Will the Leader of the House state what arrangements have been made with regard to business for to-morrow?

The only business to-morrow, so far as I know, after the Indian Budget, will be the Third Reading of the Revenue Bill and the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. I believe it would be convenient to the House to dispose of the Appropriation Bill so that nothing shall be left for Friday except the Prorogation; but if any considerable section of the House desires to have a discussion on the Third Reading, it will not be proper to put any pressure upon the House.

I think there will be a general concurrence in the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, but I will take note that should there be a desire to discuss the Appropriation Bill it will not be taken at an unduly late hour.

said he thought that, while the Government and the great landed proprietors in the other House had acted loyally, some of the Amendments were of a character which made them very difficult to deal with, and he complained that Members had not had the opportunity of putting down Amendments to some of the provisions decided upon in the other Chamber. He wished particularly to complain of the state in which the Land Judges Court had been left, and intimated that when they came to that portion of the Bill he would claim to further amend it.

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendment—

"In page 1, line 10, after the word 'aforesaid' to insert the words 'provided that if any person interested in the estate makes application to the Land Commission in the prescribed manner, the order sanctioning the advance shall set forth the specific grounds for dealing with the case under this sub-section instead of under the foregoing provisions of this section.'"

the first Amendment, read a second time.

said that in moving, that the House do disagree with that Amendment he was very far indeed from suggesting that the first clause of the Bill in the form in which it finally passed the House of Commons was of so sacro-sanct a character as to justify them in refusing to consider any Amendment to it at all. But the clause was arrived at in its present shape after a prolonged and anxious period of consideration and received the approval of the representatives of all the parties interested. That being so, although they were quite ready to consider proposed Amendments, he thought that under the circumstances any Amendment should at least fulfil two conditions. In the first place it should be precise and unmistakable in its purport, and in the second place it should be of some advantage to the parties interested. He would apply those tests to this Amendment. Was it so precise in its terminology that it would give rise to no future debates. He was told, by those best qualified to advise him, that these words if rigidly interpreted would prove a stimulus to future dissent and legislation. If they did not affect the general meaning of the clause then they became mere surplusage. He held that the Amendment was ambiguous, and likely to become a bone of contention. It was of no obvious advantage to either landlord or tenant, and he hoped the House would not agree with the Lords.

^* said the landlords of Ireland felt strongly the desirability of inserting the proviso as a means of placing on record the views of those who proposed it, but in view of the nature of the whole clause and the general spirit in which it was arrived at, he advised the acceptance of the Chief Secretary's decision.

Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In page 2, line 23, to leave out the words 'and adjacent to or in the neighbourhood of the estate.'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

said that while he must ask the House to restore the words, he was prepared to give to the Land Commission a discretion to apply the clause to the case of a landlord, part of whose estate was in one county and part in another, because he believed it would facilitate purchase to have the whole property treated as one. He would therefore later on move to add to the end of the clause—

"Provided that the Land Commission may, if they think it necessary for furthering the purposes of this Act, dispense with the condition in this sub-section that the land purchased and resold shall be adjacent to or in the neighbourhood of the estate."

said his sympathies were with the House of Lords in this matter. He was sure the objection to this Amendment was purely a Treasury objection and that the heart of the Chief Secretary was not in it.

Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill—

"In line 26, at end of sub-section, to add the words 'provided that the Land Commission may, if they think it necessary for furthering the purposes of this Act, dispense with the condition in this sub-section that the land purchased and resold shall be adjacent to or in the neighbourhood of the estate.'"—( Mr. Wyndham. )

Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

"In page 2, line 40, to leave out the words 'to the vendor.' Line 41, to leave out the word 'the' and insert the word 'a.' Line 42, after the word 'application' to insert 'within the prescribed time.'"

"In page 4, line 5, after the word 'it' to insert the words: (5) If the owner of any demesne or other land subject to settlement and sold to the Land Commission does not repurchase the same within the prescribed time, the Land Commission may make an advance under this section to the trustees of the settlement, and in such case the land resold shall be held subject to the trusts of the settlement. (6) Any land resold in pursuance of this section shall not be subject to the provisions of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, relating to the devolution of freehold registered land'"

"In page 5, line 5, after the word 'Commission' to insert the words 'with the consent of the owner,'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment

"In page 7, line 16, to leave out 'the foregoing provisions' and insert 'Sub-section 1 of Section 1,'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

said this was a doubtful point, but he felt that he must ask the House to disagree with the Amendment. In the case of a sale to the Land Commission the Land Commission would become the vendor in lieu of the tenant, and no case of the guarantee deposit would arise. In the case of a sale from landlord to tenant it might be held that it was a matter entirely for the landlord. But the House were responsible for legislation, and the Government which introduced the legislation were responsible for its subsequent effects. This Amendment would apply only in the case of bargains outside and above the zone, which would result in a reduction of less than 10 per cent. Such bargains were not likely to be frequent, but they would occur in certain cases of very valuable tenancies. He doubted however whether they ought to legislate for such rare exceptions, all the more since, in his opinion, the Amendment was not in the true interest of either landlord or tenant. Looking at it from the point of view of the tenants, he did not think it would do any harm, though it might be held that there was an intention to raise the price. Looking at it from the point of view of the landlords, he had considered the matter very carefully. By such a statutory enactment they would almost be giving a direction to the Estates Commissioners that in every case where the price was above the zone they were to retain a guarantee deposit. If that was once done it would become the law for all futurity. Therefore, although he spoke with great diffidence, being the Minister most responsible for the Bill, and having come to the definite conclusion that the guarantee deposit had been a mistake in the past and would be a mistake in the future, he asked the House to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

Amendment disagreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 8, line 3, to leave out the words the exclusive."

the next Amendment, read a second time.

moved to agree with the Lords in the Amendment.

thought the House were entitled to some explanation on this matter. As he understood it the right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit the words "the exclusive," and to insert in the next line the words" sporting rights exclusive of the tenant." He would like to understand what the difference was between the two forms of phraseology. The question of sporting rights was discussed at length in Committee, and a kind of understanding arrived at between the two shies. He did not desire to increase the difficulties of the Government at this period of the session, but before the Amendment was agreed to he would like some explanation of the change.

thought it would be convenient now to state what the general effect of the Lords Amendment and of the Amendment he proposed to move would be. The first sub-section of the clause as it stood dealt with exclusive rights, and it stated that where the landlord had exclusive rights he could make an arrangement by which to retain them himself or convey them to the tenant. The Amendment, "sporting rights exclusive of the tenants," was to meet an objection raised in the other House which would not occur in many cases, but which, when it did occur, ought to be met. This clause considered only the relation between landlord and tenant. On some properties in Ireland the head landlord had a visionary right to shoot concurrently with the right of the man who, in common terminology, was called the landlord. In those cases no question, would arise between landlord and tenant, and the landlord ought to have anything the House decided to give under this clause. There were other cases in which rights were granted, and the representative of the grantee had certain rights over 150,000 acres, but was landlord over perhaps only 20,000 or 30,000 of those acres. Over the balance he had by charter a right to shoot which, though not exercised, was still existent, and the Government desired to treat the balance of the acres as though he were the landlord. Coming to the more substantial changes, if the proposed Amendments were accepted the landlord who had not the exclusive rights over the whole of his property, would be able to obtain that right by treaty with the tenant before the sale was effected. He would then have the exclusive right, and would be able either to retain it or to convey it to the tenant. If the right was neither retained nor conveyed to the tenant purchaser, it went to the Land Commission to be dealt with as might hereafter be determined. Nonexclusive rights were left out of account. If the landlord had not the exclusive right and did not acquire it before the sale, the right went to the tenant, because the whole fee-simple was conveyed to him. If the landlord did that, and if there was a non-exclusive right in the hands of the tenant, why then if he resided there the chances were, the certainty in his opinion, that he would be the first and best able on the most favourable terms to have the shooting from the tenant and the man to whom the tenant was most likely to let. In that way if the landlord wished to enjoy the amenities of sport he was more likely than anybody else to get the shooting and to enjoy it. That was the result which would accrue if his Amendment to the Amendment passed in the other House were accepted.

said they understood that a compromise was arrived at when the Bill was being discussed in this House, and none of them anticipated that a change would be made in the House of Lords. One of the extraordinary things which those interested in the tenants had observed recently, was the fact that while the House of Lords was composed mainly of landlords they had not the least hesitation in taking part in the discussion of this measure which affected the interests of their class. References were sometimes made in their House to the impropriety of company directors and others voting upon matters in which they were directly interested. But in this matter of sporting rights it was otherwise with the House of Lords. A large number of tenants in Ireland went into Court and had fair rents fixed. They were simply concerned with the question of what the rent in future would be, and owing to their ignorance of the law they were deprived by the landlords or their representatives of their sporting rights. What would happen if the Amendment now proposed by the right ton. Gentleman were accepted? It appeared to him that the landlords would, if they were so minded, simply disagree with the tenants in the matter of sporting rights. Then the Estates Commissioners would inquire into the position, and the judicial tenants would find that while they had a legal right to the land they had no legal claim whatever on the sporting rights. He thought the Bill should be allowed to remain as it left this House. They should not introduce a change which would have the effect of prejudicing a large number of tenants in Ireland.

said the hon. Member had complained that noble Lords in anothor place had looked at this Bill more or less from the point of view of the landlords. Was that such a terrible thing? The hon. Member seemed to think that they had not taken a proper view of the proposals brought before them. He himself did not think that that was a charge to be laid against them. The hon. Member himself, and his colleagues in this House, were the reprerentatives of a large number of persons who had no voice here except through them, and he was perfectly certain that, in the attitude they had adopted in the debates, they were actuated throughout by a great sense of responsibility and loyalty to many persons in Ireland who were not so well circumstanced as themselves. He might also say that the impression created in his mind was that they fought those questions more sharply than they would have done if they had thought only of themselves. They thought it was their duty to look after the interests of others than themselves. Passing from that larger issue he thought on the whole that the representatives of the tenants in this House and the representatives of the landlords in another place might alike congratulate themselves on having approached this measure in a broad spirit and with a conciliatory tendency. He understood that the representatives of the tenants in this House attached prime importance to four questions—namely, the effect of the zones, the interest of the evicted tenants, the effect of the Bill on congestion, and the effect on labour. None of these had been adversely altered in another place. Looking at the other side of the picture it was known all along that noble Lords in another place, in their representative capacity, were speaking for men who had no opportunity of being heard, and that they attached great importance to the amenities of those who lived in their native land in Ireland. Among those amenities they placed sporting rights very high, and surely when hon. Members reflected that shooting in Ireland did not compare with the great and costly battues in the North of this country, that was a proof that the Irish landlords wished to live in Ireland and enjoy sport. In taking a stand on the sporting rights, they had not pressed their position at all far. Where the rights were not exclusive and were secured to them by documents, they were not prepared to make any great change in the clause as it passed in this House. The hon. Member had said that many tenants had, without due consideration, given up spotting rights which they might legally have held. He could assure the hon. Member that after a careful study of this question, it had happened more frequently in the case of the landlord. In many cases the landlords could quite easily by a turn of the pen, have reserved to themselves under judicial leases the sporting rights, but that had not been done over a great part of Ireland, and that was the reason why those rights were not exclusive but joint. In respect of those rights which were exclusive, the Government said landlords might keep them or convey them, and where there were no exclusive rights they left it to the future, and to the good sense and amity of all parties.

said the right hon. Gentleman stated that during the discussion of this matter in Committee, something in the nature of an agreement or an understanding was come to. The agreement was to the effect that exclusive sporting rights were to be left a matter of agreement between landlord and tenant. If the proposal, now suggested, interfered with that, he thought they would have reason to complain, but he did not understand that it did interfere. The way the matter stood was this. If under the Bill as it stood, landlord and tenant failed to come to an agreement, the only thing that would happen would be that a sale would not take place at all. It would fall through. The suggestion was now, that instead of a sale being allowed to fall through because of their not being able to come to an agreement regarding the exclusive sporting rights, these rights should be vested in the Land Commission. In his judgment that did not prejudice the agreement that was come to here. His own objection was of a different character altogether. He had all along held that the proper solution of this question was to vest the sporting rights in some public body, but he was not bound to the opinion that they ought to be vested in the Land Commission. He would be very much pleased if they were vested in the County Councils, and he was not without hope that eventually that was what would happen. So far as the present suggestion was concerned, he thought his hon. friend might be easy in his mind with regard to the agreement come to in Committee. If they were satisfied with that agreement, it was not prejudiced by the suggestion now made. On the contrary, he thought that understanding was improved, because it provided a way out where there was disagreement of land- lord and tenant, which might lead to failure altogether—namely, by providing that sporting rights should be vested in the Land Commission. Under those circumstances he thought they might accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

said the right hon. Gentleman stated that there were some cases in which the landlord had not the exclusive right. He had truly said that there were some cases where the head landlord and middleman had between them the rights of fishing and the rights of shooting. He asked the right hon. Gentleman how the head landlord would be affected by the Amendment now proposed. It appeared to him that any rights he previously had would be altogether extinguished. He called attention to this, because he considered it would be a hardship, in many cases, if the head landlord, who did not come in touch with the occupying tenant, and who might be in the enjoyment of the rights of fishing and shooting under old leases and grants, was to be completely ignored with regard to these rights.

said he could satisfy the right hon. and learned Gentleman by directing him to Clause 97 of the Bill, which safeguarded the rights referred to.

said the only persons who would have the right of shooting on those properties where the landlord and tenant could not agree, would be the Land Commissioners, because if this Amendment were accepted the-sporting rights would be vested in them.

did not think so. Their enjoyment would De fettered by the words he proposed to move—namely, "Subject to regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant."

said there was a good deal of feeling all through Ireland on this important matter, and also a good deal of misapprehension. Perhaps he might be allowed to say this, with the assent of the right hon. Gentleman. Under the Amendment introduced by the House of Lords, no single landlord in Ireland need part with his land under any circumstances whatever, unless he made an agreement which suited him with regard to the sporting rights of his tenant.

said it was not compulsory that the tenants should buy under terms of which they did not approve.

asked whether the clause as now amended would affect the concurrent rights provided for in Clause 97.

