Amendment moved

In page 16, after line 24, after the word 'money to insert as a new sub-section the words (6) For the purpose of givingeffect to this enactment, the Land Commission may, if they think fit, in the case of a terminable charge, satisfy the same by the investment in any securities in which trustees are by law authorised to invest trust money of a capital sum, the annual income of which will be sufficient to satisfy the annual amount of the charge.'"-(The Duke of Devonshire.)

THE EARL OF WESTMEATH said the Amendment went a long way towards meeting their views, but he suggested the omission of the words 'may, if they think fit," and the insertion, in their place, of the words "shall on the application of the vendor."

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I suppose the question as to the use of the word "may" or "shall" has been debated thousands of times in both Houses of Parliament. I conceive that the words "may, if they think fit" mean, "shall, if in their opinion, the case is one in which effect ought to be given to the provisions of the sub-section," and that discret on must necessarily be left to them. In all such cases as, in their opinion, come within the meaning of the sub-section the word may," I conceive, is equivalent to shall."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ARRAN had an Amendment on the paper to omit Sub-section 2 of Clause 25, which provided that

"If on the closing day the title of any person whose claim has been so attached to the purchase money, whether as vendor, or incumbrancer, or owner of a superior or intervening interest, is not established, and if a portion of the purchase money equivalent to the amount of his claim has not being invested in pursuance of the powers conferred by Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Act of 1887, then, until his title is established, interest in respect of the claim shall not be payable out of the purchase money or otherwise at a higher rate than the rate payable by the Land Commission to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of outstanding advances."

other land or securities which may be subject to such claims along with the lands sold." He said he understood that the Government were willing to accept to the word his Amendment down covenant," in which case he would withdraw the second part of the Amend

ment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND said the deletion of the latter half of the Amendment would meet the objection taken to the words as they appeared on the Paper, and if the Amendment were moved in that form he would offer no objection to it.

Amendment moved

"In page 18, line 20, to leave out the words 'out of the purchase money or otherwise ' and to insert the words out of the purchase money, or recoverable under any agreement or covenant.' —(The Earl of Arran.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

"In page 27, line 27, after the word 'in' to insert the words (a.) Bonds, debentures, or mortgages secured upon rates or taxes levied under the authority of any Act of Parliament or Provisional Order by any municipal corporation or other local authority in the United Kingdom which shall be authorised to borrow on such security; (b.) Ground rents arising out of hereditaments in the United Kingdom and not exceeding in amount one-fourth part of the annual value at a rack rent of the premises out of which such ground rents issue; (c.) Debentures or mortgages of railway companies in the United Kingdom incorporated by Act of Parliament;

railway interest upon which is guaranteed from or charged upon rates under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts; (e.) Bonds, debentures, or mortgages secured upon any investments in which trustees are authorised by this or any

other Act to invest trust funds; (f.) Deben- [ tures or fully-paid shares or stocks of any railway provided that the sufficiency of any such

investments to realise the sum invested therein

upon the death of the tenant for life or the termination of the trust shall be secured to the satisfaction of the public trustees under this Act."(Lord Castletown.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY) said he was prepared to accept the Amendment on condition that after the word" investments," in Sub-section (f.), the noble Lord would agree to insert the words " as are herein before in this section recited."

LORD CASTLETOWN said he was quite willing to accept the addition of these words.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CASTLETOWN said the new sub-section which he now moved to Clause 57 would prove very useful in the working of the Bill. He could not see what objection there could be to it.

Amendment moved

"In page 33, line 15, after the word 'matter,' to insert as a new sub-section the words: (6) In the cases of sales to tenants other than sales by the Land Commission or sales by the Land Judge, the date at which interest on the purchase money payable under Sub-section 2 of Section 35 of the Act of 1896 shall begin to be payable shall he (a.) If the agreement for purchase be made on any first day of May or first day of November from the date of such agreement; (b.) In all other cases from a date to be specified in the agreement, and not being earlier than the gale day immediately preceding the date of agreement; and such interest shall be dealt with according to the terms of the said sub-section." "--(Lord Castle

town.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRE. LAND said that no difficulty had arisen which rendered it at all necessary to make such an important change as that proposed in the ordinary and settled practice. When people entered into a bargain to buy or sell they could enter into a complete arrangement both as to the date and amount. He did not think it would be wise or prudent to seek to make the change proposed by the Amend

ment.

LORD CASTLETOWN said that when Clause 87 was in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland stated with regard to an Amendment then brought forward, similar to the one now on the Paper, that the Treasury would be terrified by the expense that would be put upon them if the Amendment were agreed to. He (Lord Castletown) had since received information from Dublin that every County Court Judge had a Court valuer who was paid £3 5s. a day when employed. The experts he proposed to substitute would get exactly the same salary, and therefore the Treasury would not lose anything on that head. The only difference was that the Lay Assistant Commissioner would be paid annually, and that during the time he was not assisting the County Court Judge in these cases he would be assisting the Land Commission.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND said he was not able to follow the sanguine view of the noble Lord that the Amendment would not involve any additional expenditure. It was quite true that the Court valuer when employed received £3 5s. a day; but if he was engaged for only two or three days on two or three occasions a year, the sum involved was a small one. If, however, he was employed at the same rate for the whole year it would come to a substantial sum. It would necessitate a very substantial increase in the large staff of Assistant Commissioners if each of the twenty-two County Court Judges in Ireland required, when their land sessions came on, to have the assistance and the presence of an Assistant Commissioner.

