HL Deb 30 July 1906 vol 162 cc346-95

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clauses 1, 2, and 3, agreed to.

Clause 4:—

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

moved to omit Clause 4, the object of which was to substitute fourteen days for one month as the period within which answers should be given to notices served under the Act. He explained that in 1883, when the first Labourers Act was passed, it was necessary to insert three notices in the local papers for three successive weeks; in addition to that, notice was served on the owner, to whom a month was given in which to make an answer. It was now proposed to give the owner only a fortnight. This period, in his opinion, was quite insufficient. Under the Act of 1883 there were five methods of serving the notice. First, the notice could be served personally on the person required to be served; secondly, if such person was abroad, or could not be found, his agent might be served for him; thirdly, if he had no agent, or the agent could not be found, the notice might be served or left on the premises; fourthly, in lieu of any of the foregoing methods the notice might be left at the usual or last-known place of abode of the person required to be served; or fifthly, the notice might be served by post in a prepaid letter addressed to him at his usual or last-known place of abode. It was quite evident that the district council would naturally choose the method which was the least trouble to itself. Even under the existing law it was quite possible that a notice might fail to reach its destination before the statutory period had elapsed, and if that was the only reason against the proposed change he thought it was a very sufficient one. But in addition it had to be remembered that the local authority must state whether they intended to acquire land by purchase or by lease for ninety-nine years. In the case of a limited owner this made a great deal of difference, as it was very necessary that he should have advice on the subject, as it was quite possible that money might have to be paid into Court, and it might be extremely difficult for him to get it out. In addition, trustees might have to be consulted who were scattered over different parts of the country; they would have to write one to another, and they naturally would not decide without consulting their legal adviser. Under these circumstances a fortnight would very soon pass, and it seemed to him that that was a very good reason why the present limit should be adhered to. It should not be forgotten that His Majesty's Government had expressed the hope that as the result of this Bill, within the short space of two or three years no less than 25,000 new labourers cottages would be erected. During the whole period since the first Act was passed in 1883, only 17,000 cottages had been erected, so that it was expected that at least 50 per cent, more would be erected within a very short time. From this it would be readily understood that in various parts of Ireland a considerable amount of ground would be required for the purpose, and many landowners and land agents would be much occupied in considering whether or not they could accept the applications that were made to them. That being so, it was only reasonable that the time limit should be left as it at present stood. He knew that His Majesty's Government were very anxious to do all that they could to expedite matters under the Bill, and he was sure that no one on the Opposition side of the House would object to helping them as much as possible in that respect; but justice ought to be done to all parties concerned, and, after all, one month in which to consider the question was not a very long time. He begged to move.

Amendment moved—

To leave out Clause 4."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

THE EARL OF ARRAN

said that although theoretically this clause might accelerate the working of the Act, it would only do so by a short time, and in practice it would give rise not only to very great inconvenience but sometimes to great injustice. He would remind their Lordships that while a month was a very short time to wait, a fortnight was a very short time in which to work. Owing to the peculiar conditions which existed in Ireland, great difficulties might ensue. On many estates, and particularly on small estates, there was no single resident agent. On the contrary, many agents had for their sole business the management of a large number of small estates situated a long way from their own place of residence. Owing to this, and to the fact that each estate had many calls upon the agent, it would very often be impossible, or at any rate extremely inconvenient and difficult, for the agent to be able to draft answers to the notices in time. He hoped the Government would agree to the omission of the clause.

LORD DENMAN

said he was glad to hear that the Bill on the whole met with approval from noble Lords opposite, and that they desired to expedite its passage. He regretted, however, that the Government were unable to accept the Amendment which had been moved. He would point out that the owner would really have a great deal more than fourteen days, as there would probably be quite six weeks before the inspector would be called upon to decide in any particular case. The whole object of the Bill was to save time and expense, and this was one of the provisions by which the Government hoped to accelerate the working of the Act. There were precedents for such a course being taken in the Public Health Acts both of England and of Ireland, and he did not think the arguments which the noble Lord had advanced were sufficient to warrant the Government in departing from those precedents.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said that this was not a question of precedent, but of the best way of scouring justice. The labourers' code was not a code of yesterday. The first Act was introduced in 1883, and since then there had been nine or ten Acts of Parliament, and a month had been the time given for the notices. For what reasons did the Government wish to make such a brand-new departure? There was no six weeks in the business at all; the answers had to be given within a fortnight, and if they were not given within a fortnight the person was shut out. Surely it was reasonable that the existing law should be allowed to stand in this respect. It had worked no inconvenience. He was all in favour of rapidity, but rapidity could be purchased too dearly. People were entitled to an opportunity of knowing what was being done and what was proposed, and as the existing law had worked fairly well, and no case whatever had been made out for such a change, he hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.

LORD HEMPHILL

hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment. The great object of the Bill was to expedite proceedings under the Labourers Act. As had already been observed since 1883 only 17,000 odd labourers cottages had been built. That was the strongest argument for the passage of the present Bill as it stood. It was a monstrous thing that in twenty-three or twenty-four years, throughout the whole of Ireland, where there was so much poverty, and where there were such wretched habitations for the poor, only 17,000 odd cottages had been built. This Bill had been very elaborately considered by the Standing Committee of the other House upon which all the representatives from Ireland, with a few exceptions, had had an opportunity of stating their opinions upon this important subject, and the Bill had come before their Lordships' House without, he believed, this point having been even advocated by the representatives of the landlords in another place. If a fortnight would not answer the purpose, neither would a month. If a landowner had not a resident agent, or if the agent was not on the spot, or could not easily be got at, a month would not be any more security than fourteen days. The initiatory delay was the thing to be deprecated, and though no great principle was involved in the Amendment, it only showed the inclination on the part of some noble Lords to throw difficulties in the way—[Cries of "No, no."]—of passing this Bill, which was generally admitted by both sides of the House to be a most remedial measure.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, when we reach the other side of the Irish Channel, we become aware that we have to deal with Irish time. In the course of this brief conversation, we have had two striking examples of what constitutes Irish time in the minds of some noble Lords connected with that country. We were told in the first place that although this clause says that fourteen days are to be substituted for one month, yet fourteen days is in effect equivalent to six weeks. It has not been explained how, by some Procrustean process, the fourteen days can be stretched into a period of six weeks. Then came the observations of the noble and learned Lord opposite, who told us that if this Amendment was pressed, your Lordships would be standing between the labourers of Ireland and the great and undoubted advantages which, this Bill places within their reach. The noble and learned Lord argued that there really was no difference between fourteen days and a month. That is the second illustration.

LORD HEMPHILL

I meant practically.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Now I ask your Lordships to recollect for a moment that under the law as it now stands these notices can be served by forwarding them by post in a prepaid letter addressed to the usual or last known place of abode of the person who is to be served. Is it any wonderful or impossible assumption that there may be some cases in which these missives do not at once reach their destination? Is it not reasonable, therefore, on the part of my noble friend behind me to ask that at least one month should be allowed as the time within which an answer should be made to these notices? I ask your Lordships to recollect that this Bill— which we do not in the least desire to impede or obstruct—does nevertheless very considerably interfere with private rights. It is surely right and proper that that interference should take place under reasonable conditions, which will not be resented by the persons affected by the transaction. I must say that the suggestion of my noble friend behind me that the present term of one month should be allowed to stand, instead of being shortened to fourteen days as is proposed by the Bill, seems to me to be a very proper one, and if he goes to a division I shall certainly vote with him.

LORD KILLANIN

thought it was pity that the House should commence their deliberations upon an Irish Bill by a difference of opinion about a comparatively small matter. Therefore, he suggested that as a settlement of the matter they should split the difference, and that the clause should be so amended as to substitute twenty-one for fourteen days.

