contained in the Amendment of his sions which the Court might sanction. hon. Friend was necessary to secure In the other Amendment there were no and protect the proper cultivation of limitations, and it would be hopeless to the soil. He would therefore suggest pass it if the present Amendment were that, if the Amendment were withdrawn, rejected. the Prime Minister should give some

Mr. O'CONNOR POWER said, that, substantial hope that he would, before in his speech on the second reading of the the House met again that day, re-con- | Bill he had commented very seriously sider the whole question with a view to on the 1st clause, in reference to the remeeting the almost unanimous wish of striction of the sale to one person. They Irish Members.

had heard a great deal about tho necesMr. J. N. RICHARDSON also hoped sity of relieving certain districts by disthe Prime Minister would re-consider tributing the population over other disthis matter, and if a division was not tricts. He had pointed out that they taken on the Amendment of the hon had an opportunity, by allowing large Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sul- farms to be sold to a number of persons, livan), that he would, perhaps, see his of effecting the very thing they had atway to adopt the suggestion of the hon. tempted in vain to bring about by the and learned Member below him (Mr.“ Bright's Clauses” in the Act of 1870. Charles Russell) to allow the Court to He was not so sanguine as the hon. deal with the question of sub-division. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. ParHe had the honour to represent the nell) that they would be able to relieve county which in Ireland was called “ The the congested districts of Ireland under county of small farins," which, he bo- the provisions of the Bill; and, he conlieved, would compare favourably with tended, it would be a great pity to lose any other in respect of the payment of the opportunity they now had of breakrents.

ing up some of the large farms. It was Sir R. ASSIETON CROSS said, he proposed, not that the tenant should have hoped, on the contrary, the Prime this power absolutely, but that a Court Minister would stand by the declaration should have the decision of that very he had made. lle agreed with the difficult question. It seemed to him that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the power which they sought to conser that the tenant when he took his hold. on the tenant was analogous, in spirit, ing could have had no notion that he to the abolition of the Law of Primogeniwould have the right of dividing it. As ture, of which almost every land rethe Bill stood already, the landlord was former was in favour; and he thought not to get the best price he could for his the sense of the Committee should be property. But tho case was different tested on the question, either on the with the tenant; he was to have the Amendment of the hon. Member for power of getting the very best for his Limerick, or that of the hon. Member share, and now it was proposed that not for the County of Monaghan (Mr. only should he get the best price for it Givan as a whole, but that he might, so to MN. WALTER said, that hitherto speak, cut it up into little bits. Con in the course of these debates he had sidering that, up to the present time, not said a word; but he now wished to the tenant was not supposed to have say that, though he had no objection, in any joint proprietary in the soil, it was principle, to the sub-division of these a strange thing to say that the landlord large farms, he doubted very much whewas not to get the best price he could, ther the tenants should be allowed to but that the tenant was to do so, and bring it about on their own motion. was to bo allowed to cut up the land (An hon. MEMBIR: No; the Court.] into small portions.

He doubted whether the tenants should Sir JOSEP M.KENNI thought be allowed to bring it about, even with that of the two Amendments, that of the the consent of tho Court. One of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sul- main features of this legislation, as well livan) was to be preferred. If it were as of the legislation of 1870, was that accepted, he did not think any harm farms of a certain size and rental should could follow, for the reason that the be excluded from the operation of these operation of the clause would be limited | Acts. Well, bearing that in mind, was in respect to the particular sub-divi- , it right to allow the tenant or the Court

[Fifth Night.]

to sub-divide the farm, when the imme-| the enormous emigration that was going diate effect would be to break up a farm, on. say, of 300 or 400 acres, which ex hypo- MR. O'S ULLIVAN said, he was thesi was out-ide the operation of the anxious to see the Bill passed without Act. into a number of small farms which delay, because, though it might not be would come under the operation of the all they wished for, still there were some Act? The feeling of most landlords very good things in it. However, he felt Frould be rather to be outside than in- bound to press the Amendment, as he side the operation of the Act.

believed it to be important, so far as the MR. HEALY said, that, instead of at. peace of the country was concerned. The tempting to amend the clause, hon. Mem- Prime Minister had pointed out that bers should, from first to last, entirely new buildings would have to be erected. set their faces against it. If the clause Well, there was nothing to complain of was struck out, the Irish tenants would in that. Then the right hon. Gentleman not be a bit the worse off.

