Commons Sitting of 21 February 1898

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILLS.
MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Barry Railway Bill: Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill: Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Water Bill: City and South London Railway Bill: Cranbrook District Water Bill: Enfield Gas Bill: Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill: Gaslight and Coke Company Bill: Great Eastern Railway Company and Midland and Great Northern Railways Joint Committee Bill: Great Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill: Great Northern Railway Bill: Hartlepool Gas and Water Bill: Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water Bill: London, Tilbury and Southend Railway Bill: London, Walthamstow and Epping Forest Railway Bill: Mumbles Railway and Pier Bill: North Pembrokeshire and Fishguard Railway Bill: Norwich City Water Bill: Southend-on-Sea Gas
1190
Bill: Southwark and Vauxhall Water Bill: Thanet Gas Bill: Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill: York United Gas Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.: — St. Anne's-on-the-Sea Gas Bill: Whit-wick and Coalville Gas Bill: Writers to the Signet Widows' Fund Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Andoversford and Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Bill: Bolton, Turton and Westhoughton Extension Bill: Cardiff Corporation Bill: Carmarthen Improvement Bill: City and Brixton Railway Bill: Corporation of London (Foreign Cattle Market, Deptford) Bill: Coventry Corporation Gas Bill: Crawley and District Water Bill: East Ham Improvement Bill: Edmonton Urban District Council Bill: Frodingham Gas Bill: read a second time, and committed.
Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill, Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
Haslemere District Water and Gas Bill, read a second time, and committed.
Ilford Improvement Bill, to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 1st March.
Ilkeston Corporation Bill: Ipswich Dock Commission Bill: Keighley Corporation Bill: Kew Bridge and Approaches Bill: Knott End Railway Bill: Lancashire County Council Bill: Leyton Urban District Council Bill: Liverpool Corporation Bill: Llanelly and Pontardulais Railway Bill: read a second time, and committed.
London Building Act (1894) Amendment Bill, to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 1st March.
London County Council (Acton Sewage) Bill: London County Council (General Powers) Bill: Matlock Urban District Council Bill: Middlesbrough Corporation (Gas) Bill: Middlesex County Council Bill: North Warwickshire Water Bill: Northam Urban District Water Bill: Nottingham Corporation Bill: Paignton Improvement Bill: Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill: read a second time and committed.
St. Helens Corporation Bill: Staines second time upon Wednesday.
St. Helens Corporation Bill: Staines Reservoirs Joint Committee Bill: Usk Valley Railway Bill: read a second time, and committed.
Victoria Embankment Extension and St. John's Improvement Bill, to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 1st March.
West Ham Corporation Bill: Wishaw Water Bill: read a second time, and committed.
Bristol Tramways (Extensions),—Petition and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Edward Hill and Mr. Bucknill.

QUESTIONS.

  PROSECUTION FOR BREACH OF FACTORY ACTS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the result of a prosecution conducted by Miss Paterson in Edinburgh against Messrs. McVitie and Price for a breach of the Factory Acts, in which, though a conviction was secured, no penalty was inflicted and no costs were allowed; whether he is aware that this result was due to the production in court of a letter written by the district inspector to Messrs. McVitie and Price, after the date of the offence, sanctioning a continuance of the practice on account of which proceedings
  1192
  had been taken by Miss Paterson; and what steps have been taken in the matter?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): My attention was called to this matter at the time it occurred. It is the case that a letter was written by the district inspector which was interpreted as sanctioning a continuance of the practice for which the firm was being prosecuted. In so doing he committed an error of judgment, and, in my opinion, failed to carry out the instructions issued only a month or two before for the purpose of securing effective co-operation between the district inspectors and the lady inspectors. The Chief Inspector has dealt with the matter in a way which will, I feel sure, prevent any similar failure in future.

AMOUNT OF CUSTOMS DUTIES.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state what amount of Customs Duties were obtained by examination of the personal luggage of passengers from the Continent arriving last year at London, Dover, Folkestone, Queenborough, Harwich, Newhaven, or Southampton, and what proportion it bore to the cost of examination and collection; and if the Treasury has considered with the Board of Customs either the suggestion of Sir Algernon West, ex-Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, of freeing personal luggage from examination, save in suspected cases, on a declaration and 1s. fee, or any other method which, without endangering the Revenue, would absolve passengers arriving in this country from the delay and annoyance attending examination of trunks and handbags which could not contain any considerable quantity of dutiable imports?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The Customs Duties obtained

1193
during the year 1897 by examination of the personal luggage of passengers arriving from the Continent at the places in question amounted to £7,205 11s. 2d. It would be impossible to state with any approach to accuracy the proportion between that amount and the cost of examination and collection, because the work is not done by a special staff, but by officers who are temporarily withdrawn for the purpose from their ordinary duties as occasion requires. The suggestion referred to in the second paragraph has been considered by the Board of Customs, but it has not been found acceptable. Its adoption would not secure any reduction of expenditure, as it would be necessary to retain the present machinery and staff for examination in the case of passengers who might not choose to avail themselves of the option to make the declaration and pay the fee. I doubt very much whether any considerable proportion of passengers would care to avail themselves of that procedure, and there is, too, much reason to fear that among the cases in which it would be adopted would be just those in which examination would be most desirable. The suggestion was that the Customs should still retain the power of examination in suspected cases in spite of the declaration and fee; but I think this would be throwing an invidious duty on the Customs officers, and adding unnecessary complications to the present system. No effort is spared to minimise the inconvenience and trouble to passengers under the present system, and I know of no method which would enable examination to be dispensed with without endangering the Revenue.

PROVISIONAL ORDERS FOR LIGHT RAILWAYS.
MR. EMERSON BAINBRIDGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he could state to the House how many Provisional Orders for Light Railways have been granted by the Light Railway Commissioners since the passing of the Act; how many have been confirmed by the Board of Trade; and what amount of the grant of money provided by the Act has been advanced up to the present time.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Up to the present time 16 Orders have been made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and submitted to the Board of Trade for confirmation. Of these, four have been confirmed by the Board of Trade after modification, and five others will shortly be ready for confirmation. One Order has been remitted to the Light Railway Commissioners for further consideration, and in the case of the remaining six Orders the time allowed for lodging objections has not yet expired. None of the undertakings authorised made any claims for financial assistance either from the Treasury or Local Authorities. Grants, however, have been provisionally sanctioned by the Treasury in cases which are still under the consideration of the Light Railway Commissioners. I presented a Report of proceedings under the Light Railway Act on the 11th instant, and hoped it would have been circulated before this.

SHIPWRIGHT RATINGS.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what has been the result of the tour of Captain Niblet and Paymaster Gifford, undertaken to ascertain how to improve the recruiting of shipwright ratings in the Navy; and whether it would be possible to give a return of the number of shipwrights allocated to each of the larger ships of the Fleet?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The right hon. Baronet is in error in supposing that the tour undertaken by the officers in question was undertaken to ascertain how to improve the recruiting of shipwright ratings in the Navy. They were instructed to deal with the question of recruiting generally for the Navy, and of opening up and varying sources of supply for all ratings—shipwright ratings were, of course, included. The Report is under the consideration of the Board. The House will understand that the shipwrights mentioned in the Question are men who go afloat with the

1195
shipwrights in the dockyards. The return asked for would be misleading, as artisan ratings above the rank of shipwright—i.e., men who have been shipwrights, but have advanced to leading shipwrights or carpenters' mates, should be included; but I may say, generally, that the complements for ships of a tonnage of 7,000 to 12,000 tons and upwards include seven shipwright ratings—i.e., two shipwrights and five leading shipwrights and carpenters' mates.

NATURALISATION LAWS: GIBRALTAR.
MR. G. KEMP: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any local law exists at Gibraltar whereby a natural born subject of Her Majesty upon becoming the widow of an alien is prevented from reverting to her own nationality; whether, if such local law exists, Her Majesty's Government is prepared to introduce legislation to amend it; and whether any instructions can be given to the officer administering the Government of Gibraltar to allow such widows to reside in Gibraltar with their near relatives who are British subjects?
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): There is no law in Gibraltar which prevents a statutory alien from being re-admitted to British nationality at the discretion of the Governor on complying with the conditions prescribed by the Naturalisation Act. Her Majesty's Government do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Governor of the Fortress as to the admission of claims to reside in it.

FACTORY ACTS PROSECUTIONS.
MR. G. KEMP: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as in the time of Miss Abrahams, ex-superintending inspector of factories, the sanction of the lady principal inspector is the only authority required by the women inspectors for prosecution in case of infringement of the Factory
1196
Acts; whether the present lady principal inspector shares as Miss Abrahams did in the councils of the department; and whether the women inspectors have power to order structural alterations for ventilation and the fencing of machinery?
*THE HOME SECRETARY: No, Sir; the sanction of the Principal Lady Inspector now requires to be endorsed by the Chief Inspector, as is the case with the Inspector of Particulars. I hardly know what the hon. Member means by the "councils of the Department," but the Principal Lady Inspector is fully consulted by the Chief Inspector in the same way as heads of other branches of the staff. As regards cases of structural alterations, the present arrangement is that the lady inspector furnishes particulars of the defects she finds, and remedies she suggests to the district inspector, and then, unless it is otherwise arranged between them, the district inspector deals with the case, keeping the lady inspector informed of the action taken, and subsequently forwarding, through the superintending inspector, to the chief inspector, a report of the communication received from the lady inspector, the action taken, and the result. It is found that these cases can be more satisfactorily dealt with by the inspector resident in the district, and at the same time the lady inspector is set free for other and more important work.