*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The EARL of CREWE)

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, that this is not a matter of first-rate importance, but I am afraid I cannot agree with him that the rough and ready method he suggested of splitting the difference is particularly applicable to this case. The reason that we are obliged to stand by the period in the Bill is that it forms part of the general principle embodied in the measure, of attempting, to accelerate the procedure under the Labourers Acts as far as we possibly can. I think my noble and learned friend was a little misunderstood when he evoked the cries from noble Lords opposite, because although we most cordially accept the assurances of the noble Marquess that he does not at all wish to obstruct the passage of this Bill, yet on the other hand some of the Amendments on the Paper would, if carried, undoubtedly have the effect of retarding the procedure under it. Relying partly on the fact which no noble Lord opposite attempted to gainsay, that there are precedents under the Public Health Acts for the precise procedure which we propose, I am afraid, if noble Lords opposite persist in the Amendment, we must take the sense of the House upon it.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said he would not have intervened in the discussion had it not been for the remark of the noble Earl, that certain Amendments had been placed on the Paper with the object of retarding the progress of the Bill.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I did not say they had been placed on the Paper with that object, but that they would have that effect.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said he could not agree with the noble Earl on that point. Many of his noble friends, especially those from Ireland, who had studied this question, viewed with approval the desire of the Government to provide sanitary houses for the labouring classes in Ireland, and the Government had their sincere goodwill in the efforts they were making. But in conferring benefits upon one class of the community, care should be taken that no injustice was inflicted upon another class. Undoubtedly the present Bill, unless it was very carefully safeguarded, might be the means of inflicting great injustice upon one class while conferring benefit upon another. The noble and learned Lord for whose remarks the noble Earl had just apologised—

*THE EARL OF CREWE

Oh no; I did not apologise; on the contrary, I entirely endorsed the observations of my noble and learned friend.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said that the noble and learned Lord had pointed out that during the time the Labourers Acts had been in operation only 17,000 cottages had been erected. It was no use denying the fact that that comparatively small number was due to the great caution of various unions indifferent parts of Ireland, but he hoped that under the new circumstances in which the occupier, on terms agreeable to himself and his landlord, would be made the owner of his holding, that number would be very largely increased. He believed that in the future the unions which had looked with a certain amount of apprehension on these Acts would adopt a more favourable view. With regard to the substitution of fourteen days for a month, he thought that when it was remembered how very dilatory some Irishmen were in negotiating their own affairs, it would be admitted that a month was a very short time. This would be the more realised if noble Lords considered the slow progress that was being made under the last Land Purchase Act. He agreed that landowners must co-operate with their agents in considering the details of these transactions, which agents were generally concerned with a large number of properties. Therefore, he thought that a month was a very short time in which to require answers to be made to the notices, and under these circumstances he was glad to hear that the Leader of he Opposition would support the Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

did not think that because a month had been allowed in all former Acts that was any particular reason why it should be included in the present Bill. The real object of this measure was to satisfy a want which previous Acts of Parliament had left unsatisfied. It was generally admitted that one of the reasons why former Acts had been only very partial successes was the dilatory nature of the proceedings under them. If he thought that any real injustice would be done to anybody by shortening the period to fourteen days, he would vote in favour of the Amendment, but he could not think that any real injustice would be inflicted. It seemed to him that if an owner or his agent, or his solicitor, or whoever managed the property, could not be found in a fortnight, the probability was that he would never be found at all. Reference had been made to the dilatory manner in which Irishmen conducted their own business affairs. He did not altogether agree with the remark, but if landlords had been dilatory in managing their own affairs, he failed to see why the labourers should suffer for i

THE EARL OF MAYO

pointed out that there was a danger in shortening the period in question. If a limited owner was concerned, and the proceedings went forward, and the purchase money was paid to the wrong person in consequence of the proceedings being conducted in a hurry, the district council might suffer by there being brought against them an action, and by their having to pay the money to the proper person. Therefore, he thought that if there was a little less hurry in the initial stages the whole business might go through better eventually. The noble Earl the President of the Council had said that the Opposition were delaying the Bill, but the noble Lord in charge of the measure had stated that there would be more time available than the fortnight, because the inspector would take at least six weeks. He could not quite see how those two statements could be made to agree. But even if the inspector was to take six weeks, that had nothing to do with the service of the notice. The answer had to be made to the notice within fourteen days. He thought that a month was much better, and that the longer period would facilitate the carrying out of the provisions of the notice, and also prevent the district council, in the case of a limited owner, being compelled to indulge in the luxury of a lawsuit.

Clause 4 accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:—

LORD ASHBOURNE

said that it might be a convenience to their Lordships and enable the House to follow the meaning of the Amendments he had placed on the Paper, if he stated generally their bearing on the first three sub-sections of the Clause. Clause 6 was an important

On Question whether the clause to be left out shall stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 78.

CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) Armitstead, L. Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and. Mount-Earl.)
Crewe, E. (L. President.) Burghelere, L.
Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Colebrooke, L. Monkswell, L.
Courtney of Penwith, L. Nunburnholme, L.
Beauchamp, E. Denman, L. Reay, L.
Carrington, E. Eversley, L. Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]
Chesterfield, E. Fitzmaurice, L. Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Portsmouth, E. Glantawe, L. Shuttleworth, L
Russell, E. Granard, L. (E. Granard.)[Teller.] Stanley of Alderley, L.
Tweedmouth, L.
Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Hamilton of Dalzell, L. Weardale, L.
Hemphill, L.
Aberdare, L. Joicey, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Devonshire, D. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Inchiquin, L.
Northumberland, D. Kelvin, L.
Somerset, D. Churchill, V. [Teller.] Kenyon, L.
Wellington, D. Hill, V. Knaresborough, L.
Hutchinson, V. E. Donoughmore.) Langford, L.
Bath, M. Lawrence, L.
Lansdowne, M. Iveagh, V. Leith of Fyvie, L.
Macnaghten, L.
Camperdown, E. Addington, L. Massy, L.
Cathcart, E. Alverstone, L. Middleton, L.
Cawdor, E. Ampthill. L. Newton, L.
Clarendon, E. Ardilaun, L. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Dartrey, E. Ashbourne, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Denbigh, E. Barnard, L.
Devon, E. Barrymore, L. Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Chaworth, L. (E Meath.) Rathdonnell, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Rathmore, L.
Drogheda, E. Clonbrock, L. Robertson, L.
Eldon, E. Cloncurry, L. Sanderson, L.
Essex, E. Colchester, L. Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Haddington, E. De Freyne, L. Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)
Kilmorey, E. Deramore, L.
Lucan, E. Digby, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Mayo, E. Dunboyne, L.
Munster, E. Ellenborough, L. Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Northbrook, E. Forester, L. Teynham, L.
Onslow, E. Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.) Ventry, L.
Plymouth, E. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Rosse, E. Hatherton, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Hylton, L.

section, and had naturally attracted a great deal of attention, and doubtless given some anxiety to the Government. The proposal was that the inspector of the Local Government Board should go down and make an examination; then having made his Report he was to have power to make a Provisional Order. He (Lord Ashbourne) did not think it wise or reasonable that the inspector's decision should be called by so important a name as a Provisional Order. That, however, was merely a verbal point, but he thought it would be desirable, in the final form of the Bill, to give the order some less grandiose name. Then the suggestion was that the Local Government Board, if anyone was dissatisfied, should read the Report and the evidence furnished by the inspector, and decide what should be done in regard to the compulsory taking of the land involved in the case. The section dealt entirely with the question of the compulsory taking of land against the will of the owners. Up to the present there had been a much more serious method of determining these questions. It used to be by means of a Provisional Order which had to pass through Parliament, and then the Privy Council, presided over by the Lord Chancellor, with the assistance of some of the Judges of the High Court, dealt with the question. By this Bill it was proposed to get rid of the Privy Council and the important machinery previously in force. He did not question that proposal, because he admitted that the machinery was unnecessarily strong, and put the parties to considerable expense in bringing the persons concerned, and their witnesses, from every part of Ireland up to Dublin. Still, it was necessary to provide some kind of real appeal for the parties whose land was to be compulsorily taken against their wish. He had indicated on the Second Reading that it ought to be within the option of the parties to have their case beard before a judge. He then stated, and it was embodied in the Amendments he had placed on the Paper, that a county court judge might supply the requisite machinery. He was aware that a judge of assize had been suggested, and the point was well worth consideration, though personally he believed that the suggestion he himself had put forward was the soundest solution. It had been pointed out in another place that the judge of assize sat only twice in the year, and that, as it was desirable to enable appeals to be taken more frequently, the county court judge, who sat much oftener than the judge of assize, would form a more desirable tribunal. This would not necessitate any very great change in the substance of those proposals. All that he desired was that there should be a full appeal.

An appeal meant that the parties should be heard, and their witnesses examined, and that the tribunal should have an opportunity of giving a decision. It was not suggested that the Local Government Board were to do any of those things, nor could they without bringing the parties and the witnesses to Dublin, and if that were to be allowed or required there was no purpose served in getting rid of the Privy Council. If the Government thought it desirable to retain the present clause, believing that some parties might be satisfied with the decision of the Local Government Board, it was not for him to say that they should not be allowed to do so, but at the same time if the parties wanted to have a judicial decision, they should have an opportunity of saying that they would not be satisfied unless a judge heard their case and decided upon both their law and their facts. Anyone could go to the Local Government Board if they were satisfied with the Board's reading of the Report and the evidence, and the making of any further inquiry they might direct. But if the parties were not satisfied with that, it was only fair and reasonable that they should have an opportunity of going to the county court judge. If the Government recognised the reasonableness of his suggestions, perhaps they would indicate how they proposed to deal with them, and he would be very glad to meet them if possible.

