HC Deb 19 March 1886 vol 303 cc1429-47

(Mr. Mayne, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Sheehy.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th March.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 9 (Extension of powers of compulsory purchase).

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

I beg to move the Amendment in this clause of which I have given Notice—namely, to insert in page 4, line 20, after the word "sanction," the words— Subject to the provisions of section six of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,' as to the nature of the lands to be taken. I do not intend to detain the Committee at any length while I explain my reasons for setting down an Amendment to this clause. It appears to me that there has been an omission in the drafting of the clause. The clause contemplates the disturbance of agricultural tenants in regard to their holdings in the event of the Sanitary Authority exercising its powers of compulsory purchase, and the provisions of the Act of 1885 are specifically referred to in the clause; but no such precautions are taken in regard to the Act of 1883. I therefore propose the Amendment with the view of supplying the omission, and to provide that the Provisional Order sanctioning the compulsory purchase shall be subject to the 6th section of the Act of 1883. My object is to protect the rights of the owners, as well as those of the occupiers, with regard to the maintenance of the residence and of the land immediately adjoining which are occupied with such residence. I do not suppose, for one moment, that those who drafted the Bill desired to introduce a principle which is totally novel to preceding legislation; and I confidently expect that hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway, who are responsible for the Bill, will consent to accept the Amendment, which simply places the provisions of this Bill in accord with the principles of the two previous Acts, and proposes to extend to the owner the benefits which the Bill intends to confer in the case of compensation upon the agricultural labourer whose occupation is disturbed.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 20, after "sanction," insert "subject to the provisions of section six of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,' as to the nature of the lands to be taken."—(Mr. Macartney.)

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

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

I understand that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) proposes to provide that in this Act the same exceptions in regard to mesne lands as exist in the original Act of 1883 should be continued. This provision was, if I remember rightly, carried at the time the Act of 1883 was passing through this House. The Amendment was moved by the ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was then Solicitor General, and agreed to by Members sitting on these Benches as a fair compromise. As a matter of fact, it was one of the Amendments agreed to on the strength of which the original Act of 1883 was passed. If, then, the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Member does not go any further than the proposition contained in the original Act I should not be disposed to object to it. But it is a matter upon which I think the hon. and learned Attorney General for England (Sir Charles Russell), who sits on the Front Bench, will be able to give us a decided opinion. Certainly, I should like to hear what the view of the Government is before accepting the Amendment, especially upon the point of law whether the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman does carry the matter any further than the Act of 1883.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, I am strongly of opinion that the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) makes no extension of the very reasonable and fair reservation contained in the Act of 1883. Believing the Amendment to be a very reasonable one I shall certainly support it.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

MR. FITZGERALD (Cambridge)

I did not quite catch the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the Committee, in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the Law Officers of the Crown, to whom we look for information in regard to points of law, have given it as their opinion that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) is carried it will not make any further extension of the provisions of the present measure as to compulsory purchase?

MR. JOHN MORLEY

What I said was that it makes no extension of the reservation contained in the original Act of 1883 in regard to mesne lands, and so forth. We are of opinion that the same reservation, containing the same powers, should be included in Clause 9 of the present Bill which is now before the Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 10 (Amendment of 48 & 49 Vic. c. 77, ss. 2 & 4).

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I beg to move the omission of Sub-section 2, which provides that "where a sanitary authority proposes to acquire lands on lease in execution of the Acts of 1883 & 1885, such lease shall be prepared by the sanitary authority."

Question, "That Sub-section 2 stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 11 (Exemption of certain premises from taxation).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 11 stand part of the Bill."

MR. SEXTON (Sligo, S.)

On the second reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman opposite objected to that part of the clause which provides that no Income Tax should be payable out of any lands, buildings, or premises acquired or built by a Sanitary Authority in execution of the Act; but I did not understand him to raise a similar objection in regard to Grand Jury cess; I would suggest, therefore, that the words "Income Tax" should be struck out of line 34, and that the rest of the clause should be allowed to stand. It is absurd to suppose that a tenant who pays, perhaps, 1s. a-week, or a rent as low as £1 or 30s. a-year, would be liable to the Income Tax.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)

The Question that the clause stand part of the Bill has already been put, and the hon. Member is too late in proposing any amendment of the clause itself.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 12 (Sanitary authority or contractor may enter on lands and take materials).