IRISH FISHERY DEPARTMENT.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why, although by 5 and 6 Vic, c. 106, s. 112, the Irish fishery inspectors are required before 31st January in each year to make a Report which must within three weeks be laid before Parliament, the Report for 1897 was only presented to the Lord Lieutenant on 19th July last; and as the Irish Fishery Department been allowed of late years the salary of a clerk for collecting statistics; and, if so, why have the weekly returns of captures of fish which used formerly to be published been abandoned?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Act of 1842 was passed before the control of the fisheries was transferred to the present Department, and at a time when it was feasible to comply with the statutory requirement in regard to the period within which the annual Report should be presented. But the work of the present Department has been very considerably augmented, both by legislation and otherwise, since 1842, and, as in the case of the annual Reports of the various other Public Departments, no Report of any value whatever could obviously be completed within the brief period mentioned. The employment of the clerical assistance mentioned in the second paragraph was authorised in connection with the preparations of monthly Returns made to the Board of Trade, and had nothing to say to the weekly Returns referred to. These weekly Returns were published for a short period, but as they were often found to be inaccurate and misleading their publication was discontinued.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
MR. C. L. ORR-EWING: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the reason why H.M.S. Starling has failed to detect any beam trawlers fishing within the proscribed limits during her search for them since 1894 is, that all the trawlers can steam faster than H.M.S. Starling.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): There is no reason to think that the explanation suggested in the question is correct. The Starling has never observed any trawlers fishing within the proscribed limits, and has, therefore, had no occasion to interfere with them. From past experience, it is known that all of the cruisers employed in fishery superintendence are capable of detecting and capturing any vessel illegally fishing.

H.M.S. VICTORIOUS.
MR. J. H. YOXALL; I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether H.M.S. Victorious belongs to a class of ships not intended in the ordinary course to pass through the Suez Canal; and, if so, whether he is at liberty to state the reason why a ship of the Canopus class, of a draught specially intended for the purpose, was not sent instead?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Victorious belongs to a class of ship which is intended to go wherever required, including the Suez Canal. None of the Canopus class are yet ready for service.
MR. YOXALL: Is it not a fact that under the contract the Admiralty had power to enforce the completion of ships of the Canopus class long before this time?
[No Reply.]

SEED POTATOES (IRELAND).
MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Ballyshannon Union lately advertised for tenders for seed potatoes grown in the counties of Antrim, Down, Tyrone, and Derry, and that accordingly the tender of Mr. Brannigan, of Strabane, for 80 tons grown in North Tyrone was accepted, and (2) will he explain why the Local Government Board have withheld their sanction; is he aware that since such refusal the Ballyshannon Union have declined to entertain any further tenders for potatoes grown in North Tyrone, though such are of the best quality; and whether any steps can be taken in the matter?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph. The tender, as approved, was for the supply of seed from the Cookstown district in East Tyrone, but subsequently the Guardians, acting on the representations of the contractor, asked the Local

1199
Government Board to sanction a supply from the district of Strabane on the borders of Donegal. This the Board, for the reasons explained to the Guardians, refused to do. The Guardians can obtain excellent new varieties of seed in Down and Antrim, or in Scotland and England, and it is unfair to small cultivators to propose to supply them with worn-out seed grown in a district adjoining, and itself affected by potato disease.

PENSIONS OF LUNATIC ATTENDANTS (IRELAND).
MR. JAMES ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two first-class attendants in the Killarney District Lunatic Asylum, named Daniel Leary and Maurice Finnegan, having respectively 23 years and 22 years' service, have been retired upon pensions of £17 1s. 6d. per annum; and whether it is in his power to increase these pensions?
THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND: The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. These men were retired more than 20 years ago, and there is no power to increase the amount of their pensions.

TENANT RIGHT CUSTOM IN ULSTER.
MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the attempts made in the Law Courts by certain landlords in counties Down and Antrim to deny the existence of the tenant-right custom of Ulster on their estates; (2) whether he is aware of the strong feelings which this conduct has roused among the Ulster farmers; and (3) whether Government intend to take any steps for their protection and for the preservation of the Ulster customs?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I have no knowledge of the matter referred to in the first part of this Question. There have,
1200
I believe, been meetings of tenants in the North of Ireland called for the protection of their interests. As to the third paragraph, the rights of tenants in connection with the Ulster custom are adequately protected under existing legislation.

ARMS FOR THE PERSIAN GULF.
MR. J. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that interference with the exportation of arms from Birmingham to the Persian Gulf has seriously affected several of the gunmakers in that city; and, if so, on what ground has the trade been interfered with?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): Last year the Sultan of Muscat represented to the Indian Government the trouble occasioned to him by the increasing importation of arms into Muscat, and in the same year the Persian Government mentioned to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Teheran, the great danger arising from the arming of the tribes in the South of Persia, notwithstanding the prohibition of the trade. Her Majesty's Government, after making inquiry into the manner in which this trade was being conducted, determined to assist the Persian Government in putting a stop to this illicit traffic in arms, which affects territories and tribes under British as well as under Persian influence, and which has already proved to be injurious to British interests. The bulk of the arms so imported, though they have been carried in British vessels, are of foreign and not British manufacture.
MR. DILLON: Is there any reason to believe any of the arms reached the Frontier tribes with whom British troops have been in conflict?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Such, I believe, is the opinion of the officers on the spot who are conducting the investigation, but I have not yet seen the evidence on which that opinion is based.

MARYBOROUGH LUNATIC ASYLUM.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the governors of the Maryborough Lunatic Asylum appointed as head attendant in January last a man without previous experience of asylums, although there were numerous applicants from different asylums who hold certificates of proficiency, and had long service and first-class records in the other asylums; (2) whether this appointment was made with his sanction; and, whether he intends to take any, and, if so, what action in this matter?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I understand the facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph. It is obviously undesirable in the interest of the insane poor that the office of head attendant in a district asylum should be filled by a person without previous experience of asylum work, and the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums have from time to time strongly impressed this upon Boards of Governors. The Inspectors, on their next visit within the probationary period of the appointment referred to in the Question, will inquire into the man's suitability for the post, and, if necessary, will address a remonstrance to the Governors of the Maryborough Asylum. But beyond this the Inspectors have no power to enforce their views upon the Governors, in whom the appointment is vested.

NATIONAL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Association of National Teachers in Ireland have again pressed upon the Government the advisability of reducing the average (70) school attendance at present required to warrant the employment of assistant teachers; and whether, in view of the decline of population in many of the rural districts, the Government will consent to the proposed reform?
MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have renewed their application to the Treasury for sufficient funds to enable them to reduce the average school attendance which is necessary for the employment of assistant teachers in the primary schools, from 70 to 60; if so, what result has attended their application?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Representations have been made by Teachers' Associations to the effect stated. The question of a reduction in the average attendance entitling a school to one of more assistant teachers is at present the subject of a correspondence between the Irish Government and the Treasury, and until the correspondence has closed I cannot make any further statement in the matter.

PRISONERS IN HOLLOWAY.
MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what days in the months of September, October, and November last the greatest number of prisoners were in custody in Holloway Gaol (excluding Newgate), and what were the numbers on those days?
THE HOME SECRETARY: The days were the 29th of September, 9th October, and 24th of November. The numbers were 802, 790, 815.

CAVAN PRISON.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken to acquire the former county prison at Cavan for industrial works; whether there is any obstacle in the way of such acquisition; and will there be any powers given under the Local Government Bill to enable local councils to borrow money at cheap rates of interest for such purposes?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: If the hon. Member will repeat this Question, and at the same time make more clear what is meant by the expression "industrial works," and by whom it is proposed that the prison shall be acquired for the purpose, I will obtain a Report in the matter.

ST. MELS CATHEDRAL.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the present position of the negotiations for the vesting and protection of the ruins of St. Mels ancient cathedral at Ardagh, county Longford; whether he is aware that the year fixed by the Church representative body for the providing of local funds has now elapsed and nothing has been done; and that the graveyard in which the ruins stand has been recently closed by order of the Local Government Board; and whether he can hold out any hope that something will be done to restore and maintain the remains of this ancient monument?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: This ruin is vested in the Church Representative Body, and the Board of Works have under existing circumstances no power to undertake any work in respect of it. Towards the end of 1896 the representative body decided to postpone for a year the question of vesting the ruin in the Board of Works, in order to see whether any local funds would be forthcoming. The year has expired, but nothing further has been heard from them. The Board of Works are prepared to consider with the consultative committee nominated by the Royal Irish Academy, and the Royal Society of Antiquaries, whether steps should be taken for vesting the ruin in the Board; but up to the present no Report has been made by the consultative committee, who have been awaiting the action of the representative body. I understand that the Local Government Board have not made any Order for the closing of the graveyard; and that even if it were closed, that would not necessarily increase the risk of injury to the ruin. I may add that in any case the Board of Works have no power to restore, but only to maintain.

