respectively, are 14 years of age and upwards?
  Mr. HALDANE: The figures are as follows: Household Cavalry, 147; cavalry of the line, 591; Royal Horse Artillery, 238; Royal Field Artillery, 1,755.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider horses of 14 years are fit for active service?
  Mr. HALDANE: I myself have not had much experience of these things, but I have known excellent horses of the age of 14.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is there any Regulation in the War Office as to the age of horses which must not be sent out of the country in case of war?
  Mr. HALDANE: I rather think not, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a question down I will inquire.

  Collapse of Disused Warehouse, London.
  Mr. A. J. SHERWELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the collapse of a disused warehouse situate between Pepper-street, Golden-place, and Orange-street, Southwark Bridge-road, resulting in serious injury to adjacent small tenements; whether the warehouse in question was the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and whether his attention has been called to the dilapidated condition of other property in the same locality belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): I am informed that the warehouse in question belonged to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that the site formed part of a larger area, which is to let for rebuilding. There are some old cottages on this area, but, pending the rebuilding, it is deemed advisable to retain them in order to avoid disturbance to the tenants. I have not received any complaint as to the condition of other property in the same locality belonging to the Commissioners, and I am informed that no such complaint has been made to them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: Will the Prime Minister give the House some indication of the business set down for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday Committee on the Finance Bill will be taken,
2150
and, if necessary, on Friday. If the Committee stage is passed before the end of the week, the Government will proceed with other Bills standing on the Paper.
Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: When is it proposed to take the Resolution in Ways and Means dealing with Minerals and the Estate Duties?
The PRIME MINISTER: On one of the first four days. The exact day we will arrange.
Mr. A. B. MARKHAM: Will it be before the Motor Resolution?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know whether any Resolution is necessary dealing with motor cars.
Mr. MARKHAM: Will the Resolution relating to minerals be taken first?
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say.

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT FUNDS BILL.

  SITTINGS OF STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I wish to put a point of Order arising on the Resolution passed by this House yesterday, which was as follows:—
  "That when the Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill is under consideration, Standing Committee C have leave to sit while the House is sitting and after Four of the Clock."
  Under Standing Order 47 it is provided that a Committee shall not sit while the House is sitting, except in pursuance of a Resolution of the Committee, moved by the Member in charge of the Bill before the Committee. That, I submit, is a specific condition imposed by the Standing Order of the House—that any Standing Committee which desires to sit after the commencement of the sitting of the House must pass such a Resolution in addition to getting an Order of the house if it desires to sit beyond 4.0 p.m. I wish to ask whether there is anything in the Resolution arrived at yesterday which takes away from the Standing Order the words "except in pursuance of a Resolution moved by the Member in charge of the Bill before the Committee." I wish to know whether it is competent for a Committee to sit after the sitting of the House, unless a Resolution is passed by it for that purpose, moved by the Member in charge of the Bill under the Standing Order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Resolution passed by the House yesterday overrides the Standing Order so far as the Development Bill is concerned. The Standing Order holds good up to such time as the House otherwise orders. In respect of this particular Bill the House has made other arrangements with regard to the sittings of the Committee, and, therefore, what the House decided yesterday seems to override the provisions of Standing Order 47 in regard to that Bill.

IRISH LAND BILL.
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)moved, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clauses 5, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 52, standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North."
Mr. WALTER LONG: On that Motion, may I ask a question on a point of Order? I wish to ascertain how we stand in regard to this matter. I am aware that, under the Order under which we are acting, no Debate can take place on any Motion which is moved from the Treasury Bench. We have, under the Motion, two days allotted for the Report stage. I think eight days were allotted for the Committee stage. I submit, as a point of Order, that, if this Motion is carried, we shall pass into Committee. That will give possibly another day for the Committee stage, and deprive us of part of that time for Report, which is set down by order of the Government and by the Motion of the House as the amount of time we ought to have for its consideration. I beg to ask you whether, as we are unable to debate this Motion, the carrying of it will not destroy in itself the Order under which we are acting, and by which we are to have two full days for the Report stage?
Mr. SPEAKER: The answer to that is that if the House goes into Committee again on this Bill, and sits in Committee during the greater part of the day, the order that two days be allotted to the Report stage would be, although not technically, in reality frustrated, and two days would not be given to the Report stage. But the procedure is permissible, and is, indeed, provided for, because, in the Reso-
2152
lution allocating the time, special arrangement is made that "no Motion to recommit the Bill shall be received unless moved by the Government," and, therefore, clearly the Resolution contemplates that a Motion for recommittal may be made. It is not a question for me what the effect may be. It is a question of equity, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see how much time is occupied in Committee. If a very long time is occupied there may be a good case for asking the Government to give another day for the Report stage. That can be done by again putting the Bill down, but not as the First Order.
Mr. MOORE: May I ask your ruling on this. The Bill having been called on, and you being in the Chair we have now entered on one of the allotted days for the Report stage. I beg to ask, if once we enter on an allotted day for the Report stage, and then go into Committee, even, though nothing may have been done on the allotted day beyond calling the title of the Bill, would it not be impossible, after having been in Committee, to resume the Report stage? And will not the result be in effect that we shall only have one day for that stage?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that is so. As I said just now, it is always open to the Government to put down the Irish Land Bill as the Second Order—the first effective Order—but the Second Order on the Paper, and that will not make it an allotted day. It is only when it stands first on the Orders of the Day that it is an allotted day. Therefore, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the recommittal stage lasts till 11 o'clock to-night, and, therefore, practically occupies the whole day (which although set down for Report will not actually be taken up by the Report stage), hon. Members interested in the matter will have a very good equitable case to put to the Government to ask them for another day.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask, is it competent for me to move an Amendment? The Standing Order provides that the Motion shall be put without Debate, but nothing is said about Amendments.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Standing Order says I must "forthwith" put the Question. If I put the Question "forthwith" I shall be unable to see the hon. Member, and to call upon him to move any Amendment.

2153
Question put, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clauses 5, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 52, standing in the

Division No. 660.]

AYES.

[3.40 p.m.

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Dowd, John

Alden, Percy

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Barker, Sir John

Harrington, Timothy

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Barnard, E. B.

Hart-Davies, T.

O'Shee, James John

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Beck, A. Cecil

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Partington, Oswald

Bellairs, Carlyon

Healy, Timothy Michael

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Helme, Norval Watson

Pointer, J.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boland, John

Higham, John Sharp

Raphael, Herbert H.

Bowerman, C. W.

Hogan, Michael

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Reddy, M.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

Rees, J. D.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Jardine, Sir J.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Clancy, John Joseph

Joyce, Michael

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

Clough, William

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Scanlan, Thomas

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Seely, Colonel

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kilbride, Denis

Shackleton, David James

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

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Sheehy, David

Crosfield, A. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Sherwell, Arthur James

Cullinan, J.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Curran, Peter Francis

Lundon, T.

Snowdon, P.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W)

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

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

Delany, William

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

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

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Summerbell, T.

Dillon, John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duffy, William J.

Marnham, F. J.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Erskine, David C.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Essex, R. W.

Middlebrook, William

Verney, F. W.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Molteno, Percy Alport

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Evans, Sir S. T.

Mooney, J. J.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Everett, R. Lacey

Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Watt, Henry A.

Falconer, J.

Morrell, Philip

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Farrell, James Patrick

Muldoon, John

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

Fenwick, Charles

Murnaghan, George

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

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

Ffrench, Peter

Myer, Horatio

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

Flynn, James Christopher

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gilhooly, James

Nicholls, George

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Gill, A. H.

Norman, Sir Henry

Young, Samuel

Ginnell, L.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Norton and Mr. Fuller.

Glendinning, R. G.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

NOES.

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Magnus, Sir Philip

Baicarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Moore, William

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Gordon, J.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Stanier, Beville

Clark, George Smith

Kimber, Sir Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Thornton, Percy M.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Younger, George

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

M'Arthur, Charles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Calmont, Col. James

Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North."
The House divided: Ayes, 153; "Noes, 47.
Bill considered in Committee.
[Mr. CALDWELL (Deputy-Chairman) in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

IRISH LAND BILL.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of Provisions as to Percentage.)
  (1) The percentage payable under Section forty-eight of the Act of 1903 stall be calculated at the rates specified in the First Schedule to this Act, and for the purposes of that Section the percentage at the rates so specified shall be deemed to be the percentage under that Section:
  Provided that—

  (a) the percentage payable on the purchase money of an estate, which consists of or includes lands in respect of which there are purchase agreements entered into or deemed in pursuance of this Section to have been entered into on or before the twenty-fourth day of November, nineteen hundred and eight, shall (so far as the percentage is payable in respect of the purchase of those lands) be calculated at the rate of twelve per cent. instead of being calculated under this Section; and

  (b) where any percentage calculated under this Section is payable at a higher rate than five per cent., any sum by which the amount of percent age exceeds the amount which would have been payable if the percentage were calculated at the rate of five per cent. shall be added to the purchase money and not paid to the vendor.

  (2) An agreement for the purchase of any estate or land, though not entered into on or before the twenty-fourth day of November, nineteen hundred and eight, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Section, to be a purchase agreement entered into on or before that date, where on or before that date—

  (a) the vendor has lodged an originating request in manner provided by rules made under the Act of 1903 with a view to the purchase of the estate or land by the Land Commission under Section six of that Act or by the Congested Districts Board under Section seventy-nine of that Act; or

  (b) the vendor has accepted a preliminary estimate of price made by the Land Commission with a view to the purchase of the estate or land under Sections six or eight of the Act of 1903, or entered into a preliminary agree-
  2156
  ment with the Congested Districts Board with a view to the purchase of the estate or land under Section seventy-nine of that Act; or

  (c) the Land Commission under Section seven or the Congested Districts Board under Section seventy-seven of the Act of 1903 have made an offer (which is eventually accepted) to the land judge for the purchase of the estate or land; or

  (d) the Estates Commissioners have made an offer for the purchase of the estate or land under Sub-section (4) of Section two of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907.

  (3) So much of Section forty-seven of the Act of 1903 as limits the total of the sums payable to the Land Purchase Aid Fund to twelve million pounds shall cease to have effect.
  Mr. BIRRELLmoved to leave out paragraph (c), and to insert, "(c) the land judge in the course of proceedings in which the estate or land is eventually sold to the Land Commission under Section seven, or to the Congested Districts Board under Section seventy-seven of the Act of 1903, has caused the Commission or Board to be furnished with particulars and documents respecting the estate or land in pursuance of either of these Sections; or."
  Notwithstanding the Division which has just taken place, the fact is that every one of this series of Amendments has been put upon the Paper by me, and the re-committal has been necessary, because they involve a charge upon the Treasury; and this I did, as I thought, in deference to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, wherever they sit, and one of these Amendments is put upon the Paper to meet the express wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long). I, therefore, proceed at once, hoping that very little time will be occupied over these Amendments, to explain the purpose of the first of them. The object of this Amendment is to secure that the bonus and purchase money will be payable on the old rates—an agreeable process, I should have thought—on the sales by the land judge to the Estates Commissioners under Section 7, or to the Congested Districts Board under Section 77, of the Act of 1903, where proceedings have reached a certain stage before the 24th of November.
  The Amendment is the effect of many requests that have reached me to give the

  2157
  benefits of the old rate to the earlier stages of the proceedings. The successive stages on the sales by the land judge under the two sections I have quoted are as follows: The first process is for the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board to request the land judge to furnish them with particulars of the estate; the second is that the land judge furnishes particulars; the third, that the Commissioners or the Board have to inspect the estate, and after obtaining undertakings to purchase from the tenants, make an offer to the land judge; and the fourth, the land judge, if he accepts the offer, declares the Commissioners or the Board to be the purchasers, and the transaction comes to an end. The original paragraph provided that when the proceedings had reached the third stage, that is the making of the offer by the Commissioners or Board, before 24th November last, the old rates were to apply. It was pointed out to me that a long period necessarily had to elapse after the date when the land judge furnished the particulars before the Commissioners or Board would be in a position to make an offer. As this delay was not occasioned by the fault of either party, but simply by the enormous amount of business to be dealt with by these bodies, it seemed to be reasonable to adopt the principle that people should not be placed at a disadvantage simply because the machinery is so clogged that delay occurs in carrying it out. Therefore, I have taken the second stage of the proceedings; namely, the furnishing of the particulars by the land judge, and I have provided that where this has been done in the case of any estate before November 24th last the old rates are to obtain, provided the matter proceeds to an actual conclusion. I have made an estimate of this matter, and the purchase money of the estates which will obtain the benefit of the alteration I am now making is, in the case of sales to the Estates Commissioners, £315,371, and in the case of sales to the Congested Districts Board £120,000, making a total of £435,371, on which the bonus, calculated at 12 per cent., is £52,244.
  Mr. MOORE: As far as my recollection goes, this matter was never debated when we were in Committee. I do not think the Amendment was put on the Paper before yesterday, and I protest against the tone of the Chief Secretary. When he gets us back into Committee, and a new matter is put down by the Government, the right hon. Gentleman says these Clauses are carrying out suggestions made to him by
  2158
  Members from all parts of Ireland. I do not dispute that, but when the Committee remembers that we have never had a chance of debating them originally, it is not unreasonable for any section of the House to ask how far the Government proposal does carry out these suggestions, and certainly as far as any new Amendments have been put down by the Chief Secretary, we shall consider ourselves just as free to examine them as if they had been originally in the Bill. I protest against the complaint of the Chief Secretary that there is anything unreasonable in our conduct in asking for an explanation, and also taking advantage of opportunity for discussion.
  Mr. BIRRELL: It was the Division that I commented upon.
  Mr. MOORE: If I had known that I should have drawn attention to the fact that the Chief Secretary was debating matter which was not before the Committee and was clearly out of Order.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
  Mr. MAURICE HEALYmoved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "caused" ["has caused the Commission or Board "] to insert the words "or directed."
  This may be an extension of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think it is a very small extension. I thank him for putting the Amendment on the Paper. The reason I am interested in the matter is that I had on the Paper in Committee an Amendment on similar lines to that of the Chief Secretary. I must admit that the proposal of the Chief Secretary goes quite as far as the Amendment I had originally on the Paper, and I am, in a sense, seeking to amend my own Amendment, but I thought on consideration that there was some danger that if you insisted that the direction of the land judge had been carried out in every particular, a very small slip on the part of the solicitor having carriage might exclude both tenants and landlord from the great benefit which the Amendment confers upon them. The right hon. Gentleman, from a technical point of view, has described accurately the proceedings which the Act of Parliament contemplated, but, in fact, the procedure has been somewhat different. The Act of Parliament proposes that the

  2159
  Estates Commissioners should, in the first instance, issue a request, but in fact, so far as I am acquainted with the procedure, the origination of these proceedings took place in the Land Judge's Court. The receiver of the estate brought the matter before the court, got Judge Ross's authority to negotiate with the tenants, practically made the bargain with the tenants, and then brought the matter before Judge Ross. It was only when the matter had reached the stage that a bargain was come to that Judge Ross directed that the section should be put into operation, and that the solicitor having carriage should proceed to get a request issued by the Estates Commissioners. So that practically in every case with which I am acquainted the bargain was practically made at the point of the requisition.
  4.0 P.M.
  The Chief Secretary has spoken as if the work was actually done by the judge. Of course, that is not so. Even with the greatest care, slips sometimes take place, and I am personally aware of some cases in which so long a period as a year has elapsed between the time when the judge gave the direction and the time when the direction was carried out by the solicitor having carriage. In that case it would be a very hard case if the tenants and landlords lost the benefit which the section conferred upon them, merely because there was some delay in carrying out directions which the judge had actually given, and that is the importance of what I have said as regards the procedure which has actually been adopted, because in all these cases the bargain is made before either Judge Ross or the Commissioners intervene. In the case I have put, though there has been a complete bargain made between the receiver and the tenants, and though Judge Ross has actually sanctioned it, and though the Estates Commissioners have issued the request, if there is still delay on the part of the solicitor having carriage, he will be completely carrying out the instructions given by the judge to comply with the request of the Land Commission, or if there was some slip in supplying all the information required, that particular estate might lose the great benefit which the Chief Secretary has so handsomely agreed to confer in cases of that kind. The only difference between the two cases is this. The Chief Secretary limits the benefits of his Amendment to the case where the request has only to be issued, whereas I
  2160
  propose that the Amendment should have operation if a judge has directed the Commission or Board to be furnished with particulars and documents. I make that proposal having regard to the practice, which, I do not think, the Attorney-General for Ireland would question, that in all these cases, before Judge Ross does anything, before he directs a request to issue, the bargain is actually made. For years, in some of the cases that have come under my notice, the tenants have been paying interest to the receiver in lieu of rent. I ask the Chief Secretary to consider that case. It will only be a slight extension of his own Amendment, and it will actually cover some cases I know of.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am quite at the end of my tether in this matter. The case which I actually put to the Treasury was the case presented to me. Certainly, it covers the great majority of the cases, and I think it would be an unwise departure to recognise this period of the direction given by the judge. Section 7 of the Act of 1903 makes no such reference. Sub-section (1) says: "The land judge may, at the request of the Land Commission, cause the Commission to be furnished with such particulars and documents as they may require respecting the estate…"
  The date in the proceedings which I have taken as the one which will enable persons in get the benefit of the provisions as to the percentage is 24th November, 1908. Bad cases make bad law, and the hon. and learned Member has himself admitted that this is not a question for the land judge. It is a question of delay on the part of the solicitors in working out the Order, and I think it should be left in the way I put it, because the Act of 1903 indicates a distinct stage in the proceedings when the Commissioners may be furnished with particulars and documents. I think to go beyond that would be to go beyond what I can reasonably accept in the matter.
  Mr. MOORE: I think if this matter was further investigated, the Chief Secretary would see his way to accept this Amendment. It is a singularly reasonable one. It is to protect the innocent vendor who goes into one of the King's courts for the sale of his property. It is to protect him against a slip in connection with a transaction for which the Revenue exact heavy fees in the shape of Stamp Duties. I agree that the stage which the Chief Secretary's Amendment proposes to take is the right one, because the land judge never directs that these proceedings should be

  2161
  taken unless he has had an exhaustive hearing of all the particulars in regard to the estate. He has received the report of the receiver, and reports as to how far the tenants are willing to buy. He then makes a judicial declaration that it is desirable that the Estates Commissioners should be consulted to see if they are willing to become purchasers. That is what makes the stage important. If that is so, would it not be hard that the vendor should lose the benefit which the Chief Secretary proposes to give in other cases if by some slip in mere machinery the information which the land judge directed to be conveyed to the Estates Commissioners does not reach them? There have been cases where, owing to the voluminous character of their correspondence, the Estates Commissioners have said, "We have not been able to trace this correspondence." Possibly there may be slips in carrying out the machinery of the land judge's court, and if such a slip were to happen the innocent vendor would suffer. I think the Chief Secretary should see that the vendor is protected against miscarriage in the working out of what is really a judicial decision of the land judge that an estate should be sold to the Estates Commissioners. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) put the blame for this on the solicitor who is responsible for the carriage of the information. In some cases the land judge directs his own carriage. The solicitor is appointed by the land judge, and is therefore the legal trustee for that purpose. He is the particular officer of the court entrusted with that work, and if he makes fault it is really the act of the court, and the court will punish him. In that case I say it is very hard that the innocent vendor should suffer. The Attorney-General for Ireland raised a point of Order, and said that this would impose an additional burden on the Treasury. The Chief Secretary rather took the same line, but he gave us no approximation in money of the amount which would be involved by adopting the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cork. That Amendment is only intended to cover cases of slips. There cannot be so many of them as will make a great difference to the Treasury. It would be a very poor commentary on the way in which business is conducted if it would break the Treasury's back to include these cases. I do not think it would involve more than £2,000. I am not aware of any cases where there have been slips which are pending at the present moment.
  Mr. GORDON: We want to get some definite period of time indicated when the land judge is willing to apply to the Estates Commissioners. That is what is done in all judicial proceedings. There should be a definite date indicated when the order of the judge shall take effect. Why should the matter be left to depend on the neglect of a messenger to convey an order, or of a solicitor to carry out a direction, or of somebody who is overworked to find time to do the work the judge has appointed to be done? I do not think the insertion of the words proposed in the Amendment would do any harm.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think we ought not to waste time on a matter like this. The Government have considered the matter, and made a concession. In the case of the Roe Estate, the vendor went to the House of Lords within the last twelve months, thereby delaying matters for, I should say, over 18 months. The solicitors, having carriage, are occupied in these contests between vendors, and they are not considering the interests of tenants at all. In that case the Wexford tenants were fined an additional year's rent by reason of the delay caused by the contest between the vendors. Is it not rather hard that parties should suffer by the non-acceptance of the words "or directed." At the same time the Government have made a substantial concession, and I do not think we would be warranted in occupying time over the matter. I do think, however, that the Government might consider whether the additional words should be accepted.
  Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: In discussing this measure we have so often referred matters to future stages that we hardly ever reach those stages. I think it would be better if this matter could be discussed in the House now. What is the position the Chief Secretary has taken up? It is that in order to introduce the Amendment which stands in his name he has had to approach the Treasury again, and point out to them that some further additional expense may be required if the Amendment is passed into law. He, therefore, feels himself precluded from accepting any Amendment which might have the consequence of leading to greater expenditure of money than the Treasury intended to sanction in giving effect to the Amendment standing in his name. It is almost impossible to believe that the right hon. Gentleman in stating his case to the Treasury put it in such detail as to show

  2163
  that the acceptance of the words "or directed" would make much difference. The intention of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is identical with the intention of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cork City. I cannot for the life of me believe that whoever was approached at the Treasury said that "You may have so much, but if from some carelessness the direction has not been given, we will not go any further." I do not believe that any discussion of that kind ever took place at the Treasury, and I feel confident that if the Chief Secretary accepted the Amendment he would not be required to try to get more money.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to an imaginary conversation between myself and the Treasury. That was founded, I suppose, on experience of his own when he held the office of Chief Secretary. The Act of 1903 involves a considerable extra burden under Section 7, Sub-section (1). It provides that the land judge may at the request of the Land Commission cause the Commission to be furnished, and I pointed out that that was a very fair period rather than the period I had put into the Bill. I do not know how many cases would be covered by the insertion of these words, but the matter was placed before me in a very particular and specific manner by those interested in it, and on the information which they gave me I proceeded to obtain the Amendment. Of course, had I adopted the Motion just made I need not have recommitted the Bill at all. But as it is, we have the present concession in the form in which I obtained it from the Treasury, and I really cannot go back to them again asking them to make another change. In the absence of the Treasury representatives I may say I had a delicate task to get the concession at all, but I took my basis on the language of Section 7, Subjection (1). I pointed out that it was after all only when the land judge had made up his own mind that this was a fit and proper
  case for purchase he caused the conditions to be furnished, and proceeded to reopen the whole transaction. I do not think that the addition to the Treasury caused by the present proposal would be large, but there would be an addition; and, having come to a bargain with them, the reopening of the transaction and the addition, even of what my hon. Friend (Mr. Moore) describes as a few thousands, would touch on a matter of principle with the Treasury, and I cannot ask them to alter the bargain, made. I am always- willing to apply the principle
  "Between the mast head and the ground
  He mercy sought and mercy found."
  But, anxious as I am to arrive at a satisfactory termination of this controversy, I cannot do what is asked.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) for the concession he has made, and I only put down this Amendment because I thought that when the full facts were before the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury, they would not hesitate to make this small extension. I had in mind a particular case in which the solicitors having carriage furnished to the Estates Commissioners a plain copy of the document when they should have furnished an attested copy. The error was not discovered by the Estates Commissioners for six months afterwards, but the six months unfortunately formed the crucial date, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not like it to happen that an insignificant slip of that kind should produce the very serious and severe consequences which would follow from it if there was no Amendment. But the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to make a concession, and, therefore, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Leave withheld.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 183.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Younger, George

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

  Percy, Earl

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Stanier, Beville

  Moore and Mr. Gordon.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  NOES.

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

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Alden, Percy

  Ginnell, L.

  O'Dowd, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Glendinning, R. G.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Barker, Sir John

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Shee, James John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Harrington, Timothy

  Partington, Oswald

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pointer, J

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hogan, Michael

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Boland, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fie, West)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Reddy, M.

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bryce. J. Annan

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robson. Sir William Snowdon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Joyce, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rowlands, J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rutherford, V. H. Brentford

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Clough, William

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Seely, Colonel

  Clynes, J. R

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Shackleton, David James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sheehy, David

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

  Lundon, T.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Snowden, P.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Kean, John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Delany, William

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Marnham, F. J.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Dillon, John

  Massie, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Duffy, William J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Menzies, Sir Waiter

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Erskine, David C.

  Middlebrook, William

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Mooney, J. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Morrell, Philip

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Murnaghan, George

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

  Falconer, J.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Myer, Horatio

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Nicholls, George

  Young, Samuel

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

  Fullerton, Hugh

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Norton and Mr. Fuller.

  Amendment proposed to insert after paragraph (6):—
  "(c) The land judge in the course of proceedings in which the estate or land
  2166
  is eventually sold to the Land Commission under Section seven, or to the Congested Districts Board under Section seventy-seven of the Act of 1903, has

  2167
  caused the Commission or Board to be furnished with particulars and documents respecting the estate or land in pursuance of either of these sections; or."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed:"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I do not know whether this is the stage at which to take anything that would be in order under Clause 5?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Bill has been recommitted on certain Amendments.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: May I state my point of order: that we are now, in respect of Clause 5, in the Committee stage, that one process in the Committee stage is that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and that upon that Motion in the Committee stage it is possible to make remarks which are in order on that Clause. I further submit, as part of my point of order, that there is nothing in the particular Resolution which deprives the Committee of that right inherent to the Committee, because on the Report stage, to give an example, the question that the Clause stand part gives the opportunity, unless, indeed, the hour has been reached which is stated in the table. But as things are I think this is a legitimate and, perhaps, the only opportunity of discussing these matters.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman may proceed. It was recommitted in respect of the Amendment, and the Amendment having been put in might have affected the Clause.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I think I understand the relation of Clause 5 to the Amendments, but I wish to clear up two points, and I ask the Chief Secretary whether I am right in holding that Clause as now amended deals with the new bonus, and that future agreements in respect of bonus under this Clause from 24th November, namely, in respect of the interest paid by the tenant and the right of the landlord to refuse stock and take cash will date, not from 24th November last, but, under the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman will carry, after 15th September of this year. Have I made that point clear? In this Clause as amended it is laid down that the scale of bonus in the Schedule
  2168
  shall attach to all agreements entered upon after 24th November last, and will he define what "being entered upon" means? But in respect of all the other elements obtained, namely, the payment of 3½ per cent. interest and 3¼ per cent. by the tenant, and in respect of the landlord's right to refuse stock and pay cash, then the future agreement will date from 15th September, so that this Clause settles the bonus in respect to future agreements from 24th November last—
  Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman is now, as far as I am aware, debating the whole Clause, and I wish to ask whether we are to understand that we are at liberty to take the Clause at large without any reference to the Amendments made?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is that the Clause as amended stand part. The Clause as a whole may therefore be discussed on the question that the Clause as amended stand part.
  Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman was not debating the relation of the Clause to the Amendments. He was debating the general scope of the Clause—a very wide scope—by far the greater proportion of which has no relation whatever.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think it would be possible to limit the discussion in that way.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: So I understood your original ruling, Sir; but, for my part, I am not going to make a speech about the general policy of this Clause, though I should be within my rights in so doing; but I am not exercising that right, and I confine myself to asking two questions. The other point is in respect to the general policy of this Clause. I wish to ask the Government whether, in their new policy embodied in this Clause for a new bonus, they have considered the case, and I believe such cases are very numerous, in which in first term rents and second term rents abatements are made, more numerously in the case of first term rents. I see no symptom in the original bonus or in the revised bonus that the Government have had their attention directed to the case of first term rents on which it has been customary year in and year out for the landlords to give abatements. I wish to know whether the Government has considered this case; I think they will have to consider it, because they have adopted

  2169
  instead of the form of bonus the bonus upon a sliding scale, based on a number of years' purchase in the case of first term rents; and in the case of the second term rents it is clear that in some cases the landlord might take twenty-two years' purchase, when the rent, as a matter of fact, has been paid for ten or fifteen years, and under the bonus scheme of the Government he would only be getting a far less number of years' purchase, and, therefore, will be entitled to a far higher bonus. That is only illustrative of one of the difficulties in which we are landed when you depart from the uniform bonus which is at present the law. The Government in this Clause tried to meet some of the objections, but, as far as I can see, they have never considered these points, and I wish to know whether they are prepared to consider them.
  Mr. MOORE: It is rather unfortunate that the whole question of the bonus was not dealt with in a whole-hearted way, instead of by piecemeal. Under the Act of 1903 sales could be carried out in two ways, and the alternatives were to be absolutely equal, whichever the landlord took. He could either sell his estate to the Commissioners, or make his own agreement with his tenant. Why should one of these methods be given an undue advantage over the other? Why should a man be penalised because he chooses voluntarily to sell to his own tenants, as against the man who has sold to the Estates Commissioners? But that is what this Clause is doing. A man who has agreed with his own tenant after 24th September, 1908, loses the bonus, but if the same man chooses to sell his estate direct to the Commissioners, which is not a bit more legal or more permissible than the other method in that case, he is to get a bonus. What is the reason for that discrimination? Why should a man be entitled to a bonus who sells direct to the Commissioners any more than if he elected to sell to his tenants? We have never bad this Clause debated in the House. A voluntary sale is to be penalised, and all these other exceptions which are put into this Clause—sales direct to the Estate Commissioners, sales which the Commissioners demand, sales to the Congested Districts Board, sales to the land judge's court—are all to be allowed the old bonus, whereas the only person who is penalised, the person whom we should have thought the Government would have encouraged if they are in earnest to see land purchase carried out harmoniously, is the landlord
  2170
  who has voluntarily agreed with his tenants up to 24th November, 1908, I want to know whether that is intended to be the policy of this Clause; if so, I think the Committee would like to know what are the grounds for the distinction if the Government wish to see land purchase carried out on the voluntary principle. I think the Chief Secretary ought to explain why this class in Ireland are omitted from the benefit of this Section.
  Mr. DILLON: The Chief Secretary has recommitted this Bill entirely at the request of hon. Members above the Gangway. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Yes, for the purpose of making large concessions, yet the hon. Members divided on an Amendment. The recommittal of the Bill has been made the occasion of a long and discursive discussion which cannot lead to anything, because it is out of order to move any Amendment or to raise any further issue on the Clause, and this discussion can have no other object than to waste the time of the House.
  Mr. BIRRELL: It really does seem to me to be putting a great difficulty in the way of the Minister in charge of the Bill to have such a discussion when he seeks to make concessions, especially when one knows, as the hon. Member for Mayo pointed out, that no practical result can be achieved, because Amendments cannot be moved. Why cannot hon. Members treat the Amendments which are on the Paper by themselves, every one of them? After the Clause has been amended in that way, then, when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, you resume your seizin of the Bill, and you can discuss it Clause by Clause. Of course, everybody understands the motive of the prolongation of the Debate at this point, when it is perfectly useless. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover put to me two questions, one of which I answered by a nod of my head, which supplied him with the information which he honestly required, and the other point I am quite prepared to deal with. Hon. Members cannot, under the forms of the House, do more than ask those questions, and they cannot in any way move Amendments as they would be enabled to do if they would only allow me to proceed with the Amendments on the Paper, every one of which is admitted to be of importance, and every one of which has been framed with a view to extend the benefits of the bonus and other matters to persons who would otherwise be cut out. I have obtained these conces-

  2171
  sions by sweat and blood, and yet they are made the opportunity for a long discussion, simply and solely for a purpose which for is not necessary for me to describe. With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I think he will find that under the Schedule the higher the nominal rent the better it will be for the landlord. The fact that abatements take place with regard to landlords and tenants does not affect the question when you consider the number of years' purchase which will be calculated on first or second term rents. I do not think it will be found that the Schedule is open to the view taken of it by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I do not complain of the answer the right hon. Gentleman has given to me in reply to my question, but he seems to have forgotten that, owing to the action of the Government of which he is a Member, we do not enjoy the ordinary opportunity of discussing these matters. If the proper moment to consider these questions is on the Report of Clause 5, will he undertake to say when we shall reach that Clause? I do not believe we shall have a discussion upon it.
  Mr. BIRRELL: You can reach it if you like.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I had a perfect right to express my view at this stage on the general policy of the Clause, but I did not

  Division No. 662.]

