[BILL 68.] COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 03 August 1885 vol 300 cc983-1025

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Leases of Land by Agreement and otherwise.

Clause 2 (Power of limited owner to make leases. 46 & 47 Vict. c. 60).

MR. SEXTON

said, he desired to call attention, in line 10, to the words "the term of any lease shall not exceed 99 years." The period dealt only with the power of the Sanitary Authority to take compulsorily any lands referred to in the Provisional Order for any term of years not exceeding 99. He did not know whether the discretion of the limited owner should be restricted in this case, and why land should not be taken for more than 99 years if the parties thought fit.

THE CHAIRMAN

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out— There shall be reserved thereby the best yearly rent which can reasonably be obtained, to be," and to insert, "the rent reserved thereby shall be.

MR. SEXTON

That is not my Amendment. I wish to move the Amendment in the name of Sir George Campbell.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, to leave out Sub-section (1).—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the subsection stand part of the Clause."

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, that the reason why 99 years was fixed in the sub-section was because that was the usual term of building leases.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

99 years is according to the ordinary usage.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

said, he now begged to move the following Amendment:— Page 1, line 14, to leave out "there shall be reserved thereby the best yearly rent which can reasonably be obtained, to be," and insert "the rent reserved thereby shall be. The words he proposed to strike out seemed to him to be altogether a new phrase, and he thought the words he suggested would be much better.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, to leave out "there shall be reserved thereby the best yearly rent which can reasonably be obtained, to be," and insert "the rent reserved thereby shall be."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, that those words were taken from the usual form, and he did not see why the Committee should depart from them. He would ask the Committee to adhere to the words of the clause as they stood.

MR. VILLIERS-STUART

said, that speaking as an Irish landlord he had no objection whatever to the Amendment proposed.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he had no objection to the Amendment if a corresponding alteration were made later on.

MR. SEXTON

said, the landlord was perfectly certain to take care of his own interests; and he, therefore, did not see why his Amendment should not be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3 (Confirmation of lease) agreed to.

Clause 4 (Compulsory powers of taking land for a term of years).

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, the first section of this clause ran as follows:— For the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, the Local Government Board may, by provisional order confirming any scheme under that Act, empower a sanitary authority to take compulsorily any lands referred to in such order for any term of years, not exceeding ninety-nine years, at a rent to be determined in case of difference in the manner provided by this Act. He wished to move to leave out the word "compulsorily," in line 8. He must say, in the first place, that the idea of the compulsory lease was an entirely novel idea, for in English law or any other law it was an entirely new idea. The power of taking land by purchase was given in the interests of the State, and they had very often to tight that power and to protest against it. There were many cases in which the landlords would be very glad indeed to give up their lands for the purposes of this Bill; and when the measure had been referred to the Committee last year, he, for one, had been very anxious to make the Act of 1883 work as smoothly as possible. Among other things he had considered was the ex- pense that the Sanitary Body would be put to in the case of land being taken for labourers' cottages either compulsorily or otherwise. If the landlord had to give his land they eliminated a great protection—that was that the landlord had to prove his title, the expense of doing which was as great, although the piece of land in question might be two or three acres, as it would be to prove a full title to a whole estate. Therefore, the landlord to save expense, and to save friction, and to enable the limited owner to give a lease for a longer time than the power of settlement would allow, was enabled to give a lease for 99 years. He would not say it had not been proposed that the lease should be made compulsory, because he had understood that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in his absence had stated that he hoped that a compulsory lease would be given; but the idea of a compulsory lease was one which had, practically, never entered into the minds of a large portion of the Committee. It was an entirely new idea. It had been maintained that it was perfectly clear that the Committee intended that this power of compulsory leasing should be giving, because the Land Commission would be brought in to adjust the rent. It appeared to him to be an extraordinary thing that a landlord should be obliged to give a compulsory lease of land for the purpose of labourers' cottages. He could understand compulsory sale; but he ventured to remind the Committee that compulsory leases were entirely contrary to the legislation of the present Government. They were bringing in Bills and making every possible arrangement to buy out the landlords, and now they proposed in this Bill to compel landlords to create tenants—squat tenants of half an acre of land for 99 years. It might come about that a landlord would sell his property to his tenants and go elsewhere. What would be the result then? Why, he would sell all his property except this small patch which they had compelled him to leave to the Sanitary Authority, who in their turn had leased it to the labourer, who in his turn would probably pay no rent at all for it, and who would certainly not keep it in a proper state of repair or cultivation. He had no idea that there was any notion of compulsory leasing until he took up the Bill and looked at it closely. There he saw the word "compulsorily;" but even then he could not really believe it, and thought it must be an error in the drafting of the measure. It involved an entirely new principle, and would work extreme harm. It was a very dangerous principle, and if they once entertained it they would never know when they were going to stop. If they introduced the principle for the purpose of enabling the building of labourers' cottages, there was no reason why they should not introduce it for other purposes, and he warned the Committee against the dangers of any such scheme. He would not detain the Committee any longer, but begged to move to leave out the word "compulsorily."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "compulsorily."—(Colonel King-Harman.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, that as he knew the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman), and others with him, felt very strongly on this matter, he trusted the Committee would pardon him for a few moments while he explained this word "compulsorily," and stated why the Government could not accept the Amendment. The Labourers Act of 1883, as it passed the House without any objection, was an exceptional piece of legislation. It gave power to purchase land for labourers' dwellings compulsorily, and it also gave power to take leases of land for the same purpose; but that was not compulsory. It was found, however, that the expenses of title were so great, that the Boards of Guardians could not purchase the land, and after an experience of 12 months it was found that the Act was a dead letter; and as the Irish Administration were anxious that it should not be a dead letter, they appointed a Committee to inquire into the matter. That Committee took a vast amount of evidence, and it was suggested before them that inasmuch as this was an Act of an exceptional character, and the amount of land taken was small, it would be desirable that a compulsory form of lease for 99 years should he given. He might point out that the very best security for the rent was given, as it was charged on the Union rates. The tenant the landlord had was the Board of Guardians, and they were just as responsible as any other tenant. It seemed to him that the principal object of this Bill was to give this power of compulsory leasing, the other provisions being wholly subsidiary to it; and the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) now was to strike out of the Bill that which was the most essential part of it. As he thought, therefore, that this provision was a very desirable one, and the only one that could make it a workable measure, he was obliged to refuse to strike it out, and therefore the Amendment could not be accepted.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he would like to point out to the hon. and learned Attorney General that his argument that the Bill of 1883 passed through without opposition was one which he would not have used if he had been in the House at the time. It was brought in late in the Session, and was not opposed, because they believed that the statement that the labourers required cottages to be built was perfectly sound. They said, however, that they would move Amendments in Committee; but the Committee was taken at about 3 o'clock one morning, and it was impossible for the one or two Members who were present on that occasion to discuss the matter at such an hour, therefore it was passed through without serious opposition. He maintained that the real state of the case was this. This clause had been put in to prevent the Treasury from having to apply for an extension of time for the repayment, and the whole thing was to be done at the expense of the unfortunate landlord.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, he entirely agreed with all that had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend who had just spoken. [Ironical cheers from the Irish Members.] He congratulated the Government on the cheers they had been able to obtain from the hon. Members opposite. There was no necessity whatever for this Bill, which appeared to him to be a further nibbling at the interests of the Irish landlords, which, he thought, had been done already to a sufficient extent during the last few years.