RAILWAY RATES IN IRELAND.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that considerable complaint, exists regarding the high rates charged on the Cavan and Leitrim Railway; is he aware that a ton of goods can be carried from Newry to Drumshanbo, in county Leitrim, as cheaply as to Baunboy Road, in county Cavan, although the journey to the former is 30 miles farther than the latter; and will anything be done to ease this condition of things?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have communicated with the Great Northern Railway of Ireland, and the Cavan and Leitrim, upon the subject of the hon. Member's Question, which is couched in general terms, and does not even specify the goods upon which the high rates are alleged to be charged. Both Companies deny the allegation made in the first part of the second paragraph of the Question, and also point out that the mileage is largely overstated. I shall be happy to show the hon. Member the replies.

WEST AFRICA.
MR. WILLIAM ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether all the territory from Porto Novo to Say is in the British sphere of influence; whether the whole district of Socoto is British; whether this was agreed as the result of negotiations between this country and France in 1890; whether the whole of this territory was marked British in the French maps published at the time; whether Nikki, Kiaima, and Bussa are in British territory; whether there are now any French troops at these places; and whether the Government will insist on their immediate withdrawal?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The whole of these Questions relate to matters now under discussion with the French Government, about which, while negotiations are proceeding, it is undesirable that any statement should be made.

MEW ISLAND SIREN.
MR. M. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the siren or fog horn at present on Mew Island at the entrance to Belfast Lough is still in a very unsatisfactory state, and that master mariners coming to Belfast complain that frequently it cannot be heard before their ships are perilously near the island; and whether he will suggest to the Irish Lights Commissioners that considering the large and increasing maritime traffic to and from the Port of Belfast steps should be taken without delay to remedy the present defects in this danger warning?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The unsatisfactory condition of the fog-signal apparatus on Mew Island has been under the consideration of the Irish Lights Commissioners for some time past, and the Board of Trade in September last gave their statutory sanction to the establishment of new gas engines and other fog-signal machinery which, it is anticipated, will remedy the defects complained of.

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
MR. T. J. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great distress prevails in several portions of the Kenmare and Cahirciveen unions, and that, owing to the great failure of the potato crop and want of employment, the poorer class of people are on the verge of starvation; and whether any immediate steps will be taken to alleviate their suffering?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: In the poorer districts of the Caherciveen and Kenmare Unions, there are, I believe, a considerable number of people who, owing to the failure of the potato crop, are in straitened circumstances. In both unions the restrictions on outdoor relief have been relaxed, and as the relieving officers have been cautioned as to their duties and responsibilities, I do not think there is danger of any person suffering
1206
from want of food. The Guardians of each Union have been offered a very liberal measure of financial assistance by Government towards the cost of relieving the poor, but up to the present they have declined to accept the offer. Should the Guardians reconsider their decision the offer of the Government will still hold good.

DUBLIN SORTING STAFF.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state what decision, if any, has been arrived at respecting the request embodied in the memorial forwarded by a section of the Dublin sorting staff on 8th May, 1897, with reference to the delay in their appointments?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: It is not quite certain to what request from the Dublin staff the hon. Member refers. No memorial of the 8th May can be traced, but there was one which was received on the 18th from certain sorting clerks, who were appointed in 1893 after some delay in connection with their Civil Service Examinations. If his Question relates to these officers I am glad to inform the hon. Member that authority has been given for the ante-dating of their appointments.

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POSTAGE.
MR. F. W. FISON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state when the reduction of the charge in the postage of Foreign and Colonial letters from 2½d. to 2d. will come into effect?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: It is not possible to state at present whether the initial rate of letter postage to places abroad will be reduced to 2d. The hon. Member may recollect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech

1207
last Session that this proposed reduction needed the consent of the Postal Union; and that consent has been withheld. In default of a general reduction, Her Majesty's Government would be willing to reduce the postage to 2d. to all parts of Her Majesty's Dominions; and on this point Measures have been taken to ascertain the views of the Colonial and Indian Governments.

THE "PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES."
MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury in how many days after the Debate is the contractor of the Authorised Debates bound to have the complete Report ready; and will he lay the terms of the new contract upon the Table?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: The following condition is included in the contract—
"The contractor shall, on the third day after delivery, excluding Sundays, cause to be delivered to the Members who have delivered them, two copies of proofs in slip of all speeches delivered, for correction by the Members concerned; two clear days shall be allowed for correction; and on the seventh day the contractor shall publish his Report containing the speeches."
These terms are repeated from previous contracts. I will have a copy of the existing contract laid upon the Table.

EXPENSES OF IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state when the Supplementary Estimate for the increased amount required for the expenses of the Irish Land Commission for the year ending 31st March 1898 will be taken?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: The Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, which the hon. Member will observe are down on the paper for to-night, will be taken in their
1208
order. If not reached to-night, they will be put down for Thursday. The time for taking the particular Vote must depend upon the rate of progress.

SCHOOLS OF SCIENCE.
MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that recent action by the Department of Science and Art, in the matter of schools of science proposed for Burnley, Derby, and elsewhere, has caused much local friction, and is creating doubt in many quarters; and whether he can give an assurance that it is not intended to hinder the customary development of schools of science connected with the high grade schools by consenting to their formation in connection with endowed and technical schools alone?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The friction and doubts referred to in the Question have been caused, not by the action of the Department of Science and Art, but by mis-statements which have been circulated. A school of science has been projected at Burnley. The necessary conditions have not as yet been fulfilled, but there is every reason to expect that a satisfactory arrangment will shortly be effected. At Derby the school of science has been in operation since 1892, and I am not aware of any difficulty connected with it. Schools of science, projected or managed by School Boards, have been, and will be, treated in exactly the same way as other schools of science.

PRISON TREADWHEELS.
MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a boy of 18, named William Cooper, certified by the doctor as fit to be placed on the tread-wheel, was found dead in his cell at Norwich Gaol on 15th October last, although he had not previously been ill, after being subjected for a few days to the

1209
work; whether there have been other inquests on deaths arising from a similar cause; and whether, under these circumstances, and seeing that the late Prison Committee condemned the continuance of unproductive prison labour, the prison authorities of the Home Office intend to sanction the erection of new treadwheels?
THE HOME SECRETARY: I thoroughly inquired into this case at the time, and found there was no reason for supposing that this prisoner's death was the result of his work on the tread-wheel. The post-mortem examination revealed latent disease of old standing. There has been no similar case so far as I am aware. Treadwheels are not necessarily, or in all cases, unproductive, but unproductive treadwheels which cannot be made productive are being gradually abolished, and the erection of new treadwheels is not at present contemplated.

THE BOURTZEV CASE.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what rule of the Common Law, or under what Statute, were the officers of the Metropolitan Police Force who were entrusted with the execution of a warrant of apprehension against Bourtzev for an offence against the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, justified in breaking and entering the premises in question to search for papers belonging to Bourtzev after the execution of the warrant, or in seizing or taking away papers of Bourtzev's without any other warrant than the warrant of apprehension; in whose custody are the papers of Bourtev at the present time; has any person not concerned in the prosecution of Bourtzev had access to them; and will he undertake that no agent of a foreign Government shall have access to Bourtzev's papers directly or indirectly, or receive copies thereof?
THE HOME SECRETARY: I have already informed the hon. Member that what was done in this case was in accordance with the usual practice of the
1210
police, and I see no grounds for the view that any illegality was committed. The papers are in possession of the police. They have been seen by no one except the prosecution, and I have no intention of allowing the agent of any foreign Government to have access to them.

THE CROFTERS' ACT.
MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he proposes to bring in a Bill at an early date extending the benefits of the Crofters' Act to small tenants holding under lease in the crofting counties of Scotland, and also to small tenants in those counties whose leases have expired since 1886?
THE LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir.

LINE FISHERMEN AND ILLEGAL TRAWLERS.
MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that H.M.S. Starling has since 1894 been frequently employed inquiring into complaints of alleged illegal trawling, chiefly in the districts in the North of Scotland, North West Highlands, Hebrides, and Argyllshire, but has never seen a trawler actually engaged in trawling within the proscribed limits, is he aware that within the same period line fishermen, at the imminent risk of their lives, have been instrumental in bringing to justice illegal trawlers, notably the Amy Gertrude, of North Shields, whose master, Thomas Lander, was in the autumn of last year fined £75 for illegal trawling, and the steam trawler, Faraday, of Hull, whose master, John William Abdy, was recently find £100 for illegal trawling in Broad Bay on the 17th December last, and was also fined £20 for having on the same occasion the letters and numbers of his vessel concealed; and will he consider the advisability of offering some reward to line fishermen who successfully perform "Sea Police Duty?"
THE LORD ADVOCATE: There has not been time to verify the facts stated

1211
in the first portion of the hon. Member's Question, but I believe they are substantially correct. As regards the latter portion, there are obvious objections of public policy to a proposal to pay for evidence.

WEST HIGHLANDS MAIL STEAMER SERVICE.
MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state when the Report of the Departs mental Committee on the West Highlands mail steamer service will be laid upon the Table of the House?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: The Report of the Departmental Committee on the Western Highlands mail steamer service is being considered, but it cannot at present be stated when it will be laid upon the Table of the House, assuming that course to be desirable.

LABUAN REPORT.
MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies will he explain why the Labuan Report for the year 1896, consisting of two or three pages, was not issued from the Governor's office until 6th October 1897; and will he consider the expediency of suggesting to the Governor that his annual Report should be issued at an earlier date?
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY: The Governor will be requested to send the Report earlier in future.