Lord Macnaghten.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to leave out Clause 95, which was inserted on Report on the Motion of Lord Monteagle of Brandon. He said he felt that he owed some apology to their Lordships for venturing to submit a Motion with regard to this Bill. If the matter had been one of detail he would not have intruded, because the details of the Bill were so many and so complicated that they could only be dealt with by noble Lords from Ireland, many of whom, especially some of the younger ones, had shown a very full and complete knowledge both of the probable operation and of the details of the Bill. But the matter which he ventured to raise was one of principle. Clause 95 contained, as he thought, a most injurious principle. His first objection had reference to the question of order. On the previous Friday this clause was under consideration and was then amended by their Lordships. After it had been amended and had assumed the form in which it now stood, a Motion was made to omit it, and their Lordships, by 66 votes to 48, struck the clause out of the Bill. If there was any rule to which their Lordships always bowed it was this, that when a decision had been arrived at by a substantial majority, whatever might be noble Lords' opinions with regard to the merits of that decision, it was accepted, and the decision remained recorded in the Bill. [The Marquess of RIPON dissented.] He understood the noble Marquess near him to challenge that.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON said he certainly challenged it as a rule of order.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN said it occasionally happened that when a decision was arrived at by a very narrow majority the matter was reconsidered by the House, but it was always usual to give formal notice that the House would be invited to reconsider its decision. In this particular case no such notice was given, and the Amendment was in direct contravention of the decision at which their Lordships arrived on Friday. He thought business in their Lordships' House would become very difficult of transaction if they were constantly to revise the decisions at which they had arrived after due consideration. If he had noticed the Amendment on

have asked their Lordships to reject it, because it asked the House to reverse its decision. In the House of Commons the Speaker would not have allowed the Amendment to be put on the Paper. This clause made a material change in the whole scope and policy of the Labourers Acts. The expression "agricultural labourer" was altered not merely with regard to this Act, but with regard to the Labourers Acts of 1883 and 1896. The definition as it stood in the Act of 1883 was that an agricultural labourer meant a person who habitually works for hire in agricultural work on the land of some other person, and whose principle means of living is such hire." It was amended in 1896 to mean a 66 man or woman whose occupation, during the ordinary season of agricultural work, is the doing of agricultural work for hire on the land of some other person or persons.' But in this Bill it is provided that—

66

Therefore this Bill enlarged the definition of "agricultural labourer" to such an extent that it would comprehend almost anybody who lived in a rural district. Clause 95 provided—

"Where any agricultural labourer has made, or concurred in the making of, a representation under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, and within twelve months thereafter is dismissed from his employment, he may apply to a County Court Judge for compensation, on the ground that he has been dismissed by reason of his having made, or concurred in making, the representation, and if in the opinion of the County Court Judge he was dismissed for the reason aforesaid, the County Court Judge may award him compensation not exceeding three months' wages."

In Ireland agricultural labourers were employed for short periods, and they had no right whatever to claim employment. Under this clause, if a labourer was lazy or had bad habits, and it was not unlikely that he would be dismissed, the best thing he could do, in his own interests, would be to join in making an application for a cottage, and then, in the event of his being

dismissed, to apply to the Judge for compensation. He protested strongly against the introduction of any enactment of this kind. He objected to the insertion of this clause because it tended to establish, as a system, the custom of building cottages out of the rates Why should Ireland in this matter be managed on principles quite different from those which obtained in England and Scotland? Mr. Wyndham had stated in the House of Commons that it was his intention to consider all the Irish Labourers Acts during the autumn, and, after consulta tion with his colleagues, to frame a Bill dealing completely with the subject. That being so, it appeared to him that to introduce into this Bill such a clause as this was a very great mistake. They did not know what the intentions of the

Chief Secretary were, but if he really intended to enlarge the application of the Labourers Acts, and to create a system of building cottages upon the rates, the whole of the efforts in this Bill to create peace in Ireland, at very great cost to the taxpayer, would be thrown away,

and a foundation would be laid for a new war between the new owners of the land and the labourers. He urged their Lordships to revert to their former decision and omit the clause.

Amendment moved

"To leave out Clause 95, which was inserted on Report on Motion of Lord Monteagle of Brandon."-(The Earl of Camperdown.)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I do not wish to discuss the merits of this clause, though I voted against it, but I cannot agree with my noble friend that there is any point of order. There is no rule of order that the House cannot at one stage of the Bill cancel or alter an Amendment moved at another stage.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON said that all he stated was that there was no rule of order against the procedure that had taken place. He was glad to be supported in that view by the Lord Chairman of Committees.