I think not.

thought Clause 97 met an important difficulty. In many instances the head landlord and middleman had concurrent rights to fish and shoot, and he wished to know clearly whether the Amendment now proposed by the Chief Secretary would extinguish altogether the rights of the head landlord.

thought the right hon. Gentleman was in error. The landlord who had the superior interest had concurrent rights with the middleman to fish and shoot. But now the man whom they called the vendor might, by agreement with the tenant, give him the exclusive right to shoot and fish.

said that if inquiry were made it would be found that more lives had been lost, more blood shed, and more heart-burning created in carrying out the game laws of England than had taken place in connection with many a war. So far as Ireland was concerned, he would ask the representatives of the Government, with a view to the good government of the country, to endeavour by every means in their power to bring about a satisfactory solution of this question, which, to his mind, could only be established by making the tenant occupier the sole proprietor of the sporting rights.

said he would remind the hon. Member that they were not discussing the general question of sporting rights; and it was out of order to discuss the general question of the game laws; The hon. Member must confine himself to, the Lords Amendment.

said he bowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling. What he wished to do was to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that in his constituency this, matter was regarded as very serious, and any Amendment that might be directed against the understanding arrived at in this House would, if adopted, be sure to lead to future trouble.

said he wished to know whether the view of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford was correct, that in the case of a dispute between landlord and tenant the game rights would be vested in the Land Commission. If otherwise, it would be of great importance to keep the clause as it. stood.

said that if the game, rights were exclusive and were not reserved, they went to the Land Commission; if the rights were not exclusive they went to the tenant and became exclusive to him.

said he felt the difficulty in which the Government had been placed in this matter. At the same time the arrangement come to in this. House had not been strictly adhered to in the House of Lords. He did not rise at all to make any complaint whatever against the great landed proprietors of Ireland in the House of Lords. He thought their attitude was, on the whole, admirable; but hon. Members had some reason to complain of the pressure which had been: brought to bear on the Government by the small and new "Shoneen" landlords of the country. The Duke of Devonshire, Lord Lansdowne, and other great landlords had given every assistance to the Government, and he wished to say, by way of warning, that if this Act was to be worked by these small new landlords in the spirit they had displayed in the House of Lords, as contrasted with the spirit shown by the greater landlords, he was afraid that there would be very little chance of a real appeasement in Ireland. It was hopeless to expect that tenants would allow strangers to come on to their land once the landlords had been bought out On the other hand, where a proper spirit had been shown, as it had been shown by so many of the great landowners, he believed that the tenants would not only welcome them back to shoot over their land, but Would assist to preserve the game for them on their farms. The mean man, the man who was not a gentleman, it was to whom the Irish tenants, objected. That was the man of whom they were in terror that he would make these sporting rights a medium of oppression. This was a serious matter, going to the very root of Irish life, and he thought that the manner in which it had been left by the House of Lords would not tend to the real improvement of the state of things in Ireland. He, however, hoped these small and new gentry would take a pattern from their betters.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 8, line 5, to leave out the first word 'tenant' and insert the word 'purchaser,' and leave out the second word 'tenant' and insert the word purchaser,'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 8, line 6, to leave out the word 'landlord' and insert the word 'vendor,' and insert, the following sub-section: '(2) In default of any agreement between the tenant and the vendor, all sporting rights shall go to and be vested in the "Land Commission, and the Land Commission may deal with the same subject to any rules which may be made by the Lord Lieutenant,'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

said he proposed to amend this Amendment by making Subsection 2 read as follows—

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"To leave out Sub-Section 2 and insert the words, 'In the absence of such agreement those rights shall be vested in the Land Commission, and the Land Commission may deal with the same subject to any regulations to be made by the Lord Lieutenant.'"—( Mr. Wyndham. )

Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 8, line 8, after the word 'land' to insert the words 'and the expression "game" has the same meaning as in Section 5 of the Act of 1881, and also includes deer,'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

said that before the House accepted this Amendment he wished to direct attention to what the present position was in some parts of Ireland On Lord Clanricarde's estate and the adjoining property, there were very extensive woods which contained very many deer. These woods were not enclosed, and the deer were wild and wandered all over the farms in the neighbourhood, especially in the summer time, and did great injury to the corn crops. Would these farmers be open to the same pains and penalties if they interfered with these deer under this Act as under the existing law?

said that the objection raised was not pertinent to the Amendment before the House, which merely said that the factor in any agreement was that the tenant might take the deer if the landlord agreed that the sporting rights were to remain with the tenant. Nothing in the Act could affect any right that the farmer had. If a deer came out of the wood and ate up or lay down in the corn, the tenant was left to the remedy of the ordinary law and the customary relations between man and man.

said that he had known cases brought into the County Court to recover damage done by deer in eating up or destroying wheat and other crops.

said the hon. Member could hardly expect him to attempt to change the law of the land in this respect. The question did not arise on this Bill, and it was quite outside the scope of the present discussion.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 8, line 13, after the word 'on' to insert the words 'or under,'"

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 8, line 20, after the word 'clay' to insert the words 'Provided also, that where any such right reserved to the Land Commission under this sub-section is at any time hereafter let, leased, sold, or demised by them, the vendor (or the person who would have been entitled thereto if the lands had not been sold) shall be entitled to receive 25 per cent. of any rent, purchase money, or other net profit received by the Land Commission in respect of same, unless the Land Commission shall have I purchased from the person entitled to such percentage his interest therein, and the Land Commission may purchase such interest at any time on such terms as may be sanctioned by the Treasury.'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

said this was one of the most extraordinary Amendments ever inserted in a Bill in this House, or anywhere else. The landlord was supposed to have sold his estate and there might or might not be minerals on the surface. The landlord had himself never mined the land. A century hence an. adventurer might arrive, say from New Zealand, and after discovering in Ireland some minerals, invest his money, and develop the land in regard to those minerals. By that time all the purchase instalments would have been paid off, and the land would have passed outside the ken of the Land Commission. And yet forsooth by this Amendment the successor in title of the landlord was to reap a benefit of 25 per cent. A more grasping and greedy proposal could not have been suggested. He knew the great difficulties of the Government upon this question, and he would suggest as a compromise that this should be during the life of the vendor, or say, within twenty years. Unless some such suggestion was adopted, he should be obliged to divide against this Amendment. It was perfectly absurd that they should for ever vest in the landlord this shadowy right, which he had never attempted to make anything of before. This was the only Bill which did anything towards the nationalisation of some of the ingredients of the land in Ireland, and in his speech upon this question the Chief Secretary stated that the Treasury would have the minerals as an asset for the money they were advancing under this Bill. Now it was proposed that 25 per cent. of this asset should be frittered away and given to the landlords. They were really discussing this Amendment in shackles, and they could not lay their views before the Government, except on the spur of the moment. He would move to omit "25" and insert "1," and then they could consider how to deal afterwards with the rest of the clause.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"In line 6, to leave out the words '25' and insert the word '1."'—( Mr. T. M. Healy. )

Question proposed, "That the words '25' stand part of the Lords' Amendment."

said the hon. and learned Member opposite had invited him to give the reason which had led the Government to accept this Amendment. The Government accepted this Amendment because they believed that unless they did so land purchase would be retarded, if not altogether stopped, on certain estates in Ireland. ("No, no.") Upon this point he especially invited the attention of hon. Members who dissented from this Amendment. The hon. and learned Member opposite had stated that a shadowy right would continue for a century. He wished to deal with the facts. Where the existence of minerals was so shadowy as all that, the prospect of money being invested there at a remunerative rate was very remote, and the Land Commission would be able to buy out the mineral rights of the owner for a song. In such cases the landlord would be glad to take £25, or a £5 note, for mineral rights of that kind. The Government were not thinking of that kind of case at all, and what they were thinking of was the cases where it was known that minerals did exist. There were cases where the landlord was working those minerals on some part of his estate, and where he was not working the other portions of the estate simply because he had not sufficient capital at his command. Did any reasonable being believe that any landlord, under those circumstances, would sell his land at the ordinary price, if he was to make a present to the purchaser of the whole value of the mineral rights. He had been led to accept this Amendment because it had been proved to him that such cases as he had mentioned did exist, and if those rights were protected, there were many instances where landlords would throw their heart and soul into the working of this Act. How could they ask those landlords to do that if, by the Act, they were to forego the right of perhaps making £2,000 or £3,000 a year. The hon. and learned Member opposite might say that that was all very well, but the proper remedy was that the State should buy those estates from the vendor. That might be the proper course to take, but nothing could be done until after a prolonged investigation in regard to the existence of those minerals. He thought that the course suggested by this Amendment would have the desired result, and those properties would be sold. He held that what would most probably happen would be that, where there was such property containing minerals, the State would buy out the mineral rights by paying the 25 per cent., or else the owner having sold the thing out and out, would buy the mineral rights back from the State, and come in not as a landlord, but as a man who brought capital and enterprise to the development of the mineral resources of Ireland.

said that never in any Act of Parliament passed by this House had there ever been inserted such an Amendment as this. It was an extraordinary proposition, and one which no man could define. It was absurd that landlords should come in, after the lapse of so many years after selling their property, and reap 25 per cent. in regard to any development of the mineral rights. A more extraordinary proposition was never before made in the House of Commons, and it only showed the grasping nature of the Irish landlords. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would go to a Division upon this Question.

said he did not propose to say more than a few words on this question. In a vast majority of cases these mineral rights were of a shadowy character, and it was quite unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to legislate for them, and they might very well drop this proposal altogether. There were certain cases where minerals were actually being worked, and other places where they were known to exist, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, in such a case, where a man was selling his land it was not unreasonable to say he should not hand over his minerals to the Land Commission. He conceded that. But the proper way to deal with such a case was not by a clause such as this, but by enabling the Land Commission to purchase these rights at the same time as the tenants purchased the land. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not in the position to suggest such a Resolution to the House. He should have seen that the Chancellor of the Exchequer put him in the position to make such a proposal. The object of this Bill was that the landlords, as such, should cease to exist, and the way to deal with them in this matter was not by a perpetual charge of 25 per per cent. but by a payment down.

said the clause would inflict no loss or injustice upon any of the tenants. When the Bill left the House the whole of such property passed not to the tenants, but to the State. The hon. Gentleman said he was not in favour of land nationalisation, on such terms as that, without payments, but that the proper course for the Government would have been to have assessed the value of such minerals and to have paid a lump sum to the vendor. While he thought that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member would be the more logical solution of the question, he was by no means sure that in practice it would work better; he believed that the proposal now embodied in the clause was the most practical. What a flagrant act of injustice it would be to leave one landlord to develop his property and allow him to keep it untouched by this Act, and because his neighbour had no capital to work his minerals to take them away from him altogether. Under the proposal of the Government, if the minerals were of value, the 25 per cent. which they gave him would probably allow the landlord, not as a landlord but as a leader of industry, to come in and develop his property.

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to accept this Amendment. The matter was one which would create very grave discontent in Ireland. It had been said that if this Amendment was not carried a number of the landlords would not sell. He was in the other House during the Committee stage of this Bill, and he noticed that, in almost every Amendment proposed, the landlords threw down the gauntlet and threatened that if their Amendment was not conceded they would not sell the land. This Amendment bound the tenants under this clause for all time. He was strongly opposed to it, and considered that it would inflict a very grievous hardship on the tenants if passed. It was a retrograde proposal, and he hoped his hon. friend would insist upon pressing his Amendment.