MULLINGAR WATER SUPPLY.
MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board, having regard to the Maidstone epidemic, to use their powers to force the Mullingar sanitary authority to revive the scheme
1212
for obtaining a water supply from Lough Sheever, the water of which, on analysis by Sir Charles Cameron, was stated to be as impure as the Thames water at London Bridge; whether the sanitary authority have refused to accept the first instalment of the loan for this scheme; and (3) whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to the recent public offer to enable the sanitary authority to obtain a supply of pure and wholesome water from Lough Owel on advantageous terms to the ratepayers?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I have already stated the substance of Sir Charles Cameron's analysis of the water from Lough Sheever—namely, that it was free from sewage and similar pollution. The Guardians have not yet cashed the order received by them in December last, for the first instalment of the loan for this scheme, and they have been informed that unless the order is cashed within a fortnight it will be cancelled. The Local Government Board have no official information with reference to the third paragraph of the Question, but their attention has been directed to a statement in the public Press that some negotiations are pending with reference to obtaining a supply from Lough Owel.

PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS AS EXPLOSIVE INSPECTORS (IRELAND).
MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Boards of Guardians of Boyle and Strokestown Unions, in the county Roscommon, have passed resolutions, as the local authorities, dispensing with the services of petty sessions clerks as explosive inspectors under the Explosives Act on the ground that there were no duties for them to perform, and have requested the police to attend to the administration of the Act; and (2) whether, seeing that some of the petty sessions clerks have initiated legal proceedings for the recovery of their salaries, the Local Government Board will advise the Board of Guardians as to the resisting of these claims?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I am informed that the Boards of Guardians of these Unions have passed resolutions substantially to the effect mentioned in the first paragraph. I may point out, however, that appointments to the office of inspector under the Explosives Act are made by the magistrates in Petty Sessions, as the local authority constituted by the Act, though any remuneration payable to these officers is paid out of the rates. It has been the policy of the Government for many years past to encourage the employment, in the capacity referred to, of members of the constabulary (who perform the duties gratuitously), with a view to the more efficient administration of the Act, as well as to relieve the ratepayers of the amount now paid to inspectors as salary. The Local Government Board have no functions in the matter of such appointments, and could not advise the Guardians as suggested in the second part of the Question.

WEST AFRICA.
MR. DALZIEL: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies whether he can add anything to the information which he gave the House on Friday night with regard to the situation in West Africa; and whether he is in a position to confirm the report of a further French advance?
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY: I have no further information to give with respect to the incidents which were narrated in the telegrams I read to the House on Friday night. Yesterday I received a telegram from Lieutenant Colonel Pilcher, who is in command at Lokoja, in which he says—"Information received, four French-European officers and one hundred men have arrived at Argungu." Argungu is to the East of the Niger and South of the Say-Barua line, and I cannot believe that, pending the negotiations which are going on, the French Government can have authorised this invasion of a territory to
1214
which our rights have been recognised by a Convention between Great Britain and France.

FAIR RENT APPEALS (IRELAND).
MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now able to state the number of fair rent appeals in which the judicial results fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were reduced and increased respectively at the sitting of the Chief Commission in Belfast in November last; and if he will give similar information as to the fair rent appeals disposed of by the Chief Commission at the December sitting in Belfast?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the reply given by me on Friday last to the hon. Member's previous Question on this subject.

LURGAN POST OFFICE.
MR. R. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what further steps, if any, have been taken to provide, as promised last Session, the town of Lurgan with a suitable post office?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: The Department has advertised for sites of premises at Lurgan, and four offers have been under consideration, but none of them have proved to be suitable in all respects. In these circumstances the Town Commissioners have been asked whether they can spare a sufficient site on a space which, it is understood, they contemplate acquiring, by purchasing and pulling down some old houses in a fairly central part of the town. No answer has been received to this inquiry.

LIGHT RAILWAY ORDERS.
MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board will make rules providing for the

1215
sale of copies of Orders under the Light Railways Act, either by the Board or by the Queen's Printers, and providing that such copies shall be evidence; and whether, pending the making of such rules, he will take steps to have the Orders already laid upon the Table printed as Parliamentary Papers?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No rules are necessary; the Board of Trade having already presented the Light Railway Orders, which they have confirmed, and they will, of course, be put on sale. I am informed that these Orders are admissible in evidence.

LONDONDERRY MUNICIPAL REVISION.
MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the terms of Section 12 of the Londonderry Improvement Act, 1896, which only enables the Treasury to charge for the additional cost, if any, in consequence of the municipal revision; will he explain why the Treasury certificate omits to state that there has been any additional cost; and whether he will reconsider the question, having regard to the fact that all persons locally engaged in the revision say there has been no additional cost whatever in consequence of the Act?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: My attention has been called to the terms of Section 12 of the Londonderry Improvement Act, 1896. The Treasury Certificate was as follows—
"In conformity with the provisions of the 12th section of the Londonderry Improvement Act, 1896, we, being two of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, hereby certify that the following payments have been made by us in respect of municipal revision, viz.—£33 12s. 0d. for the year 1896; £33 12s. 0d. for the year 1897."
I think those words clearly enough convey that the amounts in question represented additional cost. As I have already explained to the hon. Member, the certificate was based upon information as to the additional cost furnished by "persons locally engaged in the revision." As giving some indication of the nature
1216
of the additional work entailed by the municipal revision, I may say that, after the close of the Parliamentary revision, the revising barristers are fully occupied for a whole day in checking and signing an exact copy of the Parliamentary Registry for the Corporation. Moreover, it is estimated that more than an additional day is taken up by the efforts of parties to get bad or doubtful votes proved in certain wards, though the claimants for these votes have admittedly good qualifications in other wards; the reason being that the balance of parties in the latter wards renders the votes of no value there for municipal purposes. For Parliamentary purposes the uncontested qualifications would, of course, be sufficient, and the struggle to establish the others would not take place.

RELIEF OF RATES (SCOTLAND).
SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate why the full amount of grant for relief of rates of agricultural occupiers and tenants in Scotland has not yet been paid; what is the cause of the delay; and if he can state when it will be paid?
THE LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member will remember that in England no fixed grant was given in aid of agricultural rates: the grant was simply one half of such rates raised in 1895–96 in each locality. In Scotland, on the other hand, the grant was an amount fixed as 11–80ths of the English grant. It was therefore impossible to begin the Scottish calculations until the amount of the English grant was known. The calculations were begun as soon as possible, and the great bulk of the Scottish grant was distributed on account at the end of last year. But another consequence of the Scottish grant being fixed in amount is that it cannot be exhaustively distributed until the precise amount of rates that is to be taken as having been raised from agricultural occupiers in each county and parish in 1895–96 is ascertained. Correspondence is still going on regarding the claims of certain parishes. As soon as these are finally settled the Secretary for Scotland will be in a position to distribute the small remaining balance of the grant.

COUNTY CESS (IRELAND).
MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the grand jury of county Monaghan, out of public money placed in their charge, have been paying the county cess on evicted farms on the estates of Mr. Shirley, a grand juryman of the county; whether he can state how many years this practice has been going on and the amount paid each year; whether he can say how many other landlords in county Monaghan have got the county cess paid on their evicted farms by the grand jury; and whether he can state what cause he will take against the grand jury of county Monaghan for their conduct in this matter?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The Grand Jury have power to represent arrears unrecovered, and I presume they exercised their power in this respect legally. I am not aware of any of the matters stated in the Question, and can only repeat what I have already pointed out to the h**on. Member, that the Executive have no control over, and are not responsible for the action of the Grand Jury in such matters.

SHANNON AND SUCK RAILWAY FLOODING.
MR. J. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the attention of the Board of Works has been directed to the periodical flooding of the Shannon, and Suck Valleys; whether he is aware that the obstructions in the bed of the river, in the stretch between Athlone and Meelick, are a cause of these floodings; what has been the estimate of the Board of Works' engineers as to the cost of blasting or removing them; and, whether, in view of the advantages of deepening the river, and thus lessening the liability to floods on the upper reaches affecting Roscommon and Leitrim, and also on the River Suck, he will state what action the Board of Works are prepared to take in the matter?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I
1218
am informed that there are obstructions in the river between Athlone and Meelick, which tend to keep up the flood water levels between these two points, and on the lower course of the River Suck, and also to some extent on the reaches above Athlone, by delaying the escape of the flood waters. Numerous improvements have in recent years been effected by Government without any cost to the locality; and the late Government decided not to undertake further improvements unless substantial local aid was forthcoming. For that reason no estimate of the cost of the works to which the hon. Member refers has been obtained.

