and obtain the appointment of a Commission soon? It would free Trinity College from the trammels it unwittingly entered into by which 10,000 or 12,000 tenants were debarred from sale, and it would enable the tenants to exercise their rights under the Bill fairly and squarely. He thought this would be the best solution of the difficulty. Amendment moved "In page 40, line 24, after the word 'aforesaid' to insert as a new sub-section :- Any tenant holding land under a lease or grant made in pursuance of the provisions of the Church Temporalities Acts or the Trinity College Leasing Powers Acts reserving a variable rent calculable as aforesaid may, if such rent exceeds one half the annual rateable value of such land, apply to the Land Commission in the prescribed manner to have the rent payable under such lease or grant varied in the same manner as is provided by the said Act of 63 & 64 Vict, c. 58, in respect of tithe rent-charge, and thereupon the Land Commission shall, after giving such notice as may be prescribed to the owners of such rents, determine the said rent in the same manner as if the said rent were tithe rent-charge, and the provisions of the said Act will apply with the necessary modifications.'"-(Lord Castletown.) THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE said he would consult the Chief Secretary, but it did not appear to him that it was a matter that could be dealt with immediately. Amendment, by leave of the Amendment, by leave of the mittee, withdrawn. Clause 88, as amended, agreed to. Clause 89 agreed to. Amendment moved Com Com "In page 40, line 30, after the words 1881 to insert the words or under that section.'"-(The Duke of Devonshire.) On Question, Amendment agreed to. THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE proposed an Amendment providing that rules under Section 50 of the Act of 1881 should be made by a majority of the Land Commissioners, which majority shoud include the Judicial Commissioner. His object was to secure that the Judicial Commissioner should be a member of the majority in the case of a division on the rules. Lord Castletown. LORD EMLY said he understood that this Bill was a genuine attempt to settle the Irish land question according to the wishes of the Irish people. Labourers and artisans formed a large portion of the Irish people, but they were absolutely excluded from any benefits under this Bill. He failed to see why the same facilities should not be afforded to them for the purchase of their cottages and their plots as was contemplated to be afforded to the farmers. He appealed to noble Lords who were owners of property in Ireland whether at a later period the support of the Irish labour party in Ireland might not be a thing to be desired. Undoubtedly the labourers and artisans. felt it exceedingly hard that they had been excluded from all benefits under the Bill. If they were not included in the Act he, for one, believed that the land agitation that was now disappearing would be followed by a labour agitation of a far worse and more far-reaching character. He begged to move an Amendment which would give the labourers and artisans the benefits conferred by the Bill. Amendment moved "After Clause 90, to insert as a new clause the words 'The occupier of any cottage now or hereafter to be erected under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, shall be entitled to purchase his homestead on such terms as the Local Government Board shall approve, not being a larger sum than the said cottage cost to the District Council, and the Land Commission may advance to such occupier the entire pur: chase money on the same terms as this Act provides for agricultural holdings."-(Lord Emly.) *THE EARL OF BELMORE rose to point out the inconvenience that would arise if the Amendment were inserted in the Bill. He appreciated the benevolent motives of the noble Lord who brought forward the Amendment but he did not think it would work well if it were carried into effect. The noble Lord lived in a part of Ireland where there were a great many labourers' cottages, built under the Act of 1883 and the subsequent Acts, and the noble Lord probably knew more about the matter than he did, through having come into contact, in a private capacity with the subject. In his (the Earl of Belmore's) part of Ireland, and in all the North of Ireland, labourers' cottages had been very sparingly built under the Act, and in the Union in which he lived, and of which he was chairman of the board of guardians for a good many years, after the Act of 1883 was passed not a single cottage had been built. He therefore did not know much about that subject in his private capacity, but he knew a great deal about it in his official capacity because it had often been his lot to sit with the Lord Chancellor for Ireland in the Irish Privy Council in appeals on this question. He knew the immense amount of feeling that was evoked when an attempt was made to put a cottage on to a man to spite him, and he also knew that very often the applications appeared to the Privy Council to be quite unreasonable. The initiative in this matter was taken by a representation, signed by a number of persons who might be labourers or anybody else, asking the board of guardians or the Local Government Board to build one or more cottages in a union. The object of the Act was not to provide a house for "A" or "B," or any particular labourer so that they could live there for the rest of their lives, but to provide for the labour wants of the district or to provide for a sufficient number of labourers in a particular district. What would happen if this Amendment were accepted? A man who happened for the moment to be in the occupation of one of these cottages built under the Acts, would be entitled to get an advance under this Bill to buy that cottage, which would then become his own property, and in which he would be able to reside for all time. When he first acquired his cottage and the particular farmer who employed he might be a suitable person for the district habits and become useless as a labourer, him, but he might take to drunken spend half his time in bed getting over the results of a debauch. It might also happen that a respectable man might get tired of being a labourer, gather a little money and set up a shop. In these cases the man would be useless for the cottage and would be keeping somebody else out