LORD INCHIQUIN, who at the Committee stage, moved the rejection of this clause, said that at the time of moving it he admitted that the alteration which The Earl of Camperdown.

had been made by substituting the County Court Judge for the Summary Jurisdiction Court very largely met his view, but did not entirely remove his objections. One of the chief objections to the clause was that it placed an unjust power in the hands of labourers, not only against landlords, but against all employers of labour in Ireland. He had the greatest objection to the clause even as it stood, but at this late period of the session, and after the substantial concessions that had been given them, he appealed to his noble friend to withdraw his Amendment, especially in view of the fact that they had been promised a Bill next year dealing with dealing with the whole question.

THE EARL OF MEATH associated him

He

self with the protest made by Lord did not think many noble Lords had Camperdown against this clause. If it was passed there was not the slightest realised how dangerous the clause was. doubt that within a very short period its principles would be extended England and Scotland.

to

VISCOUNT GOSCHEN desired to associate himself with the Earl of Camperdown in his protest against this clause. There was only one adjective which could be applied to it, and that was the word "preposterous. It contained a dangerous precedent, and he, at all events, joined in entering a protest against it.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN said un

doubtedly the clause as it stood was less objectionable than it was in its original shape. The portion of the Bill which dealt with the labourers was of a provisional character, for they all knew that there was to be a Bill brought in next session. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

LORD CASTLETOWN, while admitting that the clause contained an unadvised that the objection to it should pleasant germ, yet upon consideration not be pressed. Surely it was only fair, if they were going to assist these men to obtain decent dwellings, to give them the power to resist the intimidation which everyone who lived in Ireland knew existed. The members of the rural district councils were the chief offenders,

and it would have been better, he thought, if a provision could have been inserted by which they could be punished. The representations of the labourer for the purpose of getting a cottage takes the form that a certain number of labourers club together and make a representation for a certain cottage to be given to a man. An inspector goes down to the place to hear objections; he finds out the best place for putting the cottage, and the arrange ment is carried out under those lines. The owners in Ireland are perfectly protected in that way. The only person to run any risk or danger is the farmer on whose land they desire to place these houses, and these are the men who have made the difficulty. A farmer, especially in the South of Ireland, will not allow two or three labourers' cottages to be placed on his land, and the only way to force him to do it is by these representa tions. He hoped his noble friend would withdraw his opposition to this clause. If he knew the country as well as they did, he would realise that it had been put forward with the best intentions, although, he must admit, there might be an unpleasant germ contained in it.

LORD MACNAGHTEN : I quite agree with the noble Viscount who described this clause as 66 preposterous." Indeed I am not quite sure that it is not grotesque. But as there is a great difference of opinion in the House about it, I think it would be a pity to go to a division and rekindle old fires. I must also say that I do not think it affects the landlords in the least. No one has ever said that the landlords were engaged in this difference of opinion, and perhaps, as the noble Duke directly hinted, it is in my county that the mischief is brewing. I may say I know perfectly well that in Antrim the farmers have the greatest possible objection to it. I made enquiries there last summer, however, and found that the objection had almost entirely disappeared, and they are not unwilling now to part with their land for the erection of houses thereon, if they are paid a good price for it. The real great difficulty to the working of these Labourers Acts is the enormous cost, the absolutely preposterous legal cost that is involved in taking a small patch of land. If you take only one acre they go back 100 years, and they make the mortgagee or any person who may be VOL. CXXVII [FOURTH SERIES].

entitled to the dower, join in the deed. That is the real difficulty in working these Acts, and I hope my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, will do his best to get rid of that difficulty. That is what makes County Councils and District Councils so averse to building these houses. It is not the cost of the land or of the building, but the legal costs incurred in getting the land.

Per

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: As one of the younger Members of your Lordships' House, who was particularly vigilant in opposing this clause on the Committee stage, I hope I may be allowed to join in the appeal and ask my noble friend not to press the clause to a division. I objected to the clause directly I saw in the Bill that we were to be confined to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, to which, in the absence of any appeal, I am not particularly keen to take any cause very often. The clause no longer contains this very great defect. From the very first I felt that this clause was particularly hard, more especially as I think the landowners, in the part of the country from which I come, have done their best to make some of these Labourers Acts a success. sonally, I was always glad to find one of these representation papers come in, and for the labourer, instead of having a horrible hovel situate in a filthy yard, to have a chance of getting hold of a decent house with an acre of land, and so better his position. But I did feel it hard that, whereas some of us had done our best to encourage this improvement, the only result was to raise the sword of Damocles over our heads. That, however, we shall have to put up with in the future, and I hope that the prophecy of my noble friend that the landlords are to be separated from the farmers in this matter, by some action that I confess I do not understand, may be realised. Personally, I think the action of this Bill will be the opposite to what my noble friend thinks. I have an idea that we shall all become farmers ourselves, and possibly in a few years hence I may be found driving my pigs into the market and bargaining for the sale of them with the noble Lord below me. But I understand now what I did not know at first, that these Labourers Acts have been abused by certain individuals in different parts of the country, and I only hope that we, who have not offended, will not suffer

2 F