CITY ROAD POST OFFICE.
MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the post office, No. 5, City Road, was visited by a sanitary inspector of the St. Luke's Vestry, who reported the existence of seriously insanitary conditions; whether an intimation, and, following upon that, a statutory notice, under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, were served; whether nothing was done in the matter by the Postmaster General for three weeks; whether any, and what, steps are now being taken to remedy the defects complained of; and, has the person in charge of the premises been censured by the Postmaster General for permitting the visit of the sanitary inspector?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: The post office in question was visited by the sanitary inspector on the 8th January; and, subsequently, notices dated the 11th and the 21st January were received that the waste pipes from two sinks and a lavatory were untrapped, and that the drain was defective. A copy of the first notice was at once given to the Clerk of the Works, and a special letter on the subject was written to the Office of Works on the 25th January on receipt of the second notice. There was no delay on the part of the Post Office, or of the Office of Works, and measures are being taken to remedy the defects that may be discovered. I am informed that,

1219
as a matter of fact, the report of the local inspector was found not to be accurate. The officer in charge of the office has not been censured by the Postmaster General, but his attention was directed to the regulation that sanitary inspectors desirous to examine a post office building are required to give notice, in order that arrangements may be made for them to be accompanied by a competent person. This concession implies no right on the part of the inspector to examine such buildings.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  SUPPLY.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I rise to move the adoption of the Rule as to Supply standing in my name—
  "That, so soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented, the Business of Supply shall (until it be disposed of) be the first Order of the Day on Friday, unless the House otherwise order on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, moved at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate; and the provisions of Standing Order No. LVI shall be extended to Friday:
  "Not more than 20 days, being days before the 5th August, on which the Speaker leaves the Chair for the Committee of Supply, without Question put, counting from the first day on which the Speaker so left the Chair, under Standing Order No. LVI shall be allotted for the consideration of the Annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Service, including Votes on Account, the Business of Supply standing first Order on every such day:
  "Provided always, that on Motion made after Notice by a Minister of the Crown, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, additional time, not exceeding three days, may be allotted for the Business of Supply, either before or after the 5th August:
  "On the last but one of the allotted days, at 10 o'clock p.m., the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith every Question necessary to dispose of the outstanding Votes in Committee of Supply; and on the last, not being earlier than the 20th of the allotted days, the Speaker shall, at 10 o'clock p.m., proceed to put forthwith every question necessary to complete the outstanding Reports of Supply:
  "On the days appointed for concluding the Business of Supply, the consideration of such business shall not be anticipated by a Motion
  1220
  of Adjournment under Standing Order No. XVII; nor may any dilatory Motion be moved on such proceedings; nor shall they be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House:
  "Provided always that any Additional Estimate for any new service or matter, not included in the original Estimates for the year, shall be submitted for consideration in thy Committee of Supply on any day not later than two days before the Committee is closed:
  "Provided also that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous Session, or of any Vote of Credit, shall not be included in the computation of the 20 days. Provided also that two Morning Sittings shall be deemed equivalent to one 3 o'clock Sitting."
  Members of the House are already familiar with the working of the Rule, which has, I think, met with a general meed of approval from Gentlemen of all sections. The only difference between the Rule I now propose, and that we adopted last year, is that I have made a change in order to meet the views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton and an hon. Friend below the Gangway. I do not know that the change has fully carried out my Friends' view, but I think it goes a great way towards meeting his objections. Sir, I think it would be trespassing upon the time of the House to say anything furthere, and I beg formally to move the Motion standing in my name, and I hope that the Rule will be agreed to.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the rule allotting certain days to the business of Supply has worked most satisfactorily, and, so far as I am concerned, I am heartily in sympathy with it—that is, up to the first 12 lines. I think myself that the adoption of this Rule in the past has been a very great convenience to all concerned, and it appears to me to be bringing us within measurable distance of what a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman always said the Rules of the House ought to lead up to, and I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman upon all occasions has resisted any suggestion that the Rule should be broken through. But notwithstanding any general approval of the Rule, I have placed on the paper what may seem to some hon. Members a very small Amendment—the adoption of one word for another. But I defend it on the

  1221
  ground that I made the same proposal two years ago, when we first had these Rules as to Supply under discussion. By putting the words "including Votes on account" into the Rule the right hon. Gentleman admits that the Vote on Account stands in an entirely different category to the ordinary business of Supply. A Vote on Account appears in the Paper in a very different form, and cannot be treated by the Chair in the same way as the ordinary business ot Supply is treated. But in addition to that a Vote on Account is full of pitfalls to the average Member of the House, who, under the procedure that regulated a Vote on Account, might find that he did not have the same opportunity of discussing questions of administration or policy, or even of the finance, as he would have in the ordinary business of Supply. I do not wish to labour the point, but when I moved a similar Amendment a year or two ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that Votes on Account could not be treated in the same category as Votes of Supply. He then said he was going to remedy the matter by seeing that only one Vote on Account was asked for; and I made the admission that the practice of having Supply every Friday does go a great way towards meeting the objection—that is to say, provided there are not three of the four Votes on Account asked for. That is my great objection to the Vote on Account; that to the ordinary average Member it is full of surprises. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman may say that by accepting my amendment it would be in the hands of hon. Members to prolong discussion on Votes on Account, but I rely upon the common-sense of the House; and, for my own part, I do not think there would be any disposition to unduly prolong discussion on Votes on Account. But I do not think it is of importance that such Votes should be excluded from the operation of the Rule, because very often great questions of foreign policy often arise upon them. I repeat that as regards the fears of an undue prolongation of discussions on these Votes on Account, Im quite satisfied that the good sense of the House would assist the right hon. Gentleman in bringing them to a speedy conclusion. I will not dwell upon the matter further, but beg to move the Amendment standing in my
  1222
  name—"Line 12, leave out 'including' and insert 'excluding.'"
  MR. JAMES STUART: I rise to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, because I was one of the few Members in this House, on this side, who supported this proposal by word of mouth, and also by voting for it. I have always regarded this proposal which is now before us, and which has been carried out, as an extremely advantageous one to the business of the House of Commons, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having taken the step. It is in no spirit of opposition to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman that I say that I think the proposal of my hon. Friend is a reasonable one; and I think so for the reasons that he urges, namely, that the Vote on Account is essentially a different kind of thing from our ordinary discussions on Supply. I felt, when the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the Vote on Account should be included within the scope of this Rule, that we were in danger of losing the control of the House over Supply. Every suggestion or proposal such as this which removes the Supply in its details from the House is to be deprecated. On a Vote on Account there is no real opportunity for discussing the details in such a way that the ordinary Member can take advantage of it. A Vote on Account is very frequently in the nature of a discussion on Policy, and it is inadvisable that a Vote on Account, on which there can be no discussion as to details owing to the sporadic way in which it is introduced, should be brought within the purview of this Rule. I think, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman need not fear a prolongation of the discussions on these Votes on Account. They are not a very desirable form of Vote on any occasion. I, therefore, Sir, support what my hon. Friend has said, feeling, as I do, that such a modification of the Rule would tend towards its better working, and be greatly to the advantage of the House.
  *THH FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Both the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House on this Amendment have a special

  1223
  title to suggest alterations of this Rule, because I believe the Mover himself proposed something of the same nature two or three years before it was adopted, and the Seconder has been one of the most strenuous supporters of this proposal ever since it was laid before us. But I hope they will hesitate before they attempt to make the modification they are now suggesting. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said he felt sure that we could trust the House not to do anything unreasonable on the discussion of a Vote on Account. I have great confidence in the House, but I must point out that it is an extremely difficult thing to know exactly what is reasonable. If discussion on Votes on Account be permitted at all it is hard to lay down any logical principle by which to determine when it ceases to be reasonable: since it is in order to review upon it the whole policy of the country, Foreign and Domestic. Let it be remembered that the practice of discussing details of Votes on Account is a comparatively recent idea. The old view of a Vote on account was that it was proposed and passed sub silentio, in order to enable a Department to carry on the business of the country until the Estimates could be discussed, and the plan of making it an occasion for miscellaneous discussion is not only modern but inconvenient. It is inconvenient, among other reasons, because by the Rules of the House you can only take the discussion on a Vote on Account in the order of the Estimates, to which that Vote on Account refers, and if it please the House, or a small section of the House, not in any spirit of unreasonableness, or with a view to obstructing the business of the House, but simply because they happened to be interested in something which had come earlier in the Vote, to discuss it at length, the later matters never come on at all, or only come on if the discussion be prolonged for an abnormal or inconvenient period. No one will pretend that is a proper way of doing business. If the House felt that we had not time to discuss all the Estimates, including Votes on Account, in 20 days, I should certainly offer no opposition to the period being extended to 21 days, but
  1224
  I would beg of the House to make the fixed period (whether of 20 days or of 21) inclusive of Votes on Account. If the House is determined to adhere to the modern practice, and to make the discussion of the Vote on Account the occasion of a, general Debate, let it be laid down as a Rule, not to be departed from, that a Vote on Account should never take more than a night; and that realty important subjects should come on early in the evening. The main object of this Rule is to say that the House will give so much time, and no more, to the discussion of the Estimates. Let us not stultify ourselves by excluding from its operation the discussion on the Vote on Account, which in theory covers the whole ground of the annual Estimates. I hope that the reason I have given to the hon. Gentlemen will be sufficient to prevent them going to a Division upon the matter. Remember that this is only, after all, a Sessional Order, and our experience of it in that character may bring us to some common agreement when we have to consider the advisability of adding it permanently to the Standing Orders of the House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think, Sir, that our experience of the working of this Rule last year has led us to believe that the time allotted for the discussion of the Estimates in detail was ample. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has offered hon. Members of the House an extra day, I should advise them to close with the offer.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error in saying that last year there was more than sufficient time for the discussion of the Estimates, because when we came to the end there were a large number that were left undiscussed. Personally, I am disposed to accept the offer of an extra day.
  MR. R. M'KENNA: I think, Sir, that we could not get these 21 Fridays, because, as matters now stand, as a matter of fact there are only 20 Fridays between now and the 5th August, taking out one Friday for Good Friday, and one for Whitsun week; and

