supported the Amendment. He had always thought that the original creation of Guaranteed Land Stock was a financial mistake, and that it would have been infinitely better to have given the landlords Consols, for neither the State nor the tenant got any advantage from the additional quarter per cent. interest on the Guaranteed Land Stock, owing to the small amount of that stock in the market. Indeed, he had never been able to understand the reason for creating a separate stock for the purposes of land purchase. What he would suggest was that the Government should come to a compromise in the matter, and that instead of stopping the issue of the stock they should alter the character of the stock issued, and make it Consols. The landlords would be as much benefited by getting Consols as by getting Guaranteed Land Stcok; the additional quarter per cent. would be saved to the State, and the tenant would get all the advantages be now got. The amount of money involved was 33 millions sterling. The section proposed that the rate of interest on that large sum should be left entirely to the Treasury, or to the National Debt Commissioners, which was part and parcel of the Treasury, to prescribe; and it was to be prescribed by the Treasury every half-year in respect of the half-year that was passed. It would, therefore, be impossible for the tenant to know what rate of interest he would have to pay six months ahead. The only thing he would know would be that the interest could not exceed 4 per cent. It was possible, for instance, that the Treasury might prescribe 3 per cent. to be the rate of interest which was, of course, a great deal more than was at present charged, and a half per cent. more than the rate of interest at which the Government could borrow in the open market. The tenant, in these circumstances, would feel that he was charged more than he ought to be charged. It was, therefore, absolutely clear that, if the Government left to the Treasury this unprecedented and unreasonable power of prescribing every half-year what they considered to be the proper rate of interest that should be charged the tenant-purchasers for the past half-year in respect to this large sum of money, it would inevitably lead to conflicts between the tenant-purchasers and the State, and to angry Debates in the House. The National Debt Commissioners had a difficulty in making out the money to pay the 2½ per cent. interest on the Savings Banks Account, and there was nothing to prevent them from charging 3 per cent. interest on the tenant-purchasers in order to enable them to square the Savings Banks Account. It would merely be a swindle of the kind that the Treasury had often perpetrated before. He could hardly conceive that the Government realised that they were leaving this enormous power in the hands of the Treasury. The difficulty would be met by the issue of some form of stock, such as Consols, at a fixed rate of interest.

said the object of the clause was to substitute cash for Guaranteed Land Stock in the case of advances to the landlord under the Land Purchase Acts. The Guaranteed Land Stock stood in the market at £110, which was a considerable premium; and it seemed unreasonable to continue a system under which the vendor received £130 really for every £110 nominally, which was practically an advance from the State of 10 per cent. The hon. Member for Londonderry complained that the scheme as it stood would leave to the Treasury the fixing of the rate of interest at which the sinking fund might be accumulated.

said his complaint was more than that. The Treasury, besides fixing the rate on the sinking fund, which, perhaps, was unavoidable, also fixed the rate of interest on the loan.

thought it would not be possible for the Treasury to do that. He thought the rate of interest on the loan was fixed by law—[cries of "No!"]—or, at any rate, by a rule laid down by the Treasury beforehand, and that it would not be possible for the Treasury to alter it by an ex post facto arrangement. The Treasury at the present time loaned a considerable amount of money under the Local Loans Fund. The rate of interest under that system was constantly complained of by Irish Members and others. But why was it difficult and impossible to alter that rate of interest for the borrowers? Simply because the stock had been issued, and it was necessary to pay the interest on that stock; and the system proposed by the Amendment was really a repetition of the Local Loans Fund system. He also thought the hon. Member underrated the power of the Irish Members when he said that they could not effectively criticise the action of the Treasury were the Treasury to raise the rate of interest on the tenant-purchasers. He believed the Irish Members could not only effectively criticise it, but effectively prevent it. It would not be possible for the Treasury, in face of such opposition—to say nothing of the sense of justice of the House—to increase the burden of the Irish tenant in order to relieve somebody else. He could hardly believe the hon. Member seriously maintained that such a thing was possible.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to say what was to be the rate of interest as he read the clause.

said that it would be 2¾ per cent. If stock were issued to supply the money to be advanced to borrowers, the difficulty of altering the interest was very great indeed—practically prohibitive.

pointed out that if the purchase-money were paid in stock which was at a premium of 10 per cent., it was obvious that the tenant would be able to buy his holding more cheaply; and now the Government were going to withdraw that bonus. When land stock was at 93 the Government absolutely refused to interfere, though urgent appeals were addressed to them. By this clause the Treasury was left to fix what interest they liked. It was idle to talk of the Treasury not daring to make changes which would be opposed by the Irish Members. The other day, when Irishmen of all parties joined in asking the Government to undo what was admitted to be a dirty trick on the part of the Treasury, they were met by a non possumus. How could private Members follow the operations of the Treasury, which were always as secret as possible If this change were made the tenant ought to be recouped by some change in the regulations.

said that this was not merely a question of the tenant's interest, but of the promotion of land purchase in Ireland. The lower the rate at which money could be borrowed, the better the terms on which the tenant could buy and the landlord could sell. The Treasury ought to charge a lower rate of interest on all this land-purchase system.

said that he was not in favour of land purchase, but he should support the Amendment. The action of the Treasury was mean and contemptible. Five years ago, when land stock and Consols were below par, the Treasury would not hear of paying cash.

said that it was unreasonable to expect the Treasury to pay more than they had undertaken to pay. Every speaker had proceeded on the assumption that it was the interest of the Treasury which was at stake. That was an entire delusion. The interests at stake were those of the guarantee fund, and ultimately of the Irish ratepayer. What happened when this stock was appreciated? As the payments were made they had to be invested, and the best investment was to buy up the stock. If for every £100 of stock £110 had to be paid, a deficiency must occur some time, and that would have to be met out of the guarantee fund, because the Treasury was not in the first place liable.

endorsed what had fallen from Nationalist Members. He spoke as one of those who differed from the general impression as to the desirability of land purchase, being entirely sceptical as to its alleged ultimate benefits. In fact he believed that half a century hence its results would be disastrous to Ireland. Therefore he spoke in an entirely disinterested manner when he said that if the Government really wished to kill their own pet project nothing would be inure calculated to bring that about than the proposed change from land stock to coin. When in 1891 the hon. Member for South Hunts proposed that coin should be paid instead of land stock they said, "Oh, no; it is quite impossible that the Treasury could undertake to find coin." The attitude of the Treasury was, "Heads I win; tails you lose."