LORD DENMAN

hoped that the suggestion he was about to make would meet with the approval, or at any rate the agreement, of noble Lords opposite. He still adhered to what he had stated on the Second Reading of the Bill with regard to the Local Government Board; the Government still thought that that would have been a cheap and quick tribunal, and one which would have decided equitably on the points brought before them. However, for the purpose of expediting the passage of the Bill, and also to avoid the suspicion that they desired to do any injustice to any class—which was very far from being the case—they were willing to go a long way to meet the views of noble Lords opposite. What they suggested was that the Local Government Board inspector should first of all give his decision, as before, and that if a person felt himself aggrieved by the decision, he should have the alternative of himself deciding whether he should appeal to the Local Government Board or to the county court judge. He hoped that noble Lords opposite would realise that the Government had gone a long way in making that concession, and that they would be able to accept the proposal. In that case he had prepared a considerable number of Amendments which would be consequential upon the acceptance of the suggestion he had made; no useful purpose would be served by going through those Amendments at the present stage, but if it suited the convenience of the House he would move them en bloc, and they could then be printed so that on the further stage of the Bill noble Lords opposite would have an opportunity of seeing whether they went far enough to meet their views.

LORD ASHBOURNE

thought that what the noble Lord had said was very reasonable, and that his proposal to move the Amendments en bloc, and have them inserted in the Bill, would be for the convenience of the House. They would then appear in the reprint of the measure, and would thus facilitate the consideration of the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I understand the noble and learned Lord withdraws his Amendments down to line 20.

LORD ASHBOURNE

Yes, in favour of those to be introduced by the Government.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Does the noble Lord in charge of the Bill move the Amendments to which he has referred?

LORD DENMAN

Yes.

Amendments moved accordingly and agreed to.

LORD ASHBOURNE

moved to insert at the end of sub-clause (4) of Clause 6 the words, "Unless it appears that the particular holding or estate has been selected for an indirect purpose."

He said that this Amendment was of an entirely different character from those to which he had referred in his previous remarks. The sub-section dealt with a very slender matter, and he was really at a loss to understand how it got into the Bill at all. Having taken some part in the administration of the previous Acts, he did not think the Government could have had present in their minds what had been the common action in reference to these cases. The section did very little in reference to the administration of the law, but having been inserted it might lead to grave misconception, and therefore in order to prevent any misunderstanding he thought that the words he had proposed should be added. He suggested for the consideration of the Government that it might be wiser to strike out the sub-section altogether, and if they preferred to do that rather than accept the words he had suggested, he would be quite prepared to adopt that course, and move accordingly.

Amendment moved—

In page 3, line 30, after the second word ' scheme,' to insert the words ' unless it appears that the particular holding or estate has been selected for an indirect purpose.' "— (Lord Ashbourne.)

LORD DENMAN

regretted that the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. It was with the greatest diffidence that he ventured to criticise the wording of an Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, but he submitted that the words suggested were somewhat vague. It might be difficult for the court to settle a point of law if raised in connection with the words "for an indirect purpose." He pointed out further that the Amendment would introduce a new element into the clause. The sub-section provided that a scheme should not be disallowed merely on the ground that agricultural labourers were not required for the cultivation or management of the holding or estate a portion of which it was proposed to acquire for the purpose of the scheme. The Amendment introduced a proposal which could only be properly dealt with by a new clause or a new sub-section. The noble and learned Lord had suggested as an alternative that the Government might accept a new clause, but he regretted that he was unable to agree to that proposal.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said that he would be sorry to divide the House on a question which he had already indicated was of a very slender character. He did not think the sub-section made any advance in the law, and the only reason he had suggested the addition of these words was in order to prevent any misunderstanding. But as the Government's peace of mind appeared to hang very much on the retention of the subsection, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ASHBOURNE

then moved to omit Sub-clause (5), which provided that where a petition had been presented and not withdrawn and the Local Government Board were of opinion that the ground or grounds on which such petition was presented was or were frivolous or vexatious, the Board might make an order for the payment by the petitioner of the reasonable costs, charges and expenses of the district council incurred in opposing such petition, and an order respecting costs should be enforceable as if it were an order of the High Court. He pointed out that this sub-clause was not in the original Bill as introduced by the Government, and was an entire departure from previous enactments in reference to costs. Under previous Labourers Acts it was enacted that provision should be made for the payment of the costs of a person who objected in defence of his property. That was perfectly reasonable, but this sub-clause went further, and provided that anyone who presented a petition to the Local Government Board, if the Board came to the conclusion that the act was frivolous or vexatious, might be grievously amerced in costs. That was an entire reversal of the whole principle of the law in reference to these matters. If a man's land was going to be compulsorily taken, he had a perfect right to present a petition saying that he objected, and giving his reasons. The Government had already wisely accepted an Amendment enabling the person affected to have the question threshed out before a County Court Judge. The County Court Judge would deal with the costs at the hearing before himself. This provision, however, suggested that the Local Government Board should deal with the costs. But there would not be one farthing of costs incurred before the Local Government Board, because they would not see the parties or examine the witnesses; there was no hearing at all, and there was nothing in regard to which costs could be incurred. A report was sent up to the Board by their own Inspector, together with the evidence given before him, and then, in some back room of the Customs House, they came to their decision as to what should be done. The sub-section was an entire departure from all previous enactments in inference to the compulsory taking of land, and therefore he hoped the Government would accede to his Amendment.

Amendment moved—

To leave out sub-section (5)." — (Lord Ashbourne.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

The argument that the noble and learned Lord has presented certainly deserves some consideration, and if he will agree to let the question stand over until the Report stage, I will ask my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary if he can see his way to meet the noble Lord's wishes.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said that the noble Earl had views as to rapidity. He himself was a much more tranquil person, but with a view to rapidity he thought it would be better for the noble Earl to agree to the Amendment, omitting the sub-section, and consider between then and the Report stage whether he would give notice to replace it. That would lead to both speed and accuracy.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am quite willing to adopt that course.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:—

LORD KILLANIN

moved to insert the words "with the concurrence of the county council," so that in cases where a district council had neglected to make an adequate improvement scheme under the Act, the concurrence of the county council should be necessary before the Local Government Board could require the district council to make and carry out such a scheme. He thought that the clause as it stood gave a very large power to the Local Government Board, and enabled them practically to take the law completely into their own hands, and to act in a very peremptory way, wholly regardless of local feeling. Under the clause as it stood, where a district council had refused to take action, or to carry out an improvement scheme, the Local Government Board, without consulting any other local authority, were to be allowed to take the place of the district council. He was aware that in the past some district councils had been very backward in undertaking improvement schemes which they ought to have undertaken, and this Bill had been brought in to remedy that. In many cases the reason why improvement schemes had not been undertaken was that previous Labourers Acts had been very inefficient and very expensive. Under the present Bill, however, if a district council refused to undertake an improvement scheme, he thought it would be clear that they must be in the wrong, and he was all in favour of the Local Government Board initiating proceedings. But his proposal was that before they actually took the law into their own hands, and wholly disregarded all local feeling, and possibly acted in spite of local feeling, so far as they had an opportunity of testing it through the district council, the matter should be laid before the county council. Having served on his own county council since its inauguration, he had no doubt that if an improvement scheme were brought before the county council, it would be adopted, and its adoption by the council would make the measure more popular, and it would not have the appearance of having been forced on the locality by the Local Government Board regardless of local feeling. Moreover, if the scheme had the concurrence of the county council, it would put to shame the district council and would act as an incentive to make the district council undertake such a scheme. It might be said that the county council had not much connection with this matter, but from the very next clause it would be seen that the county council was intimately concerned in the matter of funds. The county councils were very important bodies, and much more responsible than the district councils, and if their concurrence was obtained a scheme would probably be carried out much more amicably and in a less peremptory manner.

Amendment moved—

In page 5, line 5, after the word ' may,' to insert the words ' with the concurrence of the county council.' "—(Lord Killanin.)

LORD DENMAN

said that there was not much likelihood of the Local Government Board either overriding local opinion or acting in a peremptory manner in this matter. The county councils had nothing whatever to do with the administration of the Labourers Acts; in fact, throughout the Bill the term "county council" was scarcely mentioned except in connection with money grants.

LORD KILLANIN

That is a very important question.