^* said that although this Amendment might not affect the tenants as tenants it affected them as ratepayers. He did not anticipate so much trouble where the landlords owned the mines and minerals themselves as in the case where a head landlord or syndicate came in. Some time ago a company of capitalists arranged with Lord Leitrim to work certain minerals, but when the title was gone into it was found that the noble Lord had no title to give a lease, as the minerals were vested in Trinity College, who came down and claimed a higher rent than the noble Lord had agreed to lease the property for. It was not fair that any person should be able to come down and claim 25 per cent. under this Act. If this Amendment had to be carried they should limit the period to fifteen or twenty years.

contended that this Amendment was a distinct breach of faith on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. If there was dual ownership in land in Ireland, as had been stated, he thought the 25 per cent. should be equally divided between the landlord and the tenant. If the landlord was to receive 25 per cent. on all minerals developed that was a point which ought not to be left unregarded.

said the reasons put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in defence of this Amendment were the strongest reasons for its rejection. With regard to the coalfields of Leinster one deep seam of coal had been worked out long since, the second seam was also exhausted, and the whole chance of prosperity of those coalfields in the future depended upon whether there was a third seam or not, yet not a single proprietor in the district had expended as much as a £5 note in attempting to discover whether such a seam existed or not. Now, could it be hoped that any body of capitalists would prospect, in Leinster, for instance, if 25 per cent. of the profits was to go to the representatives of the existing landlord? No one wanted to deprive the landlord of the valuable property in which the tenant was not primarily concerned, but this Amendment was not confined to the landlords; this Amendment as it stood took into account the discovery of minerals sixty or seventy years hence. At that time the occupier would have become the absolute holder of his holding, and yet the representative of the landlord was to come down and take his 25 per cent. on a profit which he had done nothing to produce. If the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the figures suggested by his hon. friend, he hoped, at any rate, that the right hon. Gentleman would modify the percentage.

admitted that this was a very important subject. When landlords had known or believed that there were minerals under their land they had not sold. What was wanted was that purchase should go on, even in places where landlords believed, rightly or wrongly, that there were minerals under their land. It was suggested that the fact should be ascertained by some tribunal; but he believed that would be a costly process and would involve a great deal of delay. He would prefer not to make any change in the Amendment, because he believed that where a right was altogether prospective it could be bought up for a few £5 notes. When this proposal was first made in another place it was suggested that the royalty should be 50 per cent. but it was afterwards cut down to 25 per cent in order to prescribe these very valuable rights. The rights of the tenants had been preserved and no undue burden had been put upon posterity in Ireland. Probably in the future the successors to the landlords would take that 25 per cent. in shares in the company developing their estates.

said it was a most unfortunate thing that this Amendment had been introduced in the House of Lords. The Chief Secretary had stated three times that this clause did no injury to the tenants. He would point out that they were not there representing the tenants of Ireland exclusively. It was true that they represented the tenants throughout the greater part of Ireland, but they also claimed to be the representatives of the people. For his part, to some extent, he sympathised with the views of those in Ireland who had said that sufficient attention had not been paid, either by the promoters or the supporters of this Bill, to the interests of the not on at large in contradistinction to the interests of the tenants. He did not think the representatives of Ireland should allow this occasion to pass without declaring that by this proposal the interests of the tenants and the people of Ireland were involved and ought to be protected. It had been said that the real reason for this proposal was to give an inducement to the landlords to sell their estates. There were two methods of carrying out this object, one was by compulsory purchase, and the other was to offer such inducements to the landlords as would make it worth their while to sell. If he thought that the interests of the nation were not endangered by this Amendment he should at once agree to it as an additional inducement to the landlords to sell. But not only did he think this was unnecessary, but it was, in his opinion, letting pass by an opportunity of benefiting the national interests of Ireland which the Chief Secretary ought to consider first of all. Surely it was all a fiction that the landlords of Ireland would not sell under this Bill. With such inducements to sell 99 per cent. of the landlords would be absolute fools if they did not sell. Up to the present moment the landlords had never exercised those mineral rights which had been allowed to lie fallow during all the centuries they had been in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Land Commission would not be able through want of machinery to value those mineral rights. In this very clause it was contemplated that a purchase of those rights might be made by the Land Commission. Let the right hon. Gentleman put aside this humbug that the landlords would not sell, and that the Land Commission would not be able to estimate the value of those rights, because such questions were entirely unworthy of discussion upon such an occasion as this. The reason he opposed this Amendment was that he thought very little had been done to revive the industrial life of Ireland, or to provide employment for the people. If these mineral rights existed and were dealt with as was proposed by the Lords Amendment, the work which might otherwise benefit the labourers of Ireland would never be accomplished. That was what the experience of the past had taught them. If the Land Commission was forced to buy those mineral rights the Commission would be compelled to lease them out or work them, and this would provide work which was urgently needed by the labouring population of Ireland. Such a proposal as this was quite unworthy of the present Government, who had professed such benevolent intentions towards Ireland. They did not advocate that the landlords should not be paid for those rights where they existed. On the contrary, he thought they should be paid a fair price for them. It was impossible to estimate the price, and if a moral obligation was put upon the Estates Commissioners to buy out those rights, where they existed, for the public benefit, the case would be met, and it would be almost criminal on the part of the Government not to avail themselves of the present opportunity.

said he was quite at a loss to understand the exact difficulty in accepting the Amendment. So far as he understood the clause as it stood, the mineral rights would pass from the landlord to the Commission, and the rights in the surface of the land would be dealt with and passed to the tenants. The Bill was therefore strong enough to protect the tenant in the acquirement of the soil he had for cultivation. Coming to the question of minerals, these would pass tentatively into the hands of the Commissioners. The Amendment dealt with what might be done afterwards, with the minerals, should development occur, and it reserved for the future the dealing with the value of these minerals as they should be developed and as they should be brought into a marketable condition. Under this Amendment the Land Commissioners would sell or otherwise dispose of those minerals at a rent or otherwise, and 25 per cent. of the accruing rent or otherwise would go to the original owner. He agreed that this was a national question. He agreed also that as between tenant and landlord it was a pure matter of sentiment, because a tenant had no right in the minerals at present, nor would he have any right under the Bill, because the rights passed to the Commissioners. The proposition had been put forward that they should now acquire those minerals, and that the State should buy them out. That was such a problematical thing that the moment they entered upon it they raised a barrier which no ingenuity of man could remove. Not long since he acted as arbitrator in connection with the acquirement of certain land, and the purpose of acquiring it was to acquire the minerals as well. There was nothing developed beyond a snail sinking or boring. Skilled evidence was brought forward. The landlord by his witnesses proved up to £46,000; the parties buying proved down to £1,250. [A NATIONALIST: "How much did you give?"] He gave £2,600. He was outvoted, and an English umpire who heard all the evidence gave £2,230. How would they deal with that question? [A. NATIONALIST MEMBER: "The way you did."] All they were now arguing about was the relative proportion of the profits. He wished to leave that to the future. That was the common-sense way to deal with the matter. Why deal with it at the present time? It was a problem that might not be solved for fifty or 100 years, although he hoped it would be solved in ten. The more mines they opened in Ireland the better. He would not grudge the present owners of the land 25 per cent. in order that the mines should be developed and the industries of Ireland correspondingly increased. He honestly trusted that this Amendment would not be lost sight of but voted upon loyally. He did not think it interfered with the present or future tenants to the smallest possible extent. He hoped the House would pass the Amendment in a good spirit.

said he had always thought that if they scratched the Chief Secretary they would find out his mediaevalism. If ever there was a proposal brought before the House that had the worst odour of mediaeval absurdity, it was the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman. This was an Amendment of the "Dead Hand." It was not a message of development to Ireland. The proposition was not to do something for to-morrow, for the present generation, or for their sons and grandsons, but for all future generations of the descendants of the landlords, far beyond the fourth generation of the Scriptures. It was a proposal that for all time they should have a first claim of 25 per cent. on the mineral development of Ireland. He had only to state the proposition to show its absolute and almost incredible absurdity. How did they know what would happen in an Irish landlord's family three generations from now? Some of them might be Dukes in the House of Lords, some might be paupers, some of them might be ranchers in the Southern States of America, and before it would be possible to proceed with the development of mines on estates in Ireland it would be necessary to look over the world to find out the fourth or fifth, and possibly later, generations of the families in order to give them 25 per cent. on the mineral developments. They were applying this principle to the undeveloped, undiscovered and problematical mines of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman thought that unless this was done the sale of the land would be stopped. He had very little anxiety as to the stoppage of the sale of land in Ireland. The landlords had got far too good terms to reject them. He was rather surprised the other day to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, the Member for North Armagh, who was the grandson of a man who in the Irish Parliament voted against the Act of Union, say that it was his intention to take advantage of this Act on the first opportunity. He was surprised, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was supposed to be the apostle of no surrender, was going to surrender at the first opportunity.

I have got no gold mines.

said the hon. Baronet who had spoken for the city of Belfast, was forgetful of the fact that there was a clause in the Bill which protected any mines at present in operation.

I did not deal with mines in operation at all.

said if there were minerals which were not being worked, it was because the landlords had not the courage or enterprise to work them. [An hon. MEMBER: "Or the capital?"] Did anybody suppose, when money could be got for mines in Siberia and other quarters of the world, that, if there was any real chance of development in Ireland, a landlord could not come to the city of London and get money for that purpose? He had been present on platforms in Durham and other mining counties of England, and had heard representatives of the miners declare that it was impossible they could be adequately remunerated so long as the system of royalties to the landowners remained. He did not speak with authority, but he understood that the mining royalties in this country were far below 25 per cent This was a monstrous and incredible claim which the House of Lords, taking advantage of the late period of the session, had put into the Bill, and he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman found himself compelled to support it.

said he agreed with the Chief Secretary that this Amendment did not directly affect the interest of the tenants under the Bill. But that was not the question the House had to decide. The effect of the Amendment would be to give an additional bonus to the landlords. It was conceived and carried out in the same spirit as the proposal to make the percentage bonus 15 instead of 12. The proposal appeared to him to be both unjust and absurd. That was not his objection. He thought the proposal altogether inconsistent with the compromise made in this House. There was a good deal of discussion when the Bill was passing through Committee about minerals, and the reason for the clause, finally adopted, was that this valuable asset, as it might turn out, should be reserved to the Land Commission as trustees for the public benefit in Ireland. Now there was annexed an inconsistent proviso—namely, instead of the money going to the Land Commission, in full, there was to be 25 per cent. deducted from the rent or purchase-money, or profits, as the case might be of those mines. What could be more unreasonable than that? Why not come forward if they had mines and dispose of them at once to the Commissioners? In fact, he had no doubt that this Amendment would impede the development of the mineral industries of Ireland, because no man could afford to let the land if it was known that there was to be a deduction of 25 per cent. for the mineral rights. If his hon. friend went to a Division he would vote with him.

thought that this Amendment of the Lords was absurd. He had said before that this was a landlords' Bill, and the best proof of that was that the House of Lords had not been able to improve it. Mr. Michael Davitt had described all those eloquent commendations of the Bill as "flummery and flapdoodle," and the same might be said of the glowing periods that afternoon. He hoped that the tenants would not buy at the ridiculous prices provided in the Bill. Who was hit by this particular Amendment? If the tenant bought under the Bill the mineral rights went over to the Land Commission, and the persons to be hit would be the company promoters, the Whittaker-Wrights and the Hooleys.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 70. Division List, No. 261.)

said he wished to restrict the operation of the Lords Amendment until the year 1920. The Bill as it left the House of Commons was a landlords' relief Bill; but this new clause made it go further than the most sanguine landlord ever expected it to go. In no other Bill which came before the House was there such a clause, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to limit it.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"In line 8, after the word 'same,' to insert the words, 'until the year 1920.'"—( Mr. M'Govern. )

asked the right hon. Gentleman to give the people of Ireland some chance. This was a proposal by the Duke of Manchester, and if it had been confined to his own particular estate that might have mitigated its severity. But none of the other landlords asked for it. He respectfully asked that these mineral rights should not be put in pawn for a number of men who were not yet born. It was most unfair to say this should go on for ever. It laid an embargo on the industry of the country. Let them say "during their lifetime," or their son's life-time, but do not let the Government part with these rights for ever.

^* assured the hon. and learned Member he was under a great misapprehension if he thought this clause was put in by the desire of a small number of landlords. It represented the unanimous opinion of the landlords.

said every body had agreed that something must be done to meet the case of the landlords who possessed minerals which were not being worked. Was land purchase to be postponed until someone offered 100 per cent. for this property, or were arrangements to be made to purchase this property for one quarter what somebody else was ready to give? As the landlords had not pressed their views on questions affecting the tenants, he submitted that this Amendment might be withdrawn.

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to make a concession to the universal feeling of the Irish benches. The opinion just taken showed the serious view taken upon this matter, but as the right hon. Gentlemen had made up his mind to make no further concession, he saw no object in taking another Division, but he would suggest that the Amendment be withdrawn.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In lines 22 and 23, leave out the words 'disposed of or,' "

the next Amendment, read a second time.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 8, line 28, after the word 'thereby,' to insert the following sub-section: (6) Any person authorised by, or in pursuance of, the last preceding sub-section, to enter upon land for the purpose of exercising a sporting right shall have the same authority to prosecute for trespass in pursuit of game or fish as if he were the owner of that land,' "

the next Amendment, read a second time.

said he would agree to the Amendment with the substitution of the word "occupier" for "owner."

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"In line 6, to leave out the word 'owner,' and insert the word 'occupier.' "—( Mr. Atkinson. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'owner' stand part of the Lords Amendment."

said it was a great shame. The Government, he ventured to think, were straining matters to a great extent, and he ventured to say the business would not stand the strain of this Amendment, and the result would be the entire destruction of game in the country. Without the consent of the tenants, sporting rights were absolutely worthless, and yet Amendments were piled up in the landlords' interest, until it was provided that a tenant should have a horde of persons on his land, and every one of those persons could prosecute his neighbour. For that was what it came to.

said it was a most monstrous provision to put into any Act of Parliament, and the one effect it would have would be to help to clear the country of game.

said it was disgraceful that any person should have a right to prosecute a person whose offence was walking over his own land.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

"In page 8, line 36, after the word 'Commissioners' to insert the following sub-section: '(2) Where those Commissioners refuse to consent to the vesting of any such monument in them, the Land Commission may, with the consent of the Council of the County within which the monument is situate, make an order vesting the monument in that council, and Sub-section 2 of Section 19 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall thereupon apply.'"

