§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the first new clause was one relating to labourers' cottages, and was a very important matter; and he was quite aware that the time had arrived when explanation of the intention of the Government might be required by the Committee. This was a Bill mainly brought in to settle the relation between landlord and tenant; but it was impossible to lose sight of the labourer and those who knew his position and wished to improve it, and he was glad to see the sympathy which had been expressed with the condition of the labourer on both sides of the House, quite independently of Party, quite independent of the feeling with regard to the general objects of the Bill. There could be no doubt that the agricultural labourer in Ireland was very badly off. The reason why he was so badly off was that there was not much demand for his labour. He did not imagine that by any clause he could bring in, or that the Committee could agree to, they could get rid of the great present cause of the labourer's distressed position. He looked forward with hope that the effect of this Bill would, at all events, improve the labourer's position. If the Bill did any good at all, it would increase the culture of agricultural land in Ireland, it would increase the amount of capital which would be spent in Ireland, and, as the hon. Member for Cork had fairly said that day, what was mainly wanted in Ireland was more money. The Government hoped the result of this Bill would be to induce more capital to be employed successfully and more labour to be employed in Ireland. There could be no doubt that the labourer's condition was made worse and his low wages aggravated by the bad state of the cottages in which he generally lived. Political economists would say that if anybody was compelled to put up better cottages it would merely reduce the wages. There was some truth in that, but it was not absolutely true. If they could get la- 1424 bourers' cottages improved, that would happen in Ireland which had happened in England, where improvement in cottages had not always meant decrease in wages. The object of this clause was to improve the condition of the houses, or, at all events, to remove obstacles in the way of improvement. What applied to cottages would apply also to allotments. That which was a good thing for labourers in England would be a still better thing for labourers in Ireland. One reason of the distressed condition of the labourer was that there was much less demand for his labour throughout Ireland than there was in England. A reason for that was that the tenancies in Ireland were so much smaller than in England. The labourer was often a farmer, and had a son, and consequently outside labour merely stood a chance of coming in to fill up gaps. Everyone would admit that the Government should not multiply the number of small cottier tenants. If they did that, they would be producing in other parts of Ireland one of the evils they had to contend with in the counties of Mayo and Galway, where the holdings were much too small for good and decent living. Therefore, in trying to provide for allotments, they must take care that they did not tempt the labourer to rely on his small plot of land for his livelihood, but rather that he should rely on his main source of income, and that was the production of his labour. He hoped he had nearly said enough in explanation. It was absolutely impossible to leave the labourers out of this Bill, because, in modifying the relations of landlord and tenant, they could not avoid affecting the position of the labourer. So far as they gave security to the tenant, they put the labourer for the time being more completely under the control of the tenant. There was no avoiding that. Therefore, there had been a general feeling in the Committee that they ought to take care that in doing that they do the labourer no harm. What the Government had done was to give power to the landlord to erect cottages under the sanction of the Court and under fair terms of compensation. They had to deal with the tenant in regard to the power of sub-letting. The 1st clause was to give him the power of subletting, because by the 24th clause they had taken from him the power of sub- 1425 letting. The tenant could not let cottages unless Parliament gave him the power to do so. The Government thought there ought to be some check on the amount of rent charged by the tenant upon the labourer, and that was provided in the clause by the power of the Court to prescribe the terms. It was provided that there should not be more than half-an-acre let in each case, and that there should not be more than one cottage or allotment for every 25 acres, or less than 25 acres. Perhaps he might be permitted, before he sat down, to make some allusion to the 2nd clause, because the course would be more convenient to the Committee. In addition to the 1st clause there was another which would fasten upon every application by any landlord or tenant the possible obligation that the Court would have to consider, or might consider, whether labourers' cottages were absolutely wanted on that tenancy, and if the Court thought they were so wanted, then to fix the judicial rent. He had now explained the way in which the Government had endeavoured to deal with the question; and if the Committee agreed with the Government, they would certainly leave the labourer no worse, and he believed they would leave him better than they found him.
§ New Clause—
§ (Letting for labourers' cottages not to be within the restrictions of Act.)