LORD DENMAN

agreed that it was important, but it was purely a bookkeeping transaction. The county councils had no training such as would qualify them for administering or for interfering in any way with the Labourers Acts. The clause enabled the Local Government Board, where the district council had neglected their duty, to compel them to erect cottages. He understood that in some parts of Ireland hitherto the district councils had not fulfilled their duties very well in these respects, and it was very necessary to give the Local Government Board the powers suggested in this clause. He hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:—

LORD DUNBOYNE

, who had placed on the Paper a series of Amendments to Clause 11, said he understood that in an amended form the Government were prepared to accept them. By inadvertence he had omitted, to give notice of an Amendment to Sub-section (3), but possibly if he called, attention to it the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would himself amend the clause. Sub-section (3) provided that a memorandum of the amount paid under Sub-section (2) should be endorsed on the instrument creating the mortgage or charge. In many cases that would be absolutely impossible, because charges were often created by will or deeds which were not in the possession of the person for whose benefit the charge was made; therefore ho would be unable to produce the document to have a memorandum endorsed upon it. The sub-section as it stood was mandatory, and he suggested either that it should be omitted altogether, as it was really unnecessary, or that the words "when practicable" should, be inserted. With regard to the other Amendments of which he had given notice, he was willing to move them in the terms which had been suggested to him. If the Amendments were accepted, Sub-section (2) would become a proviso of Sub-section (1), and would provide that "the amount of the compensation may, if he consents, be paid to the person entitled to the mortgage; '' Sub-section (3) would be omitted altogether or the words "when practicable "Inserted; and after Sub-section 4 the following new sub-section would be inserted:" A copy of the receipt should on the request of any persons entitled to any estate or interest in the land in respect of which the purchase money or compensation is paid be furnished by the council at their expense to that person." By the permission of the House he would move the Amendments in that form.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I think it would be more convenient if the noble Lord would move the Amendments one by one.

LORD ASHBOURNE

pointed out that the procedure suggested by the noble Lord, (Lord Dunboyne), would be somewhat confusing, inasmuch as the Amendments now suggested were Amendments of other Amendments on the Paper, and the House had really nothing to go upon. He understood that the noble Lord who moved the Amendments and the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had had some conversation on the matter. The clause dealt with an extremely technical though not very large question, and he could quite understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had consulted with the draughtsman as to the particular phraseology he would wish to employ. Under these circumstances, he suggested that the Amendments should be put in a connected form and incorporated in the Bill so that the House might see them in print to-morrow.

LORD DENMAN

said the clause dealt with some extremely technical matters, and he was glad the Government had been able to come to an agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Dunboyne. As to the omission of sub-section (3), no notice had been given of the proposal, and he would prefer to leave it to a later stage of the Bill. As to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, he had given Lord Dunboyne a copy of the agreed clause, and doubtless the noble Lord would be willing to read it in a connected form.

LORD DUNBOYNE

thought the best plan would be for him to put the Amendments into writing and move them on Report.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I think the most convenient course would be for the noble Lord to hand in his Amendments; they could then be inserted pro forma, and would appear in the reprint of the Bill.

Amendments moved accordingly, and agreed to.

LORD ASHBOURNE

What has become of sub-section (3)?

*THE EARL OF CREWE

It is still in the Bill, as far as I am aware.

*LORD CLONBROCK

in moving the omission of sub-section (9) said it was a decidedly unusual course to fetter the discretion of an arbitrator in determining the amount of compensation to be paid in the event of a purchase being decided upon. It was true that, since the properties to be acquired were small, the amounts of compensation awarded would also be small, and the difference whether compulsion was taken into account or not comparatively insignificant, but it would set up a most dangerous precedent in regard to land in Ireland. This was especially the case, since from a statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in describing the Commission he proposed to appoint to inquire into congestion, it appeared decidedly probable that the taking of land compulsorily on a much larger scale for the purpose of relieving congestion was in contemplation. Under these circumstances the sub-clause would afford a most dangerous precedent, and he moved its omission.

Amendment moved—

To leave out sub-clause 9."—(Lord Clonbrock.)

THE EARL OF ARRAN

said that the question raised by this sub-clause was dealt with by several noble Lords in the Second Reading debate, and great emphasis was then laid upon the fact that it would set up a very dangerous precedent; it was also stated that the principle involved, whether good or bad, was of too far reaching a character to be properly argued on the minor subject to which it was here applied. In Ireland the question of compulsory purchase was in the air not only in regard to sites for labourers' cottages, but also in connection with whole estates. Though the question of compulsory purchase might be a bad or a good thing, it should at any rate be argued from the extreme possibilities which it might engender. As had been pointed out a precedent had been created under the Labourers Allotment Act in England, and all those interested in Ireland would be grateful for this kindly warning, because if this principle had been brought in in another Bill which dealt with it in a small way, it was right and proper that the precedent should be checked in order that it might be dealt with, upon a larger and more general basis. He sincerely hoped the Government would agree to his noble friend's Amendment and if they did not he hoped it would be pressed to a division.

LORD DENMAN

said this Amendment dealt with a small matter and with small plots of land. The Earl of Arran had mentioned that they had a precedent for this proposal in the Local Government Act 1894 in England, and His Majesty's Government could not see why the precedent should not be followed in the particular case. If the noble Lord pressed his Amendment, as he believed was his intention, the Government would be forced to go to a division.

LORD CLONBROCK

called the attention of the House to sub-clause (3) of Clause 10 of the Act of 1894 which provided that— the arbitrator, in fixing rent or other compensation, shall take into consideration all the circumstances connected with the land and the use to which it might otherwise be put by the owner during the term of hiring, and any depreciations of the value to the tenant of the residue of his holding caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land hired by the Parish Council. In that case any loss to the owner, apart from the value of the land compulsorily taken, was allowed for. No provision of that kind occurred in the Bill before the House. He could not, therefore, consider it as a real precedent, and he further objected to a precedent being drawn from what appeared in an English Act. They had often, in pleading fair play and justice to Irish landlords, urged comparisons between their position and the position of the English landlords. In such case they had been invariably told that the condition of the two countries was so different that no comparison could be instituted. Now they were told that an English precedent must be followed. It came, therefore, to this: that in anything favourable to the landowners' interest, the eases were completely different, but in anything detrimental to that interest they were absolutely parallel. He did not know how this provision had got into the Act of 1894. As it referred only to small areas it probably slipped in without being noticed, and at the time did not attract much interest as a precedent, because at that period there was no prospect of a Labourers Act being introduced into this country. He believed there was such a prospect now, judging from what had fallen from the President of the Local Government Board, and he would commend that to the attention of noble Lords who were not connected with Ireland. He thought this was a most dangerous precedent to introduce into the question of Irish land, and he should therefore press his Motion to leave out this sub-section.

*LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH

said that from the humble standpoint of an English Member he should like to endorse what had been said about the dangerous nature of this precedent. They were now discussing an Irish Bill, and one that related entirely to Irish affairs. As had just been said by the noble Lord who represented the Government this was a very small matter and dealt only with a small area. He wished to point out, however, that that was a very dangerous argument, and such precedents had sometimes been pushed to very extreme limits. It seemed to him that in modern legislation the great danger was that of establishing precedents upon small issues. Sometimes they were established in Private Bill legislation, and it was quite possible that in this way they might find them in an Irish Bill. The House was aware that there was very considerable negotiations in regard to private legislation in this House where vast quantities of property were taken for railways and public improvements. He did not, however, think there was any precedent for saying that an arbitrator should be absolutely forbidden from giving any allowance for compulsory purchase. It might be that sometimes he had been given a discretion under the particular circumstances, but he thought he was right in saying that the general law imposed no restriction upon an arbitrator in determining whether he would allow anything for compulsory purchase and what it should be. He therefore hoped that the Amendment would be supported by the House. However small the pre- cedent might be now it was likely to lead to serious and complicated results which were not apparent at the present moment.