  AYES.

  [4.45 p.m.

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Alden, Percy

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Clough, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gilhooly, James

  Barker, Sir John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gill, A. H.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Glover, Thomas

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Gulland, John W.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Deleny, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Blank, Arthur W.

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Boland, John

  Dillon, John

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bright, J. A.

  Duffy, William J.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

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

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Elibank, Master of

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Erskine, David C.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Essex, R. W.

  Hogan, Michael

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hooper, A. G.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  exercise that right, and I confined myself to putting two questions of a perfectly pertinent character, and I took the only opportunity which may be available to me or any other Member to put those questions. The hon. Member for Mayo, who is used to dictating to the Government, thinks he can also dictate to us what course we shall pursue, but he must allow us to be the judges of the way in which we shall exercise our privileges. In the reply which the Chief Secretary made to my second question, he seems to think I have in mind only the interests of a particular landlord. That is not so. I wish him even now, if it be not too late, to reflect on the many inconveniences which attach to the method of bonus which he has adopted, and which he lays down under Clause 5. It is quite true that if a landlord enters into a bargain by which there is only 14 years' purchase he will get the bonus calculated on the higher scale. I quite agree.
  How does the Chief Secretary defend the case of the man who has had a second term rent of £7, and in cases which are identically similar is one man to get 6 per cent. bonus, and the other man 12 per cent? That is the result of the Schedule, and only shows the folly of drawing up such a scheme, and the greater folly of trying to force it through the House of Commons under such a Resolution.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 46.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Murnaghan, George

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Myer, Horatio

  Seely, Colonel

  Joyce, Michael

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shackleton, David James

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Nicholls, George

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Sheehy, David

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Snowdon, P.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, West)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Malley, William

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Lundon, T.

  O'Shee, James John

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Watt, Henry A.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Pointer, J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Kean, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Massie, J.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Reddy, M.

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

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Middlebrook, William

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Young, Samuel

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, J.

  Norton and Mr. Fuller.

  Muldoon, John

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  NOES.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Moore, William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Percy, Earl

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Renton, Leslie

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Gordon, J.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

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

  Clark, George Smith

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Clive Percy Archer

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T L. (Down, North)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  M'Arthur, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  CLAUSE 10.—(Repayment of Advances Under Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906. 6 Edw. 7, c. 37.)
  Advances made under Section sixteen of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906 (which are by virtue of that Section repayable in like manner as advances under the Land Purchase Acts), shall be repayable as respects advances made before the passing of this Act in like manner as advances made in pursuance of pending purchase agreements, and as respects advances made after the passing of this Act in like manner as advances made in pursuance of future purchase agreements, and in the latter case the rate of interest paid by the Land Commission to the National Debt Commissioners shall be three per cent. per annum instead of two and three-quarters per cent. per annum.
  Mr. BIRRELLmoved to leave out from the word "shall" ["under the Land Purchase Acts shall "] to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "whether made before or after the passing of this Act be repayable in like manner as advances made in pursuance of pending purchase agreements, and as respects all such advances the rate of interest paid by the Land Commission to the National Debt Commissioners shall be two and three-quarters per cent. per annum.
  "(2) The payment charged on the Ireland Development Grant under Section seventeen of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906, shall, so far as that grant is insufficient to meet the payment, be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament instead of being charged upon that grant. Provided that the total amount of the

  2175
  payment to be charged on the said grant, or to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, shall not exceed twenty-eight thousand pounds in any year."
  This Clause makes provision for the repayment of advances made under Section 16 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906. That is the Section which authorises the Land Commission to make advances from the Land Purchase Fund to rural district councils for the purpose of providing labourers' cottages, such advances not to exceed four and a quarter millions (sterling), and to be repayable in the same manner as advances under the Land Purchase Acts. This Bill provides for the repayment of advances at a new rate of 3½ per cent., and therefore, unless the Bill made some provision, any such advances would probably have to be repaid at the new rate. The original Bill provided that the old rate of annuity was to apply in respect of advances made before the passing of the Act. Over a million sterling has already been actually advanced before the passing of the Act, while three and a quarter millions remain not yet actually advanced. That would probably have to be repaid under the new terms; but although that three and a quarter millions has not been advanced nearly the whole of it has been sanctioned for schemes by the Local Government Board, and therefore practically the whole amount, although it has not been advanced, has all been sanctioned. I therefore, by the alteration now submitted, propose, with the sanction of the Treasury, that all advances under the Labourers Acts, whether before the passing of this Act or after, up to the limit of four and a quarter millions originally proposed, shall be repayable on the old terms. The first part provides that any loss occasioned owing to the issue of excess stock for the purposes of the Labourers Acts will be provided for out of the Votes rather than the Development Grant, and therefore will not fall in any way upon the ratepayers.
  The second paragraph of the proposed Amendment relates to a matter which, I think, explains itself. Under Section 17 of the Labourers Act 20 per cent. of the amount of the purchase annuities payable by district councils was charged primarily upon the Ireland Development Grant. That is to say, the district councils were relieved to the extent of 20 per cent. of their obligations to repay advances, provided in each year the sum did not exceed £28,000 to be paid out of the Development
  2176
  Grant to meet that grant. There is the further provision that any sum paid out of the grant shall be paid out of the Votes, so that the Grant was made the channel of communication between the district councils and the ultimate liability. The Development Grant now, of course, will very soon be absorbed. The next advance of money will absorb the whole of the £160,000 per year, and no money will be available for the initial payment of this annual sum of £28,000. Consequently we are asking to prevent it going through this empty formality of paying out of an existing fund and then having it repaid out of the Votes. So far as the Development Grant is insufficient, payment is to be defrayed direct out of moneys provided by Parliament up to £28,000.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. MOORE: I think that the Committee and those who represent Irish constituencies ought to be very grateful to the Chief Secretary for acceding in the first part of his Amendment to a request which was made to him, and backed very strongly by the local bodies in the North of Ireland. This is certainly about the only one of the Amendments which I think can fairly be said to be an Amendment made at the request of my hon. Friends who sit on these Benches for Northern constituencies. I think we ought to be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting our wishes, because it was felt to be a very serious blow to the working of the Labourers Acts if the Treasury were successful in having their way in the conditions as to the amount of money to be borrowed for the purpose of labourers cottages. I am not going to repeat on this Clause the criticisms which were made at the time as to the effect of the various funds provided by the Labourers Act, 1906, on particular parts of the country; but it would have been a further obstacle to the working of the Acts if the Bill had remained in its original form. I am not at all satisfied as to the second part of the Amendment, and now that we are in Committee it is only right that the matter should be examined. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman, as there was no Debate on Clause 10 at any stage of our proceedings, but the second part of this Amendment is entirely the creature of his; own brain. The only explanation we have had is that which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, and, as practically the security of one-fifth of the whole annual

  2177
  amount going under the Labourers Act, 1908, is affected by the Amendment, I think, if the Act is to be properly worked and safeguarded, we ought to have some further explanation. Under the Act of 1906 there is a Parliamentary charge upon the Development Grant, which, under Section 14, is practically put at £23,000 a year. That £28,000 is a Parliamentary charge upon the Development Grant equal in priority with any other charge, except £5,000 in respect of Trinity College estates. What the right hon. Gentleman asks us to do is to give up, without examination—I am not saying that it ought not to be done after examination—the security which we now have of a Parliamentary charge on a Parliamentary fund, and to trust to the House to vote the money annually. That might involve very serious consequences, possibly paralysing the workings of the Acts in a particular year. If we are to trust to annual estimates the security will not be the same. Parliament might not vote the money in a given year. There might be some arrangement entered into with hon. Members below the Gangway, and it is conceivable that under political conditions in this House the £28,000 might not be forthcoming. It therefore might be a very serious injury if we were deprived of the security which the Act of 1906 gives.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that this Sub-section interferes with the security of the Development Grant. It states that "the payment charged on the Ireland Development Grant … shall so far as that grant is insufficient to meet the payment be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament instead of being charged upon that grant." That is, therefore, an addition. It does not go back on the Development Grant at all.
  Mr. MOORE: The Chief Secretary said that the Development Grant was practically exhausted, and this Amendment may be drawn to meet that view. Is it not the case that the Parliamentary charge under the Labourers Act for the purposes of the Labourers Acts has equal priority with any other charge on the Development Grant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There are only two statutory charges which have absolute priority, one of £20,000 and one of £5,000, the £185,000 being thus reduced to £160,000. Other charges which may be put on from time to time are all subject by statute to the obligations upon that fund to make good the losses on flotation.
  2178
  Therefore, as soon as the fund is exhausted for that purpose, the £28,000 and all other charges will disappear altogether, because there will be nothing out of which to pay them. Hence it is obviously better to place the grant so that it would have to be put on the Votes.
  Mr. MOORE: As the Act of 1906 stood, the matter was in practically the same position as now. It had a legal security, though what the money value of that security was is another matter. From time to time the Development Grant may be increased.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Amendment in no way interferes with the amount of the Development Grant. It is in addition to it. It is not in order to raise any question of a rearrangement.
  Mr. DILLON: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for a very valuable concession, and I think I can say on behalf of my colleagues that we do not believe there is the smallest foundation for the fear of the hon. Member (Mr. Moore) in regard to this £28,000.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  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 first day of March 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 first day of March nineteen hundred and nine; or

  (ii.) of land being land in respect of which or comprised in an estate

  2179
  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.
  (c) An order of the Land Judge under Section seven or Section seventy-seven of the Act of 1903 vesting any land in the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board, and an order of the Estates Commissioners vesting land in the Land Commission under Section two of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be treated as an agreement entered into by that Commission or Board as the case may be;
  (d) The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by the Treasury.
  Mr. BIRRELLmoved to leave out in paragraph (a) the words "first day of March," and to insert instead thereof "fifteenth day of September."
  The alterations in the dates which I am now proposing are important. They amend the definition of pending agreements. I should like to call attention to the facts which have necessitated the alteration from 1st March to some other date. Since 1st March agreements for direct sale, representing £1,250,000 of purchase money, have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners, but in all these agreements the purchasing tenants have agreed to repay the advances at the old rate. Therefore, unless this Amendment were agreed to, the basis of the contract having been altered by Parliament, all these agreements would be upset, the parties would be relegated to their former positions, and there would be a great deal of disappointment and waste of time. In order to prevent that substantial amount of business being rendered null and void, I propose to alter the date from 1st March, which was a precautionary date, to 15th September. I do not think it will be questioned that the date should be altered. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Moore) proposes 31st December. I cannot accept that, because, having come to the con-
  2180
  clusion that we have done as to the necessity of altering the financial basis of future transactions, we cannot allow a portion of futurity to be mortgaged to the extent it would be if we were to say that anybody who could get their agreement through between now and the last day of the year should have the advantageous and agreeable terms which, for reasons that will bear examination, we find it impossible to continue for the future. Any future date would only excite and promote not necessarily a factitious, but at all events a very eager rush of agreements, and upset the basis of our transaction. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. Member's proposal, but I ask the Committee to agree to substitute to-day for 1st March.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. MOORE: If these words stand part, shall I be at liberty to move my Amendment, which proposes to substitute 31st December for 1st March?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No.
  Mr. MOORE: But it is an Amendment to the Chief Secretary's Amendment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not so. When these words are negatived, the Government will ask to have inserted the words "fifteenth day of September." The hon. Member must secure the rejection of the Government Amendment, and then move his own.
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL: Surely there is some mistake about that. The existing words must, of course, be negatived before the Government Amendment can be inserted; but if the Government Amendment is inserted, surely it will then be open to my hon. Friend to move an Amendment to that.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. The Government Amendment will then be inserted, and you cannot take it out again.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: So far as the Chief Secretary has yielded to the objections which were raised by proposing to substitute 15th September for 1st March, he has undoubtedly conferred a substantial benefit upon a considerable number of purchasers and vendors. And while I quite agree—I hope I am not out of order in referring to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Armagh—with the Chief Secretary with regard to not mortgaging

  2181
  the future, I would 'Suggest to him that it would be only reasonable and night that instead of these words, "the 15th September," we should insert "the date of the passing of this Act." Then there would be no mortgaging of futurity. Every person would be put in a position of equality if you inserted a date of that kind. I cannot in reason myself see why a man who is lucky enough to get his agreement in before 15th September should be let in, and the man who is unfortunate enough to put it in on 16th September, but before the date of the passing of this Act, should be shut out. I think the right hon. Gentleman must see himself the justice and fairness of this. The date of the passing of the Act would be a much more convenient date for everyone, and more convenient in another Sub-section of this Bill, where he seeks to put in 15th September. I throw out that suggestion, which probably, if accepted by him, may prevent discussion on a succeeding Amendment.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The same point would arise whatever date you name. There is always one unfortunate man who comes along the day after. I certainly cannot now insert any such words as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but I may be able afterwards, if we can agree upon some reasonable date to insert it.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I brought this matter before the notice of the Chief Secretary in December of last year. It is necessary to legalise things up to the passing of the Act. Those concerned cannot anticipate any part of this Act. Therefore to-morrow or the next day any agreements must be in conformity with the Act of 1903. So far as bonus is concerned, the Government have been able to deal with it by regulation, because the Act of 1903 gives them that power. Therefore that point does not arise. But in respect of the other two points, the Government, it seems to me, will be driven by force of circumstances under this Act to legalise everything up to the point at which it comes into operation. They cannot leave an anomalous and lawless period in the course of which every agreement will be invalid.
  Mr. MOORE: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Caldwell, that it is not open to me to move my Amendment; but it will, I take it, be open to me, after what the Chief Secretary has said, to ask the question how far the Amendment he proposes is a suitable one. I am very much astonished at the reason which the Chief Secretary gave
  2182
  for adopting the present Amendment instead of the one three months later. He said that if we adopted a future date we would be flooded out—or Something of that kind—with agreements. This from a Government which is very anxious for land purchase! The thing which strikes them as a catastrophe is that land purchase would be so accelerated if they put the date on for three months that they would be flooded out with land agreements! I can hardly understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman. I could quite understand if he had said that land purchase is so expensive, and that the Government do not want to find any more money for the time. If he had been frank enough to say that was his reason, I could have understood it; but if once the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that view he would be at a loss to explain why he wanted compulsory powers for further acquisition. I can, therefore, quite understand why that is not his case, but I do not understand why the fact that future new agreements will be in by the proposed date should be the reason for refusing the means that will induce them. What is the reason? This Bill has been practically in print since November last. Everyone was led to believe that 1st March was the day on which agreements might be sent which would become pending agreements. The Ides of March was 1st March. If the Government object is to discourage agreements—to rejoice that they are few, and to be apprehensive if they are to be threatened with many—then I can understand their attitude. Surely if there is to be justice or equity in the matter the public who are interested, the owners, the landlord, and the tenants ought to be given a reasonable chance. Why should not they be given a reasonable chance during the next three months to send their agreements in and lodge them with the Commissioners? The right hon. Gentleman has said, "The Treasury is adamant; I can wring no more from them." But the Government are responsible at present for the Treasury. I think, therefore, that it is a very unfortunate thing that the date is to be fixed as it is. If it was to be the 15th September it should have been announced months ago, to enable people to get their agreements in. That course was not adopted. In view of that it is not unreasonable that they should be given three months now under which these agreements, which the Chief Secretary seems so frightened of, can be lodged.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Government, by passing this Amendment, have practically taken a very heavy insurance policy on the success of their Bill in the House of Lords, because I cannot conceive anybody so foolish, from the landlord's point of view, to do other than accept it. Taking it from that point of view I think large questions of policy arise. The Government have allotted another million of money at the old rate. That is a most satisfactory and substantial concession. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College has suggested that the date should be the date of the passing of the measure. The Chief Secretary has not closed the door on that suggestion, but I must say, from his point of view, he has not acted unnaturally, because, as he says, he is encumbered by certain obligations with the Treasury, and if he now by his present attitude sought to break any understanding with that extraordinary body it might be considered that faith had not been kept. A wholly different consideration will arise in the "to-ing and fro-ing" of Amendments between this House and the. House of Lords. When, perhaps, there have been accepted and inserted Amendments by the Lords, then will come the time for bargaining, and then will come the time when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say with force, "I can secure the passage of my measure as a whole by granting the concession "—which I assume will have been moved in another place in the sense in which the hon. Member for Trinity College has recommended. Of course, it may be said, as the hon. and learned Gentleman above the Gangway has said, that sufficient notice has not been given to the landlords of the intention of the Government to change their mind. On the other hand, is it not an old proverb that whoever is active and has not slept upon his rights is the man who gains the advantage? Accordingly, what is being done now is this: that these landlords who have been active during the last six or eight months, and have not taken the Government Bill as the last and final word upon the subject, will now get for their vigilance a successful gamble, which would probably have taken a good deal of expense and a great amount of trouble to secure. The result will be that any of the tenants who have entered into agreements with their landlords will now get the benefit of the terms of the Act of 1903. That, in my judgment, gives this Bill a wholly different complexion to that which it has hitherto possessed. It enhances its value—enormously. I think the
  2184
  Government have acted in a spirit of wisdom. They have seen what would have followed if all these agreements had been thown back in the teeth of the tenants and the landlords, and the confusion that would thereby have resulted. I think by this Amendment we have practically secured that the number of disappointed persons in Ireland shall be extremely small. As to those who have not entered into agreements with their landlords, if it is the landlords' fault, there are other clauses in the Bill to deal with them. Therefore, I think this is the most valuable of all the proposals that have been made. I certainly do not blame the Government, but I should certainly like to see them make an Amendment on the lines indicated.
  Captain CRAIG: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has taken up a different attitude upon this point from what I expected from him. I do not really see that one part of his remarks were quite logical, because he said this was the reward of those who had been active, and nobody else suffered. It appears to me that the unfair part of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is this: The grant of this million and a half, or whatever it is, by the State, under the 1903 Act, bringing it into that category and giving them the extra 9 per cent., is not nearly so fair as the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend. Whatever has occasioned the right hon. Gentleman to extend his date from March to September has certainly no more logical reason to commend it than that it should be extended from September to December. It is true, as the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) said, that this arrangement with the Treasury will be slightly upset. But the Treasury is always upset. Suppose the Amendment had been accepted? What would it amount to? Suppose you put in the date, making it the end of this year, and give every landlord in Ireland a last opportunity of signing agreements under the old scheme, what would it mean? There are 52 millions in hand at the present time to be dealt with. Supposing it means 10 or 20 millions more, would it not settle at all events a great many of the estates in that way, and even although they were not paid their money, the agreements would have been signed, and all the trouble and anxiety as to the future would have been settled once and for all? The object of the Act of 1903 was to settle the land question, and get as many of the landlords and tenants brought together as pos-

  2185
  sible to have agreements signed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says he dare not do so suddenly, but fancy a Chief Secretary for Ireland grumbling because the land settlement came suddenly upon him! I should have thought the Front Bench would be only too glad to have the land question settled, and to have landlords and tenants brought together, as they would be. There are only three months more to run—October, November, and December—to bring all parties together, who for one reason or another are holding out. The difference of 9 per cent in the bonus is all that it would mean, and that would have to be arranged with the Treasury. I am sure, as the Treasury are offering upstairs something like £5,000,000 a year, and as much more as can be saved annually for certain purposes, they should be glad to assist the right hon. Gentleman to close this great land question. I must say the right hon. Gentleman is most inconsistent in the attitude he has taken up, and he is proving once more what, we already know, that it is not a land settlement he, wants, but that he is desirous of stopping land purchase in Ireland. No case has been made out for refusing my right hon. Friend's Amendment, and I hope he will press it in order to emphasise the fact that we do not think the Government's Amendment is satisfactory, and that we do think that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is the better one.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I desire to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on behalf of a class which I do not think is very large, but, all the same, is one that will suffer considerable grievance if the date which the Chief Secretary proposes to introduce into the Bill is finally accepted. That is the class of landlord and tenant in Ireland who during the last five or six months have been negotiating for the sale and purchase of their farms. It is quite conceivable, and I am sure it has happened in a large number of cases, that negotiations may have been begun, say, upon two adjoining estates, and that one of these estates will receive the old bonus, because of having completed its negotiations while the adjoining estate, not having completed its negotiations for some reason or other within the time inserted in the Bill, will be treated differently. I think everybody will agree that it is a hardship that because one estate does not happen to have completed its agreements by the date in the Bill that it should be debarred from the
  2186
  advantage which the other estate receives. It may not be a large branch of the community which will be so effected, but whatever the number it would be a very serious grievance and hardship; and, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has advanced his date from November last year to the 15th of the present month, I think we ought all to press upon him to do what he adumbrated himself, that is to insert, at any rate, the date of the passing of this Bill. If a change is made in the method of distributing the bonus it would be the fairest and the most equitable period for bringing about that change; and I feel sure that if hon. Members below the Gangway would raise their voices in conjunction with us the right hon. Gentleman would agree to make the change.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: It seems to me strange, seeing that hon. Members from all parts of Ireland—North, South, East, and West—are united upon certain objects which they have brought out most forcibly, that the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the administration of law in Ireland should be so opposed to their views. We think this Government is setting class against class—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN: Very well. I am not speaking about England or Scotland, but about Ireland; and it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is setting class against class.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The Amendment is to leave out "the first day of March." The hon. Member must speak to that.
  Mr. DUNCAN: The question is whether this Amendment does tend to set class against class, and it seems to me that the lesson of this Debate is that the right hon. Gentleman is merely obstructing voluntary land purchase—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already stated that the question is to leave out "first of March," in order to insert "fifteenth day of September."
  Mr. MOORE: As you put the question in that way first, would it not be permissible for me to now move my Amendment to leave out "the fifteenth day of September," and insert "the thirty-first day of December"?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman will observe how the question is put according to the Rules of the House.
  Question, "That the first day of March stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That 'the fifteenth day of September' be there inserted."
  Mr. MOORE: I beg now to move my Amendment to leave out "the fifteenth day of September "in order to insert "the thirty-first day of December."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The original Amendment was to leave out certain words in order to insert the fifteenth day of September. The Committee has left out the words, and the question has been put that the words "the fifteenth day of September" must be set up, and no Amendment be there inserted. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member is not an Amendment to the Amendment, but is negative of the Amendment, and can only be moved after the present Amendment has been negatived.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: On a question of Order. Surely it has frequently occurred in our Committee Debates that after the omission of certain words you then come to the insertion of the new words proposed by the Government. That makes the Government Amendment a substantive Motion and, therefore, it is proper to move Amendments to that.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No; not in a case of this kind, where the Amendment is to insert a date. It is not an Amendment to the Amendment; it is a new proposition altogether.
  Mr. LONGdissented.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot explain myself further. The right hon. Gentleman must take it from me that this is perfectly in order, and that you leave out words in order to insert other words when it is a question of a date. Supposing you had to leave out "five" in order to insert "three," as was done last night, it is the privilege of that Amendment to have the first chance of being voted upon by the Committee, and therefore the Government must have the first chance of a Division upon the words "the fifteenth day of September." It is upon this that the hon. and learned Member wishes to
  2188
  bring forward his Amendment, which is not an Amendment but an alternative proposal.
  Mr. LONG: I have no intention of disputing your ruling, but I confess I find it difficult to follow the very complicated procedure we are now adopting. Certainly I was under the impression that my hon. Friend the Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) could have moved his Amendment to the Amendment of the Government, since that Amendment became, as it is now or will be, a substantive Motion; but I understand from your ruling we are obliged to take the Debate upon the question of the Government's Amendment, and we are unable to support an Amendment which many of us would be very glad to see adopted by the Government. The suggestion that this Amendment is meeting the case put forward from this side of the House is perfectly true. It is a fact that as the Bill stood it would have excluded a certain number of people whom we believed it was not intended to exclude. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) has told us that the effect of this Amendment was so magical that, although it is only the other day he stated that thé rejection of the Bill would be abundantly justified in another place—
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I never said that.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: Yet now he finds it is so good that it removes all his objections altogether. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, and if he made no remarks of that kind I will not attempt to put words into his mouth, but he made several speeches which conveyed to those who listened to him the conviction that its severe treatment in another place would have been justified. The Bill has been materially altered and completely changed by the insertion of this Amendment. I hope there will be no opposition offered to the Amendment as such, but the suggestion is that it should be accepted as it is as a concession, but I would like to point out that the arguments my hon. Friends used that you are still excluding a large number of people who ought to have been given the opportunity of coming in, is one to which no answer has been attempted, and I think my hon. Friends are bound to support their views by going into the Division Lobby, and the more so because they cannot support in Committee the views they themselves hold, and cannot move an Amendment be-

  2189
  cause by the Rules of the House they are prevented from doing so. For my part, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the Government are running a very great risk by the exclusion of broader and wider terms. At the same time, I am glad that they have seen fit to admit a limited class, but I accompany that by the proviso that although we pointed out certain instances in which grave injustice would be done by the provisions of the Bill, that in no way commits us to support the amended Clause as a whole. It does not alter our views in any way whatever, and to suggest that because certain limitations are made to meet difficulties which we pointed out that we should therefore accept the Bill, is a suggestion that anyone acquainted with the proceedings of this House can only regard as perfectly ludicrous.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has made reference to what I said upon the second reading of the Bill. I said that the raising of the rate would till land purchase. What does this Amendment do? It practically gives us merely two millions of money at the old rate, and, therefore, I say it is an enormous improvement in the Bill, because long ago, for seven or eight years, only

  Division No. 663.]

  AYES.

  [5.40 p.m.

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Glover, Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Gulland, John W.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Harrington, Timothy

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Barker, Sir John

  Crosfield, A. H.

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

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Cullinan, J.

  Harwood, George

  Barnard, E. B.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Delany, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Dillon, John

  Hogan, Michael

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duffy, William J.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Boland, John

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Branch, James

  Erskine, David C.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Bright, J. A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Falconer, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Keating, M.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Byles, William Pollard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kilbride, Denis

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gilhooly, James

  Lamont, Norman

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ginnell, L.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Clough, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  five millions of money used to be voted by Parliament.
  Mr. J. J. O'SHEE: I understand that the Chief Secretary has expressed himself favourably in regard to the insertion of the words "the date of the passing of the Act" to take the place of the words "fifteenth of September." If this Bill passes by the 15th of November it will give ample time to those who are negotiating at the present time. The difficulty is that people have no idea when the Bill is likely to pass, and therefore they will not keep negotiations alive. They may be in the middle of the negotiations when the Royal Assent is given, and all their trouble will come to nothing. If the Chief Secretary will give an undertaking to arrange the date somewhat in advance he will enable those people who have negotiations pending to proceed with greater confidence.
  Mr. J. GORDON: The Chief Secretary will now see that all parties from Ireland are in favour of this suggested change in favour of a future date. This would give some opportunity of landlords and tenants coming to an agreement.
  Question put, "That the words 'fifteenth day of September' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 59.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford).

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, West)

  Sheehy, David

  Lundon, T.

  O'Dowd, John

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Lupton, Arnold

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Snowden, P.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  O'Malley, William

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  O'Shee, James John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Summerbell, T.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  M'Kean, John

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Pointer, J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Marnham, F. J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton).

  Massie, J.

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Meagher, Michael

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Reddy, M.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Menzies, Sir Walter

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Middlebrook, William

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Muldoon, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  Murnaghan, George

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Young, Samuel

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Norton and Mr. Fuller.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Seely, Colonel

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shackleton, David James

  NOES.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Renton, Leslie

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gordon, J.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Stanier, Beville

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clark, George Smith

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Myer, Horatio

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.Lonsdale and Mr. Moore.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Nicholls, George

  Essex, R. W.

  Partington, Oswald

  Mr. BIRRELLmoved, in paragraph (i), to leave out the words "first day of March" and to insert instead thereof the words "fifteenth day of September."
  Mr. MOORE: I do not think that this is a consequential Amendment. I think we might have heard a little more from the Chief Secretary about this proposal. I presume, according to your ruling, Mr. Caldwell, it will not be in order to move a corresponding Amendment. I think it is essential in these transactions, in which the parties are voluntary agents, and where it is open to them to deal or not to deal with the Estates Commissioners as they please, that they should be allowed a reasonable interval to come in and have their transactions completed. I hope the
  2192
  right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of further extending the time, and if he does not do so we shall have to take the same course as we did on the previous Amendment, and protest against the date being fixed without reasonable notice to those most concerned.
  Mr. BIRRELL: This is not, I am inclined to agree, strictly speaking, a consequential Amendment, but it is certainly ejusdem generis. It is almost impossible to imagine, having set up one date for one set of transactions, to have another date for another set of transactions.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That the words 'fifteenth day of September' be there inserted."

  Division No. 664.]

  AYES.

  [6.4 p.m.

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

  Gilhooly, James

  Nicholls, George

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gill, A. H.

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Nussey, Sir Willans

  Alden, Percy

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ambrose. Robert

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Barker, Sir John

  Gulland, John W.

  O Donnell, T. (Kerry, West)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Dowd, John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Harwood, George

  O'Malley, William

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Shee, James John

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

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

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pointer, J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hogan, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Branch, James

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Bright, J. A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, M.

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

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Keating, M.

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Seaman, Thomas

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Clough, William

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Seely, Colonel

  Clynes, J. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Shackleton, David James

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Sheehy, David

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Snowdon, P.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, T.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lupton, Arnold

  Summerbell, T.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Dillon, John

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  M'Kean, John

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B (Leicester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Elibank, Master of

  Mallett, Charles E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Marnham, F. J.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Essex, R. W.

  Massie, J.

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Meagher, Michael

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Everett, R. Lacey

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

  Wiles Thomas

  Falconer, J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Middlebrook, William

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Mooney, J. J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Young, Samuel

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Muldoon, John

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Murnaghan, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Norton and Mr. Fuller.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  NOES.

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

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Clark, George Smith

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Clive, Percy Archer

  The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 46.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George O.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Stanier, Beville

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Calmont, Col. James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Moore, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hamilton Marquess of

  Percy, Earl

  Younger, George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Renton, Leslie

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—MeGordon and Captain Craig.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Mr. MOORE: There is a part of the Clause to which I would invite the Chief Secretary's attention, and that is that part which makes the vesting order of the Estates Commissioners under the Evicted Tenants Act the date of the agreement. You have in the case of the Estates Commissioners wishing to buy an estate adopted as the date of the agreement the time at which particulars are furnished; in other words, the beginning of the proceedings in every other case is made the date of the agreement, but in this case it is not until the very end of the whole transaction when the purchase money has been lodged in the court; it is not until the final act that the date of the vesting order is to be taken as the date of the agreement. I think these matters should be treated as the Chief Secretary has said, ejusdem generis, and I put it to the Chief Secretary if the beginning of all these proceedings is the date for everything else in the matter of purchase, is there any reason in the world why the notice of intention or proposal to take the land should not be the date under the Evicted Tenants Act, instead of the final matter, the vesting order? The very instant a proposal is made under the Evicted Tenants Act, made in a form under statutory authority, it practically prevents the owner from selling his land to anybody else. Nobody would buy it with a notice in the "Gazette" hanging over it. It is a blot in the title, and the moment the notice is published in the "Gazette" that ought to be the date of the agreement in that case, just as the date of the furnishing of the particulars has, on the Amendment of the Chief Secretary, been agreed to in the proceedings in the land judge's court. What special ground is there for this very invidious distinction? I would ask the Chief Secretary to consider between this and the Report stage whether he could not make the inception of these proceedings by the Estates Commissioners under the Evicted Tenants Act the date of the agreement instead of the conclusion of the proceedings. That is
  2196
  the chief objection I have to the Clause as it stands, and I hope my suggestion will receive the right hon. Gentleman's favourable consideration.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not had much encouragement to recommit a portion of this Bill, or to make anything in the way of concessions. I have followed the point of the hon. and learned Member, and the only thing I can do at present is to say I will consider whether anything can be done.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

  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 he resides on the holding, and the Land Commission consider that an advance of a larger amount not exceeding five thousand pounds may properly be sanctioned.
  (2) A person shall be deemed to reside on a holding within the meaning of this section if he occupies a house in the immediate neighbourhood for the purpose of working or managing the holding.
  (3) Section two of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888, and Subsection (4) of Section 1 of the Act of 1903, shall cease to have effect save as regards advances in pursuance of purchase agreements entered into before the passing of this Act.
  Mr. BIRRELLmoved, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "he resides on the holding" and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "(a) the tenant resides on the holding, or (b) a substantial portion of the holding has been tilled in each of the five years next preceding the date of the agreement."