§ "Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding may, with the sanction of the Court, and with power for the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise as the Court thinks just, let any portion of land with or without dwelling-houses thereon to or for the use of labourers bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding, and such letting shall not be deemed to be a sub-letting within the meaning of this Act, or to be a letting prohibited by this Act: Provided, That the portion of any holding so let does not exceed half an acre in each case, and that the total number of such lettings of portions of a holding does not exceed one for every twenty-five acres of tillage land contained in the holding,"—(Mr. William Edward Forster,)
§ —brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was bound to say the Committee had gone through a good deal in 1426 the course of this Bill. They had had to swallow some of the most bitter provisions and principles which had ever been pressed upon Parliament; but there was a limit to the political digestive capacity of even the most capacious of hon. Gentlemen. He could not help thinking that this limit had at last been reached. When they found that freedom of contract between landlord and tenant had been abolished, and not only that, but they had abolished all contracts that had hitherto been concluded between landlord and tenant, now they were called upon to abolish freedom of contract between the labourer and his master. In this matter it was time that somebody in the Committee should make a decided stand upon this point, and for this reason. When they abolished freedom of contract with regard to rent, and when they got such a valuation as the Court thought proper to give, there was no further liability for anyone to interfere between the labourer and the tenant. There would be no fixity at all. They were attempting to regulate by the intervention of the State what it was beyond the power of the State to regulate, unless by the law of supply and demand. He would not object to this clause if certain words were left out, because there was no reason why the tenant should not be allowed to sub-let. The rent of cottages, and the rent of allotments, were inseparable parts of the labourer's wages. In England and in Ireland that was the same. If a labourer occupied an allotment on a farm, that matter must be taken into account in the wages he received. By raising the rent of the cottage they would be diminishing the wages of the labourer. Was it worth while, in order to attempt to accomplish what it was beyond their power to accomplish, that they should run such a tremendous risk? They were attempting to introduce principles which had been dropped ever since the reign of Henry VIII., when the last attempt to regulate wages by State interference was made. It was left to hon. Gentlemen who had sought to defend liberty in every form to go back to the principle of the State regulation of wages. It was said that the building of cottages in England had not interfered with labourers' wages. Hon. Members seemed to forget that cottages in England were never built by the 1427 tenants. It was always done by the landlord, who wished to improve his property, and who wished, from the best of motives, to improve the condition of his tenants. Why should the tenant be the person to improve the property? The Government were interfering in a matter which was an inseparable part of wages, and the more they interfered the more ridiculous became their efforts. He ventured to suggest that the Government had not gone rightly to work on this question of the labourer. He would co-operate with the Government in any real attempt to improve the condition of the Irish labourer. The way he would have gone to work would have been to throw greater power into the hands of the local authorities. He remembered a Bill to give Local Boards in England power to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of allotments for labourers. Not a word could be said against that principle. The proposal now made was in conflict with the simplest and soundest principles of political economy. The Government might attempt to force things on a minority; but the attempt would be attended with nothing but failure.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, the noble Lord's suggestion, as to the great question of allotments for labourers, were well worthy of consideration. In the clause now before the Committee, the Government was attempting to deal with the question of labourers living on farms, and hired from year to year, and not with those who lived in towns or villages. There were a large number of labourers who would not benefit by the proposals; and he did not think, with all deference to the noble Lord, that the local authorities could do anything for them. As to the 2nd clause, it would be of most enormous advantage, because it not only imposed upon the tenant the obligation, but the necessity of finding accommodation for labourers, and would find him the means of doing it.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he believed everybody would rejoice that the Government, by placing this Amendment on the Paper, had shown their recognition of the fact that the condition of the Irish agricultural labourers was a subject deserving of the attention of Parliament. No one who had any acquaintance with Ireland could doubt that the condition of the Irish agri- 1428 cultural labourers was nothing short, as a rule, of a scandal to civilization. They lived, as a rule, in dwellings where human beings ought not to dwell; and he believed the Acts which had of late years been passed giving power to the sanitary authority to prevent these scandals had been found in Ireland almost impracticable. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government had done well to show that they considered this question was one that every person who had an interest in the welfare of the population of Ireland ought to take to heart. Personally, he was not very hopeful as to what legislation could do. He would like more personal effort and private enterprize. He remembered well, when his right hon. Friend the present Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) called attention to that condition of agricultural labourers, he stated that he wanted the people to consider what in their own localities they could do. So this clause might do much in causing the landlord and farmer to do what they could to raise up the condition of the Irish agricultural labourer. There had hitherto, in regard to this condition, been a great many misunderstandings. He saw it stated, over and over again, in English newspapers that no clause such as this could have any effect, because there were in Ireland no agricultural labourers. That might have been true at the time of the Devon Commission; but since then the consolidation of holdings had been going on extensively in Ireland, and in some parts, at least, it had undoubtedly called into existence a bonâ fide class of agricultural labourers. He believed that hon. Members opposite would fully confirm the accuracy of what he said. What they had now to consider was what was to be done in the future. He regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not done something in the way of giving further powers to the local bodies; and he would remind the Committee that there was a precedent for this in English legislation in the inclosure schemes, which were from time to time brought before Parliament. What was the course pursued when an inclosure scheme came before Parliament? It set out that a certain quantity of land was required for allotments, and for recreation ground, and for labourers' dwellings, and from time to time Parliament gave power to 1429 the local bodies to hold land for the benefit of the poor in their own district. He should have been glad if something of that kind could have been done here, and he had been in hopes that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) intended to suggest something in that direction. He believed it would be an effectual method of attaining the end they had in view. He was bound to say that he agreed with the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member. He did not think they ought to do anything in the way of regulating the rent of the labourers' dwellings; if they did, and made the cottages cheap, the farmer would lower the amount of wages he paid. The Irish farmer was a shrewd, calculating man, and as he knew the circumstances of the locality very well, he would know that a labourer was occupying a certain cottage and piece of allotment land for 2s. a-week, for which he ought to pay double. The consequence would be that he would strike off 2s. a-week from the labourer's wages. He agreed with the criticism of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) as to the politico-economic aspect of this clause; but such arguments were addressed in vain to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because the right hon. Gentleman had a wholesome terror of political economists. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have some difficulty in addressing the Committee without going almost out of his way to throw a stone at the political economists. The right hon. Gentleman said political economists asserted that if they gave the labourer a better cottage they would lower his wages. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to produce any political economist to back him up in that statement. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) was a Professor of Political Economy; but would the right hon. Gentleman say so? He challenged the Chief Secretary to find any passage in any work of recognized authority on political economy which stated that the giving of a better dwelling to a labourer tended to lower his wages. No work on political economy allowed such a deduction to be drawn, but exactly the converse. Political economists always taught that the converse would be the case.
§ MR. CALLANrose to Order. There were two clauses to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. But at present only one of them had been proposed, and was it competent for the noble Lord to discuss the one which had not been moved?
THE CHAIRMANIt is not competent for the noble Lord to discuss the 2nd clause in detail. It is the 1st clause which is now before the Committee.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was simply replying to remarks which had already been made, and his remarks were relevant to the 1st clause and not to the 2nd. Political economy had always shown that in proportion as they raised the standard of the comfort of the labourer they tended ultimately to raise the standard of his remuneration. In the rest of the Bill there was a correlative. The tenant had a certain fixity and security for the labour of the labourer.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he rose again to Order. He wished to know whether there was anything whatever as to the fixing of rent in the clause now under discussion? The clause was the first of the Chief Secretary's new clauses, and it had nothing to do with that question at all.
THE CHAIRMANI think the clause does bear upon that subject. It says that such terms may be prescribed as may appear to the Court to be just.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEtrusted the hon. Member would move the Amendment he was about to propose before he interrupted him. The clause distinctly gave power to the Court to prescribe such terms as to the rent or otherwise as the Court thought just, and these interruptions on the part of the hon. Member for Louth were most unusual and most discourteous. The point he was desirous of raising was this—What was to be the position of the labourer? Was he to enjoy, as against the farmer, the same right which the farmer enjoyed as against the landlord? He also wished to point out that the fixing of rent in the way proposed raised a new and important set of considerations, because, as he understood, the whole of this Bill, in regard to the fixing of rent, had arisen from this circumstance, that the tenant had had the rent of the holding fixed by the landlord in away in which the Court has not recog- 1431 nized, and you have called in the aid of the Court to decide between the two to prevent the landlord from eating up the tenant or the tenant from eating up the landlord. Nobody could argue that the labourer had the same joint proprietary right as the tenant; and, as had already been pointed out, the Government were in point of fact regulating wages, and they were basing their proposal upon arguments which were exactly the same arguments as those which were used by Socialists to justify the fixing of the price of bread, and the fallacy of which was shown 100 years ago by Adam Smith. Would it not be far better, in regard to this matter of rent, to trust to the improving civilization of Ireland rather than to embark in legislation which was, in regard to these particular words, simply the re-enactment of the Statute of Labourers of Queen Elizabeth, which was one of the most absurd and ridiculous failures that had ever adorned, or rather had not adorned, the Statute Book.