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

In moving the insertion of the Amendment which stands in my name, it is necessary that I should explain the object with which I propose it. The clause provides that the Sanitary Authority, or any person who has contracted with the Sanitary Authority for the carrying out of works provided for in an improvement scheme, shall have power to dig for and carry away gravel, stone, sand, and other materials which may be required for such works, subject to certain conditions, one of which is that the section "shall not apply in the case of any lands being an orchard, bleach-green, walled garden, haggard, or yard, or planted walk, lawn, or avenue to a mansion-house." My Amendment is to insert "demesne" after the word "lawn," in order expressly to except a demesne, as well as the other grounds specified in the sub-section. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will have no objection to accept this Amendment, which is in accordance with the spirit in which the clause has been drawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 8, after "lawn," insert "demesne."—(Mr. Macartney.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'demesne' be there inserted."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MOELEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I do not object to the Amendment. On the contrary, I think it is a fair reservation to make.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

I have now to move, in the next subsection, the insertion of the words, "or owner," after occupier. The subsection provides that the clause shall not apply in case the occupier of the lands shall not give his consent, unless and until the Sanitary Authority or contractor shall have obtained an order granting the power from a Justice of the Peace, sitting in Petty Sessions, for the Petty Sessions district within which the lands are situate. The object of the Amendment is to provide that the consent of the owner, as well as of the occupier, shall be necessary. I think the Committee will agree with me that the owner is fully as entitled to be considered, both in regard to compensation or in any arrangement that may be made, as the occupier.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 9, after "occupier," insert "owner."—(Mr. Macartney.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'owner' be there inserted."

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

I think that where the occupier of a house, or land, agrees to have his premises damaged, and materials for works or building purpose carried away, the owner might be reasonably expected to give his consent also. I believe that this is the provision which is inserted in the Land Act, the question considered being that the matter was one which more immediately affected the occupier than the owner. Surely there is every necessary safeguard if we insist upon the consent of the occupier and also the consent of the Local Authority being obtained. Precautions of that nature render the consent of the owner superfluous. I hope the hon. Member will see that the safeguards he wishes to obtain are altogether unnecessary.

MAJOR SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)

I certainly do not think that the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is an unnecessary provision, at any rate until the law is greatly changed, and the owner, at some future period, becomes dispossessed of the land. The Amendment makes the matter perfectly clear; and in the event of the land being disturbed or injured the owner will be entitled to a certain amount of compensation as well as the occupier.

MR. SEXTON (Sligo, S.)

I see no reason why the owner should not have the right of refusing his consent as well as the occupier.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)

I wish to point out that the Amendment, if inserted as it stands on the Paper, will not read grammatically. It requires the insertion of the word "or" before "owner."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 9, after "occupier," to insert the words "or owner."—(Mr. Macartney.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or owner' be there inserted."

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

It cannot be disputed that both owner and occupier will have an interest in the property; and in some instances the interest of the owner may be very considerable, whereas that of the occupier is very inconsiderable. I shall, therefore, support the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL) (Hackney, S.)

Of course, it is necessary to add the word "or" to make the Amendment intelligible.

MR. MACARTNEY

I have already accepted that Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

The next Amendment is one which stands in my name, and it is similar to the one which has just been adopted. The sub-section provides that the Sanitary Authority or contractor shall make reasonable compensation to the occupier for waste or injury committed by entering thereupon, or by breaking the surface or making a passage through the land. My proposal is to include in the provision both the owner and occupier, according to their respective interests in the property.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Does the hon. Member desire to leave out the word "but," in line 23?

MR. MACARTNEY

Yes, Sir; and to add the words, "and to the owner and occupier, according to their respective interests therein."

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I do not see how, if we are to make sense of it, the sentence will run.

MR. MACARTNEY

The sub-section will run in this way— The sanitary authority or such contractor shall make reasonable compensation to the occupier of said lands for the waste or injury committed by entering thereon, or by breaking the surface or making a passage through the lands, and to the owner and occupier according to their respective interests therein.

MR. WESTLAKE (Essex, Romford)

I would propose to omit all the words after "lands," in line 23, down to "same," in line 27; namely— But the value of any gravel, stones, sand, or materials, shall not be included in the amount of such compensation, unless same shall have been taken from any quarry or gravel-pit, bonâ fide demised to such occupier with liberty to work same.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

In the first place, we must make sense of the sub-section, as it is proposed to amend it.

MR. SEXTON (Sligo, S.)

