HC Deb 11 August 1885 vol 300 cc1840-54

Bill, as amended, considered.

COLONEL NOLAN

proposed the following new Clause:— Any owner may enter into an agreement with one or more of his tenants to let to him or them a portion or the whole of any grass or mountain farm conditionally on the Land Commissioners approving of the sale of such land to such tenant or tenants; and, should the Commissioners approve of this agreement, the tenant or tenants will be considered the occupying tenants of such land for the purposes of this Act: Provided, That such portion does not exceed thirty acres of grass or fifty acres of mountain land for any one tenant. The Commissioners may make rules to enable tenants to be treated as the occupying tenants of a grass or mountain farm which the landlord may wish to sell to them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, he had modified the Amendment since last night by restricting its operation, and he hoped that in its present shape the Government would be able to accept it. The operation of the clause could not be considered injurious to any proprietor, because it simply amounted to this—that when land was being sold the tenants on it could buy a small bit of land which was not in their own occupation. The want of a few acres of grass land was very keenly felt by the people of Gal-way and Mayo, and it was on their behalf he proposed this clause.

New Clause (Purchase of grass farms)—[Colonel Nolan,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be added to the Bill."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, by this Bill it was proposed to make advances to tenants to enable them to purchase their holdings. By this clause, however, it was suggested that persons should receive money for the purpose of purchasing grass land which they did not occupy. Such a suggestion was entirely outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore could not be accepted.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, it appeared to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was, to say the least of it, straining the matter very severely when he argued that the suggestion was outside the purview of the Bill. He (Colonel King-Harman) maintained that it was not. He would, however, very much prefer the Amendment which he had put on the Paper to that of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). He was quite persuaded that a landlord might be quite ready to sell a small portion of good land adjoining the tenant's holding, or it might be a portion of bog land from which the tenant could obtain a supply of fuel, a commodity which was not very valuable to the landlord, but of great value to the tenant; besides, in course of time the tenant might make the bog land itself valuable. He really could not see any objection to the clause. He knew that when his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) brought the clause up on a previous occasion there was an idea that it meant the breaking up of grass land. His impression was that, so far from that being the case, the operation of the clause would very much improve grass lands. He knew, and everybody must know, that a few acres of grass land would make everything to a tenant whose holding now was scarcely big enough for him to live upon.

MR. SEXTON

thought that this was strictly a matter which could be dealt with by the Bill. If they stuck strictly by legal ideas in carrying out this Bill, what would happen? The tenants would only get agricultural holdings; and without the grazing rights they had hitherto had their holdings would be of very little use to them. He thought his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) would do well to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman), which appeared to be very terse and clear, and to meet the necessities of the case; because if a landlord and tenant combined together in this matter, no doubt it would have an effect on the Land Commission, who would be more inclined thereby to take the question into consideration.

MR. O'SHEA

appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman). There was no doubt that unless this Amendment, or an Amendment in the same sense was accepted, a great deal of land that ought to be sold, and would otherwise be sold, would be absolutely unsaleable. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had spoken about Mayo and Galway. He (Mr. O'Shea) could also speak about Mayo. He knew many properties in that county on which it would be very difficult indeed to make arrangements with tenants unless they could arrange with regard to grass land. In County Clare there were a great many properties on which it would be even more difficult than on those in Mayo to make sales unless some such Amendment as that under consideration was accepted. He had got some land in County Clare which it would be impossible to sell unless he could cut up the mountain grazing and bog amongst his tenants. With the exception of two or three, it would not be worth the while of the tenants unless they could buy mountain land for grazing purposes in the portions they required. He did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) had placed himself in a position to speak as strongly as he had done on this subject. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had had time to take the opinion of many of those he represented he would have found them as strong in favour of an Amendment like that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel King-Harman) as the hon. and gallant Gentleman was himself. Unless the Government accepted the Amendment they would find that in a great many instances—in more instances than they imagined—the Bill would be absolutely inoperative.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

thought this question was one that came well within the scope of the Bill, and one which the Government ought to accept if they wanted the Bill to be workable.