  1225
  then, as the first paragraph of the Rule nays that it shall not commence until the Committee of Supply has been appointed, and until the Estimates have been presented, it is more than probable that there will not be 20 Fridays remaining up to the 5th August.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I ask the House for leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Leave was granted.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I must say that this alteration is certainly a great improvement from the private Member's point of view. Last year there were some new Votes involving an expenditure on totally new subjects, which we could not discuss at all, and I must thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment, because it does seem to me a good thing if guillotining at the end of the Session can be avoided. A good many of the Estimates were guillotined last year without any sort of consideration. Of course, the present Rule may lead to a little difficulty, but it is merely a Sessional Order, and we can see how it works, and then we shall be able to do away with any of the blots that have hitherto existed.
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I should like to say a word or two as to the proposed suspension of Standing Order XVII. That Standing Order is as the House is aware, one regarding Motions for adjournment. If there is any real question of importance which should be immediately discussed, it seems a pity that any impediment should be placed in the way. Last Session some discussion took place upon it, and it was pointed out that it was within the power of any single Member to put down a notice which precluded any Member of the House from bringing a subject forward, whatever its importance might be. I brought that before the House, and I insisted upon the necessity for an Amendment of that Standing Order. I understood then that it would be considered. I do not wish to press it now if my right hon. Friend would like to have time to consider it in the light of what has hitherto been done, but a modification of the Rule is certainly desirable. For instance, supposing we
  1226
  wanted to call attention to affairs on the West Coast of Africa or China——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not a question now before the House.
  *MR. J. LOWTHER: I was prepared to move the omission of words which would bring that question before the House, but, however, I am quite ready to leave it for further consideration.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I quite agree with the importance of the general question raised by my right hon. Friend, which, however, does not arise on this Motion, and I think I must adhere to the Rule.
  MR. DALZIEL: I understood that the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment on the understanding that we were to have 21 days instead of 20. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself expressed his willingness to give us the extra day. I think one reason for giving that extra day is that it is well-known that the Army discussion will take much longer than usual, and many Votes of second-class importance have not been discussed for the last few years.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I should like very much to consult with those who have a right to speak for the Opposition on this matter, as to whether this change should be made. I should like myself to have extra time. There is no doubt that it may turn out that an exceptional amount of time will be required for the discussion of the Army Estimates, the Importance of which I have no desire to minimise.
  Motion carried.

  REPORTS OF MONEY COMMITTEES.
  Ordered, That the proceedings on the Reports of the Committees of Supply, and Ways and Means, and other Committees authorising the expenditure of public money may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, and shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. V.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): In rising to move for leave to introduce the Bill dealing with Local Government in Ireland, it is hardly necessary that I should enter into any question as to the general policy of withdrawing the local administration from nominated bodies and entrust it to bodies chosen by popular election. The question of general policy must now be regarded as a res judicatur, because Local Government in this direction has already been accomplished in the case of England and Scotland, and it has long been felt that its extension to Ireland is only a question of time. But this does not imply that the bodies which have hitherto been entrusted with the work of local administration in Ireland have discharged their functions in an unsatisfactory manner; but I think that everybody is conscious that the existing system has become inadequate—it is no longer in harmony with the spirit of the age, and it cannot be very much longer maintained. Under these circumstances practical men, even among those who view with regret the disappearance of institutions which undoubtedly have done good work in the past, will see that the problem now set up is about to accomplish an inevitable change in the way that will do most good and least harm. Personally, I believe that the reform of Local Government in Ireland is not only inevitable, but is in itself desirable. The grand jury system has worked well enough up to a certain point, but that system has no principle of growth in it. The tendency of the present day is to throw upon local bodies a number of duties which were never considered in connection with local administration a generation ago. You cannot put new wine into old bottles, and in my judgment the reform of local administration in Ireland has now become almost a condition of the further reforms which I hope ultimately to see accomplished. It is, of course, quite possible that the new order of things will at first seem to show a failure, but I believe that it will work through failure to success, and I also believe that that success will be the beginning of a better
  1228
  and brighter day for Ireland. Sir, while I hold these views, I recognise as fully as anyone perhaps less sanguine about the future than I am that the case of Ireland is in many respects peculiar, and that the establishment of Local Government on a popular basis in Ireland does require more circumspection than the same change in England and Scotland. The advent of the middle classes in Ireland, the fact that Ireland is, for the most part an agricultural community, that the agrarian system existing in the country has, unfortunately, created a marked division of interest and sympathy as between the landlord class on the one side and the tenant class on the other, are among the peculiarities that have to be taken into account, and one cannot be surprised that those in whose hands the administration of the local affairs of the country now rests, who have to pay a large proportion of the rates, should view with some apprehension any change which, while leaving the burden on them should transfer their power to others. They may be right or they may be wrong in anticipating that these new bodies to be created will be extravagant, but I think nobody will be found to deny that any tendency to extravagance that may exist will be greatly increased if it can be indulged in at the expense of other people. Sir, this danger is undoubtedly a danger to guard against. The difficulty has been hitherto to provide against it, excepting by means of an irritating and provocative kind, and seemingly opposed to that democratic principle to which we wish to give effect. This is a difficulty which is to be met, and we believe it can be met. The proposals of the Government have already been stated in outline by my right hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Treasury, in a speech which he gave last year, and which is still within the recollection of the House. Sir, it sometimes happens that schemes which seem plausible enough when first propounded lose some of their recommendations when given effect to in a Bill. The further consideration of this subject has, in this case, not weakened, but strengthened our confidence. Of course, we cannot expect that the Bill which we now submit to the House in fulfilment of the pledge given by my right hon. Friend will escape criticism, but we do hope that it will be fortunate

  1229
  enough to meet with the same general approval from different quarters of the House, as characterised the first announcement of the policy which it embodies. Now, Sir, I will proceed to describe as precisely as I can the main features of the Bill. As the Scottish system of local administration differs from the English system, although devised on the same general principles, so the system which we propose now to set up in Ireland differs in some respects from both. These differences are not gratuitous, or without good reason. They are due to the fact that in each country the new institutions must necessarily be built up upon the existing law and practice in that country. As an illustration of this, I may, perhaps, refer to the obvious difference that exists between the English and the Scottish system of Local Government. In England we have County Councils, District Councils, and Parish Councils. In Scotland we have only County Councils and Parish Councils, although Parish Councils in Scotland correspond probably more to the English District Council than to the English Parish Council. In Ireland it is not proposed to establish Parish Councils. The parish has never been in Ireland an area of local administration, and to create Parish Councils in Ireland would merely be to add a superfluous difficulty to our scheme. We propose that local administration in Ireland should be divided and distributed between County Councils, Urban District Councils, Rural District Councils, and Boards of Guardians. The franchise for the election to these bodies will be the Parliamentary franchise with the addition of peers and women, and that, of course, will include lodgers. In adopting this simple franchise we follow the Scottish precedent and the precedent of England, which is, however, of a later date than the Scottish precedent. In Scotland the Parliamentary franchise, with the addition of peers and women, makes the Register for these local elections; but in the Bill of 1888, establishing County Councils in England, the franchise did not extend so widely. It was confined in the case of County Councils to occupiers only; but in the Bill of 1894 the same franchise was adopted for District Councils and Parish Councils in England as we propose to adopt in Ireland. It
  1230
  certainly does not seem any sufficient ground for the distinction which exists in England, and simplicity and economy in the preparation of the Register are secured by so framing it as to make it co-extensive with the Parliamentary franchise, of course, with the addition I have already mentioned, of peers and women. The qualifications and disqualifications for the election of the Council are practically the same as in England, excepting that in Ireland ministers of religion will be disqualified from sitting on County or District Councils. In England ministers of religion are only disqualified from a seat on a Municipal Council, and this disqualification was retained in the Bill of 1888, although it is not thought necessary to extend it to the case of County Councils. Circumstances are, however, somewhat different in Ireland. There is no Irish precedent for an elective body, on which ministers of religion are allowed to sit. The point has been very carefully considered by the Government, and the conclusion we have arrived at is that it would be unwise to depart from the principle acquiesced in, and accepted, so far as I am aware, in Ireland. There is no doubt something to be said on both sides of the question, but I hold to the opinion that the admission of ministers of religion to County Councils would not tend to economy of administration or to a smooth working of the new institution. Sir, I have already said that local administration is to be distributed between four bodies: County Councils, urban District Councils, Rural District Councils, and the Boards of Guardians. This four-fold division, however, will, in the majority of cases, be practically reduced to a three-fold division, inasmuch as any person who is elected a member of a Rural District Council, will represent the area for which he is elected, not only as a District Councillor, but also as a Guardian, and where the union is only an Administrative County the Union will be co-existent with the Rural District, and the Board of Guardians will be a Rural District Council under another name. Now, Sir, this brings me to the question of boundaries. It is extremely desirable for the system of Local Government which we propose to create, that there should be no unnecessary administrative areas; and, secondly, that overlapping of