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSI am glad that the labourers, even at this late period, have been deemed worthy of the consideration of the Government and of the Committee. No one can conceal the fact that when the Bill was first brought in the whole question of the labourers was left out of it. But we are now brought face to face with the question, and I shall heartily support the Government in any endeavours on their part to raise the condition of the labourer in Ireland. But in this particular proposal as to rent, I think they are proceeding upon a wrong tack. I do not see how it can be imagined that the Court can fix the rent without fixing every other detail with regard to the hiring of the labourer by the farmer. The proposal is opposed not only to all the principles of political economy, but to all the principles of sound common sense, and I do not believe for a moment that it could possibly work. The noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) has pointed out, clearly enough, the difference between the relations of the labourer and the farmer, as well as the difference between the relations of the farmer and the landlord. The labourer can have no joint proprietary interest as against the tenant farmer; but if he could be put upon a better footing, in respect of cottage accommodation, so much the better. It might be 1432 possible to put him upon the land as the holder of an office or of an appointment. The clause, as it stands, limits the matter to providing accommodation for the labourers necessary for the working of the estate; and when a labourer ceases to work on the estate he would, very properly under the clause, be disentitled to any of the benefits of the Act. It is one of the questions dealt with the other day to which the provisions of the Act were very properly and necessarily held not to apply. There is, however, one other question which I would venture to press on the Government. I should have thought it very much better that the matter should be left entirely in the hands of the landlord. All questions, then, as to the imposition of an exorbitant rent would disappear. I do not think it should be in-trusted to the local authority. There would be great difficulty in doing that. But whatever is to be done the tenant should not have permission to put up any building which has not the approval of the local authority in regard to the sanitary arrangements. I would press that upon Her Majesty's Government, because I am certain that unless the local authority has some control over the sanitary arrangements of the building we shall have very bad buildings put up. But on the question of rent, I hope the Government will be able to see their way to withdraw from the position they have taken up, and will leave that to the ordinary controlling conditions of supply and demand.
§ MR. SHAWsaid, that as he understood the question, the Commissioners would have power to deal with it whenever a dispute arose between the labourer and the farmer; and he thought it would be extremely advantageous that the Court should have some power to interfere in the case of a dispute as to the rent of a cottage. It must be borne in mind that there was no uninclosed land in Ireland; and, therefore, it was impossible to stake out small plots for the accommodation of the labourers. The only other means of giving adequate accommodation to the labourer was to purchase part of the property, and that part would be a very small part only, unless some such arrangement as that proposed by the present clause was come to. The question of labour, and the condition of labour, in Ireland, was one 1433 that must be left very much to the future, and he believed that the Government had done as much in these clauses as they could be expected to do under the circumstances. It must also be taken into consideration that if they did too much for the labourer, they might run the risk of improving him entirely off the face of the farm. If they said to the farmer that "he must do this and do that" for the labourer, the farmer, in the end, would do without the labourer at all. He would soon find that it would not pay him to employ the labourer; and, therefore, the labourer would be driven off the land, and would certainly find himself housed in a most miserable condition. He had not the slightest sympathy with the intention, which some of the landlords seemed to have, of getting up a feud between the farmers and the labourers, as if there could be such a thing as antagonism between them. He believed that the labourers, in his own county, were wretchedly paid and wretchedly housed; but if Parliament went to the farmer and said, "You must do this," they would soon find that the labourers, upon many farms, would be in a much better position than the tenants themselves. Nothing could be more wretched than the condition of the tenants. Many of them were miserably housed; no doubt, there were many good landlords, and the people of Ireland were now asking for the interference of the Government, because the condition of the tenant, and the general condition of the estate, were not satisfactory, and because the landlords had not done their duty. It was now proposed to go to the other end of the scale, and impose a duty upon the tenants of providing good dwellings for their labourers, whereas they had never imposed a similar duty upon the landlords, of providing good cottages for their tenants. The whole question was one which it was very difficult to deal with, and he would suggest that the Land Commission should look into all these questions, and report upon them to the Government, with a view to future legislation.