MR. SEXTON

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not oppose this Bill on principle; but he would point out that if this provision were struck out the Labourers Act would become a mere cypher, as the Boards of Guardians would not go on, as they had been doing under the old Act, in the costly way that they had. Was the convenience of a few landlords who wished to sell their estates and abandon their country to stand in the way in such a question as this?

Amendment negatived.

MR. SEXTON moved to leave out from the word "Act," in line 27, to the end of the sub-section. The words which he proposed to get rid of provided that the order of the Court should be subject to the same stamp duty as if it were a lease, and that a duplicate should be supplied at the expense of the Sanitary Authority. He could not see why an order or lease of this sort, which was given as a matter of public policy, should of necessity have a stamp at all. He did not think it should have a stamp. They ought to exercise economy as much as possible. Another thing. He did not see why the Sanitary Authority should be put to the expense of making a copy of their agreement.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "Act," to end of Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, it had always been a rule that stamps should be insisted upon in these matters, and he thought it would be very bad to make an exception in this particular instance. He was obliged to retain the clause as it stood.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, this was a matter in which the Irish Members felt inclined to persevere. The hon. and learned Member had himself referred to the Committee which had sat to inquire into the working of the Act of 1883; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) found that that Committee reported that the amount of rent that could be got from the Irish labourers would be very small indeed, and every witness appeared to agree in the opinion that they should minimize the expenses under this Bill to the very finest point—to the very last penny. Therefore, he would appeal to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). They were dealing with an exceptional case, with a very hard case of distress, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he would consent to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo in a modified form.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he thought the Government had done just the opposite to what most people would have done. If an order in Court were made under the Act, there would be no necessity for drawing up the lease—it would be sufficient to do away with the lease, and therefore there would be no necessity for drawing up a lease. The acceptance of the Amendment, therefore, would really mean a State subvention, however small to the Boards of Guardians. If the landlord refused to grant a lease, the order of the Court would come in and the lease would escape the ordinary stamp duty. He thought the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury should rise and explain how it was that the Government proposed to make this gift or bonus to the Boards of Guardians. The Treasury appeared to be giving away what was part of the Revenue of the country, and he was obliged to say that the proposal struck him with extreme surprise.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he did not know whether the hon. Member for Liskeard had a copy of the Bill; but he thought it would be found that there would be a stamp on the order. The clause did not substitute the order for the lease.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he could not assent to that for one moment. The Court might, if they thought fit, require a lease to be prepared and executed; but the drawing up of the lease depended on the discretion of the Court. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) did not seem to understand the point. If a landlord refused to give a lease, then this clause operated and made a lease compulsory; an order of the Court would be made which would operate as a lease. The sub-section preceding gave the Court power to require the authorities to renew the lease depended on the discretion of the Court, and therefore nothing turned on that point. It was assumed that the order was not a lease, whereas the order declared that it should operate as if it were a lease, and that being so it ought to be subject to stamp duty. If the lease were executed in two parts, by the landlord and the authorities, then there was no need of a stamp. He called on the hon. Gentleman to say why the stamp was given up.

MR. HORACE DAVEY

said, he should have thought that anyone acquainted with the class of Acts, of which this was one, would know that the order of the Court should bear a stamp. It was under such Acts necessary to apply to the Court to make what was called, a vesting order. The words meant that the order of the Court was to operate in the same manner, and have the same effect, as if it were a lease. The previous part of the sub-section exactly defined what were the rights, conditions, and so forth, so that the meaning was that the order of the Court would vest in the lessee the same interest which he would take if a lease had been executed. It was the more common form to provide that the order should bear a stamp; and if the Government proposed to give up that, all he could say was that it would be an absolute innovation in Bills of this kind.

MR. INCE

said, with reference to the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) as to the parties being required to show their title, he could conceive of nothing that would be better than the order of the Court. They would have the best possible title in the order itself, which would be on the records of the Court; and if they wanted anything to show they could have an official copy of the order, and the lessee would have the best secondary evidence of showing the document under which he held.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)

said, this was the first time his attention had been called to the point raised by the hon. Member for Liskeard. He could not consent to the country losing the amount of stamp duty, and the order of the Court should bear the stamp; but he proposed that with a view to saving ex- pense to the lessee the Proviso should be omitted.

Amendment proposed, in line 28, to leave out from "Provided" to the end of the sub-section."—(Sir Henry Holland.)

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

MR. CALLAN

said, he hoped at that hour the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) and the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) would not throw any difficulties in the way of the Treasury Bench.

MR. SEXTON

said, he accepted the saving and the Amendment of the hon. Baronet; but the proposal did not commend itself to his economic conscience, for the saving would have to be secured out of the poor rates.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, he should like to know why a landlord should not have his own record of what had taken place? Why should he have to procure a copy of the record at considerable expense to himself?

COLONEL NOLAN

said, it was to the interest of the landlord that these leases should not be drawn, because otherwise the landlord would have to pay a good deal to the poor rates. The solicitors would probably make £5 or £10 out of each operation. For his own part, he would much rather pay the stamp duty and have done with the matter. He dreaded the making out of these legal forms. He had known a case where £300 was paid over land worth £350. He had a great fear of all these Provisos.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, it was perfectly absurd to give a compulsory lease for half an acre of land. Some of the most eminent lawyers in the House had shown the absurdity of the clause, and he should therefore divide the Committee against it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 7: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 267.)

Clauses 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to,

Clause 8 (Compensation for loss by compulsory taking of land).

MR. SEXTON moved the omission of the clause, on the ground that it would tend to make the Bill unworkable. The Local Government Board Inspector had unlimited power; and, therefore, he (Mr. Sexton) did not see that any case for compensation would arise.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, to leave out Clause 8.—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he thought it would be well to allow the clause to stand. As a general rule no compensation would be awarded; it would only be given in exceptional cases. Both in the interest of the landlord and also of the occupying tenant, it was advisable there should be some clause of this kind.

MR. GRAY

asked, what case could arise which could not be met by the adjustment of the rent?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, the hon. Gentleman would notice that it was not only the owner but the occupier of the land taken who might be compensated for any loss, injury, or damage occasioned by the taking of the land. It was possible that if the rent were increased an injustice would be done to the occupier.

MR. SEXTON

said, the powers of the Local Government Board Inspector enabled him to take care that there was no severance. The tenant was amply protected already. He thought that, at any rate, the Government ought to put in words indicating the exceptional cases.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)

said, that should be done.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, it was quite true that the Local Government Board Inspector could order a cottage to be erected where he pleased; but there was much more to be taken into consideration than that. If half an acre was taken out of the farm and handed over to a labourer a certain amount of injury would be done which would be injury to the occupier as well as to the owner. There should be com- pensation in such a case; especially as the compulsory taking of land was always compensated for.

MR. P. J. POWER

remarked, that the Local Government Board Inspector would assuredly take care that no injury was done.

MR. SEXTON

asked if the Government would introduce words on Report?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he would suggest, on Report, to insert, after "award," "if the circumstances of the case so require."