There is an Amendment upon the same point in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who proposes to leave out "but," and to insert "and to the owner and occupier for." I think that that Amendment, taken in connection with a second Amendment in the same sub-section in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, will make the matter clear.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

The Amendments which stand in my name will make the sub-section read thus— The sanitary authority or such contractor shall make reasonable compensation to the occupier of said lands for the waste or injury committed by entering thereon, or by breaking the surface or making a passage through the lands, and to the owner and occupier for the value of any gravel, stone, sand, or materials taken.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 23, after the word. "lands," to leave out "but," and insert "and to the owner and occupier for."—(The Chief Secretary for Ireland.)

Question, "That the word 'but' stand part of the Clause," pat, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'and to the owner and occupier for,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND

I beg to move the next Amendment in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 24, leave out from "materials" to "in" in line 27, in order to insert "taken."—(The Chief Secretary for Ireland.)

Question, "That the words 'shall not be included in the amount of such compensation unless same shall have been taken from any quarry or gravel pit bonâ fide demised to such occupier with liberty to work same,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'taken' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 13 (Temporary letting of allotments), and 14 (Act to apply to pending schemes), agreed to.

MR. SEXTON (Sligo, S.)

I beg to move the insertion of a new clause, after Clause 2, to provide a definition of the term "agricultural labourer." The clause proposes, in the first place, to repeal that part of the 23rd section of the Act of 1885 which defines an agricultural labourer, and goes on to specify that the expression "agricultural labourer" shall mean a man or woman who does agricultural work at any season of the year on the land of some other person or persons, and the term shall also include a herdsman and a fisherman. I would remind the Committee that in the original Act of 1883 an agricultural labourer was defined to be a person who habitually works in agricultural work on the land of some other person; but it has been found that under that definition many persons whom it was undoubtedly the object of the Legislature to include have been excluded from the benefits of the Act. In regard to a considerable number of agricultural labourers employed in the agricultural work of some other person, it could not be proved that they worked habitually at agricultural labour, although that was their principal means of living. The definition was therefore amended in the Act of 1885, and it was made to run that the term agricultural labourer should mean "a man or woman who in ordinary seasons worked on the land of some other person or persons." Upon making inquiry, he found that even this definition still excluded a large number of persons who were virtually agricultural labourers. A good many women, and especially the widows of agricultural labourers, at certain times of the year have to accept housework; and in considering the case of Ireland hon. Members must not regard it from an English point of view, even in reference to the male sex. In England an agricultural labourer is able to find a sufficiency of agricultural work all the year round; but in Ireland the labour market is poor, and although there are many men in that country who would be glad to do agricultural work they are unable to get it to do. They find themselves compelled to resort to the quarries, or to the mending of roads, or driving cars, or any other work they can get to do; and what I want is to have the definition of an agricultural labourer so amended as to include all these persons. I hope, from the expressions which fell from several Gentlemen from the North of Ireland on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill, that they will be prepared to support the clause I move, and that there will be no opposition to it. If the object of hon. Members is to put an end to the wretched hovels which now exist in Ireland, so much to the discomfort of the inhabitants, and to prevent these persons from becoming a burden upon the ratepayers for medical relief and as inmates of the workhouse wards, they will certainly accept my clause. I have received a memorial from 52 persons in the Lurgan Union who work sometimes as agricultural labourers, but at others are not able to find that kind of work, strongly in favour of the proposal I make; and on the occasion of the second reading the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) spoke in the sense of this Amendment on behalf of the inclusion of fishermen. I think the hon. Member for North Armagh (Major Saunderson) did so also; but I do not quite recollect that the memorialists say they have been told in reply to their repeated applications that the law is not intended to apply to them at all. Their houses are wretched and unfit for habitation. They add that the Board of Guardians, of which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Waring) is the Vice Chairman, had refused to include them in the Act as agricultural labourers in consequence of their having engaged in weaving work when the farmers did not require their aid in farming operations. I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member for North Down, if he had been present at the meeting of the Board, would have attempted to modify the decision of the Board in favour of these poor hand-loom weavers. As a matter of fact, they are poor farm labourers who have been driven to go to the loom because they cannot get agricultural work. Why, then, should they not have the benefit of the Act? The principle which I desire to lay down is that the man who does agricultural work when he can get it, and any other kind of work when he cannot get agricultural work, is fully entitled to the benefit of this Act as an agricultural labourer for the 12 months of the year. I hope that it will not be necessary to prolong the debate upon the clause, but that there will be a general consensus of opinion in its favour.