MR. HEALY

took a similar view. He would make an appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was really worth while keeping up this discussion? When there was so much agreement on all sides of the House on this point, it was a shame that they should be put off with, a mere technical objection by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes). They were meeting the Government in an exceedingly fair manner, because there were many points that the Irish Members would like to discuss if it were not for the late period of the Session. The Government must confess that they bad given them very much indulgence in order to enable them to go on with the Bill; and he hoped, therefore, that they would gracefully accept this Amendment.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET)

said, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, who could not speak again, bad asked him to express on his behalf his very great regret that he could not accept this Amendment. It had been very carefully considered not only by his right hon. and learned Friend, but also by Lord Ashbourne, who had originally considered this Bill. His right hon. and learned Friend would have been very glad if he could have accepted it. What he felt, and the ground upon which his objection rested, was this—that the Amendment would be a departure from the principle of the Bill, which was to advance money to the actual tenant of a holding. This was a proposal to advance money to a person who was not the actual tenant of the holding. If the landlord wanted to see to these people he could easily do so. It was not through unwillingness that they could not accept the Amendment, but because they bad very carefully considered it, and found that they could not approve of the scheme it involved.

MR. MOLLOY

said, he did not consider that a single reason bad been advanced for not accepting the Amendment. Lord Ashbourne might have considered the matter; but then all the Irish Members in that House without dissent agreed that it was not only a useful, but a necessary clause. Let him take the case of his district. The refusal to accept this Amendment would take nine-tenths of the land of King's County out of the operation of the Bill. It was nearly all bog, which was not included in this Bill, and the tenants could not take advantage of the Bill, because if they did they would have to give up their right to cut bog. While the Go- vernment declared that this Bill was brought in on behalf of the landlord and tenant equally—although they might have different opinions on that subject—they absolutely refused to pass a clause which would enable them to agree. The result of this would be that this Bill would be of no use to the tenants in his county. They would not give up the right to cut bog, and, therefore, the Government were depriving the people they said they desired to improve of the whole benefits of the Bill. Let them look back for a minute to former legislation on this and kindred subjects. The Irish Members had pressed them over and over again in regard to matters of this sort, but had been persistently refused. What was the result? Why, the result was this—that they were there again after five years to remedy the obvious mistakes that they had made up to this time. Still they refused this Amendment, although nobody could find any reason for refusing. Could they find a single Irish Member in that House who would support them in their refusal? They said that the matter had been considered by Lord Ashbourne and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General for Ireland); but he would ask them if they would put the opinions of those two Gentlemen against the opinions of all the Irish Members? While the Irish Members were doing their best to help them they were still obstinate in their refusal; and all be could say was that, as far as his county was concerned, they were simply cutting the tenants in that county out of all the benefits contained in the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be added to the Bill."

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

(speaking seated, with head covered): May I ask the Government whether, if they reject this Amendment, they will accept mine which follows?

MR. SPEAKER

The bon. and gallant Member is only entitled to speak at this point upon a point of Order.

The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 40: Majority 21.—(Div. List, No. 288.)

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, that after the determined opposition of the Government he would not move his Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES),

in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 22, after "1881," to leave out to the end of the sub-section, said, the object of it was this—the sum of £2,000 was inserted in the Bill in Committee, subject to the consideration of the Government, who were to look into the matter. They found that, in the last Act, the sum fixed was £3,000, with power to the Commissioners to raise it to £5,000, if they thought fit. Her Majesty's Government now thought it would be better to alter the sum to what it was in the old Act.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, to leave out from "1881," to end of Sub-section (a).— (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said sub-section."