said the tenants never expected this. In MR. BIGGAR said, the right hon. reply to that, he would ask whether the Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) had tenants were not now getting many started with a fallacy, because he laid things that they never expected ? If down the principle that the tenant, when this Bill were not carried, they would he took a holding, took it subject to cer- get much more than they ever expected. tain conditions ; but the right hon. Gen. Every tenant in Ireland, no matter how tleman must know that in a great many small or large his holding, would come cases a particular holding had been in under the Bill. He had known cases possession of a family for one or tiro where tenants had farms of the value of generations. Ireland was an agricultural | £30—20 or 30 acres in extent--and were country, and the land should be so ap- able to live as comfortably as other men portioned that it could be turned over with 100 acres. He wished to prevent Trith the spade, instead of being treated the landlord from selling the tenant's into farning operations on a large scale, terest; and, as he thought it would be which system had failed so miserably fatal to the interests of Ireland if his in England. In their experience in Ire- Amendment were not passed, the matter land, the small farms had been most was of too great importance to be decided successful. He had given Notice of an to-night. Hon. Members should think Amendment which went very much fur- over the matter; and, in order to enable ther into the question of sub-division them to do so, he would move to report than the Amendment of the hon. Mem. Progress. ber for Limerick, which would have

Motion made, and Question proposed, very little practical effect in the parts

“ That the Chairman do report Proof Ireland with which he was quainted. The hon. Member's Amend-gress, and ask leave to sit again."-(ur.

O'Sullivan.) ment might have effect in Meath, Tipperary, and Limerick ; but the principle MR. GLADSTONE: I admit the time which would allow a farm to continue has come when we ought to think about increasing in size without chance of reporting Progress; but it really seems sub-division was a most objectionable to me that we ought to dispose of this one. - One of the great causes of the Amendment first. It must be borne in present agitation in Ireland was the esist- mind that we do not dismiss the entire ence of large farms without facilities subject by disposing of this Amendment, for sub-division.

because there is the proposal of the hon. MR. A. MOORE said, that it was a Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) to very serious thing to compel the land be discussed. He has put his proposal lord to increase the number of his ten- in a different form, and has evidently ants; but, at the same time, the ques- framed it with greater care, and he has tion was of enormous importance. Emi- announced that he will bring it forward gration was going on to a consider- to-morrow. I hope, therefore, that we able extent. The Bill afforded facilities shall be able to decide upon the Amend. for the increase of that emigration, and ment before us to-night. he really thought it was of great im- Mr. O'SHEA said, the Amendment portance in the life of a nation that of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. some steps should be taken to counteract Givan) would give them all they wanted;

Mr. Walter


therefore, he trusted that the hon. Mem- THE O'DONOGHUE did not think ber (Mr. O'Sullivan) would withdraw his the Prime Minister had given any reaproposal.

son worthy of the name against the MR. O'SULLIVAN said, that if hon. | Amendment of his hon. Friend. Far Members would look at his Amendment, greater powers than were proposed to they would see that he did not want to be conferred on the Court by the Amendgive power to the tenant at all. All ment were already conferred by the that he proposed was that the Court Bill. should allow the tenant to sell. Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, speaking

Motion, by leave, withdrawn. from the landlords' point of view, would MR. O'SULLIVAN: On condition that think the Amendment of the hon. the Amendment of the hon. Member for Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) Monaghan (Mr. Givan) will be discussed infinitely less objectionable than that of to-morrow, I will withdraw my Amend. the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. ment. Givan), because, according to the former,

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. the permission to sub-divide would only become operative in cases where the Committee report Progress; to sit rent was over £100 a-year, and no ten- again To-morrow, at Two of the clock. ancy would be reduced below £30 ayear. The hon. Member for Monaghan ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION (Mr. Givan), no doubt, was animated by

BILL (Lords.]—[Bill 119.) the best intentions; but he proposed to

(Vr. Dodson.) sanction division to any extent the Court

COMMITTEE. [Progress 26th May.) might allow. Let them take the decision

Bill considered in Committee. on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick, which, though it did

(In the Committee.) not so far recommend itself to the Com

Clause 16 (Annual Report to Local mittee would, he ventured to say, have Government Board). a better chance of support than the

Amendment proposed, other. Mr. PARNELL: I wish to ask you, ings," and insert the proceedings of himself

In line 7, page 41, to leave out "his proceedMr. Chairman, as a point of Order, and of the other inspectors under this Act.”— whether, if the Amendment of the hon. (Ir, Dodson.) Member for Limerick is negatived, that of the hon. Member for Mona- his proceedings' stand part of the

Question proposed, " That the words ghan (Mr. Givan) can be moved after-Clause." wards ?

