LABOURERS' COTTAGES AND ALLOTMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 210.) (Hansard, 10 August 1882)

§ LORD O'HAGAN,

in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had passed the House of Commons without opposition, and he hoped their Lordships would not refuse to give it a second reading. It was a measure of a limited character, but of great importance to a large class of industrious men in Ireland. By the 9th section of the Land Act of 1881, the Commissioners were empowered to provide cottages for labourers, and to allocate for their use small portions of ground on such terms and under such limits as might seem just and reasonable. It was a wise and salutary provision, necessary in the circumstances of the country, dictated by humanity, and calculated to promote order and civilization. Unfortunately, amidst the multitudinous provisions of the Act, there were two very material omissions in connection with this matter. The jurisdiction of the Commissioners arose only in contentious cases, when landlord and tenant came adversely into Court, and could not be applied when they reached an amicable agreement and filed a consent to be ratified by the Commissioners. This was the first omission, but the second was more important. The power to protect the labourer was vested in the Court, which had proved its willingness to give him the full benefit of the Statute, in many cases. But there was no penalty provided for the enforcement of their order. No doubt, as a Court of Record, they could commit for contempt and issue attachments; but it was a cumbrous remedy for disobedience, and was often inapplicable and inefficient. Plainly, there was no reason why their useful jurisdiction should not be extended to consensual as well as to contentious cases, and equally little for the non-existence of a statutable penalty adequate to the compulsion of 1344 obstinate persons, who, themselves deriving great benefits under the Land Act, strive to deny to others the advantages which they were designed to be recipients of, though in a humble way. The result had been practically that the benevolent purpose of Parliament was largely defeated, and the labourers were left too generally to repine at the want of comfort and decency in their miserable hovels. The Land Commissioners had formally complained of this in a Minute which was on their Lordships' Table. They declared that the Land Act in this essential particular could not be rightly worked without some such legislative provisions as he (Lord O'Hagan) now submitted to the House. They pressed for effective penalties, to be easily enforced in the local Courts, and for such a system of inspection as might insure the execution of the will of the Legislature. He (Lord O'Hagan) need not argue as to the propriety of complying with these authoritative demands. It was demonstrated by the action of both Houses of Parliament, in providing for the labourers' wants, and by the necessity of dealing tenderly and kindly with them, which was recognized by all who felt for a struggling class and took an enlightened interest in the peace and prosperity of Ireland. The relations between the tenant farmers and their dependents were not always so cordial as might be desired, and the weaker parties should have the full protection which the law intended to afford. This Bill endeavoured to secure it by giving the Land Court full powers, equally in all cases of the settling of fair rents, to direct the bestowal of such cottages and allotments to labourers as might be deemed suitable, provided with due regard to the capacities and interests of all concerned, and by imposing a moderate but sufficient fine for persistent defiance of its wholesome jurisdiction. It was a necessary measure, proved to be so by the experience of a considerable period, and by the testimony of the Commissioners themselves. It had been introduced into the House of Commons by men of various Parties, and commanded the unanimous approval of that House; and he confidently hoped that it would be received with equal acceptance and approval by their Lordships. The Bill of the Commons was, in his opinion, imperfect, and might re- 1345 quire, for its effectual working, a fuller enforcement of the suggestions of the Commissioners on the part of the Government; but, so far as it went, it should be utilized, as, at this period of the Session, a completer measure could not be successfully introduced. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

said, the clause in the Act of last year had been found a perfect failure, like Sanitary, Artizans' Dwellings, and similar Acts, passed with the best intention, without full examination of complicated details. Many points of difficulty would arise in the working of this Bill as it stood. What was to become of the labourer under this Bill when the house was built? Must the tenant employ the labourer? At what wages? Must the labourer work for the tenant? And if he became a pauper, to whom was he chargeable; the farmer to whom he was engaged, or the landlord, or the Union? There -was a very curious addition made to last year's Bill—namely, that the house might be built on the demand of any labourer usually employed upon the farm, who might be a very good labourer, but an undesirable tenant. Penalties for non-compliance with the Court's order were to be summarily recovered at Petty Sessions. Now, knowing something of the difficulties of cottage-building, obtaining sites, &c, he, as a magistrate, would find great difficulty in enforcing such penalties against farmers. He did not object to the second reading, for he hoped that some means might be found for improving the labourers' dwellings in Ireland; but he trusted the Bill would receive further consideration from the promoters.