  2197
  The object of this Amendment is to enable a tenant who uses his holding or a substantial portion of it for tillage to any substantial extent to obtain an advance up to the maximum of £5,000. An Amendment to that effect was put down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Kildare, which called my attention to the matter, and I hope the Committee will think it is a desirable thing to encourage tillage as much as possible. Any advantage of this sort enabling a person to obtain a larger advance than he otherwise would be entitled to is well worthy of consideration. I see there are Amendments down. I am at present advised they are not in any sense of the word improvements, but, of course, I will consider them when they are moved.
  Mr. MOORE: I am one of those who agree that it is very desirable to increase tillage, and I approve of the spirit of the Chief Secretary's Amendments. But I think in some respects they do not carry out his object so well as the Amendments which I have put on the Paper, and, on consideration, I believe the right hon. Gentleman will see that that is so. I do not think that the class of people who are entitled to come in and claim advances should be limited in any way. The Chief Secretary, however, has unduly limited that class by insisting that he who is entitled to an advance must reside on the holding. I agree it is desirable he should do so, but it is not always the case that he can. It must be within the knowledge of the Attorney-General that a man living in or immediately outside a town has a farm which he works just as much as any man who might live on the farm. He superintends the tillage proceedings and I think it would be very hard indeed that he should be excluded.
  Mr. CHERRY: If you will read Subsection (2) you will find he is not excluded.
  Mr. MOORE: That certainly removes my objection; but there is another point. Suppose that he lives on a different farm. Under the Land Act of 1881 it was recognised that a farm used as a particular holding, even if the tenant did not reside on it, came within the Act. Where a man has two farms, and I think some men with one farm only have a great deal more land on their hands, if this is to encourage tillage the two farms should be looked at together. It might be convenient for him to have one farm in tillage and the other in pasture, and that would be practically
  2198
  the same as if he had one-half of each farm in tillage and the other half under pasturage. I submit that that case should have the advantage of this Section; that the two holdings should be treated as if they were held together. Surely there can be nothing unreasonable in that. I come now to the question of tillage. I think the Chief Secretary's Amendment is unworkable. First, it says that a substantial part of the holding must be under tillage, but take the case of a man who has a hundred acres of grazing on a mountain and ten acres under tillage in the valley below. That, I believe, is a not uncommon case; indeed, it happens again and again. Can anyone say that if the whole ten acres were devoted to tillage that would constitute a substantial part of the holding? I think the Chief Secretary must limit his Amendment to cases where that part of the holding which is arable is reasonably under tillage. That is the way in which I put it in my Amendment. I am sure the Chief Secretary does not want land to be broken up for tillage simply in order to bring it under this Clause. He does not want land put under tillage which is not fit for it. There is nothing to be gained by forcing land unnaturally into tillage. Therefore, I do suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should so restrict his words as to make them apply to that portion of the holding which is reasonably fit for tillage. The only way to do that is to use some such word as "arable," and I commend that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to propose that a substantial portion of the holding must have been tilled in each of the five years next preceding the date of the agreement; I hardly understand what he means by that. We have an ordinary practice in the North of Ireland in regard to rotation of crops, and in the last of the five years there is an artificially growing crop. I do suggest to the Chief Secretary it is only recently that this idea of that universal tillage has taken root in the country. Five years ago people were not so much concerned about it, and I think it is rather hard to say that because five years ago a man had not the least idea that a Bill of this sort was going to be passed he should be precluded from getting an advance, because five years ago he did not put a certain part of his lands under the plough. I suggest it would help the friends of tillage much better if it were provided that at the date of the agreement a substantial part of the

  2199
  holding was under tillage. I would suggest a fourth part. There could be no difficulty about that. It is a reasonable proportion of the arable part of the holding. I think you will have to take the words "under rotation of crops" to actually mean, if you are to keep within this Clause, that you must plough every acre of your farm every year. That is absolute nonsense, as every practical man will know. The Chief Secretary will be well advised if he will make it clear that he does not want land to be unnecessarily broken up, and, therefore, I suggest that the words of my Amendment are better, and will carry out his object more effectually than the words which he has placed on the Paper. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It will be necessary first to omit certain words.
  Question, "That the words 'he resides on the holding' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the words '(a) the tenant resides on the holding, or' be there inserted."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "or," to add the words "adjacently thereto, or such holding is ordinarily used with the holding on which the tenant resides."—[Mr. Moore]
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  Mr. BIRRELL: I hope the hon. Gentleman will see that this Amendment is not necessary. This does not deal with the question of the original advance up to £3,000. We are only dealing with exceptional favours given in certain cases to people who want a larger advance. £3,000 is the amount in the considerable majority of cases. If a man occupies two holdings under the same landlord there is no reason why they should not be amalgamated, but if they are under different landlords I do not see why in such cases there should be any addition made to the limitation of £3,000. Take the case of a tenant who lives either actually on the holding or close to it—so close as to enable him to look after all the farming operations. That is the man we have in mind. He is a practical farmer. We are not considering other persons who have farms in addition to other holdings at a considerable distance, or who use the farms as a means of feeding
  2200
  another calling. That is not the sort of person we have to bear in mind. We want to look after the practical farmer. He is the man we wish to encourage—the man who carries on the business under his own personal supervision.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I do not propose now to adopt a hostile attitude towards limiting the amount of money advanced in normal cases. The Chief Secretary has asked why, where a tenant has two holdings under one landlord, he cannot amalgamate. I think the provisions of the Bill prevent that being done. Would it not amount to the creation of a new tenancy? If it would, then it is ruled out by provisions of the Chief Secretary's proposal. I recollect when we were discussing a cognate subject in 1893 many hon. Members below the Gangway from Ireland used arguments in favour of greater latitude. I was overborne in the Debate, and many examples were advanced of farms which would be excluded unadvisedly. I imagine that in the case of two holdings near each other being worked by one agricultural operator, it would be well that they should be amalgamated, as the Chief Secretary advised us, but the question is whether it is practicable—I do not think it is under the Bill as it stands, owing to the provision with regard to the creation of new tenancies.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Government now propose to create a new precedent. It must be remembered that the object is to get rid of rent fixing; to get rid of the Land Commission, the Sub-commissioners, and the whole unpleasant system of fighting by law. A new state of things is going to be created, under which persons who have fixed a fair rent will be excluded from land purchase. I think perhaps it was undesirable to have started this scheme, but there it is. The Government have taken their line, and they are entitled to give their money to whom they please. The second limitation of the proposal has reference to the word "substantially," which is a word of very considerable difficulty. I think the word should not be used in the sense in which it is used here. When Lord Monk was a Commissioner he laid down that a very small portion of tillage—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There are two Amendments on the Paper by the hon. Member, and we are dealing, in the first place, with the first one. The remarks of the hon. Gentleman are therefore not in order.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask if the Chief Secretary has considered the somewhat technical term "holding" in respect to Irish land? It means any parcel of land held by a separate tenant, but it very often happens that there are several so-called technical legal holdings, forming one substantial holding, in fact. I think the right hon. Gentleman has just given us an illustration, and I remember a case in which I appeared for the tenants on an estate. There was hardly a tenant on the estate who had not two leases, and some of them had three and four. But although the tenant had two or three, or more, leases, there was only one holding in fact, although there might be four holdings in law and only one in form. What I am afraid of arises under the second Sub-section. Supposing the tenant has a house anywhere on a holding, the second Sub-section will enable him to purchase, because in respect of one of the two lots of land he occupies he may be said to reside in the immediate neighbourhood. I am afraid, however, that this may be construed to have an effect which the Chief Secretary does not contemplate. A man may have two lots of land, under two different leases, and the two lots of land constitute in fact one holding, though the house may be a considerable distance off either of them, and could not be said to be in the immediate neighbourhood. It is that which makes me a little afraid of that second Subjection, and I confess that I think my hon. Friend above the Gangway selected apt words from the Act of 1881, which I think would prevent any misapprehension which could possibly ensue from the somewhat narrow construction of the words used. The Chief Secretary says, "You may consolidate the two or three holdings in law," but then that creates a new tenancy, and you might then get caught in some of the other excluding clauses of the Bill, which may subject you to a very serious penalty, if your tenancy is created after a certain date. I am aware that the Estates Commissioners have more than once held, under the existing Land Purchase Acts, where it is convenient, that the holdings should be sub-divided or amalgamated, but that constitutes a new tenancy under one of the Clauses of the Act of 1903. I, therefore, think, whatever may be said for my hon. Friend's second Amendment, the Chief Secretary would do well to consider the first Amendment, because, I think, unless some such words as my hon. Friend proposes are adopted, a man will be held
  2202
  not to reside on his holding for the technical reason that his holding is, in fact, split up into several parts.
  Mr. CHERRY: The hon. and learned Member, who has just sat down, thinks that the Government in framing this Bill did not take into consideration the technical meaning of the word "holding." My reply is that they did take this very matter into consideration, and for that very reason included the second Sub-section of the Clause. If the hon. Member will look at that Sub-section he will see that it is perfectly framed to meet every point in regard to the meaning of the word "holding" which he has raised. A man may live on a farm, which is adjoining or near, or in a house which he holds in fee simple, either in town or country, or he can even occupy lodgings, although a lodging is an unusual place for a man who is working on a farm to reside at. It is not usual that he should live in lodgings. I think the word "occupies" is used in the very widest sense of living in the house, and I think it would be within it to occupy a house in the sense of living in it. The question is, however, not the meaning of the word "occupies" at all, but the meaning of the word "holding" and the words, "occupies a house" are introduced for the very purpose of meeting the case when a man is residing not on the holding. It may not be agricultural in character, but this Sub-section does not exclude another farm.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Immediate neighbourhood.
  Mr. CHERRY: Of course, if there are two farms near to or adjoining each other and both are tillage farms, and the man lives on one, both will be brought under the Sub-section, because he occupies a house in the immediate neighbourhood. Each case, however, will be dealt with by the Commissioners, and to pin them down to "immediate neighbourhood" is perhaps not too much, as there is very little difference between "immediate neighbourhood" and "neighbourhood." What we get in is this: If a man is bonâ fide working the holding as a tillage holding, he is bound to live either on the holding or somewhere near it; but if he has two classes of holdings, he may have a pasture holding miles away from the tillage holding. So that I think the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore) are not suited to this particular case. They are taken from a Clause under the Act of 1881, where all the land is let for tillage.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I was stopped from arguing the tillage question.
  Mr. CHERRY: The hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I am speaking of residence. I was about to say that the test of residence, under this Clause, ought to be a severer one than under the Act of 1881, from which the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh drew his words, and I think we have made it a good deal more strict. A man must live on the holding or in the neighbourhood, and I do not think it desirable to extend it as far as the hon. Member desires, so that a man can live 20 or 30 miles away.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I do hope the Chief Secretary will give more consideration to these words proposed by the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh. The words are thoroughly understood; they have been in force in Ireland for over 20 years, and they have on several occasions formed the subject matter of judicial decision, so that we have this advantage in using these words, that we know exactly where we are and what is meant. On the other hand, if you take a new departure and insert new phraseology, we shall never know where we are until we have been to the courts, and have a decision on the point. I would point out to the Chief Secretary that it is an additional advantage to have words that we know the meaning of. Under a decision of the courts the words proposed to be inserted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Armagh have been decided to mean a farm ordinarily worked in the sense of mixed rotation of crops and cattle, and if one farm is used for tillage the other farm shall be used for cattle and vice versâ. There is a very clear decision that these words have no application unless there is a clear interworking of the two farms as one farm. And, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to carry out what he intends, he will do it by the words of the hon. and learned Member, which, as I have said, have the advantage that they are properly understood and have had judicial interpretation. Over and above that, they will meet a case which otherwise it would be unjust to omit. Let me give him one or two examples. Take the case of a man who has one or two adjoining farms, or a farm at some little distance off from his house, which is on one and not on the other. Will he be covered by Sub-section (2) of this Bill as it now stands? I do not think he will, because what was contemplated was
  2204
  not a man who lives on an adjoining farm, but a man who lives in a residence. That is a house as distinguished from a farm or holding. Why should a man in the town who lives over a shop having a farm in the suburbs—why should he be let in, and why should you exclude the man who lives in the suburbs and lives on a farm which has a house upon it? Unless you take words which are already terms of art, and have received judicial interpretation, you are opening by this provision in your Bill, as it now stands, a new chapter of litigation for tenants and landlords in Ireland. That is not a matter which affects me with very great concern or anger.
  Mr. BIRRELL: It does me, lean assure you.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I am not so sure that it does to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman professes. I believe he has a sneaking regard for his old profession, although he often indulges in rather severe criticism and caustic comment upon his comrades. What I want to say is, if this Clause ever becomes law, it should be workable and should not be a fresh bone of contention and the cause of further litigation between landlord and tenant. It is on that view that I frankly say my opinion is that the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised if he would accept those words. It may be that it might widen the scope of the Clause a little, but on the other hand you have the large counter-balancing advantage of using language which is scientific, and as to which there can be no mistake, and which will not require many cases in the courts in order to have the definition actually determined. I, therefore, suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the words that have been proposed.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I quite agree. Naturally enough it is difficult, and it is very desirable to use the right language. I feel that the language proposed by the hon. and learned Member is to some extent a restriction upon the distance at which a man may live who is claiming the benefit of having tilled a farm in such a way as to entitle him to the extra grant, because, as I understand, according to decisions in the Irish courts "adjacent thereto" means actually adjacent. I do not want to employ words which will in any way interfere with Sub-section (2), although I agree that Sub-section (2) might advantageously perhaps, to some extent, be altered if there is any idea that "occupying a house"

  2205
  means a person living like a gentleman so to speak, doing nothing in one house and working a farm in another. I certainly thought occupying a house meant occupying a house on another farm. However, I will consider the point on Sub-section (2). I do not want to exclude a person who lives in a house not on a farm, but I do not want to exclude a person who occupies a house on a farm. I can quite imagine the case of a person who occupies a house which is in no way connected with agricultural operations, and does work in the neighbourhood of that house, on a tillage farm. I certainly do not want to exclude the still better class of person who works one tillage farm and lives in a house on a second farm. I will consider whether any alteration is necessary.
  Mr. MOORE: Suppose the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that be would accede to the suggestion, would it be necessary to recommit the Bill again? If it is necessary in the present case it would be necessary again.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I certainly cannot admit that it was necessary to recommit the Bill. I did it in order to meet hon. Gentlemen who desired to improve the Bill. However that may be, I do not think there is any objection to these words being there inserted, always provided that Subsection (2) remains in a proper form.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert the words "such holding is ordinarily used with the holding on which the tenant resides."
  Mr. O'SHEE: The dominant words in the Clause are "unless he resides on the holding." To what date do these words refer. The date of the entry into the purchase agreement or the actual date of making the advance? If it means the date of making the advance, it is quite easy for a tenant who has already got an advance of £3,000 on one holding, to change his residence and enter into another purchase agreement and get an additional advance of £2,000. If it relates to the date of the agreement it would be much more difficult to evade the Clause, but as the words are it can be very easily evaded.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out paragraph (b),
  2206
  and to add "(b) one-fourth part of the arable part of the holding is, at the date of the agreement, under rotation of crops."— [Mr. Moore.]
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: There are many holdings which are not tillable at all. Take a mountain. In many of these cases there is no tillage land upon them. Or, take large tracts of land, which are called crag lands, in West Clare, which it is impossible to till. If these words are adopted in the form in which the Chief Secretary has put them on the Paper it presupposes that all holdings are tillable. But all holdings are not tillable, and you would be excluding every tenant in the crag-lands of Clare from the possibility of getting the benefit of this extra money because it has been decided that these holdings have been made for the purpose of pasture. Then the word "substantial" in this collocation has received an entirely different interpretation from the word "substantial" in the Land Law Acts dealing with tenure, because under the Land Law Acts the view of the Courts has been this. If you have 50 acres of land and you till five or six, the expense of tilling and the difficulty of providing manure for the tillage portion has given the courts the tendency to hold that a substantial portion of the land in these cases is tilled, and, therefore, the tenant comes within the fair rent provisions of the statute. I am greatly afraid, however, that unless you use some such words as "having regard to considerations of good husbandry" the effect of introducing the word "substantial" will be that it means the greater portion. It is impossible, having regard to the conditions of good husbandry in Ireland, except in a few places near Belfast, Dublin, or, perhaps, Cork, where it is possible to get manure to till the substantial portion of any holding, if "substantial" means the larger part. In some parts of Ireland you may have the majority of acres in a holding in tillage, and I am afraid, as these words now stand, unless you introduce the words "having regard to considerations of good husbandry," you are practically cutting down this provision and making it a nullity. This is not putting a premium upon tillage, because the holding must be in tillage for the five years last past before the consideration of the Clause arises. I can see nothing in the Clause to give the slightest encouragement to tillage.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not quite follow the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The whole substance of the Amend-

  2207
  ment is to encourage tillage in the future to this extent, that it enables a person, a substantial portion of whose farm is tilled, to get a larger advance than he otherwise would. The object of the Clause is to encourage a man who has a farm capable of tillage to put more money into the tillage, because he can get a larger grant. Mountain and crag land is not before us. The hon. and learned Gentleman says it does not encourage tillage, because a man must till it for a number of years before he gets the grant. But land purchase is going on, and it will operate in future as an en-couragement to the man to indulge in the greater outlay which is necessary for such a farm. What a substantial part of a holding is must be determined by the persons who sanction the advance. It is not a question of litigation to ascertain what three or four judges think the word "substantial" means. Supposing a man has 500 acres of bog and only one acre of arable land. Is it to be contended that if he puts one-fourth of an acre under arable land he is to be entitled to a grant of £5,000? That is obviously ridiculous. You have to consider the nature of his holding.
  Mr. MOORE: He has to till the bog?
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. BIRRELL: No one suggests that he should till the bog. He has to till the land, and to have done it for five years on the chance before he gets any advance at all. That surely indicates that the land is capable of repaying the trouble and outlay which is necessary for putting it under crops. That is sufficient evidence of the fact that the extra grant would only be made when a person has for five years put the farm under tillage. The notion that he is going to till a mountain for five years in the hope of extorting an extra advance of £2,000 is really absurd. The Clause meets the necessities of the case. What is meant by substantial is a question which will depend upon the amount of land which has been tilled, having regard to what the farm is capable of. I think no real difficulty will arise as to the question of the rotation of crops. I think the words in paragraph (b) will be governed by the circumstances of the farm and what has been done during the five yeans preceding the date of the agreement. The question how far that can be called tillage or not will be considered when the fanner makes application for a larger advance than otherwise he would be entitled to do.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I do not see how it impossible to get words which will exactly express the intention of the Government in this matter. I remember that we spent a long time in 1903 in trying to find words for that purpose, and ultimately we were driven to say that it should be left to the discretion of the Commissioners. When we endeavoured to find a definition hon. Members who had knowledge of the particular circumstances were able to get up and say "these words will not cover every case," and at last Parliament decided only to make these advances when the Commissioners considered it expedient to do so. I doubt whether it is possible to improve upon that. You propose that the normal amount shall be exceeded in certain circumstances, and I think the more sensible way is to say that it shall be done when the Commissioners think that it is expedient to be done. I think my hon. and learned Friend's argument shows that these are not the right words. They will not carry out your object, which is to encourage large mixed farms which have to be carried on in a high state of cultivation. Farms which are worth £3,000 are rarities in Ireland, and I believe the Chief Secretary had better leave this matter to the Commissioners, or adopt the words of my hon. and learned Friend, which are better than those proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I cannot help remembering the 33 nights when Mr. Gladstone's Land Act was considered in this House. It was said then that the exclusions would be used to punish tenants who had already fair rents fixed. I content myself with entering an earnest protest against this serious departure from the well-considered definitions of Mr. Gladstone's Land Act.
  Captain CRAIG: I wish to associate myself with my hon. and learned Friend in trying to improve the Amendment proposed by the Chief Secretary. So far, I do not know that any argument has been directed against my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. The whole criticism has been that the words of the Chief Secretary are sufficient to meet the case. I think those who have any knowledge of tilling in Ireland would be on the side of my hon. and learned Friend. I cannot make out how it will be possible to till in the true sense of the word in each of the preceding live years, because many farmers raise a flax crop, and it does

  2209
  not do to put it down more than once in seven years. If a man goes in for flax and then grain, he cannot possibly till the ground in each of the five years. Is that man who has saved up his ground in order to make it rich and tillable for this particular crop of flax to be cut out from the benefit of these advances? I think the object of everybody in Ireland is to try to gat as much land into flax cultivation as possible. It is one of the most important crops in the North of Ireland, and every endeavour has been made on the large farms to put down as much as possible of this crop. The great weaving industry depends largely on the importation of the foreign grown stuff, and consequently there is a desire to encourage flax growing in Ireland to the utmost possible extent. The words proposed by the Chief Secretary are such that anyone who desires to grow flax will certainly be shut out of the extra grant which may be made by the Estates Commissioners. I think that is most unfair. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman is put in such a way as to specifically exclude this one crop. Barley, wheat, rye, and other cereals can be grown in the ordinary rotation, and consequently it is possible to till a farm so that it will fall within the four corners of the provision which entitles a man to have

  Division No. 665.]

  AYES.

  [7.15 p.m.

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gill, A. K.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ginnell, L.

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

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Alden, Percy

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Glover, Thomas

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cox, Harold

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gulland, John W.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cullinan, J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barker, Sir John

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Harrington, Timothy

  Barnard, E. B.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harwood, George

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Delany, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Beauchamp, E.

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

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

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dillon, John

  Henry, Charles S.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Black, Arthur W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Holt, Richard Dunning

  Boland, John

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Essex, R. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Branch, James

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Joyce, Michael

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Field, William

  Keating, M.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Clough, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lambert, George

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lamont, Norman

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gilhooly, James

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  this grant. That is quite fair. That being so, my hon. and learned Friend comes along and says, "Do not exclude flax." His Amendment would cover the case to which I refer. If a man has a flax crop one year he could not grow it again on the same land till seven years afterwards, and if it was in grass it would be in the rotation of the flax crop. I have not heard one word from the Chief Secretary to explain why he goes out of his way to exclude, this most important point so far as the North of Ireland is concerned. I presume it has something to do with what he would call the "balance of power," because there is not so much flax grown in the South and West of Ireland as in the North. I presume, therefore, that he takes this opportunity for doing us rather an ill-turn. It may come under the category of drawbacks included in the expression, "Minorities must suffer." Because we grow so much flax, which brings prosperity to the country, he refuses to accept my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, which would remedy a glaring evil.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 49.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seely, Colonel

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Lundon, T.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sheehy, David

  Lupton, Arnold

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, West)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Snowdon, P.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  O'Malley, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Summerbell, T.

  M'Kean, John

  O'Shee, James John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Pointer, J.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Massie, J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

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

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Menzies, Sir Waiter

  Reddy, M.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Middlebrook, William

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Mooney, J. J.

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

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Muldoon, John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Murnaghan, George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Young, Samuel

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Roc, Sir Thomas

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter

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

  Nicholls, George

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Nolan, Joseph

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  NOES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Moore, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Renton, Leslie

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gordon, J.

  Rutherford, Watson, (Liverpool)

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

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George O.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Clark, George Smith

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Keswick, William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Question proposed, to leave out the words "he resides on the holding," and insert instead thereof the words: "(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,"
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the effect of those words on the Clause? I should have thought that having enacted that residence is a good qualification for an advance of £5,000, it would not be left in the hands of the Land
  2212
  Commission to say that, notwithstanding residence on the land, the money shall not be advanced. What I object to is putting in the word "property" without giving the Land Commission any sort of guidance.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This does not arise on the Amendment.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I submit that it arises in this way: While the Clause failed to mention any specific conditions on which the £5,000 advance was to be made, it was a reasonable thing to give a general discretion to the Land Commission to say whether or not they should advance up to the £5,000 limit; but when you put in an

  2213
  express rule to guide the Land Commission, then the reason for preserving the discretion of the Land Commission ceases to exist.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is outside the scope of this Amendment. What was strictly relevant on the Amendment has been dealt with.
  Mr. M. HEALY: Is it your ruling that there is no consequential Amendment?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Clearly not, or you might have consequential Amendments all over the Bill.
  Question, "That these words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. MOORE: My right hon. Friend the Member for Dover expressed the opinion that it was desirable as a matter of policy to limit the amount of the advances to a certain figure. I dissent from that view. When you get a man who must be in bonâ fide occupation of a holding, it seems to me wrong that he should be debarred because of the size of his holding from getting an advance of the money necessary to enable him to become an owner. A man is shut out because his holding is too large. This leads to subdividing the property and getting one advance for a son, another for himself, and so on. As has been pointed out, it is perfectly easy to get outside these limitations. I cannot see any reason for maintaining the unnecessary, irritating, and unfair limitations embodied in this Clause. It is not a matter of policy, but a matter of right. The Chief Secretary referred to people who got advances as receiving favours. I do not see that. The Statute was passed for the whole community for public purposes. Any man who is entitled to an advance should get it, not as a favour, but a right, and the right to get advances should be the same for everybody.
  Captain CRAIG: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary whether this limitation of advances will affect those who come within the scope of the alteration announced this afternoon? I should also like to know how the right hon. Gentleman can explain the cause of this sudden drop in the limit of advances from £7,000 to £3,000, because it is an extraordinary thing, after so many millions worth of property have been sold in Ireland under the 1903 Act, to have the limit of advances reduced so
  2214
  much. What I fear is that it will have the effect of making a man compulsorily divide up his farm and constantly convert it into uneconomic farms. In England and in Ireland the whole problem appeared to be at one time the encouragement of small farms, and to acquire land by legislation in order to provide what is called the "economic holding." To me, however, this particular Clause seems to go in the other direction. Some years ago a great demand was made by the tenants to have their farms divided in order that they might leave them to their children, and perhaps there would be a sub-division into two or three holdings where there were two or three children. Nearly everyone who had any experience at all of agriculture came to the conclusion that to go on sub-dividing those farms would really be ruinous to the country. Why should the Government suddenly change the limit from £7,000 to £3,000? Not one word has been advanced to the Committee in support of their proposal, and I do think, when we come to such an important Clause as is Clause 15, the right hon. Gentleman should give us some explanation of the great change which has been made, and tell us why it has become necessary. Another point on which I should like information has reference to the second section of the Clause, which has been more discussed. If a man occupies a house it means that he occupies it distinctly in a legal sense, and not from the point of view of simply living in the house, perhaps with his father or his uncle, or something of that sort. The Chief Secretary says it will be all right, and that later on the Estates Commissioners will take all these points into consideration. But what we have to consider is not the action which may be taken by the Estates Commissioners, but the actual wording of the Clause. I ask the Attorney-General for Ireland, first of all, whether to occupy does not mean, in legal phraseology, paying the rates and meeting burdens of that character, and not merely living in the house with father or uncle? You could not certify that a person living in a house in those circumstances was an occupier, and I think the word "occupies" will cause trouble later on. If the Treasury refuse to grant this £3,000, then the matter is to be passed on to the Estates Commissioners. I presume counsel may be employed, and if counsel come to argue the case they must tie themselves down to the actual wording of the Clause. Therefore, I think the Attorney-

  2215
  General, who is paid for the purpose, should keep us right in this matter, and tell us definitely one way or the other whether the word "occupies" is to be interpreted in the sense which I have suggested, and not simply as meaning a person living in a house.
  The next point to which I desire to call attention has reference to the words in Section (2)—"in the immediate neighbourhood." A man might have a farm running into two counties, or into two townlands, and what I want to know is what is the radius at the back of the Government's minds in respect of the use of the words "in the immediate neighbourhood"? Does it mean a radius of 20 or 30 miles? I should like to have legal opinion on these points. Then there is a further point arising on the words "working or managing the holding." The Section says, "a person shall be deemed to reside on a holding within the meaning of this section if he occupies the house," etc., "for working or managing the holding." Section (1) says that "no advance exceeding the sum of £3,000 shall be sanctioned under the

  Division No. 666.]

  AYES.

  [7.40 p.m.

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harwood, George

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cox, Harold

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Alden, Percy

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cullinan, J.

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

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Hogan, Michael

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Delany, William

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Barker, Sir John

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dillon, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Keating, M.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Essex, R. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Bell, Richard

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kilbride, Denis

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lambert, George

  Black, Arthur W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lamont, Norman

  Boland, John

  Field, William

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Branch, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lundon, T.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gilhooly, James

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gill, A. H.

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ginnell, L.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Glendinning, R. G.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Glover, Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Clough, William

  Gulland, John W.

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Harrington, Timothy

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Land Purchase Acts to any tenant for the purchase of a holding unless he resides on the holding," etc. Then in Section (2) it says that "a person shall be deemed to reside on the holding if he occupies a house in the immediate neghbourhood for the purpose of working or managing the holding." It seems somewhat strange that we should have this Clause put before us without a single word of explanation being given by the Government. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or one of his colleagues, whether a man who has not an actual interest in the holding, but simply manages it at a fixed salary, is also to be entitled to the grant for the farm on which he is engaged? These are the points I put before the Committee, and which I should like to have answered before we go to a Division. It is quite clear that at present we are asked to vote, though we are more or less in the dark.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 36.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Snowdon, P.

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Partington, Oswald

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Middlebrook, William

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Pointer, J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Muldoon, John

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Murnaghan, George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Woverhampton)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Nicholls, George

  Reddy, M.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Redmond, William Clare

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Nuttall, Harry

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

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

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, West)

  Seely, Colonel

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Dowd, John

  Shackleton, David James

  Young, Samuel

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Shoehan, Daniel Daniel

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Sheehy, David

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

  O'Malley, William

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  NOES.

