moved to remove from the operation of the clause "land subject to an annuity to the Land Commission." It would be within the recollection of the Committee that on the previous evening the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General had agreed that some consideration should be given to the case of those new tenants who had contracted with the State and had become owners in fee of their holdings. That, no doubt, was subject to qualification, but there was no reason why that qualification should exist in the present case. As it stood, the Estates Commissioners were to have the power to determine the tenancy of the new tenant where they had acquired the tenant's land. He thought it was an arbitrary distinction on the part of the Government to say that a tenant who had bought under the Land Purchase Act was to be excluded whilst a tenant who had simply signed an agreement which the head of ! the Land Commissioners decided was a sale was to be rendered liable to the compulsory methods of the Bill. He hoped the Government would see their way not to draw any such arbitrary an illogical conclusion.

thought the Amendment was out c order. The question it gave rise to was precisely the same as that which was raised by the hon. Member for Wes Waterford the previous night.

said the point the hon. Member for West Waterford wanted an answer to on the previous night had reference to the tenant purchaser, and upon the Amendment before the Committee that day they were simply debating the same question,

said he had some doubts upon this matter. He had under stood that the point just raised by the hon. Member for North Armagh was different from that raised by the hon. Member for West Waterford the previous day, but he had been waiting to see what was the hon. Member's argument.

The hon. Member has explained it to be the same question.

contended that they were now dealing with a different state of affairs at a different stage of the Bill. There was no reason why different considerations should not apply at different stages.

What is the difference between a tenant purchaser and a person holding an annuity subject to the Land Commission?

said that at present he wanted to know the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether or not this arbitrary distinction was to be carried into the section. He thought he was entitled to ask about the matter.

If the Amendment s to the same effect as the Amendment which was decided last night, then it cannot be moved.

said it was not to the same effect. The question they discussed last night was whether or not new tenants were to be included with tenant purchasers. As he understood it, the Government said that where a tenant had ceased to be a tenant and had become a purchaser by vesting order he was to be exempt, but they gave no undertaking with regard to the tenant becoming a purchaser by signing an agreement. He wished to know what course the Government were going to take in the latter case.

Is there any Question before the House, MR. Chairman?

If we adopt this Amendment we shall be adopting, as I now am informed, something which we decided not to adopt last night, and therefore it is not in order.

said the first part of the question which they were discussing last night was distinctly replied to by the Chief Secretary. With regard to the second part, however, viz., the case of people signing agreements but not having a vesting order, the Chief Secretary said that the Government would give the matter consideration at a later stage of the Bill.

That does not affect the point we are on now. The Amendment is not in order, and therefore we cannot go on with it.

said he wished to move an Amendment providing that all persons interested in the land should receive the notice mentioned in the section. In the clause as it stood at the present time it did not seem to be an obligation on the Estates Commissioners to give any notice to any one except the new tenant. He could not see that the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to embodying his Amendment in the clause. It was only fair that all persons interested should receive full notice under the Bill. There might be a considerable number of persons having an interest in the land beside the person actually in occupation.

said he could not accept the Amendment. He did not think the hon. Member realised what it proposed to do. This notice was in the nature of a notice to quit. Special power was given to the Estates Commissioners to exercise their rights as landlords and determine the tenancy in exactly the same way as the former landlord would do. The Estates Commissioners took the place of the landlord and served the notice to quit, as provided by the section, upon the tenant alone. The Commissioners had no power to find out the various persons interested in the holding. There might be people who had charges and mortgages upon the land, but the tenant was the only man paying the rent and, therefore, he was the person who would be served. The hon. Member would see that a subsection of the same clause provided that where a new tenant was put in possession of a parcel of land in lieu of an old tenancy an order would be made to transmit all charges and liabilities from the old tenancy to the new; therefore, no one could be injured by the transfer, and there would be no need to serve the notice upon a number of persons.

regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not see his way to accept the Amendment. It seemed to him a perfectly reasonable one, and the principle it embodied had already been adopted in the Land Act. It was undoubtedly a case in which the mortgagees and others interested would have their security substituted for another. They must recollect that they were not dealing with a plot of land for labourers' cottages, but with land which might be described as an "estate." It was the first step in the sweeping away of an old security, and yet the people who were interested were not to be consulted. It was conceivable that the tenant might be a bogus tenant who had no beneficial interest in the holding. All his interest might be vested in his creditors, and yet the tenant was to have the entire control of the negotiations with the Estates Commissioners. If they were not to have public inquiries which by their very publicity were a safeguard, the least the Government could do was to secure that the people who were interested in the transaction should have an opportunity of stating their case before the Estates Commissioners. Not only the tenant in name, but the people who were tenants in fact, should have the opportunity of knowing when the first step was to be taken to set in motion the whole compulsory machinery which would terminate the tenancy in which they had invested their money. For this reason he supported the Amendment.

said the hon. Member who 'had just sat down had let the eat out of the bag when he described these tenants, upon whom the Opposition had wasted such gallons of salt tears, as "bogus tenants" and men who had not a shilling of their own.

I said there may because of the sort.

continuing, said the hon. Member had described them as "bogus tenants," and that was exactly what he (MR. Healy) and his friends had been contending all along. He thought the hon. Member had rendered a public service to his country. As to the bogus tenant, he had a knack of disappearing, and he would suggest that service should be by registered letter. He thought it was very necessary in the case of bogus tenants to prevent their hiding, or making away with themselves temporarily, that personal service should not be necessary. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman before the Report stage should consider whether, as in the case of an ordinary tenant, or ejectment, it would be quite enough that the bogus tenant should be served by registered letter.

thought it was rather poor advocacy on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman

It is not advocacy; it is debate.

said that that did not make it any fairer—it was rather poor debate to attribute to his hon. and learned friend a statement he had never made. His hon. friend had never said that these new tenants were bogus tenants, but he had referred to cases in which the tenant was not really the person interested in the holding. The hon. Gentleman was very anxious that not a single individual should be injured by the operation of this Bill, and if there was a single case in which the new tenant had incurred an obligation or liability to other people, either under a deed of settlement or a mortgage security, it was essential that the persons entitled under the security should have an opportunity of being heard. He thought the words suggested by his hon. and learned friend were a little too wide, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the words, "any person interested under a registered encumbrance." All they would have to do would be to search the register, which would certainly not add anything to the expense. Supposing one of these tenants had a marriage settlement: the trustee of the settlement might be the father of the tenant's wife, and might live beside the holding. If this new tenant were transferred to another county, surely the trustee of the settlement or the mortgage creditor was entitled to have a voice as to the place to which the security was to be transferred, or as to what security was to be taken in exchange for the one he had got. That was ordinary justice conceded to every owner of land, purchaser or vendor, in Ireland. He could not understand why any difficulty was raised in this case merely because the tenant happened to be one of those objectionable persons known to hon. Members below the gangway as new tenants.

said he would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the principle of the Amendment was already admitted in Subsection (5) of the preceding clause—

"'The Estates Commissioners shall, upon making such offer, give notice in the prescribed manner to all persons known or believed by them to be interested in the land of their intention to acquire the same at a fixed price, etc."

suggested the adoption of the words, "in such manner as they may prescribe," which would meet the entire case referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University.

said he did not see why they should circumscribe the proposal by the insertion of such words. What they wanted was that every person interested in the land to be acquired should receive due notice of the fact that the tenant was to leave the farm within six months or whatever the period might be.

said that any Amendment in this direction would place the Commission, in its capacity of landlord, in a different position from any other landlord in the country.

It is done already.

said the hon. Member did not know what he was talking about. The landlord at present could evict a tenant by simply serving upon him notice to quit, and all those interested in charges or encumbrances would have to look after themselves; but in the case of this new tenant they wanted all sorts of new-fangled regulations

said the person interested in the security should have some say in the transfer of that security, and he thought the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Louth might be accepted, with the addition of other words, making the whole read, "In such a manner as they shall prescribe to all other persons interested."