contended that in this matter the Government were acting with great unfairness both to landlords and tenants. God knows, the Government need not cheat their own friends. [Laughter and cheers.] He did not blame the Chief Secretary; he did not believe he had a bit to do with it; it was another example of the characteristic meanness of the Treasury. These men sitting in Whitehall were constantly on the watch to see how they could rob the unfortunate country. He hoped the landlords would join with the Nationalist Members in this matter, and he thought that united they should be strong enough to beat the Government.

supported the Amendment, although in doing so he admitted he might appear very inconsistent. In 1891 he moved an Amendment that the landlords should be paid in cash instead of in land stock, and at that time he was opposed by every section in the House. At that time it was probable that land stock would stand at considerably below par. He was gently sat upon and crushed by the First Lord of the Admiralty, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was told by Mr. Sexton that his proposal was one of "extreme audacity." The hon. Member for Derry City said that if the hon. Member brought forward many Amendments like this the sooner the Government got rid of him and provided him with a place elsewhere the better. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Northampton said this was an instance of "the reckless greed of Irish landlords"—[laughter]—and the Leader of the Opposition said this was "the coolest of all proposals" and that "here was a typical Irish landlord who comes here asking for more." Of course the typical Irish landlord was the most horrible thing that could occur to anybody's mind. [Laughter.] But now that this stock, instead of standing below Dar, was very much above par, the Treasury stepped in and said—Well, you shall not have the benefit of it. That was so like them. [Laughter.] He hoped the Government, in the interests of purchase, which they had at heart, would withdraw the proposal they had made.

urged the Government not to take the responsibility of refusing a request which came to them from all sections of Irish Members. Under the existing law the machinery of land purchase had come almost to a standstill in Ireland, and one object of this Measure was to remove the clogs and defects in the machinery. But if the Government insisted on keep- ing this clause in the Bill they would be creating a new obstacle in the way of the working of land purchase. No matter how much trouble the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Leader of the House, whom he was glad to see in his place during this discussion, had taken in considering this question of land purchase, they could not with any confidence set up their opinion as better than the opinion of all sections of Irishmen who had studied the matter.

did not think hon. Members quite realised the difficulties that would ensue if the Amendment were adopted. They had to consider the whole financial arrangements in connection with land purchase, and he must repeat, that if the Amendment were accepted the result would be, not to give an advantage to the Treasury, but simply to place a burden upon the Guarantee Fund—[cries of "No!"]—yes, that was so, and he had not heard a single argument to the contrary—which ultimately the ratepayers of Ireland would have to bear. [Mr. KNOX dissented.] The hon. Member shook his head, but not one speaker had got up to say that was not the fact. Hon. Members must show that this loss would not fall on the Guarantee Fund, and up to the present they had failed to do this. When this stock was originally created the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton objected to its creation on the ground that it would be more valuable than Consols, pointing out that they were bound to give the landlord entitled to receive £100 or £1,000 the equivalent of that amount and nothing more. It had been shown how extremely difficult it was to forecast what the fluctuations of the stock might be, but, with the price of Guaranteed Stock at £112, it was obvious that if this enormous advance in the price could have been foreseen Parliament would not have agreed to the proposal then made and accepted. This Amendment had been supported on the ground that it would give a stimulus to purchase. It might do so, but he did not know how the £10 or £12 would be divided. Possibly, the landlord would get the whole of it, or possibly it would be partly divided between the landlord and the tenant. It would be impossible at the present time to raise the general question of interest. That was part of a large question, and it would have to be raised as part of a large question; but if they were now going to continue to issue stock instead of cash they made it far more difficult to adjust the interest to be paid by tenant-purchasers when the rate of interest fell than would be the case in the proposal of the Bill. He appealed, therefore, to the House to leave the Government proposal as it stood.

who rose amid cries of "Oh!" said that the Government had been told by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean that it would be the duty of hon. Members to intervene in the discussion on this part of the Bill so far as the clause dealt with the safeguarding of general financial interests. They had now the opportunity of doing so, and to his great surprise the only speech which had been made was one in which the hon. Gentleman indicated that he was willing to support the Amendment, which would not, if carried out, have the effect of putting the purchase of Irish land on an equitable basis. Irish Members on both sides had apparently arrived at the opinion that this was a good opportunity to get out of a hardhearted Treasury—[cheers]—what the Treasury were unwilling to give. He should have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the late Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had been present to deal with the arguments, because they were necessarily more familiar than he was with the financial aspects of the question; but he could not refrain from pointing out to the landowners on his own side of the House that if any of this money was to go to the tenant at all it must be, and could only be, if the land in Ireland was to be sold below its nominal value. On the face of it it was manifest that the landlord would get the whole of the bonus; if the tenant was to get any of it at all it was because the landlord sold nominally at 13 or 14 years' purchase land for which he would get 15 or 16 years' purchase in consequence of the premium. He did not know whether his hon. Friends contemplated this result with equanimity. He believed that they had a strong objection to Clause 34 on the ground—he thought the illusory ground—that it would have the effect of permitting the Landed Estates Court to deal largely with cases of sale, and that this would have the effect of lowering the nominal value of land in Ireland. If the tenant was to get any profit out of this Amendment it could only be because the landlords were going to permit the land of Ireland to be sold at a price below that at which it could be sold. In all probability the money would not go in large quantities to the tenants, but it would, for the most part, go straight to the landlords if the Commissioners of Sales did their duty. He admitted that it was hard to say so; but it must be understood that, so far as it was a bonus, it was a bonus which, if it went to the tenants, went to thorn at the expense of the landlords. He asked all hon. Members interested in sound finance, whether it was a tolerable transaction that the House should deliberately decide that the State or the Guarantee Fund was to lend landlords and tenants, for the sale and purchase of land in Ireland, money which could only be repaid by investing the Sinking Fund at a much lower rate of interest than that which was got for the principal. This had not been supported as a financial transaction by any hon. Member; it was supported simply on the ground that it was a bonus from the Treasury to carry out a great national undertaking. He admitted the value of that national undertaking. He had been the most ardent advocate of purchase; he had perhaps done as much as any man to promote purchase—at all events he had striven to do so. But if purchase could only go on by means of some bonus of this kind, let the House have the courage of its opinions and frankly put down in the Bill that the value of land should be paid in cash to the tenant or landlord, and that in addition there was to be thrown in 10, 15, or 20 per cent. in order to promote and smooth the working of the purchase wheels. He asked the House to remember that while the premium was only 10 or 12 per cent. it might rise to 20, or it might fall to nothing. If their object was to put a bonus on land sales let it be a bonus which did not vary in its amount with the accidents of the English money market; let it be a fixed amount in order to induce persons to carry out the transaction for the benefit of the community at large. It was not reasonable finance, it was not the way to deal with any great national transaction of this kind, and he hoped that the

