In the hallowed halls of the House of Commons, the ongoing debate over the financial provisions of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill took an intriguing turn. Mr O’Shaughnessy, a Member of Parliament with a keen eye on matters concerning his constituents, raised pertinent questions regarding the potential retrospective nature of the bill and the expenses incurred by the Rural District Council of Kilmallock, nestled in the County of Limerick.
The Labourers (Ireland) Bill had been a subject of considerable deliberation and concern, especially among local councils and representatives. Mr O’Shaughnessy sought clarification from the Chief Secretary on whether he had received copies of resolutions from the Limerick and Glin District Councils. These resolutions, it appeared, aimed to shed light on the reasons why the financial provisions of the bill should be made retrospective, specifically concerning the repayment of outstanding loans borrowed for the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
In response to these inquiries, Mr Bryce, the Chief Secretary, provided a measured response. He confirmed that indeed, resolutions advocating for retrospective provisions had been received. However, he stopped short of revealing the government’s stance on the matter, noting that their intentions would be made known when the Labourers (Ireland) Bill reached the Report stage.
This left the matter hanging in suspense, with local councils and concerned parties eagerly awaiting the government’s position on the critical issue of retrospection.
Turning his attention to a more localized concern, Mr O’Shaughnessy directed another query towards the Chief Secretary. He sought information about the expenses charged to the Rural District Council of Kilmallock, situated in the County of Limerick, by the Local Government Board. These expenses were incurred in connection with the council’s application for a Provisional Order, a significant step in the implementation of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts. According to Mr O’Shaughnessy, these expenses amounted to a notable sum, totaling £101 10s 6d.
Mr Bryce, in his response, provided a breakdown of the expenses incurred during the inquiry. The expenses included advertising the inquiry (£7 10s), shorthand writing (£78 13s 9d), legal costs for the preparation of the order (£10 10s 8d), and the publication of the order (£4 16s). This meticulous account revealed the multifaceted nature of the expenses associated with such inquiries, encompassing a range of activities and services.
Crucially, Mr Bryce emphasized that one of the primary objectives of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, currently under parliamentary consideration, was to streamline and economize the procedure under the Labourers Acts. He pointed out that while the Local Government Board did incur expenses related to these inquiries, they did not charge local authorities for the salaries or expenses of the inspectors or the general expenses of the Board. Instead, the expenses were limited to the actual legal reporting and advertising costs associated with the inquiries.
The implications of these inquiries and the impending decisions on the retrospective nature of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill were far-reaching. They held the potential to influence the financial burden borne by local councils, impact the efficiency of labourer-related inquiries, and shape the future trajectory of labourer welfare in Ireland.
As the Labourers (Ireland) Bill continued to progress through the legislative process, the eyes of many remained fixed on Westminster, awaiting further developments in this ongoing saga of labourer rights and financial responsibilities.
Limerick Echo – Tuesday 24 July 1906
