resolutions demanding that the equivalent further should be done in the matter grant be devoted in Ireland, as in England, until the right hon. Gentleman saw me. to primary education. MR. WYNDHAM: Resolutions have been received at the Castle from eight county councils, twelve urb in and thirty two rural district councils. Irish National School Assistant MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the LordLieutenant of Ireland whether the promise made last year, that the average required for the service of an assistant teacher in an Irish National School would be reduced from sixty to fifty, has been carried out. MR. WYNDHAM: I replied to a similar Question on the subject yesterday,† put by the hon. Member for North Cork. Land Purchase in Kerry. MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many estates have been sold in Kerry under the Land Act of 1903, how many tenants affected, what is the total price paid. are MR. WYNDHAM: I am in communication with the Under-Secretary as to the case, and when I hear from him I will communicate with the hon. Member. MR. MURPHY expressed a hope that the delay would not impair the position of the evicted tenants. A promise was given me before the opening of Parliament *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! We cannot go into that now. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to communicate with the hon. Member. Land Purchase in Galway. MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.) I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the LordLieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the correspondence which has taken place. between M. G. Comyn Kenny and Rev. Thomas Bowes, Laurencetown, county Galway, relative to the division and sale of the grass farm (Kill) of 300 acres I.P.M., wherein Mr. Kenny states he has been in communication with the Estates Commissioners, who refuse to be furnished with a map showing the proposed holdings, with the names and description of the proposed tenants; is he aware that posters or circulars have been distributed in the district stating that Mr. Kenny will mark out the bounds as far as possible to suit the requirements of the people; that the proposal is to let the divisions in 25-acre lots at 30s. per acre rent, a fine of £150 to be paid on entering into possession, the tenanted holdings to be then sold under the Purchase Act of last year; and if he will say whether the Estates Commissioners are recommending the landlords generally to MR. WYNDHAM: I have not that and sale of grass farms; and whether adopt such arrangements for the division MR. WYNDHAM: Applications have been filed in the Estates Commissioners' Office for sales by the landlord to the tenants direct, in the cases of three estates. The total purchase money is £11,960. Application has also been made £11,960. Application has also been made to the Commissioners to purchase an estate, with 173 tenants under Section 6 of the Act. MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the land lords in these three cases? information. MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E): Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the money mentioned by him includes the purchase money of the evicted farms at Cragg, county Kerry, by the Congested Districts Board, about which an undertaking was given to me by the Board that nothing † See page 19. VOL. CXXX. [FOURTH SERIES.] they have sanctioned Mr. Kenny's action. MR. WYNDHAM: There has been no correspondence between Dr. Kenny and the Commissioners in this matter. I am informed, however, that he had missioners, who suggested to him that an interview with one of the Comif he submitted a map and details of the proposed division of the land they I done so. would be considered. He has not yet | Down, from the Coleraine district to the The Commissioners have no Dundalk district. knowledge of the matters alluded to in the placard, beyond what is alleged in the Question. MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.) asked as to a letter stating that the Estates Commissioners had power to advance money at 31 per cent. for the purpose of building dwelling-houses and making other improvements on the land. MR. WYNDHAM protested that he could not be expected to conduct the business of the Estates Commissioners Office by means of Question and answer across the floor of the House. He suggested some discrepancy had arisen by reason of the use of certain words. Presidents of the Queen's Colleges. MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the salaries of the Presidents of the Queen's Colleges in Cork, Galway, and Belfast, respectively; what are the duties of these gentlemen; whether their positions involve residence in these cities; and whether, as a matter of fact, they reside during all or a portion of the year at the places named, and, if only a portion of the year, whether he will state the period of residence each year. MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken since last session, or are proposed to be taken during the present session, with a view to transferring the MR. WYNDHAM: There is no proposal before the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction to transfer the control of the Lower Bann to the Dundalk Board of Conservators of Fisheries. I am inquiring whether such a transfer could be effected in the absence of legislation such as was introduced by me in 1902, and will communicate further with the hon. Member on the subject. Castle of Ardandra, County Longford. MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will direct an inquiry to be made into the present condition of the ruins of the ancient Castle of Ardandra, county Longford, with a view to their restoration and protection. THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY(Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): No