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

  Douglas, Re. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Forster, Henry William

  Renton, Leslie

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

  Gordon, J.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clark, George Smith

  Keswick, William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  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.
  Mr. BIRRELLmoved to leave out the words "first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and eight," and to insert instead thereof the words "fifteenth day of September, nineteen hundred and nine."
  This is an Amendment I have put down at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long). I did not know what I was letting myself in for, and I did not contemplate at the time what it would mean, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have availed themselves of the right to treat this as a substitute for the Report stage, in which all the Clauses in their turn would have come up for review. However, I promised
  2218
  I should do it, and I am. The Clause provides for 1st January, 1908; it is represented to me that this would be a hardship in the case of some tenants, and I therefore move to leave out "1st January, 1908," and to insert "15th of September, 1909."
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I do not know on what ground the Chief Secretary appeared to make a complaint in regard to the action of hon. Gentlemen. It is more remarkable when we remember and when we realise, as we are entitled to do, that although the suggestion came from me, not on my own account but as representing people who would have been in their judgment unfairly treated if the Bill had remained in its original form, although that suggestion came from me, it must have appeared to the Chief Secretary and his colleagues to be a necessary and just alteration, or they would not have made it. It was not suggested it was made as a concession, or granted to me, and that they did not believe it to be right. I have already expressed my obligations to the Chief Secretary and to complain of my

  2219
  hon. Friends who took this legitimate occasion to put before the Committee the cases which are not covered by this Amendment is, I think, a most unreasonable proceeding. Everybody knows that when Bills are recommitted it is open to those who are not in favour of them to raise the questions dealt with. When it is remembered, as it must be, that we are acting under strict Closure Resolutions, which prevent Debate for any reasonable time, and which operate in this particular case so as to send this Bill out of this House practically undiscussed as regards most of its Clauses, it is unreasonable and unjust to complain of the action we have taken.
  Mr. JOHN CULLINAN: I consider this Amendment of the Chief Secretary to be a most extraordinary one. We have now got the admission from him that he has put it down on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, which removes all astonishment which was in our minds as to the insertion of such an Amendment. It is extraordinary when the right hon. Gentleman has been subjected to such insults from the hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway this evening in return for the Amendments he has made. We had the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Moore) thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the concessions and improvements he made on the Clauses dealing with the labourer question, and the hon. and learned Gentleman takes to himself the whole credit in order that it will appear in the "Belfast Newsletter" or some other paper, notwithstanding the fact that the Irish party had its first Amendment dealing with the question. Of course, hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway change one way and the other as it suits their purpose. I certainly say in connection with this Amendment that the Chief Secretary would be perfectly justified, after the action that has been taken by hon. Members above the Gangway, in withdrawing this Amendment, because there is no Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman could possibly put down which would cause greater dissatisfaction in Ireland. You had in the Land Bill of 1903 restrictions with regard to tenancies established since 1901 and in the Evicted Tenants Acts in order to carry out the proper working of the Act of 1903, you had to get compulsory powers inserted in that measure in order to try and acquire the untenanted land of Irelad for the benefit of the evicted tenants and the de-
  2220
  velopment of uneconomic holdings. What was the consequence? Notwithstanding that you got compulsory powers, the majority of the landlords of Ireland, by every means which it was possible to adopt, did everything to prevent the Estates Commissioners from getting any untenanted land for the benefit of the evicted tenants or to make economic holdings.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General know very well of the difficulties placed in the way of the Estates Commissioners getting untenanted land, and the main body in Ireland who put the impediment in the way of the Estates Commissioners were the parties who went and took possession of those un-tenanted lands since the passing of that compulsory Act. To my own knowledge evicted farms have been taken by those particular persons, notwithstanding that the Estates Commissioners were negotiating for the purchase of those places at the time. I know myself that friends of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway have been trying to distribute those people on untenanted lands in order to cause us trouble. Hon. Members below the Gangway may laugh, but I know it very well, and that the trouble in Ireland—the recent troubles—have been caused by the fact of those parties taking the evicted land and lands which might be made available for economic holdings. If you have cattle-driving and trouble in Ireland it is due to this fact, and here now is the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General, who have been questioned day after day about outrage in Ireland caused by those men planted by the loyalists to give trouble— here now you have the Chief Secretary playing into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin by giving a reward to the very parties who have tried to make his government of Ireland impossible. I certainly think it is one of the most extraordinary cases I ever heard of, and not very creditable to the Chief Secretary, to say that he would allow himself to be got into this trap. We had the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway a few moments ago denouncing the Government, asking the right hon. Gentleman to explain the meaning of the word "occupier" and every little "fiddle-faddle." Those Gentlemen want to throw ridicule on the Government benches, but on this Amendment they will gladly support the Government, because they are giving their pets a reward by the

  2221
  Amendment put down. I think it is the most outrageous Amendment that could possibly have been proposed, and that it is a gross injustice to the evicted tenants and to the uneconomic holders and the ratepayers at large. We have day after day put questions from these benches with regard to the cost of extra police in Ireland. I myself made explanations here with regard to extra police in my own county and as to extra taxes on that account. What has placed those taxes upon the ratepayers? It is these parties who have come in to defeat the Land Act of 1903, to defeat the Evicted Tenants Act, and to defeat the Estates Commissioners in getting untenanted land. I unhesitatingly say there could not be a 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 you 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.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. CONOR O'KELLY: The Chief Secretary, in moving this Amendment, said that he did not know that it would arouse the opposition that it has provoked. If he made a promise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin to introduce this Amendment without knowing how far-reaching the Amendment might be, and seeing how far-reaching it is, I do not think that it would be at all humiliating to him to withdraw it. I was very much surprised when I saw this Amendment on the Paper, and at first I was under the impression that it was rather a vote of censure upon the Estates Commissioners in Ireland, because, as the Attorney-General must know, the Estates Commissioners for the past six or seven years have been strenuously opposed to the creation of bogus tenancies—that is to say, that in the case of all estates where bogus tenancies were created they have refused to make the Act of 1903 applicable to them. I do not know that any Irish Member asked the Chief Secretary to introduce this Amendment. I do not believe that the Irish party was consulted as to the introduction of this Amendment, and if the Irish party had been consulted upon this Amendment, I know very well what the answer of the Irish party would be. I would ask the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to tell us whom this
  2222
  Amendment is intended specially to bring within the purview of the Act? Who are the new tenants whom it is intended to bring within the purview of this Clause if it be not those bogus tenancies which were created for the purpose of frustrating the intention of the Act of 1903? To illustrate the objections we have to this Amendment, I would direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a case which occurred in my own Constituency of North Mayo. After the Act of 1903 was passed the owner of the property in question, which was partly tenanted and partly untenanted, expressed her willingness to sell under that Act, but the representatives of the owner said, "Before I sell to you I shall myself distribute the grazing land upon the property. I shall parcel the grazing ground into holdings, sell the holdings to the highest bidder, then create tenancies and sell under the Land Act of 1903." It is obvious that the people who are able to pay fines for untenanted land are not the people it was intended to reach by the Act of 1903. Only those who could afford to pay fines would be able to get the untenanted land, and consequently the congests on the property would be entirely shut out from the benefits of the Act. It is now proposed, for the first time, by this Amendment to legalise and regularise those bogus tenancies. The Estates Commissioners themselves, in their Report for the year ending 31st March, 1906, say in regard to proceedings of this kind:—
  "Since our Report was submitted a few applications have come to the notice of the Commissioners which they have refused to grant, namely, where the vendor has parcelled out untenanted lands in his occupation into holdings, put them up to auction to the highest bidder, subject to an assumed rental, and then proposed at once to sell, under the Act of 1903, the holdings thus created to the auction purchasers, who in some instances were large farmers and graziers who already possessed extensive farms. While uneconomic holdings exist in the neighbourhood which require enlargement, and there are tenants evicted from the property who have not been reinstated, the Commissioners, being of opinion that to declare the lands comprised in the application in such cases an estate would be to frustrate and not to carry out the purposes of the Act, have refused to declare the lands an estate. Such owners, in the opinion of the Commissioners, have no claim to a bonus of State money in addition to the auction prices in order to encourage them to carry out transactions which it was the intention of the Act to discountenance."
  It was the intention of the Act to discountenance proceedings of that kind. The Commissioners insisted on discountenancing them, but the Chief Secretary now brings in an Amendment which will countenance and legalise these transactions, which are opposed to the spirit and the letter of the

  2223
  Act of 1903. I think "fraud" is not too strong a word to use in describing such transactions. In my opinion, it can be applied without any straining of language. All this is being done on the Motion of the right hon. Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long). Who instructed him? I venture to say that the gentlemen who influenced the right hon. Member for South Dublin were three Irish landlords. If we really want to get rid of congestion, and to make the grass lands available for the congests, why is it that Amendments of this kind are introduced, defeating the whole purpose we have in view? This Amendment is perfectly reactionary and unjust. The Chief Secretary did not attempt to defend it; in fact, there was in his countenance almost an appearance of apology for even introducing it. Now that he sees how indefensible it is, I sincerely trust that he will have the grace to get up and announce that the Amendment, which ought never to have been suggested, and, when suggested, ought never to have been entertained, will be withdrawn.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: I think we might naturally expect some support from above the Gangway in our opposition to this Amendment, and I shall be surprised if the right hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) votes in its favour. Over and over again when the right hon. Gentleman was introducing his Bill of 1902, and again in 1903, when he successfully carried his Land Purchase scheme through Parliament, we heard him say how sorry he was that to deal with this question of congestion in Ireland generally, there was not enough land to go round. He declared that all the available untenanted land in Con-naught, if acquired to-morrow by the Estates Commissioners, would not be sufficient in quantity to relieve the congestion of the West. As the right hon. Gentleman was anxious at that time, and I presume is so still, to see the "rotten and wretched" communities of the West, to use his own phrase, improved, I shall be surprised to see him vote in favour of this Amendment, the effect of which must be to defeat the beneficent object he had in view in 1903. In the Bill of 1902, which was not persevered with, there was a provision that any tenancy created after the introduction of the Bill should not be purchased under the contemplated legislation. Speaking from recollection, I believe that in introducing the Bill of 1903, and during the passage of that measure
  2224
  through the House, the right hon. Gentleman over and over again stated that he did not contemplate that tenancies created after the introduction of the Bill should come within the possibility of purchase when the Bill became law. For these reasons, knowing the political consistency of the right hon. Gentleman I shall be surprised if he supports this Amendment. I look upon the introduction of this proposal by the Government as a gross betrayal of every pledge which the Liberal party has given to Irishmen on the question of land reform. I could well understand an Amendment like this being moved from the benches above the Gangway, or even the right hon. Member for Dover having such a provision in his measures of 1902 and 1903. He, however, never went this length, and now we find a Liberal Government, who profess to be supporting the interests of the Irish people, going infinitely further in the interests of Irish landlordism and Irish fraud than the landlord party themselves dared even to contemplate in 1902 or 1903. If this provision becomes law, it will be useless to set up the Congested Districts Board. The work of that Department, as far as the relief of congestion by means of adding land to uneconomic holdings is concerned, will be at an end. By accepting this Amendment you are not alone throwing dust in the eyes of the Irish people, but you are defrauding the congests of the West of what, in my opinion, is their natural right. What will happen as soon as you pass this provision into law? I presume that the Chief Secretary will be as easily impressed on the question of dates in this matter as he was earlier in the afternoon in another matter. What guarantee have we that in this respect the 15th of September will remain in the Bill? Suppose the Government extend it to whatever was the future date the right hon. Gentleman indicated he was willing to accept in connection with pending agreements? Every Irishman knows that by that date there will not be a perch of untenanted land in Ireland where bogus tenancies will not have been created. Bogus tenancies will have been created by that date. Then the Government tell us that they are going to reform the Congested Districts Board, to add an elective element to it, and to increase its annual income to something like £250,000 a year! There will be no land to be bought. It will be all in the occupation of bogus tenants bought under the Land Act of 1903. Then, as my right hon. Friend said, I sup-

  2225
  pose we are expected in Ireland, those of us who have been engaged in this land war more or less actively for the last 25 years, to take it "lying down," because it comes from a so-called Liberal Chief Secretary! All I have got to say is this—and I say it in all seriousness and all responsibility—speaking entirely for myself; that so far as I am personally concerned, if the Government accept this Amendment, and if things occur as I anticipate as the result of this Amendment, then the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Cherry) can just apply to his hon. and learned Friend the late Solicitor-General for Ireland, and can brighten up his old rusty weapons for use, and can prepare for active work in Ireland. Because, so far as I am concerned, I shall do everything I can, I shall bring all the pressure I can, to quote the phrase in a letter of Sir Michael Hicks Beach when he was Chief Secretary of Ireland, "Either within the law, or without the law," to defeat the object of the Amendment. Now, the right hon. Gentleman does not desire, I suppose, to face something like the enactment of coercion, or such an act as resurrecting again the Act of Edward III., and seeing it walking abroad from one end of Ireland to the other. I heard it said that it was the ordinary law of the land, but we know how it is in Ireland. It is put into force in a different manner to what it is put into force in England. I do not believe the hon. and learned Getleman has any stomach for that work in future in Ireland. But let him not live in a fool's paradise. He will have to face it if the Government enact this Amendment. He will have to face such a state of things in Ireland, especially across the Shannon, that neither his Government nor any previous Government had to face. Since these Land Purchase Acts were introduced in 1902 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, the people of Ireland, especially the people of Con-naught, have been told that the day of their salvation was at hand; that the object of land purchase was to remedy the state of things in many of these counties. Our hopes were raised to the highest pitch. Here, after the exertions of the Nationalist forces in Ireland, after having brought this House of Commons to consider this question from this particular economic point of view, and after having brought this House to believe in the principle, and to assent to the proposition that the natural relief for congestion was to in-
  2226
  crease uneconomic holdings—now, so far as I can see, without any special reason at all, the Chief Secretary, for Ireland practically by a stroke of the pen, by placing on the Paper this Amendment, tears up all previous arrangements. He mutilates his own Bill. When this provision is inserted in the Bill I will never vote for the third reading of it. The insertion of this in the Bill damns this legislation. 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, nor in many of the Leinster counties. To accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South County Dublin will mean that as soon as you like you can increase your military forces from 40,000 to 80,000.
  Mr. FLYNN: It is an absolute amazement to us to face the consideration of an Amendment of this character. We hare sat silent all the evening while hon. Members above the Gangway have discoursed on points which have been conceded to them, and here, when we find we are approaching the Report stage of what we hoped to be so far as this House is concerned the almost final settlement of the Irish land question, we are thrown back into the morass of despair. Will the Committee kindly look at the date? This Bill was brought in in the present year, 1909. The Clause as originally framed was so drafted as to put it beyond possibility that any tenancy created practically within 18 months before the introduction of this measure could possibly come within the region of land purchase. Now we find this preposterous proposal introduced by the Chief Secretary, who is supposed to be responsible for law and order in Ireland. During these proceedings we have endeavoured to improve, to enlarge, and to extend the provisions of the Act with regard to future tenants, and to convert them into present tenants. We have gone some distance, but not all the way. We have not gone as far as we could have wished. But after all, the worst that could happen in connection with a position of that kind would be with regard to the yearly sum that would have to be paid to the landlord. But here you come forward with a proposal that the status of a number of men whose tenancies are doubtful, and in many cases of a fraudulent character,

  2227
  should be changed, and at the expense of the public credit. You will stultify the position. Surely the right hon. Gentle man the Chief Secretary, or the Attorney- General for Ireland, are not unaware of the constant complaints which have been coming from these Benches with regard to the maladministration that has taken place by the Estates Commissioners in the giving away of large farms to men entirely unentitled to them. These cases have been a disgrace. In former years in Supply we would have kept the House ringing with denunciations of Acts of this kind, but here in the light of day, and in the light of past experience, and at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, who, after all, is no warm friend of the tenant in Ire land—
  Mr. MOORE: Oh!
  Mr. FLYNN: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh." I daresay he is as warm a friend of the tenant as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh himself. That would be a very frigid degree of temperature to which the unfortunate tenant of Ireland must look. But do the Government of Ireland seriously recognise the position? We have refrained on these benches in Committee of Supply from raising any questions on the attitude of the Estates Commissioners in order that this Land Purchase Act might, go through in peace and in quietness. If this Amendment is passed surely the last position of things would be worse than the first. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has raised a point of enormous importance. You give away the whole principle in this Amendment, and if it becomes part of the Act of Parliament you will be opening the door for these bogus and fraudulent tenants, and there is the strongest reason to believe, as, indeed, there is the strongest temptation to the landlords in the House of Lords to open the door still wider. This Amendment is a, suggestion of the Government to the House of Lords to do something of that kind. We implore of the Government to reconsider their position in this matter. We are most anxious that justice, but no more than justice, should be given to the landlord, but we are defending a greater and a far more important consideration in all these Debates, for we are defending the interests of the tillers of the soil who buy their land, and who are to be the purchase annuitants in the future. What the Government proposes by this Amendment
  2228
  is to convert a number of men who are bogus and fraudulent tenants, who were notoriously introduced for the purpose of emergency and not for agriculture, into purchase annuitants, and thereby using the credit of the State to promote disorder and to increase turbulence in Ireland. The Government ought to recognise that in every effort they made to settle this land question they have had the full and cordial and unstinted co-operation of the Irish Nationalist Members in order that their Bills might proceed rapidly and satisfactorily. We refrained even from joining in the Debates, and the Government should realise now that nothing but a sense of public duty and of grave impending danger will induce the Irish Members to take up the attitude they have taken upon this Amendment. I implore of the Government to reconsider this matter, and to withdraw this reactionary proposal.
  Mr. JOHN O'DOWD: I desire to endorse very fully the objections urged by this Amendment by my right hon. Friends. I think, looking at the matter fairly, and seeing the manner in which bogus tenancies have been created, notwithstanding the safeguards introduced into the Act of 1903 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, we realise the grave danger that will arise from this Amendment. During the Debates under the Bill of 1903 it was the constant wail of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover that there was not land enough to go round. That was true at the time, and it holds good at the present day. There is not land enough to go round, and what are you doing now? You are creating a Congested Districts Board, with proper representation upon it, to distribute land which under this Amendment would go to people who have too much land already and whose claim could not be recognised in justice or in equity. I enter my most emphatic protest against the acceptance of this Amendment. As the representative of an agricultural community, I say if the right hon. Gentleman persists in this Amendment he may as well abandon his Bill altogether, because it will not be accepted by the people, and it will only lead to the renewal of the land war.
  Mr. JOHN MULDOON: I desire to associate myself very strongly with the protests which have been made from these benches against this Amendment. I sympathise with the Attorney-General, who understands this question thoroughly, and who has had to bear the brunt of this

  2229
  Debate this afternoon, deserted as he was by the right hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for introducing this Amendment upon the last stage of this Bill. The grounds upon which we oppose this Amendment are perfectly well known and understood. A great industry has grown up on account of these Purchase Acts in the creation of bogus tenancies. The Estates Commissioners have reported year after year to this House that their inspectors' time has been taken up with inquiring whether in cases of this kind any tenant was in occupation at all. In all previous Acts passed there was some limitation to the creation of these tenancies, and we know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover declared in his Act of 1903 that no sum of over £500 would be advanced in respect of any tenancy created two years previously. Five years afterwards, when the complaint continually has been that there is not land enough to go round for the "congests," not to speak at all of the landless men, you are going to put a provision in an Act of Parliament that will make it a certainty that there will be much less land to go round in future. Beyond all doubt, if that provision had been in the Bill when it first made its appearance the Nationalist Members would have had to consider very serious whether or not they could support the second reading, and I think beyond all doubt their decision would have been they could not support it, because our view is that unless you make some systematic attempt to stop the creation of these bogus tenancies all your efforts will be in vain. Up to this the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General have been exercising all their ingenuity to prevent tenancies being created which will prevent land being used for the purpose of "congests" and for landless men. And, if that is so, a fortiorari, they should prevent such people getting public money to perpetuate this system. The Act of 1903 contained drastic provisions against tenancies of that kind, and the work of the Estates Commissioners has been very largely devoted to preventing such tenants as these from getting grants of public money. I think we must admire the courage of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, because we can quite understand the amount of pressure he had to resist in 1903 against putting in the Clause which the Chief Secretary has now introduced into this Bill. The effect of this will be largely to nullify the entire benefit, espe-
  2230
  cially in the West of Ireland, which is about to be conferred by this Bill. As regards Clause 16, I must say that I never liked it, because there is no restriction at all upon the class of tenant that is created, and it seems to me under the Clause as it stood bogus tenancies like those created by Lord Clanricarde could be established. There is no suggestion that the tenant must be a bonâ fide, one, and even in the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced there is not a suggestion that the tenancy should be a bond fide one before the tenant gets a grant of public money. We urge the Chief Secretary to reconsider this question, and if he cannot go with us in the matter, I hope he will at least consent to substitute the provision which was put into the Act of 1903.
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is undoubtedly the fact that under the Act of 1903 there was no restriction put upon the creation of tenancies, and consequently it is a mistake to suppose that tenancies created since that time should not be made the subject of an advance. It is not the fact that there is anyhing in law which prevents the advances being made to tenancies created, since the passing of that Act. The other point I wish to make is this: This Bill was introduced on 23rd November, 1908, with 1st of January in the Bill as the date in respect of which no advance should be made under the Land Purchase Acts in respect of the purchase of the holding created the first day of January, 1909. That was notice to all persons concerned that any tenancies created subsequently would be tenancies in respect of which no advance could be made. I was under the impression that, no tenancies had been created since the publication of the Bill on 23rd November, 1908. Such tenancies may have been created, and, of course, if they were absolutely bogus tenancies the discretion of the Land Commissioners is in no way interfered with, and they have complete discretion in the matter. There are such things as tenancies created simply and solely to enable the party thereupon to apply for an advance and come within the benefits of the public funds. There can be no doubt about it that persons have paid large fines to purchase the privilege of availing themselves of the benefits of the Act of 1903. Such cases have been brought to my notice, but they were cases of some antiquity, and I was under the impression that since the publication of the Bill and the date inserted in Clause 16 there was no reason

  2231
  to suppose that there could be any number of cases of the very kind which we all most sincerely deprecate.
  I feel that anything which interferes with a single acre of untenanted land strikes at the very root of the cause, which is very dear to me, of obtaining untenanted land for the purpose of making holdings more economic than they now are. I therefore flattered myself, perhaps unduly, into the belief that so far as bogus tenancies are concerned, they are dealt with by the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, who are under no obligation whatever to declare any land within the Act of 1903 if they are satisfied that it has been unfairly got at and faked up simply for the purpose of obtaining the benefits of the Act. There are cases which are not bogus under which grazing and untenanted lands are turned into tenancies within the meaning of the Act, thereby reducing the amount of untenanted land, which is a very great disadvantage. It has been represented to me that the number of cases of that kind are exceedingly small. The alteration of the date from January, 1908, to 15th September, 1909, has been proposed in order to bring it into line with the other Amendments. I was under the impression these cases would be few and far between and not worth considering, and that it was only a matter of general equity that the persons should have notice with regard to the dealings with these tenancies, and it should not be retrospective in its operation. I said quite frankly that the Amendment I put down was not out of my own head. The right hon. Member for South Dublin rather suggested, if he did not actually make the suggestion to me, that this was obviously an Amendment I should put down on my own Motion. That is not so. I put down the Motion because he suggested it, and it seems to me I was right to suppose that there would not be a substantial number of cases which would be affected by it. I acceded perhaps too hastily to his suggestion, and put the Amendment down. I am not prepared to run any risk in this matter with regard to the number of these tenancies. I understand it is to be taken as a fact that there are a large number of them, and that this sort of business has been going on for the express purpose of getting out of Clause lo in the hope that these words would be subsequently amended. As they originally stood the words of the Bill I thought were notice to all the world to stop that kind of thing, but if that is not the case—
  2232
  these are not the tenancies which the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind when he introduced the measure of 1903, and they are not the tenancies intended to turn the genuine tenant into an owner—I am perfectly willing and ready to reconsider this matter. I do not consider myself under any obligation to see this Amendment carried through. If I made the promise hastily, and without full consideration of the facts of the case, and it exposes me, as I have no doubt it will, to a certain amount of criticism and animadversion, well, I shall be quite prepared to stand that; but I seriously say I cannot and will not bring myself to be a party to any proposal which would substantially reduce the amount of untenanted land available, and I shall not in any way press forward this Amendment.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I have listened with great regret to the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman. It is not more than an hour or so since the right hon. Gentle man moved this Amendment. He did so, as I gather from his speech, in consonance with the suggestion which had reached him from my right hon. Friend who at one time was Chief Secretary (Mr. Long), and who, no doubt, thought it would be an improvement on the Bill, just as I am quite sure the Chief Secretary would never have accepted it and put it down in his name unless he had thought it an improvement on the Bill. It really cannot be supposed that a Minister in charge of a large mea sure would casually adopt an Amendment from any quarter and put it down in his name—
  Mr. BIRRELL: It was pointed out to me by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) that he could not put it down in his own name.
  Mr. CHERRY: Why is he not here?
  Mr. WYNDHAM: Nothing surprises me more than the sudden heat which has been imported into this Debate. Here is the Attorney-General palpitating with anxiety to know why my right hon. Friend is not here. It is because he is at dinner. A most reasonable Amendment was put down by the Chief Secretary at the suggestion of an ex-Chief Secretary, and they had gone away to dine. In their absence a fervour was suddenly exhibited from below the Gangway which filled me with astonishment. The Attorney-General, sitting alone on the Treasury Bench, watched the rising storm, and sent to the Chief Secre-

  2233
  tary and told him he thought it was best to cut away some of the tackle as quickly as possible, and that has been done. Really, the Opposition are entitled to complain of such proceedings. Here is a Bill which might well be the principal measure of the whole Session, a Bill fundamentally altering and, we think, spoiling an Act to which we devoted a good deal of labour, a Bill which, I believe, is mischievous to the best interests of Ireland, and destroys the settlement, which, to my mind, did credit to all those who were parties to it. A suggestion is made by one of those interested in the existing law, and because a perturbation suddenly boils up in the dinner hour, the Chief Secretary rushes back and says he did not mean it at all. He does not even say that. He says, "If he finds out that the circumstances in Ireland are not what he supposes them to have been during the whole of last Session, then he will not proceed with this Amendment." This is 15th September. When is he going to find it out? The guillotine falls irrevocably tomorrow evening.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I thought I had asked leave to withdraw.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: Then there is a further misunderstanding. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to throw the whole thing overboard. I think he said he was going to see whether there had been any creation on a large scale of bogus tenancies, and he qualified that by saying many tenancies created were not bogus. He was going to make an investigation into facts which he thought he might have incorrect in his mind. This is reducing the business of the House to an absurdity. Is it likely many new tenancies have been created in the course of 18 months? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I imagine hon. Members have got one or two cases in their minds over which they have been agitated, and they have lashed themselves into a kind of passion. I heard an hon. Member talking of tens of thousands of tenancies created between 1st January in one year and September in the year following. All this is a delusion. The Chief Secretary is being frightened with false fire.
  Mr. BIRRELL: How many do you think there are?
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I am not Chief Secretary, and it is not my business to be in possession of the facts. It is the busi-
  2234
  ness of the right hon. Gentleman, and I presume he was in possession of the facts when he put down the Amendment. Some hon. Members below the Gangway, moved with passion, tried to draw a distinction between the provisions of the Act for which I was responsible and the provisions in this Bill and as proposed by the Amendment of the Chief Secretary. The provision in the Act of 1903 allows tenancies to be created, but it does not allow more than £500 to be advanced for them in the congested districts. It gives no discretion to the Congested Districts Board to increase the amount in the congested districts, but it does give them a discretion to increase the amount outside the congested districts. The Act of 1903 was in many respects a compromise, and it is dangerous suddenly to depart from a compromise of that character. Section 53 was debated in this House for a long period. Hon. Members who represent some constituencies in the western parts of Ireland were not satisfied with it, but they all made themselves parties to it. It was thought reasonable only six years ago that the ordinary powers should proceed within that £500 limit.
  Mr. D. KILBRIDE: Five hundred pounds would not buy a big grass farm.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: But the law is that not more than £500 can be advanced inside the congested districts. This sudden passionate outburst has all been about the congested districts, in which it is said 10,000 tenancies have been created in eighteen months and all the land taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nobody said that."] The whole tenour of the Debate was that some appalling obstacle would be created in the way of dealing with the problem of congestion if the Chief Secretary stuck to his guns and allowed ordinary liberty to continue for 18 months longer. Really, for the sake of such speeches as these it is almost madness to interfere with a compromise arrived at after careful debate only a few years ago. It is a great interference not only with the rights, but with the possibilities of good action on the part of individuals. In many cases in Ireland the landlord can come to terms with his tenants, but in order to make a proper arrangement he has to create one or two new tenancies, and he cannot sell his estate in proper shape unless he has that power. Under this Bill you are going to say that he shall be powerless. That is a pretty drastic proposition. It is a mistake to suppose that the Government officials in Ireland are the only persons who never

  2235
  arrive at a sound conclusion. Why did not the Chief Secretary stick to his guns? I venture to think, as a result of his surrender, the time expended by this House on the Land Bill will prove to be so much time lost.
  Mr. MOORE: If I were a party man I should be rather pleased than otherwise at the exhibition to which we have been treated on behalf of this great Liberal Government, with its vast majority, in its conduct of Irish affairs. We had a reasoned and considered Amendment put on the Notice Paper by the Chief Secretary, representing the Government, two or three days ago, and the right hon. Gentleman actually moved the House from the Report stage into Committee in order that it might discuss that Amendment. The Amendment is that a certain date is to be advanced by a period of 18 months. I will discuss presently what the meaning of that Amendment is on its merits, but I prefer first to draw the attention of the Committee to the course of the Debate, of which I have heard every word. The Chief Secretary got up and moved his considered Amendment. He put it forward as a Government Amendment, with all the sanctity and respect which attaches to such a production. He then went out to dinner, leaving the Attorney-General in sole possession. Thereupon hon. Members below the Gangway got up and began to bay at this proposal. The loudest bark in the chorus came from the hon. Member for Tipperary, who was carried away by his feelings, and displayed great emotion and passion. The hon. Member told the Attorney-General that if he, representing the Government, attempted to carry this Amendment the blood of this unfortunae Government would be upon their own heads.
  Mr. CULLINAN: I never used the word "blood." I said "consequences."
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. MOORE: I am not going to fall out with the hon. Member on that point. I have no desire to misrepresent him. I cannot remember his precise words, but at any rate his threat was blood-curdling. Another hon. Member who indulged in an eloquent peroration declared that if the Government persisted in this Amendment it would become necessary to double, not only the police force, but the Army in Ireland. Next we have the hon. Member for Cork. He did not adopt a militant attitude. He implored the Government to think better of
  2236
  this. Next came the hon. Member from one of the Divisions of Tyrone, who threatened the Government that if this Amendment were carried dreadful consequences would happen, and what he called the Irish people would not look at the Bill. But there was one singular fact noticeable, and that was that not one of the hon. Members below the Gangway, although they spoke of what would happen in Ireland, intimated an intention to go into the Division Lobby against the Government proposal. I think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has been unduly frightened. Anyone with any knowledge of Ireland knows perfectly well that the part most affected is that part west of the Shannon, and I do not think I am wronging my countrymen when I express my belief that no Members for any other part of Ireland would refuse any Bill in the world which brought them £250,000. That would be beyond the wildest dream.
  It is a pitiable sight that the right hon. Gentleman should have allowed himself to be unduly frightened by these bays, and that he should have made such an abject surrender. It is not the first time that he has surrendered to his fears of hon. Members below the Gangway in matters where liberty of speech, rights of property, and other points are concerned, which are more grave than a mere Amendment of this Bill, although it is a Government Amendment. The Chief Secretary appears to think it a laughable matter. I say it is most pitiable, and those who read the report of this Debate will I believe agree with me. The right hon. Gentleman is put forward in Ireland as the man who enforces the law and who insists on the law being respected, and when the ordinary thinking man sees that, in compliance with these threats of outrage and violence, he capitulates and lies down, how can it be expected that such an administrator of the law will have that respect in Ireland to which his high position entitles him? It has been the most shocking exhibition we have ever had. It is a pitiable surrender, and I trust that, as long as I am in this House, I shall never see the like again. But let us see what the effect of this will be in Ireland. There is an attempt made by hon. Members who mostly come from west of the Shannon, which is not the most aggressive-part of the country, to set a standard and to bring every other district down to the same level. Because they are anxious to obtain land in congested districts, where the conditions are such that do not prevail in other parts of the country, they proceed