New Clause:— Page 1, after Clause 2, insert the following Clause:— So much of the twenty-third section of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1885,' as defines an agricultural labourer shall be and is hereby repealed. The expression 'agricultural labourer' in the said Acts and in this Act shall mean a man or woman who does agricultural work at any season of the year on the land of some other person or persons. The term shall include a herdsman and a fisherman,"—(Mr. Sexton,) —brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

I have not much to say in opposition to the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for South Sligo (Mr. Sexton); but I do not think that the definition of an agricultural labourer which he has embodied in his new clause is sufficiently broad. I am perfectly willing to include the fishermen, although I am not of course, from my own personal experience, able to say how far they hold their houses upon a quasi-agricultural tenure. In regard to the fishermen of Ireland, I can only speak of the inland fishermen, and I know that in my own district there are a large number of fishermen who are engaged in the fisheries who hold their houses by an obligation to perform agricultural work, not at regular periods, but whenever they may be called upon by the owners of the houses. I believe there is some anxiety that this definition of an agricultural labourer should be extended, so as to cover a very large body of inhabitants in the North of Ireland who are certainly as much entitled as any class of men to come under the benefits of this Act—I refer to the hand-loom weavers. There are a large number of hand-loom weavers to whom the present definition does not apply; but I am told by the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) and by the hon. Member for Mid Antrim (Mr. O'Neill) that, nevertheless, it is the case that they hold their houses by the obligation to perform, not only at stated agricultural seasons, but whenever they are required throughout the year, farm work upon the land of the owners of their houses. I do not mean to make any general charge against the owners of these houses; but certainly, in some instances, the cottages in which these men live, to my own knowledge, are in a wretched sanitary condition, and yet they pay very exorbitant rents for the privilege of occupying them. I do not know whether the hon. Member for South Sligo will accept my amendment of this clause; but, if so, I should like to include those labourers who are occasionally employed in hand-loom weaving.

MR. SEXTON

Yes; I am quite prepared to accept an Amendment to that effect.

MR. MACARTNEY

The Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper includes fishermen as well.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)

As a point of Order, if the hon. Member for South Sligo (Mr. Sexton) accepts the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Macartney) he had better withdraw his own clause.

MR. SEXTON

No; I cannot do that, because there is another part of the clause of the hon. Gentleman to which I object; but what I am prepared to do is, after the word "herdsman," to insert "hand-loom weaver."

MR. HOLMES (Dublin University)

I beg to call attention to the circumstance that under the definition that has been given every reference to hire has been left out. We know that it is in the power of small farmers to employ their sons and relatives as labourers; and if that is done it will be possible for the Local Authority to provide houses for such persons, together with an acre of land. Such a thing was not contemplated by the former Act, and I am quite certain the Committee do not wish it to take place.

MR. SEXTON

Insert the words "for hire" after the word "work" in the Amendment.

MR. FITZGERALD (Cambridge)

I fear that this Amendment may be made the means by which the land will once more be saddled with a payment which ought to be borne by those who do not pay the taxation on the land. I do not intend to make any Motion on this matter; but I think it right that the Committee should be reminded that the land may be saddled with yet one more tax.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "To amend the Amendment by inserting after the word 'work' the words 'for hire.'"

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

I beg to move to amend the Amendment by leaving out "and a" in the last line, and inserting after "fisherman" the words "and a hand-loom weaver."

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH (Bristol, W.)

I do not wish to enter upon a discussion on this matter; but I should like to ask some information upon it from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. John Morley). The clause as it stands extends the benefit of this Act to herdsmen and fishermen; but suppose a fisherman does no agricultural labourer's work, will the clause include him under those circumstances, or does it not? Does it include a hand-loom weaver who does no agricultural work, or does it not?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND

They must, for a certain time in the year, carry on the business of an agricultural labourer.

MR. SEXTON

I suppose the right hon. Gentleman does not wish it to be understood that a herdsman is to be excluded from the Act unless he does some kind of agricultural labouring as well.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I would suggest that the difficulty could be met by adding at the end of the Amendment the words "doing agricultural work as aforesaid."

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

I do not think that the Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General would do as applied to herdsmen. The contention is that a herdsman should come under the Act by virtue of the work he does as a herdsman.

MR. SEXTON

The suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman would exclude herdsmen who were not agricultural labourers as well.

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

Would it not be more simple to add after "herdsman" "and also to?"

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I think it is impossible to make that Amendment now. We have got beyond that.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell me whether a herdsman is not already an agricultural labourer? Would it not be quite enough to say "fisherman and weaver," and omit the word "herdsman" altogether?

MR. SEXTON

I should say that it is quite necessary to include "herdsman." No Local Government official in Ireland would believe that "agricultural labourer" included "herdsman" unless he was told so by Act of Parliament.