MR. SEXTON

said, he wished to point out that the sum of £3,000 would enable the Commissioners to advance money for the purchase of holdings, the rents of which were £150; but if they put it at £5,000 they would make it possible to advance money for the purchase of holdings at rents of £250 per annum. He hardly thought that the Bill was intended for such largo tenants as that, and he thought that even the Land Commissioners ought hardly to have the power of advancing money in such cases. He would not press his suggestion to a division; but he recommended it to the consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he was willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words "two thousand pounds."— (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

Question, "That the words 'three thousand pounds' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. HEALY moved, in page 1, line 24, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words— And provided that if the landlord agrees to sell to any person "who has been evicted on his estate the word 'tenants 'in this section shall include any such person. There was no greater eyesore in the country at the present time than the number of tenants who had been evicted, and they were the cause of all the mischief which took place, and for that reason he moved his Amendment. If the Government would consent to accept it, they would do away with a great deal of the trouble which existed. It would put an end to a great deal of the distress of the people, to the shooting of caretakers, to the houghing of cattle, and to all those evils which had been a running sore throughout the country for years.

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

regretted that this was an Amendment to which he must object. The principle of the Bill was to deal with existing tenants, and an evicted tenant was not a tenant. It was already possible for the landlord to reinstate a tenant in the possession of his farm, in order to deal with him under this Bill; and, therefore, this Amendment was unnecessary.

MR. O'SHEA

pointed out that the reinstatement of the tenant by the landlord would be a very roundabout way of dealing with, the matter. Suppose, moreover, the landlord reinstated an evicted tenant, and the sale was not effected, he would still be a tenant, and could appeal to the Court for the purchase.

MR. SEXTON

recognized that the Government had made a good start by attempting to govern Ireland with the ordinary law, and they would see what would happen during the coming winter. He should have thought, however, that they would have done well by accepting this Amendment, which would have removed one of the most perilous elements in the country during the winter. Seeing that they had replaced coercion with the ordinary law they would have done a wise thing to have made this concession.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

was bound to say that he should oppose this Amendment. It seemed to him to be an absurd thing to say that the State should trust a man whose only claim to be trusted was that he had not paid his rent, and had been very properly evicted in consequence. It would raise a very bad feeling indeed amongst the honest tenants if they saw these people put in as State tenants on as good, terms as they themselves obtained.

MR. DAWSON

thought the Government should put in this Amendment as an intimation to the landlords, who had so much to do with the government of Ireland, that they had commenced a new era in the administration of that country. If they desired the success of their Bill they certainly would insert it, and he had no doubt they would eventually have to thank the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) for having suggested it. The hon. and learned Member had put his mark on another Act, and if his suggestions had been more fully carried out they would not be in the position they were in now. If they put a "Healy Clause" in this Bill they would probably make it a success.

MR. P. J. POWER

merely rose to corroborate what had fallen from his hon. Friends. He thought that if a good many of these people had the power of appealing to the Courts they would be able to prove that they were evicted for the non-payment of impossible rents. They ought to accept the Amendment. There were many difficulties in the way of carrying out the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, because if once reinstated the tenant might double on the landlord, and place him in a very false position. As another hon. Member had pointed out also, it was in the interest of peace during the coming winter that they asked for this proposal to be accepted.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

really thought the Government ought to accept this Amendment. If the landlord had to replace the evicted tenant in the position of an existing tenant before he could deal with him he would be placing himself in a very false position, because the Land Court might not, after all, allow the purchase money. It would be a very hard thing, under those circum- stances, that they should saddle the landlord with a tenant whom he had previously had to evict.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

hoped that hon. Members would not prolong this discussion. It was now 3 o'clock in the morning—

MR. HEALY

We did not begin until 2. We were waiting all that time.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that if hon. Members wished to persevere with the proposal he would be perfectly willing to adjourn the debate; but in that case the Bill would have to take its chance. All these points had been raised in Committee——

MR. HEALY

Never before; never mentioned before.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that at all events a great many things had been discussed in Committee, and had been then decided. His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had prepared Amendments to meet all the points that were then raised, and was ready to move them; but if new Amendments were to be raised it appeared to him that they would never finish the discussion of the Bill. He would make an appeal to hon. Members in the most friendly spirit to conclude this debate, which he thought had been very inconveniently prolonged for all of them.

