CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 21 June 1886)

§ MR. PARNELL (Cork)
I do not know whether I shall be in Order in moving that the Amendments of the Lords be disagreed with. If I am in Order, I will do so on the ground that the chief Amendments of the Lords have practically deprived the Bill of any value for the purpose for which it was intended, and that consequently, if we were to agree to them, we should be 161 taking part in a farce. The Bill was proposed to remedy certain defects in the existing Acts. Under the original Act it was provided that there should be power for compulsory purchase; the Land Act passed in the following year provided for certain extensions, but, by an oversight of the draftsman, "compulsory purchase," with reference to these extensions, was not included. The consequence was that this part of the Act was useless; it did not include provision for compulsory purchase. Well, Sir, this Bill was introduced mainly for the purpose of providing for these deficiencies, and, as a matter of fact, Members from the North of Ireland vied with us in endeavouring to remedy the defect. But when the Bill came from "another place," it was possible for Conservative Members to throw the blame of neglecting the interest of Irish labourers in the North and South of Ireland on other shoulders, and they did so, and the landlords have taken on themselves the responsibility of rendering the Bill useless. This will be the third of the Irish Bills which we have been so fortunate as to pass through this House only to be destroyed in "another place." I desire to point out to those who think it is easy to legislate for Ireland that during this Session we have had unexampled good fortune in obtaining Wednesdays for the second reading of our Bills. I think we obtained more than five-sixths of those days on which it was possible for us to submit to the judgment of this House many most important measures for the government of Ireland; but I think we have not been able, owing to obstruction in "another place," to pass a single measure, and this notwithstanding the fact that not one of those Bills was seriously opposed in this House. [Dissent.] I think anyone who disputes this view is arguing in a manner which, on the face of it, is palpably absurd. I will not detain the House by any further enlarging on this subject; but I do not think I should be doing my duty in regard to matters of great importance if I did not move that the House disagreed with the Lords' Amendments.

§ MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)
I think the hon. Member for the City of Cork cannot have read the Amendments of the Lords to this Bill. I believe there is not a single point in the remarks of the hon. Member, with reference to this Bill, which is borne out by fact. Why, Sir, nine-tenths of the Amendments in the Bill were inserted by Lord Fitz-Gerald in the House of Lords—["No, no!"]—I believe I am right in mentioning his name as having had charge of the Bill—and those Amendments wore put in in pursuance of arrangements made in a Committee of this House. I think the hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Bill came on at a late hour throughout the whole of its course, which prevented the House fully expressing an opinion upon it; but, in addition to that, I point out that no single Amendment has been inserted in the Bill which is opposed to the Resolutions of the Committee which sat upstairs to consider it, and that, on the contrary, everything suggested by the Committee is carried into effect by the Amendments which have now come down from the House of Lords. The hon. Member actually throws overboard the work of the Committee which sat a year ago, on which eight or ten of his own Friends sat, and every one of whom was unanimous with the other Members with regard to the measure. And, further, the two clauses to which the hon. Member chiefly objects, and which I admit are opposed to what occurred in this House, are clauses which were never raised in Committee. At this hour it would be an absolute farce to go into the matter, and I can only say that if the hon. Gentleman persists in his Motion, he will, in all probability, cause the loss of the Bill, which will be deeply regretted by the Irish labourers, and afford a handle to Members on these Benches when the subject comes before the Irish constituencies, every one of whom would have been present had they had the least idea that these Amendments would be disagreed with. I protest against this course being taken in the absence of the Ulster Members. I hope the Motion of the hon. Member will not be persisted in, and that the Amendments will be considered in detail and dealt with in the spirit in which they were dealt with in Committee.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) is perfectly within his right in the course he has taken, and I think he has acted in the most effective and suitable manner in moving that the House disagree with the Amendments en bloc instead of in detail. I entirely agree with the hon. Member in thinking that some of the Amendments made to the Bill render it worthless, although we admit that there are some of a minor character which I should have advised the hon. Member to accept. Yet, Sir, I must call the attention of the House to the remarks of Lord FitzGerald in "another place." From what the hon. Member for the City of Cork has stated, I take it that Irish Members object with regard to Clause 11, which Lord FitzGerald described as the most valuable clause in the Bill, and the omission of which he would not consent to. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor took precisely the same view; and I should say, so far as the Government are concerned, that if the hon. Member for the City of Cork takes the Amendments in detail, we shall support him to the utmost of our power so far as the original clauses are concerned. There are one or two other points on which we think the Amendments of the Lords are of the most unfortunate character, inasmuch as they very much impair the effect of the Bill in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, who are the best judges of what they think suitable for Ireland. If the hon. Member goes to a division on the general question of dissenting from the Amendments as a whole, I shall go into the Lobby against him.