of it. That was a practical objection, and he hoped that their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment. It would also be a pity if this clause were put into the Bill instead of being embodied in a separate Bill. So far as he knew, the questions of labourers had been dealt with under a separate series of Acts which formed a sort of code in themselves, and the suggested clause would be embodied in a Bill and added to them and considered on its merits; it was undesirable to mix up those questions with the Bill before them, which was primarily intended to deal with land purchase. LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON agreed that the question could be dealt with better under a separate Bill. They knew that in another place the Government had stated that they would see if they could not deal with it during the next session of Parliament. But as the question had arisen in this shape he should like to express his approval of the principle of the clause moved by his noble friend, as he thought the existing system was not at all satisfactory, as many Lords from the South of Ireland, where most of the cottages were built, must have realised. It would be better if the labourers became holders of cottages instead of tenants of a board of guardians, for the latter was not a suitable body for landlords, because there were many "It was to our interest that Ireland should difficulties in the way, as regarded repairs | the other hand, Mr. Wyndham went on for instance. It would be better for the to say that— labourers and better for the community if labourers were put into a position of independence. Without associating himself altogether with the exact terms of the elause he wished to express his approval of its principle. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE said he did not think it would be competent for the House to insert the Amendment in the present Bill, but turning from a point of form to one of substance, he understood that the question was raised over and over again in the Committee stage in the other House, where it was decided that it was not a subject that could properly be dealt with in the present Bill. In reference to the subject of labourers he understood that a pledge was given by the Chief Secretary that he would look into the whole matter at his earliest leisure with a view of introducing a Bill in another session. It was, however, impossible to include any legislation on the subject of labourers in the present Bill. be prolific and satisfied. It must be the desire chasm between ourselves and Canada." Amendment, by leave of the Com- the noble Duke, who had practically mittee, withdrawn. Clause 91. Amendment moved "In page 40, line 38, to leave out the words 'the representation, and insert the words any representation under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, affecting him.'"-(The Duke of Devonshire.) On Question, Amendment agreed to. LORD EMLY moved an Amendment which he said would apply the Act to any artisan wholly or mainly employed by the agricultural population. In the speech delivered by Mr. Wyndham when he was the guest of the Manchester Conservative Club, he said that Ireland was a country mainly agricultural, deprived of mineral wealth and without the alternative open to the rural dwellers in England. He (Lord Emly) wished to point out that no less than 3,000 artisans emigrated last year. These statistics bore out the remarks made by Mr. Wyndham. On Lord Monteagle of Brandon. pledged the Government to look into the administration of the Labourers Acts, presumably at a very early date. Amendment proposed "In page 40, line 39, after the word 'day' to insert the words or any artisan wholly or mainly employed by the agricultural population in the district.'"-(Lord Emly.) Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn. Clause 91, as amended, agreed to. Amendment moved sentation, to insert the words and should mit this reason or those reasons so stated in mittee, withdrawn. Clause 92 agreed to. Clause 93. LORD EMLY proposed an Amendment to Clause 93, page 41, lines 10 and 11, instead of "a Court of summary jurisdiction," to insert "the County Court Judge." The labourers, he said, had no confidence whatever in the ordinary Court of summary jurisdiction, which was generally composed of two or three big farmers in the district, and to imagine that they would do justice to the labourers was to imagine the millennium. Amendment moved "In page 41, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'a Court of summary jurisdiction' and insert the words the County Court Judge.'"-(Lord Emly.) *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said the noble Lord had moved the Amendment on the ground that the labourers would not have confidence in the Court of summary jurisdiction, of which the Irish landlords were all members. He (the Earl of Donoughmore), as a landlord, objected to the Court of summary jurisdiction, on the ground that a great many of the labourers were members of it, and sat on the bench, so that both he and the noble Lord agreed that the Court of summary jurisdiction was a bad one for these purposes. LORD EMLY said he did not think the noble Lord quite understood his point. He objected to the Court of summary jurisdiction not because the noble Lords opposite or the landlords were members of that Court, but because on those Courts they found certain farmers -big farmers who naturally and instinctively would take part against the labour population. *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said he was even still more in agreement with the noble Lord than he thought he was. The point they had to urge was that under the Petty Sessions Act, they had no right of appeal unless the decision gave the labourer as much as one sovereign compensation. If the Court decided that the compensation was only a matter of shillings they would have no right of appeal, and they would have to pay the costs. Look at the way the clause worked. A labourer applied for a cottage and put in his representation paper in the ordinary way. If he was dismissed for any crime or fault he had a right within twelve months to drag his employer into Court claiming that he had been disinissed because he signed a representation paper, and it would be a very difficult thing to prove that such was not the case. He shuddered at the thought of the hard