MR. MOLLOY

said, the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not quite fair to Irish Members. They had waited through the night until the Bill was reached, and when the right hon. Gentleman complained of new Amendments he should remember that they now heard the Government Amendments for the first time, and had at once to weigh and seriously consider them. These Amendments were half promised by the Attorney General for Ireland when the Bill was in Committee; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had minimized the demands Irish Members made, and the fulfilment of the promises he gave. Certainly on this particular point he agreed they should take a division for their own sakes, to have it on record that they made this offer and it was refused.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he was exceedingly sorry the Government had taken up this position. They had the opportunity, in a very simple way, to do a great good and avoid a great evil. What harm could come of the Amendment? Landlords need not treat with their evicted tenants unless they chose; there was no compulsion; it was only giving them the chance of doing so. The hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) said if this were done it would be putting on a level men who had paid their honest debts and those who had not. That amounted to a statement that all the evicted tenants were dishonest men who refused to pay their just debts; but that was a statement he altogether denied. Collectively those tenants were as honest as any in the land; but they failed to pay exorbitant rack-rents—dishonest claims, though legally exacted—and so they were evicted from their holdings. In this lay an evil and danger to society in Ireland, and he was surprised that the Government had not grasped this mode of dealing with it harmlessly, without injury to any class in the country. He hoped it was not too late to appeal to the Government to reconsider their determination. No class could reasonably object if the Government seized this opportunity to settle a great difficulty. The more he thought of it, the better and simpler the proposal seemed. Upon the Government must rest the responsibility of needlessly refusing a simple proposition which, if accepted, would produce excellent effects in Ireland from every possible point of view.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 45: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 289.)

Clause 3 (Deposit of money as guarantee fund).

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 16, leave out from "until," to "and," and insert— They ascertain by order declaring that the person applying for the advance has paid to the Commissioners a sum equal to the guarantee deposit.

Line 24, after "yet," insert— Such order shall not be made unless the Land Commission have exercised any power for the sale of the holding which they may legally exercise, and have failed to realise by such sale such sums due to them, or unless it ap- pears that they attempted to exercise such powers of sale and were unable to do so.

Line 25, after "Commission," insert" thereupon."

Clause 5 (Purchase of estates and holdings).

Amendment proposed, In line 37, after "thereof," insert—" Provided such purchase of estate shall only be made if the Land Commission are reasonably satisfied that four-fifths of the value of the holdings will be purchased. This provision may be relaxed on special grounds with the consent of the Treasury, but only when the Land Commission are reasonably satisfied that holdings of not less than three-fourths in value will be purchased."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

MR. SEXTON

said, the argument of the previous night was that a small number of tenants might coerce the majority of tenants, who, from one cause or another, were unwilling to enter into negotiations for purchase; and if the Land Commission could induce four-fifths in value of the tenants to buy them, the remainder would have to submit to the transfer of the power over them from one landlord to another. The advent of a new landlord was a thing Irish tenants did not regard with any confidence. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest any qualifying words?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he would agree to making the proportion four-fifths in value and number.

Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Amendment, after "value," insert "and number."

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment proposed, after "value," in last line but one, insert "and number."

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, At end of line 37, to add—" And in every such transaction of the purchase of an estate or holding that the Land Commission shall retain not less than one-fifth of the purchase to satisfy the purposes of the guarantee deposit as defined by section 3 of this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, if the hon. Member would strike out the words "or holding "he had no objection to the remainder.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to omit the words "or holding."

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Sales of residues).

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 24, to leave out the words "do not," and insert "cannot."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 (Vesting order in lieu of conveyance).

MR. SEXTON

said, it was of importance that the Commission should not sell to other than tenants above a certain portion of the estate. Could a Proviso in that direction be inserted?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, it was impossible to do that. It had been already settled in the 5th clause under what conditions the Land Commission could purchase. They could only purchase when satisfied that four-fifths of the tenants were willing to buy, and it was obvious the remaining fifth must be sold in some way.

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendments made:—Page 5, line 2, after "purchaser," insert "free from all charges if the vesting order so declare; "line 2, to leave out" rights and easements; "line 4, leave out "rights and easements."