  2237
  to and have succeeded in putting into force, this irrational idea, that what is necessary for them to obtain land west of the Shannon must apply all over the country. This is a free country still, in spite of hon. Members, and I think it is a scandalous thing that when a man has land and wants to sell it, the Chief Secretary should come in with legislation and say, "You shall not sell that land to the man who is willing to give you the highest price for it, but you must sell it to the Estates Commissioners, and once the Estates Commissioners get hold of it they may give it to evicted tenants or to cattle drivers, and you shall not be allowed to sell it to any other person in the world but the Estates Commissioners." I say in a free country that is an intolerable interference with the rights of an ordinary free citizen. What would be said if legislation were brought forward to the effect that the tenant purchaser shall only be allowed to sell his holdings to the Estates Commissioners? Why, there would be an outcry against the tyranny of it. You are not even to be allowed to sell to a tenant. If you have land, your own land, and want to sell it to a tenant, a penalty is put upon you, and you are not to do so.
  Why should not future tenants be allowed to buy as well as anybody else? Why should a man if he has two hundred acres of land not say, "I am going to sell it to my tenant." Why should not the tenant be allowed to buy in Ireland, because the Chief Secretary listens to the cries of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who say that land must not be sold in the free market, but is to be handled in order that it may be sold to the cattle-driver. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have admitted from time to time that there are such things in Ireland as bad tenants; suppose the best landlord in the world had a tenant who for political reasons refused to pay rent. Supposing not getting a farthing in rent from the tenant in consequence of what we may call some mistaken idea in his politics, and because the tenant defies him, the landlord, not wishing to make a present of the land to the tenant, evicts him, as he has a perfect right to do. He pays for his improvements and he compensates him for disturbance, and then proceeds to let that same land to another tenant. Is there any crime in that? And yet, that future tenant, under this Clause, will never be allowed to buy up that land. That is the effect of this Clause, and the Chief Secretary, I gather from his interjections, ad-
  2238
  mits that I have correctly comprehended him. Is that fair in a free country? You are going to try to prevent a man getting rid of an undesirable tenant who courts, eviction, and, if he does so, you are not to allow his successor to buy up the holding. Of course, it is part of his policy that the landlord should be penalised, whether reasonably or unreasonably. I understand that is his attitude, but I say that it is unfair.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Why was the advance limited to £500 under the Act of 1903?
  Mr. MOORE: That is to prevent large transactions; but the Chief Secretary, by the course he is pursuing, is preventing small ones. The Bill prevents small ones and is preventing them all over the country. Of course, if the Chief Secretary has got himself conveniently out of the storm which has been raised, into a state of mind in which he believes that all these future tenancies, created in the last two or three years in Ireland, are bogus tenancies—a matter in which I do not agree with him, and which he did not hold when he moved his Amendment, and it only came home to him when he heard the ejaculations from below the Gangway —that is another matter. I cannot understand, however, why it is suggested that all these tenancies are bogus. Why should a tenant who is willing to come in and put his money down not have the holding sold to him, and why should the landlord have to sell to the Estates Commissioners if he does not want to? The Landlord knows what price he will get from the Estates Commissioners, but he has farmers around him who are anxious and willing to buy. Why should he not carve up his land into 10 lots and sell to them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Does the hon. and learned Member mean that you have to create tenancies simply in order that they should buy?
  Mr. MOORE: You create tenancies as a convenient way of selling your land. The tenant desires to buy it and the vendors desire to sell. That is a transaction which the courts again and again have held to be a perfectly legitimate one. The decisions are under the Land Acts before 1903, but they are all the same. It has been decided that it is not fraud, in any shape or form, to create a tenancy ad hoc if it is a genuine transaction. Take a case in which a man says, "I have 200 acres; I will split it up in blocks, and I will sell

  2239
  if farmers choose to come forward and put their money down." I challenge anyone to dispute the genuineness of that transaction, and there is no reason why these men, having acquired the land with their own money, should be shut out from the benefits of the Purchase Acts. They will be under this Section, and why is it brought in, because the practice during the last 18 months or two years has been publicly denounced by hon. Members of this House. There would have been some relief to these people if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was accepted. I suppose we shall divide upon it, and I shall be anxious to know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to do upon his own Amendment, which he has disowned. But he can bring it up to date now. A Government Amendment cannot be dropped anyhow, and I think the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is of great importance, because it does extend and continue for a little longer the freedom which the owner of the land or the farmer, or anybody else is entitled to—the freedom to sell in an open market, in the absence of fraud, tyranny, and coercion, from the branches of the United Irish League. I welcomed the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward for converse reasons to those for which hon. Gentlemen oppose it, and to which, I am sorry to say, the Chief Secretary has so far forgotten himself as to surrender.
  Mr. DILLON: We have listened to a very fine specimen of Ulster oratory. I think I may call it a characteristic one. The hon. and learned Member made a ferocious assault upon the Chief Secretary, and what was the crime with which he charged him? The crime was that, being a responsible Minister for Ireland, he gave way to the opinions on this subject of the overwhelming majority of the Irish Members.
  Mr. MOORE: That is not what I charged him with. I charged him with putting down an Amendment and running away from it.
  Mr. DILLON: If the hon. and learned Member will pardon me, that is his way of putting it. My way of putting it is that the right hon. Gentleman, having found that the overwhelming majority of Irish Members are not in favour of this Amendment, did not persist in it, What is the crime there? I quite understand that it is a crime in the eyes of Ulster Orangeman or of a Gentleman like the hon.
  2240
  Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore), whose principle of public government is that the minority, and the small minority, must be always supported in trampling on the majority. What is the offence of an Irish Minister who listens to the voice of the representatives of Ireland on a matter which, after all, affects Ireland only, and not this country at all? Is it to be contended that the foundations of the Empire are going to be shaken because Irish land-lords are not to be allowed to create bogus tenancies? The hon. Member drew a terrific picture, in lurid language which I should recommend him for the future to confine to Portadown, where it is likely to be more effective than in the House of Commons, of the tyranny which is going to be practised in Ireland under this Amendment, and he said: "Is it to be tolerated that an Irish landlord is not to be allowed to evict his tenants and put someone else in their place, and then sell to the new man?" I say is it to be tolerated that this House of Commons is to spend hundreds of millions of the credit of the country in turning the Irish occupier into an owner and that the Irish landlords are to be allowed to go on every year adding to the army of evicted tenants? That aspect of the case, even if the hon. Member's arguments are founded upon facts, would be, I think, sufficient argument in favour of this Amendment, namely, that it would prevent eviction. That alone would be a very great recommendation, and if would be an inducement to landlords to come to terms with their tenants instead of pursuing the course which has brought them to the pass they are in at present. But that is not the case at all. The hon. Member has grossly and flagrantly misrepresented the whole situation. Neither this Clause nor the limitation of £500 in the Act of 1903 was introduced to deal with this imaginary case put forward by the hon. Member of the injured landlord who evicts his tenant. They are to deal with a growing evil, which I must describe as a gross fraud, not only on the Irish people, for whom this land is badly wanted, but upon the taxpayers and the ratepayers of the country. Will any man have the courage to maintain that all these great Land Purchase Acts and great advances of public money were voted by this House for the purpose of enabling Irish landlords to create bogus tenancies in un-tenanted land, to put them up to auction and then obtain, by the intervention of the credit of the State, prices which they could not dream of obtaining but for the Bill?

  2241
  Supposing these Purchase Acts had been recommended to the House with such an avowed purpose as that, would any Member of the House of Commons have voted in favour of them? No; and this system, which has existed under previous Purchase Acts, has been a gross abuse, and, instead of objecting to the present limitation contained in Section 16, which on a previous occasion I described as one of the most valuable Sections of the Act, that limitation ought to have been in force from the first day the Purchase Acts were passed. The Purchase Acts were passed, and these great sums of money were voted for the purpose of turning the occupying tenant into an owner, and also for the purpose of relieving the congestion of the West of Ireland, and for the purpose of distributing grass lands to bonâ fide farmers, and not for the purpose of allowing landlords to pursue this system of creating bogus tenancies, and thereby extracting prices out of all proportion to the market value of their property. I myself could give cases which are absolutely ludicrous. I remember my attention being drawn within the last two years to a case in county Tyrone of a perfectly fraudulent transaction of this character, whereby something like 40 years' purchase of the fair rent was obtained by the landlord by collusion with a friend of his own. He put this man into the farm and the man agreed to an enormous rent, and the transaction was put through, with the result, partly through failure on the part of the Commissioners, that an absolutely preposterous price, well over 30 years' purchase of the fair rent, was obtained. These cases are going on All over the country. In many cases where this thing has been attempted on a large scale by landlords, it was only checked by popular agitation and by boycotting. Are the people of Ireland to be told that the law is not to put a stop to this fraud, and that they must take their own measures to stop it—a fraud which it is equally in the interest of the peasantry and farmers of Ireland and the taxpayers of the whole country to put a stop to? A more outrageous and scandalous attack I have never listened to.
  These cases of the creation of bogus tenancies have gone on all over the country. I remember one case in which a father lent a piece of land to his own son, and that has been done on several occasions. He created a tenancy for the purpose of drawing a large advance of public money. If that father and son had gone to a bank they would have to pay
  2242
  4 or 5 per cent. for their loan and to pay off the principal afterwards, but by this collusive operation, under the law as it stood, without these limitations, they were able to obtain a loan of £4,000 or £5,000 from the Exchequer? and not only did they thereby inflict a great injury on the public taxpayers and a grave abuse on the whole system of land purchase calculated to discredit it, but there was a direct bribe and incentive to the landlord to withdraw a large area of land from the use of the farmers of the country for the relief of congestion. The entire charge made by the hon. Member (Mr. Moore) against the Chief Secretary resolves itself into this: that having been fully informed of the facts of the case by the representatives from Ireland, and having it brought to his notice that the overwhelming majority, numbering 82 Members out of 102, object to the Amendment, he, being the Irish Minister, says they will not press the Amendment. It is a form of crime which I wish very much had been practised by his predecessors more abundantly, and if it had we should have avoided a great deal of trouble and confusion.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I claim for myself two advantages in taking part in the discussion that has arisen on the action of the Government to-night. In the first place I am a party man, and in the next place I am glad to think, and I shall be always thankful for the fact, that I have never from the day this Bill was introduced asked the Chief Secretary either to put anything into his Bill or to take anything out of it; therefore I am free from any prejudice or bias, except what perhaps is incidental to my position as a party man. The Chief Secretary, in his long and varied career, has had his triumphs and disappointments, but this much I venture to prophesy, that no matter how long his position may be extended, he will never touch a lower depth of humiliation. I regret very much that a good many of the Members who are now present were not here when the incident occurred we are at present debating. I venture to say there is no man in the House who has any spark of courage, political or otherwise, who will not feel that this House to-night has seen an instance of political infirmity such as it has probably never witnessed before. What are the facts? The Amendment promised by the Chief Secretary on Clause 16 was almost consequential on two Amendments proposed by him and already passed ort Section 12 of the Bill. Let me remind the

  2243
  House what occurred under Section 12 which draws a distinction between future purchase agreements and pending purchase agreements. The distinction becomes necessary because future purchase agreements are dealt with on a different scale as regards bonus and other matters as compared with pending purchase agreements. Accordingly it was necessary to draw a line in the matter of dates so as to define what were to be treated as future purchase agreements and what were to be known as pending purchase agreements.
  In the Bill as it originally stood the right hon. Gentleman had taken, for some reason best known to himself, 1st March, 1909, as the date up to which all agreements lodged were to be deemed pending purchase agreements, and after that date they were to be considered future purchase agreements. That date occurs twice in Section 12—the first time in respect of advances by the Land Commission, and on the second occasion for the purpose of sale to the Congested Districts Board. On the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite two Amendments were passed to-night by this Committee almost without Debate, and certainly without remonstrance from hon. Members below the Gangway, by which the date for pending purchase agreements was pushed forward from 1st March to 15th September, with the result that every agreement lodged before 15th September of the present year is to be deemed a pending purchase agreement. What, then, did the right hon. Gentleman do in order to carry out what he had already done in Section 12? He put down to Clause 16 an Amendment to leave out the words "first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and eight," and to insert the words "fifteenth day of September, nineteen hundred and nine." These Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman showed a concerted plan. They showed that he wanted his Bill to be symmetrical, and the suggestion that he introduced the Amendment on Clause 16 owing to the persuasion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long) is ludicrous to anyone who looks at the Amendments already passed in re-respect of Section 12. I am sure the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) will forgive me if I am wrong, but it did occur to me as peculiar tactics that he came into the House, not having heard any of the Debate, except the speech of the hon. Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore), and produced a sheaf of notes. I think it
  2244
  can be said that there must have been some bird in the air which gave the hon. Member a hint as to what had taken place.
  Mr. DILLON: There is not the slightest foundation for that statement. I had not the faintest notion of what had taken place until I was told when I returned to the House.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I do not think the hon. Member for East Mayo has denied my statement, nor can he deny the fact that as he walked up the floor of the House he produced a sheaf of notes from his pocket.
  Mr. DILLON: Strange suspicions seem to arise in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not produce a sheaf of notes from my pocket. I scribbled two or three words on a sheet of note-paper while listening to the burning eloquence of the hon. Member for North Armagh.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement, but nevertheless the coincidence was remarkable. I come now to what the Chief Secretary has done. I made several attempts on the first and second readings of the Bill to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation of Clause 16. I never got any. We did not reach it in Committee, and therefore although there were Amendments down in the name of some hon. Members below the Gangway, and an Amendment in my own name which would have deprived the Clause of some of its injustice, no opportunity came for discussing the Clause. This Clause has always been represented as aimed at preventing the creation of bogus tenancies for the purpose of getting advances under the Land Act of 1903. Hon. Members below the Gangway have had the courage to say that during the past 12 months there were tens of thousands—one hon. Member said hundreds of thousands—of such cases. I know as much of the operation of the Land Act as any hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and this much I will say, that I have only known of a single case of an attempt to manufacture a bogus tenancy. In respect of that one case, until a few days ago there were 20 of the inhabitants of county Westmeath in jail under the orders of the right hon. Gentleman opposite for having brought the facts to light. To suggest that as regards tenancies created in Ireland since 1st January, 1808, up to the present day there has been

  2245
  any substantial percentage of bogus tenancies in the true sense of the word is perfectly idle and delusive. It is quite true there have been a few isolated cases of attempted fraud, but is there any Act of Parliament of this kind, either in this country or in any other country, which has ever been administered without attempts being made, successful or unsuccessful, to commit fraud? Anyone reading the newspapers knows what goes on with regard to bogus claims of every kind, and I do think that it is hardly as patriotic for hon. Members below the Gangway as they claim to he, to be always coming into this House and getting up and saying that their countrymen are of this character, and that the whole country is over-run with fraud and attempted fraud.
  Mr. DILLON: What about the carrion crows?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: They are very ready to make those reflections, but I ask them to reflect that, after all, it is their own countrymen they are speaking of. [An HON. MEMBER: "The landlords."] A landlord cannot create bogus tenancies unless he has got tenants to accept them, and if there are tens of thousands of these tenancies being created all over Ireland, all I can say is that it speaks very badly for the persons whom hon. Gentlemen, particularly from the West of Ireland, represent. The fact is, it is an exaggeration. It was all a mere parade to bring down the man of straw. They knew quite well that those arguments were good enough for the Chief Secretary. They knew perfectly well that all they had to do was to fire a popgun and down he corners. They did not produce facts or arguments. All they wanted to do was to utter threats, tell him he would have to double the police and the military, and that the blood of the Government would be upon their own heads if they introduced this Amendment. That was quite enough. In fact, it had such a startling effect that the Attorney-General at once sent out to curtail the rather mild and limited period which the right hon. Gentleman had allowed himself for his dinner meal. He came rushing back into the House and said: "I was foolish in putting down this Amendment. Not having heard the allegations that have been made, being in the House of Commons dining hall. I am satisfied from what I did not hear that I was entirely misinformed when I put down this Amendment"; and, with charac-
  2246
  teristic courage, the right hon. Gentleman said: "Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will not hear of it. They will not have it. They say my blood will be upon my own head. They threaten me with having to have an extra force of police. It is quite enough for me." Down comes the Chief Secretary and gives up his gun. That is done by one of the responsible chief Ministers of a Government whose boast it is that they have the strongest majority behind them that has been vouchsafed to any Ministry or Government for many years. It came with all the strength of his battalions, numbering something like 120 in the Division Lobby to-night, and a sturdy phalanx of 40, 50, or 60 Irish Members below the Gangway is quite enough to scatter all these forces and to bring about the surrender of the right hon. Gentleman under circumstances which, I venture to say, will never reflect any credit either on himself or on the Government which he represents. This Clause 16, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is an extremely drastic clause. It is unjust, per se, because it not only accomplishes what the right hon. Gentleman says it is intended to accomplish, but it does something more—a thing which, I venture to say, he never intended to accomplish—it destroys for all times if it becomes law in Ireland the landlord's power and right to eject his tenant for any misconduct or any breach of statutory conditions. It does not do so in any statutory language, but it does so by saying in respect of that holding from which the tenant has been so evicted there is never to be any advance made for the purpose of enabling the new tenant to purchase under the Land Purchase Act. I am, however, consoled by the reflection that, notwithstanding the cowardly surrender of the right hon. Gentleman, the fact that he has introduced this Amendment and proposed it stands on the records of this House, and the fact will not be forgotten, and those hon. Members below the Gangway who are rejoicing in having coerced the right hon. Gentleman, who did not require much coercing, will find their mistake if they think that the surrender will result in placing upon the Statute Book the 16th Clause, at any rate, in the form in which it stands at present.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 30.

  Division No. 667.]

  AYES.

  [9.45 P.m.

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

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Dowd, John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Barker, Sir John

  Harwood, George

  O'Malley, William

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hooper, A. G

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

  Bell, Richard

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pointer, J

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Black, Arthur W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Rea, Rt. Hen. Russell

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Keating, M.

  Reddy, M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Kekewich, sir George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Kelley, George D.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Clough, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lardner. James Carrige Rushe

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Schwann, Sir c. E. (Manchester)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Lundon, T.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sheehy, David

  Cox, Harold

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cullinan, J.

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Snowden, P.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dillon, John

  MacVeigh. Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  M'Kean, John

  Summerbell, T.

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dunne. Major E. Martin (Walsalt)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Edwards. Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Essex, R. W.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Esslemont, George Birnle

  Meehan. Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marnham, F. J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Falconer, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Walsh, Stephen

  Farrell. James Patrick

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Ffrench. Peter

  Mooney, J. J.

  White, J Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Field, William

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Fiennes. Hon. Eustace

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wiles, Thomas

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Muldean, John

  Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Fuller. John Michael F.

  Murnaghan, George

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Fullerton. Hugh

  Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

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

  Gibb. James (Harrow)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Gilhooly. James

  Nicholls, George

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gill. A. H.

  Nolan. Joseph

  Young, Samuel

  Ginnell, L.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Gladstone. Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Glendinning. R. G.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Boland.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  NOES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Du Cros, Arthur

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Moore, William

  Bowles. G Stewart

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Ronaldshay. Earl of

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

  Gordon, J.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Clark, George Smith

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Lonsdale and Mr. C. Craig.

  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I desire to say a word in reference to the position in which this Clause now stands, and the position in which the Committee stands. The Chief Secretary has properly indicated to the Committee that I was responsible for the Amendment which he put on the Paper.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Clause as I understand has not been amended.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As the Clause was under consideration by the Committee in terms of remit by the House, it is necessary formally to put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and on that Question discussion may arise. In this particular instance an Amendment was moved, and a Division taken. The Clause has to be reaffirmed by Committee "to stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can an Amendment which has been disposed of be discussed on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Practically that would be re-opening and re-discussing what the Committee has already determined by a decision of the Committee, and could not be in order.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: The hon. and learned Gentleman intervened on the point of Order before waiting to hear what it was I wished to raise. The Amendment which the Government proposed and abandoned was, as the Chief Secretary said, placed on the Paper in response to a suggestion which came from this side, but in regard to which, apparently, he and his colleagues knew so little that until the Debate took place here they were not aware what would be its effect. The suggestion has been made that the Amendment involved a concession to the Opposition. I entirely deny that suggestion. What are the facts of the case? The facts are that no Member of the Opposition had any chance whatever of putting that Amendment on the Paper and securing for it discussion during Committee. It was only possible to secure it by its being placed and by its being accepted by the Government. I put the case before the Chief Secretary, and I only made myself responsible for what I believed to be the facts of the case, namely, that the Amendment was one desirable in the interests of fair play, and it was accepted. Now what has
  2250
  happened? The Clause has been adopted without the Amendment, which, as my right hon. and learned Friend—
  Mr. MOONEY: On a point of Order. I. wish to call your attention to the fact that the Motion on the Paper is that Clause 16: shall be recommitted in respect of the Amendments. The point I want to put is this. No Amendment has been made by the Committee, and, as Clause 16 has already been considered in Committee by ibis House and passed by this House, whether it is in order to discuss that the Clause stand part of the Bill or not.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" was moved in Committee, but since then the House has recommitted the Bill, with certain Amendments, to the Committee, and the Committee, dealing with the Bill in that way, it is for the Committee again to reaffirm the Bill as unamended, because the matter has been reopened by the recommittal of the Bill.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I was reminding the Committee that the Government had adopted this Amendment on my suggestion, and that it was an Amendment which, apparently at all events, it was desirable, in the opinion of the Government, should be inserted in order that the Clause should not work unfairly. I was calling the attention of the Committee to the further fact that this has been referred to as a concession. It was not a concession at all in any sense of the word. It was impossible, as I have already pointed out, for anybody on this side to move it, or to secure consideration of this question at any later stage than this. It could not have been raised on Report stage, and, as the Chief Secretary knows quite well, it was necessary for him to recommit the Bill, not in respect of this Amendment, but for other purposes of his own. It would have been impossible to secure the alteration of the date upon Report stage. It can only be done in Committee after recommittal, because, as the House knows very well, the House has always felt that Amendments of this kind which vary the charge are Amendments in regard to which we claim very strict privilege. Therefore the only way in which it was possible for me to secure consideration of the question was to secure the consent of the Government. That the Government did. The Chief Secretary accepted the Amendment and moved it in a speech in which he

  2251
  explained its nature. He subsequently received his orders from below the Gangway, and withdrew it, and now we are asked to pass the Clause without this Amendment standing in the name of the Government. The Government have voted against their own Amendments, and have had as tellers in their Division hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side, not even having adopted the procedure fully open to them of asking leave to withdraw their Amendment, and if that was refused then they could take certain action. Not one word which fell from my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Campbell) was too strong to describe the view that will be taken by everybody outside this House of what has happened on this occasion. I venture to say that both inside this House and outside of it this incident is so instructive that everybody who follows it will know how to appreciate it, and that it is not likely soon to be forgotten.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think it is clear to every hon. Member who follows this discussion what has happened. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) suggested to me to put down two Amendments, one to Clause 12 and the other to Clause 16. I agreed to do both. But when I replied to his letter promising to put down these two Amendments, I did not fully appreciate the difference that existed between the two. They were both of them alterations of date to the same date, 15th September. Clause 16 had the date 1st January and Clause 12 had 1st March, 1909. I did not, it is quite fair to admit, give the consideration to the second Amendment which I think I ought to have done, but to say that I had given way to 40 votes below the Gangway, and language of that sort, I was perfectly well able, if it had gone to a Division, to have carried it—I could have done so—therefore I do not think there is any occasion to speak words about cowardice and timidity. I can imagine a person being frightened if it appeared that he would be, beaten, but I cannot imagine it if he knows he will not be beaten. At all events, if hon. Members chose to think I did this because I was frightened they are at liberty to do so. My mind was clear, my intellect was clear, and my conscience was as plain upon this matter as it ever was before. Under no duress and under no intimidation, I was no more frightened of Gentlemen below the Gangway than I am of Gentlemen above it. What was brought home to me not merely by the Debate which we had this after-
  2252
  noon, but by other considerations and other particulars before me, made me exceedingly doubtful as to whether I had not acted too hastily in accepting the suggested Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and the only reason that operated to my mind was the dread, the well-founded dread, that by the variation of this date I should decrease the amount of untenanted land available for a great and important purpose. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and I do not care whether they believe me or whether they do not, I do not in the least care one atom whether they believe me or not in this matter, I was only acting in the course I have described, a course by no means pleasant, because I am certain if this Amendment had been adopted it would have been an injury to the cause which I have at heart.
  Sir E. CARSON: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that at all events as regards one statement he has made I believe him. He has stated that he is not the least frightened as regards hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. I entirely believe it. His own phrase is, "Minorities must suffer."
  Mr. BIRRELL: I never heard that before.
  Sir E. CARSON: Of course there is nothing in the voting power of Members above the Gangway in the least to frighten him. That is not what we complain of. We complain that he was frightened by Members below the Gangway. He bullies the Members above the Gangway. That is his privilege and prerogative, and his method of carrying out discussions in this House. A bully is always frightened, and the right hon. Gentleman is frightened by Members below the Gangway. He now says that this is an inadvertence. In following has-speech I had great difficulty in seeing how the inadvertence occurred. He said that after he had put down the Amendment he had had discussions or information which led him to doubt whether he ought really to go on with the Amendment. He says that matters of great importance were brought to his notice; but, notwithstanding that and the fact that his attention had been directed specially to the subject, he moved the Amendment and asked the Committee to accept it. How could that be an inadvertence, unless he was all the time playing the hypocrite and only pretending to move the Amendment, never meaning the House to accept it? I think hon. Mem-

  2253
  bers will find it difficult to understand bow a Minister, having put an Amendment upon the Paper, and having had his attention specifically called to its effect, then being himself in doubt as to what he ought to do, can get up and move the Amendment and afterwards vote against it. Look at the result of the right hon. Gentleman's curious frame of mind. We are allowed two days for the Report stage of the Bill, and on one of those days the right hon. Gentleman moves an Amendment which gives rise to two or three hours' discussion, all the while not intending, according to his own story, that it should be accepted. This explanation of inadvertence is becoming a commonplace of the Government. We have it every day now. Amendments are put on the Paper and Amendments are taken off, and the only explanation given to the House is that it is an inadvertence. In the present case, having regard to the conditions under which we are discussing this Bill, and taking the Chief Secretary's own defence, I think the inadvertence is most unfortunate.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think that one of us ought to make a protest against the kind of language which has been used during the last hour or so. The right hon. and learned. Gentleman who has just spoken has brought the language to something like a climax. He has had what I must call the courage to apply the epithets "bully," "coward," and "hypocrite." That kind of language can only do harm to the man who uses it. The only fear I have been able to detect in the Chief Secretary is the fear that he might do injury to the people of Ireland by withdrawing from them the land to which they are entitled.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member who has just spoken, not content with his party's giving directions to the Government as to what their policy should be, has

  Division No. 668.]

  AYES.

  [10.14 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Davies, David (Montgomery, C.)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Barker, Sir John

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Barnard, E. B.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Falconer, J.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clough, William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Bell, Richard

  Clynes, J. R.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  thought it necessary to deliver an address on deportment. Without asking for ample opportunities to discuss this Bill, I suggest that he should try to arrive at a businesslike decision without caring about the degree of eloquence which distinguishes all those who take part an our discussions. If hon. Members bad been present throughout the whole of the incident which they are asked to criticise, they would have heard a great deal of strong, even impassioned and lurid, language from hon. Members below the Gangway. They would have seen the Attorney-General for Ireland, left alone on the Treasury Bench, sending in his extremity to the Chief Secretary, and they would have seen the Chief Secretary come back and surrender the position he had occupied. That is what happened. Under the conditions under which we are asked to carry on our discussions, none of the explanations which have been given will serve. The Chief Secretary did not, in the first instance, say that he was going to make a complete right-about-turn. He said, "I will inquire, and if I find it to be the case that a number of tenancies have been created in these 18 months, then I wall make my right-about-turn." But the pressure continued, and round he went in an instant. What is the use of discussing this Bill? I overheard an aside from one of the Whips: "We will not give them another day." Who expects that we shall be given another day when we are not even allowed to discuss the Bill on the days that are accorded to us?
  Mr. BIRRELLrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 35.

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seely, Colonel

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Shackleton, David James

  Gulland John W.

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

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Snowden, P.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Harwood, George

  Middlebrook, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Summerbell, T.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morrell, Philip

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nicholls, George

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Jardine. Sir J.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Partington, Oswald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Kekewich, sir George

  Pointer, J.

  White. J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Kelley, George D.

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Lambert, George

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

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Lament, Norman

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Young, Samuel

  Lupton, Arnold

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Moore, William

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gordon, J.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Clark, George Smith

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

  Division No. 669.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gilhooly, James

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clough, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Ginnell L.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Glendinning, R. C.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Glover, Thomas

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Barker, Sir John

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Gulland. John W.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cullinan, J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Harrington, Timothy

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dillon, John

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

  Bell, Richard

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Harwood, George

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duffy, William J.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dunne. Major E. Marton (Walsall)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Boland, John

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hogan, Michael

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

  Falconer, J.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea).

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Field, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Joyce, Michael

  Byles, William Pollard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Carr-Gomm, H. w.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Keating, M.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Kelley, George D.

  The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 40.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Nicholls, George

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Lambert, George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Seely, Colonel

  Lamont, Norman

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Sheehy, David

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Snowden, P.

  Lundon, T.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Lupton, Arnold

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Summerbell, T.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  O'Malley, William

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  M'Kean, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomasson, Franklin

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  M'MicKing, Major G.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Meagher, Michael

  Pointer, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Mooney, J. J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

  Young, Samuel

  Morrell. Philip

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Muldoon, John

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Murnaghan, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Du Cros, Arthur

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Moore, William

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gordon, J.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George O.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clark, George Smith

  Keswick, William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lonsdale John Brownlee

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles

  CLAUSE 52.—(Grant of Superannuation Allowances by Congested Districts Board.)
  The Congested Districts Board may, with the approval of the Treasury, make a scheme providing for the grant of pensions or gratuities, according to the scale and subject to the conditions (as far as applicable) prescribed by the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1892, or any Acts amending the same, to such officers or persons employed by them, not being otherwise pensionable, as may be from time to time approved by the Treasury; and the Board may pay to any such officers or persons out of the funds at their disposal such pensions or gratuities under the scheme as the Treasury may sanction in each case.
  Mr. BIRRELLmoved, after the word "conditions" ["subject to the conditions "], to add the following words:—
  2258
  "(1) It shall be lawful for the Congested Districts Board, with the approval of the Treasury, to grant to any permanent member of the Board on retirement such superannuation or other allowance (if any) as he would have been qualified for under the provisions of the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1802, or any Acts amending the same, if he were retiring from the permanent Civil Service of the State. Any such allowance shall be payable out of the funds at the disposal of the Board; provided that where a permanent member was at the time of his appointment a, permanent Civil Servant of the State such portion of the allowance as the Treasury determine to be properly payable in respect of his previous service in that capacity shall be payable in the same manner as a superannuation or other allowance under those Acts."