An hon. MEMBER: Is a man engaged in road making included in the term "agricultural labourer?"

MR. SEXTON

No; that is not included.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I think there will be some difficulty amending the Amendment as suggested.

MR. SEXTON

Then, Sir, I think I will leave the matter over to the Report.

New Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON (Sligo, S.)

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley) is probably not aware that an electoral division is always made the area of charge. That is the smallest area that can be found; but he may be surprised to hear that in some electoral divisions there are not so many as 12 ratepayers. In the Killalone Division, for instance, there are fewer than 12 ratepayers living. What I propose now, by the clause which I am about to move, is this—that where there are less than 12 ratepayers living, six of them may make a representation; or, if they do not like to proceed in that way, any three of them may apply to the Board of Guardians to amalgamate two or more divisions. I beg to move the clause.

New Clause:— (Representation to authority by ratepayer.) Where a sanitary authority has resolved that the electoral division shall be the area of charge for the purposes of the said Acts and of this Act, and where a representation is made to such sanitary authority in respect of any electoral division in which not more than twenty ratepayers are resident, then, in such case, the representation, if signed by six ratepayers, shall be received and acted upon by the sanitary authority, and shall be in all respects as valid and effectual as if it had been signed by twelve ratepayers, as prescribed by section five of "The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883:" Provided also, That three ratepayers in any such electoral division may apply to the Local Government Board to amalgamate such division with one or more contiguous divisions, subject to the same sanitary authority, and the Local Government Board may order that such divisions shall constitute one division for the purposes of the said Act and of this Act, —(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I confess that I do not see how this clause would work, because the effect is to reduce the number of signatories from 12 to 6. That is to say, that you have a variable number of signatories in accordance with the extent of the area of charge; but what are the means of knowing that the area of taxation would happen to be the electoral division?

MR. SEXTON

The Clonmel Board of Guardians have passed a resolution that the electoral division shall always be the area of charge, and therefore we know beforehand.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND

That may be so; but to fix the area is the first step, and how can we arrange for the last step to be taken before they have taken the first? It appears to me that the Amendment is open to objection; but as, according to the Census of 1881, there are only thre6 divisions with fewer than 30 ratepayers, I think it can do no harm.

MR. SEXTON

I think I can show that the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman are unfounded. He will see from the first part of my Amendment that it will not apply when there is a matter of doubt at the commencement of the proceedings.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. MULHOLLAND (Londonderry, N.)

I beg to move, after Clause 2, to insert the following clause:— So much of the fourth section of "The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883," as permits the sanitary authority to postpone their decision as to passing a Resolution, shall be and is hereby repealed, and instead thereof it is hereby enacted as follows: The sanitary authority shall pass a Resolution within three months of the receipt of a representation. The reason I have in bringing this Amendment before the Committee is that I am aware that in many parts of Ireland the Local Authorities seem unwilling to bring the Act into operation. They put every obstacle in the way. They postpone the discussion of it from time to time, and in many parts of Ireland the Act has been almost a dead letter. The clause which I now propose to introduce into the Bill is simply to prevent undue delay in carrying out the provisions of the Act. The Committee will see that this Amendment does not interfere in any way with the free control over the Acts by the Local Authorities—it simply prescribes the time within which they must come to a resolution; and I contend that three months is quite sufficient time for them to make all the necessary inquiries and come to a decision. I do not think I need say any more on this matter, but will leave the Amendment in the hands of the Committee.

New Clause (Repeal of s. 4 of "Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,) — (Mr. Mulholland,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

The existing Act has expressly made provision for this power, and I do not see why this Amendment should have been brought forward.

MR. SEXTON (Sligo, S.)

I have no doubt that the hon. Member means well to the labourers. But my impression is that, if this Amendment were inserted, a Board of Guardians who were inclined to dawdle over a scheme would be forced into an adverse decision if we confined them to three months; and that would certainly not be in the interest of the labourers.

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

This Amendment would prevent the Local Authorities from postponing their decision on the representation at all. That portion of Sub-section 4 which the hon. Gentleman proposes to repeal provides that the Sanitary Authority may postpone the passing of a resolution. That is the section which the hon. Member proposes to repeal; but if that is done; it will prevent them postponing their action on these matters at all, even from one meeting to another. Therefore I think that the first part of this Amendment is very strongly objectionable. The second part of the clause would also be objectionable, because I do not see the necessity of preventing the Board from postponing their decision for more than three months, if they like to do so.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

I quite admit that the Sanitary Authority ought to be allowed a reasonable time—say even six months—to consider their scheme, which might entail a considerable charge upon the ratepayers of the district who would have to discharge it; but I am bound to say that throughout Ireland there has been a very considerable amount of dawdling. While not agreeing, therefore, with some portion of my hon. Friend's Amendment, which is open to objection, still I think the question is one which is well worthy of the consideration of the Government.

MR. MULHOLLAND

Before proceeding further with the Amendment I should like to know from the Law Officer of the Government whether, if the Amendment were passed, it would prevent the Sanitary Authority from postponing their decision from time to time within the three months?—because I had no intention of doing that. If that were to be the effect of the Amendment I should be pleased to alter it.

MR. SEXTON

The first part of the clause of the hon. Gentleman would be governed by the second. The more I consider the clause, in fact, the plainer it seems to me that the effect of it would be to defeat the operation of the Act. If you leave it to the discretion of men and say—"We leave it to you to do what you think best," there would be a tendency to do something useful; but if you say—"Either you must do something in three months, or do nothing at all," the irresistible tendency would be to do nothing at all. I am certain that if this clause were adopted there would be fewer schemes carried out than would otherwise be the case.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. TUITE (Westmeath, N.)

I beg to move the insertion of the new clause which stands on the Paper in my name, as follows:— Any petition against a Provisional Order, as provided by section twelve, sub-section B, of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1885,' shall state whether the objection in said petition is to the entire Order, or only to a part thereof, and if only to a part shall specify the particular part to which exception is taken. If, on the hearing of any such petition, it should appear to the Privy Council that said; petition was presented without reasonable cause, the costs of such petition, and all proceedings in connection therewith, may be awarded against the person or persons presenting said petition. As the Act at present stands, the petitioner is not bound to specify the part of the Order to which he objects. The Board of Guardians have to prepare and sustain the entire Order.

New Clause—(Petition against Order to specify what is objected to,)—(Mr. Tuite,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY) (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

The first paragraph of the clause is entirely unobjectionable, as, of course, the petitioner ought to specify what is objected to. But the second paragraph, whilst not unjust, is certainly not necessary. It goes on the assumption that it is requisite that Parliament should confer power to award costs against petitioners in cases where they have acted without reasonable cause. If the hon. Member will refer to the Act of 1885, Sub-section 6 of the 12th section, he will see that an order respecting costs will be enforcible as if it were an order of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. The question of awarding the costs of all parties is in the discretion of the tribunal that hears the petition.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Does the hon. Member withdraw the clause?

MR. SEXTON

No; only the second paragraph.

Clause amended, by leaving out the second paragraph; as amended, read a second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be taken into Consideration upon Monday next."

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

I wish to say a word on that question. There are a considerable number of Amendments to the Bill, and surely the hon. Member will put off the next stage to a later date than Monday. I would beg to move that the Report stage be adjourned until Thursday, and that the Bill, as amended, be printed.

Amendment proposed, by leaving out the word "Monday," in order to insert the word "Thursday."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

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

MR. SEXTON

If I might be allowed to explain, I would point out that the Amendments to the Bill are very few, and that they were made with the assent of the House.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member press his Motion?

MR. SEXTON

Yes, Sir.

MR. BRODRICK

I move that it be taken into consideration on Thursday.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH (Bristol, W.)

I hope the House will not divide on this subject. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley), seeing that there is some desire for the Report stage to be postponed a little longer, will use his influence to get it put off to Thursday.

MR. SEXTON

Let us divide the difference and say Tuesday.

MR. FITZGERALD (Cambridge)

Though it is true all the Amendments we have made in the Bill were agreed to by the whole Committee, we did not understand exactly how they read when we passed them. Either through the fault of the hon. Gentleman who drafted the Amendments, or the mistake of the Clerk at the Table, most of the Amend- ments, after having been thrashed out across the floor of the House, were found not to be in the English language. Let us make the day Thursday.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

I desire the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) thoroughly to understand that there is no disposition on the part of the House to delay or obstruct the Bill. My hon. Friend only desires time to see what the Amendments are.

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

Owing to the way in which the Question will have to be put, it does not seem to me that it will be possible to amend the Motion by putting Tuesday in the place of Monday. The method of putting the Question may prevent the opportunity of further discussion on Tuesday.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) withdraw his Amendment?

MR. BRODRICK

No; I move Thursday.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

May I just say that, as the hon. Member has not divided the House, I propose not to take the Report until Tuesday.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.