Tue CHAIRMAN: I see nothing in MR. BIGGAR said, they had to meet the Amendment of the hon. Member at 2 o'clock to-morrow-within 12 hours for Monaghan that is not completely in from then--and, considering the time Order.

the Chairman had already been in the MR. A. M. SULLIVAN would appeal | Chair, it was only reasonable that they to the hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan) should report Progress. He was opposed to withdraw his Amendment, as there to legislating at that hour of tho mornwas not much difference between the ing. two, if the withdrawal of his Amend.

Motion made, and Question proposed, ment would smooth the way to somno

“ That the Chairman do report Proreasonable understanding. There had been such unanimity on that the Op- Igress, and ask leave to sit again.”

1Mr. position) side of the House, that he had no doubt his hon. Friend would MR. DODSON ventured to hope that give way.

There had been exhibited the Committee would not accept the prothat night a feeling on the part of the posal of the hon. Member for Cavan. Irish Representatives which any Cabinet The Bill, as he had said before, was one Minister who ever ruled must, in some in which a great deal of interest was felt measure, defer to. He would ask his on both sides of the House. There had hon. Friend to withdraw his Amend- been no objection taken to it throughout, ment, though it seemed to him prefer- except on points of detail; and those able to the other.

points, he thought, could be very rapidly disposed of if the hon. Member would MAJOR NOLAN pointed out that the allow them to proceed.

clause gave power to recover fines in Mr. R. POWER said, he would sug- Ireland. Such a stringent Bill was not gest that Progress should be reported required for Ireland, although in some at 2 o'clock.

parts of England, such as the Black EARL PERCY said, that the Bill had Country, the escape of hydrochloric gas great interest for many English Mem- caused much mischief. He moved to bers, if it had not for Irish ones, and it omit from line 16 to line 20. would be a great convenience to them

Amendment proposed, to proceed with its consideration. MR. DODSON hoped the Bill might

In page 10, to leave out from the word “In," be got through before 2 o'clock; but he in line 16, to the word “ bills” in line 20, both

inclusive. Vajor Nolan.) should be sorry to pledge himself to the

Question proposed, “That the words exact moment. He trusted the hon. Member for Cavan would consent to proposed to be left out stand part of the

Clause." withdraw his Motion.

MR. BIGGAR was disposed to let the Mr. O'SHEA observed, that no satis. Committee proceed; but there was one factory answer had been given to the clause which raised a very important proposal. principle-namely, that in respect to

MR. DODSON said, the answer was joint liability for the acts of a single that in the first Alkali Act, which was person. That clause, he thought, could in force at the present time, it was pronot be taken at that late hour.

vided that in Ireland all penalties, exMotion, by leave, withdrawn.

cept penalties against a special rule,

might be recovered in the Civil Court Question, “That the words 'his

at the instance of the Inspector. The

proceedings' stand part of the Clause," put, and the clause only provided for the re

present Bill was a Consolidation Bill, and negatived.

covery of fines in the same terms as in Proposed words substituted.

the Act which had been in force since

1863. MR. DODSON proposed to add, at MAJOR NOLAN believed this to be a the end of the preceding Amendment, more severe Bill than the Act of 1863. the words “who shall furnish him with It was five or six times more severe as a detailed account of the number of in- to the volume of gas escaping: spections of works in their districts."

Mr. HEALY asked if the right hon. Amendment agreed to; words added. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would be will

ing to exclude all towns in Ireland of EARL PERCY proposed the further under 50,000 inhabitants ? The proaddition to the right hon. Gentleman's posed regulations would crush all atAmendment of the words " and the re-tempts at future manufactures. corded

escapes of acid gases in all such MR. DODSON said, the Bill was not works."

intended to apply simply to populous Amendment agreed to; words added.

places, for it was intended to protect

crops and vegetation. It was introduced Clause, as amended, agreed to, and originally at the suggestion of residents ordered to stand part of the Bill. near works, especially cultivators of land.

