§ On the motion for the Second Reading of this Bill,
§ MR. DILLONsaid that if he agreed lot-he Second Reading of the Rill he must not be taken to agree to the proportion in which the grant was made. He did not know whether this course met with the approval of all his colleagues, but he should think the most convenient course would be to allow the whole question of the proportion to stand over till next year, when it could be discussed in connection with the report of the Financial Relations Commission. He felt bound even at that late hour to 198 point out the outrageous and extraordinary conduct of the Treasury in regard to these special grants to Ireland. Under this Rill it was proposed to go back to the old proportion of 9–80ths. When this proportion was originally adopted in the case of the Probate Duty Grant, and subsequently in the case of the Fee Grant, the Irish Members protested against it as unfair to Ireland. In the case of the Fee Grant, when they protested against this proportion and wanted provision to be made on the basis of allowing 10s. per child, they could not get it because it was said that it would put Ireland in a worse position; but ultimately the Treasury turned round and gave them the 10s. ahead, when it was found that the 9 -80ths would put them in a better position. How could the Government attempt to justify their present action inface of their conduct in the case of the School Fee Grant? He felt bound to enter his strongest protest against the principle of the Rill.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that the basis on which the Bill was framed was the basis which had been adopted since 1888. Hitherto Parliament had adhered to that basis with regard to grants from the Imperial Revenue for the purpose of local taxation. This was a Bill for the object of making such a grant, and this was the only basis which they could adopt. Whatever was the result of the consideration of the financial relations between England and Ireland in the future, they could not at present depart from the basis that had hitherto been followed.
MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that it would be better to bringall this money into a separate account and to leave the question over for another year, if that course could be constitutionally followed? It was unfair to press a Bill of this character upon Irish Members at this time of the Session. To agree to the Pill would be to assent to a principle they could not afterwards get rid of. It was a temporary Bill, but he objected to being 199 fettered by it for five years. In a thin House, in the expiring clays of the Session, without having had the opportunity of consulting together or with their constituents, Irish Members were not in a position to consider the subject. The nine-eightieths was understood to be the fixed and decided amount, and the Bill being passed would be used as a precedent. Such a Bill should remain in force only until the next Act came into operation, and the Government should give an undertaking to pass a Bill next year de novo, without reference to the temporary Bill, and meantime the amount should not be allocated.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid practically that was what he proposed. The money would not be allocated for any specific object. The period of five years was introduced because that would be the duration of the English Act.
MR. T. M. HEALYasked what was the meaning of "shall pay to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account within the meaning of the Probate Act, 1888;" and when he turned to the Probate Act, he found that, by the third section,
All sums paid in respect of the Probate Duty Grant to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account shall, until otherwise provided by Parliament, be annually distributed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as follows:£5,000 to the Royal Dublin Society for the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, and the balance between the road authorities and the poor-law unions.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was only to indicate what the local taxation account was to which this money was to be applied. It did not at all involve that the money should be appropriated in a particular way. It was merely carried to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account in order that, when the financial year came to an end, it might not be paid back to the Treasury. It would be necessary to bring in a Bill next Session in order to further that matter, The question raised by the hon. Member might be raised when that Bill was brought in.
§ Mr. DILLONasked if the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to accepting the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Louth, and making the Bill only for one year?
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if he might answer the question, he would say that he should have thought that would be an objection from the point of view of hon. Members from Ireland. As the Bill now stood it secured this grant to Ireland, for whatever Irish purpose it might be allotted to subsequently, for a period of five years. Surely that would be better than merely making it for one year.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERNo, not at all.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYThere is absolutely nothing in this Bill which determines the money for any particular purpose whatever. It remains absolutely open. All this Bill determines is that Ireland and Ireland alone shall get it.
§ MR. DILLONWe can raise the matter in Committee.
Bill read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.