such castle is known to the Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland. If the hon. Member will indicate the locality more precisely I shall be glad to have inquiry made. HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL. "To deal with the system of House presented by Mr. Alexander Cross; supported by Mr. T. W. Russell and Sir John Leng; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 79.] JURORS EXPENSES BILL. "To provide for the Payment of the Expenses of Jurors attending assizes and quarter sessions," presented by Mr. Lloyd-Morgan; supported by Mr. Wharton, Mr. Abel Thomas, and Mr. John Hutton; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 77.] MORTGAGE OF PREMISES BILL. "To amend the Law in regard to the Mortgaging of Premises containing Trade Machinery," presented by Sir William Holland; supported by Mr. Crombie and Mr. Farkes; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 78.] CANAL TRAFFIC BILL. "To provide for the better regulation of Canal Traffic," presented by Sir William Holland; supported by Sir John Brunner, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Field, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Joseph Walton, Mr. J. H. Whitley, and Mr. Wolff; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 79.] continue to serve after they have become entitled to a Pension," presented by Mr. Cochrane; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 82.] RATING OF MACHINERY BILL. "To amend the Law relating to the Rating of Hereditaments containing Machinery," presented by Mr. Chapman; supported by Sir Edward Strachey, Sir William Houldsworth, Sir John Dorington, Mr. Cawley, Sir William Tomlinson, Mr. Emmott, and Colonel Royds; to be read a second time upon Friday, 18th March, and to be printed. [Bill 83.] SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOT. LAND) BILL. "To admit to the School Board Elecfor the County Council Election," pretorate of Scotland persons entitled to vote sented by Mr. Weir; supported by Mr. Leveson-Gower, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. John Dewar, Mr Bignold, Mr. Harmsworth, and Mr. Caldwell; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 15th March, and to be printed. [Bill 84.] CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL. (Scotland) Act, 1886," presented by Mr. Weir; supported by Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Leveson-Gower, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Bignold, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. Ainsworth, and Mr. Caldwell; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 15th March, and to be printed. [Bill 85.] "To amend The Crofters' Holdings PENAL SERVITUDE BILL. "To amend the Law relating to Penal Servitude in England and Wales," presented by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 86.] Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."-(Mr. Hardy.) Question again proposed. Amendment proposed on MR. P. A. MCHUGH (Leitrim, N.) first expressed his regret that the task of moving the Amendment had not fallen to the lot of some Member more accustomed to take part in the proceedings of the House, and more competent to deal with the complex matters with which the Amendment was concerned, but he found consolation in the fact that defect any his part in the discharge of his duty would be fully compensated for by those who would follow him. He was aware that the subject matter of the Amendment was not one which appealed to the majority of Members, many of whom considered that the raising of the question at this moment was inopportune and unnecessary. But if the House should feel aggrieved at their raising the question at the present time, he could only point out that the fault did not lie with them. They were there against their will, and the Chief Secretary had told them that they were there on a footing of political equality, having equal claims with other Parties on the time of the House. They might differ from the Chief Secretary in regard to the equality of their position, but one thing was certain, and that was that, as long as they were there, they would avail themselves of every opportunity on which they could seize in order to claim redress for the grievances under which those whom they represented were suffering. They be lieved it to be their duty, so far as they could to take advantage of the position in which they found themselves, and accordingly they brought forward their Amendment that day, seeing that it involved matters of the most vital and pressing importance to their constituents. The Chief Secretary, in a speech which he delivered on the 3rd February in reply to the hon. Member for Waterford, said that while he would introduce a Bill amending the Land Purchase Act of last session he would not re-open the Irish land question. That was not an accurate way of describing the situation. They did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to re-open the Irish Land Question, but the purpose of their Amendment was to show the House and the Chief Secretary that he had never closed it. It had been found that the language of the Land Purchase Act of last year was ambiguous with regard to the payment of the bonus, and when the Chief Secretary referred to that matter he was chivalrous enough to take upon himself the sole responsibility for the defective phraseology of the Bill. They, however, knew where the responsibility rested. The right hon. Gentleman said "I am honourably bound to see that the intention of Parliament is carried out in regard to the bonus." This was an important statement, for if the right hon. Gentleman was honourably bound to carry out the intentions of Parliament with regard to the payment of the bonus to the limited or other