He doubted how far the suggestion could Clauses 17 to 19, inclusive, agreed to. be carried out; but if the hon. Member

would wait for the Report, he would enClause 20 (Recovery of fines for of deavour to ascertain how far that would fences against Act in county court). be possible.

MAJOR NOLAN proposed, as an MR. O'SHEA hoped the right hon. Amendment, to omit all reference to Gentleman would listen to the words of Ireland, on the ground that, in many wisdom from the hon. Member for Woxrespects, the Bill was not applicable to ford (Mr. Healy), and would see that Ireland, there being no manufactories the Irish Members desired to encourage in many parts of the country.

manufactures in Ireland. The cultiva. MR. DODSON said, the Amendment tors of land in Ireland had made no did not properly arise on that clause. complaints of fumes from alkali works,

Mr. Dodson

for one reason, because there were no | Arthur Arnold) and other English Memalkali works there; and it would be time bers would not overweight the wishes of enough to restrict when there was some- the Irish people. thing to restrict. There were, unfortu- MR. HIBBERT said, if Ireland was nately, large tracts of land in Ireland excluded, there would be no legislation on which nothing useful grew ; and he for Ireland at all. Ireland was now wished the hon. Member for Swansea, or under the Acts in operation, and he did other great chemical manufacturers and not see how they could go back from smelters, to be given every encourage- those Acts. The suggestion was not one ment to plant useful works in the midst to which the Government could accede of them.

off-hand, and, after all, the works in MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD wished hon. England were prepared and willing to Members opposite, who said they had be placed under the Bill. spoken words of wisdom, would speak under the Bill, and Ireland was not, words of mercy. There were places in great advantages would be given to Lancashire where people died through Irish manufacturers. The Government the fumes from alkali works getting into were, of course, willing to do all they the water; and he thought hon. Mem- could to promote the industries of Irebers from Ireland might desire to pro- land; but he thought it would be more tect life in that country as well as in practical for the hon. and gallant MemEngland.

ber for Galway (Major Nolan) and the DR. COMMINS said, that there were hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) very few alkali works in Ireland; but to prepare some Amendment on Report, there were some cement works, and and let his (Mr. Hibbert's) right hon. chemical manure works, which were in- Friend consider it. cluded in the Bill. There were also MAJOR NOLAN thought the hon. some small works, such as sulphuric Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) had given acid works, which he did not think did up their case when he said the proposal much harm, but which would be inter- would give great advantages to Ireland; fered with and crushed by the Bill. but if they got a definite promise from Nobody in Ireland asked for or desired the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) the Bill.

that all towns in Ireland of under MAJOR NOLAN approved of the sug- 50,000 inhabitants should be left out gestion of the hon. Member for Wex- he would withdraw his opposition. If ford (Mr. Healy), and said that if the not, he must press his Amendment to a right hon. Gentleman would insert a division. clause to that effect he should be con- MR. BIGGAR could not see how the tent. The Irish Members were quite proposal could be refused. The manure willing that the hon. Member for Sal- works in Belfast were very objectionford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) should have able, and it was desirable that they what legislation he liked for Lancashire, should be removed; but some inducement if he would let them have what they must be given to the owners to move wished. They had good air in Ireland; them. they wanted industries, and did not wish MR. DODSON said, he really could to be restricted by legislation, or to have not off-hand undertake to give a definite their money wasted on Inspectors. This promise. The proposal had been sudBill was one of those unfortunate pieces denly sprung upon him. of legislation in which the Government MAJOR NOLAN said, it was made on started from a different point than the the first night of considering the Bill. Irish Members, and asked them to work MR. DODSON replied, that on the first up to it. If the right hon. Gentleman night the hon. and gallant Member would exclude Ireland from the Bill

, raised the question whether Ireland except two or three large towns, he should be excluded, and several Irish would withdraw any opposition.

Members were strongly of opinion that NR. CALLAN hoped the suggestion it should be included. The hon. Memwould be acceded to. They did not ber for Dublin Mr. M. Brooks) certainly want England to protect them; they was one. No proposal was made for wanted to get some obnoxious industries the exclusion of certain parts, and he into Ireland; and he hoped the wishes could not be expected to accede to this of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. proposal on the spur of the moment

« ForrigeFortsett »