LORD HEMPHILL

said that on the merits of the case he would ask noble Lords opposite why the landlord or owner should not be satisfied with the actual value of the land taken; he did not see why this artificial bonus should be added. Some of their Lordships at all events were aware that this practice of giving 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase in regard to the compensation given by arbitrators and by juries when a railway company took land, had gradually crept in by degrees, and some years ago in Ireland the judges used to tell the jury that they were not bound to give the 10 per cent. But the practice arose; and latterly in charging juries, although there was no statutory authority for adding this 10 per cent. the judges were in the habit of telling juries that they would be at liberty to take into account the circumstance that the owner of the land was not a free agent, but that the land was taken from them by the force of the Act of Parliament. But apart from that, the ordinary man did not appear to realise that the acre or half acre of land that was taken for a labourer's cottage in point of fact was only worth about £30 in the market, and why should the labourer be called upon to pay £3 more in order to give the landord £33, the £3 being imposed as a sort of punishment for the local authority taking the land, or as a bonus to the selling landlord? He would much prefer that this question should be considered on its own merits, and not with reference to the precedent which was so very aptly referred to by the noble Lord on the Ministerial bench. He was rather astonished to hear the noble Lord from the cross benches use the argument that because in the distant future a very large question might arise namely, as to whether land should be taken by compulsion under the Land Purchase Acts from the landlords, that in anticipation of that question they should now do what was unjust in dealing with this very small and paltry matter of the labourers cottages. It would be sufficient to deal with that question whenever it arose, and it would be a very bad argument to refer to what had been done in this particular Act of Parliament on public, local and imperial grounds, and upon grounds of humanity to lift the labourers in Ireland from the slough of despond in which they were at the present time. He could assure their Lordships from considerable experience in Ireland, that there was no question in which the masses were more vitally interested than this attempt to facilitate the provision of cottages for labourers. This Bill would not go very far assuming that it became law to-morrow. There was no question in which the people of Ireland were more vitally interested. All noble Lords who had had any experience of Ireland knew perfectly well that some of these habitations of the labourers in every part of Ireland, and more especially in the south and west, were very little better than pigsties.

*LORD CLONBROCK

said he had never said a word about this 10 per cent.; all he said was that the arbitrator should not be fettered in cases where he thought he should give more. He wished to remind the House that this was not a question affecting only the landlords, because very often the tenant on whose land the cottage was going to be erected would suffer very severely by it; the value of his farm would be reduced, and he might also surfer great inconvenience in other ways. Under this Amendment compensation would be paid to him as well as to the landlord. It was true that it was a small case, and was not a matter of great imporance in this particular instance, but it nevertheless required attention.

LORD DUNRAVEN

assured the House that this Amendment was not going to make any material difference to the labouring population in Ireland. He ventured to say that there was a sound common-sense reason why arbitrators should be allowed to make an additional allowance where land was taken compulsorily. If they compelled a man to sell land, or to sell anything else, they put him to considerable inconvenience and expense in finding some other investment for his money; therefore, if a man was an unwilling seller, it was not unreasonable that an arbitrator should have an opportunity of giving him something in addition, in order to compensate the owner for the time and trouble and expense which he would be put to in finding some other investment.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

thought that many of the arguments which had been brought forward upon this subject would be more appropriate when the question was brought up upon a larger basis. Sufficient attention had not, in his opinion, been called to this very large principle, and it was entirely wrong that such a principle should be allowed to worm its way by a sort of back-door process into legislation of this kind instead of being properly fought out.

LORD JOICEY

said he happened to be a Member of the House of Commons when the Act of 1894 was passed. That Act was only passed after a very close and difficult discussion, and the House of Commons came to the conclusion hat it was desirable in dealing with very small holdings that such a charge as this should not be put upon the land. The case was very similar here, and he could not see why the House should not accept this proposal when it was an accepted principle already in regard to English legislation. There was a great similarity in dealing with the very poorest cottagers of Ireland and the very poor agricultural tenants of England. He did not think there was any argument which could be used in this House which ought to induce their Lordships to depart from the principle which had been already laid down in the Act of 1894.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

It has been suggested that this question should be dealt with in reference to the merits of the case rather than in regard to precedents. I should like to ask upon the merits of the case why the court is to be precluded from allowing any addition to the purchase money in consideration of the fact that the transaction is a compulsory one. The noble and learned Lord told us that the value of these holdings was about £30 an acre, but I do not know what reason there is why the owner should be compelled to sell a single acre at the pro rata price of the whole. Surely it is fair in a case of this kind to take into consideration the fact that the owner is compelled to sell, not the whole of his property, but a fraction of it, which may from his point of view be very inconveniently situated. There might be a most inconvenient severance, and the use and amenities of the rest of the holdings may be very considerably interfered with by the appropriation of a small part of it. Why, under these conditions, are we to say that in no circumstances is there to be any addition made on the ground of compulsion? I should like to remind your Lordships that this principle is not unknown to us in English legislation. In our earlier Land Acts it was enacted that if a tenant was compulsorily deprived of his holding by his landlord, that tenant should receive compensation for disturbance. That is the same principle, and unless I am very much mistaken, a Bill which is now before Parliament which has received a great deal of approval from His Majesty's Government, contains a recognition of the same principle in a very emphatic form. Just one word as to precedent. Many speakers have relied upon the alleged precedent of the Local Government Act of 1894. As Lord Cronbrock has already pointed out to the House, that Act contains this most important qualification, and I will read it again to the House— the arbitrator, in fixing rent or other compensation, shall take into consideration all the circumstances connected with the land, and the use to which it might otherwise be put by the owner during the term of hiring, and any depreciation of the value to the tenant of the residue of his holding, caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land hired by the Parish Council. That is the principle for which my noble friends are contending, and I would say that if the Government really are determined to resist the Amendment of my noble friend, I hope, at any rate, that they will agree to some other words which will be upon all-fours with the words of the English Act.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

The, debate on this Amendment has been devoted to two entirely different subjects. In the first place, it has been devoted to the question of how far precedents are being followed, and on the other hand, to how far the words in the Bill are justified by the precise merits of the case. As regards the precedent of the Act of 1894, although I think it is of considerable value in coming to a determination on this question, it is by no means the only consideration which affected the Government in introducing this provision into the Bill. The noble Marquis who spoke last I think somewhat overstated the effect of the qualification which exists in that Bill. In speaking of the damage which the landlord was likely to sustain, he used the word "severance." Now there is nothing whatever that I am aware of in this Bill to prevent extra compensation being given on grounds of severance by the arbitrator. The case is similar in regard to other indirect damage which may be sustained, and it is simply on this one question of 10 per cent. in relation to compulsory purchase that the, precedent of the Act of 1894 is followed. The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, based his argument in favour of this Amendment on the circumstance that the vendor under this Act must always be taken to be an unwilling seller. I should think in a large proportion of instances that is by no means the case. In many cases the sale is a great advantage to the estate, and if some extra payment is to be made on account of the alleged compulsion, I confess I am not able to understand the reason for it. There is no doubt that this ten per cent, has been put on in certain cases, and it is very familiar to all those of your Lordships who sit in the Committee rooms upstairs. It does not, however, possess the sanctity of the Ten Commandments, and in this country it has been very much abused. I believe there have been many instances where the ten per cent. has been given as a mere matter of form, where no compensation was morally claimable on the grounds of compulsory acquisition. Under these circumstances I am afraid that we cannot accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, and we must divide the House against it.

LORD LONDONDERRY

said the noble Earl had not proved that there was anything of the kind referred to in the Bill which he was asking the House to accept. He reminded the House that under the various Bills which had been passed, the land had passed into the possession of occupiers, and in taking the course they were adopting that night they were defending those who had recently purchased their holdings, and were declining to allow them to have taken from them compulsorily their land which they had just acquired on favourable terms under the Purchase Acts. He ventured to say that those who were taking advantage of the principles of the Bill two or three years ago, were anxiously waiting for the time to come when they would become owners of their holdings, and they would look forward with great dismay at having signed agreements and afterwards finding that before they had actually acquired their holdings, it was possible that portions of them might be taken from them for the purpose of labourers cottages. Therefore, in taking the action they did that night, the Opposition were guarding the interests of those who were to be the future owners of the land which they occupied. It was all very well to say that 10 per cent. had not always been the custom in Ireland. It always had been the custom, and it had been an under-tood thing, and if that was so, and if it had been so for years past, and had been recognised not as one of the Ten Commandmants, but as an unwritten law why was the arbitrator to be arbitrarily forbidden from giving what he thought was right in the case of disputes in order to recoup those whose land was compulsorily taken from them. He believed that everybody regretted parting with their land, and he thought the landowners of Ireland in acquiescing in the sale of their land as they had done had taken that course because they

thought it was in the interests of the country, and the sacrifices they had made were extremely great. When they were told that they were to introduce still more compulsory taking of land than at present existed, he must utterly decline to associate himself with any measure which would have such an effect. He trusted the day was far distant when they would see the principle of the compulsory sale of land extended throughout Ireland, and it would always be quoted to their discredit if they allowed a clause such as this to pass without criticism, or without showing their disapproval of it. Those who held land in Ireland would regret it in the future if they allowed this proposal to become law.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said the noble Lord had rather suggested that by this Amendment they were claiming something that was unfair. He said that whatever percentage was given would only be given in cases of compulsory purchase, and that hundreds of cases would not be compulsory at all. Not one single case that was not compulsory would come under the proposal which this Amendment put forward. Therefore he claimed that the' custom would not apply. He wished to enforce what had been said before, that they were not asking for 10 per cent. and they were not asking for anything except that the arbitrators should be allowed to judge whether something should be given or not. He did not think that that was an unreasonable thing at al to ask for.