I did not make that suggestion at all.

said he would at least ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept his original proposal.

said the hon. Member for South Antrim had not withdrawn his Amendment, which was still before the Committee. As to the point put by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, under the terms of the section notice could be served in the same way as a notice to quit, which could be either personally served or sent by letter, and he did not think there had ever been any great difficulty in serving a notice to quit. It would also be in the power of the Estates Commissioners, under the 22nd Section of the Act of 1903, which was incorporated in the Bill, to make rules dealing with the mode of service. He was much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his suggestion on the point, and between now and the Report stage he would consider whether it was necessary to make any alteration in the Bill. As regarded the Amendment before the Committee, the hon. Member adhered to its words and refused to accept any alternative suggested.

said he had not refused, and he would be very glad to accept the words, "In such a manner as they shall prescribe to all other persons interested."

said he thought the simple words of the section best provided for serving notice on the new tenant. That was what the landlord had to do now, and it was what the Commissioners could do in their capacity of landlord.

asked whether, if he had a mortgage on a certain piece of land in Ireland from which A, the tenant, was turned out and put into another place, he would have no chance of saying whether he would or would not accept the new security. Was that really so? Was he to understand that the right hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer acting for one of his clients, who was a mortgagee, would be perfectly willing to accept some other property altogether, without having any voice in the change of security?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever served a notice to quit upon a tenant. If so, did he consider himself bound to serve notice on the mortgagee as well as on the tenant?

said this was a case in which compulsion was being exercised; the other was a voluntary arrangement. His own experience as to serving notices to quit was peculiarly limited, and he hoped it would long continue to be so. They were here dealing with a change of security compulsorily effected, and all they asked was that notice should be given to the person the validity of whose security might be affected.

said this was not a mere question of determining the interest in the tenancy. The mortgagee might wake up some morning and find that his mortgage had been transferred to land in another county.

said this provision applied only where the Estates Commissioners had acquired tenanted land. In those circumstances how did the question of the mortgage arise?

said it applied to the land they had acquired subject to a tenancy. What happened was that the mortgagee's interest was taken from him and transferred to what had been stated to be a better security, and therefore he had a right to say whether it was a better or a worse security. Why should the mortgagee not have his choice as to whether his security should be transferred or not? An analogy had been j drawn between this and the service of a writ of judgment. There was an express rule in the rules of the Court that every person in occupation of the premises should be served with notice, and before judgment could be obtained similar notice had to be served upon every person who was in occupation of any portion of the evicted premises. He could not see why the Estates Commissioners should have any difficulty in serving notices on the people they believed to be interested in the holding.

submitted that this discussion was out of order. Subsection (5) of Clause 2 provided that—

"The Estates Commissioners shall, upon i making such offer, give notice in the prescribed | manner to all persons known or believed by them to be interested in the land of their intention to acquire the same at the aforesaid price"

It is very difficult for a layman like myself to grasp with these legal questions arising on the complicated Irish Land Acts. As I understand the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh, he contends that after the acquisition of the landlord's interest under Clause 2, there is still left the question of the tenant's interest. That being his argument, it is a question of merits, and I think I ought not to deal with it as a matter of order.

said that in this matter they were following precedent under the Lands Clauses Act. Under all Acts where compulsory powers were taken notice was required to be given, not only to the actual tenant, but to all persons interested in the tenancy. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shropshire had to serve notice-to-quit upon a tenant, it would not be necessary to serve notice upon every person interested. The law was that if they served notice on the tenant that was sufficient to determine the tenancy, and they followed that rule. The difficulties of the Estates Commissioners under this Amendment would be insuperable, for they would have to undertake that all the interests created in any of these holdings by the new tenants should be served with personal notice, and that would be impossible.

said that them an might receive compensation before the person who had a charge or claim on the tenancy could do anything, and he might get off to Australia or America without his mortgagee or the person in charge of his farm having a chance of receiving a single penny. Surely it was not the intention of the Government to leave the persons who had advanced money on a farm open to such a risk as that. Under this Act a good many of the new tenants would elect to take compensation and therefore they were open to that very serious danger.

said that if they were going to transfer the new tenant to a new home which was to be as good as his old one his mortgage would be secured, but what was to happen if the new tenant elected to take compensation? Was the compensation going to be paid without any inquiry as to whether it ought to be paid to the tenant or to some person who had a charge upon the holding? He thought the Estates Commissioners should make certain that they were paying the money to the right person.

said the subject had been considered most carefully, and if the right hon. Gentleman would read the third sub-clause he would see that his point was amply provided for. Under the Act of 1881 when a landlord exercised this right he was bound to pay full compensation to the tenant. If there was

said the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. The section referred to by the Attorney-General had been incorporated for the purpose of awarding the compensation and not for paying it. The Estates Commissioners would have no power to bring to their aid Section 1 of the Act of 1881 which was not incorporated. The only section incorporated was Section 5. If the right hon. Gentleman would insert words showing that his intention was to incorporate the machinery of the Act of 1881 for paying over the compensation as well as awarding it the point would be met.