This Amendment having been carried, it is not worth while to discuss the clause any further. Therefore I move—and I think it will be in the interest of business—that the clause be now negatived. Perhaps I should say that we reserve to ourselves the power of reconsidering this matter. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]

So do we. [Laughter.]

I will put the Motion now because I think that it is the general sense of the Committee that it should be put.

said that it was impossible to leave the practice relating to this subject as it stood at present, because the clause would introduce a change which would affect that practice radically. At present the Land Commission did not advance money until they had ascertained that the landlord had a good title, but this clause would sanction an advance before it was ascertained that the landlord had an absolutely good title. It might be that in some cases the title would be defective, and this provision as to the adequacy of the amount of the purchase money was necessary in order to safeguard the interests of the parties really entitled to the property.

said that of course he quite agreed that this clause enabled a landlord in possession of land to sell it if he could make out a good title, but his Amendment was intended to limit its operation to the case only of a man who was not entitled to land getting it into his possession somehow, and then attempting to sell it to the tenant. The words of the clause went a great deal farther than was necessary, because the intention of the Government must be that the clause was to apply to all transactions. As the clause stood it would only lead to doubt, difficulty, and embarrassment in cases where the landlord had a good title, because in such cases the Land Commissioner would have to take up the position of an inquisitor into the landlord's title before the completion of the purchase, and the delay would be a very serious matter indeed. In his view the proposal in the clause was not a reasonable one. He suggested that there was a possibility of devising some form of words that would limit the operation of the clause to the cases in which there was some doubt about the title of the landlord. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he quite concurred that the operation of the clause should be limited to cases in which the landlord had a doubtful title, and might be seeking to convert into money the property of other people, but he thought that the clause was perfectly clear upon the point, and that the Amendment was therefore unnecessary. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that another reason why the words which it was proposed by the Amendment to omit should be retained was that they formed a protection to the landlords.

thought that the clause as it stood would place the Land Judge in a very invidious position as between the incumbrancer on the one hand and the tenant on the other. The Laud Judge would have to take alternately the characters of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, having a double and conflicting duty to discharge. ["Hear!"]

said that it appeared to him that the words in question were of great importance and ought to be kept in the clause, otherwise a man with a shaky title would be able to sell the land to the tenants. It was necessary that the rights of the real owner should be protected.

remarked that the Judge of the Land Court had come to be looked upon as the agent for bankrupt estates in Ireland. If the hon. Member did not obtain a more satisfactory answer than he had received from the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he shoud advise him to press his Amendment to a Division. The Land Commission ought to have a discretionary power to see that the landlord did not get more for his land than it was worth. If the Government would undertake to withdraw these words, and on Report substitute words which would provide against fraud or collusion, hon. Members on that side of the House would be satisfied, but they objected to words such as those they now sought to have deleted, and which were calculated to introduce a vicious practice into the whole system of the administration so far as it related to land purchase.

thought the case would be met if he accepted the following Amendment, to be inserted at the end of sub-section (1):—

"Provided always that, where the Land Commission are satisfied that the landlord has a good and marketable title to the holding, they shall not be required to consider whether the purchase money is adequate in amount."

agreed.

hoped the hon. Member would not persevere with the Amendment. It was desirable to proceed by vesting order, which was a process both cheap and expeditious. The hon. Member objected to a vesting order being made which simply carried out the agreement between the parties. It would be an extraordinary thing if they were to prohibit the landlord and tenant from agreeing to the purchase for a certain sum, reserving any rights to the landlord that the tenant might be willing to have reserved. If the agreement was unjust or oppressive, or did not give adequate security to the State, they had the Land Commission to guard against that. The Land Commission must approve of the agreement, and the vesting order was only to be made to carry out an agreement of which they had approved. ["Hear, hear!"] He was of opinion that the adoption of such an Amendment as this would have the effect of impeding land purchase more, probably, than any other provision which could be introduced. ["Hear, hear!"]

observed that the hon. and learned Member had dealt with the clause as if it referred to the case of a landlord selling the whole of his estate, whereas it did nothing of the kind. It had reference to the sale of a holding upon any estate. As showing the necessity for the sub-section, he pointed out that there might be, forming portion of a large estate, a particular holding the parting with the sporting, timber, and mining rights which might vitiate the whole property. If the words of the sub-section were not retained, a purchase might be prevented where both parties were willing to buy and sell on an agreement based upon the principle of excluding certain rights. ["Hear, hear!"] He would go so far as to say that great injury had been done to the interests of Ireland by the fact that these Purchase Acts had not in any sense properly dealt with these fishing and sporting rights. He would give the Attorney General a concrete case. A tenant agreed with his landlord to buy a farm. The frontage of the farm was a salmon river. The tenant and landlord agreed on the purchase money, but the Land Commission refused to sanction the purchase unless the landlord gave up his salmon-fishing rights also. In view of a case of that kind, he would like to know from the Attorney General whether he thought this sub-section would really be operative.

wished to make an appeal to the Committee on this subject. The object of the clause was merely to enable a contract between the parties to be made effective. The hon. Member for Cork was attempting to introduce a very fundamental change in the system of land purchase, and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth appeared to desire to see another change introduced, but in an opposite direction. He would earnestly beg the hon. Gentleman opposite not to press his Amendment at this stage. He was very anxious to make rapid progress with this part of the Bill this afternoon, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not delay the Committee by a discussion which was really not quite germane to the subject of the clause.

considered that, where sporting rights were reserved to the landlord, there should be a provision in all such cases that the tenant should be represented by a solicitor. It was very desirable in many cases that Ireland should have preserves. It was a good marketable thing if they had a grouse moor, for instance. It brought an enormous number of people into the country, and they spent their money very freely. But the moment the tenant, who in many cases could not read or write, thought he was "diddled," he turned poacher. ["Hear, hear!"]