On Question, whether the sub-section proposed to be left out stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; not-contents, 86.

CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) Aberdare, L. Joicey, L.
Crewe, E, (L. President.) Armitstead. L. Monkswell, L.
Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Colebrooke, E. Nunburnholme, L.
Courtney of Penwith, L. Reay, L.
Denman, L. Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]
Beauchamp, E. Eversley, E. Sandhurst, E.
Carrington, E. Fitzmaurice, L. Sefton, E. (E. Sefton.)
Chesterfield, E. Glantawe, L. Shuttleworth, L.
Portsmouth, E. Granard, E. (E. Granard.) [Teller.] Stanley of Alderley, E.
Russell, E. Tweedmouth, L.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L. Weardale, L.
Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Hemphill, L. Welby, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Somerset, D. Goschen, V. Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Wellington, D. Hill, V.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.) Kenyon, L.
Bath, M. Killanin, L.
Lansdowne, M. Iveagh, V. Kinnaird, L.
Ridley, V. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Cairns, E. Knaresborough, L.
Camperdown, E. Langford, L.
Cathcart, E. Addington, L. Lawrence, L.
Cawdor, E. Alverstone, L. Leith of Fyvie, L.
Clarendon, E. Ampthill, L. Macnaghten, L.
Dartrey, E. Annaly, L. Massy, L.
Denbigh, E. Ardilaun, L. Middleton, L.
Devon, E. Ashbourne, L. Newton, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Barnard, L. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Barrymore, L. Pousonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Drogheda, E. Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)
Eldon, E. Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Essex, E. Clonbrock, L. Rathdonnell, L.
Haddington, E. Cloncurry, L. Revelstoke, L.
Kilmorey, E. Colchester, L. Robertson, L.
Leven and Melville, E. De Freyne, L. Rosmead, L.
Malmesbury, E. Deramore, L. St. Oswald, L.
Mayo, E. [Teller.] Digby, L. Sanderson, L.
Munster, E. Dunboyne, L. Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Northbrook, E. Ellenborough, L. Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Onslow, E. Forester, L.
Plymouth, E. Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.) Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Rosse, E.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Hatherton, L. Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) [Teller.]
Waldegrave, E, Hylton, L.
Inchiquin, L. Ventry, L.
Churchill, V. Kelvin, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said he considered that sub-clause 11 was more iniquitous than the one which had just been thrown out. The sub-clause as it stood would work as follows: They would sell a plot of land, and it would be taken from them compulsorily, the price would be fixed, and then when the whole thing had gone through the ordinary official channels, the money would be paid into Court and it would then be the duty of the vendor to get that money out of the Court after proving title. He would not, however, get his costs from the district council, or at any rate, he could not get more of his costs from the district council than £10. He thought that was an iniquitous proposal. They might be told that this was a very small transaction, and that the district council in the public interest ought not to be allowed to spend more than £10 in costs. It would, however, cost a vendor very much more, because he would have to prove title in regard to that one part of his estate, and he would have to prove title every time one of those small plots was sold. He could net understand from what motive of justice this provision had been put into the Bill. He had obtained a couple of opinions from distinguished lawyers in Dublin upon this point, and one of them, Mr. Connor, K.C., said he considered that this limitation of costs was absolutely unjust, because it cost just as much to prove title for £100 as it did for 10s. Surely, if land was to be taken compulsorily, the least that could be done was to see that the owner was indemnified as to costs. If the owner had to spend perhaps £150 in order to get £100 out of Court, that was an absolute denial of justice. The other opinion went to show that it was utterly impossible that the costs in these cases would not exceed £10. The only possible result of this sub-clause, as far as he could see, would be, that there would be numbers of small sums paid into Court, and it would not be worth the while of landowners to pay the costs. He did not ask that the whole costs should always be paid to the vendor, but he did not think he would be acting unreasonably by asking that the matter should be left to the discretion of the Court.

Amendment moved—

In page 7, line 41, after the word ' pounds,' to insert ' unless the Court shall otherwise order.' "—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

LORD DENMAN

said that a similar Amendment was moved in another place and refused, and therefore it was only consistent that he should raise some objection, to it now. He did so more particularly on the grounds that he had stated before, namely, that the whole object of this Bill was to reduce the expense of these proceedings. What would happen was that the district councils would be mulcted in considerable sums when they might not have been at any great fault in the matter, and it was because the Government wanted to reduce the expenditure that they could not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord in this case. It was not a matter to which the Government attached any very great importance, but at the same time he respectfully asked the noble Lord not to press this particular Amendment upon the House.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said his case for pressing this Amendment was furnished by the speech which had just been delivered. The object of this clause, it was claimed, was to make it cheaper for the district councils, and the extra cost over £10 was to come out of the landlord's pocket. That was a great injustice, and he should certainly press the Amendment.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

I am not surprised that the noble Earl presses this Amendment, and we shall not resist it. I may say, however, that so far as I was concerned, I was not greatly impressed by the authority of the two distinguished gentlemen whose opinions the noble Earl read to the House. They were the opinions of two gentlemen belonging to the legal profession, and I think the House will agree with me that that argument, coming from the source it did, is not a very strong one, because the desire and temptation to cheapen this kind of procedure appeals less to the legal profession than to any other. We will not, however, resist the noble Earl's Amendment.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

LORD CLONBROCK

said the object of the new clause he proposed was to provide that a person should be disqualified for being elected a member of the district council if he was the tenant to that council in respect of a cottage on any land provided under the Labourers Acts. He thought their Lordships would readily see that it was necessary to introduce a disqualification of this kind, because such a case had arisen. He begged to move the new clause standing in his name.

New clause—

A person shall lie disqualified for being elected, or chosen, or being a member of a district council if he is the tenant to that council of a cottage or any land provided under the Labourers Acts. If any such person shall become such tenant when a member of any such council his seat shall be, ipso facto, vacated."—(Lord Clonbrock.)

Brought up and read la

Moved, "That the clause be read 2a."

LORD DENMAN

said the Government were not in a position to accept this Amendment because there did not appear to be any precedent for it. They had, during the debate, been frequently warned of the danger of accepting proposals without precedents, but the noble Lord by this Amendment would be creating a precedent.

LORD DUNRAVEN

said it would disqualify the whole countryside.

LORD CLONBROCK

said that under the circumstances he would not press his Amendment.

New clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13:—

LORD MAYO

said that this clause provided that the Lord Chancellor's salary was to be reduced by £3,000. He wished to ask the Government if any arrangement had been made for this under the financial provisions of this Bill. The sum might be put upon the Development Grant, and he should like to know therefore that this sum had been secured for the Bill.

LORD DENMAN

said he understood that one of the judgeships had already been suspended. It was £3,000 a year. Another would be suspended shortly, and the Lord Chancellor's salary would be reduced by £2,000 or £3,000. He understood that the assent of the Lord Chancellor had already been obtained to the reduction. He did not think there was any fear whatever of the sum in question coming out of the Irish Development Grant.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clauses 15, 16 and 17 agreed to.

Clause 18:—

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said there was annually paid in Ireland £36,811, called the Exchequer contribution, in aid of the cost of building labourers cottages. Under that grant £2,466 was paid to Antrim, £2,026 to county Down, £1,074 to county Armagh, and £811 to County Fermanagh. He did not think those four counties had taken advantage of the grants allotted to them, but it was rather hard upon them now by this Bill to deduct £6,000 a year from the grant it was proposed to distribute. To a certain extent the counties had only themselves to blame, but, knowing that part of Ireland very well from experience, he thought these counties ought not to be thus deprived under a Bill which was intended to benefit the labourers. Undoubtedly agriculture in that part of Ulster was being steadily developed. Farming there was of an extremely high class, and he thought it would be an improvement if the labourers were given the advantages intended for them. If the noble Lord responsible for the measure would consider the question before it came up on report and consider how these counties were going to be deprived in the future, he would be perfectly satisfied.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