"In page 9, line 25, after the word 'Acts' to insert the words 'to tenants.' "

"In page 11, line 4, after the word 'person to insert the words 'not under disability'; line 13, after '1896' to insert the words 'which interest shall be at a rate not less than 3½ per cent. per annum.'"

"In page 12, line 3, to leave out the word 'had' and insert the word 'have'; line 6, to leave out the word 'of' and to insert the words 'mentioned in.'"

the next Amendments, read a second time and agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 13, line 9, to leave out from the word 'mentioned' to the end of the sub-section, and insert the words 'any question of law may, if the Estate Commissioners think fit, and shall on the application of any person interested, be referred for the decision of a Judicial Commissioner, unless the Estates Commissioners certify in writing that the application is frivolous. (2) Any person aggrieved by any refusal of the Commissioners so to refer any such question may, in the manner prescribed by rules of Court, and within the time prescribed by the Judicial Commissioner, apply to the High Court, or any Judge thereof, for an order requiring the Commissioners so to refer the question, and the decision of the High Court or Judge upon any such application shall be final,'"

said he was prepared to agree, with an exception. He moved to leave out all words after "of Court" in Sub-section 2 in order to insert "under Sub-section (1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877, etc."

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"In line 7, after the word 'Court' to leave out all words to end of Sub-section 2, and insert the words 'under Sub-section 1 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877.'"—( Mr. Wyndham. )

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

"In page 13, line 13, leave out the words 'agents or solicitors' and insert the words 'land agents, solicitors, or land clerks.'"

"In line 15, after the word 'nomination' to insert the words 'may be negotiated.'"

"In line 19, after the word 'Commission' to insert the following sub-section:—'(12) Where in the case of the sale of an estate to persons other than the Land Commission an agent has been employed by the vendor to negotiate the sale, such sum as may be sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners may, with the consent of such vendor, be paid to that agent out of the purchase money as part of the costs connected with the sale '"

"In page 15, line 14, to leave out the words 'or order as the case may be' and insert the words 'for sale.'"

"In line 17, to leave out the words 'Estate Commissioners' and insert the words 'Land Commission.'"

"In line 19, after the word 'money' to insert the following sub-section: 'For the purpose of giving effect to this enactment the Land Commission may, if they think fit, in the case of a terminable charge, satisfy the same by the investment in any securities in which trustees are by law authorised to invest trust money of a capital sum the annual income of which will be sufficient to satisfy the annual amount of the charge.'"

"In page 16, line 30, after the word 'prescribed' to insert the words 'as if purchase money distributable under this section were money paid or deposited under those sections.'"

the next Amendments, read a second time and agreed to

said a consequential Amendment should come in here. Clause 24, page 13, line 36, at the end insert, "Any charge or incumbrance may be paid off notwithstanding any direction, proviso or covenant contained in any deed or instrument to the contrary."

Amendment proposed to the Bill—

"In Clause 24, page 13, line 36, at end, to insert the words 'Any charge or in cumbrance may be paid off notwithstanding any direction, proviso or covenant contained in any deed or instrument to the contrary.'"—( Mr. Wyndham. )

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

"In page 16, line 37, to leave out the word 'the' and insert the word 'a.'"

"In page 16, line 38, after the word 'appeal' to insert the words 'or any question other than one of law.'"

"In page 17, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words 'making a claim upon' and insert the words 'whose claim has been so attached to.'"

"In page 17, line 11, after the first word 'payable' to insert the words 'out of the purchase money, or recoverable under any agreement or covenant,'"

the next Amendments, read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In pagel7,line, 13, after the word 'advances' to insert the words 'provided that in case of the sale of an estate under the Land Purchase Acts any charge or in cumbrance thereon may be paid off notwithstanding any direction, proviso, or covenant contained in any deed or other instrument to the contrary: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in any case where the Land Commission are satisfied that it is not owing to any act or default of such person that his title is not established and the amount of his claim invested as aforesaid.'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

moved to omit down to the word "contrary."

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"In line 1, after the word 'advances' to leave out the words 'provided that in case of the sale of an estate under the Land Purchase Acts any charge or in cumbrance thereon may be paid off notwithstanding any direction, proviso, or covenant contained in any deed or other instrument to the contrary.'"—( Mr. Wyndham. )

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

"In page 17, at end of line 23, after the word 'Act' to insert the following sub-section: '(4) Notwithstanding anything in this section, any vendor or incumbrancer may apply to the Court to invest the purchase money, pending distribution, in any of the securities from time to time authorized by law for the investment of trust funds.' And also insert the following clause: 'Where a person who would otherwise be entitled to sell land under the Land Purchase Acts is a lunatic, the Lord Chancellor may order the land to be sold as if the sale was required for one of the purposes mentioned in Section 63 of the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act, 1871, and that section shall apply accordingly.' In line 39, after the word 'equal' insert the words 'half-yearly or.'"

"In page 19, line 28, to leave out the words 'in so far as any' and insert the word 'where.'"

"In page 19, line 29, to leave out the words 'to purchasers to be repaid by means of purchase annuities.'"

"In page 19, line 41, to leave out the words 'purchase of the land' and insert the words 'vesting of land in the Commission.'"

"In page 20, lines 17 and 25, to leave out the words 'repayable by means of purchase annuities' and insert the words 'on which such ten shillings per cent. is payable by the Land Commission.'"

"In page 21, line 3, to leave out the words 'eight' and insert 'seven.'"

"In page 21, line 36, after the word 'made' to insert the words 'and may only be varied.'"

"In page 22, line 27, after the word 'Commission' to insert the words 'direct the,'"

the next Amendments, read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 25, line 11, after the word 'price,' to insert the words, 'or to an estate so circumstanced in respect of which an absolute order for sale by the Land Judge was in force at the date of the passing of the Act.'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

said that by way of preventing the estates being taken out of the Land Courts they had provided that estates in the Land Courts should get a bonus where a receiver existed, but they would not get a bonus where the estate was so encumbered that it was sold practically without the owner's consent. While he believed that the Government had tried to meet the difficulty, he thought it would be found that the provision they had made was not at all sufficient. This was a matter which in many cases would involve great hardship to the tenant. Very many of the Court tenants were in the occupation of evicted farms, that was to say, they were the old tenants of the land who had been put back on the land as Court tenants. In order to sell these estates in the future a new tenancy would have to be constituted, and only a limited sum could be advanced; and, therefore any estate taken out of the Court for the purpose of getting the bonus would involve the creation of new tenancies. He was aware that the Land Court Judge did not like his proposal, but that was no reason why the House should not insist upon it. Although the Government had now provided that the estates which were so embarrassed were not to get a bonus, he ventured to think that as there would be nobody to contradict the owner he would declare that he was not embarrassed, and, in other ways, would try to show that the estate was not encumbered for the purpose of capturing the bonus. The result of this would be that a very large number of estates would be taken out of the Courts to the prejudice of the tenants. The Government had tried to meet the point, but they had not met it success-fully, and in future owners would join together with others interested to take the estate out of Court in order to capture the bonus, and by so doing they would deprive the tenants of the amount of advance which they would otherwise be entitled to. He could see plainly when it was possible to get an Amendment and when it was not, and it was evident that some sort of invisible fetters enveloped the Chief Secretary, who appeared to have entered into some agreement upon this question. The House of Commons and the representatives of the tenants had got absolutely nothing in return for the many advantages the landlords had got by this Bill. They had got no quid pro quo for all those rights which had been given to the landlord.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 25, line 32, after the word 'in,' to insert the words: '( a ) Bonds, debentures, or mortgages secured upon rates or taxes levied under the authority of any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order by any municipal corporation or other local authority in the United Kingdom which shall be authorised to borrow on such security; ( b ) Ground rents arising out of hereditaments in the United Kingdom and not exceeding in amount one-fourth part of the annual value at a rack rent of the premises out of which such ground rents issue; ( c ) Debentures or mortgages of railway companies in the United Kingdom incorporated by Act of Parliament; ( d ) Stocks or shares of any tramway or light railway interest upon which is guaranteed from or charged upon under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts; ( e ) Bonds, debentures, or mortgages secured upon any investments in which trustees are authorised by this or any other Act to investment funds; ( f ) Debentures or fully-paid shares or stocks of any railway.' Provided that the sufficiency of any such investments to realise the sum invested therein upon the death of the tenant for life or the termination of the trust, shall be secured to the satisfaction of the public trustees under this Act."

the next Amendment read a second time.

Drafting Amendment made.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

"In page 26, line 3, after the word 'section,' to insert the words '(4) In the case of all proceedings in relation to any lands sold under the Land Purchase Acts, or any charges thereon, or any moneys realised thereby, if it appears to the Court that a trustee is, or may be, personally liable for any breach of trust, whether the transaction alleged to be a breach of trust occurred before or after the passing of this Act, but has acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust, and for omitting to obtain the directions of the Court in the matter in which he committed such breach, then the Court may relieve the trustee, either wholly or partly, from personal liability for the same.'"

"In page 26, lines 39 and 40, to leave out the words 'by the Lord Lieutenant.'"

the next Amendments, read a second time, time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 27, line 11, after the word 'require,' to insert the following sub-section: '(14) The powers conferred on the Land Commission by the foregoing provisions of this section may be exercised by the Land Judge in any case where the purchase money of land sold under the Land Purchase Acts is or has been distributed by him, and those provisions shall apply accordingly with the substitution of the Land Judge for the Land Commission.'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

Drafting Amendment made.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

"In page 27, line 12, after the word 'by,' to insert the words 'the Land Judge and.'"

"In page 27, line 28, to leave out from the word 'that' to the first word 'in' in line 32."

"In page 27, line 34, after the word 'county,' to insert the words 'the said limitation may, subject to the other limitations in the Land Purchase Acts, be exceeded where the Land Commission consider that a larger advance may be sanctioned to any purchaser without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.'"

"In page 28, in lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words 'under the circumstances aforesaid,' and insert the words 'where the Land Commission consider it expedient under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding sub-section.'"

"In page 28, line 25, after the word 'after,' to insert the words 'they become aware of.'"

"In page 28, line 34, after the word 'otherwise,' to insert the following sub-section: '(2) Not more than one person shall, without the consent of the Land Commission, be registered as the owner of the holding under Part IV. of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891.'"

"In page 28, line 40, after the word 'holding,' to insert the words 'or part thereof.'"

"In page 28, line 41, after the word 'holding,' to insert the words 'or part.'"

"In page 29, line 2, after the word 'part,' to insert the words 'the consent of the Land Commission under this enactment may, in the case of a charge created by a will, be given at any time whether before or after the death of the testator.'"

"In page 29, line 3, to leave out the words 'a holding' and insert the words 'the holding executed after the commencement of this Act.'"

"In page 29, line 7, after the word 'charge ant, to insert the words 'or, in the case of a charge created by a will or codicil, within six months from the death of the testator.'"

"In page 29, line 12, to leave out the word 'whether.'"

"In page 29, line 13, after the word 'instance,' to insert the words 'or with the consent,' and leave out the words 'or at the suit of an incumbrancer.'"

"In page 29, line 14, after the word 'sold,' to insert the words 'subject to the purchase annuity (if any) and any charge under any Public Works Acts, but'; and after the word 'all' to insert the word 'other.'"

"In page 29, line 15, to leave out from the word 'in cumbrances' to the word 'of,' in ne 16."

"In page 29, line 24, to leave out the word 'require ' and insert the words 'request to be furnished with.'"

"In page 29, line 26, to leave out the words 'charged with an an annual sum payable in respect of' and insert the words 'in respect of which.'"

"In page 29, line 27, after the word 'Acts' to insert the words 'has been made.'"

the next Amendments, read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 31, after Clause 58, to insert the following clause: '(1) Where, in the course of proceedings for the sale under the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Act, 1858, or the Land Purchase Acts, of an estate it appears that the owner or any tenants of holdings on the estate are in occupation of portions of an adjoining estate, and that the owner or any tenants of holdings on the adjoining estate are in occupation of portions of the first-mentioned estate, whether such exchange of occupation is the result of an agreement or is occasioned by the alteration of the course of a stream, or otherwise, the Land Judge or the Judicial Commissioner, as the case may be, may, if he thinks it expedient, with the consent of the owners of the respective estates, make an order ratifying the exchange, and the order or a map or plan annexed there to, shall show the lands given and taken in exchange respectively. (2) The land taken upon any such exchange shall be deemed to be held by the same tenure, and shall, without any conveyance or other assurance in relation thereto, go and enure to and upon the same uses and trusts and be subject to the same rents, conditions, charges, and in cumbrances, as the land given upon such exchange would have stood limited upon and been subject to if the order had not been made; and the land given upon such exchange shall be deemed to be held by the same tenure, and shall without any conveyance or other assurance in relation thereto, go and enure to and upon the same uses and trusts and be subject to the same rents, conditions, charges, and in cumbrances as the land taken upon such exchange would have stood limited upon and been subject to if the order had not been made. (3) All rights and remedies for recovery of rents payable in respect of either portions of the lands so exchanged shall be exercisable in respect of, and may be pursued against, the lands given or taken upon such exchange, as the case may be, in the same manner as they might theretofore have been exercised or pursued against the lands originally liable thereto.'"

the next Amendment, read a second, time.

said this was a valuable and useful clause, but he ventured to suggest that in the third line from the end they should omit the words "with the consent of the owners" and substitute the words "or on notice in the prescribed manner." Very often the exchange had taken place thirty or forty years ago. In selling an estate of this kind it was advisable that no further expense should be piled up. He suggested that notice to the owner should be given in the prescribed manner. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment.