He does that naturally. [Laughter.]

Quite right too. [Laughter.]

said he did not want to go into the game question, but he did want to suggest that where these rights were reserved it should only be done where the tenant was advised by a solicitor.

said he could not accept that suggestion. He did not see how it was possible to include in the Bill such a provision as that. Their object was to promote purchase as far as possible. He was afraid that, if landlords were to be prevented from reserving such rights as were contemplated by the clause, in many cases they would refuse to sell. He therefore appealed to the hon. Member not to press his Amendment, which could only have the effect of preventing a sale in many cases. As regarded any protection required by the tenant, he would remind the hon. Member for North Louth that every agreement entered into between a landlord and a tenant had to receive the approval of the Commission before it became effective.

said a great I deal depended upon the contracting parties. The Land Commission would not see the man who was making the contract. They would only deal with the names, and he did think that, in those cases where the sporting rights were reserved to the landlord, the tenant should be separately represented.

said the First Lord of the Treasury seemed to think that by his Amendment he was seeking to introduce some new form of enactment, and a principle wholly new to the Purchase Acts. The fact was quite the contrary. It was the clause that was novel. He had no desire to lengthen the Debate or to press the Government unduly, but he would appeal to them to consider the matter in some way between this and Report. The matter plainly was one that required some consideration. In the majority of cases the agreement was entered into by the tenants without legal advice, and though he thought it would be an unfortunate thing for land purchase if a tenant were obliged to have a solicitor in every case, still they must face the fact that the tenants did enter into these, agreements without legal advice, and that in some cases, at any rate, injustice night be done by this Clause 7.

suggested that the Government should insert in the subsection the words—

"and the Land Commission are satisfied that the purchaser understands the nature and character of the reservations."

did not think that that would do, because it would involve an intellectual examination of the tenant on the part of the Commission.

said there would be no such difficulty. There might be an affidavit by the solicitor to the landlord, stating that the nature and character of the reservations were explained to the tenant.

said there could be no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House as to the desirability of a tenant and his landlord, too, understanding what was really the transaction in which they were engaging. It was not so obvious whether the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member was a workable suggestion. It required consideration and inquiry, and that consideration and inquiry would be given to it.

thought this was an important matter in which the tenants throughout the country were just as much interested as the landlord. The tenants had not themselves the opportunity of preserving game, but they desired that it should be preserved. What they objected to was to be taken advantage of. All that was required was a fair and clear understanding between the landlord and the tenant. Let the tenant know where he stood in the matter, and as long as the thing was straightforward and plain he believed that all over the country the tenants would endeavour to carry the clause out.

said he quite agreed that it was desirable that the tenant should know how he stood, but he could not help thinking that already machinery existed under which the Land Commissioners could find out what the circumstances were and whether the tenant understood the reservations or not.

remarked that, a good deal having been said about the landlords' rights in the matter of sporting, he hoped the Committee would allow him to say a word about another individual—the poacher. He maintained that the poacher represented the natural right of the whole community to fish in all rivers—[laughter]—and be denied the right of either tenants or landlords to impose a rent upon any man, woman, or child in Ireland who wished to fish or pursue game. [Laughter and cries of "Oh!"] He could scarcely imagine any thing more cowardly than the hunting of a timid hare or rabbit by either landlord or tenant. ["Hear, hear!"] He had no sympathy whatever with those so-called rights of sporting.

said that, if the views of the hon. Member were admitted and acted upon, game would soon entirely disappear from Ireland, ["Hear, hear!"]

said that in his opinion poaching in Ireland had cost the country tens of thousands of pounds a year.

And lessened the number of flunkeys.

said that, as to the remark just made by the hon. Member, his experience of sporting and shooting districts in Ireland was that large numbers of those whom the hon. Member called flunkeys obtained employment and considerable sums of money to which they looked forward every year, through the sporting, and which actually enabled them, in many cases, to pay their rent. [Cheers.] No sportsman would object to a man taking a hare or rabbit now and again for his own use upon asking for it. [Laughter.] The distinction he desired to draw would be rightly understood by every person. Where there was plenty of game it was a common practice during the season for people in Ireland to ask leave to obtain a hare or a little game now and then. He did not call that poaching. What he called poaching was a man snaring hares and grouse, killing them in large numbers, and sending them to market. He was in favour of sporting in Ireland, and he only wished there was more of it. [Cheers.]

proposed to add to the sub-section, as a protection to the tenant, the words—

"Provided that the separate consideration be specified in the agreement for purchase in respect of the said rights."

said the Amendment would give the tenant no further protection, and it was therefore unnecessary.

submitted that this Amendment was out of order, in accordance with a ruling which the Chairman had already given.

ruled the Amendment out of order.

hoped the Government would not resist the Amendment, and pointed out that the Vendor and Purchaser Act was passed by a Conservative Government 22 years ago. The only persons concerned in the matter were the landlord on the one hand and the tenant on the other, and both parties agreed that this would be a very useful reform. At present an unfortunate landlord was, in order to make good his title, put to the expense of hundreds of pounds, all of which went into the pockets of the solicitor, and the interest of the tenant was hung up, sometimes for a couple of years, while the landlord was engaged in that process.

pointed out that the Vendor and Purchaser Act only dealt with private vendors and purchasers, and provided that the purchaser should be able to require the vendor to furnish only certain specified searches. The Government were anxious to cheapen and expedite purchase in every way possible, and, if the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, they would see whether anything could be done to meet his views.

hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment, because without it the whole of the Purchase Clauses might just as well be put in the waste-paper basket.

said the Amendment only appeared on the Paper that morning, and therefore they had not had time to consider it fully. If they found it was possible to accept it they would do so.