MR. COURTNEY

agreed so far with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that he did not see the necessity of this clause. Injury to the occupier was provided for in the matter of rent, as well as injury to the owner; but it would be observed that by this clause compensation was to be given for loss and damage— Not compensated for by the rent payable to such owner, or by the apportionment of the rent payable by such occupier. Clearly, under the lease to be granted, the rental to be paid would be reduced pro tanto. The whole matter might be compensated for by a reduction of rent.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, the matter was thrashed out in the Committee Room. Amongst other things, it was pointed out that injury might be done by goats and fowls.

MR. GRAY

thought the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman made it very necessary that the Committee should consider the propriety of putting in stronger words than those suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and gallant Gentleman considered that the owner should be compensated for any injuries done by goats or fowls.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

protested against this attempt to hoodwink the Committee. It was absurd to say that he was in favour of the owner being compensated for injury done by this trespass.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

considered the law against trespass was strong enough to leave the tenant to seek redress for himself.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

thought the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) constituted a strong argument against the retention of this clause. The hon. and gallant Gentleman considered that fowls would injure the property of the occupying tenant. They might assume that most of the labourers would keep fowls; and, therefore, according to the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, every property would be injured, and there would be a case for compensation. In other words, the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought there would be compensation over and above the rent in every single case where land was compulsorily taken and a labourer's cottage was erected. That was just the reason why the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) objected to this clause. The hon. Gentleman objected to the clause, because it would give an opportunity for vexatious and bogus claims for compensation, and thus be an impediment to the operation of the Act. If the hour were not so advanced (2.50), he would advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) to persevere with his objection to this clause, because if he did he would find a large amount of support. At all events, his hon. Friend ought to prosecute his objection so far as to obtain an assurance from the Attorney General for Ireland that the words introduced should be such as to exclude the interpretation which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) sought to put on the clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he had already stated what words he was prepared to introduce on Report. The clause would only apply to exceptional cases, and on Report he would be able to insert three or four words which would make that clear.

MR. SEXTON

contended that the very existence of the clause in the Act would encourage every fractious landlord in the country to make bogus claims. Therefore, unless the clause was to be struck out, the words ought to be very strong indeed—"The court in any exceptional case in which it may see cause may award," or some such words. It ought to be made clear that if landlords made bogus claims they would suffer.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, the hon. Gentleman had spoken about fractious landlords. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that one of the great reasons why the present Act had not worked was that it was opposed by the occupying tenants. [Mr. SEXTON: I do not believe it.] His experience justified him in saying so. What the occupying tenants dreaded was that cottages would be put up in places where they would be an annoyance to them. The Act would work much more smoothly if it was made apparent to the occupier that if he was injuriously affected there was a reasonable chance of his being compensated.

MR. MOLLOY

thought it would be much better that when any land was taken from an occupier his rent should be reduced by the amount which the Guardians paid to the landlord.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Provisional Orders.

Clause 12 (Provisional Order may be confirmed by the Privy Council).

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

proposed the insertion of "or occupier," after "owner," in line 14.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 14, after the word "owner," to insert the words "or occupier."—(Colonel King-Harman.)

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

MR. SEXTON

said, there was very serious objection to the Amendment, and he hoped the Government had no idea of accepting it. This was a case where a Provisional Order had been granted by the Local Government Board. If there was no opposition the Provisional Order took effect; but if there was opposition all the costs of an appearance in Court would be incurred. That would make all the difference between a cheap scheme and a dear one. There were some landlords in Ireland who were reckless, and others who were cunning. A cunning landlord would put some mean sneak in as occupier. Therefore, if the word "occupier" were inserted here, there was hardly a scheme which would not be opposed by the occupier, acting not for himself, but for the landlord.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, that if an acre or two were taken out of a holding of 30 or 40 acres it would not matter much; but a case occurred in Westmeath lately where an occupier of five acres was pounced upon by the Sanitary Authority for some reason best known to them, and half an acre of his best land taken from him for a labourer. The occupier did not want a labourer. If he had had double the acreage he would have been able to till it. Was that unfortunate man, or were men in a similar position, not to be allowed to petition?

MR. SEXTON

said, the Local Government Board Inspector told the Select Committee that they never allowed a cottage to be put on a farm of less than 20 or 25 acres.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) had taken up two very antagonistic positions. A few moments ago he said the great obstacle to the working of the Labourers' Act was the unwillingness of the occupiers to have labourers on their farms. [Colonel KING-HARMAN: No; I did not.] He certainly understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that of the two, landlords and tenants, the tenants were the greater obstacles. Having made that statement, he now proposed to give every occupier the power of imposing a very serious and costly litigation upon any Board of Guardians who proposed to erect labourers' cottages. If the Amendment were accepted the Bill might as well be torn into pieces.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

saw no objection at all to the Amendment. It must be borne in mind that the tenant had quite as great an interest in the matter as the landlord, and therefore it would be unreasonable to deprive him of the same right of appeal as the landlord. The Amendment seemed to him to be in accordance with the principles of justice.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment, on the ground that it would increase the conflict between classes in Ireland.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

asked the Attorney General for Ireland if a whole scheme would be destroyed by the objection of one landlord applied to one cottage on a particular farm? Now, the point brought before the Labourers' Committee was this, that the whole of an important scheme extending over 70 or 80 cottages might be destroyed by the objection of one landlord applied to only one cottage. A case of that kind had occurred.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

Where did that case occur?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he believed it was on the estate of Lord Dunally at Nenagh. Lord Dunally objected to one or two cottages in the whole scheme of the Nenagh Board of Guardians, and that scheme fell through because of his Lordship's objection. [Colonel KING-HARMAN: No, no.] He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would hear him out. One of the questions the Committee had directed its attention to was the making of such improvements in the Act that the whole of the scheme should not depend upon the fate of a small portion of it. Here they might have that objectionable feature on an extended scale. The whole scheme extending over 70 or 80 cottages might fail because the occupier of one half an acre which it was sought to take for a single cottage might raise an objection. The clause dealt with by the Amendment was a capital point of the Bill; they were all agreed, and the hon. and gallant Member would bear him out, that if the process of raising these cottages were not minimized in the matter of expense the Bill would be a dead letter. Here, after both Administrators, acting on the Report of the Committee, had endeavoured to minimize the expenditure by doing away with the appeal to Parliament, and substituting appeal to the Privy Council, the hon. and gallant Gentleman came clown and proposed an Amendment which would practically make every case contentious. It was really monstrous on the part of the Government to accept a proposal like that which would make every ease contentious.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, the hon. Member was under a great mistake if he thought that the objection of a single owner would cause the whole scheme to be disallowed.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I said every case would be made contentious—I did not say disallowed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

The Privy Council has power to award costs against any person who presents a petition which ought not to be presented, and which would be considered frivolous. As all petitioning occupiers will be liable to the danger of having to pay costs, they would be careful not to bring frivolous objections.