"In line 11, after the word 'of' to insert the words 'or of notice in the prescribed manner to.'"—( Mr. T. M. Healy. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said he was willing to accept that Amendment if the hon. and learned Member would consent to alter the words so as to read "or of notice in the prescribed manner to the owner and giving them an opportunity of being heard."

said he would accept those words, and would move his Amendment in that form.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment.

"In line 11, after the word 'owners' to insert the words 'or of notice in the prescribed manner to the owners and giving them an opportunity of being heard.'"—( Mr. T. M. Healy ).

Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made to the Bill.

Lords Amendments.

"In page 32, line 18, to leave out the word 'the' and insert the word 'a.'"

"In page 32, line 36, after the word 'balance' to insert the following sub-section: '(3) Where in the like case the Court is satisfied that the land sold is entitled to be indemnified against any claim in respect of a superior interest by other lands, and that the other lands are a sufficient security therefor, the Court may, upon such terms (if any) and in such manner as appears equitable, exclusively charge the whole of the superior interest upon the other lands. (4 The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply with the necessary modifications, to any superior interest or portion thereof affecting the land sold, or to the redemption money of such interest or portion, as if the same were land sold.'"

"In page 33, lines 12 to 14, to leave out Sub-section 3."

"In page 33" line 17, to leave out the words 'therein mentioned' and insert the words 'of a superior interest.'"

"In page 33, line 22, to leave out the words 'for the nonpayment of any sum due to them.'"

"In page 34, line 6, after the word 'deposit' to insert the following sub-section: '(3) Where any land upon which portion of a purchase annuity has been charged by the Land Commission is conveyed to the proprietor of a holding subject to a purchase annuity, that holding and the land so conveyed shall be deemed one holding, and the said annuity and portion shall be payable in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.'"

"In page 34, line 6, after the word 'deposit' to insert the following sub-section: '(3) Where any land upon which portion of a purchase annuity has been charged by the Land Commission is conveyed to the proprietor of a holding subject to a purchase annuity, that holding and the land so conveyed shall be deemed one holding, and the said annuity and portion shall be payable in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.'"

"In page 34, line 42, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'on the application of any person interested or without such application with the consent of the Lord Chancellor,' and to leave out the words 'such authority and' and to insert the words 'the Judicial Commissioner if he thinks fit.'"

"In page 35, line 17, after the word 'cent.' to insert the words 'per annum.'"

"In page 35, line 40, after the word 'the' to insert the words 'trustees of the.'"

the next Amendments, read a second time, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill.

"In page 36, line 15, after the word vendor' to insert the words 'or to the trustees of a settlement.'"—( Mr. Atkinson. )

Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 36, line 18, after the word 'less' to insert the following sub-section: '(2) Subsection 4 of Section 3 of this Act shall apply in the case of any land in respect of which an advance is made in pursuance of this section.'"

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"In line 2, after the word 'four' to inset the words 'and Sub-section 6.'"— ( Mr. Wyndham. )

Amendment to Lords Anendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

"In page 36, line 35, after the word 'cutting' to insert the words 'or making.'"

"In page 38, line 2, after the word 'Board' to insert the words 'in lieu of the member of the Land Commission nominated under Subsection 1 of Section 34 of the Act of 1891.' And also to insert the following clause:—'Section 18 of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, which makes provision with respect to congested districts counties, is hereby repealed.'"

the next Amendments, read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 38, line 36, to leave out the word 'any' and insert the words 'subject to the provisions of this Act any.'"

the next Amendment disagreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 38, line 38, to leave out the word 'appeal' and to insert the words 'apply for a re-hearing.'"

the next Amendment read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 39, line 5, after the word 'assessor,' to insert the words 'who shall hear the evidence and inspect the holding, and report thereon to the Judicial Commissioner.'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

moved to insert, after the first word "and," the words "on the application of either of the parties."

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"In line 2, after the word 'and' to insert the words 'on the application of either of the parties.'"—( Mr. Wyndham. )

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

moved an Amendment to provide that the report would be made public. As the Bill stood no provision was made for the report of the assessor being made public, and thus one man was virtually made arbiter. His report, at all events, ought not to be secret. He moved to add, after the words "report thereon to the Judicial Commissioner," the words "in the prescribed manner."

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"In line 3, at end, to add the words 'in the prescribed manner'."—( Mr. T. M. Healy. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said Part III of the Bill had no very ardent supporter, either in this or the other House. It was held to be a necessary adjunct of the far larger facilities given for promoting the purchase of land in Ireland. He was prepared to accept the Amendments made in another place because they did not effect changes in the tribunal. He understood that a great many of the landlords and tenants of Ireland preferred that there should be a re-hearing, and that they were not satisfied with Part III. as it stood. He had met that view, but he was not able to attempt the further revision of Part III. at the eleventh hour.

asked whether the report would be a public document.

said the tenants were in great danger of being deprived of the benefits of the Act of 1881.

said that this clause would create dismay and consternation unless the Report was made a public document. He suggested the addition of the following words: "and such Report should be communicated to the parties."

said this was a matter of great consequence to the tenants, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Louth.

said the second suggestion of the hon. Member for North Louth would defeat its own object. It would be better to take the first suggestion, and add the words "in the prescribed manner."

said he would take that.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

asked the leave of the House to go back and rectify a slip. He ought to have asked the house to disagree with the following Lords Amendment—

"In page 38, line 36, to leave out the word 'any' and to insert the words 'subject to the provisions of this Act any.'"

Lords Amendment disagreed to.

It will be entered on the journals as having been disagreed with in the first instance.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 39, lines 6 to 8, leave out Sub-section 3."

the next Amendment, read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 39, line 9, after the word 'appeal' to insert the words 'or on any re-hearing (except in oases where the valuation does not exceed£20).'"

the next Amendment, read a second time, amended, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 39, line 10, after the word 'which' to insert the words 'could have been but'"

the next Amendment, read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment.

"In page 39, lines 12 and 15, after the word 'Commissioner' to insert the words 'who hears the Appeal'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

moved to insert after the words "the Appeal," the words "or re-hearing."

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment—

"In line 2, after the word 'Appeal' to add the words 'or re-hearing'."—( Mr. Atkinson. )

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

"In page 39, line 20, after the word 'made' to insert the words 'by the Judicial Commissioners with the approval of the Lord Chancellor'"

"In page 39, line 22, to leave out from the word 're-hearings' to the end of the clause, and insert the words 'and those rules shall, among other things, provide for an ad valorem scale of fees to be paid on notices of appeal or rehearing.'"

"In page 39, line 24, to leave out the words 'Land Commission' and insert the words 'Judicial Commissioner.'"

Leave out Clause 87.

"In page 40, line 17, after the word 'reason' to insert the word 'solely.'"

"In page 40, line 19, to leave out the word 'judicially' and insert the words 'in the absence of other provision.'"

"In page 40, line 22, after the word 'apply' to insert the words 'as from the commencement of this Act.'"

"In page 40, line 30, after the word '1881, to insert the words 'or under that section'"

"In page 40, line 38, to leave out the words 'the representation' and insert the words 'any representation under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, affecting him.'"

the next Amendments, read a second time, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment—

"In page 41, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'a Court of Summary Jurisdiction' and insert the words 'the County Court Judge.'"

the next Amendment, read a second time.

said that as this Amendment did not appear on the Paper, it seemed that the Government did not wish to propose it at all The clause as it originally stood was really of very little use to the labourers, and that little use had been minimised still further by the change made in the House of Lords. He supposed that Clause 93 would have to be accepted with this unfotunate change, but he believed that when the Chief Secretary introduced a Labourers Bill next year, he would find that the House of Lords was wrong.

said that he wished to acknowledge the loyal way in which the Government, after a great struggle, had re-instated this clause. The Chief Secretary was to be congratulated in re-instating the clause, although it did not mean very much.

said that the labourers of Ireland had nothing to thank the Irish landlords for, because they had all voted against this clause.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendments.

"In page 41, line 30, to leave out the words 'must either be' and insert the words 'is either.' Line 31, to leave out the word 'be' and insert the word 'is.'"

"In page 42, line 6, to leave out from the word 'Commission' to the word 'the' in line 8, and insert the words 'in the manner directed by Sub-section 6 of Section 29 of the Act of 1891.' The expression 'demesne' includes any mansion, house or other buildings thereon. The expression 'vesting order' includes fiat. Line 34, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'or enactment.' and after the word 'amending' to insert the word 'applying.'"

"In page 44, line 22, after the first word 'three' to insert the words 'in Sub-section 1 of Section 34, from 'a member' to 'forestry' and the words 'the Chief Secretary when absent shall be replaced by the Under Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant,'"

the next Amendments, read a second time, and agreed to.

Ordered, "That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments to the Bill."

Committee nominated of—Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Sergeant Hemphill, Mr. John Redmond, Colonel Saunderson, and Mr. Wyndham.

Committee to withdraw immediately.

Three to be the quorum.—( Mr. Wyndham. )

said that he had anticipated that the President of the Board of Trade would have said something in support of the Motion, but he concluded from the silence of the right hon. Gentleman that he wished to hear objections first. There was some reason to complain that this very important subject, which had been the subject of observation and Question during the whole year, should have been kept back to the ultimate hours of a very busy session. As concisely as possible he would confine himself to two or three points in the agreements which had relation to the Admiralty. He took it that the agreement meant that the merchant cruiser policy was abandoned—namely, the system of paying subsidies in time of peace for certain ships being placed at the disposal of the Government in time of war. In substitution of that system they were going to have a new system whereby there would be made in time of peace agreements for the hire or purchase of vessels in time of war. On neither of these points had he any hostile criticism to offer. He was quite satisfied, and he believed the House generally was satisfied, with the declaration made by the Admiralty that they had no intention of any longer giving subsidies in time of peace for vessels to be used in time of war. The Government of which he was a Member, in so far as it was responsible for the initiation of that policy, adopted it only subject to reconsideration by the Admiralty; but the Government did not last long enough to be in a position to give that reconsideration.

With reference to the Cunard agreement, the special part of it was that the Government was to make a loan of £2,600,000 to the company for the purpose of enabling it to build two ships of large dimensions, and further, when the ships were built, the Government was going to pay the company a sort of rent or subsidy of £150,000 a year. That was a kind of bounty which involved quite a new departure on behalf of the Government. He wished for a moment to dwell on the peculiar financial effects of this proposal. The State was about to pay to this particular company more than the whole of its nominal capital. The nominal capital was £1,600,000, and its own valuation of its fleet was under £2,000,000. The present market value of the shares did not, however, amount to more than £1,200,000. To a concern of this kind they were going to make a loan amounting to £2,600,000—£1,000,000 above the nominal capital value, and about double the real capital value of the concern. That was a feature of the agreement which the House would do well to ponder over. Further, the loan was to be at 2¾ per cent. The Admiralty had evidently taken the advice of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, and, although having no doubt a financial expert, it had no shipbuilding expert. The Report of that Committee suggested that loans might be made to shipping companies at lower rates than they would otherwise be able to obtain them. In the ordinary way, if a company like the Cunard Company wanted a loan they would have to pay 5 per cent.; but the Admiralty let them have it at 2¾ per cent. In other words, the company received State credit to the extent of 2¼ per cent., which was really a bonus amounting to nearly £60,000 a year, and to almost 4 per cent. on the nominal capital of the company. The amount of £150,000 which was to be given as hire to the company would pay nearly 10 per cent., on their nominal capital. Lastly, the loan was to be repaid by annual instalment, extending over a period of twenty years. The instalments would therefore amount to £130,000, and to that should be added interest amounting to £35,000. The Cunard Company would therefore pay the Government £165,000 for twenty years. The Government would pay £150,000, and the net balance over and above would be £15,000; and for the payment of that sum per annum, this particular company, selected by the Government, would become the possessors of two of the most enormous vessels of modern times, having a capital value of £2,600,000. He thought that the financial features of the agreement certainly required some consideration from an assembly of business men. A transaction of such magnitude called from the Government, and especially from the Admiralty, for some defence.

He wished to know how far it was intended to extend this new policy, and if the two ships were to be the whole of the new fleet of subsidised cruisers? If two such ships were not sufficient, how many more would the country be called upon to supply? This policy was hinted at in the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which was laid before Parliament at the beginning of the session. It was only fair to say that speed was laid down by the First Lord of the Admiralty as a first condition to be attained under the new system. He declared that it was intolerable that there should be any ship afloat which was faster than any ship under the control of the Admiralty; and it was for this superiority of speed that the new system was proposed. There were, however, certain points which the Government ought to be able to make out to the satisfaction of the House. First of all, that the Admiralty could not itself build ships capable of maintaining the speed required to catch the fastest merchant ships. He would, of course, receive with respect what the Admiralty said on that matter, but he would receive with astonishment and surprise a statement to the effect that it was beyond the power of the Admiralty to design and build ships fast enough to catch merchant ships. Another point on which the House ought to be satisfied was that the the British mercantile marine could not be trusted to maintain its superiority in point of speed without the offer of special iuducements from the Admiralty. Were the Admiralty and the British mercantile marine about to acknowledge, for the first time in history, that they were unable to cope with the fastest vessels of the foreign mercantile marine? He could hardly suppose that that would be said on behalf of the British mercantile marine. He would, however, assume that neither the Admiralty nor the British mercantile marine could furnish the speed required, but if these propositions were made good, it would then be necessary to show that the speed required could not be obtained in a merchant ship except at the cost of the vessels provided for in this agreement. The Government were bound to show that a merchant ship could not be obtained to maintain a speed of 24¼knots unless it were of 30,000 tons, and cost £1,300,000.