in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, said that, unless the change he suggested were made, a landlord would be wise not to avail himself of the procedure under the clause.

said he did not think the intending selling landlord would be in the least encouraged by this clause. When they wanted to ascertain what was to happen when the money was not being lodged in Court, they found that the clause was really one which legislated by reference. The clause pro- vided that the money, when lodged in Court, was to be dealt with under the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858; he presumed the reference was to Clause 70 of that Act, and Clause 70 referred to two different Acts passed 10 and 11 years before the Act of 1858. He thought the Government ought to make it perfectly clear what they meant by this clause, and what were the prospects of the landlord who agreed to sell to the tenant under circumstances that made him doubt that he was capable of proving his title. Under the clause the purchase money for the holding was to be paid into Court, where it was to remain until title to the land had been inquired into. What he desired to know was what amount of interest, if any, was to be paid pending this inquiry into the title of the landlord. The landlord had entered into an agreement under which he was to get the purchase money in a lump sum, and, the money having been paid into Court, the Land Court absolved the tenant from his share of liability under the agreement. The question in these circumstances was what interest was the landlord to receive upon his own money which was locked up pending the inquiry into his title. It was said that the clause was not to operate in cases where the landlord's title was clear, but in that case the operation of the clause would be to deter any landlord whose title was open to the slightest doubt from entering into any agreement with his tenant for the sale to him of his holding. It was important that this point should be completely cleared up, because in the vast number of cases the title to land in Ireland was open to doubt. Unless he got a satisfactory answer from the Government upon this point he should be compelled to divide upon the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he did not think that the title to land in Ireland was so much open to doubt as that when lawyers got hold of titles they always raised difficulties about them. Before a man could be said to have a good title he must show that every charge upon his estate since 1703 had been satisfied and cleared off. ["Hear!"]

said that the answer to the question whether any, and if so, what interest would be paid upon the purchase money paid into Court in respect of a holding during the period occupied in investigating the doubtful title of a landlord, would really depend upon whether the Amendment which had been adopted by the Committee early in the day was to form part of the Bill finally or not. If it did, then the interest paid on the money so lodged would be 2¾ per cent., whereas if the money were merely lodged in Court as a security in place of the land, the interest paid would be that which the money fetched.

said that he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation of the matter that he had given, and which he was glad to have elicited from the right hon. Gentleman.

trusted the Chief Secretary would accept the Amendment. The Registration of Title Act was an excellent Act, carefully drawn by Mr. Justice Madden when Attorney General. But it had been killed by the absurd rule made by the Land Commission; secondly, by the gross inattention to their duty of the Land Commission in performing the statutory duty of seeing that the tenants who had already bought their land should have their titles registered free of charge; thirdly, by the way the Land Commission were treated by the Treasury; and fourthly, the inattention of the clerks of the Crown. If the Registration of Title Act was not to be properly carried out, let it be repealed at once. If the Laud Commission imagined that if they allowed the land certificate to remain in the Hands of the tenant, there might he some danger to the advance that was absurd. The bonâ fide purchaser would know that the advance was on the face of the certificate, and that that would be full notice to everybody. Everybody knew what these things were, and that the first charge on the, holding was the charge to the Land Commission.

said these Amendments dealt almost entirely with administrative details. They were put down at short notice, and without having an opportunity of considering them he had difficulty in accepting or refusing to accept them. The present Amendment was only placed on the Paper that morning, and it had been impossible to communicate with the Department which it concerned. He suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw the Amendment for the present, that he might communicate with The Land Commission.

trusted that when the Attorney General had communicated with the Land Commission he would express his opinion irrespective of the Land Commission, and not take a merely Departmental view of his position as Attorney General. The Commission had acted absolutely in repeal of an Act of Parliament. It was "a congested district of folly" in a great many respects.

said that any decision the Government might come to would be on their own responsibility. But it was only fair the Government should have proper materials for a decision. While he was grateful to the Committee for the business-like way in which the discussion had been conducted, he was a little alarmed at its slowness. He was anxious that full time should be given to the discussion of Clause 4, and he hoped he should not be going beyond his province in asking for expedition.

asked whether Clause 4 would be taken and the Committee stage of the Bill finished to-morrow?

replied that that was the hope of the Government.

intimated that he would withdraw his Amendment. He hoped the Attorney General would give personal attention to the matter.

said the Amendment, which only appeared on the Paper that morning, raised the most peculiar, the most complicated, and the most uninviting question that could be raised in connection with the subject of Irish land. He would, however, consider the matter before Report, and see whether the intention of the hon. Member could be carried out.

rose to move the omission of Sub-section (1).

I doubt if this Amendment is in order. If the first sub-section were omitted, the second sub-section could not stand alone, as it depends upon the first. The proper course for the hon. Member would be to move to omit the clause.

I will move to omit "Where," the first word of the sub-section.

That will not do, because the remainder of the sub-section will not make sense.

Then I will move to omit "Where" in order to insert "In the case of." I do it pro forma, in order to call attention to a personal grievance, because of the way the Government have acted in regard to this clause.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman moves that Amendment he will have to confine himself to the distinction between "Where" and "In the case of." [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman cannot move to omit a word at the beginning of the clause in order to discuss the clause as a whole. The proper time for discussing the clause as a whole is when the clause as a whole is put.

intimated that he would move the first of a series of Amendments which his hon. Friend the Member for Cork had upon the Paper. It was to leave out the word "make" ("the Land Commission make"), and to insert instead thereof the words "have sanctioned." When the Land Purchase Act of 1888 was before the House, the Government accepted from him an Amendment of the most valuable kind for the tenant, requiring that an order should be made by the Land Commission whenever an agreement to purchase was made. At the time when the Amendment was under consideration a member of the Land Commission—he would not mention the name—was sitting under the clock, and there was great tooing and froing between the Treasury Bench and under the clock, for it seemed this gentleman wanted to resist the Amendment on the ground that it would impose a little extra trouble on the Land Commission. The Amendment, however, was accepted, but the influence of the gentleman of the Land Commission was again apparent in the clause. Those gentlemen would like to have slipped through Parliament a provision which, while highly detrimental to the tenant, would excuse them from making an order in every case of an agreement to purchase being arranged between a landlord and a tenant. He, as one of the laziest men in the world, sympathised with anyone who wished to get out of doing anything, but he could not let this pass.

Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing the clause as a whole which, as I have said, cannot be done. He will have an opportunity of discussing the clause as a whole when the clause as a whole is put.

said he, of course, submitted to the ruling, but he thought it was no use in making a general protest when the clause was put. What he wanted was to get the clause amended. He asked the Government, therefore, why they proposed to change one of the provisions of the Act of 1888 which was favourable to the tenants?

said the series of Amendments he had put down—of which this was the first—was intended to restore the law to its existing state.

said he would accept the Amendment.

said he could not agree to the Amendment. In the first place, during the interval the tenant would be paving less than afterwards he would have to pay by way of annuity; and over and above that objection it was clear that to insert 3 per cent. in an Act of Parliament as the normal rate of interest would practically stereotype the rate afterwards. When the landlord had to pay interest on a mortgage of his estate of 4 or 5 per cent., it seemed unreasonable that the tenant should only be paying 3 per cent. The effect would be to discourage sale by the landlord.

suggested to his right hon. and learned Friend that he would be on firmer ground if he proposed 3⅛ per cent., that having been laid down by the Lord Chief Baron as the legal rate of interest. Moreover, that was the rate which the Conservative Government of 1888 agreed to in connection with the Act of that year. If they examined the Commons' reasons for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments at that time, it would be found that one reason given was that 3⅛ per cent. had been made the subject of legal decision. Was this House now to go back on what it did eight or nine years ago? To do so would be to give the House of Lords a dangerous pull.

accepted the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend, and, the Amendment having been withdrawn, he moved to insert 3⅛ per cent.

denied that the Lord Chief Baron had decided that 3⅛ per cent. was the legal interest in such cases. The decision in question was based on the circumstances of the particular case, and it was expressly recorded that in other similar cases the ordinary Court rate of interest of 4 per cent. had been allowed.

pointed out that the Court rate of interest was fixed more than half a century ago, when the state of the money market was very different to what it was now. The Court of Chancery was very Conservative, and, unless the Legislature interfered, it would stand by its old rate. Now, Parliament was creating a new code.

said it really appeared to him to be unreasonable, when they were endeavouring to facilitate sale as far as possible, to ask the landlord to be content with 3⅛ per cent. instead of 5 per cent. upon his capital. If they did that, he would of course, pro tanto, be disinclined to sell. Every difficulty they threw in the landlord's way was a difficulty in the way of sale and purchase as between landlord and tenant. Considering what they had done in the Bill to shorten the period between the date of the agreement and the advance of the purchase money, it was unreasonable of the right hon. and learned Member to insist on this Amendment. The actual gain to the tenant would be small, and the effect upon the landlord as regards inclination to sell, might be considerable.

said that in a recent case in England Lord Justice Kay stated that 4 per cent. was an antiquated doctrine, and that in considering the Court rate of interest, the Court of Chancery would have regard to what money was worth in the market. Besides, if the landlord was in such a posi- tion that he could get 4 per cent. from the tenant as long as the purchase was hanging on, it would obviously be to his interest to let the purchase negotiations drag on interminably. The rate of interest was always dependent upon whether the security was a risky one or not, and in this particular case the security was perfect. The landlord was in the same position as if his money was guaranteed by the State; he ran no risk whatever.

said that the case quoted by the hon. Member was that of a particular individual who was ordered to bring money into Court. Most of the landlords in Ireland were incumbered, and the interest on incumbrances ran at 4, 4½ and possibly 5 per cent. In the interval between the time when the agreement was made and the money advanced, those landlords would be obliged to pay interest to their incumbrancers, and if the Committee obliged them to pay interest at the rate provided by the incumbrances, and at the same time prevent them from recovering from the tenant more than 4 per cent., they would be losers.

called the attention of the Government to an Amendment of Lord Fitzgerald, when the Bill of 1888 came from the Lords, where it was provided that the rate of interest should be calculated at 4 per cent. He quoted from "Hansard" to show that the present First Lord of the Treasury, then Chief Secretary, moved that this provision should be omitted when the Lords' Amendments came to be considered. But now, eight years afterwards, after a bargain had been made fixing the interest at 3⅛ per cent., and after the value of money had fallen practically 1 per cent., the Government proposed to raise the rate of legal interest to a higher rate than they insisted on in 1888.

said he was not aware of the passage to which the hon. and learned Member had referred. He thought, however, that a compromise might be come to. If the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, he would move to omit the words "or if no rate is agreed on, at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum," the effect of which would be to leave the rate of interest to be determined by agreement.

said that this was a proposal which changed the law of the tenant's letting. According to the hon. Member's Amendment, the tenant might have to pay interest on the purchase money five or six months before any purchase money was agreed upon.

denied that this was so, because the landlord at that date would be entitled to his rent, and the rate of interest chargeable was less than that rent, and therefore to the benefit of the tenant.

said that the landlord and the tenant made a bargain and agreed what the amount of the purchase money was to be. An agreement was then made as to arrears, and the effect of the two agreements was to clear the tenant up to the date of the purchase agreement. The hon. Member now proposed that the tenant should not be cleared up to the date of the purchase money, but that the interest of the purchase money might go back five or six months.

contended that the clause as it stood would not operate unjustly. If a landlord and tenant chose to make arrangemenents in their agreement as to what was to happen if the purchase went off, their respective rights and liabilities would, of course, be regulated by those arrangements; but, in the absence of such special arrangements, if a landlord and a tenant agreed—the one to sell and the other to buy—and the agreement went off, the effect must be to remit the parties to the position which they occupied before the agreement was entered into. The proposal of the hon. Member, if carried, would be likely to deter landlords from making agreements for sale.

protested against the change in the law which the Government sought to introduce by this clause. The clause of the Act of 1888 ought to be left as it stood. This proposed change showed the vicious enmity felt by certain land officials in Ireland against the tenantry. Those officials were opposed to provisions that were fair to the tenant.