MR. SEXTON

said, the occupiers of five-acre holdings, if they chose to object to the scheme, would have power to compel the Guardians to go to Dublin before the Privy Council. That would make the whole scheme far more expensive—the whole scheme, it might be of 100 cottages, more costly. What would happen if the Amendment were agreed to would be this—that the landlord would get one of his bailiffs on one of his farms to object. All he would have to do would be to get one of his bailiff's or understrappers to object; and in that manner kill the scheme or obstruct it. He (Mr. Sexton) warned the Committee that the Bill would be destroyed by the insertion of this Amendment.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

asked the Committee to form its own opinion of the argument of the hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. He made the reckless charge that the landlords—who were as honourable a set of men as any in the Three Kingdoms—were so discreditable that when one heard of a scheme of which he disapproved he would get his bailiffs or understrappers to object; with the intention of getting rid of the whole scheme. Such a suggestion was not worth a moment's consideration. In the case of Lord Dunally and the Mullin-gar Guardians, an appeal was made in regard to certain parts of a scheme, and though those particular cottages were thrown out the scheme did not fall through—the remainder of it was passed. A man—an unfortunate man with only five acres of land, it might be—if he objected, could relieve himself from having a cottage placed on his holding; but the remainder of the cottages in the scheme might be built. Was it not right that the Guardians should be at liberty to consider the case of the man with five acres, and give him as much consideration as though he were a large landed proprietor?

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

asked whether they could not fairly leave the protection of the tenant to the landlord? If the tenant went to the landlord and objected, if the landlord was a good one, could it not be left to him to defend his tenant? If the farm was a small one, or if it was inconvenient to have a cottage built, could it not be left to his moral courage to go to the Privy Council?

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

The owner may be a minor or an absentee.

MR. P. J. POWER

said, that if the Amendment were adopted, it might not have the effect of killing an improvement scheme, but it would have the effect of retarding it and greatly increasing its cost. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland could frame some Amendment to give the tenant the right to apply to the Local Government Board or to the Privy Council to have his case reconsidered. Could it not be done in such a way that the effect of his requiring to have his case looked into would not necessarily retard the scheme?

MR. MOLLOY

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the whole question was a question of extra costs, and that the costs were in the discretion of the Court. That was fallacious, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew as well as he (Mr. Molloy) did that even if the slightest case was shown by the tenant the costs would not be thrown on him. Therefore, he thought a statement of that kind was not to be defended.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

said, that, as the Bill at present stood, three ratepayers would be able to bring a case before the Privy Council, and the cost, under any circumstances, would not, he should think, exceed 1d. or 2d. in the pound. The Amendment he offered was that it should require as many ratepayers to bring the Sanitary Authorities before the Privy Council as it did to launch an arbitration, which was 12.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 17, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the word ' three ' stand part of the Clause."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)

said, he saw nothing magical in the word three.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

hoped the Amendment would not be accepted. If they made it 12, why not 24? He considered that three were quite as many as should be required to object and to ask that a case should be thoroughly investigated by a Local Government Inspector.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

said, that the Bill provided that Petitions against the taking of land should be heard by the Privy Council. Well, he had had a close acquaintance with the proceedings of the Select Committee, whoso every meeting he had attended, and whose every witness he had seen, and he was, therefore, in a position to say that the general tendency of the evidence was not to recommend the Privy Council, but the Land Commission. The Privy Council was little know in Ireland, and was less trusted than it was known. It was composed of Judges and other eminent persons; but it sat fitfully in Dublin, he believed, and an appearance before it was a costly thing. His proposal in the Amendment on the Paper was that the Land Commission should be the tribunal to hear these cases. The Commission was now composed of three members; but it was proposed in a Bill now before Parliament to appoint two others. That was a Court which could go to the suitors, instead of requiring the suitors to come up to Dublin; and it was a Court, which was better known to the people—though they had anything but perfect confidence in it. It would, however, inspire greater confidence than the proposal in the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 26, to leave out the words "Lord Lieutenant, acting with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland," and insert the words "the Court."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, it seemed to him that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member was one the Government could not accept. One of the recommendations of the Committee had been that the Privy Council should be substituted for Parliament.

MR. SEXTON

No; the proposal was that the authority should be either the Privy Council or the Land Commission.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, that, after carefully considering the matter, they had come to the conclusion that the best tribunal would be the Privy Council. It had on many occasions acted in a similar manner—for instance, under the Tramways Act. As to the composition of the Privy Council, it must be remembered that almost all the distinguished Judges in Ireland were Members of it, and that these cases were heard by a Judicial Committee of the Council. These matters were heard in full Court; they were fully discussed; and nobody in the whole of Ireland would be better able to deal with such matters.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he failed to see the cogency of the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Here was a question dealing with the valuation of land; they had a tribunal in the Land Commission whose duty it was to consider this subject—which was daily employed in dealing with it. They had, therefore, a Commission which was daily engaged in the very work to which this Bill had reference. The Privy Council, on the other hand, was a Body which was never called upon to deal with questions of the valuation of land. It was called on to deal with questions of policy, but not to deal with questions affecting fair rents and other matters which were daily under the consideration of the Land Commission. Then, as an hon. Friend behind him suggested, the attendance at this Privy Council Court would be the attendance of the Judges of the land, who had other work to do. Their attendance was accidental and irregular. They dropped in "promiscuous-like," to use the phrase of Dickens. They were not regularly employed, and they sat in Dublin; whereas the other tribunal was of a perambulating character.

COLONEL COLTHURST

quite agreed in the contention that the Land Commission would be the better authority, and hoped the Government would consider the proposal.

MR. LEA

said, that some of them in the North of Ireland felt very strongly that the power which was placed in the hands of the Privy Council had crushed the Tramways Act, and he hoped it would be done away with in this matter rather than it should be allowed to crush this Act. He would certainly support the hon. Members below the Gangway.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HAKT DYKE)

said, the Bill had been prepared by the late Government, and they had inserted the Privy Council. He could not accept the Amendment.

MR. MOLLOY

pointed out that the Privy Council know nothing of these matters, and they would have to consult the Land Commissioners and take their opinion, although they would not do so officially.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Amendment of Provisional Orders made before this Act).

MR. SEXTON

wished to move an Amendment to this clause, in page 7, line 2, to leave out the word "less," and insert "more." The clause provided that an amended Provisional Order should become absolute within not less than one month; but what he wanted to provide was that the landowner could object to such amended Provisional Order, provided he did so in such a period of not more than a month. What he thought was that too much time should not be allowed, and the landlord ought not to be given more than one month. If he could not make up his mind in a month then the Order should become absolute, because it was essential that these people should not be kept in their wretched habitations longer than was absolutely necessary.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

did not see what the hon. Member meant, and considered that the clause was very much better as it stood than it would be if amended as suggested.

Question, "That the word 'less' stand part of the Question," put and negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SEXTON moved, in page 7, after line 7, to insert—"An amending Provisional Order may alter sites and otherwise vary the original Order."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

thought there was no objection to that Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Additional Powers of Sanitary Authorities.

Clause 14 (Amendments in schemes).

MR. SEXTON moved, in page 7, line 14, to leave out all the words from "necessary" to the end of the paragraph. The effect of this was to strike out the word which precluded the Sanitary Authority from amending their schemes so as to alter the proposed area of charge before the Provisional Order was made.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 14, to leave out from "necessary," to end of Clause.—(Mr. Sexton.)