Clause 9 (Charges and rights subject to which the sale may be made).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, he proposed to strike out the words "with the assent of the purchaser." The words were inserted by the late Attorney General, and in themselves were unobjectionable; but looking at the matter carefully a lawyer might hold that they might have the effect of injuring the title of the purchaser. That was the only reason; and his attention had been called to it by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy).

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 24, after the word "fit," to leave out the words "with the assent of the purchaser."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

MR. SEXTON

said, he was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Derry (Mr. Walker) was not present, because he attached importance to the words, which he held to be a protection for the purchaser against the insertion of certain conditions attaching to the holding.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 (Sales to be for a gross sum. Stamp duty.)

On Motion of Colonel KING-HARMAN the following Amendment made:—Page 8, line 15, after "Act" insert— And shall transmit copies thereupon to the Clerk of the Peace of the county in which the holding is situated for the purpose of local registration.

Clause 15 (Injunction to put purchaser in possession).

MR. SEXTON

said, the clause provided that the Land Commission, having exercised their power as mortgagees over the sale of the holding, should proceed to exercise the functions of a tribunal to the extent of issuing an order to the Sheriff for the purpose of putting the purchaser in possession. Surely that was an excessive concentration of power.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 3, to leave out the words "or the Land Commission."— (Mr. Sexton.)

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

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he hoped the Government would not agree to this Amendment in a hurried manner. He did not see why the Land Commission should not exercise these functions. That the Bill had been drawn with great care was the reason put forward against important and useful Amendments on the previous night.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, it was impossible that the draftsman could observe the consequences of every point. It certainly would be an anomaly that the plaintiff in an action should issue the order, and the clause provided the alternatives of the High Court of Justice and the County Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 (Additional members and officers of the Land Commission).

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendment made:—Page 9, line 19, leave out "Lord Lieutenant may from time to time by order direct that;" line 21, after "Act," leave out "or such Member or Members of the Land Commission as he thinks fit."

Amendment proposed, In line 23, to insert:—" Provided, That the Lord Lieutenant may from time to time orde that such additional Members of the Land Commission shall perform such other duties as they would have performed if named in the Statute ' Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' as Members of the Land Commission other than Judicial Commissioners."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

MR. SEXTON

said, this appeared to carry out, so far as it went, the understanding arrived at in Committee that the new Commissioners should help in the work of the old Commissioners; but a litigant should have the power of claiming the assistance of the Judicial Commissioner.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)

said, this was provided later on.

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendments made:—Page 9, line 24, leave out from the beginning of the line to "may," and insert "additional Commissioners or either of them; "and in line 26, after "by," leave out "him," and insert "them or either of them."

Line 27, after "Land Commission," insert— Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained any person interested shall be entitled to require that any question of law arising under this Act shall be heard and determined by a Judicial Commissioner sitting with the said additional Commissioners.

Clause 17 (Officers of Landed Estates Court may be transferred to or serve as officers of the Land Commission).

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendments made:—Page 10, line 4, after "Act" insert "to the Land Judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court or;" page 9, line 41, after "the" insert "said," and leave out from "Land Judges" to "may," in line 42.

Clause 18 (Receivership jurisdiction of the Land Judges).

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendment made:—Page 10, line 15, after "justice," insert "or any Judge or Judges of the Court of Bankruptcy."

Clause 20 (Rules).

At end, insert— The forms and tables shall be settled and the orders adapted by the Land Commission for the purposes of this Act.

Clause 21 (Repeal of provisions inconsistent with this Act).

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendment made:—Page 10, line 28, leave out from "so" to "so" in line 34, and insert— Notwithstanding anything contained in the 48th section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, to the contrary, any person aggrieved by a decision may, on a question of law or procedure under this Act, appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, and.

Clause 25 (Saving for the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881. 44 and 45 Vict. c. 49.)

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendment made:—Page 12, line 37, leave out the second paragraph.

Clause 26 (Interpretation).

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendment made:—Page 13, line 13, at end, add— The expression 'tenant' shall include tenants holding under fee farm grant.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Motion agreed to. (Queen's consent signified).

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.