said that he had always been in favour of a limited system of land purchase, but he did not think that, if the system were applied universally all ever Ireland, causing the total disappearnce of the present class of landlords, it would lead to general prosperity and peace. He knew that some hon. Members opposite thought that an Irish landlord was incapable of any tender emotions, and even of common honesty. That view, however, was not held by everybody, and it was now admitted in many quarters that to the action of the landlords the present condition of Ireland was largely due. ["Hear, hear!" from the Nationalist Members.] What was its position? The country had never before been so peaceable, nor, he believed, so prosperous. [Nationalist laughter.] Hon. Members opposite, who made broad assertions as to the unhappy condition of the Irish tenantry, never supported their statements by figures or proof of any kind. The majority of Irish landlords had maintained peaceful relations with their tenants. There were, of course, exceptions; but in those cases the strained relations were nearly always the result of the work of political agitators. On the whole, the landlords had treated their tenants reasonably; and, even in cases where fair rents had been fixed, they had generally granted reductions in bad years. If the present class of landlords were swept away and replaced by small men occupying a more or less precarious position, the peace of Ireland would be far more difficult to maintain than at present, and the rent agitation would at once begin again. These were the broad reasons why he thought that universal land purchase would not be a satisfactory thing. But the Government proposed a modified system of land purchase, because, of course, the money provided by the State was not anything like sufficient to buy out all the landlords. He could not conceive why a clause of this kind was introduced into the Bill, because it was really antagonistic to land purchase. He believed the clause would rig the market. It would bring about forced sales. Estates would be brought into the market against the will of the owner, against the will of a portion of the tenants, and against the will of the incumbrancers—the insurance companies and others who had advanced millions of money on Irish land. The sale of estates would be forced at a price to be decided by the Land Commission, without any warning to the interested parties, and without giving an opportunity for fair competition. That was a fatal objection to the clause. If it contained an element which would enable fair competition to take place, there might not be so much objection to fit, but fair competition in the open market was removed. One portion of the tenants on an estate might disapprove of purchase. They might not want to buy. He knew of a great number of cases in which the tenants generally would rather remain as they were, and where that was the case it would throw great difficulty in the way of peaceful settlements. Another objection to the clause was that it brought in an element of compulsion. He did not know that there was any other civilised country in the world where the system of compulsion had been adopted. Why should a tenant be forced, against his will, to become the tenant of the British Government? The British Government was now not very popular with the majority of the people of Ireland in its capacity of a Government; but if the Government was made the landlords of the people, its popularity, instead of growing, would vanish altogether. He objected altogether to the principle of compulsion. As applied to the landlords he should oppose it to the bitter end, and he should oppose it equally as applied to the tenants. He had not made these observations with any desire to defeat the progress of the Bill. He was sure the House and his right hon. Friend would agree that he and his friends had not prolonged the Debate as they might have done; but, as he looked on this clause as one which would have the effect of defeating the aim and object of the Government of promoting a free sale of land in Ireland, he was bound to oppose it.

who was frequently interrupted with cries of "Speak up!" was understood to say that, though he was a supporter of the clause, he had some misgiving as to its effect. He was very much afraid it would have the opposite effect to that suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, and that it would rig the land market in favour of the landlords. The hon. and gallant Member supposed that the clause would bear down the land market by withdrawing land from open competition, but he would direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that the clause only applied to estates the owners of which had parted with all right to fix a price. He did not know whether the Land Judge had acted legally, but he had assumed to himself the right to withdraw these states from the market and keep up the price. An enormous number of estates had been put into his Court for the purpose of sale, and this clause, so far from having the effect of bearing down the price of land, would, he was afraid, keep it up. He confessed that he supported the clause with some misgiving for that reason. The rights of mortgagees and landlords were guarded by every conceivable safeguard. The Land Judge had unfettered discretion to decide whether the offers made by the Land Commission were fair, and there was nothing in the clause to force the hand of the Land Judge; so that, as a matter of fact, so far as the landlords' interests were concerned, or the interests of the mortgagee, or anybody having an interest in these so-called derelict estates, they would have additional chances of parting with their interests and thereby an additional stop would be put to the falling of the price of land. The fact was that the value of land had not nearly touched bottom in these matters. Although he had been from the beginning, and still was, a consistent supporter of land sale as a settlement of the Irish land question, he had always advised the tenants to be exceedingly slow in entering into bargains for purchase while the land market was a falling market. The true way of dealing with the problem would be to compel the Land Judge to put on the market all the estates lying derelict in the Land Court. That would leave the estates to fair competition in the market. Why should they in regard to land, any more than in regard to any other commodity, when the market was dropping, introduce an artificial method by the law of the land to bear up the price? These things ought to be left to the play of the market. What he complained of was that the Irish landlords were not willing to face the market and get what they could for their land, but that an artificial system was to be adopted for the purpose of keeping up the price. He did not support the clause with enthusiasm, because he did not expect much out of it. He liked the policy of the clause, but he could not give a vote in support of it without stating frankly that he believed, as at present drawn, the effect of the clause would be to keep up the increase in the price of land and to arrest that fall which was essential and necessary if land purchase was to be carried on upon a lasting basis. Therefore, while he was inclined to support the clause, he did so with misgivings.