Amendment agreed to.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN moved, in page 7, line 34, to leave out "if necessary," and insert "if applied to." The object of this was to provide that when a local inquiry into the proposed amendments of a scheme was desirable, there should be a demand for it from the place interested.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 34, to leave out the words "if necessary," and insert "if applied to."—(Colonel King-Harman.)

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)

said, he would accept the Amendment, but would propose to add after the words "if applied to," the words "by the owner or occupier of the land proposed to be acquired."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

thought it would perhaps be better if the words ran— If necessary, or if applied to by the owner or occupier of the land proposed to be acquired. Because there might be some other grounds for an inquiry apart altogether from the owner and occupier.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)

thought the clause would run very well "if applied to by the owner," &c.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'if applied to by the owner or occupier of the land proposed to be acquired' be here inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

proposed, in line 37, to leave out from the word "effect" to the end of the paragraph. The words which would thus be left out were the following: — The Local Government Board shall not adopt any amendments in a scheme if such amendments would, in their opinion, materially add to the estimated cost of the scheme. Such amendments as those mentioned in this provision might be found absolutely essential to the success of the scheme.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 37, to leave out from the word "effect" to end of paragraph.—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

MR. COURTNEY

asked whether this provision was not intended to give a safeguard to the persons affected locally? It was a matter which not only affected the Sanitary Authority of the Local Government Board, but the people in the locality themselves.

MR. SEXTON

pointed out that there would be a local inquiry into the amendments, which could not be made except by the Local Authority, who would have to pay the money.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Powers of the Sanitary Authority relative to purchase existing cottages, and allot land to existing cottages).

COLONEL KING-HARMAN moved, in page 8, line 12, to leave out all the words from "cottage," to the word "repair," in line 13. He was not quite clear as to the bearing of these words.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 12, to leave out from the word "cottage" to the word "repair," in line 13.— (Colonel King-Harman.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, they were more or loss immaterial words, and he had no objection to their being cut out.

COLONEL KLNG-HARMAN

did not think they were immaterial at all. They would certainly prevent anyone building labourers' cottages in future.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said he had accepted the Amendment.

MR. SEXTON

pointed out that it seemed extremely hard to please the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. VILLIERS-STUART moved, in page 8, line 19, after "labourer," to insert— Or may, without having or purchasing any cottage, purchase tracts of land to be parcelled out in allotments to be let to any agricultural labourers living in any neighbouring village or town. The object of the Amendment was to extend to the labourers living in villages or towns the advantages of allotments. He need not say more on the subject; but he did hope that the Government would see their way to accepting the Amendment, because, if they did not, they would exclude from the benefits of the Bill a very large number of those whom it was really intended to benefit.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 19, after the word "labourer," to insert "or may, without having or purchasing any cottage, purchase tracts of land to be parcelled out in allotments to be let to any agricultural labourers living in any neighbouring village or town."—(Mr. Villiers-Stuart.)

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)

was afraid that this Amendment interfered with the whole principle of the Bill, and also of that of 1883, which kept the ownership of the cottage and land identical.

COLONEL NOLAN

thought that this would be a most valuable provision, and could not be of a very revolutionary character, seeing that it was proposed by one of the very largest landowners in Ireland.

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought the proposal a fair one. There were no Guardians to be taxed in this matter. Why should labourers in villages occupying cottages without land be deprived of the benefit of having new cottages built in another place? He did not think the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) would object to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers- Stuart). Seeing that such a proposal was made by a landlord, he thought he ought to accept the suggestion.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he should have no objection whatever to agree to the Amendment, if certain words were inserted in it. He did not think it right to make it compulsory on the landland to sell the best portions of his land for the purpose of the Bill. He was willing to accept the Amendment, with the addition of the words "by agreement."

MR. SEXTON

said, he hoped the mind of the Government remained open on this subject. The object was to save expense. It was absurd that because a labourer lived in a bad house the public purse was to be used in buying for his benefit a house and land, while the man who had a good house was to get nothing. It was simply a question of a good or bad dwelling; and he could not understand what the intention of the Government was with regard to it.

MR. GRAY

said, this was probably the most important point in connection with the whole Bill. The proposal of the hon. Member, if adopted, would confer an enormous benefit, and he trusted that the Government would consider it favourably. It was the one Amendment put down to the Bill which had a consensus of opinion in its favour. It was agreed on all hands that the clause would be most useful; and he thought that the argument of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in its favour was very strong —that was to say, that if a man had a bad cottage, he was to get the benefit of the Bill, and that if he had a good one he was not to have it. The Amendment, if made, would revolutionize the condition of labourers in Ireland, and would, on the whole, be of immense benefit.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, in its present form, the Government certainly could not accept the proposal. It would constitute too great an alteration of the Bill.

MR. VILLIERS-STUART

said, he was ready to accept an Amendment from the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) in the direction he had indicated.

MR O'KELLY

said, he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County—namely, to add the words "by agreement," after "purchase." He could see no objection whatever to that; they were simply seeking to extend the advantages of the Bill to labourers living in villages and small towns.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he was willing to agree to the Amendment suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman); but as he was not prepared to accept the words of the hon. Member for "Waterford as they stood on the Paper, he suggested that the matter should stand over until the Report.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, it would be a very easy thing for the Attorney General for Ireland to agree to insert the words "by agreement," which would remove all difficulty in the matter.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "purchase," in line 2, the words "by agreement."—(Mr. T. P. O' Connor.)

Amendment agreed to.

Original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 (Closing of dwellings unfit for habitation).

MR. SEXTON

said, this clause cast on the Inspector of the Local Government Board the duty of prosecuting the owner of any house which might be unfit for habitation, and in the result the house might be ordered to be demolished. It would be seen, however, that the demolition might be postponed until the house was empty, which would have the effect of defeating the object they bad in view. He, therefore, proposed to leave out the words "may, if they think fit," in order that the word "shall" be inserted.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 30, to leave out the words "may, if they think fit," and insert the word "shall."— (Mr. Sexton.)

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

MR. GRAY

said, he was of opinion that it would be better to omit this clause altogether. There was already a duty cast upon the Sanitary Authorities with regard to habitations unfit for occupation by a long and complex Code. It was the duty of the Sanitary Authorities to find out houses unfit for habitation, under the Public Health Acts, and it was the duty of the Guardians to proceed against the owner of the house and compel it to be closed, and then it was the duty of the Local Government Board to see that the Sanitary Authority did its duty and had the house closed. The proposal now made was to release the Sanitary Authority of the duty cast upon it by another Act of Parliament. He asked the Attorney General for Ireland to bear with him for a few moments. The Act imposed a specific duty on the Sanitary Authority in the case of any house unfit for habitation. Suppose the local Inspector certified that a house was unfit for habitation, and suppose the Sanitary Authority availed itself of its right under this Act, it would be necessary to get an injunction to compel it to do its duty. This Bill contradicted the Public Health Acts; and, therefore, he thought it would be better to strike out the whole section. If it was to be maintained at all, it ought to be made a working section by imposing on the Authorities the duty of providing a good house, if once the house in which the man was living was proved to be unfit for habitation. But the Government shrank from doing that, and the result was that they proposed what was a contradiction of the existing law, because by the existing law a certain duty was imposed on the Sanitary Authority, and by this clause it was exempted from performing it.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GRAY

I propose to leave out the clause altogether.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member can vote against the clause when it is put.