swearing there would be on both sides when such a case came up. He (the Earl of Donoughmore) might explain to noble Lords who were not familiar with the working of the clause that when a man made an application he had to get six others to back him up. Even if a man backed up a friend it gave him a locus under this clause, and if he was dismissed within twelve employer into Court and claim that he months for any fault he could drag his had been dismissed because he backed up a friend who, perhaps, lived miles away, The employer had no right of appeal, and would therefore have to pay all the costs if the compensation awarded was less than a sovereign. He contended that this would work unfairly to all classes, and he hoped that the Government would see their way to let the parties go to the County Court, a Court with which all parties were likely to be satisfied. If the Government did that Members would be the first to admit, after a few months working, that the change had been of benefit. LORD INCHIQUIN said that he had the whole clause, which he should have to an Amendment down on the Paper to omit press unless the present Amendment were accepted. If the Court was changed as proposed it would alter his views as to the harm the clause would do. As had been pointed out, the present procedure was that when any labourer who was in receipt of less than 2s. 6d. a day applied for a cottage, he had to get his application signed by twelve men. Under the new Bill it was proposed to reduce the number to six. If a man made an application or concurred in making an application, and within twelve months afterwards was dismissed, he could apply to the Court for compensation, alleging that he had been dismissed because he had applied or concurred in an application for a cottage. He (Lord Inchiquin) might mention cases on his own estate. Only a resentment at his having made such an application, he had the money in his pocket. That seemed to him to be absolutely monstrous. What the noble Lord opposite (Lord Emly) had said was to a certain extent plausible, but he (Lord Robertson) objected to all these tinkering Amendments. The proper plan would be to withdraw them, and to move the rejection of the clause. They were now entering a region where one could hardly lift a finger without being liable in damages. The question which was to be submitted short time ago no less than twenty-nine applications were made, fifteen for new cottages and fourteen for the extra half acre. Each of those applications would require under the new Bill six signatures, but under the old Bill it was twelve, so that in this instance no less than 203 persons would come under this clause, and that number practically represented the whole of the labour for the district. The consequence would be that if any of those labourers had to be dismissed from their employment they would be able to take the employers into Court and to the tribunal was the claim three months wages. It was also very obscure and difficult one of the proposed that instead of three months motive which actuated the landlord in wages the labourer should be entitled to dismissing a labourer. Social life would six months wages. Three months be intolerable if a Court of law were wages represented £9 15s., and six called upon to make a scrutiny into the months wages would mean £19 10s. motives of an employer. They were now That was a grossly unfair thing, and it trenching upon the rights of private life in was impossible for a landlord to go into all the three kingdoms, and he objected Court and prove that he had not dis- most strongly to assenting to a clause of missed the man because he applied for this kind, or to acknowledging procedure a cottage, unless the offence were a grave upon clauses of this kind, where the basis one, and the ground of dismissal of liability was whether the breach was that the man was of drunken was purely imaginary. habits, that he came late every day, or that he had refused to carry out orders, all comparatively small things which were very difficult to prove before any Court, and more especially before a Court of summary jurisdiction, which meant a petty sessional Court. He did not wish to impute wrong motives to those Courts, but he had no confidence in them. He asked their Lordships to accept the Amendment, which would substitute the County Court Judge for the petty sessional Court, and if the Amendment were carried it would remove most of his objections to the clause. LORD ROBERTSON considered this was a very serious question. It was entirely a new ground of liability for damages, which seemed to him, if it were applicable to Ireland, to be equally applicable to the rest of the United Kingdom. It appeared that the situation was this that in order to procure a claim to three months wages, all a labourer had to do was to present an application under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, and then, supposing that he was the most drunken or incompetent servant going, if he were dismissed, and could persuade a friendly tribunal that the ultimate motive of his employer was Lord Inchiquin. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE admitted that the appearance of this clause was somewhat strange to those of their Lordships who might not be aquainted with the circumstances which called it into existence, but he might inform them that the reason why the clause was introduced was that in certain parts of Ireland, he did not believe in the South or West at all, but to a large extent in the North, the Labourers (Ireland) Acts had been rendered completely nugatory by the action of district councils and the tenant farmers. In a great many districts the practice had arisen of intimidating labourers from making use of their rights under the Labourers Dwellings Act by threatening them with dismissal, or by actually dismissing them. That was the reason why this clause was introduced into the Bill in the other House, and it appeared to have commended itself, and to have been supported by arguments which convinced the other House that such a provision was necessary. Not being aware of the history of the clause to a greater extent than he had explained, he must leave the clause to their Lordships. He concurred entirely in the view that it would be better to abstain from any Amendments such as had been suggested by the noble Lord opposite [Lord Emly], and that their |