This new proposal was in part, at least, a consequence of the panic brought about last year by the sudden creation of the Morgan combine. That combine did not now seem to be so formidable as when it was first established, and those who were alarmed by it last year were now able to sleep comfortably in their beds. It was to that panic also that he attributed a good many of the sentimental features both in this agreement and in the collateral agreement with the Morgan combine; the provisions with regard to British ships, the British flag, and British officers and men appeared to be traceable to that cause. The company, having made this bargain with the Government, undertook to do certain things of a non-naval character, and how they could be made part of a business contract, such as that under consideration, passed his comprehension. The company undertook to carry on its own business to the best advantage. That was an extraordinary consideration to enter into a formal contract. Another provision was that it should not unduly raise the freights or charges for the. carriage of goods in any of its services What was "unduly" raising freights? Why was this restriction confined to goods? He would have thought that the passenger traffic deserved some consideration in that connection. A further provision was that in fixing such frieghts and charges no undue preference was to be given as against British subjects. What was "undue preference" was a perfectly open question. As to the expense of maintaining a ship at these high rates of speed, the representative of the Admiralty ought to make some answer to the assertion that it was not by any means clear that the rate of speed provided for by this agreement was uncommercial. Considerations had been advanced showing that at the present time, particularly on the Atlantic route, high speed might be a commercial speed, and although there might be a loss in particular instances, yet the fact of possessing such vessels made the fleet, as a whole, pay better than if the big vessels were not in it.

With regard to the agreement with the Morgan combine to which the House was invited to give its approval, he presumed the Motion under discussion was rendered necessary by the rules of the House relating to the mail service. If anybody desired to have his mind reassured as to the Morgan combine he had only to read this agreement. The only objection he had to it was that it was a bargain between the British Government and a foreign Government, and that might be said to be a sentimental objection. The agreement undertook on the part of the Government that this so-called International Company should have what might be termed most-favoured-nation treatment; in other words, the Admiralty were going to treat them on even terms with other shipping companies, and they in turn came under certain restrictions and covenants which, so far as legal contracts went, would keep the ships all British, and maintain them under the British flag for the term of the agreement. There were also incidental terms as to the manning and officering of the ships. He had nothing to say by way of objection to those parts of the agreement, or indeed to any portion of the agreement, because, as he understood it, the position was this: The existing Oceanic Steam Company agreement would have to run its natural course, and when it and all the others expired a new agreement would come into force, which would not involve subsidies, but which would involve a right to take over their ships on terms to be agreed upon. The Morgan combine, if it had any element of danger in it before, was reduced to harmlessness by this agreement, to which he imagined everybody was prepared to assent. But the Cunard agreement, the remarkable financial effect of which he had endeavoured to describe, was a totally different matter, and it was to that that the attention of the Committee ought to be mainly directed. He hoped a full and complete defence on that agreement—or, at any rate, of the portion involving the payment of £2,600,000 by way of loan for the building of two ships, and the yearly rent of £150,000. simply because they had agreed to build those ships, would be for the coming. He was not aware of any similar provision in any legislation except the somewhat peculiar clauses in the Irish Land Act by which an Irish landlord was able to sell his estate and be paid by State money, and then to buy it back with the use of State credit. The question would have to be asked why the Cunard Company had been selected for this remarkable subvention, and also whether there were to be any more of these ships, and if so, how many? If these questions were satisfactorily answered, there then arose the totally different question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Islington, viz.: Why, if the Government were obliged to resort to the merchant navy for the kind of ship they wanted, they did not make known the conditions upon which they were prepared to make these advances, in order that there might have been some competition?

asked the House to look at the matter from a business standpoint. It was an extraordinary proceeding that, at the very close of the session, they should be asked to consider a new and large question of this kind. He did not wish to make the slightest reflection on the Cunard Company. That company, he believed, was a credit to the country, and he had always heard it spoken of in high terms. It was not the business of the House to make any reflection on the company, however severely they might criticise the agreement. The agreement had four parts. The first related to this large loan at a very low rate of interest. The object of the loan was to place a trading company in funds, without the slightest restriction being placed on the manner in which the money was to be spent, except that it was to be to the advantage of the company. That was an extremely bad precedent to set, and it was a great pity that such a step should be proposed at a time when it could not be properly appreciated by the House of Commons. Why was this one company picked out, and this large loan granted to it, without strict inquiry as to whether some other company of equally good standing would be willing to carry out the conditions with a less serious obligation on the country? The second part of the agreement was for the payment of a large annual subsidy. That was distinctly against the recommendations of the recent Committee on Shipping Subsidies, the general tenure of whose Report was to discourage the policy of granting subsidies. When the Naval Estimates were before the House it appeared that the Admiralty fully accepted that Report, both in letter and in spirit, by the abandonment of existing subsidies, and one would have supposed that they would have pursued that policy a little further. There might possibly be a special case to be made out for the new subsidy, but at any rate it had not been put before the House. It seemed very strange that, so soon after steps had been taken against the policy of subsidies, this extravagant bargain should have been rushed into. Upon what Estimates was the payment of this subsidy to be borne? It ought to appear on the Naval Estimates; that would be the most regular way in which to deal with it. He did not believe the country would get the least return for the subsidy; in fact, a careful study of the agreement showed that the bargain would rather tie the hands of the Government. The answer would probably be that they had the right of hiring or purchasing the boats on terms stated in the agreement. His objection to that was that we had entered into the bargain with regard to hire and purchase quite prematurely, and the tendency of the bargain would be to tie our hands and to lay greater obligations on the country.

The third part of the agreement related to hiring, and that ought to be very carefully studied by the House. The rates on which these ships were to be taken were extremely high. In time of war high rates might have to be paid, and the only advantage of making a bargain in advance was that of securing more reasonable terms. The rates varied according to the speed of the ship, and ran from 25s. per ton per month on the gross register, down to 17s. or 20s. in the case of the smaller ships. In twelve months, under the agreement, they would pay the full price of nearly all the ships, while in the case of the larger ships, if the engagement went on for fifteen or sixteen months, even they would be fairly paid for. It seemed to him that if such an agreement was made so long in advance, with one particular company, much better terms ought to have been obtained. It was not even stated that these were the maximum rates; they would be bound to pay these extravagant prices if the ships were taken. In what way were these rates fixed? The Committee seemed to have proceeded in a rough-and-ready way, and their maximum proposals had been embodied in the agreement. The House ought really to have some defence of these extraordinary and extravagant figures. It would have been much better to have left the matter until an emergency arose, or, if the bargain was to be made at once, to have secured competition. The fourth part of the agreement gave the right to purchase all the fleet of this company. A price had been stated of the value of the ships on the 29th September, and the Government were to have the right to purchase them at that rate subject to a certain depreciation. But the tendency was to make that price the actual amount that the country would have to pay, and it seemed to him to be a very high price. These were the four aspects of the question which, in his opinion, ought to be carefully studied by the House before they sanctioned this agreement. He agreed with the hon. Member for Dundee that the Government had rushed into the matter in a moment of panic, and the whole agreement seemed to be a crowning instance of the ex- travagance of the present Administration. Complaints had been made for some time past of the rate at which public expenditure was growing, and the Government seemed to have determined at the end of the session to give one final kick, and that to be the worst of all. The policy of the loan was bad, the subsidy would require a great deal of justification, and the other clauses were most extraordinary to have been adopted before the emergency arose. He begged to move.

seconded.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'this House regrets that an arrangement was made with the Cunard Steamship Company without first ascertaining by public competition the terms upon which the Government requirements might have been met by other companies.'"—( Mr. Lough. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate arising.

And, it being half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

said the speech of the hon. Member for Islington was very much the same kind of speech as that of the hon. Member for Dundee, who also seemed to suggest that this agreement was wrong because it gave an unreasonable preference to the Cunard Steamship Company. He ventured to suggest that the circumstances which surrounded the initiation of this contract left the Government very little or no choice. They had no desire to give anything in the nature of a benefit to the Cunard Steamship Company. The fact that that company might make money in the future out of that agreement was no argument against the agreement. The reason that there was not now in the shipping trade that feeling of panic which existed two years ago, to which the hon. Member for Dundee referred, was entirely owing to this agreement. Two years ago the American millionaires had invaded almost every sphere of trading in Great Britain; they had taken possession of the match-making trade and the manufacture of electric tramways and other things, and, in fact, there was scarcely a single branch of British trade in which American capital had not been used for the purpose of absorbing the British interest; and, finally, the American millionaires threatened the shipping trade, not in any particular section, but in every direction, and more particularly in the direction of the Atlantic trade. The situation was that 8,010 American millionaires, who had control of the whole of the railways in America, conceived the possibility of obtaining control of the shipping. If the same group of million aires who controlled the railways were able to get hold of the passenger and freight trade carried on between Great Britain and America they would have been able to establish a monopoly and charge what they pleased. That was the object of Mr. Pierpont Morgan, and eventually some half-dozen steamship lines became absorbed in the American combination. The Cunard Steamship Company alone held out, not from any patriotic motives, but purely as a matter of business. They were like the last voter of a corrupt borough before the Ballot Act; who kept back his vote to the last in order to get the biggest price. If the Cunard Steamship Company had succumbed, the object the American millionaires had in view would have been accomplished; and it was, therefore, a patriotic duty on the part of the Government to make, if necessary, some sacrifice for the purpose of preventing a monopoly being established to our detriment. He did not believe a sacrifice in the sense in which he spoke had been made. The Government had made a bargain which was exceedingly beneficial to the country at large which even now was capable of a complete defence against the attacks made upon it.

We could not deal with questions of this kind on the financial basis which had been laid down by the hon. Member for Dundee. The Government, in exchange for this concession which they had given to the Cunard Steamship Company, got, in the first place, a contract from the Cunard Steamship Company to build two vessels which were never likely to pay their way, and which would be run at a loss of about £150,000 a year, and which would run at a speed of twenty-four or twenty-five knots an hour, and the difference between the policy announced by the Secretary to the Admiralty of the abolition of subsidies to existing vessels, and the policy set forth in this agreement was that in the one case the subsidy was given to existing vessels, and in the other an amount of money was given as an inducement to shipowners to build a particular class of ship which would not otherwise have been built. These vessels would be of a higher speed than any other vessel afloat either for the purposes of war or commerce, and the advantage of such vessels to the Navy would be enormous, because they would be in actual running, always ready for use, with no risk of breakdown such as has occurred to ships suddenly brought out, ready, subject to some very few alterations and the shipping of their guns, for immediate service as cruisers or troopships. It was quite true that the Admiralty could build such ships for themselves, but they would come as a charge on the Naval Estimates, whereas now the money would be subscribed by the public on the guarantee of the Government. The crews of these vessels would belong to the Royal Naval Reserve and the Fleet Reserve, and would be in constant training, and these vessels could be used for training fresh men and officers from time to time. The loan was extremely well secured as the £2,500,000 was secured, by a property worth £4,500,000. Another advantage was that this company was bound to remain British, and there could be no attempt in the future on the part of the American millionaires to restore and continue the panic of two years ago by attempting to create a monopoly. He gave his hearty approval to this agreement in all its details because it had removed the danger, under the fear of which they were labouring.

^* thought this was purely a matter of business, and that from a financial point of view the Government had got the best of the bargain. When the subsidy of £150,000 per annum was divided among the nineteen steamers it would only represent £8,000 for each, which was not much in view of the fact that the Government could take them practically at any time they wanted them. And when the interest to be paid by the Cunard Company on the loan was added to the one-twentieth of the capital sum to be paid back and deducted from the total subsidy, the balance was only about £16,500 per annum. The crux of the whole question was the speed of the two new vessels which were to be built. Ostensibly they were to steam twenty-four and a half knots. But if the Admiralty were going to have anything to do with the designing or engineering he could only say "Lord help them," for the Admiralty had never yet built a ship which had the speed designed for her. If these vessels did not steam twenty-four and a half knots continuously, the money would be thrown away. In order to do that these vessels were required to develop enormous horse power—70,000 or 20,000 horse power through each screw. When they looked at the risk the Government was taking, he dreaded that, unless this matter was gone into thoroughly, and if those vessels failed in their speed, the Government had made a bad bargain. It had been asked why had the Admiralty not decided to build the ships themselves? He had "many a time and oft" directed attention to the fast cruisers built by the Government at nearly the price of these vessels, and he was sorry to say that they had never been able to attain their designed speed. Therefore the Government were perfectly right to go to private builders and get the vessels built from merchant shipping designs. By getting command of the whole fleet of this company upon the terms they had secured he thought the Government had done a very wise action, because they could not build those large ships and put in such enormous engines and make them pay. He thought that the Government had done a very good and sensible bit of business in this agreement, provided that they saw that the vessels were all right. He congratulated the Government, therefore, on the move they had made, but he warned them that, if the vessels were not properly designed, if their engines were not properly dimensioned and the three screws were not in the proper place, they would never get the designed speed continuously, and the whole of their undertaking would be an unmitigated failure and a disgrace to the country.