said he was afraid he could not give an answer to the noble Marquses which would be con- sidered satisfactory. All attempts to alter the financial provisions of the Bill in any way would really be fatal to it. This matter was discussed at full length by Lord Dunraven upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was generally admitted that the Government, in adopting such a form of allocation, had done their best to arrive at an equitable solution of the question. As matters now stood, the residue of the exchequer contribution was divided between the different counties in proportion to their shares of the Irish Probate Grant. That depended upon the extent of roads in the area, a fact which clearly could have no bearing upon the question of the provision of labourers' houses. It certainly did seem generally equitable that, in considering how the provision was to be divided in the future, some account should be taken, in allowing cottages to be built on a cheaper scale, of the previous operations of such counties as had already built them. If that were not done there would be a marked injustice to counties which had gone to considerable expense, which after all could not be recouped. It was generally agreed that they could not devote any portion of this grant to recouping counties which had built in the past. The only way in which they could be recouped was by the plan in the clause under consideration. When the noble Lord said this was hard upon the four counties, he dared to say that it might be in a sense. They had very large arrears to make up, and it was possible that fewer cottages might be built there than otherwise, but on the other hand, they would under the Bill get the full benefit of the extremely reasonable terms which it provided, and he therefore hoped that there would not be much reason for the labourers in those counties to suffer any real detriment by the allocation proposed.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

said the noble Earl talked about counties being recouped, but there was no question in his mind about their being recouped. He understood that, owing to a smaller number of cottages being built in Ulster and elsewhere, that the greater part of the grant would be taken away. Antrim, instead of receiving £2,466, would receive about £400; County Down, instead of receiving £2,206, about £300, and he believed that the other counties would receive sums reduced in proportion. It was not a question of recouping them, but one of their receiving so much less.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

said that, when he spoke of recouping, he spoke of recouping those counties which had already built cottages, and not of the four counties in question. They could not be recouped. They were being deprived of a certain share of their grant.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19:—

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

proposed to leave out the words "or by a son of any such labourer"In line 35 on page 10. The inclusion of those words in the clause could, to his mind, only have two results. They would enable labourers—and they were cute enough to find out very quickly how—to avoid the proviso which followed at the end of the clause which was put in in another place by His Majesty's Government. All the labourer had to do was to give up his tenancy to his son. There was a far more serious result which the retention of the words might have. It might result in a lot of people getting the benefit of the Acts who were not agricultural labourers at all, and that was not the object of the Labourers Act. The local postman, the attendant at the local workhouse, or the artisan working in the town close by might say he wanted the benefits of the section because he was the son of a labourer. Thus they would have a large increase of uneconomic holdings without the compensating advantage of getting labourers back to the land. He hoped the Government would sec their way to take the words out of the clause.

Amendment moved—

In page 10, line 35, to leave out the words ' or by the son of any such labourer.' "—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

LORD DENMAN

said the words should stand as they appeared in the Bill.

There were instances where labourers might be old and beyond work, and where their sons would have to work for them; it was rather hard to say that they should be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. It was not a matter of great importance, however, and they had no intention of dividing the House upon it. Still, he hoped the noble Earl would allow the clause to remain as it stood.

EARL DONOUGHMORE

I would rather have it out.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I am sorry to see the noble Earl is not more devoted to the hereditary principle.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

I apologise to the noble Earl for becoming a Radical.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said he now wished to ask their Lordships to put back in the Bill a provision originally included. The provision read— And that the applicant has paid all rent due by him in respect of such tenancy. He thought it was reasonable to say that a man should not receive the benefits of the clause unless he had paid his rent up to date like an honest man. He found some difficulty in imagining why the words were struck out. It had been put before him that the landlord would look after himself, but he did not think that His Majesty's Government would be moved by such a motive. He thought such a case necessitated the inclusion of the words which were originally in the Bill, and he therefore begged to move that they be inserted.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 37, after the word ' made to insert the words ' and that the applicant has paid all rent due by him in respect of such tenancy.' "—(The, Earl of Donoughmore.)

*THE EARL OF CREWE

said he did not propose to resist the action of the noble Lord in the matter, though he did not think the clause, as it stood, by any means unreasonable.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 24:—

LORD INCHIQUIN

said that Clause 24 was an extraordinary one. Some 25,000 cottages were proposed to be built and placed on portions of land to be taken from various estates, and in them were to be placed labourers not necessarily from the estate on which they stood. These labourers were to be given the right to cut turf on the estate on which their cottages stood. The estate might mean 20,000 or 30,000 acres, and a part of it might be miles away from the cottage, and yet the labourer was to be given the right to go and cut turf without asking the landlord's or anybody's leave. The tenants had to ask the landlord's sanction unless the right was part of their agreement when they took over the tenancy. The clause gave the tenant of every district cottage the right to cut turf on the estate on which the cottage happened to stand. Surely that must be a mistake. It had certainly been put into the Bill without consideration. A great many bogs in Ireland were small, and there was already barely sufficient to support the cottagers in them, yet they were giving these thousands of additional men the right to cut. The Amendment he had put down on the Paper left it open to the owners to give permission. He was told that some mistake had been made, and that the clause only referred to estates bought under the Land Purchase Act. If that was so, neither the clause nor the Bill said anything about it. As the Bill stood, it was the most bare-faced robbery that he had ever seen. It was merely taking the bog and giving it to an outside man, whom the owner had not placed on his land and whom probably he did not want. It seemed to him a most unfair proceeding altogether, and he was strongly opposed to it unless some explanation could be given. It would only make the clause exceedingly involved, and would involve Amendments further on to make it apply only to estates bought under the Land Purchase Act. He hoped the Government would see their way to make some alteration to meet the case.

Amendment moved—

In page 11, line 39, after ' Council ' insert ' Provided that the owner of the estate has consented to his being so deemed."—(Lord Inchiquin.)

LORD DENMAN

said he hoped to be able to meet the case by the insertion of the words— In cases of estates sold under the Land Purchase Act.

LORD INCHIQUIN

That will require an addition as well, and I prefer practically the same words placed at the commencement of the Clause.

LORD DENMAN

As we are all agreed upon the principle, could we not settle it at a later stage to-morrow?

LORD INCHIQUIN

It will require a further Amendment after the word "allotment." You will have to put in "on such estate." Perhaps the noble Lord will redraft the whole thing.

LORD DENMAN

I will undertake to do so.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said he was not sure that the Government had any clear idea in their own mind as to what was meant. Where was the turf to come from and who owned it? He could quite understand that a man wanted turf to light his fire, and everyone wanted to give it him, but he wanted to know the meaning of the clause as it stood. Who was the owner of the property in which the turbary was to be found? It was certainly not the District Council, which had only bought an acre of land. It must therefore be the proprietor of the surrounding property. His noble friend said it was reasonable to give the owner of the surrounding property whose turf it was proposed to take an opportunity of looking in and saying whether he agreed. It was a reasonable proposal made in no spirit of hostility to any poor labourer getting turf.

*THE EARL OF CREWE

said he gathered that the noble Lord was satisfied with the Government's proposal.

LORD INCHIQUIN

Not entirely.

*THE EARL OP CREWE

said that provision was made whereby the tenant of the district council would be able to get his share of whatever turf was going on the estate; but if the landlord sold direct to the tenant he could make such arrangements as he pleased.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said he was not sure that he had made his meaning clear. He was afraid that there was no clear idea underlying the cunning hands of the draftsman when he put in these five lines. He could understand that if the district council became the owners of the estate, they got not only the cottage and the acre of land, but the turbary as their own property; but that was not the question. The clause only dealt with the narrow case of the district council having acquired the cottage and the acre of land, and they suggested that somebody was to provide that acre of land and the turbary. His noble friend did not object to the benevolence of the idea, but he wanted the owner to have a look in before it was decided.

LORD CLONBROCK

said that a man, on selling his property, including turbary to his tenants, might keep a large portion of a bog in his own hands, for snipe shooting and other purposes. It ought to be made clear that the tenant of a labourers cottage should not have the right to go and cut turf there.

THE EARL OF MAYO

Might we have the exact words of the Government's proposal?

LORD DENMAN

May I bring them up on Report?

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said that when a certain amount of turbary went to a certain amount of holding, a portion of that holding was taken for the labourer with a portion of turbary. He did not know whether that was the idea of the Bill, but it seemed to him a rather sensible idea.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE

I understand the noble Lord withdraws?

LORD ASHBOURNE

said he did not think it would do the Government any harm to consider the Amendment and see if they could not make the clause better on Report.

LORD BARRYMORE

said that the simplest and most natural way would be to cut the clause out altogether for the present and to bring up a new clause on report so that they could understand and agree to it.

THE EARL OF CREWE

We have said all the time that we will accept the Amendment.

LORD INCHIQUIN

I am not quite satisfied.

THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Lord is not satisfied with his own Amendment.

LORD INCHIQUIN

I am quite willing to accept it for the time being and to have the clause re-drafted. The clause is a bad one. I have consulted two or three legal minds, and they are unable to understand it.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said it was a question of bringing meaning out of obscure words. His noble friend washed, to bring some order out of chaos. His Amendment did that, and, if it did not quite carry out the view of the Government, they could look at it and suggest further words.