moved an Amendment to provide that twelve instead of six months notice to quit should be given by the Estates Commissioners in cases where new tenants were to be dispossessed of their holdings in order to reinstate evicted tenants. He said the section as it stood did not state that the notice was to run from any particular day of the year. The Estates Commissioners could give notice on any day of any month, and it was obvious to any person who had any knowledge whatever of agricultural operations that it would be highly inconvenient and cause considerable pecuniary loss if a tenant received notice to quit at the wrong period of the year. The ordinary dates were 1st May and 1st November, and he did not suppose there would be quite so much objection if it was known that notice would be given on one of those dates. It would be unfair to ask a farmer to give up his holding, say, in the middle of July or August. The date on which a farmer was to give up his holding should be carefully considered in reference to the operations on the particular class of farm lie occupied. On the other hand if twelve months notice was given the occupier would have ample time to make arrangements for quitting the farm at the end of the period.

said he had endeavoured as far as possible to follow the precedents to be found in previous land legislation for Ireland. In the Congested Districts Act of.1901 provision was made for six months notice, and he was not aware that any evil consequences had followed. Under previous legislation six months notice had been found to be ample time in Ireland, and certainly it was ample time in England. By doubling the time they would only postpone the object they had in view.

said the statement of the right hon. Gentleman had not a real bearing on the point raised by the Amendment. In the case of the congested districts the need was urgent, and the legislation went through the House practically unopposed. This Bill had been brought in to settle quite a different problem in regard to which there had been a good deal of feeling. There was not the same ground for opposition to the congested districts legislation, and, therefore, it was not a fair analogy to compare it with this contentious measure. The ordinary tenant in Ireland was entitled to twelve months notice. That was in the Act of 1877, but under this hostile Bill the existing tenant was to be forced to quit in six months. There was no analogy whatever between this Bill and the 5th Section of the Act of 1881 which applied to compensation and pre-emption. There the tenant went out voluntarily and had made all his plans and arrangements. The time of year when the tenant was preparing the ground for crops was that between November and May; and, therefore, if he was transferred under the Bill as it stood to the new farm in May, he would not have time to perform tillage operations and would therefore lose the year's crops. A tenant's labour was his capital, and he could not be expected to labour on his farm from November to May when he knew he would have to leave it and would not reap the result of his work. He maintained that six months notice was too short. He assumed that they were going to give the tenant notice on gale day. He agreed with what his hon. friend had said, that this Bill ought to be worked by gale days and as part of the land code. Surely it would be a reasonable thing to make the notice run for twelve months from the gale day next' after the service of the notice.

said that the right hon. Gentleman was unfortunate in his references to English land laws and customs. Under the Agricultural Holdings Acts there was twelve months notice to quit from a particular day. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman was incorrect again. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should make it worth his while to go across the floor and sit beside him in order to supply him with information on English land law.

asked whether, if this Amendment were voted upon, it would be open to him to move the next Amendment standing in his name, to leave out "six months service thereof" and insert "twelve months from the gale day nest after the service of such notice."

said that, as a point of order, the hon. Member would be entitled to strike out from the word '' months "and insert" from the gale day next after the service of such notice."But the hon. Member could not discuss it now if he meant to move it later.

said he was at a loss to understand why the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious deliberately to draw an analogy from a statute which was a hardship to the tenant, and had overlooked various statutes both in Ireland and England under which the tenant was entitled to twelve months notice to quit. He would not personally object to six months if the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance that the tenant would get compensation for loss sustained if he had to leave his crops on the ground behind him or was compelled to dispose of them or his chattels and stock by forced sale. Of course, where a tenant quitted his holding voluntarily and the landlord pre-empted, the notice was six months, but that was a different thing. In the cases he had 'mentioned it was only justice that the tenant should receive twelve months notice to quit, which was the case with every other tenant in Ireland by the operation of the ordinary law

said that the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had complained of the analogy drawn by the Chief Secretary. That analogy was taken from the Lands Clauses Act under which, when the money was lodged in Court, the purchaser was entitled to get possession in a period of six months. In dealing with cases of compulsion why not follow the procedure of compulsion? He was inclined to think that six months was too long.

