§ Lords Amendments considered.
MR. BRYCEsaid it might be convenient to the House to state, before the adjournment, that he proposed to accept some of the Amendments on this Bill made in another place. Some of them he did not altogether approve of, but they were not of much importance.
§
Lord's Amendment—
In page 1, line 23, to leave out ' can ' and insert 'will.'
§ Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment."
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)said he wished to shorten discussion and promote general harmony, and therefore he would be brief in his remarks. All the same he wished to say that in accepting some of the Amendments on the Bill he and those for whom he was authorised to speak felt that the House of Lords had acted in their characteristic manner in dealing with this Bill. It seemed to him that they had been willing to wound and yet afraid to strike. They had gone through the whole of the Bill and amended it here and there. They had shown their teeth but had been afraid to bite. They had made many Amendments, which he was authorised to say for the Irish National Party were vital, except one; but all of the Amendments had been made in the direction of cutting down the benefit of the provisions and rendering the Act, when passed, as unworkable as possible. The principal Amendment on the Paper was that referring to the right of appeal. The Government now proposed to have an alternative appeal and the Irish Members were willing to accept that. But there was one Amendment on the Paper which he hoped the Government would not 1139 accept, and that was in regard to advances made to labourers and the sons of labourers. It might be argued that the sons of labourers were labourers themselves and therefore it was not necessary to include them amongst those to whom advances were to be made.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Lords' Amendment—
In page 2, line 7, leave out clause 4.
MR. BRYCEsaid he desired to move that this House do not agree with the Lords' Amendment, and suggested that whilst they should restore Clause 4, they should insert in place of a month, which had been suggested, three weeks as the time for entering an appeal. He hoped it would generally be accepted as a reasonable compromise.
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid he would point out the great inconvenience of discussing these Amendments without having them on the Paper, and suggested that on future occasions those who had charge of Bills should see that that was done.
MR. BRYCEsaid the Amendments were printed but they were in the Vote Office. They had been there since four o'clock to-day.
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid it was impossible to hon. Members to know when they were ready. They could not be expected to be constantly going to the Vote Office.
§ Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Clause 4, line 7, leave out '14' in order to insert '21.' "—(Mr. Bryce.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords' Amendments down to the Lords' Amendment in page 6, line 41, agreed to.
§
Lords' Amendment—
In page 6, line 41, after 'sub-section,' insert as a new sub-seotion:—'A copy of the receipt shall, on the request of any person entitled to any estate or interest in the land in respect of which the purchase money or compensation was paid, be furnished by the council to that person.
MR. BRYCEsaid he thought this Amendment was an improvement. It would be more effective if the additional words "at their expense" were inserted. They had been suggested in another place, but they could not be inserted there as it would raise a question of privilege. He proposed that they should accept the Lords' Amendment and add the words "at their expense."
§ Lords' Amendment agreed to.
§ Question, "That the words ' at their expense' be inserted after the word ' council,'" put, and agreed to.
§
Lords' Amendment—
In page 7, line 30, to leave out Subsection (9) of Clause 11.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid that in his opinion this Amendment was an infringement of the privileges of the Commons. It would enable an arbitrator to add an additional sum for compulsory purchase which would involve an increase of rates. This was not within the competence of the Houes of Lords.
§ Lords' Amendment disagreed to.
§
Lords Amendment—
In page 7, line, 41, after 'pounds,' insert 'unless the court shall otherwise order.'
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid he had to make the same observation with regard to this Amendment which also would involve an additional charge on the rates, and therefore was not within the competence of the Lords.
§ Lords' Amendment disageed to.
§
Lords' Amendment—
In page 10, line 35, to leave out ' or by the foil of any such labourer.'
MR. BRYCEsaid he sympathised with what had been said by the hon. Member for North Dublin. He thought this was an unfortunate Amendment and regretted it had been made. But he did not think it was of much practical consequence. Owing to the shortness 1141 of the time it would be a pity to delay the Bill, which was wanted by everybody in Ireland, and therefore he would suggest the hon. Member should not insist in his motion.
§ MR. FLYNNsaid the feeling in Ireland was that these words were unfair to the agricultural labourers of Ireland, and therefore he hoped the Government would stand firm and not allow the Lords' Amendment to stand.
§ MR. SHEEHAN (Cork County, Mid.)said it was an Amendment carried on the motion of the hon. Member for Cork City. It was valuable from their point of view because it was thought it would induce young labourers to stop on the and.
§ MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)pointed out that there were several instances where labourers had been refused a cottage on the ground that they were not married. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to accept the views that had been put forward from the Irish benches.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Cherry,) Liverpool, Exchangesaid that if this Amendment of the Lords had the effect of excluding a large number of people from the benefit of the Bill he would at once agree with what had been said, but that was not his view. If a cottage was refused to a labourer on the ground that he was not married it would be quite illegal.
§ MR. SHEEHANsaid they were not referring to cottages, but to advances for untenanted land.
§ MR. CHERRYsaid they naturally did not wish to give it to a boy, but a man of twenty-one, though he lived with his father, was an agricultural labourer within the meaning of the definition of the Bill. So far as he could see, having regard to the fact that very few if any would be affected by the Amendment, it was not desirable to persist in this Motion.
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid he understood that this was a Bill for the benefit of the labourers, and if that was so every 1142 labourer would be entitled to benefit from it.
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)said that the hon. and learned Gentleman as an expert, had expressed his opinion upon this Amendment, and upon his statement he hoped the Chief Secretary would so direct the Local Government Board in the administration of this Bill. Under the circumstances he did not think they would be justified in detaining the Bill on this point.
§ Lords' Amendment agreed to.
§ Remaining Lords' Amendments agreed to.
MR. BRYCEmoved that a Committee should be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for differing from them in regard to certain Amendments which their Lordships had made in the Labourers' (Ireland) Bill. He also moved that the Committee should consist of himself, the Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Sheehan, and Mr. C. Craig.
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill
Committee nominated of—Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. James Bryce, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Charles Craig, and Mr. Sheehan.
§ To withdraw immediately.
§ Three to be the quorum.—(Mr. James Bryce.)