  1231
  administrative areas should be reduced to a minimum. In obedience to the first of these considerations, we dispense altogether with baronies as administrative areas, being convinced of the importance of constituting rural districts in direct relation to unions as well as to countries. This, however, creates a difficulty in connection with the second consideration. Rather unfortunately, there are many cases in which unions are divided by the boundaries of existing counties into two, and even three, parts. In order to make the boundaries of unions and counties co-incident, it is necessary either to alter the boundaries of the unions or to alter the boundaries of the counties, or to adopt partly one of these plans and partly the other. If, however, the complete identification of groups of unions with existing counties were to be effected, the changes necessary would be so great as, I am afraid, to render the proposal almost impracticable. The difficulty of the problem would, on the other hand, be considerably reduced by any scheme which permits the cutting up of a union into two boundaries, even with the condition added that each of these parts must be sufficiently large for a rural district by itself. This is, according to the plan which the Government have adopted. The Local Government Board already possess power to alter the boundaries of unions, and, for the purpose of bringing this Bill into operation, we propose that it should be empowered within six months of the passing of the Act, so far as it may be necessary, to alter the boundaries of existing counties also. It will be the duty of the Local Government Board, in exercising this power, to secure that the alterations shall be as small as possible. In regard to the changes of boundaries, they are almost, from the very nature of the case, distasteful to the persons immediately affected, and in England, I believe, this feeling was so strong that the authors of the Local Government Bill for England were forced to content themselves with a moderate measure of reform in this direction. In Ireland, we earnestly trust that we shall be permitted to go somewhat farther than was possible in England, while it is essential to our plan that every county district should be situated wholly within one administrative county. It is also of very
  1232
  great importance to its proper working that every union shall either coincide with a county district, or, where divided by the boundary of that administrative county, shall be so divided as to make it of suitable size for a rural district each. I have now explained to the House what the new body should be, what will be the areas of administration, and what will be the qualification of the electors, and I pass to describe the constitution and powers of the Councils which we pro pose to set up. Let me, in the first place, take County Councils, apart from county boroughs—of which I shall have something to say presently—and rural district councils. The qualifications will be practically the same as in England. Speaking generally, county councils will take over the powers and the duties of grand juries and Presentment Sessions of counties at large, and the Rural District Councils will take over the powers of the baronial Presentment Sessions. The effect of this will be that any expenditure on roads and other public works payable by the Rural District Council will be proposed, and presented by that Council to the County Council; and the County Council may approve of them or disapprove. If it approve, it will be for the County Council to carry out the work through the County Surveyor. It is clear that this arrangement follows and observes the lines of the system already existing, but establishes a much closer relation between County and District Councils than exists in England. This closer relation is reflected in the constitution of the County Councils. In England, County Councils consist partly of Councillors and partly of Aldermen, elected, not directly, but by the members of the Council. This plan is adopted in England from the precedent of Town Councils, but it has no counterpart either in Scotland or in Ireland, and we do not propose to introduce it into the Irish system. But, whereas in Scotland the Council consists wholly of elected members, in Ireland we propose that the Chairman of every Rural District Council shall be an additional member of the County Council. The reason for this is evident, and will, I hope, meet with the approval of the House. As I have just explained, we propose in Ireland to build on the existing Grand Jury system, and make a District

  1233
  Council, in its capacity as road authority, subordinate to the County Council. The County Council will have a veto upon the presentments for district roads in rural area. It will have the carrying out of all works in connection with the maintenance, construction, and repair of roads. It will, also, under the new system, be the sole rate-collecting authority in rural districts. It appears, therefore, to be highly desirable that a link should be provided between the superior and subordinate bodies, and this we have done by giving the Chairmen of all Rural District Councils a seat on the County Council, thus securing that the views and interests of the District Councils shall not be set aside for the want of a proper exponent. Sir, it will, of course, be understood that the transfer of the Grand Jury powers to the County Council will be limited to the fiscal and administrative powers of Grand Juries, and it will not extend to criminal business or to the business of Presentment Sessions and Grand Juries in relation to compensation for malicious injuries. On the other hand, it does not appear to us expedient that award of compensation for malicious injuries should be left to the Grand Jury, now that the Grand Jury will cease to be an administrative body. The Bill provides that it should be transferred to the County Courts, whoso decree shall have the same effect as a presentment, with the same appeal, as at present, to a Judge of Assize. With reference to the various powers and responsibilities transferred or conferred upon County Councils, it will perhaps be sufficient on this occasion that I should refer to one or two in particular. The first of these relates to lunatic asylums. It is proposed that the Board of Control shall be abolished, and that the appointment by the Lord Lieutenant of Boards of Governors, and also of asylum officers, shall cease. It will hereafter be the Statutory duty of County Councils to provide and maintain sufficient accommodation for the lunatic poor, and to manage the lunatic asylums. For this purpose, they will act through a Committee of the County Council, or, where the asylum district comprises more than one county, through a Joint Committee, in which each Council will be represented in proportion to the amount of expense that it has to defray in connection
  1234
  with the asylum. One-fourth of the members of this Committee will be eligible from among persons other than County Councillors; while the powers and responsibilities of the County Council in connection with lunatics, will thus be considerably greater than those of the existing Boards of Governors. The ultimate control of the executive, in cases where the County Council fail to carry out their duties, will be sufficiently maintained by the insertion of a provision in which the appointment and removal of officers will rest with the County Council acting through their Committee, but the concurrence of the Lord Lieutenant will be required in the case of the resident medical superintendent, and in the cases of the assistant medical superintendents. The other duties thrown upon the County Council, which call for special mention, will arise in reference to exceptional distress. It is provided in the Bill that when a Board of Guardians considers the state of exceptional distress to exist within its Union requiring a relaxation of the conditions of outdoor relief, they may apply to the County Council, and if the County Council consider that the circumstances justify the application, they may request the Local Government Board to issue an order authorising the Guardians, subject to the prescribed conditions, to administer relief outside the Workhouse for a limited time from the date of the Order, to poor persons of any description resident in the distressed area. When, at the request of the County Council, such an Order is issued by the Local Government Board, the county will become liable for one-half of the extra expenditure incurred by a Board of Guardians in administering this special form of relief. These provisions are intended to obviate the necessity of passing a special Act of Parliament every time a relaxation of the condition of outdoor relief becomes urgent, while at the same time they impose an efficient check upon the abuse of the exercise of a dispensing power, as well as increase the sources of Poor Law administration within very poor districts. Sir, the powers and duties of the Rural District Councils, outside those which are transferred to them from baronial Presentment Sessions, are the powers and

  1235
  duties of existing rural sanitary authorities, and they call for no special remarks. It only remains to add generally, as regards County Councils and Rural District Councils, that the Councillors are to hold office for a term of three years and retire together. They are to be elected by single member constituencies, except in certain cases of urban districts returning more than one member to the County Council which form one county electoral division. The county electoral divisions will be fixed by the Local Government Board, and the district electoral divisions will be the present Poor-law electoral divisions. I turn now to urban districts. Six cities and towns will, under the Bill, be constituted county boroughs—namely, Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Londonderry, and Waterford. The government of county boroughs will go on much the same as before—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: What about Newry?]—save that their councils will be elected upon the wider franchise already described, and they will obtain such powers and duties of County Councils generally as are provided, and which they do not possess already. In the case of other towns and boroughs every place which is now, or becomes, an urban sanitary district will be an urban district under the Bill, and its affairs will be administered by an Urban District Council. Here, again, we do not propose to interfere with the existing constitution of the local governing bodies, either as to number, duration of office, or time of election—the franchise, of course, will be the Parliamentary franchise. The style or title of the Corporation or Council of a borough will remain unchanged. We propose further that in future all Urban District Councils should be the road authority for their district, and that for this purpose there should be transferred to them, where they do not already conduct it, the business, so far as respects their district, of baronial Presentment Sessions, and also the duties of the Grand Juries in relation to public works, except such public works as are in part or in whole chargeable on the county at large. Urban District Councils will also have the duty of levying and collecting all rates within their district. It will be seen from this description
  1236
  that the Urban District Councils are more independent of County Councils than are rural districts, and accordingly urban districts, so far as the constituted county electoral division, will be represented only by their elected representatives on the County Council, and will not have the privilege accorded to Rural District Councils of sending their chairman as an additional member to the County Council.
  MR. E. H. CARSON: What happens in the case of townships?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: They are already urban sanitary districts, and under the Bill they will be governed by Urban District Councils. The position of Boards of Guardians has been pretty clearly indicated by what I have already stated. There will, in future, be no ex-officio Guardians. The duties hitherto allotted to the Guardians as rural sanitary authority will be transferred to the District Councillors, and their duty of levying and collecting the poor rate will be transferred in rural areas to the County Council, and in urban areas to the Urban Council. In rural districts there will be no election of Guardians as such, and the Rural District Council will be the Guardians. In any urban area the Guardians to represent that area will be elected triennially at the time of election of the County and Rural District Councils. Dispensary Committees will be abolished, and their functions transferred to Guardians; but both Boards of Guardians and Rural District Councils will be empowered to appoint local committees and delegate to them certain of their functions. Sir, I now come to what is probably the most difficult part of the Bill, which is the rating and financial provisions. In dealing with these, I must confine myself to the broad principles on which we have gone to work, and even then I am apprehensive that I shall find a difficulty in making myself clearly intelligible to hon. Members before they have had an opportunity of seeing the Bill itself.
  MR. DILLON: I still assume that the voting at elections will be by ballot?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Certainly. The proposals of the Government, although they may appear complicated and intricate, will tend in the direction, in practice, of administrative simplicity. In the first place, the occupier is in future to be liable for both county cess and poor rate, whether in towns or rural districts. The distinction between cess and poor rate will cease, and the two will be collected together as one consolidated rate. This change in the incidence of rating will, of course, involve a temporary readjustment of rents, in which a tenancy shall have been determined, or in the case of holdings under the Land Act, where a new fair rent has been fixed. These adjustments of rents present a variety of cases, all of which have been carefully provided for in the Bill. In the case of holdings other than agricultural land the problem is simple, and the principle followed is that the rent shall be adjusted so as to prevent, as between landlord and tenant, any change in the burden existing in the financial year 1896–97. That year is taken in the Bill as the standard financial year, and all adjustment of rent has to be made on the assumption that there will be no increase or decrease of poor rate and county cess, taken together, as compared with the total rate in the £ for county cess and poor rate taken together in the standard year. The effect of this will be that the whole of any decrease in the rates will go to the benefit of the occupier; the whole of any increase will go to his disadvantage. Of course, when the rents come to be refixed, it will, in the case of holdings, other than agricultural land, be refixed, having regard to the burden of the rates, and the gain or loss arising from the decrease or increase of rates will be distributed between landlord and tenant according to the ordinary law of supply and demand. As regards agricultural land, the case is complicated by the sums which it is proposed to pay out of the Imperial Exchequer in relief of the rates on such land. The Bill here carries out the substance of the proposals outlined by the First Lord of the Treasury in the House of Commons, in first announcing the intentions of the Government. There will be distributed for the benefit of the spending authorities in each year out of the Imperial Exchequer a sum equal to
  1238
  one-half of the county cess and one-half of the poor rate deemed for the purposes of the Bill to have been paid in respect of agricultural land in the standard year. This sum is called in the Bill the agricultural grant, and that is the name which I wish to use in speaking of it. So far as possible, provisions are inserted in the Bill for ensuring that the benefit of this contribution—that is to say the agricultural grant—shall go to the occupier as regards county cess, and to the owner as regards poor rates. In the first instance this is secured, as in the case of holdings other than agricultural land by temporary adjustment of rent; but in the case of holdings under the Land Acts the rent-fixing provisions of these Acts are taken advantage of to secure that the same end shall be attained permanently. The Land Commissioners are instructed in fixing a fair rent after the appointed day to fix it on the assumption that the rates on the land are those of the standard year, and that the principle already referred to is observed—namely, that the tenant is to have any benefit from the agricultural grant given in respect to county cess and that the landlord is to have any benefit from the agricultural grant given in respect to the poor rate. Let me add that this instruction to the Land Commission is quite as much in the interest of the tenant as of the landlord. If, on the one hand, it prevents him from having his rent lowered in consequence of any rise in the rates, on the other hand it not only secures to the tenant the advantage of any future decrease in the rates, but it protects him from the danger of having his rent raised in consequence of the relief in respect of county cess given by the agricultural grant. It will be noticed that, when the occupier of land is also the owner of the land which he occupies, he will get a double advantage out of the grant. As occupier he will get relief in respect of county cess, and as owner he will get relief in respect of the poor rate. This is an obvious corollary of our proposals, and I call special attention to it because, from communications that have reached me, I infer that there exists an impression that we have left occupying owners, including tenants who have purchased their holdings, out in the cold. That is not the case. On the contrary, they get,