owners in Ireland, he was also honourably bound to carry out the intentions of Parliament in regard to matters of infinitely greater importance. The intention of Parliament was not limited to the granting of huge gifts to limited or to absolute owners, or indeed to any class of owner in Ireland. It was extended to the questions of fair price, of congestion, and of the evicted tenants. In regard to these matters he and his colleagues said that the intentions of Parliament had not been, and could not be, carried out under the Act as it stood, and that the Act must be amended on the lines indicated in the Amendment he was proposing. He would like to say, for himself, that he did not personally approach the discussion of this question in any contentious spirit; he did not approach it in any spirit of mere faultfinding. No one would have been better pleased than he if the realisation of the hopes engendered under auspicious circumstances last year had made the present discussion unnecessary. He had no desire to minimise the praise of, or in the slightest degree detract from, the reputation of the Chief Secretary for his conduct in charge of the Bill of last year, but they believed that the praise would be increased and his reputation would be enhanced, if by the acceptance of their proposal the right hon. Gentleman gave effect to the intentions of Parliament. Those intentions, in passing the Bill last year, were directed to three objects-first, to bring about a transfer of the ownership of the land from the owner to the occupier; secondly, to provide a settlement for the evicted tenants; and, thirdly, to cure congestion. Vast sums of money were placed at the disposal of the Irish Government to enable them to give effect to the intentions of Parliament, and he asserted that the Irish Government was honourably bound to use that money in giving effect to those intentions, and if the action of the Irish landlord party rendered it impossible to give effect to them, the money should, as far as possible, be withheld. As the House was aware, there were two land questions in Ireland-there was the general land question, and there was the question of congestion. It would be observed that his Amendment was divided into two portions-one dealing with land purchase in general, and the second with congestion. In the first place they said that serious amendment, including the abolition of the zones system, would be required in the Irish Land Act of last session to prevent the unjust inflation of the price of land in Ireland. They said that under the zones system, and as a consequence of that system, the price of land had been rushed up to a fictitious standard, and that the artificial inflation of that price threatened to render the Act inoperative, and consequently to defeat the intentions of Parliament. The intention of Parliament was that the sales should take place at the fair market value, at a price which would not place an undue burden on the purchaser, or subject the taxpayer to undue risks. In a recent speech the Chief Secretary had expressed satisfaction at the way in which the Act was being put into operation, but had urged that "It would be madness on the part of the Commissioners to attempt to raise money at a rapid pace." striking directly at the financial foundation of the Act. It weakened the security, and consequently the whole foundation. The sole excuse for the invention of the zones system was that it would accelerate the pace, therefore the abolition of the zones would carry out the Chief Secretary's suggestion that the pace should be retarded. Prices had been unjustly inflated, and the zones system had contributed to the result. The average price of land from 1886 to 1903 was seventeenand-a-half years purchase, but since the passing of the new Act it had been increased by five or six years. On 9th February last he asked the Chief Secretary to state in terms of years purchase the price agreed upon by the 3,070 occupiers who had arranged to purchase under the Act, but the right hon. Gentleman refused the information on the ground that it would entail so much trouble, and deprecated the practice of calling for voluminous interim returns. That was not an answer; it was a lecture, and Irish Members did not come to this House to be lectured by right hon. Gentlemen who undertook to govern Ireland without the consent of the people of Ireland. The Question was repeated in another form, in which merely the average price was asked for, and again the information was refused. The figure was of vital importance in the present discussion, and ought to have been given to the House. Moreover, the information was not asked for on behalf of the Irish Party alone, it was required for the English taxpayer. He quite understood the difficulties of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman was not the Governor of Ireland. Ireland was governed not through this House, or the King's Ministers, but by a handful of Irish landlords, and it would be extremely inconvenient to them if the figures asked for were given. The danger lay not in the pace but in Of late years the value of land in Ireland the price. The right hon. Gentleman had been going down, as was shown by had also stated that the financial clauses the fact that the prices of the whole of the were the foundation of the Act, and that agricultural produce of Ireland had deany minor defects in the edifice erected creased from £34,406,856 in 1901 to £34,035,060 in 1902, and the total value on that foundation could be corrected of live-stock had fallen from £71,000,000 in due course. In the opinion of the in 1902 to £69,000,000 in 1903. These Irish Party, the system of zones consti- totals showed a serious falling off, and tuted, not a minor, but a serious defect, he was justified in deducing from them |