THE EARL OF CREWE

That is just the course we propose.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25:

THE EARL OF MAYO

said that under Section 3 of the Labourers Act (Ireland) 1886, no site could be taken compulsorily unless land immediately adjoined or was accessible from an existing road. There were hundreds of farms throughout the country that were not accessible from the public roads, and of course it was not fair to cut them out of the Bill. He hardly thought it would be fair to leave the words "over which a public or private right of way exists." because that might mean only a footpath. He thought his Amendment to add the words '' for carts and other vehicles" would be perfectly fair. It would be a great injustice to a farmer to have labourers cottages put right inside the farm a long way from the high road and where there was no right of way except for a footpath, and if the words he proposed were added, it would make it much easier and save disagreements, fights, and most likely broken heads.

Amendment moved—

In page 12, line 5, after the word ' exists' to insert the words 'for carts and other vehicles.' "—(The Earl of Mayo).

LORD DENMAN

said the Government recognised the fairness of what the noble Lord had said, and they would be glad to accept the Amendment.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

hoped the Government would view favourably the new clause he had down on the Paper. They did not want a survey or any elaborate paraphernalia. What they wanted was either a sheet of the Ordnance Map with a red mark showing where it was proposed that the cottage should be or a tracing of the map. A rough plan would enable them to see where it was proposed that the site should be taken and would save them going to the Union; which was very often a considerable distance from the agent's office. It would save time, and he hoped the Government would give them the provision which would considerably oil the wheels of the Bill.

New Clause— the notice of any proposed scheme served upon the owner or occupier of any land proposed to be taken otherwise than by agreement shall have attached thereto a map or plan, sufficient to enable the person so served to identify the portion of land proposed to be so taken.' "—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

Brought up, and read 1a.

Moved, That the Clause be read 2a."

LORD DENMAN

said it was possible the proposal might add a certain amount to the cost, but it was a matter of no great moment; and the Government would be prepared to accept the clause.

Clause read 2a and added to the Bill.

Clause 28: —

LORD KILLANIN

proposed to leave out sub-section (2). He said that the first sub-section of the clause provided that the district council should make regulations with respect to the letting of cottages and allotments under the Labourers Acts and for preventing any undue preference in the letting thereof, and generally for carrying the provision of such Acts into effect. The second subsection went on to say that preference should be given to agricultural labourers who had signed on their own behalf the representation on which the scheme was founded, or on whose behalf that representation was made. He could not see, even if there was some merit in the proposal, why Parliament should take upon itself to tell the district council whom to prefer. What did Parliament know about the circumstances of the case or the character of the applicants? As the section stood a man of the very worst character in the district might receive preference. The matter should be left to the discretion of the district councils. His Amendment was decidedly on the Liberal side, and ho therefore hoped the Government would accept it. If they did not, he would not press it.

Amendment moved—

To leave out sub-section (2)." —(Lord Killanin.)

LORD DENMAN

said he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment. He was informed that the sub-section was most essential to the working of the Bill. It was framed for the purpose of enabling those labourers who really needed them to get cottages, and he hoped, as the Government had conceded a good deal, the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30:—

LORD ASHBOURNE

thought there would be no controversy about the small Amendments he had put down on the Paper to Clause 30. The clause enabled the Local Government Board to make regulations. He did not object; but he wished to insert words to provide against any complaint concerning anything in the numerous clauses.

Amendments moved—

In page 13, line 18, after the word ' may,' to insert the words ' subject to the provisions ' of this Act,'; In page 13, line 20, after the word ' may,' to insert the words ' the Local Government Board, after consultation with the President of the Incorporated Law Society, may make rules on the subject, as aforesaid.' "—(Lord Ashbourne.)

LORD DENMAN

said that on behalf of the Government he accepted both the Amendments proposed.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31:—

LORD ASHBOURNE

said his next Amendment was really consequential.

Amendment moved—

In page 13, line 32, to leave out the words ' of an inspector.' "—(Lord Ashbourne.)

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33: —

THE EARL OF MAYO

said he could not understand what sub-section (2) of clause 33 meant. It would extend a most pernicious system, which he was sorry to say existed in some parts of Ireland. He could not see any case where it was absolutely necessary that a man should be told he could have a garden half of which was forty yards away and the other half a mile away. He imagined that a labourer would like to have a garden adjoining his cottage, and therefore he should like the Government to accept his Amendment or give some strong reason why the words were placed in the Bill. They did not want tenants who had bought their land to have labourers with a plot here and a plot there.

Amendment moved—

In page 14, line 14, to leave out the words 'whether they adjoin or not.' "—(The Earl of Mayo.)

LORD DENMAN

said he could understand the noble Earl's objection to several or possibly many plots, and he had a suggestion to make which he thought would meet this objection If they struck out the words "or more" after the word "two" it would read "two parcels of land whether they adjoin or not." He hoped that would meet the objection the noble Earl had taken to the clause.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said there was no vestige of principle in that suggestion. The whole point of the objection was that the plot of land should be one. Surely it was not desirable that it should be split, and be in two places. The greatest struggle of the Congested District Boards had been to get facilities for the union of small farms, and if they began by saying that the small allotment to a cottage might be divided and be in two places, he did not see on what principle they were to stand. It would not be wise or prudent.

LORD HEMPHILL

said it was not always possible to have the whole acre immediately adjoining the cottage, and the object of the clause was that in those cases they might still carry out the policy of the Bill and give an acre of ground to the labourer where the whole acre could not be given in one plot; there was therefore a provision by which there might be half an acre adjoining the house and the other half acre in some convenient place on the estate. The clause, as it originally stood, was too vague and general, but no injustice would result from it as proposed to be amended by the noble Lord on the Front Bench. That clearly was the object of the clause, because otherwise they might defeat the whole policy of the Bill, which was to give a labourer an acre of land in order that he might eke out his subsistence.

THE EARL OF MAYO

said they did not wish to defeat the policy of the Bill in any way; they were speaking in the interests of the labourer. There were 25,000 cottages to be built; and supposing there were 15,000 with half an acre of allotment distant from them, it would not be at all right. The long summer evening was the only time the labourer had got to work, and if they had two plots the second plot would remain derelict. They wanted to keep the labourer's land round his cottage. He should therefore like to adhere to his Amendment. Ho could not agree to leave out the words "or more."

*THE EARL OF CREWE

asked if he might make one more appeal to the noble Lord not to press his Amendment. He yielded to nobody in his dislike of excessive sub-divisions of land, but the provision was designed to meet, the case where it was not possible at the most convenient spot to put down a house to find a full acre of land. The noble Lord seemed to conclude that the remaining portion would necessarily be place at an extreme end of an immense estate. It was more likely to be as near as possible. In the interests of the landlords, it surely must be to the advantage of the estates that as many alternative sites as possible should be available. If they insisted upon the full acre of land being always attached to the house, they would greatly limit the choice of sites, and district councils would be compelled to apply for sites not so agreeable to noble Lords and other landlords in Ireland as if this simple form of division to which he could not see that any mischief could attach were adopted. He should like to appeal strongly to the noble Earl not to press his Amendment.

*LORD LANSDOWNE

said the subsection seemed a somewhat doubtful one, but he thought it was desirable to retain in it a certain amount of elasticity. He understood that the Government were ready to leave out the words "or more; "That undoubtedly to some extent met the requirements of his noble friend; and, considering that on other points the noble Lords had met them not unfairly, he should counsel his noble friend to withdraw.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

*LORD LANSDOWNE

asked how it was proposed to deal with the Bill on the morrow. There were, he said, a good many clauses to be amended, and they would like to know what opportunities they would have of considering them before the Bill was further advanced.

LORD DENMAN

said it was hoped they might take both the Report and Third Reading Stages on the morrow. It was getting rather late, and, unless they did so, it would be very difficult to get the Royal Assent in Friday.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said that the Report Stage might be taken at the beginning of the sitting, and the Third Reading at the end. That would give them an opportunity of studying the clauses, and they would not lose a day.

LORD DENMAN

We shall be glad to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON)

said they were most anxious to meet the noble Earl, but could the Bill be taken at the commencement of the sitting, before the other business which was now down?

LORD ASHBOURNE

said they were all anxious to do what they could to facilitate the passage of the Bill. He believed that notice had to be given of Amendments made on the Third Reading, but he suggested that the Amendments might be handed to the clerk at the Table, who might get them printed in a couple of hours. He asked if the Bill would be circulated on the morrow.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said he thought the Bill could and would be circulated by the time the House met. That would give noble Lords an opportunity of considering it during the sitting.

Standing Committee negatived, vhe Report of Amendments to be recei ed To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 191.)