  2259
  This is an Amendment which enables the Congested Districts Board, out of their own funds, to grant pensions to any permanent member of the Board on the Civil Service scale. Under the Bill, as it stands, the two permanent members could receive no pension, and that is a circumstance which might deter people otherwise eligible from accepting these posts. The success of the Board's operations, of course, depends very largely upon the character and position of these two persons, and it is undesirable that the Board should not be able to offer them, both now and hereafter, the privileges of pensions which very likely attached to their previous employment. It is not made obligatory upon the Board, but they are authorised to deal with their own funds in that way. The rest of the Amendment deals with a very important point. If any person appointed to this position is already a permanent Civil servant, and is entitled or in the way of being entitled to a pension, it is desirable that that previous service should be taken into account and that the Treasury should be called upon to contribute a proportionate part of the superannuation allowance. Therefore we have inserted the words:—
  "Any such allowance shall be payable out of the funds at the disposal of the Board; provided that where a permanent member was at the time of his appointment a permanent Civil Servant of the State such portion of the allowance as the Treasury determine to be properly payable in respect of his previous service in that capacity shall be payable in the same manner as a superannuation or other allowance under those Acts."
  That, of course, will come to the relief of the Board. If they choose to exercise the powers conferred upon them of giving a pension, they will be able to require from the Treasury what proportion of the pension would have been allowed, having regard to the member's service in the permanent Civil Service at the time he entered the service of the Congested Districts Board. I think that is an Amendment which will commend itself to all persons who are satisfied that the Congested Districts Board require the services of paid servants.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I do not rise for the purpose of objecting to this Amendment, though, I think, considering the stubbornness with which we are told the Treasury
  2260
  act in other cases, it is remarkable the readiness with which a long Amendment like this is assented to by that body. I rise to ask whether the corollary is in existence—the 65 Rule. As I understand the Civil Service, the 65 Rule prevails. I drew attention in the former Committee stage to the laxity of the Treasury in this respect and other directions. I have looked through this Bill and previous Bills, and, unlike every other Bill with which the Treasury has to deal in regard to a body dispensing public money, there is no suggestion of an audit. What advice they are following on this question is more than I can understand. Here is a body which is to dispense, as far as I know, hundreds of thousands of pounds. There is no check and no control over it. We do not know even who the Gentlemen are, but as they are to be permanent Civil servants, I think we are entitled to have their names. They are to receive £2,000 a year, whereas the President of the College at Cork gets only £600 or £700, and professors of Greek and Latin only receive £500 or £600. Yet these gentlemen whose names are withheld are to receive £2,000 a year. When you were dealing with the Land Commissioners you offered them £3,000 a year with pension, or £3,500 without. These gentlemen are to have £2,000 with pension. I am not opposed to the idea of a pension, but I would point out that here you are dealing with the most miserable part of Ireland, with a poor and hungry population, with a country in which the majority of the holdings are not more than £5 or £6 valuation; yet to oversee these wretched people, who hardly know how to keep body and soul together, you are appointing officials with the splendid salary of £2,000 a year, with pension. It is more than I can understand. Why is this largesse being given by a Treasury from which in the past we have found it impossible to get a sixpence with the aid of a corkscrew? It is because this money is ear-marked, and they do not care how it is spent. And while you are starting with these gorgeous salaries, you are not insisting on a stringent audit, I certainly think you should do so, especially in the matter of funds affecting the very poorest of the poor.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would just like en this question of audit to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down that the Congested Districts Board are under statutory obligation to have an

  2261
  audit of the strictest possible character, and that they have habitually had an audit of that description from the very beginning. Nobody who is familiar with the Congested Districts Board would for a moment entertain the idea of their not being subject to the strictest possible audit, and every farthing they have received and spent has been strictly accounted for. It is such a vital matter that I should not like it to be supposed for a moment that it had been overlooked. The only reason why there is no audit section in this Bill is that it is unnecessary because of the previous measure. With regard to the other point, I can only say that the main reason why the 65 years' limit is made to apply to persons in the Cavil Service is not because people are incompetent, but because it is desirable in all permanent offices which go on for centuries to secure a flow of promotion in order that there may not be any block in pay and promotion from the ranks upwards, but that does not apply in this case, where we are not dealing with a body of a permanent character, although it will last for a good many years to come. But it is not a permanent branch of the Civil Service, and therefore the reason does not necessarily and properly apply. The 65 years' rule is not necessarily to get rid of a man at 65, but to get rid of him so that somebody serving in the office for a great number of years may secure his promotion. These gentlemen are removable by Order in Council, and it therefore becomes a matter of Parliamentary discussion, and therefore I do not think we need fear that any dotard will be kept in office when he is past his work. The hon. Gentleman-said something about not mentioning the names of the two persons who are to be the permanent and paid members of the Congested Districts Board. Sometimes it is undesirable on principle to mention names, and sometimes it is desirable, but names have been mentioned during the course of the proceedings on a Bill. The Estates Commissioners were mentioned in 1903, though not in the Bill, and it is not in any sense undesirable that I should mention the names, and I have no hesitation in doing so. The two persons whom the Government have in their minds are Mr. Doran and Mr. Micks, and when the Bill becomes law these are the two persons whom we propose to ask whether they will accept these offices. In regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about this being a poor district, I do not think because a district is poor that the
  2262
  people who have to administer the very delicate work which devolves upon them should necessarily be poor too. It is said that "Who drives fat oxen should himself be fat," but I do not know that he who drives thin oxen should himself be thin, and I think it is desirable that the salaries should be sufficient, so as to secure the services of persons of energy and eminence in their particular line. In conclusion, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the audit is as strong as it possibly can be, and I attach great importance to that necessary condition.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I am reluctant to say anything which may appear to be offering opposition, because I am entirely in favour not only of having good salaries for permanent officials but also of securing to them pensions. But the Chief Secretary has made some rather startling announcements in regard to the history of the law which governs permanent officials. He told us that the origin of the retirement age of 65 was not the incapacity of the individual at that age but was due to the fact that it was necessary to secure promotion. I have a very vivid recollection of the declaration of the great statesman, who was, I think, Prime Minister at the time of the passing of the Act governing the superannuation of permanent officials, and it was frequently quoted against Mr. Gladstone that he had laid it down as a justification for the change in the law that 65 was the age at which a man ought to retire from active public work. That was the reason given at the time, and not that there might be promotion. But apart from that, the Chief Secretary has also given a rather startling reason in regard to the pension question. I am not at all desirous of preventing any valuable public servant from getting a pension, but what Parliament has hitherto been very tenacious of in granting pensions is that the official should have given to the State a sufficient number of years' service before he can claim a pension. If we had made this proposal to make new appointments to the public service, and to entitle them to pensions, apart from the existing conditions, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would have risen in their wrath and would have offered the most strenuous resistance to any suggestion of the kind. The fact that the Chief Secretary has been good enough to take us into his confidence as to the names of these officials makes it still more difficult for anyone who has had the privilege of working with them in Ireland to offer any criticism

  2263
  at all, and I am reluctant to do it, but I cannot forget that only the other day the Government were urging with vehemence that there were so many public departments in Ireland, and so many salaries being paid, and so many people entitled to pensions, that there ought to be a radical change, and the number ought to be enormously reduced, and that is one of the reasons why the Irish Councils Bill was brought in.
  Now we find that all that is changed, and not only are we to have a new Department and two permanent officials paid high salaries, but they and others are to be entitled to pensions. I suppose by this time we have ceased to look for anything like consistency on the part of the Government, and I do not wonder that they should be prepared to make this particular change because appointments, particularly when they have good salaries attached to them, are no doubt desirable things to have, and when the appointment rests in the hands of those who are creating the Department, they very probably look altogether differently upon the addition to the public charges from the view they take when they are in a different position. The arguments of the Chief Secretary are fallacious and misleading. I think all the conditions which appertain to the Civil Service ought to apply to any new officials who are being appointed here. I am not quite clear whether they are subject to any exceptions. If they are I suggest that the Chief Secretary ought, in the interests of good government, to make these new permanent officials subject to all those conditions which now apply to Civil servants. Give them pensions1 by all means, but only in respect of the service which they have given to the Crown. Civil servants can only obtain a pension, unless there is some special exception, if they have served a certain number of years, irrespective of the age at which they were appointed. No case has been made out why these permanent officials should be treated more generously than anyone else, unless it be that they have held offices hitherto which are not pensionable in which they have rendered service to the State, and therefore there may be a case for doing for them what has, I know, been done for other public servants, making special conditions applicable only to them for the moment. That is a matter for the Government to decide.
  Mr. DILLON: The Congested Districts Board has a great many bitter enemies, and I do not know why, unless it is the fact that it is the only Board in Ireland, which is independent of Castle control. The accounts of the Board have always been subject to as strict an audit as those of any body in this country or Ireland from the first year of its existence down to the present time. The accounts have been audited by a public auditor, and every sixpence of expenditure has been known to the public every year. Therefore, the charge made against the Board that there has been no control over, or publicity given to, the expenditure is absolutely without justification. I fully recognise that there was nothing in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Long) which was not fair to the Board. There is not a single Chief Secretary who has worked in Ireland since the Board was founded, about 19 years ago, who will not bear testimony to the good work which the Board has done. I have never heard any Chief Secretary do otherwise than praise the Board. I was glad that the Chief Secretary mentioned the names of the two officials, Mr. Micks and Mr. Doran, he intended to appoint. I take considerable responsibility on myself when I venture to say that these names will give absolute satisfaction in Ireland. I do not know two better officials in Ireland, and I think I am justified in assuring the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin that it was never contemplated in this Amendment to give them any special treatment. I am perfectly certain that the Treasury has not the least notion of consenting to any special treatment. These two officials have long been known in the public service of Ireland. They have been in the public service 25 or 30 years, and they are men—it is rather a rare thing to be able to say—against whom I have never heard any complaint from any quarter. They have been undoubtedly distinguished by their zeal and hard work. I feel all the more strongly on the point since I heard the names of the officials. The 65 Rule is the general rule of the Civil Service, and was introduced largely for reasons which do not apply to the Congested Districts Board. The Board, quite apart from its functions and relations to the State, differs considerably from other branches of the Civil Service, and none of the ordinary considerations apply. County court judges sometimes sit up to 70, 75, and even 80 years of age. I would like to

  2265
  see some limit of age applied to judges and county court officials, but I would not like to apply the 65 Rule. I think it would be a great waste of public money. But what I desire to impress on the Committee is that is an independent Board, to which totally different considerations apply as compared with the ordinary Civil Service, and I trust that the Chief Secretary will adhere to his decision not to apply the 65 Rule, but will leave the matter over for further consideration. On the question of salaries the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin mentioned that complaints have frequently been made as to the number of officials in Ireland and their salaries. Complaints have been, and shall be made again, on this point, because more than half of those officials are irresponsible or mischievous officials who are paid large salaries for doing no good or doing harm to the people of Ireland; but there is never any criticism on the subject of salaries from above the Gangway until we come to some official from whom the people have experienced some kindness. When there is a proposal to appoint some officials to discharge one of the most difficult, responsible, and delicate tasks ever cast on officials in Ireland, immediately hon. Members above the Gangway are very much shocked at the size of the salaries proposed. I do not share that view. The Congested Districts Board is to have the disposal of large sums of money; it is to have enormous responsibility cast upon it. I do not know any officials in Ireland, including even the Estates Commissioners and the Land Commissioners, who will have more heavy duties cast on them than are being placed on these officials; and whether we consider the character of these gentlemen or the responsible nature of their duties, I, for one, do not consider their salaries excessive.
  Mr. MOOREmoved, in the proposed Amendment, after the word "State,"["service of the State"] to insert the words "and all Civil Service rules as to retirement for age shall apply."
  After the most conciliatory speech to which we have just listened, it is perfectly obvious that I must ask my Friends to support my Amendment in the Division Lobby. I cannot forget that this is the first allotted day for Report, and the Chief Secretary is naturally anxious to get into the Report stage, so I wish to move this Amendment at once, because one can never tell in present circumstances
  2266
  when the Chief Secretary will abandon some of these proposals, and I should be sorry that that should happen before my Amendment was put to the Committee.
  Mr. BIRRELL: For reasons which I have already foreshadowed, I am unable to accept this Amendment. I do not think that the Congested Districts Board is on the same footing, or is to be guided by the same rules as the Education Board, or the Local Government Board, or the Board of Trade. It was called into existence for a particular purpose, and its operations are necessarily governed by time. It is not for a moment supposed that its work will go on for ever, although I daresay it will be prolonged for a considerable time. The purpose is not so much to get rid of men at the age of 65 as to secure flow of promotion, and to give hope and heart to younger men, and we still adhere to that rational view. Of course, some men vary. Some men are played-out at 65, some men are just beginning at the age of 65, and some men only discover their intellectual attainments at 40. But I ask the Committee to confine their attention to the Congested Districts Board, to consider its limitations of time, the character of its work, and also the nature of the staff that it employs. It is not of the same kind and constitution as a permanent Board. Therefore, I think it would be most undesirable to apply to the paid members any such rule as that applying to 65 years of age. If you happen to get two men knowing all the complications, knowing undoubtedly all the fibres of this- most difficult problem, to get rid of them by any severe and arbitrary rule of age would, I think, be injuring and not benefiting the vivacity of this Board. I, therefore, am strongly of opinion that it would be most disastrous in this case to apply the ordinary rule. But when you come to the question of the Congested Districts Board, with its funds, which though large on paper are really very small, even with the new funds which it is proposed to confer upon it by this Bill, to suppose, having regard to the duties of that Board, that those funds will be squandered on pensions, is outrageous. But even if the Board did desire to do so, they would require the approval of the Treasury, a Department which holds severe and traditional views on the question of pensions. I do not think there is the least likelihood, first of all even if the Beard wished it, of its wishing lavishly to bestow its funds upon retiring officers, and

  2267
  I am perfectly certain, in the second place, that they would not obtain the consent of the Treasury. I am unable, therefore, to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I must certainly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division, and I am astonished at the inability and unwillingness of the Chief Secretary to accept it. He has told us nothing, and there is nothing to show there is any distinction between the officials of the Congested Districts Board and those of any other great Department. They require the same characteristics, knowledge, experience, and probity as those in any other Department. Let me remind him you have got in the provisions of the Civil Service all the power you require if it is necessary to retain the service of any of them. Under the Civil Service Regulations the Minister in charge has only got to make a representation to the Treasury that the retention of the Civil servant is essential in the public interests and he can be retained considerably over the age of 65. What is the evil to which you are exposed if no Regulation of the kind exists? The Civil servant can go on not only to 65, but to 70 or 75. The Minister at the head of the Department is then placed in an extremely difficult and disagreeable position. As the Chief Secretary said, men vary. Some men are good at 65, and some worn out at 60, but the man who is worn out may take a different view of his own capacity from those who become acquainted with his work. Unless you have a rule there is no means of getting rid of a Civil servant who has no fault except that he is worn out. I am certain those who are experienced in the Civil Service will confirm me when I say that one of the reasons which has made this change in the Civil Service of the utmost value was that, without any reflection being cast on the individual or without a Minister having to exercise any invidious powers, when the time came in the natural course the man has to retire. He retires regretfully.
  We all know Civil servants who were as full of energy at 65 as many younger men are. What is also true is that there have been many cases of men warmly attached to their work and very reluctant to leave it, and where the giving up of their employment and falling back upon the pension has meant, I will not say privation, but at all events a change which has involved a very great difference for
  2268
  the man and his family. The most piteous appeals are sometimes made to continue the occupation a little longer. Now that becomes impossible when you have a strong rule. I say this in no opposition to the Government, and in no spirit of opposition to those who are about to be appointed. I do not suggest for a moment that the Congested Districts Board will exercise their duties improperly; I do not think it, and I do not suggest pensions will be wrongly granted, but I do hold no reason has been given why these Civil servants should be treated differently from other Civil servants of the Crown. I feel it is desirable in the best interests of the public service that there should be this limitation of age, knowing as I do that when Ministers desire to retain the service of officials they have the power to do so. I cannot admit there is any justification for a departure, which I regard as a serious one, from long-established practice, and the value of which has hitherto been accepted by both sides of the House.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: As these two gentlemen have been mentioned for the first time, it is right to say that Mr. Micks has the reputation of being an honest official; of the other gentleman I know nothing. But what are their present salaries? It is all very fine to say that £2,000 a year is only a moderate salary. The point is that this money is being taken out of a fund, moderate in character, which ought to be expended upon the poor. This is a poor man's fund, and a poor man's fund should not have rich men's salaries attached to it. Moreover, you are launching a new-Board, which for the first time has a popular element upon it, and instead of allowing it to fix the salaries, pensions, and other details connected with its officials, Parliament is tying its hands in advance by saying that these salaries must be paid. I am not at all suggesting that a gentleman like Mr. Micks in another sphere would not be fully entitled to a salary such as that proposed. But I cannot see what the difficulties of the administration of the Congested Districts Board are. There is no attack on the Board. My proposal is that it should have extra power. The proposal of those who want to fix the salaries and pensions is that it should be tied up. County court judges have been referred to. I think it would be good for the country if the 65 Rule applied to them. But their salaries range from

  2269
  £1,200 to £1,500, and the salaries of professors and heads of colleges are not half the amount here proposed. I think we ought to know what are the present salaries of these two gentlemen.
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no mystery about the matter. Mr. Doran's present salary is £1,500; Mr. Micks' is £1,200, and

  Division No. 670.]

  AYES.

  [11.15 P.m.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Moore, William

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gordon, J.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D,

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clark, George Smith

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Clive, Percy Archer J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Watt, Henry A.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Keswick, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Valentia

  NOES.

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

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lambert, George

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Ambrose, Robert

  Falconer, James

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lundon, T.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lupton, Arnold

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Field, William

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Barker, Sir John

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, 8.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gilhooly, James

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Bell, Richard

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Kean, John

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Boland, John

  Glover, Thomas

  Massie, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Meagher, Michael

  Bramsdon, Sir T. A.

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gulland, John W.

  Middlebrook, William

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harwood, George

  Muldoon, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murnaghan, George

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

  Clough, William

  Hogan, Michael

  Nolan, Joseph

  Clynes, J. R.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Keating, M.

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Kelley, George D.

  O'Dowd, John

  Delany, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Dillon, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Malley, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  in about 18 months' time he would be entitled to a pension of £800 a year.
  Question put, "That the words 'and all Civil Service rules as to retirement for age shall apply' be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 190.

  O'Shee, James John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Partington, Oswald

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Seely, Colonel

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Shackleton, David James

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Philips, John (Longtord, S.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

  Pointer, J.

  Sheehy, David

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wiles, Thomas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

  Reddy, M.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Young, Samuel

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Summerbell, T.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

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

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments.
  Bill, as amended in Committee and on re-committal, considered.
  [Mr. SPEAKER in the chair.]

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment and Withdrawal of Proposals of the Estates Commissioners.)
  (1) Where the Estates Commissioners have, otherwise than at the instance of the owner, made a proposal for the purchase of an Estate or untenanted land, and the owner objects to the proposal on the ground that adjoining lands belonging to him have not been included in the proposal, if the Estates Commissioners refuse to withdraw the proposal or to amend the same by including therein such adjoining lands the owner may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, apply to the Judicial Commissioner for an order that no further proceedings be taken upon the proposal.
  (2) Upon any such application the Judicial Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the said adjoining lands would be substantially depreciated in value by the purchase of the estate or untenanted land as proposed, order that no further proceedings be taken for the purchase of the estate or untenanted land upon the proposal unless within a time to be named in the order the Estates Commissioners amend the proposal so as to include the said adjoining lands or such portion or portions thereof as, in the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner, ought properly to be included.—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Mr. BIRRELL: This new Clause has been framed to meet the point raised during the Committee stage of the Bill, namely, that the Estates Commissioners
  2272
  might make proposals for such portions of an estate as were best suited for their purpose without any regard to the effect their selection might have on the portion of the estate that was left. It was agreed that this danger should be guarded against by a provision to prevent the Estates Commissioners selecting portions of an estate without any regard for the part of the estate that is left; that is, to prevent them, if I may use the expression, "picking the eyes out of it." With this object this new Clause which I now move has been framed. The machinery provided in this Clause puts it within the power of the landlord, whose land or part of whose land the Commissioners are desirous of acquiring, to apply to the Judicial Commissioner to decide as to whether the Estates Commissioners should be required to amend their original proposal by including the whole of the adjoining land or such portion as the Judicial Commissioner thinks ought to be taken. The same applies also to the Congested Districts Board who are by this Bill invested with the same right of acquiring land in this manner. This Clause, I hope, will be found to meet the points raised during the Committee stage.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. MOORE: I do not deny that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has tried to meet some of the objections raised during the Committee stage on this question of severance. I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter he will not consider the criticisms I am about to make unreasonable. Supposing a man has an estate in his own hands, and the Estates Commissioners propose under their compulsory powers to acquire two-thirds of it, the unwilling vendor comes to the Judicial Commissioner and says, "By taking that two-thirds you are injuring the one-third that remains." What is the remedy which

  2273
  this Clause gives? The landlord knows that he is only going to get a small sum for this two-thirds, and he is left with the one-third on his hands. His only remedy is that he can apply to the Judicial Commissioner to have the remaining one-third taken over at the same price. But the price to be given by the Estates Commissioners is not the market price. Consequently you are taking compulsorily two-thirds of this man's land under the market price, and the only remedy this Clause gives is really to increase the wrong by taking the remaining one-third under the market price. I think it would be much more reasonable that the Judicial Commissioner should say, "I am not going to increase the hardship by forcing you to sell the remaining third at lower than the market price. I will myself assess the damage the severance creates, and leave you the option of keeping the third and the money for the damage the severance does, or of giving the third up as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman." I do say you should give that option, otherwise you are leaving the hardship still unredressed. I hope the Chief Secretary will further consider the matter.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: There is nothing in the Bill, as it is framed, to prevent the Estates Commissioners acquiring land from a tenant purchaser who has already bought his land. There are cases of men holding their land in fee and working it as ordinary farmers. I think it would be very hard if any part was acquired from them compulsorily. When this matter was under consideration I understood the undertaking of the Chief Secretary applied to those cases as well as to the cases in the Amendment. I would ask why one undertaking is carried out, and why the right hon. Gentleman has not. covered those other cases?
  Mr. CHERRY: I think the question the hon. and learned Member has referred to rose quite separately. We are dealing by this Clause with the subject of untenanted land, and on the definition of untenanted land the question arose as to whether land which had been acquired by a tenant under the Land Purchase Act—
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: This is untenanted land.
  Mr. CHERRY: We provide for that matter of untenanted land when we come to the Definition Clause.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: There is no Amendment on the Paper.
  Mr. CHERRY: There is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the definition of untenanted land: "Land in the occupation of a person holding under a fee farm grant or a lease for lives renewable for ever, or a lease for a term of years of which not less than sixty are unexpired, shall, for the purposes of the Act of 1903, the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, and this Act, be deemed to be untenanted land."
  I think it was agreed at that time that land in the possession of a person under the Land Purchase Act, so long as the annuity was paid, should not be taken. If the annuity had been paid off it might possibly have come under this Clause. But still that point hardly arises, as the Clause deals with an entirely different matter— it deals with the right of the landlord, a portion of whose land is to be taken to insist on the whole being taken. Take the case of a landlord to whom the Estates Commissioners say, "We wish to buy certain farms, but certain other farms we do not intend to buy." Under this proposal the landlord is to have the right to say, "If you take a portion of my land you must take the whole. If you do not want to do that then you must withdraw your application."
  Mr. MOORE: But suppose he wants to keep a quarter of the estate for himself? You have made no provision for that. Are you going to compel him to sell that which he does not want to sell?
  Mr. CHERRY: That question does not arise at all. That is a matter of compulsory purchase. If we are seeking to take only that portion of the land which the landlord is willing to sell, the question cannot arise. The point of the Clause is not the question of compensation, but rather that of unreasonableness The point discussed was: Was it a fair thing to take a portion of a man's land and leave him the rest? When this was debated the question of injury was not dealt with. I speak from recollection. The question was raised by the junior Member for the University of Dublin, whose objection was that it would be an unreasonable thing for the Estates Commissioners, to take only a portion of the land and leave on the landlord's hands the bad part of the estate and inferior tenants. But if a landlord wished to keep his own demesne, the point did not arise, for that was excluded from the compulsory powers. The Commissioners were not to be allowed, under the Act, to com-

  2275
  pulsorily acquire demesne lands. What injury could be done to the demesne land by taking the tenanted lands? It is possible some injury might be done in the case of tenanted land if some were taken and others left. Assume the case of a tract of 200 acres of land, at one end of which was a good water supply for the cattle. If the Estates Commissioners were so unreasonable as to take one hundred acres with the water supply and to leave the other moiety without water the latter would certainly be injured. Under our proposal the landlord will have his remedy. He will be able to go to the Commissioners and say: "It is unfair to leave me the 100 acres without water, for they will now be valueless. You must, therefore, take the whole 200 acres or none at all." I am sure the Commissioners would fall in with his view. We were not then dealing with the question of compensation. It was, so far as I remember, not even raised or suggested; the only question was the unfairness of taking part and leaving part, and that we have dealt with in the Clause before the House.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I think I was present throughout the whole of the Debate, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the point was not limited to the minor question to which he has alluded. But I will take his own illustration as proving the case of my hon. Friend behind me. The right hon. Gentleman puts the illustration of the Commissioners taking out of an estate of 200 acres the 100 acres which contain the water supply, but, if the other portion contains the residence of the owner, which he does not want to sell, they have rendered it valueless to him because the other 100 acres are taken. You do not meet that case by compelling the Estates Commissioners to buy the 200 acres. Nobody can contend that justice is met if you set up compulsory powers to enable the Commissioners to take the whole of the estate. I was present during the whole of the Debate, and probably have had as much experience as anybody in the House in Debates upon compulsory powers, because during the last 20 years various kinds of compulsory powers have been placed upon the Statute Book under different Acts of Parliament. It is extremely difficult to avert a right to compensation when you have once given compulsory powers. I have always contended myself—I do not
  2276
  pretend to understand the law of the question—I have always contended that there was only one just principle if a. central or local body are empowered to use compulsion in order to take a man's property which he does not want to part with, and that is to pay him a fair market-price for what you take and also to pay him for any damage you do. My hon. Friend suggests that there should be a reasonable and fair method by which compensation should be given for the damage that you do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman replies to that by saying we have got an Amendment under which we compel them to take all the land, but if a man does not want to part with it that would not meet the case. I do appeal to the Government on this point.
  Hon. Members below the gangway, honestly say, not always here but always in Ireland, that they want to drive the landlords and landowners out of Ireland. They want to get rid altogether of those who have been owning large portions of Ireland. Is that what the Government want? Because that is what they are doing by this proposal. If you will not compensate the landowner for the damage that is done, the only remedy you give him is to compel him to sell the whole. I say without fear of contradiction that there is no precedent in any of the compulsory powers on our Statute Book for this, although we have all kinds of compulsory powers varying in many ways. There is no precedent for this kind of policy, where the owner does not want to sell and you force him to sell pro bono publico, where you damage his property by taking a portion, and you compel him to sell the whole. I appeal to the Government to reconsider their position, although I admit that the circumstances are different now, and that different circumstances require different treatment. I entreat the Government not to take this-step from which there is no going back. The decision they arrive at here is irrevocable. In the other place no alteration can be made in this part of the Bill. So far as this House is concerned you are arriving at a very serious decision. I appeal to the Government not to place on the Statute Book laws in regard to the compulsory acquisition of land which would be in themselves so monstrously unjust that I believe you will create a reaction altogether in regard to these compulsory powers, and people will begin to feel that we have gone too far, and have acted without due consideration.

  2277
  This is in itself a very grave injustice. I believe it will effect very grave injury to the agriculture of Ireland, and I appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The point taken by the right hon. Gentleman was quite new to me. It cannot ever have been very clearly stated, because if it had been I should at once have raised the point where is the fund to come from out of which the man is to be compensated for the land he does not sell. I cannot answer that question, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of land purchase in Ireland. I thought all I said was that I was quite prepared on the Report stage to put down an Amendment to secure that the Estates Commissioners should not arbitrarily take the best portions of an estate contrary to the wishes of the owners. I agree there is no wrong in the Commissioners wishing to get the best land, but it is only reasonable that the owner should intimate to the Estates Commissioners that they are taking the best part and leaving a part of small pecuniary value. That is all that was in my mind, though I daresay hon. Gentlemen opposite had other points in their mind. I am sure they cannot have particularly called my attention to it, because I should at once have seen, even recognising some force in their observations that having regard to the fact that I have no fund at my disposal, that there was great difficulty in the way of meeting the point.
  But I do not think substantially there is any particular grievance in this matter. We leave out houses, demesne lands, and all the amenity of park or garden surrounding a man's house, because these cannot be taken under the compulsory Clauses at all. The Estates Commissioners say, "We want so much of your land," and the man says, "That is not fair, because it depreciates the value of what is left; but none the less, I would like you to take what yen want and leave me the depreciated part on condition that you make up somehow or other the value of that depreciated part." That is what we say we do. We say, "We recognise the force of your objection. We will take the whole of the part that you wish us to take." Then the right hon. Gentleman says we are going to cheat the owner in some peculiar way, because we are not going to pay him the value. But under compulsory purchase the value has to be fixed by a tribunal which did not call for any criticism
  2278
  at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Estates Commissioners have always this very delicate operation in their mind. They are appealing to Caesar, and Caesar determines what they have to give for the land, and it may very well be that Caesar's determination will be more than what the tenants will be prepared to give, and consequently they have to walk very warily in this matter. They cannot go about planting their eyes on any part of the country which they choose and say, "We will have this" or "We will have that," because all their operations are carried on having regard to the fact that they have to re-sell the land to tenants, and the price they have to pay for it is fixed by an independent tribunal, over which they have no control. However disagreeable it may be to have to part with any part of your estate compulsorily, when it has got to be done it is rather a point of refinement to say, "I agree you are taking the best part of my estate, but I am quite willing to keep what is left provided you give me a lump sum for the depreciation in value." That I am not in a position to do. I am not going to consent to any such proposal, because I have not the means to carry it out. I feel that the justice of the case is met. This does not apply to a man's house; it only applies to agricultural or pastoral land. It is only proposed to take so much as in the opinion of the judge represents fair dealing, and to pay the price which he puts upon it as just.
  Mr. GORDON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the difficulties raised by my right hon. Friend. He must know that when lands are being taken there are two elements which are taken into account. One is the value of the land to be taken, and the other is the consequential damage which results from the taking of the land. We have got both of these elements here. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to treat fairly the man from whom we take these lands. In the exceptions there is included land used as a home farm. The Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary know that the phrase "home farm" has a very technical and well-known meaning in the courts in Ireland. A man who has a home farm may be working another portion of land with the home farm, which may be the smaller of the two. He has the farm buildings and everything arranged for the working of the entire area. If you take away a part of the land outside the home

  2279
  farm and give no compensation for the loss and damage he sustains by reason of giving him a smaller area to work upon, you do not treat him fairly. I cannot think the right hon. Gentleman means that to be the effect of the Clause. I think the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the owner is to get compensation for what is taken from him. Must you not take, therefore, not alone the value of the land as a separate entity, but the value of the land as part of the unit he uses for some beneficial purpose for himself. I do not think it is any answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say: "We have no funds." If you have no funds, you must either get funds or not take the land.
  Mr. BIRRELL: What I said was that we have no funds except to take the land.
  Mr. GORDON: My point is that you should pay not only for the land you take, but also compensation in respect of the loss consequent upon the taking of the land. If you take the land from the man and thereby cause him loss you are doing him an injustice if you do not compensate him in some way. I know cases in which it would be a terrible injury to the man to have the land taken, and the courts would not allow it to be taken because it would have injured the working of his lands. If there was with this Bill the provision in the Evicted Tenants Act it would to a large extent help to get rid of the objection. The right hon. Gentleman promised that he would take care that the injustice should not occur of the Best piece of a man's land being taken. Are not you getting rid of only a part of the injustice if you leave what remains of less value than it would be if worked in connection with the part you are taking? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot offer compensation for the loss he ought in some way or other prevent cases of this kind arising.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am afraid that the Amendment is entirely new to Irish legislation and to the Act of 1903. It applies to untenanted land, that is land of which the landlord has dodged the land laws, and while nominally untenanted he lets it to tenants from year to year, but he lets it on such terms as make it impossible for the tenants to get the benefit of the land laws. That is what I always understood as untenanted land. I understood also that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to meet the
  2280
  case of land in the hands of a bonâ fide farmer who owns the land and lives by their land, but who, though he owns the land, was not to be dealt with as if he was a person letting land to a tenant under a bogus tenure. These cases were raised at the time, and the learned Attorney-General said that that was dealt with in another Clause. I have read the Clause, and so far as I can see, instead of meeting the evil, it tends in the opposite direction. Instead of being a restriction, it is an enlargement. The right hon. Gentleman says you cannot deal with the case of tenancies subject to the Land Act because of the annuity. We cannot forget that there has been a recommendation by important people that no man should own more than £100 in valuation of land.
  These tenants are farmers, at all events, and is the money of the State to be spent on evicting one set of tenants in order to give the holdings to another set of tenants? The Attorney-General for Ireland said that no tenant who has already bought under other Acts can now be expropriated where there is an annuity running. That is in Field and Butler. But what about the man who owns a small portion of land and makes his living out of it? Is that man to be turned out on to the road under this system? The man in that position has not at all the protection which this Section gives to the ordinary landlord. The ordinary landlord is guarded by a cocoon of protection, but the man who has been in the position nominally of owner is in reality a working farmer, because he knows that his land may be taken from him. The difference between one farmer and another does not appeal to me. I cannot see why a man possessing 50 acres of land should have different legislation from the man possessing 49 acres. I do not share the apprehensions of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway about the working of this Clause, though I think the right, hon. Gentleman has not met the case of the working farmer and the application of the Compulsory Clause.
  Mr. DILLON: What happened in relation to the present Clause was this: A certain difficulty was indicated in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Campbell), and I interrupted him, stating that we on these Benches would offer no objection to having that grievance guarded against. The only grievance stated by the hon. and learned Member for Trinity College was that the Estates Commissioners would,