§ MR. PARNELLremarked, that as he was the first Member of the House who had suggested that something might be done for the labourers in the present Bill, he was glad the Government had introduced these clauses, which, though very deficient in character, still indicated 1434 a desire on their part to do something to improve the condition of the labourers. He was not one of those who thought that because a labourer lived in a good house, he would, therefore, work for less wages, for the farmer. He thought, on the contrary, that the comforts of home would give higher ideas to the labourer as to the way in which he was entitled to live, and he would be more likely to look for better treatment and better wages from the farmer, if he was given a good house, than if he was placed in a wretched hovel without ordinary comforts. But he could not help seeing that as regarded the 2nd clause proposed by the Government, it was proposed to give power to the Commission to direct the tenant, when applying for a judicial rent, to build certain labourers' cottages on his farm. He was afraid that there might be some difficulty in the practical working and carrying out of such a clause. Of course, the 1st clause was a corollary to the provision they had already inserted in the Bill, giving the landlord the power of resumption for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, for, as far as that 1st clause went, he thought it was one that ought to be passed, and one that would be of a highly beneficial character. But the 1st clause was of a permissive character, and only touched the fringe of the labourers' question. The Government, in proposing the 2nd clause, were introducing a provision which, undoubtedly, deserved consideration as a tentative measure, and one which, he believed, would be attended in its working with advantage. He was sorry that they did not propose to give power to the local authority to build labourers' cottages in the manner suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell). The Government could take up the suggestion in three ways. First of all, they might give power to the landlord to do something for the labourer; secondly, they could give power to the tenant; and, in the third place, if they had given power to the local authority to do something, their measure would have been far more perfect than it was, because it must be borne in mind that the large proportion of the labourers were compelled to live in towns, and that the farmers would be deterred from doing anything, owing to the fear of casting addi- 1435 tional burdens upon the Union rates. If the Government had included power to the local authority, they would have covered as much of the work as they could be expected to undertake. But he was afraid that unless they gave some additional power to some independent authority, the labourers would not be satisfied with the result of the working of the provisions of the Bill in his favour. He should be glad to hear, oven now, that when the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk came on, the Government would be prepared to reconsider the matter. He admitted that the local authorities in Ireland—certainly in many parts of Ireland—were, to a great extent, deficient and not sufficiently representative, and that, in other respects, they exhibited many shortcomings. But he thought that some confidence might be extended to them, and that they might have some power given to them to take care of a labourer whose case would not be covered by the two clauses proposed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He hoped, as regarded the suggestion which had been made, that the Government would adhere to the last part of the 1st clause, which provided for the fixing of rents by the Court. He hoped the Government would stick by that. He knew nothing more calculated to breed dispute between landlords and farmers than the practice which many farmers might adopt of imposing exorbitant rents upon their labourers. He did not think that in the working of this provision it would be found that any improved cottage accommodation, or any diminution of the rent of a cottage, would be made a reason for inducing the farmers to reduce the labourers' wages. As a rule, in most counties, the rate of wages was uniform, whether the labourer had a cottage or not. He was assured that a standing rate of wages was adopted in most districts, and the fact that the labourer had a cottage at a fair rent from the farmer would not be considered by public opinion, in such districts, to entitle the farmer to deduct anything from the labourers' wages on that account. He therefore hoped the Government would adhere to the provision in regard to the fixing of rents by the Court. Although it was not a perfectly scientific one, it was worthy of trial, and could not possibly injure the farmers.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI do not wish to shorten the discussion on the subject generally; but I hope that the Committee will consent now to take a division upon the second reading of the clause. I do not think that there is any difference of opinion upon that point, and the discussion could then, if necessary, be continued afterwards. As to the question which has been raised, of giving power to the local authorities to require cottages to be erected for the labourers, that is a matter which would really require another Bill. It is not a matter that could be dealt with in a measure affecting the relations between landlord and tenant. If such a measure were brought forward it would be necessary to give compulsory powers of purchase, and it has already been stated that such compulsory powers may not be introduced into this Bill. Therefore, we are precluded from dealing with this question in the present measure. The Chairman has stated, in regard to another matter, that the care which is taken by our Standing Orders of the rights of property would require, when compulsory powers are asked for to purchase land, that the application should first of all go before the Examiners of Standing Order proofs, and that obligation has not been complied with in regard to this Bill. We are all agreed that there must be a clause giving power to sub-let for the purpose of providing labourers' dwellings, and the only difference of opinion is, whether—
Power should be given to the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise, as the Court thinks just, to let any portion of the land with or without dwellings thereon.The meaning of that is, not that the Court must fix the rent, but that the Court may fix the rent. I think my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) who has made charges against me, in regard to political economy, has somewhat misapprehended my remarks. I will not, however, enter into a controversy with my noble Friend now, I will only put the question in this way. Can we really decide that the Court shall have absolute power to fix the rent for every holding taken by a tenant, and that it shall not have power to interfere with any amount of rent that may be charged for the cottage of the labourer?
THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he approved of the Government clause as fairly indicating the only way in which 1437 the labourers' question was to be settled. He understood that the question was to be settled through the instrumentality of the farmers. What the labourers desired was to get back upon the land, and there was no probability of the landlord gratifying that desire to any appreciable extent. He admitted that in a few cases landlords had built cottages on the estate for labourers; but, as a rule, no landlord would take land in an agricultural district and plant labourers upon it, nor did he think the State, or any other body, would do it, for they would be unable to guarantee labourers anything approaching permanent employment. He agreed with the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) that there was no antagonism between the farmers and the labourers. The labourers were men who had been themselves evicted, or they were the sons or grandsons of men who had been evicted; and the farmers had, under threats of fatal consequences to themselves, been prevented from allowing labourers to get back on the land. So far as the clause indicated that it was through the instrumentality of the farmers that the labourers' question was to be settled, he quite approved of it; but most assuredly the clause was far from settling the question. The farmers had pledged themselves, and certainly would not repudiate their engagement, to assist the labourers to the same terms as to rent and tenure as they had obtained for themselves.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that so long as there were divisions between labourers and farmers the extreme landlord party encouraged the differences; but now, when a small attempt was being made to settle this question, the same extreme party protested that this was an attempt to settle the wages that should be paid to the labourers. But this was nothing of the kind. What was wanted was that labourers should have decent homes near their daily work, and not have to walk two, three, and four miles to and from their labour. It was not proposed that there should be any Parliamentary settling of the rate of wages, but that there should be homes for the labourers. The land could not be tilled without the labourers, and they had as much right to live on the land as either landlord or tenant. But the clause would be almost useless unless it were made imperative. Take the cases of such estates as those 1438 of Lord Ashdown, Mr. Gascoyne, or Mr. Coote, where the tenants had leases for one, two, or three years, every one of those leases contained a clause against giving any part of a holding to a labourer. What would be the use, then, of a clause of this kind, unless it were made imperative? It might be some good in the case of tenants with statutory terms; but, with tenants holding such leases as he had mentioned, to merely allow them to build cottages was worthless. All the labourers wanted was a house with, say, half an acre of ground attached, to every 25 acres of land. To the word "tillage" he objected, as likely to destroy the effect of the clause. The farm might contain a less area of tillage; but if the labourer were employed, there was equal necessity that he should be housed. He begged to move that the word "tillage" be struck out of the last line.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must give Notice of that Amendment later; at present the Motion is for the second reading of the clause.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, it would be well to have some indication of the tenure upon which a labourer should occupy his cottage. The clause was simply one to permit the letting of plots of land for erecting cottages for bonâ fide labourers; but he wished to know, if the labourer, after getting his holding, should differ from his landlord—the tenant of the entire holding—as to the rate of wages upon which he should work, or upon any cause, how would the clause work? Would the labourer's tenancy of his cottage cease instantaneously with his cessation of work? He pointed this out merely as a difficulty which the clause did not seem to meet; he believed, however, in the object, and that the giving facilities to farmers and inducements to landlords to build a sufficiency of labourers' cottages would be a great boon.
§ MR. VILLIERS STUARTsaid, as he had an Amendment on the Notice Paper which would give him an opportunity of entering fully into the subject later on, he was unwilling to trespass on the time of the Committee now; but, at the same time, having, heard the criticisms on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, he was anxious to take the opportunity, on behalf of the labourers, of expressing their gratitude for the clause. The subject was very difficult, 1439 and, in the clause, had been dealt with very ably and skilfully. It fell, of course, far short of meeting the entire case; but, so far as it did go, it was excellent. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); and he knew, from his experience of the relations between farmers and labourers, that it was a fallacy to suppose that the improvements in the cottages of labourers would diminish the rate of wages. That would not be the case, he was satisfied. As the hon. Member for Cork had said, there was an understood rate of wages in different counties, and no farmer would offer less than the usually-accepted rate of wages—so that objection entirely fell to the ground. He should give a hearty support to the second reading of the clause.