MR. CALLAN

I propose to leave out Sub-section 4.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member proposes to leave out a section which the Committee have already agreed to amend.

MR. CALLAN

said, the last Amendment was to omit the words "may, if they think fit," and insert "shall" His proposal was to omit the sub-section.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot go back to the words "Sanitary Authorities," and propose to leave them out because an Amendment has been made subsequent to that.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he had listened to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray); but, according to his recollection, there was no inconsistency between the clause and the existing law. However, the matter should be considered before the Report.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Miscellaneous.

Clause 17 (Miscellaneous Amendments of Act of 1883).

On Motion of Mr. SEXTOX, the following Amendment made:—Page 9, line' 39, leave out from "one," inclusive, to end of line 41, and insert "any time."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 (Definitions).

MR. SEXTON

proposed the omission of the word "principal," in line 29, and urged upon the Government the vital importance of accepting the Amendment. The definition of an agricultural labourer had been found to be the greatest impediment in the application of the present Act. In some cases the schemes of Boards of Guardians had fallen through altogether, because the Inspector of the Local Government Board could not be satisfied that the principal occupation of the labourers was that of agricultural labour. There were many places in Ireland where the labourer could only get work on farms during the spring operations, in the harvest-time, and when the potatoes were being put in—in all about 16 weeks' work. It was not the fault of those poor men that they could not get agricultural labour through the year. When agricultural labour failed, they mended the roads or drove cars—and, indeed, anything they could get to do. Why should those men be deprived of the benefit of the Act? The town labourer was provided for by law; why should not the labourer be provided for who did as much agricultural work as as he could get? The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) proposed, and he (Mr. Sexton) moved the Amendment in his hon. Friend's name, that an agricultural labourer— Shall mean a person whose occupation during any part of the year is the doing of agricultural work. By "any part of the year" was meant the agricultural season. The Government were not spending their own money; the local rates would have to supply every 1 d. spent on the operation of the Act. From an Imperial point of view, from the point of view of statesmen desiring to put an end to discontent in Ireland, he could not understand how anyone could refuse the definition of an agricultural labourer which he now suggested. It was clear to him that unless Parliament accepted in a bold spirit the state of Ireland as it was, they would leave such a condition of things behind as would create the necessity for another amending Bill next year, or the year after.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 29, to leave out the word "principal."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'principal' stand part of the Clause."

MR. GRAY

said, there was absolutely no reason for the retention of the definition of an agricultural labourer found in the clause. The object of this Bill should be to extend the benefit of the Artizans' Dwellings Act to the inhabitants of rural districts who had not the benefit of the legislation, and who ought not to be shut off from it by any artificial restrictions. He trusted the Government would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend, as it would remove a great grievance, and one which was a source of much heartburning.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, the Amendment was one of a very serious character. He did not think there would be any difficulty in ascertaining what men could be properly described as agricultural labourers. To fulfil the conditions, it was not necessary that a man should do agricultural work every day in the week. He could not accept the Amendment, because it seemed to him that its introduction would bring in an entirely different class of men to that contemplated by the Bill.

MR. O'SHEA

asked whether the Government would, under the circumstancs, put words in the Bill to show clearly what was an agricultural labourer. The Attorney General for Ire- land had said it was not necessary for a man to labour every day in the week. He (Mr. O'Shea) had considerable experience in various parts of the West of Ireland; and he could not help thinking that unless some Amendment of this kind were accepted the Bill would benefit very few men. It might possibly be that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) went too far; but, at the same time, it was perfectly evident that the clause, as it now stood, did not go far enough. Could not the Government propose something as a go-between?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)

said, that this Bill went further in the direction hon. Members desired than the Act 47 Vict. c. 60. In that Act the words were "a person who habitually works for hire." In this Bill the words were— A person whose principal occupation is the doing of agricultural work. There was a great difference between the two sets of words. He did not antiticipate the slightest difficulty in ascertaining who was, and who was not, an agricultural labourer. This Bill certainly went further than the Act of 1883.

MR. SEXTON

asked if the Government would say— A person whose principal occupation during the chief or regular seasons of agricultural work is the doing of agricultural work? If the definition was not wide enough to cover men who at times could not get agricultural work, thousands of men would be shut out from the benefit of the Act.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, that perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland would consider the point between this and Report. The present definition would exclude the many labourers in County Cork who could only get agricultural labour during certain periods of the year.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he had no objection to consider the matter by Report; but he doubted still whether he could find words which would aptly express the object they had in view.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would read the evidence given before the Select Committee by the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, he would find that those officials had been compelled to exclude a vast number of labourers from the operation of the present Act, because, during a portion of the year, they did other than agricultural work. The words of the present Act, which the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Holland) had read, were the result of a compromise which was hurriedly arrived at. He did not, therefore, attach very much importance to the words, though he believed he himself suggested them. Anyhow, he assured the Secretary to the Treasury and the Attorney General for Ireland that a large number of men who really were agricultural labourers had been excluded from the benefit of the present Act by the definition which was adopted. It was a well-known fact that in Ireland men could only get agricultural labour during certain portions of the year, and that at other times they fished, or broke stones, or drove cars. Surely there was no valid reason why those poor creatures should be deprived of any benefit which the Act conferred.

Amendment negatived.

MR. SEXTON

proposed to insert, after "herdsman," in line 31, "and a widow who does farm work." Anyone who knew Ireland knew that very often when a man died a widow continued to work the farm. He supposed there was no intention in any quarter to deprive women of the advantages of the Act. It was well the matter should be made clear, and, therefore, he proposed this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 31, after the word "herdsman," to insert the words "and a widow who does farm work."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he had no objection to make it clear that "agricultural labourer" should include women; but he did not think this Amendment would serve that purpose, for it was certainly very ambiguous. Words might be introduced on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

proposed to insert the words "wholly or partly," after "not," in line 02, so that the clause would read— The term does not include any person who is not wholly or partly paid for his labour by wages. In many parts of Ireland labourers were paid partly by wages and partly in kind. It was as well the point should be made clear.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 32, after the word "not," to insert the words "wholly or partly."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Amendment agreed to.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

Sir Arthur Otway, I desired to speak upon the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

I am very sorry I did not notice the hon. and gallant Gentleman rise; but he cannot now speak upon the Amendment.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I bow to your decision, Sir; but I rose before you put the Question.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct; but I did not notice him.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I beg to move that you do report Progress.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Colonel King-Barman,)—put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

proposed, after Clause 13, to insert the following new Clause:—

(Order confirmed before the passing of this Act may be superseded by new Order.)

"When a sanitary authority has not obtained and applied a Treasury loan in pursuance of a Provisional Order made and confirmed by Parliament before the passing of this Act, such Order may be allowed to lapse, and such sanitary authority may avail itself of the provisions of this Act in applying for a new Provisional Order, and may proceed in all respects as if the original Order had not been made and confirmed."

He thought this clause would recommend itself to the Government. It was an attempt to meet the case of Sanitary Authorities who had already obtained power. Those Authorities had to purchase land or would purchase land, and it might be a very expensive operation. As this Act would enable Sanitary Authorities to lease land as well as buy it, he proposed that the old power should lapse and the Authorities be permitted to proceed by the cheaper method.