stated that in reality the tenant would have much more than six months notice, because he would know from the moment that the Estates Commissioners opened negotiations that the land was to be acquired for particular purposes. He would, therefore, know long before the notice was served what was to be done. Moreover, the Estates Commissioners were bound to offer alternative farms so that there would be no interference. The tenant would go out of one farm into another. The Estates Commissioners, of course, were not fools, and they would undoubtedly arrange that the transference should take place at the most convenient time of the year. At the present time it was the usual practice that transferences should take place towards the end of the year when the grazing was all over and the harvest had all been got in. It was not to be supposed that the Estates Commissioners, as some hon. Members seemed to suggest, would seek to irritate and annoy everybody as much as possible. They would see that the notice was served at a reasonable time. A long notice was not really required. The hon. Gentleman said, "Why not fix the notice to quit as running from the next gale day? "For the very good reason that the Estates Commissioners would have no power; the gale days were an arrangement between the landlord and his tenants; and in many cases there was no fixed gale day. As to compensation, as he understood the law, the Land Act of 1881 gave the fullest compensation for every possible inconvenience to which the tenant was put under that Act. Assuming that a tenant would not take an alternative farm, but desired to go out of possession finally, the Bill provided that he should have the compensation given under the Act of 1881. That Act, he understood, gave the fullest compensation to tenants, for it gave them the full market value of the holding which would undoubtedly cover crops, stock, and chattels.

pointed out that if notice was given that the farm was required by the 1st May, the diligent farmer's crops would all be in the ground at that period and it would be a most intricate and complicated matter for any Estates Commissioner or assessor to ascertain the compensation to be paid to a farmer under such circumstances. He agreed that it was not probable that the Estates Commissioners would serve a notice which would take effect on the 1st May, and he assumed they would serve a notice which would take effect on the 1st November, at which time most changes in agricultural tenancies took place; but he thought that some alteration should nevertheless be made in the provision in regard to notice. If the first day of May was a possible day for these new tenants to be dispossessed, he thought it possible some hardship might arise, because no farmer doing his work properly would enter upon the performance of the ordinary routine work of a farm if it was possible that he might be dispossessed on the 1st of May in any year.

alluding to the fact that the Attorney-General for Ireland had said that the Amendment of his hon. friend was not necessary because the new tenant would not want more than six months notice as the Estates Commissioners were^;buying land for him somewhere else, pointed out that there was no possible means under the Bill by which the tenant could ascertain where the land to be acquired for him was situated. How could a tenant in the south of Ireland possibly know that the Commissioners were acquiring land for him in the north of Ireland?

observed that what he had said was that the tenant would know that the landlord's interests were being acquired in regard to the farm he occupied, and he would also know that land was being secured for him elsewhere before the formal steps were taken.

said he did not see what that had to do with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that leaving one farm for another was like a man in an hotel going up from the first floor to the second. But it was not so easy for a man to leave a farm as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think. He did not think that the Estates Commissioners would intentionally inflict injustice, but surely the Committee ought to make such injustice impossible.

said that on the first blush the argument of the Attorney-General for Ireland seemed to be a reasonable one, because the new tenant would under the Bill be put in to another farm; but looking a little-further in to it he contended that the argument would not hold water at all. A parcel of land might be offered to the tenant which was not suitable for him at all. The tenant might say, "I think the land which you offer to me is not at all equivalent in value to my farm, and therefore I do not think it will suit me to take it." In those circumstances six months-was not a sufficient time in which to look for another farm. This unfortunate man might wait for six months, and the Estates-Commissioners might not offer him a new farm until the expiration of that period, and then he would have no notice at all. How in that case was he to make arrangements for the transfer of his stock and farming implements? Moreover, the Commissioners might say, "The farm we offer you you say is not the sort of farm you want. But we have offered you the farm and if you do not like it out you go."The right hon. Gentleman had said they might rely upon the Commissioners not to turn a man out at the last minute until he had got his crops in. Might he point out that when all the crops had been got in was a bad time for the new man to come in and a bad time for the old tenant to go out? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Commissioners were not going to make themselves unpopular by doing anything unreasonable, but that was the sort of argument with which they had been met on every Amendment. Every argument they had advanced had been met with the reply "Trust the Commissioners." If that was a good reply why have this Bill at all? Why not pass a measure simply giving the Commissioners full power to deal with all these questions according to their discretion?