^* said it was satisfactory to note that whatever criticisms of an adverse character had been made in the cause of this debate they had been made with moderation, and those criticisms had been directed more against the details of this proposal than against the principle of it. The hon. Member for Islington had asked why public competition had not been nvited? The answer to that question was that it was not a case in which competition could be applied, because there was only a very limited class of vessels that could give services of this nature, because the great bulk of their steamers were not vessels of that character. Only ships of great size and speed and coal capacity could perform the duties required under this agreement. He agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member opposite that this matter should not be looked at from sentimental considerations only. He did not wish to disparage the very important considerations brought forward by his hon. friend the Member for Shipley. He agreed with him that this company had refused to fall in with the American combination and had stood out although sorely tempted. It was desirable in the interests of the country that they should be able to secure the very best steamers to carry the mails in time of peace and to act as auxiliaries to the Navy in time of war. The Government by this proposal had undertaken to give employment to the vessels belonging to the companies included in the International Mercantile Marine Company. The companies, on the other hand, had contracted that these vessels should remain British as regarded register, their officers and a proportion of the crew. He thought that was a very fair bargain.

The necessity for the Cunard agreement arose from the fact that the time had arrived when the very swiftest steamers, the finest patterns of naval architecture, were no longer to be found under the British flag. That was simply because they could not be built on commercial lines. That had been shown by the Report of the Subsidies Committee, and also by the Report of the Cruisers Committee. The increase of cost in providing each additional knot of speed had greatly increased out of proportion to the cost of the previous speeds, and on that account the figures mounted up to such a point that these vessels were so costly to build and maintain that they could not be run for commercial purposes. That was the reason why our shipowners had not built them. Did they think the Cunard Company and the White Star Line would have allowed the blue riband of the Atlantic to be wrested from their hands if they had been able to provide these vessels? That could not be done, and if the Government wanted these vessels for national purposes they must either build them themselves or else assist the shipowners to provide them. Supposing we did not provide them ourselves, we should have to depend upon foreigners to carry our mails, and we had not fallen so low as that yet. In time of war the position would be more serious, as if we had not the quickest ships in the world that would be a menace to British commerce. These foreign ships of higher speed would prey upon our shipping. They would form links of communication between hostile fleets, and we would have nothing to place against them. Therefore the vessels of exceptional speed which it was proposed to build under this agreement were of the greatest importance, from the naval point of view, as scouts and means of communication between different fleets. We got these vessels by this arrangement on very moderate terms. If the country had to provide them as part of the Navy, the country would have to pay the cost of building them and of maintaining them, and probably maintaining them doing nothing. Whereas, under the agreement the country really got them for nothing. They were provided really without cost to the Government [OPPOSITION Cries of "Oh!"] because the Government advanced a loan, and that loan would be paid off.

And the subsidy?

^* said he would now deal with the subsidy, which he thought was misnamed. This £150,000 paid by the Government was compensation for the loss necessarily incurred in working these vessels on commercial lines. That was shown in the Report of the Cruisers Committee, which showed that a speed of between twenty-four and twenty-five knots would involve a loss per annum of something like £125,000, or for the two vessels £250,000, a year by working them on commercial lines. Against that loss the Government paid the Cunard Company £150,000 on the two vessels. Therefore, he said this subsidy was to make up the loss which was necessarily to be incurred in running these vessels, which were built of exceptional speed for Government and national purposes. That, he contended, was a very good arrangement, but he could not say it was a profitable arrangement for the Cunard Company. It was quite possible a loss might be incurred in running the vessels at a high speed. What did the Cunard Company give in return? In the first place, they guaranteed the British character of these vessels. The shares were to be British, the directors British, and the principal officers, the master-engineers, and three-fourths of the crews were to be British subjects, while half of the crew were to belong to the Naval Reserve. They placed the whole of their fleet at the service of the Government to buy or hire, and they agreed not to hire or sell any vessels of their fleet without the previous consent of the Government, and they gave the Government a controlling interest in all matters affecting this agreement. The company virtually surrendered its independence and became virtually a State concern. They had resisted the temptation to throw in their lot with the foreign combination. They had remained true and faithful to British interests and therefore he thought the agreement was profitable and for the benefit of the nation he hoped it would be profitable to the Cunard Company, and he hoped it would be unanimously approved by the House.

^* said the hon. Member for Islington's Amendment was directed to the absence of competition for this contract which the Government had made, but the Government were not to be blamed for that. The area of competition was extremely limited. There were no ships engaged in any trade in the world which were capable of performing the services which the Admiralty required except those engaged in this particular trade. Therefore the area of competition was confined to the Cunard Company and the International Combine; the Government had made a bargain with each of these companies. Another reason why the ships in this particular trade should be preferred to any others for the service of the Admiralty was the fact that they were more available in time of war, for they were always at work and always to hand. He would give as an instance the rapidity with which the United States had prepared four ships, for sea in the Spanish American war. Those vessels at the time the war broke out were engaged in this particular trade between Southampton and New York. On the 13th and 14th of April, 1898 the United States requisitioned those steamers and one day later two of them sailed from Southampton, having abandoned all their contracts, and eleven days after that they were coaled, armed, and manned, and ready for use in New York. They were ready just in time to enable General Miles to take his army at the moment when he required it, and this prompt action did much toward the speedy settlement of the war. Not only this, but these very vessels discovered the position of the Spanish Fleet, when all the world was wondering where Admiral Cervera was. There was no doubt about it that the services which those mercantile cruisers rendered during that war were of inestimable value. The question in regard to this proposal made by the Government was whether they were paying too much. There was no doubt that the House must be convinced that steamers of this character could not be run upon commercial lines. He believed it was a fact that the amounts to be paid under this agreement were arrived at before the Report of the Mixed Commission was issued, and that Report was a striking confirmation of the arrangement made under this agreement. The price estimated by that Commission for vessels to run between twenty-four and twenty-five knots per hour was £130,000 or £260,000 for two steamers. That Report was based on a ten years, agreement, but this agreement was for twenty years. Taking into account the actual valuation and estimates made by this Commission and the bargain made by the Government, he really did not think that the Cunard Company had very much to congratulate themselves upon. On the whole he was inclined to congratulate the Cunard Company more upon their courage in undertaking this contract than upon their luck in getting it.

Then there was the question of the other agreement with the International Company. He was aware that the hon. Member for King's Lynn and others thought the Government had not been dealing with the right people in negotiating with a foreign firm under the cover of the British flag, under which they could work their steamers at 20 per cent. less cost than under the American flag, but he forgot to say they could be worked for 10 percent, less still under the Belgian or a Scandinavian flag. These ships had English managing owners, men of the highest standing and ability, and they were responsible to British law. It was quite true that the shares in this company were all owned by another organisation registered at New Jersey in the United States, but the ultimate ownership of the company was international. He remembered that he made a statement in this House last year that the preponderance of the ownership of this company was American. He made a mistake on that occasion. At that time the preponderance was British, and he believed that the proportion had not very much varied between that time and this. The ships were British built in British yards, they employed British labour, and they were repaired by British labour. Their captains, officers, engineers and crew were British. Many of the men belonged to the Royal Navy Reserve and were available for every service. The United States' share in the international arrangement was simply that they got their dividends when earned. The designers of this international combination were accused of two things. They were accused of being cosmopolitan capitalists, and they were accused of being conspirators against British supremacy on the ocean in the interests of the United States. He would ask whether it was impossible to believe that the gentlemen who after very long consideration had joined in international co-operation rather than in international competition, were animated by larger ideas. No doubt they had ideas of dividends, but was it not possible to believe that they thought of political and international amity. He should like to quote the words of an American Civil Servant. In his last annual report the Commissioner of Navigation for the United States said:—

^* said the hon. Members for Gateshead, Shipley and Gloucester had admirably reviewed the financial aspect of the agreement the Government had made. He desired for his part to cordially congratulate the Government upon this agreement. He did not do so as a blind adherent of the Government. He thought the House would give him credit for that. He thought that the Government rose to the occasion when last year the country was in a state of panic with regard to the Morgan eombine, and dealt with the situation in a level-headed and satisfactory way. No doubt comparatively little notice had been taken of this agreement by the public, and he thought that was really a matter of praise. It showed that the country was content with it, and he believed that the panic which existed at the time had largely subsided because of the Agreement that had been made. Nobody could deny that a panic did exist, and he thought it would be worth while to read to the House one or two statements made at the time the combine took place. Referring to the Morgan combine one journal said— Standard of 9th May, 1902. The hon. Member for West Islington had moved an Amendment which suggested that the Government ought to have asked for competition in this matter, and ought not at once to have fallen into the hands of the Cunard Company. He thought the hon. Member for Gloucester had answered that objection when he said that the Cunard Company only had the vessels which the Government were in need of. The essence of the solution of this matter was promptness; and if the Government had invited tenders, the House might not even now be discussing the agreement before it, nor was there any guarantee that the Cunard Company would not have joined the combine. It was true that they held out up to the time that His Majesty's Government approached them, but if there had been delay through asking for tenders, it was quite possible that the Cunard Company which was the one company that could stand up against the Morgan Combine, would have gone over to it, and then it would have been no longer possible to negotiate with them. Now even the British Morgan Companies remained under British control, in consideration of their being treated in all respects like British Companies, entitled to future benefits, and what to his mind was quite as important, bound by future reegulations.

The agreement entered into with the Cunard Company was essentially an Admiralty agreement except as regards Part 2 which dealt with the mails. The Admiralty believed that it was more economical to subsidise swift merchant steamers than to build naval ships, and as these two vessels, which were to be capable of steaming 24½ knots, were required for the Navy, he thought that the subsidy of £150,000 a year was not excessive. It was necessary to remember that these ships would not have been guilt without a subsidy; that they would be essentially British ships, built in British yards, and manned as far as possible by British crews, and that they, as well as the other Cunard ships, were to be placed at the disposal of the Government for purchase or hire. This might involve some disorganisation in the business of the Cunard Company, for which he thought it was reasonable that they should be paid as proposed. This was a subsidy for services rendered. The hon. Member for West Islington was mistaken in alleging that the Steamship Subsidies Committee had disapproved the granting of a subsidy of this character. He supposed that the paragraph to which the hon. Member referred was the one that said—

He thought the Government in the agreement had adhered to the lines of the Report of the Subsidies Committee, and it was because the agreement was parallel with that Report that he desired to congratulate the Government. He would mention a few of the points in which the agreement and the Report coincided. Firstly, on the question of speed. The Subsidies Committee Report said— attended to throughout the agreement with the Cunard Company. Two of the provisions provided against the undue raising of freights, and the giving of undue preference. Those were both to his mind very valuable and important provisions, but he was not quite sure that the clauses in which they were embodied were really sufficient for their purpose. The Government spoke of unduly raising freights and of undue preference, but who was to decide what was "undue," and by what means were they to have that decision brought into effect. There was no special provision for arbitration. He imagined that arbitration would be the most convenient means of getting the matter decided.

said arbitration was provided for.

^* said he was glad to hear that, but even so he did not think the arbitrator would be able to give compensation to a third party who had been unduly charged. The most the arbitrator could do would be to prevent, in future the parties from suffering by unduly high rates and freights or undue preference. For himself he should have preferred that the decision of such matters should be entrusted to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, but no doubt this conld not be done without legislation. He did not think it could be denied that the insertion of a clause of this kind imported into an Admiralty contract a commercial aspect. He did not object, indeed he approved of it, but he knew that there were hon. Members who were very much afraid that subsidies would be paid for commercial purposes and not merely for naval or postal purposes. His answer to them was that he did not think it could be possibly avoided. As a post office witness, Mr. Buxton Forman had said before the Subsidies Committee, subsidised postal services are co-existent and co-extensive with a great commercial traffic, and follow its lines almost as a matter of course. He was very glad also that the Government had decided that no foreigner should own Cunard shares. It was rather difficult to establish or carry out that condition, as an unpatriotic British nominee of a foreigner, who registered the foreigner's shares in his own name, was not always easily discoverable, and he had some doubts as to whether the condition about the selling of shares at market price would do all that was required. At the same time he did not think the Government could have taken better precautions, and he entirely approved of Sub-section 3, of Section 1 of the second Schedule which dealt with this matter. All things [considered he believed that this agreement would clearly result to the public benefit.