  2281
  under the Compulsory Clause, come down and select a certain portion of the estate of the landlord, the best portion, and leave, against his will, the worst part of it. That was the only grievance, and the Chief Secretary, in this Clause, has completely and entirely met that grievance. That is the case in the present instance. I listened to the whole Debate, and now you make this demand, an absolutely impossible demand, to start a wholly new system and to establish a compensation fund which was never heard of before, Find was never mentioned in the Committee stage. This Clause is perfectly simple. The question of the definition of untenanted land arises on a subsequent Clause, and is an entirely separate question. It seems to me this present Clause has entirely met the grievance which was brought up in the Committee stage, but the present demand is something absolutely new, and a new policy adopted that whenever the Government make a concession they are only to be met by having a totally different demand made.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I cannot accept the version of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as to what has taken place. I think I can explain the misapprehension into which he has fallen. We are debating this Bill under very difficult conditions. Certain measures proposed, such as compulsion, never come directly before us, and on occasion as they arise we endeavour to point out that certain parts of the Bill we are not discussing will give rise to certain difficulties. That is what happened in the Committee stage. An illustration was given that under certain parts of the Bill we are not now discussing it will be possible to buy the best parts of the estate and leave the owner with the remainder. That was an illustration. I readily assert in the fullest possible way that the Chief Secretary has done his best to meet that point. That being done, it does not lie with the hon. Member for East Mayo to say that we are asking something new. Hitherto this Clause has been looked at from the point of view of the landlord, but it must also be regarded from the point of view of making a good job of the object which this Government has no doubt at heart as much as we had, of carrying out land purchase in Ireland, and of dealing with those parts of Ireland where it is difficult to carry out land purchase, because congestion occurs in an acute form. I do not think that this Amendment, brought in to meet one
  2282
  point raised in the illustration, covers that at all. I, personally, do not believe you can proceed with any hope of success on the lines the Government is following, and that has been confirmed by the speech of the Chief Secretary when dealing with this point, urged only by way of illustration, when he said the Estates Commissioners have got to buy what they can with the view of proceeding. They are not to buy land which is necessary to cause congestion, but to go into the market here and there under stress of circumstances. On that plan you never will deal with the problem of congestion or make a good job of land purchase in Ireland. The only possible plan is that they should take the whole of the spot they require, that they should act through their officers under the guidance of a Minister responsible to the House within certain definitions. It should be open to the man who owns the land and to the man who occupies it to say "Why do you come to me. You can cure this without taking this land," or to say "If you do take it you cannot cure it." He should have a locus standi, and there should be an appeal then only on price. If you worked on these lines I believe you would really be addressing yourselves to the problem of curing congestion; but that is not what is being done. What you are saying is: "We will give certain officials the power of compulsorily buying any land they like, irrespective of the rights of the landlord, the farmer, or the congest." You will not cure the evil of congestion in that way. This Clause, although well meant to meet one disability, does not really bring us any nearer a solution of the difficulties the Government want to solve. I despair almost of keeping in order, and certainly of contributing anything of value to such a Debate, conducted, as it is, under a Closure Resolution.
  Clause read a second time.
  Mr. MOOREmoved after the word "have" ["Where the Estates Commissioners have"] to insert the words "at the instance of a person interested."
  This Amendment raises a somewhat important point of policy. One of the objections which we had to the whole inception of these compulsory powers was that, apparently, they could be started by anybody. Under Clause 41 the rankest outsider can write to a man, saying: "I want to buy your

  2283
  untenanted land," and the moment the owners decline to sell the Estates Commissioners have power to come in. That point has never been met. The Amendment will at least prevent undue outside interference, whether on the part of the local branch of the League or of anybody else who happens to covet any part of "Naboth's Vineyard." It is reasonable that only persons interested in the acquisition of the land should be allowed to set the Estates Commissioners in motion. If it is once brought home to the people that only persons directly interested in the sale of an estate, or who have some existing claim on the land, can set the Estates Commissioners in motion, it will make very much for the peace of the district, and it will be only common justice to the men it is sought to despoil under the compulsory Clauses of the Bill.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Who would be "interested"?
  Mr. LONSDALE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has fully appreciated the effect of the Amendment, because under Clause 40 the Estates Commissioners have power of themselves to originate proposals for purchase. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried, the benefit conferred by this new Clause would not arise in the very important case where the Estates Commissioners had of themselves made proposals. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press the Amendment, which is open to some objection on the ground of vagueness.
  Mr. MOORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will state why these words were put in at all if they are not necessary under Clause 40? If they were not in at all there would be no difficulty.
  Mr. CHERRY: They are to exclude cases under Section 6 of the original Act of 1903. Under this Act, for the first time, the Estates Commissioners are given power to consider a proposal without any communication from the owner at all. In that case difficulty may arise.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The words, accepting the interpretation of the Chief Secretary, are unnecessary. Supposing you leave them out?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am inclined to accept that suggestion, but that is not the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: To leave out the words "otherwise than at the instance of the owner" ["Where the Estates Commissioners have, otherwise than at the instance of the owner, made a proposal for the purchase of an estate "].—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Resolved, "That further consideration of the proposed Clause, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Mr. Birrell.]
  Proposed Clause, as amended on consideration of the Bill (as amended in the Committee), and on recommittal, to be further considered to-morrow (Thursday).

POLICE BILL.
Order for second reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Gladstone): The intention of Clauses 4 and 5 is plain. Provision is made in Clause 1 for a further contribution of public money towards the expenses of the Metropolitan Police. The finances of the Metropolitan Police have now come to a position that requires adjustment. There is a large and a growing deficiency in the pension fund which has hitherto been defrayed out of the police fund. That fund is now insufficient to make good this deficiency, and we have therefore to provide for that, and in addition we have to provide for the very serious expenses entailed by the one day's rest in seven. I should have been very glad if we could mention in the Bill the sum which we think ought to be contributed by the Government, but it is a matter of great difficulty. My advisers and I have made up our minds as regards the amount which we think the State ought to contribute, in addition to the subvention already made. That amount is now under the consideration of the Treasury, and it is being examined, and a conclusion will soon be reached, but I regret we have not yet been able to agree upon the figure.
The next point is Clause 2, and that deals with a matter of considerable intricacy. The House probably knows that the charge for the Metropolitan Police is defrayed by a charge on the Metropolitan parishes and the Exchequer accounts of the counties concerned in the proportion of

2285
5 to 4, and the total amount has been fixed by statute at an equivalent of a 9d. rate. By the Police Act of 1890 the Pension Fund was constituted, and a separate account had to be kept. Section 19, Sub-section (4), gives power, in the event of a deficiency in the Pension Fund, to raise an additional rate for the purpose of making good that deficiency. We are advised by the Law Officers that the additional rate to make good that deficiency will also have to be paid out of the County and Exchequer accounts in the proportion of 4 to 5. That constitutes a hardship which the House will readily understand in the case of Hertford, Essex, Surrey, and Kent, because the Metropolitan area extends to only a small portion of these counties, and the charge will fall upon the Local Exchequer Account, "which, of course, is devoted to the general purposes of each particular county concerned. In addition to that it affects and disturbs the Exchequer Account of the London County Council, and, as a matter of fact, at the present time, the imposition of even a farthing rate, with its proportionate contribution from the Exchequer Fund, would convert a surplus into a deficit. Therefore the London County Council has made strong representations. I propose in this Bill to take power to make good this deficiency which has arisen in connection with the pension fund, and to make provision for the heavy charge entailed by the grant of one day's rest in seven by a rate imposed upon the Metropolitan parishes. That is really the object of Clause 2.
In Clause 3 we make provision to meet the great increase in the duties of the higher staff. Originally, by the Act of 1856, there was a Commissioner and two Assistant Commissioners. Subsequently in 1885 another Assistant Commissioner was added; but since the year 1885 the population has increased by 41 per cent., the number of inhabited houses by 57 per cent., rateable value 65 per cent., persons apprehended 40 per cent., and the strength of the force by 37 per cent. Extra duties are continually being thrown upon the police, and there has been an increasing strain caused by the speeding up of traffic, the introduction, of motor traction, motor omnibuses and taxicabs. The result is that the staff is overworked, and they cannot attend properly to the higher and more responsible police duties they ought to discharge. The House will remember that the late Commission recommended the appointment of
2286
an officer fully qualified by knowledge of legal proceedings to deal specially with complaints arising from disputes between the public and the police. Something like 1,000 cases a year arise of complaints by the public against the police, and we propose to appoint an additional Assistant Inspector, so that the recommendation of the Royal Commission may be carried out.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very interesting explanation he has given of this Bill. It is a measure which will give a great deal of satisfaction to everyone interested in the police force, and to every member of that force. The right hon. Gentleman has always shown the greatest sympathy with the police. I do not wish to discuss the Clauses seriatim. I only wish to say that I think the scope of this Bill is capable of some expansion, more particularly in relation to the financial clause on the Imperial side, because I am afraid it will throw an undue burden on the ratepayers. I hope in regard to the Clause dealing with pensions to the police the right hon. Gentleman will meet in a friendly spirit Amendments increasing the pensions of the dependents of those killed on duty, and that he will consent to substitute for the word "may" the word "shall" in regard to the contributions deducted from their pay. The appointment of another Commissioner will be welcomed by everybody. I believe hon. Members in every quarter of the House who take an interest in this subject will congratulate the right hon. Gentleman not only upon the general provisions of this Bill, but also upon the spirit in which he has moved the Second Reading.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).— [Mr. Joseph Pease.]

POLICE (EXPENSES).
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required for the payment of services rendered by the Metropolitan Police for Imperial and National purposes, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Metropolitan Police Acts, 1829 to 1899 (King's Recommendation signified), this day.—[Mr. Gladstone.]
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes before One a.m., Thursday, 16th September, 1909.

  Customs and Excise (Checking Allowances).
  Customs and Excise (Checking Allowances).
  Mrs. S. Hyde's Estate (Ballindangan, Cork).
  Mrs. S. Hyde's Estate (Ballindangan, Cork).
  Royal Dockyards (Danger-money).
  Royal Dockyards (Danger-money).
  Education Grant (Reductions).
  Education Grant (Reductions).
  Agricultural Produce (United Kingdom).
  Agricultural Produce (United Kingdom).
  Electoral Disfranchisement (Poor Law Relief).
  Electoral Disfranchisement (Poor Law Relief).
  Anti-Vaccination Declarations.
  Anti-Vaccination Declarations.
  Duke of York's School.
  Duke of York's School.
  Marble Arch (Gates).
  Marble Arch (Gates).
  Hyde Park (Motor Car Regulations).
  Hyde Park (Motor Car Regulations).
FINANCE BILL.
  DEATH DUTIES (TOTALS).
  DEATH DUTIES (TOTALS).
  MINERAL TAXES (BRICK CLAY).
  MINERAL TAXES (BRICK CLAY).
  REGISTERS OF SITE VALUE.
  REGISTERS OF SITE VALUE.
  Post Office Circular.
  Post Office Circular.
  Diseased Potatoes (Transmission by Post).
  Diseased Potatoes (Transmission by Post).
  Royal College of Surgeons (Admission of Women).
  Royal College of Surgeons (Admission of Women).
  Conviction of a Child (Malmesbury).
  Conviction of a Child (Malmesbury).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Hood be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Abinger; read, and agreed to.
HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, &. BILL.
Petition for amendment of Clause 44 of; of Leeds Building Societies; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE POOR LAW COMMISSION.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws. The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, I ought, I think, to apologise to the House for the long time during which my notice to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws has stood upon the Paper and the repeated postponements which have occurred with regard to its coming forward, but these have not been due to any carelessness on my part but to the peculiar circumstances of a somewhat abnormal session and to what I was led to understand would be the general convenience of the House. I am glad to bring the delay to an end now.
It may quite reasonably be asked why it is that no Motion is proposed by me, and that I merely desire to call attention to the subject. Frankly the reason is this, that, if I may judge from such information as reaches me, the House is hardly ready for such a Motion just yet. Somehow or other people have been deterred from making up their minds upon this matter—partly, perhaps, by the supposed difficulty of the subject, partly by the mass of material which has to be mastered, and partly, possibly, by the knowledge that, massive as the material already is which has been placed before Parliament and the country, we have not yet had nearly all of it. The very sight of the volumes in their less merciful form—for there is here a merciful condensed reprint—is enough to daunt the stoutest heart. There are sixteen volumes already circulated, the
1196
first of which has 1,258 folio pages, and there are thirty-five volumes to follow, making fifty-one in all. Happily, those that are to follow are not of the same proportion as the volume, in every sense weighty, which has taken the lead.
My object this afternoon is to call attention to the importance of this subject as a whole, to the nature of the juncture in English history at which we stand, and to the practical possibility of dealing with the question speedily or at once. If nothing is soon done or promised I shall be perfectly prepared at the proper moment to move that definite action be taken—action which, I am confident, would have far-reaching consequences for good. I am certain that there is grave danger in letting a matter like this alone until people are able perhaps to say that the information now so carefully collected is out of date, and that new conditions have arisen. Therefore, my Lords, real mischief may arise from any prolonged delay in our dealing with the question which has been thus imperatively brought to our attention.
May I first call your Lordships' attention to the occasion and the circumstances in which these mighty volumes see the light? It has happened in modern English history that at successive great occasions in the national life people have felt it to be necessary that there should be periodical reconsideration of our responsibility for, and our duty towards, the weakest and the poorest, some say the most troublesome, part of our community. That has happened at a number of successive junctures in modern times. Stock has been taken as to what were the then facts about the weakest and poorest of our people, and as to what needed doing for the common good. I will give examples of what I mean.
Nearly 400 years ago, when, the changes which came about at the Reformation— using that word in its largest sense—brought a resetting in our national life, including the dissolution of the monasteries, which had meant so much for good or evil to the poorest part of our population, the country was overrun with poverty-stricken folk, some of them sick and helpless, but a vast number of them merely thriftless and idle. There is a very marked difference between the way in which those cases were approached then and the way in which we try at all events to approach them

1197
now. There was then an abundant inculcation of charity, and no doubt it was acted upon to a certain degree, but the main idea which underlay legislation on the subject at that time was rather how to get rid of the burden of inconvenient or troublesome people than how to ameliorate their lot or to accept responsibility for their care.
Accordingly a great number of Statutes, which some of us would now consider rather as blundering efforts in a confused sea of difficulties than as a coherent and consecutive endeavour to follow a definite policy, succeeded one another rapidly. At least thirteen such far-reaching and drastic statutes, some of which try to take the whole subject in hand afresh, were placed on the Statute Book in the sixteenth century within the space of little more than fifty years. Let me give an example. In the first year of Edward VI a Statute was passed which begins by recalling the wildly-fierce enactments of the previous reign and then recites as follows—
"That partly by foolish pity and mercy of them which should have seen the said godly laws executed and partly from the perverse nature and long-accustomed idleness of the persons given to loitering, the said godly Statutes have had small effect, and idle and vagabond persons have been Suffered to remain and increase, and yet so do";
and, as a milder punishment, enacts that—
"An able-bodied poor person who does not apply himself to some honest labour, or offer to serve even for meat and drink, if nothing more is to be obtained, shall be taken for a vagabond, branded on the shoulder with the letter V, and adjudged a slave for two years to any person who shall demand him, to be fed on bread and water and refuse meat, and caused to work by beating, chaining, or otherwise. If he run away within that period, he is to be branded on the cheek with the letter S, and adjudged a slave for life; if he run away again, he is to suffer death as a felon. If no man demand such loiterer, he is to be sent to the place where he says he was born, there to be kept in chains or otherwise, at the highways or common work, or from man to man, as the slave of the corporation or inhabitants of the city, town, or village in which he was born, and the said city, town, or village shall see the said slave set to work, and not live idly, upon pain, for every three working days that the slave live idly by their default, that a city forfeit £5, a borough 40s., and a town or village 20s., half to the King and half to the informer."
That, my Lords, was the mode of treating the able-bodied pauper, as we should describe him now, in the sixteenth century.
For those who were in genuine need, from real sickness or old age, the giving
1198
of help was not only offered to them, but enforced somewhat decisively upon the donors. In a Statute of the fifth year of Queen Elizabeth's reign it is enacted that—
"If any person of his froward wilful mind shall obstinately refuse to give weekly to the relief of the poor according to his ability, the Bishop shall bind him to appear at the next sessions; and at the said sessions the justices there shall charitably and gently persuade and move the said obstinate person to extend his charity towards the relief of the poor of the parish where he dwelleth; and if he will not be persuaded, it shall be lawful for the justices, with the churchwardens, or one of them, to tax such obstinate person, according to their good discretion, what sum the said obstinate person shall pay weekly towards the relief of the poor within the parish wherein he shall dwell; and if he refuse, the justices shall, on complaint of the churchwardens, commit the said obstinate person to gaol, until he shall pay the sum so taxed, with the arrears."
That was the mode of dealing with the non-able-bodied pauper, enforcing his care upon those who ought to see to it. So much for that period. Rigour gradually became less, and through the reign of Elizabeth, to begin with, we see a growing sense of what the nation owed to itself. A sense of common humanity and collective responsibility was the immediate and the efficient cause of the institution of the Poor Laws as we know them now.
I turn from that to quite a different period—to the age of the French Revolution. The whole subject was considered afresh at that time, and not, as we should now say, considered and dealt with very wisely or usefully; but it is interesting to find Pitt and Fox and Burke all speaking upon the subject and practically uniting in the legislation which was the outcome of their prolonged debates. Acts were passed in the last decade of the eighteenth century which laid down, strangely as it seems to us, that the farmers must, whether they liked it or not, find work, or, at all events, wages, for those who were unemployed, and that the several parishes must see to their own sick folk. Some of your Lordships may remember the memorable speech of William Pitt in 1795, a speech which formed the basis on which the legislation of the following year was laid down.
Then forty years later came the great Reform Bill and the new start which followed from it. It was a Parliament bent, as its members thought, on mending what they regarded as being amiss, and so in 1832 a Royal Commission was appointed to

1199
deal with the whole subject, and in 1834 its memorable Report was presented. That Report was commended to the House by Lord Brougham, then Lord Chancellor, in a speech of what I must call almost savage eccentricity, as unlike as possible to the eloquence which delights the House as it comes from the Woolsack to-day. It was a speech of portentous length, of extraordinary strength and originality, but of quite amazing dogmatism. If any of your Lordships will read that speech and note the way in which the House and the country were dragooned as to what they ought to do and how they ought to do it, the contrast to which I have ventured to refer will be apparent. In the debates that followed a very prominent part was taken by the Bishops of London and Exeter, the former of whom had been Chairman of the Royal Commission, and in 1834 the law was enacted under which in a great measure our system of poor relief has been administered to this day.
At each juncture, at each change in our national life, this subject has come afresh to the front, and now, more than seventy years after the Reform Bill legislation, we have again to face the old problem under new conditions, and to deal with what are, on the whole, I think, reasonable demands on behalf of the poor; and we ask legitimately how far what was done seventy years ago holds good to-day or corresponds with contemporary needs and facts. It is possible that some thoughtful person, say, in 1837, when Queen Victoria came to the Throne, may have anticipated the kind of advance since seen in industrial and social legislation, in extension of comfort in living, in sanitary science, in expansion of national wealth, and in general education, and if anybody did so foresee what changes were going to come about we can hardly doubt that he would, as a necessary corollary to that, have looked for a huge decrease in pauperism or in the need for the old-fashioned Poor Laws. The Commissioners of 1834 themselves said that their Report was mainly negative, and that to moral and religious education rather than to anything else they looked for amelioration in the existing conditions. In their summing up they say—
"The measures which we have suggested are intended to produce rather negative than positive effects; rather to remove the debasing influences to which a large portion of the labouring population
1200
is now subject, than to afford new means of prosperity and virtue. We are perfectly aware that for the general diffusion of right principles and habits we are to look, not so much to any economic arrangements and regulations as to the influence of a moral and religious education."
To such an observer and thinker, were he still alive—and it is not impossible, for Lord Wemyss is still a member of this House, and he was then twenty years old, and there has been no more keen observer than he—to such an observer what would be the impression which present-day facts convey as to the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of the expectations then held out? Has there been a real decrease in pauperism, or in the need for legislative aid? Let me trouble your Lordships with a very few figures. Before 1871 the Poor Law statistics were compiled in a way that renders comparison with the facts of to-day almost impossible, but, taking the figures at that date and since then, the following would seem to be the facts. In the cycle of ten years to which 1871 belongs, the number of paupers, or persons relieved was, roughly, about 748,000 annually. In 1908 the corresponding number, again speaking roughly, was 772,000—an increase of 24,000. Of course, population has meanwhile increased by leaps and bounds, and when we compare the persons relieved with the population we find that, roughly, in 1871 there were thirty-one paupers per 1,000 of population, and in 1908 twenty-two per 1,000. That has the appearance of a change for the better, but our satisfaction is damped when it is remembered that in the first place to the twenty-two must be added a great number of people who are now relieved by public funds but not through the Poor Law. I refer to those who are helped by Industrial Schools, by rate-supported Infectious Hospitals, by the provisions of the Unemployed Workmen Act, the Law authorising rate-aid for child feeding, and in a great number of other ways. The whole subject of the treatment of lunatics has to be remembered in that connection, a large subject too complex for statistics. Then, too, voluntary charitable activity has increased tenfold during these seventy years, and ragged schools, waifs' and strays' associations, the Salvation Army, the Church Army, and countless other agencies all minister now to the relief of those who would in old days have had to rely upon the Poor Law. Adding all the people so relieved to the twenty-two

1201
per 1,000, the figures give little cause for satisfaction.
The Commissioners, in their Report this year, say—
"It is very unpleasant to record that, notwithstanding our assumed moral and material progress, and notwithstanding the enormous annual expenditure, amounting to nearly sixty millions a year, upon poor relief, education, and public health, we still have a vast army of persons quartered upon us unable to support themselves, and an army which in numbers has recently shown signs of increase rather than decrease. To what is the retrogression due? It cannot be attributed to lack of expenditure. Is this costly and elaborate machinery we have established defective, and if so where does it fail to accomplish its end? Is the material upon which this machinery operates becoming less amenable to the remedies applied?"
More than that, some of the legislation which has been carried through in quite recent years with the distinct object of ameliorating the lot and relieving the difficulties of the neediest has been somewhat two-edged in its effect. I quote again from the Commissioners' Report—
"It may be noted that the increase in male pauperism occurred chiefly during the cycle commencing in 1896. This period coincides approximately with the passing of two important measures of social reform. The Local Government Act of 1894 changed the character of the Poor Law authorities by the abolition of the property qualification for membership of boards of guardians and of the ex officio members whose influence had previously been considerable. And in 1896 the first of the series of Workmen's Compensation Acts was passed which, we are told by a large number of witnesses, has made it more and more difficult for a man to obtain work when thrown out in the later years of his working period of life. No statistics could be obtained to show to what extent these measures have contributed to the increase in the number of paupers."
Those are sentences which I am quite sure that it is well for us to take to heart when we are dealing with the subject on a large scale. All this is perplexing, depressing, and some of it may seem a little ominous; and it is well, therefore, to remember, that if we pass from statistics and endeavour to draw for ourselves a general popular picture as regards such undefined and non-tabulatable things as the prevalence of misery and neglect, or the reasonableness of our present-day modes of action, or the thoughtfulness of our modern methods of administration, beyond all question there is marked improvement all along the line.
I alluded a few moments ago to what seem to us now the strange, clumsy, ineffective, and even harmful enactments
1202
of the eighteenth century, making farmers and owners find work or wages for every loafer, and when one thinks of what must have been the demoralising effect of those provisions one wonders at the statesmanship, high and exalted as it was, that gave birth to such legislation. The Commissioners in their Report in 1834, after describing the doles with which wages were eked out, said—
"But it is more usual to give a rather larger weekly sum, and to force the applicants to give up a certain portion of their time by confining them in a gravel pit or in some other enclosure, or directing them to sit in a certain spot and do nothing, or obliging them to attend a roll-call several times in the day, or by any contrivance which shall prevent their leisure from becoming a means either of profit or of amusement."
That is a picture of a system still prevailing in the lifetime of many members of this House, and it is a curious revelation of what seems to us now at all events to have been the somewhat reckless or unreasonable manner in which legislation had tried to deal with the difficulties prevalent a hundred years ago.
Then, again, there was the "rounds-man" system as it was called, which the Commissioners in 1834 described thus—
"The parish contracts with some individual to have some work performed for him by the paupers at a given price, the parish paying the paupers. In many places the roundsman system is effected by means of an auction. Mr. Richardson states that in Sulgrave, Northamptonshire, the old and infirm are sold at the monthly meeting to the best bidder, at prices varying according to the time of the year from 1s. 6d. a week to 3s.; that at Yardley, Hastings, all the unemployed men are put up to sale weekly—
this, my Lords, was in 1834—
"and that the clergyman of the parish told him that he had seen ten men the last week knocked down to one of the farmers for 5s., and that there were at that time about seventy men let out in this manner out of a body of 170."
I think we may congratulate ourselves that those modes of meeting the difficulty are matters, not only of past history, but even of astonishment to people who cull them now from the records of what was happening seventy years ago. Again, take the kind of picture of Poor Law relief given in "Oliver Twist." The story was written, I think, in 1837 or thereabouts, and although no doubt over-coloured, it was based on a substantial foundation of what were then familiar facts. We have

1203
got rid of these things for ever; but none the less action upon our part now is, I am convinced, urgently called for. Some of the main recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission now before your Lordships are merely a repetition of what was recommended in 1834, and for one reason or another has not been carried out.
It was the unanimous sense of the need of a new departure which led five years ago to the appointment of the Royal Commission whose Report is now before the country. I doubt if there ever was a Commission more capable of doing the work assigned to it, more representative in its character and in the different kinds of knowledge desirable in Commissioners, or which did its work more thoroughly or was presided over by a wiser or more capable chairman. The Order of Reference to the Commission was in two different sentences. They were to inquire—
"(1) Into the working of the laws relating to the ief of poor persons in the United Kingdom;
"(2) Into the various means which have been adopted outside of the Poor Laws for meeting distress arising from want of employment, particularly during periods of severe industrial depression. And to consider and report whether any, and if so, what modification of the Poor Laws or changes in their administration or fresh legislation for dealing with distress are advisable."
I am confining myself in what I say to-day to the first of these two, for a reason which I will give in a moment. Immense pains have been taken by the Commission in the collection of its evidence. The only question that may occur to some of us is whether it is not too voluminous, so voluminous as to make it almost beyond the power of an ordinary man to master it with any thoroughness. I find some natural satisfaction in noting the warmth with which the Commissioners express their sense of the great help which they derived from the information, furnished to them through the Bishops, from every diocese in England as regards the unique experience which the parish clergy have of the way in which these difficulties are met both by the Poor Law and without it. They say—
"The reports [from the clergy] give us an interesting account of the condition of different parts of the country in respect to poverty. The reports also contain independent and valuable criticisms of the efficacy of the existing methods and agencies for relieving distress.… The reports of the parochial enquiries form a most valuable body of independent local evidence which may be used for the purpose—
1204
and it is a purpose for which they are urgently required—
"of correcting the point of view of those actually engaged in the local Poor Law administration."
The Commissioners, as I have already said, have presented a most weighty Report, or, rather, brace of Reports, to the public on these questions. It is difficult to imagine that such a Report, embodying with virtual unanimity recommendations so important, so definite, so practical, and so feasible, will not speedily be followed by action, and yet there are great obstacles standing across the path when we look forward to such action. There are three groups of objections offered to our going forward. There are those who say—Things are not so very bad; on the whole, we get on fairly well. We want to screw up administrative efficiency and to keep an eye on sleepy local authorities; but the principles on which they are told to act and ought to act are sound, and it would be a great pity to disturb them. That has found expression in more than one quarter. Then there are those who say—The subject is so vast and the people who are anxious for reform present it in such a far-reaching way that we are not prepared to face it. A third class say—The propounders of the new plan are all at sixes and sevens; their recommendations are contradictory one to the other; let us wait till their counsels are practically unanimous. Each of those objections is capable of very definite answer, and I will say a word or two about each.
As regards the first, there are abundant pages in the Report which show how very fallacious and misleading is any such statement. There is much to be thankful for in every part of England. It is impossible to over-estimate what the country owes to the body of men who as guardians or relieving officers are giving themselves night and day to the consideration of a most difficult subject, and one which involves often most thankless work. Their work is beyond all praise, and, whatever changes are brought about, it would be vital that we should retain the help of such men. On the other hand, there are grave defects apparent everywhere, and defects not easily remediable; I doubt if they are remediable at all under the present law. There is first the unmeaning and unjustifiable variety of policy and manner in which outdoor relief is dis-

1205
tributed. There are districts in London, in East London particularly, where by simply crossing the street you will find yourselves under a régime entirely different from that on the other side. The odd numbers in the street are under one set of regulations and the even numbers under regulations completely different; and it is practically impossible that both of these for an identical population can be at the same time right. The same may be found through the country generally. The Commissioners in the strongest terms comment on the lack of any reasonably coherent or uniform principle. What they say on the subject is worth reading—
"The results of our investigations into the history of out-relief, of our own observation in visiting boards of guardians in different parts of the country, and of the evidence given before us, may be summarised as follows:—We have found a total want of principle and of uniformity in its administration, due, as we think, in part at least, to a lack of sufficient supervision. This want of uniformity does not necessarily arise from a difference in the circumstances of unions, but is generally the result of careless administration. We have been impressed by the inadequacy which often characterises it particularly in the case of widows with families, and by the absence of thorough knowledge of applicants on the part of boards of guardians, and sometimes even of their officers. We have had to record cases in which it was distributed with a complete disregard of sound policy, and, though rarely, on grounds, so far as we could judge, inconsistent with any high standard of administrative honesty. We have found that in few cases is any care or thought given to the conditions under which those who receive it are living. We do not recommend its abolition—
that is, the abolition of out-door relief—
"partly because we hope that, if our proposals are adopted, the need for it will gradually disappear, and, in any case, its mischiefs will be reduced to a minimum, and partly because we feel that time is needed for the development of a curative system of treatment, and that the abolition of out-relief might cause hardship."
That is their report as to the negative difficulties, but there are other parts of the Report in which they point out the harm which is being done in many regions by the way in which, free from any control, out-relief is being administered so as actually to foster and encourage things that are in themselves evil. They say—
"The following are some of the instances in which we have found that out-relief is being applied to subsidise dirt, disease, and immorality. An old Irishwoman, moving feebly about a room crowded with dirty lumber and herself in the last stages of dirt and decrepitude. She gets 3s. relief, pays 2s. 3d. rent, and has no other income except when
1206
she can get lodgers. She had two mill girls with her, one with a child, but the child was taken away with typhoid last week, and now she has no one. The place is hopelessly dirty and insanitary and ought to be closed."
It was kept from being closed by the relief given in that way. Then—
"The worst case on the list was that of an old man aged sixty-five, living with prostitutes, who boarded and lodged him at 2s. 6d. a week. The committee granted this man (although he did not appear) 2s. 6d. a week, but he was warned he must move into a more respectable neighbourhood."
The Commissioners proceed—
"T., married, with three children, is partly paralysed, and seems mentally deficient. His wife is crippled by rheumatism. The guardians allow 6s. per week for man and wife, and 6s. for the children. The tenement consists of two rooms … and there are living in the house, in addition to the foregoing, Mrs. T.'s mother, one male lodger, about forty, and Mrs. T.'s sister with an illegitimate child. In these two rooms, it will be observed, there are five adults, three children, and one baby. I was told by the relieving officer that the guardians do not attach importance either to cleanliness, sanitation, decency, or the ordinary standards of morality. As a result of my own observation I am prepared to endorse the statement."
I mention these cases, the importance being that these are not cases merely, as I think we can see, of ineffective, mischievous, or mistaken action in a particular locality on the part of particular men, but rather that the difficulties of mending them are inherent in the working of the system as we have it to-day.
Other things which the Commissioners call attention to are the almost chaotic lack of principle as to the mode of relieving widows with children, and, again, the meaningless and mischievous differences which are found in different parts of England as concerns the treatment of the aged. The workhouse accommodation for the aged is in some case so dreary as to be absolutely appalling, while in others it is palatial. If we take a rough generalisation it may be said that the country workhouses are dreary, and that the palatial houses—which are not necessarily more comfortable for the inmates—are mainly in the large centres. Alluding to the results which sometimes follow from the absence of any system of classification, the Commissioners describe one workhouse, a sample of many others, as follows—