New Clause,—(Mr. Sexton),—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

was understood to say he would consider the question involved in the clause by Report.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the now clause, "Appointment of inspectors of labourers' dwellings," standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers-Stuart), could not be put, because it voted public money; and that the clause, "Repayment of loans," standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), could not be put for the same reason.

MR. SEXTON

asked if the Government would make an announcement on the subject of the repayment of loans? Perhaps it would be well that he should move to report Progress, in order to afford the Government an opportunity of stating their intentions.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)

said, he did not know whether he would be in Order in making an explanation.

MR. SEXTON

I move to report Progress, on the ground that we cannot well proceed without knowing what the Government propose.

THE CHAIRMAN

Probably the Committee will allow the right hon. Gentleman to make a short explanation.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)

was understood to say that it was proposed to extend the time of repayment, and that, in future, loans to be repaid in 40 years would be advanced at the rate of 3¼ per cent per annum, and those to be repaid in more than 40 years at 3¾ per cent per annum.

MR. SEXTON

said, he did not wish to make any observation on that statement.

THE CHAIRMAN

I am calling on the hon. Member to move the latter part of his next Amendment—the first part of it cannot be put.

MR. SEXTON

said, he begged to move the new clause—"Allowances to Sanitary Authority out of a general rate"—standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The great impediment in the way of the working of this Act would be the desire on the part of Boards of Guardians for the saving of expense; and the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends had considered the matter, and had come to the conclusion that it would bridge over the difficulty if they arranged that the Sanitary Authority should be allowed, out of a rate to be anually levied for the purpose, one-third, payable annually by such Sanitary Authority in respect of each house and plot provided under the provisions of the Labourers' Act, 1883, or of the present Bill. The rate would be levied on the Poor Law Valuation, and it was provided in the clause that the rate so levied should not exceed 1d. in the pound. He thought public opinion in Ireland would cheerfully accede to such a rate as that for the purpose of providing comfortable houses for poor labourers. He did not believe that the sum required would reach 1d. in the pound. A penny on the Poor Law Valuation of Ireland would pay for 40,000 houses, whereas the total number it was proposed to erect at the time the Committee sat was only 3,000. So that the Committee would see that in the five years in which it was proposed to carry out this work the sum which would be required would not amount to 1d. in the pound. The allowance to the Board of Guardians would be £1 5s. 6d., and the labourers would pay £2 12s., which would leave only a small balance to be imposed as a burden on the local rates. It was where the Act was needed most that, under existing circumstances, there was the least chance of its being put in force. If the Committee would allow this clause to be put into the Bill he was sure they would be removing an impediment in the way of the working of the Act which in a very short time would put an end to the discontent of the labourers. He begged to move the insertion of the following new Clause:—

New Clause: —

(Allowances to sanitary authority out of a general rate.)

"Each sanitary authority which becomes liable for repayment of loans under 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,' or this Act, shall be allowed, out of a rate to be annually levied for the purpose on the Poor Law Valuation of Ireland, one-third of the amount payable annually by such sanitary authority in respect of each house and plot provided in virtue of the provisions of 'The Labourers' (Ireland) Act, 1883,' or of this Act: Provided, That such rate to be so levied shall not exceed one penny in the pound: Provided also, That no such allowance shall exceed in any case the annual sum of one pound five shillings and sixpence in respect of each such house and plot of land,"—(Mr. Sexton,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be road a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, this clause was a very serious one, and he did not think it would be possible for the Government to accept it. This rate would be struck on towns as well as on country districts, and he did not see how they could well tax urban residents in order to build cottages for agricultural labourers. Such a thing would neither be fair nor just; and, having reference to the fact that towns in Ireland had already enough to do for the maintenance of the poor, he thought it would be very unfair to ask them to pay any part of this rate. Besides that, there might be many districts in Ireland where, through the industry and thrift of the inhabitants, the labouring classes were well-housed. Why should they contribute towards the expense of providing labourers' cottages for other parts of the country?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he should like to point out that this proposal was made on the Labourers' Committee. It was discussed there, and there was no very great objection raised to it on the part of the English Members. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) had objected; but the hostility on the part of the English Members was that the proposal was brought forward just as the Committee was about to conclude its labours. He did not know whether the Committee was acquainted with the abortive legislation of the late Chief Secretary as to National teachers in Ireland. In that Bill the right hon. Gentleman had proposed a National rate for the benefit of the teachers. That seemed to him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) a precedent upon which they could rely, because the right hon. Gentleman belonged to the same eco- nomic school as the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), who was bearing present legislation with greater patience than they could have expected, and was confining his attention to the Stamp Duty in the Imperial taxes. If the Representatives of the people who would have to pay this rate were willing to support it before the Committee the sign was a good one, and the Committee should have no difficulty in acceding to the present demand. This question of labourers' dwellings in Ireland was really a National question. It was a question which affected the whole country. The country consisted of districts of varying prosperity, and the Irish Members thought it was only right that the tax should be equalized in the different districts by a National rate. He thought if the Irish Members were willing to pledge themselves to this proposal, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland should make no objection, but should leave them to make their peace with their constituents.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that an expression had just now fallen from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) which brought out a point he (Mr. Courtney) wished to submit to the Chairman. The hon. Member's statement was that this was a proposal to tax the whole of Ireland, and that the Irish Members agreed to it. He (Mr. Courtney) wished to know whether it was in Order for a private Member to propose to tax the whole of Ireland, and whether it was not a fact that such a proposal could not be made except on the authority of a Minister of the Crown?

THE CHAIRMAN

This is a question of rating, and I understand that such a question can be dealt with by the Committee. This is not a tax.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he would submit to the right hon. Gentleman whether the present clause was in Order, seeing that it was not applied to a certain area, but to the whole of Ireland for the purpose of levying a tax?

THE CHAIRMAN

It is evident that a rate might be imposed by the Local Authority, and in that sense I understand that it can come within the province of the Committee to deal with it.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he submitted that the argument used in favour of this clause cut entirely against it; because the object of the Bill was to put agricultural labourers into houses where there was no labour for them, and, therefore, no means for them to obtain support. The object of hon. Members who moved this clause was to take a number of men who subsisted by labour, to call them labourers, and to put them in houses to which they had no sort of title at the expense of the community.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 56: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 268.)

MR. SEXTON

said, he now begged to move the next Amendment on the Paper, which was also in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). At present, the Local Government Board in Dublin had power to say what the area charged should be; and hitherto they had exercised it in a most embarrassing manner, saying that it should be put upon the electoral division containing, at times, no more than half-a-dozen houses. To make the area the electoral division, as now proposed, would be to make it impossible to work the Act. If the Act was to work at all this Amendment should be accepted. He would urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to give this matter his favourable consideration. The clause was carried by a large majority in the Committee. It would have the effect of equalizing the rate and of preventing very small bodies of occupiers from being seriously embarrassed by the pressure of the rate upon them. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in deference to the opinion of the Irish Members, he could not see his way to accepting this clause in order to enable the Act to work? The clause was in these terms— The area upon which any rate shall he levied by a sanitary authority for the discharge of any liability incurred for the purposes of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,' or of this Act, shall be the union at large.