§ COLONEL BARNEsaid, he should like to know under what tenure the labourer's cottage was to be held? Were labourers to become statutable tenants, and to be under the Act? There was nothing in the clause to decide that. Would the farmer from whom the cottage was hired be able to eject the labourer, or would the latter come under the working of the Bill? because he maintained that if the labourer did come under the working of the Bill then the clause would be entirely useless, and no cottages would be built. It was quite evident they would not be built unless the farmer were able to eject his labourer when he might happen to disagree with him, or when he had no use for his labour. The labourer might fall into bad habits, get drunk, grow riotous, or careless; and would he still continue to occupy his cottage, though it was not worth the farmer's while to pay him his 10s. or 12s. a-week? Probably the labourer would come under the working of the Bill; it was not clear that he did not. Perhaps the Chief Secretary could explain that point.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would not come under the Act, and the reason would be found in the Definition Clause, the 46th, sub-section 5, which excluded from the Act any holding held by the occupier by reason of his being a labourer or hired servant. Power would be given to the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and tenure as seemed just.
§ MR. P. MARTINsaid, the clauses in this Bill could not be considered 1440 a final settlement of the question. He agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers Stuart) that the clauses did, to some extent, encourage the building of cottages and the providing better accommodation for labourers. But, considering the expectations encouraged and the promises made by previous Governments as well as by the Chief Secretary, it was now impossible the subject could be put off for an indefinite period. So far back as the first Commission on the Land Question it was pointed out that it was necessary to deal with this part of the subject; and he would respectfully suggest to the Committee that if they took up the subject at all, they should deal with it in a thorough and satisfactory manner. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the pressing necessity of finding some mode of satisfying the well-founded complaints of the labourers had been admitted by both sides of the House. In the proceedings of the Committee which sat in Dublin on Land Tenure the grievances of the labourers were not only pointed out, but the form of machinery for their remedy was indicated. He would not enter into the question at large, because the clause would have to be dealt with afterwards; but he would venture to suggest, again, that if the right hon. Gentleman would carefully consider the clause as put upon the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), and the recommendations that were made in connection with the Report of the Committee on Land Tenure, he would see that the subject, when approached, was not so difficult and incapable of satisfactory adjustment as at first sight might appear.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he hoped the Committee would have a distinct undertaking given in relation to this matter that the adoption of this clause would not in any way relieve the Government from the pledge given through the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on the 6th of May, to deal with the labourers' question in a comprehensive manner. Next year, when he introduced a measure on the subject, as he promised to do if the Government did not take it up, he did not wish to be met with the rejoinder that the promise given on the 6th of May was redeemed in the Irish Land Bill of 1881. Without such a declaration he must go to a division. He 1441 wished to pin the Government to a distinct understanding, for without such given across the floor of the House he had no faith in Government intentions. On the 6th of May the Chief Secretary said—
I think it may be expedient to pledge the House to the proposition that measures should be taken to improve the condition of the dwellings of agricultural labourers in Ireland, if the hon. Member for Louth would consent to leave out of his Resolution the words in the present Session of Parliament.'"—[3 Hansard, cclx. 1983.]Now, would the Chief Secretary say that he would not hereafter rely on this clause as the redemption of the pledge given to take up the subject? For if he did not, it would be a mere subterfuge to tell the advocates of the agricultural labourers another year that it had been dealt with by this clause. Let the Government next year bring forward a measure dealing with the subject in a large and comprehensive spirit. He did not suppose that they considered the clause anything of that kind, though it might tide over the difficulty. He hoped the Chief Secretary would relieve all apprehensions on the point. There was another matter he would commend to the Government if they wished to deal in a large and comprehensive manner with the subject, and really wished to facilitate the erection of cottages, and that was that they should strike out that portion of the clause that required the farmer to obtain the sanction of the Court. He would take it for granted that next year the Government would relieve the clause from all restrictions, so as to facilitate the setting aside of land for the purpose; but, meantime, it might be assumed that the Court would not be at work before January next year, and there was no stipulation as to what time the Court should take for consideration. It might take 12 months before giving the farmer sanction to erect labourers' dwellings. He wished to have this sanction omitted, so that without restriction the farmer, if he so pleased, and had the necessary number of acres, could proceed at once to build his labourers dwellings. As to the condition of 25 acres of "tillage" land, every friend of the labourer must oppose that, for it would be an absolute prohibition to the building of cottages in grass districts, where they were most required. 