remarked that the object of the clause was to take away the discretion which had been vested in a High Court Judge, namely, the Landed Estates Judge, for more than a generation, and place it in the hands: of the Land Commission in regard to the price that should be accepted for land. It did even more than that. It changed the principle of an open market for land in the Incumbered Estates Court into a close market, which, to his mind, was a great danger. It also did away with the security and safeguards of the entrance of puisne incumbrances, which was one of the things which the Landed Estates Court was created to take care of. He would illustrate what the clause did. Say there was a property in the Court, and in regard to which all the preliminary conditions of this clause were fulfilled. According to this clause, the Judge had no discretion at all but to order the Land Commission to make a Report as to the terms and conditions upon which the property was to be sold from the incumbrancers, who were the real men, to the tenants. The Land Commission went down and held an inspection in order to make this Report, and the very first thing they had to bear in mind was that they did not themselves want to become landlords. They were the mere conduit-pipe to convey the property from the incumbrancers to the tenants. They must take and fix the price at the figure the tenants chose to give. It was not merely that, but the price would not be fixed according to what the bulk of the tenants agreed to give, but according to that which one-third of the tenants would give. He would state, why. The most important thing the Land Commission had to do was to safeguard the interest of the State. If, therefore, they found on an estate that, although two-thirds of the tenants were willing to give 16 years' purchase, and that one-third would only give 10 years, they would be in this position: if they reported that the price to be given by the tenants was 16 years' purchase, they would have one-third of the tenants standing out and would have to apply the compulsory clause. That was a very serious position for the Land Commission to recommend the State to put itself in. If the Land Commission acted upon the principles they were established to carry out, and wished to safeguard the interest of the State and avoid having land thrown on their own hands, they must fix the price according to that which one-third of the tenants were willing to give, namely, 10 years' purchase, although the rest of the tenants were able and willing to give 16. He must say that he thought that was a desperate position to place the Land Commission in. He contended that this was a clause to force the price of land down to the point at which one-third of the tenants were willing to purchase. Had the Land Judge, knowing the circumstances of the case, any discretion in dealing with the matter? As he read the clause, he had not. The Land Commission would make their Report, and then the Land Judge had no alternative, and could exercise no discretion whatever, but must offer the land to each of the tenants at the price named in the Report, which, as he had shown, might be the price fixed by only one-third of the tenants. That was a very serious revolution in, and tremendous departure from, the policy that prevailed now, and which had obtained for over 40 years. He agreed it would be much more satisfactory if the property now in the hands of the Landed Estates Court could be got out of that Court, and that a fair and reasonable price, regulated by the open market, could be realised for it. He thought he had said enough to show the tremendous consequences that were likely to follow from this clause. He appreciated the motive of the Government, and he was sure the Chief Secretary was only desirous of doing what was right and fair, and that he would do nothing to injure the fair value of property in Ireland. But he should vote for the rejection of the clause on the grounds that they were sweeping away the policy and practice that had existed for nearly 50 years of a Court that no one had complained of and that had done its work well; that they were taking away, from what remained of the Estates Court, its essence—namely, the discretion of the Judge; that they were knocking down the value of land really to the price that a third of the tenants would give for it; and that what they were doing would renew agitation in Ireland. What was going to come out of this clause was this—that on every estate where the tenant wanted to buy and it was known that the owner of the estate was heavily incumbered and had not a large margin, the tenants would withhold the rent. Then the estate would go into the Estates Court, and from that time the course was clear for the tenants, for once in Court, according to this clause, the tenants get it at their own price. Under all these circumstances he would ask his right hon. Friend whether he thought the clause ought to be passed after only 40 minutes' discussion—a clause which was revolutionary in its character, and in its aim and effect fraught with great danger.

believed this to be the most valuable clause for the landlords, and, therefore, if they voted against it, he should support it. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken opposed the clause on the ground of its coercion of the landlords. All he could say was that if he went to a division he should, in the words of a memorable placard which he issued at the election of 1886, "Vote for Colomb and no coercion." [Loud laughter.]

said he had never issued any placard, "Vote for Colomb, and no coercion" at the date named, Placards were issued without his knowledge, and he had them at once torn down.

said there was one statement made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh which he thought he ought to immediately correct. That was the statement that the policy of the Government in promoting purchase by this Bill would simply drive the present landlords out of the country. That was very far from their intention, and he would point out that, in this particular clause, was a sub-section inserted with the view of maintaining them in the enjoyment of their houses and lands.

That is without their property. How are they to live?

said his hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth had asked him whether, in view of all the horrible consequences he had conjured up as likely to follow from this clause, it was reasonable that the clause should be passed after 40 minutes' discussion. If he thought all those consequences were likely to follow he should have some sympathy with his hon. Friend's complaint, but he thought he could show that those consequences were not likely to follow. They were told by his hon. and gallant Friend that this was a proposal simply to rig the market, that there was no fair offer to the public, and that the price would be settled by the Land Court. His hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth, on the other hand, said the price would be settled by the tenants or by one-third of the tenants. Let them look at the facts. In the first place, this clause was not to apply to an estate which had completely passed out of the control of the landlord. An absolute order for sale must be made before the clause applied at all. Then what followed? The Land Commission was directed to inspect the estate and to report to the Judge what would be a reasonable price for the tenants to give for their holdings. And then followed this procedure:—

"The Land Judge, after giving all parties, including the tenants, an opportunity of being heard, and considering the report and any offers that may he made for the purchase of the estate or any part thereof, and any other matters that may he brought before him, and the general circumstances of the estate, shall make to the person appearing to be in occupation as tenant of each holding on the estate an offer to sell to him the fee-simple of the holding."

Are we to understand that the Land Commission are to give a report of the price that they think ought to be given, and not the price the tenants are willing to give?

Certainly. The case is as clear as possible if my hon. Friend will look at the language of the clause:—" The Land Commission shall, at the request of the Land Judge, cause the estate to be inspected and a report to be made by two Commissioners respecting the estate and the circumstances thereof, and the price at and the conditions under which the sale of the holdings to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts can properly be made."

That means that the tenants have agreed to the price.

said certainly not. The words were, the price at which the sale "can properly be made." His hon. Friend had said the practice of the Landed Estates Court was one of which no complaint had been made up to the present time, but Judge Monroe, in a charge delivered some five or six years ago, stated that the expensive procedure of the Court was eating into the very vitals of the property. ["Hear, hear!"] Quite apart from the advantage gained to the best interests of Ireland in transferring their holdings to the tenants, some provision which would put an end to a state of things under which the Landed Estates Court had developed into a huge machine for the collection of rents was earnestly required. [Nationalist cheers.] He would like to point out the immense advantages which would be derived from this clause if it were passed into law. In the first place, they would undoubtedly give an enormous stimulus and impetus to purchase; in the second place, they would relieve the congestion in the Landed Estates Court; and, in the third place, they would be doing away with a system under which estates, instead of being under the control of those who owned them, were simply under the control of receivers, who practically had no interest, or very little interest, in the proper management of them. He earnestly commended the clause to the favourable vote of the Committee. He thought himself that it was the most important clause of the Bill, and certainly it was one which he himself was prepared to abide by. ["Hear!"]