§ MR. SEXTON (Sligo, S.)
When the last Bill was before us in Committee, the Friends of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) were in considerable force above the Gangway, where they remained until they found they were unable to obstruct Irish Business; when they found they were not strong enough to do so, they retired altogether and left the hon. Gentleman alone. Now, Sir, we take a very strong interest in the Labourers' Bill, and we were aware that the Lords' Amendments would come on to-night. The opposition of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. 164 Brodrick), and his method of dealing with the present Bill, may be described in a very few words. He endeavours to introduce certain Amendments, and he discovers that the sense of the House is against him. [Mr. BRODRICK: I have not moved a single Amendment to the Bill.] The hon. Member put an Amendment on the Paper which he had not the courage to move, and I say that the effect of Amendments appearing on the Paper of the House of Commons was sufficient to procure their acceptance in "another place." The hon. Member for the City of Cork has moved that we disagree with the Lords' Amendments as a whole. The Lords' Amendments are numerous, some of them are complicated, and my hon. Friend is desirous of saving time. My hon. Friend stated that two or three of the Amendments were vital, inasmuch as they took all worth out of the Bill, and he is impressed with the desire not to take up the time of the House unnecessarily by going into questions of detail. There are three vital Amendments from the Lords; and to show that we are actuated by no vexatious motive, we are willing, if the three Amendments are dissented from, to abstain from opposing the rest. The first Amendment relates to the position of the agricultural labourer. By the Act of 1883 an agricultural labourer was defined to be a person who did agricultural work on the land of another person. Well, Sir, we found that if poor labourers failed for a month or a week to get agricultural work, and turned to another kind of labour, they were objected to and put outside the benefit of the Act; we found it would be impossible for any agricultural labourer so situated to satisfy the Local Board that he was entitled to the benefit of the measure. We regard this Amendment of the Lords as vital. Then the Lords strike out the clause which provides that the landlord should not claim to have more than one home farm. This was arrived at with the universal consent of the House; it was found that whenever land was wanted for the purpose of the Act the landlord always said it was part of a home farm. In the third place, the Lords have struck out the provision which allowed the Guardians to claim land compulsorily. That provision was introduced because we found that it was impossible to get the land when the 165 matter was left to agreement with the landlord. We induced this House to agree that if the labourers had not good houses the Guardians should not be under the necessity of getting land by agreement, but should be allowed to get it by compulsion. These, Sir, are the three vital points on which we object to the Lords' Amendments, and we shall prove our good faith by carrying out the proposal I have suggested.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member for the City of Cork consent to withdraw his Motion for the purpose of going through the Lords' Amendments seriatim?

§ MR. PARNELL
I think I may ask the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Brodrick) whether that course will meet with his approval? Otherwise I think it will be useless to put the House to the trouble of going through the Amendments seriatim and dividing on them.

§ MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)
I should not myself have divided the House on the first Amendment, but I consider that the Amendment on Clause 11 is one on which I should take a division. However, in the present state of the House, I shall satisfy myself by simply saying "No" on the Motion to disagree, and take the same course with regard to other Amendments.

§ MR. PARNELL
Then I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.