New Clause (Area of charge for rate levied by sanitary authority,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HAHT DYKE)

said, that this question of area was a very large one, and he did not think the Committee could accept the clause.

MR. GRAY

said, that hon. Members who represented Ireland were far more unanimous on this question in proportion to their number than were English Members, who changed the fate of Parties in this House. An enormous number of Irish Members were, and had been for years, in favour of Union rating. They were only proposing to apply in one special case in Ireland a rate they had insisted on having in England for a number of years. The rate the English Members had themselves they would not give to Ireland. He believed this Amendment to be absolutely vital to the Bill. It would be impossible to put the Bill in operation if taxation was to be put upon small areas, usually the poorest and least able to bear them in the Union. He would really ask the Government whether, seeing that this clause had been supported by a large majority in the Committee, and seeing the principle was adopted in England a long time ago, they could not adopt it, for he was sure it would have a satisfactory effect in remedying the evils they were suffering from in Ireland? He hoped that Irish Members would press this upon the Government very strongly, as he was sure that without this new clause the Bill would not work at all. If they had in Ireland a Local Government Board which really had the interest of the country at heart, and did not oppose themselves to the requirements of the districts, they would make areas which would somewhat relieve the pressure of taxation on the poorer districts. But, on the contrary, the Local Government Board always tried to restrict the areas and make them smaller than the Guardians themselves. He (Mr. Gray) was convinced that the labours of the Committee that night would be thrown away if they did not adopt this clause, because in districts where they wanted the Bill most the taxation would press with such severity on small areas that it would be impossible to carry out the intentions of the Act.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, he hoped the Government would favourably consider this Amendment. There could be no doubt it was vital to the success of the Bill, and he could not conceive upon what principle it could be resisted. For 20 years they had had Union rating in England. As he had ventured to mention before, the whole weight of official evidence in Ireland was in favour of it. The present Vice President of the Local Government Board had declared himself for Union rating on all but one point, and almost every official in Ireland connected with the Poor Law was in favour of it. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would consider this matter between now and the Report.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would see their way to accepting the principle of this clause, because if these charges were thrown upon the narrow areas of the electoral divisions, irrespective of what the population was, it would lead in many cases to an enormous increase of taxation. If, however, the same principle was carried out which existed in England, that grievance would be removed. A grievance in this matter had existed to an enormous extent in Ireland.

MR. SEXTON

said, he was very sorry that the Government seemed to raise opposition to the abstract principle of this clause, and had seen fit to discard the opinion of the Select Committee. He should like to ask whether the mind of the Government was made up? Were they open to any further argument, because he wanted to save time? If they were not, he had one more suggestion to make, which was that the area on which this rate should be levied should be fixed by the Sanitary Authority. That was a compromise—would the Government accept it?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

That is a proposition of a very different kind from the others, and we will consider it.

MR. SEXTON

What are we to hope for? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman see any objection to the proposal—is he ready to accept it?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

I cannot say. I have not had an opportunity of considering the matter, or of ascertaining the feeling in the various parts of Ireland.

MR. SEXTON

At any rate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman sees no objection to it at present?

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member propose to withdraw the clause?

MR. SEXTON

Yes; I withdraw it for the present.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

begged to move the following new Clause:—

(Compulsory powers to purchase land without investigation of title.)

"For the purposes of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1S83,' the Local Government Board may, by Provisional Order confirming any scheme under that Act, empower a sanitary authority to purchase compulsorily any lands referred to in said Order, and if no valid petition is lodged against the said Order, or if, after lodgment of a petition, the Order is confirmed, the Court shall make a vesting order transferring the interest of the owner to the sanitary authority upon such consideration as the Court may fix, and the title conferred by such vesting order shall be valid against the person from whom the land is purchased, and against all persons entitled to any incumbrance, estate, or interest in the land either paramount or subsequent to the estate or interest of such person."

He did not see why, in cases where the landlord was so well known and the matter was only a small one of a few acres, they should have to go to the expense and trouble of investigating the title.

New Clause,—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he had looked carefully into this clause. Vesting orders would not be necessary, and he did not see his way to accepting the proposal of the hon. Member.

MR. SEXTON

asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider it in the same friendly spirit that he had promised to consider the other matter?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

I do not think so.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

begged to move the following new Clause:—

(25 & 26 Vict. c. 83, s. 2, not to apply to holdings under this Act.)

"Notwithstanding the provision contained in the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth Victoria, chapter eighty-three, section two, with respect to out-door relief, it shall he lawful for any hoard of guardians to give out-door relief to any persons occupying a house erected by them in pursuance of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,' or this Act."

New Clause,—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he did not think that this Act would impose the burdens which the hon. Gentleman contemplated, and he could, therefore, see no reason for the proposed change in the law.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

said, he hoped, at all events, that his last clause would be accepted, which was as follows:—

(Power to contractors to take building materials.)

"Any contractor or other person engaged in building houses for a sanitary authority, in pursuance of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,' or this Act, shall he entitled to take and use for such purpose stones, sand, or any material requisite for building, from quarries and other places from which such materials are ordinarily supplied, paying for the same the price current for such materials in the district."

He was desirous that the contractors building houses under this Bill should have the same power to take building materials as they had under the Grand Juries, otherwise there would probably be great impediments put in their way.

New Clause,—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, it appeared to him that if a man would pay a fair price he could get what he wanted. He thought the acceptance of this clause would be introducing a very curious provision, and he did not think the Government could consent to insert it.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman was inaccurate in stating that they were introducing a novel provision, for in pre- vious Acts it had been provided that contractors should have the right of going in and buying materials at the current market price. He thought it was a very small matter, and he could not understand why the right lion, and learned Gentleman opposed it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel King-Harman) did not oppose the Amendment. [An hon. MEMBER: He will.] He would be very much surprised if even the hon. and gallant Member opposed it. They really ought to give the contractor the same power in a case such as this as they did under the Grand Juries.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was mistaken. The contractor, under the Grand Jury, had the power of obtaining materials for road-making or road-mending, but not for ordinary work such as was contemplated in this instance.

MR. CALLAN

was surprised that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, being an old Grand Juror of experience himself, should have made such a great mistake. He wished to point out to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman, through his agents, had made use of these powers to obtain these materials; and, therefore, he could not understand him objecting to the same powers being inserted in this Bill.

MR. TOTTENHAM

explained that what he had said was that they had no power to take materials for building, although they had for road repairing.

MR. SEXTON

said, he understood that that was so. All he wanted was that contractors, under this Bill, should have the same facilities for obtaining materials as they had under the Grand Juries.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, that the class of materials wanted was entirely different in these two cases. They wanted sand and stone for building, which they did not for road-making. He could not accept the Amendment.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

could not see why they should not have the same advantages for building these houses under this Bill as they had for other public work under the Grand Jury system.

Question put, and negatived.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

begged leave to move the following new Clause:—

(Outdoor relief to terminate tenancy.)

"The sanitary authority shall not permit any person who may be in receipt of outdoor relief, other than medical relief, to remain in occupation of any houses which may be built or acquired by the sanitary authority under any of the provisions of this Act."

New Clause—(Colonel King-Harman,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, that the existing law entirely met the case which this clause was intended to deal with.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.