^* said that the Government had reason to congratulate themselves on the chorus of approbation with which the agreements had been greeted. He had listened attentively to all that had been said, and only two dissentient voices had been heard—those of the hon. Members for Dundee and West Islington. The Amendment moved by the latter Gentleman had been merged into the main discussion. He had been particularly glad to notice that the hon. Member for Dundee had accepted the agreement in principle, and only challenged certain details. The fact that the agreements had thus been accepted in principle by the House of Commons carried them a considerable way forward, and released him from the necessity of dealing at any great length with the questions of principle involved. The hon. Member for West Islington asked why it was that the agreement was made with the Cunard Company. Several sufficient answers had already been given to that Question, and he would supplement them with another. It was perfectly clear that the selection was limited to the great Atlantic lines by circumstances over which the Admiralty had no control, as it was absolutely necessary to have the service of ships of high speed, and their consequent size and draught would prevent their passage through the Suez Canal. It was therefore necessary for the Government to enter into the agreement with a company whose vessels were not required to pass through the Suez Canal. The hon. Member for Dundee spoke as if this was a new departure. He did not think that it was a new departure; it was only an extension on better lines of a policy which had been carried out for years. When the principle of subsidies was first adopted, the Admiralty obtained good value for the subsidies, because they got ships that could do something which no ships then in the Royal Navy could do. That advantage ceased, and it became not worth while to continue the subsidies in those particular instances. But now again the Admiralty had secured vessels for the performance of services that could not be rendered with equal advantage by the Royal Navy. The Admiralty could, no doubt, build ships of equal speed as well as anybody else, but by this agreement they would obtain the fast cruisers they required at much less cost. There was no reason why these ships, armed with modern weapons and carrying an enormous coal supply, should not keep the sea for an indefinite time, eluding every vessel they desired to escape, and overtaking any vessel which they desired to engage. He would like to ask the question: What would be the position of the Admiralty and of the country if, in a naval war, no vessel carrying the British flag could cope with merchant cruisers such as those we might find employed against us? The Admiralty had to consider the cheapest and most efficient method of meeting this menace—for menace it must be considered—and they took advantage of the existence of the great mercantile lines and by co operating with other Departments, anxious for national reasons to restore the prestige of the British Mercantile Marine in the Atlantic, they took the opportunity of providing themselves with fast cruisers ready for service in time of war. If the Admiralty had themselves built cruisers at a cost of £1,000,000 or £1,250,000, they would have had to provide these cruisers with crews, and to pay all the expenses of repairs; but under this arrangement nine-tenths of the cost was borne commercially, and the remaining tenth was a military contribution. That was a thoroughly sound business transaction. He had always maintained that they ought not to obtain money from the Navy Estimates for anything they could obtain commercially. As to the speeds in the Atlantic trade, he would point out that one of the foreign lines ran steamers at an annual subsidy of £280,000 a year, and these ships could not be run commercially at a profit.

Some remarks had been made as to the rates to be paid for these ships; but he maintained that the rates were moderate and reasonable. There was evidence of that. During the South African war it was found that, apart from the subsidy agreements, the rates for the ships, they had been compelled to take up, were higher than those they were paying under this arrangement. The hon. Member for West Islington recommended that the Admiralty should wait till the emergency arose. On the contrary, he thought that the House was convinced that it was the poorest kind of economy, and the greatest extravagance, to wait until the emergency arose before making preparations. He should like to say a word in regard to the very reasonable criticism of the hon. Member for Gateshead, who said that the Admiralty should make sure that they got value for their money in the matter of high speed. He agreed that this should be so. It was absolutely essential, in the opinion of the Government, that these ships should possess the speed contracted for, and they had taken every reasonable precaution to secure that result. There was a clause In the agreement requiring a minimum of twenty-three and a-half knots in moderate weather. This was an important provision, for it meant that the moment the speed fell below that standard, there was a proportionate reduction of the subsidy. Hs thought that the Board of Trade, who had negotiated this agreement, were to be congratulated upon making it, because the criticisms had been directed more to what was called the military side of it than against the business side, which, after all, was the most important aspect of it. He held that the agreements had carried the general assent of the House and the country. It had been said that the agreements were the outcome of panic. That was a most unreasonable observation. It was because of the manner in which those two agreements had been drawn up that the dangers which gave rise to panic had to a large extent passed away. By these agreements there was reason to believe that the Government had fully secured the perpetuation of that supremacy on the Atlantic to which they attached so much importance.

^* said that there was no use flogging a dead horse for the House had made up its mind as to general acquiescence in these agreements. He, however, wished once more to enter his protest against the policy of subsidies. He might be tempted to follow many of the arguments used in their favour, but having regard to the time of the House he would not do so. This, however, he would say: that he was satisfied in his own mind that the Admiralty had not really considered fully the whole problem of the protection of our commerce in time of war. The strategical distribution of ships rather than fast armed merchant steamers would accomplish the object far better. His fear was that this was another beginning of a policy which he had hoped was abandoned, and he looked upon it as a policy which would not stand the test of scientific examination. He would ask one definite question: Would it be possible, in the event of war, for this company to refuse to carry the mails despite the present subsidy in view of the additional risks which would be incurred?

said that this question had been debated with a great deal of knowledge on both sides of the House. It had two aspects—the commercial and the naval; and the naval aspect had been predominant during the debate. It must be admitted that this agreement was the result of what he must still call the panic of last year, caused by the great Morgan syndicate. Was there any cause for that alarm? The combination was not formed with any purpose of challenging our supremacy. It was a purely commercial operation, undertaken for purely commercial reasons, with no anti-British object. These commercial motives did not seem to have been so successful as had been anticipated. As to subsidies, he must enter his protest against anything in the nature of subsidies, and he joined the hon. Member for Dundee in asking whether this agreement was only the beginning of a new policy? A subsidy could only be justified where it was not a subsidy—that is to say, where it was payment for direct value received. Subsidies were interminable, because, once begun, it was impossible to say when they would stop; they were unfair to the unsubsidised steamers; they gave rise to lobbying, and to the intrusion of private influences into the political sphere; and they provoked counter subsidies in other countries. If this country began to give subsidies, it was perfectly certain that the United States would beat us at it, and that Congress would recall that policy which it had been inclined to drop. But this present case was not an ordinary subsidy. It was rather a bargain for certain naval purposes. As to the value of those purposes, there were certain aspects of the question which seemed to suggest that we had not made a good bargain. There was a case for having very swift vessels; but it was not proved that it was necessary to have such vessels in the form of mercantile cruisers. It was not proved that the necessary speed could not be obtained with smaller vessels built expressly for the purpose, which might be more effective as scouts carrying guns, and which possibly would be able to keep the sea, if not for so long a time, still for as long a time as there was likely to be any actual necessity for. Such vessels could be built for them at far less cost than these two great vessels. He thought they ought to have more evidence given to the House to satisfy them that this was a good bargain. As to making preparations beforehand, was it not notorious in the South African war that the chartering of vessels had been undertaken with an extreme want of business tact? This charge was a heavy addition to the naval budget. But he supposed it would be contended that, on the whole, the arrangement was advantageous. No doubt it would be said that the cost of maintaining the vessels in efficiency would be a large item.

^* said that what we now paid for the two vessels was less than half the cost of a third-class crusier.

said that, whilst agreeing that vessels of a high speed were needed, he did not think the arguments which the Government had presented conclusively showed that the object desired could not have been more economically obtained.

said he had had a good deal of experience in regard to these questions, and he felt perfectly convinced that in this matter the Government had made a thoroughly good, business-like bargain as far as the Admiralty and the Post Office were concerned. Whether the Cunard Company had made a good bargain for themselves was very questionable indeed, and if they did not take great care those ships would ruin them. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh oh."] The cost of running such ships had in no way been exaggerated. Quite recently he had been in communication with the Canadian Government in respect to the fast postal service which they desired, he found that as yet that Government had received no acceptable offer. They had received only two offers from the outside public for a service much inferior to that which the British Government would get under these agreements, and these were one for £300,000 a year and the other for £200,000 a year. It was not an easy matter to get competition in regard to these vessels, because the people did not exist who were willing to undertake such a service for any sum approaching the excellent and good terms which the Government had made with the Cunard Company. Even if the Admiralty had got ships of their own they could not run them year in and year out during the winter and summer. As regarded personnel that was a very valuable service which they got from the Cunard Company, and they could not get that service in other ways. If the Government had not taken these steps it was highly probable that this company would have joined the great Shipping Combination which would have meant that the American railways would have controlled the whole of the Atlantic trade. If the Cunard Company had joined the Morgan combination the whole trade would have been in the hands of the Americans. He thanked the Government for having had the common sense to deal with both the Cunard Company and the International Company in the way they had done, for by this action they had prevented the Americans obtaining control of the whole of the Atlantic trade.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 92; Noes, 18. (Division List No. 262.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved that the Agreement dated the 30th day of July, 1903, entered into between His Majesty's Government and the Cunard Steamship Company, Limited, printed in Command Paper, No. 1703, and the Agreement dated the 1st day of August 1903, entered intd between His Majesty's Government ano the International Mercantile Marine Company and others, printed in Command Paper, No. 1704, be approved.

said some explanation was due to the House as to the treatment of a Bill of this importance by the Government, and he wished to know whether the Bill would be carried over to a new Parliament as well as to a new session. The leader of the House had treated the Bill in a cavalier way. The Bill affected the trade of London and private interests of great gravity: it raised questions which, once raised, ought to have been settled in view of the trade interests affected. The Bill should never have been introduced unless it was seriously intended to carry it through. There was no responsibility on the Opposition side of the House for the failure to pass the Bill, because in order to facilitate its passage they had abstained from putting down many Amendments. The truth was that the Government had been intimidated by the City Corporation to put down a large number of Amendments to the Bill, and in the circumstances it was impossible for the Bill to be carried at this late period of the session. London had always been treated with contempt and humiliation by the present Government, as for instance, in regard to the Water Board and Education Bills.

said it was evident from the concluding sentence of the hon. Gentleman that the real object of his protest against the prudent and sensible course taken by the Government in regard to the Bill was to deliver an electioneering speech to the citizens of London. He did not think it would do the hon. Gentleman much good. He would undertake to say that the present Government could show three great measures, to any one the hon. Gentleman could show, for the benefit of the toilers in this great central area. The hon. Gentleman, with unusual felicity, had answered his own speech. He had said that in the circumstances and under the pressure of public business at the end of the session no other course was open to the Government. That was a complete justification of the Motion before the House.

^* opposed the Motion. It was not necessary for him, as the representative of the City of London, to answer the unjust innuendoes thrown out by the hon. Member for Poplar. The Prime Minister had said, in reply to a Question, that as the Bill was a quasi-public Bill, it could properly be carried over to next session. But the Bill was purely a public Bill. The Bill was brought in by the President of the Board of Trade, was almost forced through this House on Second Reading after a very short debate. It was immediately handed over to the Joint Committee. The Chairman of that Joint Committee strained almost to breaking point his prerogative as chairman, with the view of getting the Bill reported to the House, so that it might pass this session. The Bill was very far-reaching in its influence. It effectually wiped out the docks of London as a private enterprise, and it performed a similar act with regard to the Thames Conservancy. It was destruction to the Watermen's Company, it involved very large expenditure, and none of the threatened interests had been permitted to defend themselves by evidence before the Joint Committee. If it was contended that it was a Private Bill the preamble should have been proved. It was absolutely necessary it should be discussed by the whole House. He had been amused by a letter in The Times from a member of the London County Council, which either showed what ignorance was displayed by some members of the Council, or was designed to throw dust in the eyes of the ratepayers. This gentleman spoke of £2,500,000 being given by the London County Council as a free gift for the benefit of the Port. That was not the fact. The Council had no reserve to make free gifts of the kind, and the money would have to be found by the ratepayers. He objected to the Resolution, and could not support it. This was not a quasi-private Bill but a Government Bill. What took place at the Joint Committee was simply to push the Bill through, to rush it as quickly as possible. The Prime Minister should at least allow the Resolution for recommitment standing in his hon. friend's name, the Member for the City, and his own, to be properly debated when the Bill again came before the House.

^* said the decision of the chairman to exclude the question of the purchase of the docks was unanimously approved by the Committee on the ground that it was in the nature of a principle agreed to by the House on the Second Reading.

asked whether the Bill was carried over for a session of this Parliament, or, in the event of a dissolution, to a new Parliament.

It is quite irrespective of a dissolution.

asked whether, if the Bill was hung over till next session, the companies in the interval would be free to carry on their business just as if no Bill had been brought in, and to apply to Parliament for further monetary powers if they wished to do so.

Ordered, That further proceedings on the Port of London Bill be suspended till the next session of Parliament.

Ordered, That on any day in that session a Motion may be made, after notice, by a Minister of the Crown, to be decided without Amendment or debate, that proceedings on that Bill may be resumed, and if that Motion is decided in the affirmative the said Bill, as reported from the Joint Committee, shall stand committed to a Committee of the Whole House in like manner as if the previous proceedings on the Bill or in relation thereto had taken place in that session, after due compliance with all Standing Orders.

Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—( Mr. A. J. Balfour. )

moved, as a consequential Amendment, in page 5, line 22, after "appeal" to insert "and no other magistrate is available."

Amendment proposed to the Bill—

"In page 5, line 22, after the word 'appeal' to insert the words 'and no other magistrate is available.'"—( Mr. Caldwell. )

Amendment agreed to.

There are a number of Amendments on the Paper and I understand there is no objection to any of them. If that is the case it would shorten matters if they were put in one Question. If, however, any hon. Member desires to speak upon any one of them that course will not be followed.

ask whether the Lord Advocate could assure the House that there was no substantial alteration in the Bill.

^* said the Amendments involved no substantial alteration, with one exception. By an Amendment introduced in this House, railway refreshment rooms were exempted from the Bill. It had been pointed out that that might allow them to be opened on Sundays, and an Amendment had been inserted in another place to prevent that.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve oclo'ck.