1207
"The inmates, over 900 in number, were congregated in large rooms, without any attempt to employ their time or cheer their lives. There was a marked absence of any human interest, and though the superintendent and matron impressed us favourably it was impossible to avoid feeling that the lives of the inmates were not merely wanting in colour, but were aimless and listless. On more than one occasion there have been offers from outside to brighten the Sunday service, but they have been refused by the guardians owing to religious difficulties. It could not be better described than as a 'human warehouse.' The dormitories, which in some cases accommodated as many as sixty inmates, were so full of beds as to make it impossible to provide chairs, or to walk, except sideways, between them."
Then there is the overlapping—and here is, I think, the most important point of all, because it is a matter of principle—the overlapping of the existing authorities. Half -a-dozen public departments in one and the same area manage their work in different ways, absolutely independent of one another. There are the sanitary authority, the education authority, municipal relief works, and many others, all of whose work may be applicable to the same family. It has been pointed out that a widow with children may have five different and wholly independent inspectors visiting her house in one day, all of them doing their duty in particular water-tight compartments of the administration with which they have to deal. These are not mere questions of slack or careless administration; they are difficulties which, as far as I can see, are inherent in our existing system. They are only curable by a big new process, of which the first requisite is a greater enlargement of the area which is placed under one authority. Thus only can the two results be arrived at of having a fairly uniform system of outdoor relief—education, sanitary inspection, and the like—and the classification of the indoor poor, not in mixed institutions, but by special institutions. That was recommended in 1834, but as the law now stands the amendment is, speaking generally, impossible.
The Report speaks strongly on the subject, but I attach even greater weight to a quotation which the Report gives from the evidence of some of the best workhouse masters and matrons, who, on behalf of their association, say this—
"With proper classification of, and in, workhouses, it would be possible to treat each class of inmates on its merits, in more detail, with the result that to the deserving an almshouse system would present itself, while the treatment of the undeserving would be deterrent. If you give us
1208
all classes to look after as we have at present, you want expert knowledge on every point and expert administration on every point, and it is impossible, in the one house, with the one staff of officials, to get it. That is one reason why we request so strongly classification by workhouses as well as in workhouses."
In many cases the feeble-minded, the very old, little children, the sick, the immoral, all are lumped together under people who cannot possibly be experts in all those departments, but it is impracticable under our present system to manage them in any other or better way. I absolutely challenge the statement that these difficulties can be met except by a new system under a new law. The whole account which the Report gives renders it impossible to argue that all we need is a little stimulus and rather more administrative efficiency.
I do not think I need say many words about the next branch of objection to going forward—that the subject is so vast that we cannot face it. It is vast, but it is all departmented already. It is not like marching out into a trackless prairie or sailing over a sea that has never been charted. The thing is being dealt with and handled in departments already, although, for lack of legislation, not yet with much result in action. There has been a separate Royal Commission on the Feeble Minded; a Departmental Committee has reported on vagrants; the Government have promised to take up unemployment at once, and the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on that subject leaves us in no doubt that a Bill to deal with that particular question is actually on the stocks. It is not, therefore, a chartless sea or a vague wide area that we have to go upon, and I believe that once given the initial key to the situation which enlarged administrative areas would afford no practical difficulty need arise from the mere bigness of the subject.
One more point of objection frequently urged is that the Commissioners are all at variance, that their recommendations are widely contradictory, and that we must wait until they are more at one before we can follow their guidance. If we look at it practically, that allegation breaks down entirely. The main recommendations that are made are made by the whole of the Commissioners. Among these recommendations are—The enlargement of the area of administration: The abolition of

1209
the present boards of guardians as such: The ending of the system of ad hoc election to guardianship: and Classification by institutions and not in institutions. All these things hang together and are common to all the Commissioners. They are recommended by both the majority and the minority. Again, both bodies are in agreement in urging that the curative rather then the deterrent principle is the one which should always be kept in mind. With regard to existing voluntary charitable associations and efforts, the majority of the Commissioners attach more importance than the others to enlisting the co-operation and recognising the status of bodies and efforts of that kind, but on that point I can find no fundamental difference of principle whatever between the two.
The majority and minority do diverge absolutely when they come to the question of the constitution of the boards or authorities who are to administer the help in the coming days, and the difference between the two needs to be very carefully stated. I think it is this. The majority propose that the powers and duties of the guardians should be transferred to statutory committees of the county and county borough councils working in co-operation with the existing committees established by law for cognate purposes—health, education, and so on—and that the manifold organisations which exist for the purpose of charitable voluntary aid should be correlated under proper authority and given a legal status in each of the new areas of administration. The minority of the Commissioners, on the other hand, propose to distribute the powers and duties of boards of guardians as follows. So far as the non-able-bodied are concerned, they would be handed over to the existing committees of the county and county borough councils—for example, the existing education, health, asylums, and pensions committees; and their work is to be carried on under the supervision and, so far as I understand, the control of registrars of public assistance appointed by and responsible to the finance committees. The able-bodied are to be dealt with by a new organisation set up and controlled by the Board of Trade or a new Ministry of Labour.
Between these two I am not to-day trying to discriminate, although I confess that I do not see how the existing
1210
authorities, even if enlarged, can take over all these varied duties without bringing about another form of overlapping and a reversion to the small areas which every one condemns. For instance, there are now more than 1,800 different sanitary authorities in England and Wales—three times as many as the number of boards of guardians. The two rival suggestions—and I am very far from under-rating the importance of their differences on this particular point—are now before the country and before the Government. It is for the Government, when they come to devise a Bill, to decide which line they will adopt on that specific point.
I have, out of mercy and consideration to your Lordships, left untouched great tracts of the country which lies around the circumference of this subject, but about which there was plenty to be said had time and occasion served. Especially I am sorry to leave untouched the vitally important matter of the peril of our present plans of boy and girl employment, which are well called the blind alleys which lead to nowhere. May I read to your Lordships a few words from the weighty evidence that was given by our foremost thinker on such subjects, Professor Sadler? He said—
"Under the industrial and commercial conditions which now prevail, it is easy for a boy of thirteen or fourteen to find some kind of virtually unskilled work for which are offered wages that for the time seem high, and flatter his sense of being independent of school discipline and of home restraint. In this work there is often little mental or moral discipline, though it may involve long hours of deteriorating routine.….Such evidence, indeed, as is available, points to the conclusion that in some callings the uneducative use of adolescent unskilled labour is rapidly extending; but part of the apparent increase may be due to a growing sense of the importance of the subject and to the consequently closer attention with which it is being observed."
I should like to have dwelt on that subject. I am certain that nothing is more important as regards the bigger aspects of the whole problem we are dealing with. I have also put on one side all that concerns the question of adult employment. I have left that on one side because my object to-day has been to press for the necessity of action being taken with regard to the matter as a whole, and with regard to that branch of it the Government have already promised that action is shortly going to be taken.
That is all. I must apologise for having spoken at such length. Here is the Report. In my judgment no country can afford to ignore such a Report, containing on the one hand so grave a revelation of things that are seriously amiss and, on the other hand, recommendations so definite for mending these things. Is the country, is His Majesty's Government, going to ignore the whole subject and let things alone? Think, my Lords, of the number of people who, as the Report shows, are suffering needlessly every single week, every single day, that we are letting this urgent duty slide. I decline to think that such can be the intention of those on whom the burden—and it is a heavy burden—of central responsibility in these matters rests. I at least have tried to do my part by calling attention to the need of action in a matter vitally affecting the credit and the well-being of a Christian country.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, in rising to say a few words on this supremely important subject I am disposed to ask the indulgence of your Lordships. Placed as I am, with the daily duties of an office which certainly do not diminish in volume, added to special duties of this year, some connected with that office and some connected with the general business of the Government, I have been prevented from giving to the Report of the Poor Law Commission not merely that close study but what I think would be even more important, that careful thought which is necessary before it is possible to speak on it with any degree of adequacy. Therefore in the few observations I propose to make I shall confine myself in the main to general remarks arising out of what has been said by the most rev. Primate.
We have all, I think, listened with admiration to the very clear, and, if he will allow me to say so, masterly statement of the most rev. Primate on this subject, and in what I have to say I have no quarrel with him on any point whatever in the course of his speech. We are indeed grateful to him for bringing the matter forward, because he and the other occupants of the Episcopal Bench have the unique advantage of having been brought into close personal contact with the problem to an extent and with an intimacy which
1212
cannot be claimed by, I think, any of the lay members of the House, even though they may have served on boards of guardians. Consequently everything which falls from that Bench, and in particular from the most rev. Primate, on this subject must carry the greatest weight in all parts of the House. This is a vast subject, although I agree with the most rev. Primate in being hopeful that it is not too vast to be dealt with in the immediate future.
The risk which the most rev. Primate mentioned, that the magnitude of the question and the mass of official publications in regard to it may have almost a terrifying effect both on Governments and on the public is, no doubt, real. The aspect of the matter is rather like one of those great schemes of arterial drainage which are put forward from time to time, only to be perpetually postponed while the smaller cuts and canals are executed from time to time. But I do hope, my Lords, that as regards this Poor Law question the general sense of its urgency is so widespread that we shall escape the danger which was very properly pointed out by the most rev. Primate—namely, that any action will be deferred until it is possible to say that the conditions have so far altered that the inquiry is out of date and that some fresh investigation may become necessary.
The Royal Commission had its origin in the first place from the wave of unemployment in 1905, which produced the Unemployed Workmen Act passed by the Government of noble Lords opposite. That was the actual moving cause of the appointment of the Commission, although it is also true that there was a general sense that the time had come for inquiry into the entire subject. The Royal Commission was appointed at the close of the year 1905, and I desire to endorse everything that was said by the most rev. Primate of the debt we all owe especially to the chairman, Lord George Hamilton, but to all the members, who gave so much time and such endless labour, and who exhibited such remarkable sagacity in the conduct of the inquiry. It is true, as the most rev. Primate pointed out, that the mere preliminary of knowledge of the proceedings of that Commission demands the perusal of a volume of 1,200 large pages, and before anybody is entitled to say that he is really acquainted with the results

1213
of the inquiry he will have to read many other of those volumes enumerated by the most rev. Primate.
The most rev. Primate did not, I think, overstate the gravity of the existing position as pointed out in the comparisons which he drew, beginning from the year 1871 up to the present time, with the statistics of pauperism. He pointed out that there was in that cycle an average of some 747,000 paupers, and he might have added that in the ensuing cycle the number fell to 694,000; it was not until the cycle of 1896–1906 that it rose again to 718,000; in 1907 it was 769,000, and last year it was 772,000. It is also material to mention that although the number remains very nearly the same, yet the cost of maintaining these paupers has nearly doubled. In 1871–2 the charge was about £8,000,000; in 1895–6 it was £10,200,000; in 1905–6 it was upwards of £14,000,000. Those are serious figures and give food for serious thought.
The most rev. Primate also pointed out with great force what is, perhaps, the most disheartening feature of the whole situation—namely, the slight effect which our great moral and material progress in almost all other directions has had upon these statistics of pauperism. We now spend on education somewhere about £23,000,000. In the year 1905–6 the sanitary services of the nation cost another £16,000,000, and the cost of living, so far as food is concerned, has gone down. House rents, it is true, have not, but so far as actual cost of living is concerned there has been all through this period a diminution. And although it is one of those things which it is very difficult to prove, those best qualified to judge would say that, speaking generally, wages are higher. The statistics of thrift are in themselves satisfactory. Both the friendly societies and the trade unions show an increase. But in spite of all those encouraging symptoms we still have this great and undiminishing mass of pauperism. I also ought to have added that the statistics of illegitimate births—a most fruitful cause of pauperism as has always been supposed, have also steadily diminished without apparently affecting the general result. The only conclusion, I think, that can be reached from all this—and it leaps to the eye in the Report of the Commissioners—is that whatever may have been and whatever may be the merits of the system of 1834, that system has
1214
reached its limit. It has done all it can, and if you are to have any real improvement you must look for something else. The most rev. Primate spoke of the body of able-bodied paupers, the increase in whose number has been a disquieting feature, particularly of male able-bodied paupers, for although they only form a comparatively small fraction of the whole—about onetenth—yet the fact that they are so numerous as they are is, from the national point of view, one of the most serious features of the situation. Then there are paupers from old age, from sickness, from mental deficiency, and there are the body of sixty odd thousand child paupers.
I do not propose to dwell at any length upon the various recommendations laid down in the two Reports, but I am particularly grateful to the most rev. Primate for having called attention to the marked amount of agreement which exists in those two Reports. It has become a somewhat unfortunate point in the discussions that have taken place on this subject that it seems to be generally assumed that there is a sharp division, almost amounting to hostility, between the two Reports, and that impression may, I am afraid, have been somewhat strengthened by the naturally enthusiastic attitude of some of those who are in favour of the particular recommendations of one or the other. But I greatly prefer, with the most rev. Primate, to dwell on the marked points of agreement which both exhibit. The most rev. Primate enumerated many of them. There is the general agreement for the abolition of boards of guardians. The most rev. Primate spoke, if he will allow me to say so, wisely on the position of the boards of guardians. We none of us, I hope, fall short in the gratitude which we feel to those who have given for many years this unpaid public service, very often of an extremely disagreeable and painful nature; and I am the last to deny that in many cases both boards of guardians and individual guardians have deserved indeed well of their country. But that fact must not blind us to the deficiencies of the system, and nobody who has been through the Report or who has had any other opportunities outside of acquiring a general knowledge of the subject can, I think, doubt that in making this recommendation the Commissioners have done what was not merely desirable but what will prove to be absolutely necessary when the subject comes to be dealt with.

1215
Then the two Reports also agree on the abolition of general workhouses. They agree, in the main, in the character of the classification which ought to take place, and when the most rev. Primate reminded us that some of the recommendations of 1834 had not been entirely carried out in the long interval from that year to this we should remember that classification was one of those recommendations. It is also true that the general spirit of attempting to cure rather than deter is obvious in both the Majority and the Minority Reports, and both also lay stress on the necessity of investigating single individual cases by co-operation with private and other agencies. Both also agree in the necessity, in the last resort, that recourse must be had to compulsion in the treatment of certain cases of poor relief, and there are various other common grounds. It is no doubt true—and I think it is this feeling which has given rise to the general belief in the diametrically opposite character of the Reports—that there is a certain difference of approach evident as between the Majority and Minority Reports. I do not know that it would be more inaccurate than generalisations are apt to be if one were to say that the Report of the Majority in the main seeks to develop the sense of individual responsibility, while the Report of the Minority rather tends towards giving a stimulus to the consciousness of social obligation. But be that as it may, I think it is reasonable to conceive that the recommendations of neither Report may be absolutely perfect, that there is a great deal of the utmost value in both, and that when the time comes for the matter to be dealt with by legislation the recommendations of both ought to receive the most careful consideration of the Government who have to frame that measure, and I would venture to prophesy that it is not likely that either will be accepted in its absolute entirety.
I do not know that it is necessary to attempt to follow the whole course of the recommendations even in the broadest way. As regards the care of the children of the State, as they are sometimes called, both the Reports favour the adoption of the less formal and institutional methods which have been in vogue in the past. Attention is called to the fact that the system of boarding out within the union has been hitherto not properly supervised, and I mention that point in particular because it is—and I think this is important to note—one of those which can be dealt with by
1216
administrative action without having recourse to legislation. I say it is important to bear that in mind because this is by no means the only instance; and whereas the great bulk of the subject may, as I say, make it alarming, it is evident that the more that can, so to speak, be pared off that bulk by administrative action before there is any question of further legislation, the easier the subject will be to deal with. Therefore, as regards the question of boarding out, my right hon. friend the President of the Board is preparing a circular for the appointment of committees for the purpose of supervising children so boarded out, which I hope will have the effect of making their care as complete as that of children boarded out without the union, who as we know, can regard themselves as well looked after. Again, the Local Government Board have been able to remove a considerable number of sick and convalescent children from the care of the Poor Law and to place them under the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and I think some 500 have been placed in the children's infirmary at Carshalton within a short period.
Then as regards the pauperism of the aged, I need not remind the House of what has been done with reference to old age pensions. That, of course, does not, and even if extended will not, entirely extinguish the pauperism of old age so far as that pauperism is of an invalid character, but it does represent a serious dealing, as we all agree, with one important side of the question. The most rev. Primate carefully and explicitly left out of his speech the question of unemployment, and he did so on the specific ground that the President of the Board of Trade had announced in May last that His Majesty's Government hoped to bring forward a scheme for insurance against unemployment. That insurance, I may briefly remind the House, would be found by contributions from the workers and from the employers, supplemented by a grant from the State. The insurance would be by trades, and would be absolutely compulsory upon all workers in those trades. In addition to that, of course, we have the Labour Exchanges measure, which has already received the sanction of your Lordships and which we hope will do something to diminish the terrible evil of able-bodied pauperism. I think I may venture to say that so far as this important side of the matter is concerned we have been dealing, and are dealing, with it.

1217
I do not think that the most rev. Primate or the House will expect me to say anything very definite as to what our hopes may be of dealing with the whole question. I can assure him we are fully alive to all the considerations which tell against postponement and which he stated so forcibly, but we have to consider the somewhat varied and exciting Parliamentary possibilities of the situation, and under these circumstances I should be a very rash prophet if I were to attempt to say anything as to what our hopes may be of how or when we should be able to deal with the other side of this question. What I do feel is that the hopes that it will be grappled with—I will put it in that way and not say that we will grapple with it—are largely increased by the fact that it is in no sense a question which divides parties. I am confident that although noble Lords opposite might not apply precisely the methods of treatment which we should desire to apply, yet they are not less alive than we are to the necessity of dealing with the situation. And believing this, I do venture to express the hope that within what the most rev. Primate would describe as a reasonable time it may be possible to cover this field of action, vast, indeed, though it is.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I am sure every one in the House will have heard with satisfaction the words with which the noble Earl concluded his speech. Perhaps it will be almost paradoxical to say that the condition of the House this evening evidently justifies the most rev. Primate in the course he has taken in raising this debate, for to-night has not shown any very widespread public interest represented here; it has shown what I imagine to have been in his mind—the necessity of all of us in our different places steadily going on saying that the publication of this Report means a great opportunity and a great obligation and that it stands quite in the front rank of matters of public duty. I think it might be said, without exaggeration, that the good which in the judgment of one side of the House would be accomplished by the passage of the Budget, or the harm which in the judgment of the other side of the House would be done by the same event, would not be greater than what would be done, good or harm, by the effectual handling on the one side or by the neglect on the other of the issues raised by these Reports.
1218
The most rev. Primate, in the early part of his speech, took us back into regions where probably the historical knowledge of most of us was quite unable to follow, and produced for us certain singularly racy and interesting extracts from the earlier history of the treatment of this question. He gave us instances of the strange way in which charity at one period was made compulsory on individuals, and at another period the fanner was compelled to provide employment, and he asked us to note the very strange and ill-judged methods which were then employed. But I cannot help feeling that when we look back at events of that kind we are in somewhat the same position as those who when they are discussing modern warfare point to the clumsy old matchlocks or the curious swords that were once employed and say "We at any rate have got past that." It seemed to me that those instances brought home to our minds that in their old-fashioned way men of former generations had a stronger sense that matters of this kind must be dealt with, and dealt with by the community, than we find now. It has always seemed to me that, probably by reaction from some ill-judged methods of the past, there has been dominant throughout our lifetime in general opinion an idea that most things which affect poverty and so on come to pass, and that you cannot much affect them by anything that you do, except perhaps by the preaching of virtue and by all those influences which tend to raise public morality. It is there, surely, that we begin to see more and more that that was wrong, that we ought more and more to interfere; and what is very satisfactory is that we are not discovering this, if I see rightly, in a theoretical or doctrinaire way, but that we are largely learning it along the way of wholesome and successful practice—that is to say, in these Reports our attention is drawn to what probably only a few of the more expert among us realised before, namely, the amount which Parliament has done in the way of organised treatment of different parts of this subject.
The noble Earl who has just sat down said, if I understood him rightly, that he is very disappointed that, in spite of that, we find so little accomplished. I think probably that is really because we do not picture to ourselves what would have happened if those improvements in administration had not taken place. I allude specially to all the work of public health and the treatment

1219
in special institutions of those who need such treatment. Coming to the matters which seem now most to challenge administrative change, I think I am right in saying that first there is the country question. Nothing, I think, seems to come out more clearly than that it is impossible for bodies like boards of guardians to deal with large parts of this subject, which indeed cannot be dealt with on a small scale. Therefore, so far as that goes, we need not discuss pro and con how much of the eulogiums and how much of the strictures that have attached to the action of those bodies is justifiable, because whether they have done well or ill, it still is necessary to bring into action a larger authority which could deal on an ampler scale and so deal more systematically with the classification and treatment of the poor.
But the other question with which I have more to do is that of the towns. What I have felt, certainly since I have had to deal with the great masses in South London, is that probably outside people hardly realise what has grown up and what is inaccessible either to the forces of private effort or the unaided forces of municipal effort. I was talking the other day to a clergyman who had been working in the outskirts of one of our large towns, and he was very much struck with the change that had passed over his district within the memory of one generation. Thirty, or forty, or fifty years ago the place had been practically looked after by a great manufacturing family, highly thought of in the community, rich and benevolent in its action, and it was said that there could hardly have been a case of distress in that township which was not known to and probably assisted by this great house. But the town has grown to be one of the vastest in this country. The employers have gone to live outside, the personal house has been transferred to a company, and now you have on that same area a much larger population and a population which there is no like instrument to deal with efficiently. In South London, in dealing with the needs of the poor, I see—I was going to say not a little, but I think that word would be inadequate—I see a great deal of private charity both in money and in kind. There have been developed within my time organisations, such as settlements of educated men and women, to mention one example, which have done a great deal of the kind
1220
of work most wanted to be done. There is a great deal of that work and it is better organised than it used to be, but it is still very sporadic and very uncertain. But what I think is most important to recognise is this, that where there is action of that kind on the part of individuals and societies, efficient public action on a larger scale would be not least but most welcome. I think that if a foreigner were to read these Reports he would be struck with the fact that both of them alike were genuinely English in the way in which they rely upon, and propose that we should continue in the future to rely upon, such private benevolent action.
Municipal action among our London masses cannot be expected to go beyond a certain point in its range and reach. Everyone knows that it is very difficult to man the machinery. The number of men who are present there with leisure to give and the higher kind of training for the purpose is very limited. Men and women have done splendid work upon the local municipal bodies, but I cannot help seeing that the problems of London life—labour, poverty, disease, and so forth—are much too vast and complex to be dealt with except by the very best central strength that we have. Therefore I do want very much to see this putting out more power. In these times, when every day in every company the topic of Socialism is foremost in the minds of men, I wish we could resolutely distinguish between questions which concern municipalisation or nationalisation, or what not, of means of employment and other questions involving the steady, quiet increase of the action of the State in an administrative way. I am quite aware of the dangers that attend that action; I am quite aware of the danger—I hear it often spoken of in our London life in the field of education—of a bureaucratic system; but I cannot help feeling that those dangers are not so great as the danger of leaving undealt with things which can only be dealt with by a central authority.
We surely do want a great extension—here the Reports are most eloquent, and, I think, most touching—a great extension of curative action, which forestalls mischief and so saves to us physically and morally a great number of lives which are now wasted. Such a result as that, if it be

1221
possible—and I think it is possible—is surely well worth a little infringement of the principles of independence and so on, to which we sometimes, I think, attach not only their full value, but a little more. I was very much struck by the fact that a former chief magistrate of my own borough—the borough of Southwark—sent for me a little while ago and said he was so deeply impressed with the way in which phthisis was making havoc in the younger population that he wanted, if he could, during his mayoralty to do something to check the harm that it did. There was the case of a man very fully occupied with his own business and with the care of administration, but upon whose mind this had been borne home. I take it, therefore, that if we were resolute, and if we gave the right powers in the right way and quite in a line with what we have done in our action concerning health authorities, we could probably do a great deal to save life.
Speedy, thoughtful action is required from Parliament for the treatment of the whole subject of boy labour. Three or four years ago, when there was one of the special waves in the movement for social reform, I remember attending a meeting in a hall not far from here on the subject. The meeting was addressed by one who I think, in this or in any place, deserves the best tribute of admiration and gratitude that we can give—I mean Canon Barnett of Westminster. I remember well how he put aside all the vaguer propositions on which other speakers had dwelt and concentrated himself on the one subject of the wastage which went on between the years of school life and adult life. Ever since then I have felt with increasing conviction that Canon Barnett had put his finger on the spot, and I see that these Reports justify that to the very full. The Reports of the Commission touch all spheres of life. They touch the matter of unemployment, because every one who looks at the matter now agrees that it is largely this unskilled boy labour which is recruiting the ranks of the unemployed. Nothing has been more marked among Christian bodies of late years than the concentration of effort upon this class, but I think I shall speak for all the representatives of our religious bodies if I say that here again we feel that what we and those who work for us are able to do would be much more efficient if the whole subject were
1222
handled with more vigour by Parliament and public authorities. It is said that action of this kind would lead to a great deal of expense. I coast there along the edge of controversial questions, but I only do so to make the remark, which surely is an innocent and obvious remark, that we should there, if we spent a great deal of money, save a great deal of money too, and along with the money we should save we should save things which are more valuable than money.
I have not dared to speak at any length on the question of the unemployed, though I do not think that I should be faithful to my knowledge if I did not say that I am quite sure this question is gaining in genuine urgency. I use the word "genuine" urgency, because I am quite aware that it is a question into which a spurious and artificial urgency can to a degree be imported. I say it is gaining in genuine urgency in such districts as those with which I have to do. Nothing, I think, more stirs the indignation of one who at all knows the matter than the phrase, too often current upon men's lips, that the unemployed are really unemployable. That is an untrue saying, and it is a cruel saying. It is untrue because it turns a partial truth into a general truth. Of course, there are large numbers of unemployable among the unemployed, but workers in South London know home after home where the real, honest, genuine worker sits craving for work. But that is not the worst of it. They know the way in which, early and late, he pads the streets, wearing out the soles of his boots trying to find work. It is not only an untrue but a cruel saying, because many of those who are unemployable need not have been so. They are unemployable not only by their own fault, for there are many of them for whose condition the community are entirely responsible. These Reports show us how we of the community have made many of these unemployables, and therefore it is cruel to throw their unemployableness in their face. How much we can do I do not know, but I do feel most hopeful that if we can in the sort of way suggested by the Commissioners tackle the question of unemployment and break it up, we may be able to do a good to the community at large, and to the most hard pressed and suffering classes of that community greater, perhaps, than we at this time hardly dare to hope.

HANDLOOM WEAVING BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Pirrie, who was in charge of this Bill, I have the honour to submit the measure to your Lordships and to ask that you will give it a Second Reading. Although I shall not be able to do so with the knowledge of the subject possessed by my noble friend, I hope your Lordships will extend your indulgence to me while I state in the barest outline the object of the Bill. There exists in Ireland an industry of weaving in a handloom linen damask goods, and that industry is one which gives employment to a considerable number of persons, particularly in the North of Ireland. There is supposed to be, and there undoubtedly is, a superiority in these handwoven products over similar products made by power looms, and the practice of occasionally trying to pass off goods which have been made by machinery as goods which have been made by hand is not altogether unknown. I think your Lordships will appreciate that that practice is really a double deception, because the purchaser is deceived and the maker of these goods is also damnified by a competition which is unfair. The object of this measure is to provide a remedy for that state of things. The first clause provides that all those goods which are made by handloom shall be marked in a manner which will make that clear. The second clause provides that goods which are not so made shall not be so marked and that it shall be an offence to so mark them. I think the object of that should commend itself to the House. When I add that although this is an Irish Bill dealing with an Irish subject it has commanded universal assent in another place, I think your Lordships will believe that that is an overwhelming reason for according it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Russell.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, as I am personally connected with the Province of Ulster and especially with the county of Down in which handloom weaving forms a prominent part of the important industry of the linen trade,
1224
I cordially support the Bill. Not only has the Bill passed unanimously through the other House, but it has received the support of the Unionist Members who represent the Province of Ulster. As the noble Earl has mentioned, handloom weaving is superior to that done by machinery, and consequently it is but right that those who purchase these goods should know whether the linen they buy has been made by hand or not. I do not know that there has been any great amount of linen passed off under false colours, but the present state of the law does give opportunities for that to be done. There is another reason why I support this Bill.
In the county of Down, where, as I have said, this is an important industry, we notice a very great decline, almost a decay, in handloom weaving. I have only this afternoon had placed in my hands some statistics which bear this out. In Waringstown, which is in the centre of the hand weaving linen trade, there were in the year 1881, 1,730 houses; in 1901 the number was reduced to 1,521. The population in 1881 was 7,902, but in the year 1901 it had been reduced to 6,036. These are serious figures as showing the decay in this trade. I think the Lord-Lieutenant a short time ago visited Waringstown and promised the people there that steps should be taken for the introduction of a Bill such as this. A number of the people who work at the handloom also have small holdings, but they could not live upon the holdings without the work of the handloom, and, consequently, if they can no longer obtain employment at this industry they will have to give up their holdings and make their way into the cities adding to the number of the unemployed or else emigrate from Ireland. The handlooms also give employment to old people who otherwise could not find employment, and if handloom weaving ceases these old people must eventually go into the workhouse. The Bill, therefore, is a useful one not only in the interests of honesty of trade but also in the interests of the population, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I am glad to hear the cordial reception which the noble Marquess, who speaks with great authority on this question, has given to this Bill, and on behalf of His Majesty's Government I have only to say that we cordially support the objects which the Bill has in

1225
view, and will be glad to see it passed into law.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SIR R. WHITTINGTON'S CHARITY BILL.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXVIII. be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a (The Lord O'Hagan); agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

BRIDGEND (HOPE ENGLISH BAPTIST CHAPEL, &.) CHARITY BILL.
JOHN MARSHALL'S CHARITY BILL.
LICHFIELD AND LONGDON CONGREGATIONAL CHAPELS AND TRUST PROPERTY CHARITY BILL.
DEWSBURY AND BATLEY CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITIES BILL.
WORTLEY CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

CROFTING PARISHES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

HAMILTON BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Hamilton Burgh—Was presented by the Lord Pentland; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee. (No. 174.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.