pointed out that the hon. Baronet was allowing himself great latitude; he could not discuss the Bill upon a particular Amendment.

said he was dealing with the argument of the Attorney-General for Ireland who said "Trust the Commissioners," and he was entitled to say that that recommendation was one which no sane House of Commons would adopt. He did not, however, want to pursue the matter further, except to say that they should have in this clause, as in every other, directions laid down to guide the Commissioners. What happened ought not to depend upon what might be after all the fanciful dictates of the Estates Commissioners. In England, which was supposed to be the home of the wicked landlord who did everything that was wrong while the tenants did everything that was right, twelve months notice was given, and, what was of more importance, that notice was usually received at a fixed date.

said he must remind the hon. Baronet that the period of notice which was given in England had already been referred to in the debate many times.

said he was not aware of that, but it was a very strong precedent and he thought was well worth mentioning. He did not know that it had been mentioned before and the Attorney-General did not reply to it. It was, however, a subject which was worthy of consideration.

I did reply to it.

said that he did not notice that the right hon. Gentleman had done so, but he would not further pursue the topic. He had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his hon. friend, and if it was pressed to a division he should vote for it.

remarked that a good deal was said about the English landlords and about their turning people out of hearth and home in a cruel manner, but he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to point out cases in which people were turned out at six months notice.

We have to provide him with another farm.

said that that was not the same thing. If a man was turned out of a farm in England ho could get another farm to his liking in any other part of the country. In this case, however, it did not seem to matter whether or not he liked the farm which was offered him. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to make this Bill appear analogous to the English practice.

did not think hon. Members knew what was going on in England in the way of turning men out of their holdings and their homes. They were frequently turned out of their homes under the Lands Clauses Acts with only six months notice. He might also ask what notice had been given to tenants removed to make room for important Government buildings such as those in Parliament Street? None whatever. The late Government served notices on all the tenants of the island of Bereh,even and fixed as arbitrators two local resident magistrates. When those gentlemen had the courage to say they did not believe they had jurisdiction, the law officers of the Crown took them by certiorari be-, fore, the King's Bench. That was the action of a Conservative Government. This Government said to the new tenant "If you need it we will give you a salubrious farm in another district, where you will require no police protection, and where you will be in the promised land of the Orangeman"

said the last speech was no doubt of a very humorous character, but this was a very serious matter, as there was something tragic and pathetic about new tenants, many of whom had been on their holdings twenty-four or twenty-five years, being turned out neck and crop and told to go elsewhere without due notice. After all, in the life of every man there were social and business associations, and it was a serious thing by this new form of statute to remove a man from one part of the country to another. [NATIONALIST laughter.] Although this was a laughing matter for hon. Members below the gangway, he did not think they had grasped the fact that the new tenant might have been in his holding for a quarter of a century. The Government knew that there was really no necessity for this Bill. They were acting in a most harsh, unjust, and tyrannical way to men whose only fault was that they had paid their rent and had done their duty, in order to favour others who had not.

said that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had used most uncontrover-tible arguments in favour of accepting this Amendment. He had said that to accept it would be to rob the Act of one-half of its chief vietues. Then the Attorney-General came on the scene at a later stage and informed the Committee that the Estates Commissioners were above reproach and most sagacious men in all respects, and that they would never dream of turning a man out of his farm until the end of the year. They would have to give six months notice and no man could be put out at the end of this year, so that eighteen months must elapse before these men could be reinstated. But the Chief Secretary never intended that eighteen months should elapse before these evicted tenants were reinstated. The right hon. Gentleman refused the Amendment to postpone the operation of the Act for twelve months after its passing. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney-General adduced totally different arguments, arguments in direct opposition to each other and neither of which would have been accepted by anyone except the present House of Commons. Another thing which the Attorney-General had said was that no matter what notice was given the unsuitability of the date of the notice would be taken into account in fixing the market value of the farm. It could not possibly be taken into account. The Estates Commissioners fixed the value, and they would not know within a couple of months the time when a tenant would be compelled to give up the farm, and those two months might make a considerable difference. There was no suggestion that the Estates Commissioners would revise the value of the farm when the date was decided as to when it should be given up. They would decide that a farm of a new tenant was to be acquired for the purpose of reinstating an evicted tenant, and after the price which they were to pay to the outgoing tenant and the owner of the soil had been fixed, they would give notice to the new tenant. No price, unless it was fixed on a very extravagant outside scale by the Estates Commissioners in nearly every case where the tenancy was determined at unsuitable dates, could result in anything else than the outgoing tenant being a considerable loser. For these reasons he hoped the right hon. Gentleman might yet see that it was unreasonable for him to tie down these men to this short and inadequate notice.