1442 But, as he had said, his point was now to get from the Government a pledge that they would not consider this clause the redemption of the promise of May 6th.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member had declared he would divide against the clause unless he had a satisfactory answer; he, however, generally approved of the clause. He had referred to the debate of the 6th May, and in that debate he (Mr. W. E. Forster) stated that in all probability something would be included in the Land Bill which would improve the condition of labourers' dwellings; that the Government would do this if they could. It was very well known that in the Bill they could not legislate generally on the labourers' question; but the Government did believe that it ought to be dealt with so far as the Bill would allow, and with that object, and the hope of a good result, this clause had been brought forward. He did not consider that in the slightest affected the Resolution arrived at by the House on the 6th of May, that the condition of agricultural labourers required the attention of Parliament.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, were the Committee to understand that the Government did not, under cover of this clause, retreat from the position they took up on the 6th of May, that the question of labourers' cottages required attention, not in the present Session, because time pressed, but in the next?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped it might be done, but no promise was made. He assented to the Resolution that the condition of the labourers required attention and improvement, and from that the Government did not wish to recede.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Clause read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he begged to move the omission of the words requiring that the tenant should obtain the sanction of the Court. This was a mere tentative measure, and would be in operation only for a year, because next year the Government, in fulfilment of the pledge given, and just now confirmed, would deal with the question of labourers' 1443 dwellings in a subsequent measure. If the words to which he objected were retained in the clause, the tenant farmer would have to make his application to the Court, and, following the general rule of Commissions, he would have to serve a notice of his intention on the landlord, and the result would probably be that the tenant farmers of Ireland would not be enabled to get permission from the Court for at least six months after the Court came into operation. For that period, at least, the building of a labourer's cottage would be put off. The Bill, however, would become operative the moment it passed; and he wished to relieve the tenant farmer from the restriction that would tie his hands and compel him to wait for the sanction of the Court, and to allow him to begin at once, and, if he pleased, erect cottages for his labourers in the proportion of one to every 25 acres. So clearly did this seem for the advantage of the class in whose interest the clause was inserted, that he could not understand how the Government should object to his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In line 2, to leave out all the words after the word "may," to the word "let," in line 3.—(Mr. Callan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words with the sanction of the Court' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not imagine any Court, especially a Court constituted as this would be, would refuse the sanction, except in extremely rare cases; but some power of limitation was required, some check was necessary, otherwise it would be found that under cover of dwellings for his labourers, the tenant might provide cottages for his labourers' families or others. It was necessary, also, to have such a power in the interest of the labourer, and to prevent, in extreme cases, the tenant charging an exorbitant rent.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, an answer to the Chief Secretary's argument that the tenant might abuse the power given him and erect dwellings for other than bonâ fide labourers, would be found in the clause itself, which provided that the portion of any holding so let should not exceed half-an-acre in each case, and that the lettings should not exceed the proportion of one to every 25 acres of tillage 1444 land. If the Chief Secretary knew as much about agriculture as he did about the woollen trade, he would know that one labourer to every 25 acres was a rather low average, and that a very high tillage could be carried on with that proportion. The fact was, a restriction would be imposed such as had never been imposed before as to this building of cottages. It was proposed that under no circumstances should cottages be built on a farm without the sanction of the Court. The importation of American beef had, within the last few years, materially changed the nature of farming operations in Ireland. For instance, he had a farm before his mind, one of his own, consisting of 100 acres entirely grass. If he wished to build labourers' cottages, and convert the farm into tillage, he would have under the clause to go to the Court and get the sanction of the Court to build cottages; but, at the present time, he was under no such restriction. Could it be said that such an enactment was in the interest of agriculture? Hitherto a farmer could build a cottage when he wished; and the provision that the proportion of one to 25 acres was quite sufficient to check any abuse.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he must certainly go with his hon. Friend that the restriction "with the sanction of the Court" was not necessary, because it appeared to him that if there were any abuse of the clause, the landlord would have the power to bring the tenant before the Court to answer for it.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, there was no necessity to hurry the clause through, for it would not advance the progress of the Bill to pass the words and raise the discussion at the next stage. If the words were struck out, a restriction would be removed that would prevent many tenants from erecting cottages.
§ It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow.