§ House in Committee, according to Order.
§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3:—
§ LORD NORTONMy Lords, I have an Amendment to move to this clause, which deals with the conditions under which a house purchased by means of an advance under the Bill shall be held. The Bill, on this important point, is in the teeth of the general legislation of the country, and my Amendment will provide that any house or land which a local authority may become possessed of by default in complying with the provisions of the Bill, or breach of its conditions, shall, as soon as possible, be sold for the best price that could be obtained for the same. The principal Act which touches the subject is the Act of 1875, which deals extensively with local authorities becoming possessors of land. That Act compels local authorities who purchase land for a special purpose to immediately sell that land which exceeds the amount absolutely required, the principle being that local authorities should not be holders of real property in their boroughs. The section, the addition of which I am moving as an Amendment, is a reproduction of the words of the Act of 1875, with the addition of a proviso that the original owner of the house or land shall have the first option of purchase. The Colonial Secretary, who is the author of the Bill, has obtained a private Act for his own city, by which the condition of a forced sale is abolished, and the local authorities enabled to become the owners. It is evident, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman takes a very different view from that which I take; but I believe, nevertheless, that the addition of some such provision as that in the Amendment is in the interests of the country and the people. It has been said that the original owner has no claim of re-entry. I quite agree on that point, but I contend that it is in 195 the interests of the inhabitants of the boroughs that he should, if possible, repurchase the land which for benevolent purposes he had parted with. I feel that the interests of our boroughs are very much in the hands of the large private proprietors, who are the only people who can carry out large extensive improvements affecting the interests of the whole of the inhabitants. The powers of these local authorities are being multiplied very rapidly, and they now possess functions for the exercise of which they were not intended. They have already got permission to promote and oppose Bills in Parliament. That is to say, they have already got considerable powers of affecting legislation, and they are now ambitious to become proprietors of real land in their districts. There seems to be no limit to the ambition of the local authorities, and if they are given the power of becoming possessed of freehold property, the amount of patronage they will have at their disposal will bring most of the inhabitants of a town into their pay, and so make them locally omnipotent. I can hardly think your Lordships would consider that a desirable result. When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) said the measure was so complicated that it would not be likely to operate. I think it is a bad defence of any Bill to say it is so drawn and so complicated that it is not likely to come into operation. It does not seem to me that the Bill is drawn in the interests of the working classes, because their interests are mobile. It is a doubtful thing whether public loans can be usefully employed in enabling working men to purchase houses, which would compel them to live in one particular spot. With regard to my proviso, I do not know what objection there can be to saying that the original owner of the house should have the first option of re-purchase when the local authority becomes possessed of the house by default in complying with the provisions of the Act. I have heard that there would be a difficulty in working this proviso, but I cannot see how any difficulty can arise. If the condition of a forced sale is not put in, and local authorities are enabled to become owners, opportunities will be given for jobbery. I am thoroughly opposed to this Americanisation of our local institutions, and I hope your Lordships will adopt my Amendment, es- 196 pecially as the principal Acts now on the Statute Book dealing with this question are hostile altogether to the possession of real property by local authorities, beyond that which is absolutely necessary for special purposes.
§
Amendment moved—
In Clause 3, page 3, line 33, after 'bankruptcy,' to insert, '(6.) Any house or land which a local authority may become possessed of by default in complying with the provisions of this Act, or breach of its conditions, shall, as soon as possible, be sold for the best price that can be gotten for the same; and the original owner thereof shall have the first option of purchasing it.'"—(The Lord Norton.)
§ * THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (the Earl of SELBORNE)My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment is evidently afraid that, under the Bill, the opportunity for speculating in house property will be given to the local authorities. I would ask your Lordships very particularly to bear in mind that a local authority can never, under any circumstances, act by way of speculation under this Bill. For the local authority to appear at all, it is necessary for a man, who can prove that he is a bonâ fideresident occupier, to go to the local authority and ask them to assist him to become the owner of his house. The Bill, in Clause 3, prescribes that where the ownership of a house has been acquired by means of an advance under the Bill, the house shall, until such advance with interest has been fully paid, or the local authority have taken possession or ordered a sale under the Bill, be held subject to various conditions. Sub-Clause 3 provides that, where default is made in complying with the Statutory condition as to residence, the local authority may take possession of the House, and where default is made in complying with any of the other Statutory conditions (whether the Statutory condition as to residence has or has not been complied with), the local authority may either take possession of the house, or order the sale of the house without taking possession. Sub-clause 5 enables the local authority, in the case of the bankruptcy of the proprietor of the house, or in the case of a deceased proprietor's estate being 197 administered in bankruptcy, either to take possession of the house or order the sale of it. Clause 5, Sub-section 1, enacts, that where a local authority takes possession of a house, all the estate, right, interest, and claim of the proprietor in or to the house shall vest in and become the property of the local authority, who may either retain the house under their own management, or sell or otherwise dispose of it as they think expedient. There is, therefore, under the Bill, no obligation on the local authority who have taken possession of a house to sell it. The only case which is really contemplated by the noble Lord is the case, which I think we must admit would be exceptional, where men make default. If a man, having fulfilled all the conditions, and having become the owner of his house by the assistance of the local authority, subsequently fails in the Statutory conditions, or becomes bankrupt, or dies insolvent, the local authority, for the protection of the public purse, enter into possession of the house; but a discretion is left them either to sell the house at once, or to retain possession permanently, or with the object of selling it at another time. The Amendment of the noble Lord would make it absolute on the local authority to sell the house at once, and he justifies that proposal on the ground that it is against the principle of the law of the land for local authorities to be the owner of real property. I am no lawyer, and it would be presumptuous on my part to give an opinion upon the principles of the law of the land; but I know what the facts are, and I know that local authorities at the present time do own a great deal of real property, and that in Ireland a whole series of Acts have been passed with the expressed object of enabling local authorities to become owners of real property. Therefore, it is going too far to say that the discretion of the local authority must be swept aside at once, simply on the general principle that under no circumstances should a local authority become the owners of real property. Look at the practical objections to this Amendment! Local authorities are only entitled under this Bill to recoup to the public the outlay which the public has incurred. If, after a sale, there is any balance, it is to be handed over to the defaulting owner; and instances may probably occur where it will be necessary, in the interest of the local authority as 198 well as the proprietor, that the house should be retained in the hands of the local authority until a better price could be realised. A forced sale on the local authority might tend to depreciate the market value of the house, and might seriously affect the financial conditions established by the Bill. The noble Lord proposes, in addition to making the sale compulsory, that the original vendor should have the first option to buy the house. You must remember that there is not a single word in the whole Bill to compel any landlord to sell any land at all, and, therefore, the landlord who sells a piece of land to the local authority for the purpose of this Act does so for no other reason than that it suits him to sell the land. Therefore, having parted with the land in a purely voluntary manner, I do not see why any priority of option should be given to him.
§ LORD NORTONBut he sold it for a benevolent purpose.
§ * THE EARL OF SELBORNEIt is not suggested in this Bill that he should sell it under its value. He would sell it to the local authority just in the same way as he would sell it to a private individual. How is it possible to ensure the best price being obtained for a house if the original owner is to have the first right of purchase? You cannot have an auction in which it is understood that one person has a prior right to buy the house over the head of the man who offers the highest price. There would be few buyers under those circumstances, and as the Bill now stands there is nothing whatever to hinder the original owner going to the auction himself and buying the property; nor is there anything to prevent him buying a house back on private terms if he offers terms which are considered sufficient. Therefore, I am unable to accept this Amendment, which, I think, would introduce complications into the Bill, and seriously affect its financial conditions.
§ On Question, "That these words be here inserted," resolved in the negative.
§ Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.
199§ Clause 8:—
§ * THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy Lords, I have an Amendment to omit this clause, and to insert a new Clause 8. The Bill, as it stands, applies the Registration of Land Acts, 1875 and 1897. The history of this Amendment is as follows: After the Bill had gone through the Grand Committee in the House of Commons, the Law Society affirmed that the insertion of this clause was a breach of the understanding arrived at in Parliament during the passage of the Land Transfer Act of 1897, and which was to the effect that, after the first Order in Council applying that Act, no further Order in Council on the subject was to be made for another three years, even if a locality so desired it. At the Report stage in the House of Commons, Mr. Chamberlain accordingly proposed to omit this clause and to submit a clause under which the local authorities should be required to keep at their offices a book containing a list of any advances made by them under the Act. The clause the right hon. Gentleman then proposed was identical with the first of the new clauses which I am now moving. He stated that he had been informed that a pledge had been given during the passage of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, that its compulsory provisions should not be extended for three years; but when the Committee assured him there had been no such pledge, he withdrew his proposal in order to consult the Attorney-General, and said the matter would be dealt with in another place, if necessary. The Attorney-General had then gone to Paris to attend the Venezuelan Arbitration, but, on reference being made to him, he was able to show that a pledge had been given which the Government are obliged to consider binding. Therefore it is that I move to strike out Clause 8, and to insert the Amendment which I have on the Paper, the effect of which will be to make a temporary provision in the first new clause—Clause 8—and in Clause 9, to endeavour to bring it into line with the stipulations of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, so that districts affected by this Bill may be brought under its operations.
§
Amendment moved—
To leave out Clause 8, and insert as new clauses:
8.—(1.) A local authority shall keep at their offices a book containing a list of any advances made by them under this Act, and shall enter therein with regard to each advance—
(2.) The book shall be open to inspection at the office of the local authority during office hours free of charge.
9.—(1.) The registration of the title of houses in respect of which advances are made shall be compulsory under this Act—
(2.) Where the registration of the title of houses in respect of which advances are made is compulsory under this Act, the following provisions shall apply with respect to advances made under this Act after the date on which the registration so becomes compulsory:—
(3.) The proprietor of a house for the purposes of this Act shall be—
§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHI wish to say, on behalf of the Irish Office, that the clauses moved by the noble Earl are altogether inapplicable to Ireland, and I shall be obliged to bring up Amendments on Report dealing with the matter.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)My Lords, we all understand, of course, that if a bargain has been made it should be kept, but I was not at all aware of this bargain. I hope this example will not be followed of exempting from the ordinary law of registration this, that, and the other thing the legislature may enact. Though I understand a pledge was given by the Attorney General which ought to be kept, I observe that this was partly justified on the ground of some supposed pledge in 1897 on the Land Transfer Act. There is not the least pretence for saying that there was any bargain then that future legislation would not touch land transfer. No such pledge was given. I acquiesce in what has been done here, because, when a bargain is made, it should be kept, but I protest against these exemptions being made from the ordinary law of registration.
§ On Question, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill," resolved in the negative.
§ On Question, "That the new Clause 8 be here inserted," agreed to.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYBefore the second of the two new clauses proposed by the noble Earl is agreed to, I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor) would give us some explanation as to what it means. I have read the new Clause 9 proposed, but am greatly puzzled as to its effect.
§ LORD THRINGIf the noble and learned Lord has gone through this clause and approves of it, I will say nothing, but it is inconsistent with the Land Transfer 202 Act. Is it really meant that a small town with only, perhaps, one house to register, must have an agent to carry the Land Transfer Act into operation? The clause provides that a proprietor of a house, for the purpose of the Bill, shall be (a) where the ownership of the house is registered in pursuance of this section, the person appearing on the register for the time being as proprietor; and (b) in any other case the purchaser of the ownership or, on any devolution or transfer, the person in whom the interest of the purchaser is for the time being vested. Well, how could it be otherwise?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYWhere registration under the general Act has been made compulsory, surely it is not necessary to declare, in another Act, that it shall be compulsory. That appears to be absolute nonsense. This clause requires careful consideration, or it will lead to the greatest confusion and misunderstanding.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI do not say I differ from the noble Earl with regard to the complexity of the clause, but I take the real meaning to be that, where you are dealing with houses purchased under the powers of this Act, the local authorities are to have something in the nature of a little registration of their own, unless they choose to place themselves under the Land Transfer Act.
§ LORD THRINGBut the clause does not say so.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI think, perhaps, it would be rather indecorous if we pass a clause with so much doubt expressed upon it by practical persons. I should think that, without running any serious risk, we might abandon this motion now, reserving to ourselves the power to take it up on the Third Reading, if necessary.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYEither on Report or Third Reading.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI have not the slightest wish to dispute the 203 necessity of the clause. What I object to is its form.
§ On Question, "That the new Clause 9 be here inserted," resolved in the negative.
§ Clause 9:—
§ * THE MARQUESS OF RIPONI have an Amendment to Clause 9, which I entertain some hope Her Majesty's Government will be able to accept. It provides that if the council of any urban district, not being a county borough, or of any rural district, passes a resolution undertaking to act under the Act, that council, "with the consent of the council or county borough," shall be the local authority in that district. I stated the ground upon which I proposed to move this Amendment on the Second Reading of the Bill, but perhaps it will be better if I again explain it. The proposal in Clause 9, as it stands, is that a local authority, for the purpose of the Bill, shall be the council of any county or county borough; but that if the council of any urban district, not being a county borough, or of any rural district, containing respectively a population according to the last census for the time being in excess of 7,000, passes a resolution undertaking to act under the Bill, that council shall be the local authority in that district for the purposes of the Act, and shall be entitled to oust the county council. I ventured to point out the other day that this proposal to give the duties under this Bill to rural district councils having over 7,000 inhabitants created, so far as the purposes of this Bill are concerned, a new local jurisdiction. I pressed upon the House on that occasion the extreme undesirability of in any way multiplying our local jurisdictions or areas, or adding to the complications which already exist in local affairs in consequence of the variety and number of those local jurisdictions. Anyone who has anything to do with county business knows perfectly well that great difficulty is caused in local administration through the variety of these areas, and it certainly seems to me undesirable to add to that complication in any degree whatever. I would urge your Lordships to take out this new jurisdiction of districts having 7,000 inhabitants, and leave the matter primarily 204 in the hands of the county councils. I do not wish to prevent altogether these rural and urban district councils from dealing with this Bill under suitable arrangements. I quite admit that they may be fit persons to administer the Bill under certain circumstances, but I feel that it is unnecessary to remove altogether the power of the county councils in regard to this matter. If urban or rural district councils are anxious to take over the duty, let them do so by all means, but with the consent of the county council. That is the nature of my Amendment. The smaller local bodies are very anxious to get larger powers into their hands. I am not sure that it is always to the advantage of the public that they should be entrusted with larger powers, but I do not object to their possessing them if it is for the public advantage. The fear is that the smaller districts may be unfitted for the purpose, and in such a case you may be sure the county council would not agree to the transfer. I think, if you omit the limit as to population, and require the consent of the county council, you will have a suitable and effective check against the administration of this Bill falling into the hands of bodies too small to properly carry it out.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 6, line 13, to leave out from 'district' to 'pass' in line 14; and in line 15, after 'council' to insert 'with the consent of the council of the county or county borough.'"—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
§ LORD THRINGThis clause, again, has evidently been drawn by a person unacquainted with the details of local government. The areas chosen are altogether contrary to the system ordinarily adopted. An urban district very often contains considerably fewer than 7,000 inhabitants, whilst rural districts often contain considerably more. Therefore, whenever a population limit has been applied, it has always been placed at 10,000. Why, in this Bill, is 7,000 fixed, contrary to all precedent, and contrary also to common sense? I have never seen a clause in a Bill which was more calculated to produce the maximum of friction and the minimum of efficiency than this clause. What is to happen if, when the county council has taken this matter in hand and bought houses, a 205 small district should say, "We will do this ourselves," and oust the county council from its jurisdiction? There is not the slightest provision in the Bill for an adjustment of the accounts. Then, again, difficulty will arise with regard to the applications. Persons will apply to their district council to buy a house for them. The district council will say, "No, we will let the county council do it." The applicants will then go to the county council, who will probably say, "The district council must help you." I do not think a clause has ever been introduced before which left it to the option of the smaller authorities to interfere at any time with the larger authorities, and which provided no rules for an adjustment of accounts. The clause condemns itself in its present form. The Amendment will do everything that is desired. There will be no conflict of jurisdiction, and the county council will agree, before any delegation is made, as to adjustment.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy Lords, this clause has suffered owing to its having been the scene of the familiar battle between the county councils and the non-county boroughs, which has echoed in Parliament ever since the Local Government Act of 1888. In this quarrel Her Majesty's Government take neither side. The advocates of the urban district council, and, in a less degree, of the rural district council, as against the county council, contend that this Bill affects aggregations of population. County councils are mainly composed of gentlemen who represent the rural and scattered population, and, although the Act in some cases might be sympathetically worked by such councils, yet in other cases it is feared that, unless strict provision is made for the rights of urban and rural district councils, county councils might obstruct the operation of the Act in those areas. This is the objection which has been put forward, but I guard myself from adopting such a view. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that if the Act was applied without restriction to any council, however small its area, the effect might be to put the working of an Act of great delicacy and complication in the hands of bodies too small and of insufficient experience. As a via media the Government have adopted the figure of 7,000, because that compromise would 206 exclude no small town of importance, and the Act will be probably more sympathetically administered by the district than the county council, a body which would not have that local knowledge which is thought necessary for the carrying out of the spirit of the Act. As regards the Amendment of the noble Marquess, he will allow me to point out that the words "or county borough" have crept into his Amendment unnecessarily.
§ * THE MARQUESS OF RIPONThat is so.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI admit that it cannot be denied that the provisions, as they stand, do not tend to simplification. I am afraid we are always pursuing the ideal of simplification in local government, but we never obtain it. The point brought forward by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Thring) is one to which I have given attention, and I find that the figure of 10,000 has many exceptions.
§ LORD THRINGI admit that. What I said was that the general rule has been 10,000, and they are classified in all the books under that figure.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEAs I have said, the figure of 10,000 has many exceptions, and this will be another. I quite understand the object of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, but it would not be possible for the Government to accept it, for it would, as drafted, leave it in the discretion of a county council to veto any application by an urban council to become the authority under the Act. There are urban district councils with very large populations—I believe as large as 100,000—and having the importance, if not the status, of municipalities; and the Government could not assent to give the county council the veto power over such urban councils. On a general consideration of the case, we have thought that the line is safely drawn at 7,000; but what I would be prepared to do would be to insert words which, in respect of all districts under 7,000, would give the county council power to say whether those authorities should become the local authority under this Bill, or not. That is to say, the limit of 7,000 would be withdrawn in its present affirmative sense, but words would be put in providing that 207 no council with a district whose population is less than 7,000 would be able to become the local authority under this Bill except with the consent of the county council.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYThe exordium of the noble Earl's remarks was somewhat embarrassing, because he said the Government have, on the general principle, no opinion at all. I understood the noble Earl to say that the Government take no side in the conflict of opinion as to the local authority.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI said we did not identify ourselves with either of the extreme partisans, but that, as a via media, we adopted the figure of 7,000.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYThere is a tendency on the part of the smaller local authorities to resist being placed under the larger local authorities, and, if possible, to secure more powers. One of the great recommendations of the measure which was passed by a Conservative Government, creating county councils, was that for the first time it would disregard to a considerable extent the outcries of the small authorities, who, with true parochial instincts, objected to the smallest powers being taken away from them, although the placing of those powers under a more central authority was nesessary for the government of the country. The measure to which I have referred placed under the county councils very important urban districts. Even in the county in which I live, we have two boroughs of ancient fame which are under the county council, and, although they now acquiesce in the arrangement, it was not without great heartburnings and great regret on their part. I think it is an advantage that there should be a concentration of authority, except in the case of large county boroughs which, of course, enjoy separate jurisdiction. I was disappointed to hear that the Government put forward no view on this matter. It might have been expected from the authors of the Local Government Act that they would take a distinct line, and would not assent to the established system of local government being gradually pulled to pieces. I admit the difficulty that there is in resisting the pressure of these small authorities, but I think the Government might have exercised their authority 208 in the matter, and have enlarged the figure beyond 7,000.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThere is a very refreshing change in the atmosphere of criticism which we have passed through at the hands of the noble Lords opposite. In respect to the Tithe Bill, we were censured because we had a policy of our own, and because we stuck to it determinedly, which was supposed to indicate a very reprobate frame of mind; but now, because we are willing to listen to persuasion, the noble Earl considers us worthy of nothing but condemnation. The difficulty, of course, is, when you are fighting over numbers, that there is absolutely no principle to guide you. You must take those numbers which are most agreeable to the persons who have authority to speak on the matter. I do not imagine that there is any particular virtue about the figure of 7,000; that was taken as the number which would be most likely to lead to a general agreement. I am surprised to hear the contempt which the noble Lord expressed for any intermediate policy. When we tell him that we are pursuing a via media, he says that is no policy at all. I hope that when we get back to theological discussions the noble Lord will forget that unfortunate observation.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYWhat I said was that there ought to be a policy which is not a via media. I was disappointed at it not being indicated to which side the Government would have inclined if they had not been obliged to resort to a compromise.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI understood the noble Lord to express contempt of the action we had taken in adopting the via media, and I only repeat that, from so good a Protestant as the noble Earl, I was surprised to hear such an observation.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONI would ask the Government to accept the figure of 10,000, by means of which they will prevent the creation of any more confusion.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWhat the noble Lord wants is five figures.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONIndeed, it is not What I want is the figure known to the law, and which is already in operation in most cases.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEHer Majesty's Government identify themselves with the noble Marquess in his desire to simplify matters. It is, in fact, their own policy which he has done them the compliment to adopt; but, in respect of this particular Bill, they thought the via media proposed was a fair one, because the case of the small urban communities was unusually strong. If 10,000 were accepted as a compromise, and were generally approved, I should be willing to agree to it on one condition—namely, that there should be an appeal against an adverse decision of the county council to the Local Government Board.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONI am not unwilling to accept that arrangement. My only object is to make the Bill a good one. Though I accept an appeal to the Local Government Board, I must say that my confidence in that Board, and in its way of dealing with county councils, is not great. I withdraw my Amendment.
§ * THE EARL OF SELBORNEI will amend the Bill, as stated, in the Standing Committee or on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
§ Clause 11:—
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI beg to move that the words, "the expression 'house' shall include 'lands'" be omitted from this clause, which applies the Act to Scotland. I am informed by a most remarkable consensus of legal opinion that the words are unnecessary, and that any small parcel of land really accessory to the house, whether in the shape of a garden or yard, is undoubtedly included in this Bill.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 8, line 20, to leave out 'the expression "house" shall include "lands"'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
§ On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," resolved in the negative.
210§ Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
§ Clause 14:—
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENMy Lords, I have an Amendment to this clause, providing that the word "house" shall be deemed to include lands—the words which have just been omitted with regard to Scotland. The noble Earl has stated that the words are not considered necessary, because a yard or garden would be deemed to be included with the house; but I am not sure whether that would hold good in respect to Ireland, where the vast majority of labourers' cottages have half an acre of land attached. Will the noble Earl inform me?
§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHWith regard to lands, the definition would be the same in Ireland as in England and Scotland. I am afraid I shall not be able, on behalf of the Irish Office, to consent to the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENMy reason for moving the Amendment is to make the Bill operative in Ireland. If this extension is not granted, so as to include the little plots of land attached to the cottages, the Bill will have little effect in Ireland, and will create great disappointment. One of the main objects of the Bill, as stated by the noble Earl who introduced it, is to enable the working classes to become the owners of their houses, and in that way to add to the social stability of the country. I do not think it can be stated that social stability is more firmly secured in Ireland than in England, or that Ireland should be deprived of any of that ballast which is considered necessary for England. It is clear that unless the Bill can be made to apply to the class of agricultural labourers, it will have very limited application indeed in Ireland. Anybody who has known Ireland well, during the last ten years, will have noticed with gratification the enormous improvement which has taken place in the dwellings of the agricultural labourers, and it is highly desirable to encourage them. The best way to do so is to hold out the hope that by thrift and industry they may become the owners of their own houses. If the expression "house" does not include land, it is certain. 211 that the Bill, as it stands, will exclude practically the whole of the agricultural labourers in Ireland. For this reason I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 11, after line 29, to insert as new sub-sections:
(2) The word 'house' shall be deemed to include lands.
(3) Where any district council is the owner of any house under the provisions of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, such council may advance money to the occupier to enable him to acquire the ownership of the house under the conditions of this Act provided that all moneys received from the occupier shall be applied to the extinction of any debt incurred by such council under the provisions of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts."—Lord Kenry (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHI naturally should not be prepared or anxious to dispute what the noble Earl has said with regard to the desirability of doing everything to promote social stability in Ireland, nor would anybody dispute the fact that ownership of property tends rather to promote social stability than otherwise. But I would suggest to the noble Earl that, in this particular case, it would be better, if it is thought desirable to bring the labourers' cottages within the purview of this Bill, that it should be done by an Amendment of the Labourers Acts rather than in the manner proposed by the noble Earl. Owing to the complication of the many arrangements, and the number of conditions which would have to be imposed upon the occupiers, it is believed that it would be very difficult to interpret, with this Act, those necessary and complicated provisions by way of amendment. I would remind the noble Earl that the Labourers Acts were passed for the purpose of providing adequate accommodation for agricultural labourers in Ireland, and to enable local authorities to borrow money from the Board of Works and advance it on the mortgage of these houses. Many schemes have been disallowed on appeal to the Privy Council for two reasons—first, that the existing accommodation had been proved to be sufficient in the locality in question; and, secondly, that it has been shown that the houses were not intended for labourers at all, but for a different class. It is obvious that the houses should be kept for the purpose for which they were intended— 212 namely, for agricultural labourers; but I would point out that, under the Bill, there is nothing to prevent the sale of a house to any person; consequently, the houses might be diverted altogether from their original use, and get into the hands of persons who are not agricultural labourers at all. It might be necessary, under those circumstances, to start new schemes under the Labourers Acts, a process which might be carried on ad infinitum. Therefore, it has been felt that the promotion of social stability in Ireland can be better accomplished by other means, and I must ask your Lordships to refuse the Amendment moved by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF MAYOI am pleased that the Irish Office have resisted this Amendment, which world create an objectionable state of things in Ireland. In numerous instances, tenant farmers have erected cottages on their farms to accommodate their labourers, and if this Amendment had been adopted, what would happen if the farmer wanted to get rid of a labourer who had bought his house? Would he have to erect another cottage on the land to accommodate the labourer he wanted? Tenants already pay their rent very badly, and Boards of Guardians will not evict; but, notwithstanding this, the noble Earl proposes to give these Boards power to lend money to buy houses, when it is pretty certain that they are not likely to get that money paid back. A house under this Bill will include the gardens or yard, but surely half-an acre of land is neither a garden nor a yard. I am delighted that the Amendment has been resisted.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENThe noble Lord who represents the Irish Office has stated that my object would be better attained by an amendment of the Labourers Acts. I confess I do not see the logic of that argument, but if my noble friend will assure me that the Government will give me some assistance in carrying an amendment of those Acts, I shall be content. I cannot, however, help expressing my regret that a Bill intended for the advantage of the working classes should be allowed to pass in a form which renders it practically inoperative for the working classes in Ireland.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
213§ THE EARL OF DENBIGHI should like to move, as this question has been settled, an Amendment to make it more distinct.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 12, line 23, at end of clause, to insert, as a new sub-section: 'An advance shall not be made under this Act for the purpose of a house required under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, and held by the district council under those Acts.'"—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
§ On Question, "That this sub-section be here inserted," agreed to.
§ Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 15 agreed to.
§ Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as Amended. (No. 182.)