said the hon. Gentleman seemed to think he had discovered some incontrovertible argument, but he himself had been impressed in the directly contrary way. The hon. Member had said that under this Bill it would be impossible to get persons into these holdings until the end of 1908. That was true. The tenants must be served with notice, but the Commissioners could not give notice until they had acquired the untenanted land. The Bill would not be got through until August. Then there would be a month or two to make rules which would bring them to October, and the Commissioners would commence their compulsory proceedings about November. It would be impossible to have the land in their possession before the end of the following May, because the process to obtain it would certainly take six months, and then they might serve their six months notice and be in possession of the new holding by the end of 1908. But the effect of the Amendment would be to delay the matter one year and they would not be in possession until 1909.

said the Committee had been so entertained by the denunciations of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench that they were likely to lose sight of the real effect of this Amendment. If this was a case of an ordinary landlord not one could get rid of a present tenant or a future tenant without twelve months notice, but the Estates Commissioners were to be put in the position of being able to get rid of future tenants with six months notice. This was a penal clause against the future tenants. They were to have six months in order to make

moved an Amendment providing that the Commissioners' notice to a new tenant should have the effect of determining his tenancy as from the date mentioned in the notice not being less than six months from the "gale day next after the service of such notice." His object, he said, was that the notice to quit should expire on gale day, and the adoption of the Amendment would be in the interests of the Commissioners themselves, and would suit the arrangements of the tenants. The gale term was from the 1st May to 12th November, and that old custom was still kept up in some parts of the country. If liberty were given to serve six months notice in the middle of the wrong month, if he might so speak, to end in the middle of the wrong month, rent was being paid all the time by the tenants, and that would lead to the necessity in every case of apportioning the rent, a very troublesome matter; whereas, if the eviction took place on gale day, there would be no question of apportioning the rent, for it was the proper time for settlements, the tenants being in the habit of paying rent on gale day. There was really no comparison between gale day and any other day in regard to the convenience of the tenant, which he thought the Committee ought to consider to some extent. This point also affected the labourers. The farms, a good many of them, were large and the labourers upon them were engaged from the 1st May and were bound to serve for six months. Therefore, it was for the convenience of the labourers as well as the tenants that the notice should be effective on the last gale day of the year. He thought that would be in the interests of the speedy working of the Act; it would save inconvenience, and to a certain extent would be showing consideration to the new tenant, though possibly that might be a reason why hon. Members below the gangway would oppose his Amendment. He thought they ought to try to meet the convenience of those tenants, and there was no doubt that, in the circumstances of the case, the notice ought to expire on. gale day. Having regard to the fact that the Committee had already decided on the period of six months definitely, he begged to move his Amendment as "from gale day next."

said it was provided that the notice to quit should not be less than six months. The Estates Commissioners had to take into consideration all the circumstances, but as a minimum the notice must be six months. This was an emergency measure, and it could not be justified on any other grounds, although on those grounds it could be amply justified. They wanted to deal with this matter as quickly as possible. They were not disposed to lay themselves open to any risks, and they had provided in this clause for ample notice. It might be a longer period if the Estates Commissioners thought it would be desirable, and they had ample latitude to regulate their conduct according to the necessities of the case. He could not bring himself to believe that any single new tenant under the arrangements of this Bill would be treated with harshness, because he would have had ample notice by inspection of his land, there would have been all the proceedings of the Estates Commissioners seeking to acquire the title of the land, and there was not the faintest reason to suppose that he would be taken unawares. The new tenant would be offered a new farm; he would have time to make himself acquainted with it, and if he did not want it he need not take it. If he refused the offer he would be given compensation. The hardship in the case consisted in his being required to give up his farm, just as there was a hardship in a man being made to turn out of his ancestral hall. Some hon. Members thought there was some hardship in a tenant giving up his land to a