  1239
  as I have said, a double advantage from the grant in respect of their double capacity as owners and occupiers. Sir, I have now to mention two further changes which we propose to introduce into the rating system. The Bill provides for what I will call union rating and district rating. By union rating I mean that those expenses of the Guardians which are now levied separately on the electoral division will be charged on the common fund raised equally over the whole union. By district rating I mean, of course, that the cost of all rates and public works and charges on baronies will be charged equally over the whole of the rural district, which, in most cases, comprises several baronies or parts of baronies. This latter change almost necessarily follows from the transference of the work of baronial Presentment Sessions to the District Council.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does it include malicious injuries?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: No. This latter change almost necessarily follows from the work imposed upon the District Council. The adoption of union rating, however, may be deemed of more doubtful expediency and may stand in need of some justification. The respective advantages of union rating and electoral division rating have been a subject of discussion in Ireland from the date of the establishment of the poor law system in that country. That system, as originally designed, provided that all expenses of poor law administration must be distributed over the union, and it was only in the House of Lords that electoral division rating was substituted. The object of the change made by the House of Lords seems to have been to hold out an inducement to the landlords to give employment to the poor on their estates, by throwing on certain landlords a larger part of the charge for the maintenance of any person belonging to the electoral division which might have to be supported out of the rates. This reason for electoral division rating will disappear if the proposal of the Bill to make occupiers only responsible for the rates is passed into law. Electoral division rating has, however, been strongly defended on the ground that
  1240
  it tends to economy in the administration of outdoor relief, and it is, at all events, probably this consideration which has, in recent years, had most to do with its retention in Ireland, notwithstanding that union rating was adopted in England no less than 20 years ago. Recent experience, however, goes to show that the belief that union rating tends to extravagance in outdoor relief is a mistaken one. The experiment was not really tried in Ireland till 1894, when, in certain distressed districts, under a special Act passed by the late Government, outdoor relief was, in fact, made a charge upon the union at large. What is the conclusion to which recent experience points? It is that union-rating, so far from leading to extravagance on the part of the Guardians, tends on the contrary, to economy. You find in practice that the Guardians are quite ready to be liberal when the charge falls on the whole of the division, but when it is collected from, the union they are more careful. Then they become vigilant watch-dogs. I am more than convinced on general grounds that the establishment of union-rating would be a highly desirable reform. But apart from such general considerations, the proposal of our Bill to throw upon the Guardians the whole portion of the poor rate renders it almost a necessity. At present in very poor districts, where most holdings are under a £4 valuation, the landlords pay perhaps four-fifths of the poor rate. This is now to be at an end, for the agricultural grant which replaces the landlord's contribution is to be fixed and unalterable, and if occupiers are to bear the cost of relief the area of contribution must be widened, for individual electoral divisions will be unable to bear it. Unless this is done, measures of relief will in some shape or form become, except in some highly-congested divisions, almost an annual necessity. Let me now call attention to the results of the introduction of union and district rating. Each of these changes will have the effect of shifting the burdens—lightening them in some quarters, and increasing them in others. It almost follows that they must be taken into account in the temporary adjustment of rating as between landlord and tenant, but also in the distribution of the agricultural grant. In other words, these calculations must be made on the

  1241
  assumption that union and district rating had already existed during the standard years. This will affect the distribution of the agricultural, grant, as is obvious, but that it will affect the total amount of the agricultural grant is not quite so clear. It is, however, a fact—and hon. Members from Ireland will be glad to hear it—that it affects the agricultural grant, not by a decrease, but by an increase. This is due to the fact that the poor rate in towns somewhat exceeds that in rural areas, and consequently union rating will relieve towns, as compared with the country, to the extent of £26,000 a year. Half of that portion, which under union rating will have to be borne by agricultural land, becomes under our Bill charged on the Exchequer, and the amount is estimated at between £11,000 and £12,000. Considering the advantages conferred by the Bill upon agricultural land, I do not think that relief in this way to towns can reasonably be begrudged, especially as there is a small set-off arising from the definition in the Bill of agricultural land. It will be remembered in the English Agricultural Rating Bill of 1896 a certain definition of agricultural land was given. The conditions of that arrangement in Ireland render that definition unsuitable in the present case. We propose to define agricultural land as including everything that is entered in the valuation list as land, except land included within the boundaries of any borough or town which for the time is an urban sanitary district. While that definition excludes all lands and towns from the benefit of the agricultural grant, and therefore deprives towns of a small contribution which they would enjoy under the English definition of agricultural land, on the other hand it includes woods, parks, and gardens, which the English definition would have excluded. Again, there is a great simplification of administration under the Bill, while any loss to the towns is probably less than a quarter of what they would gain by union rating. The total amount of the agricultural grant has not yet been accurately determined. It could not be determined with absolute precision until the exact provisions of the Bill had been decided upon, but I anticipate that it will amount to £730,000 annually. As in England, so in Ireland, there are certain charges
  1242
  which it is proposed to exclude in making calculations. Those charges fall into two classes—one including charges for extra police and compensation for malicious injury, and the other class comprising charges in respect to railways, harbour navigation, and special expenses, now borne under the Public Health Act. Another class of charges which are really in the nature of temporary charges, are exempted from the provisions of the Bill. Their total amount comparatively is not a large sum; it is not a very large stun in comparison with the total amount of grants. Some of the railway and harbour charges fall very heavy, especially in County Kerry, on particular baronies. I have been anxious to give some measure of relief to those heavily charged areas, even though this could not be done by means of the agricultural grant. I have been unable to give this relief in connection with another financial arrangement which I now proceed to describe, and after the description of which my account of the financial business of the Bill may be brought to a close. The proceeds of the local licences were by the English Act of 1881 transferred to the local authorities in lieu of certain grants-in-aid annually voted by Parliament. It is proposed to do the same in Ireland. But there is this difference between the case of Ireland and the case of Great Britain. In Great Britain the proceeds of the local licences covered the grants-in-aid with a considerable margin to spare. In Ireland, the proceeds of the licences amount to about £200,000, whereas the grants-in-aid, in respect of the maintenance of certain poor law charges amount to £244,000. This is a deficiency of close upon £44,000. That is, perhaps, more than covered by the annual grant from the Exchequer of £79,000; that is to say, in addition to the £44,000 which is the amount of the deficiency, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow Ireland a further sum of £35,000 a year by way of a margin. Add this annual grant of £79,000 to the £200,000 yielded by the licences and we reach a total of £279,000, and out of this total sum of £279,000 it is proposed to defray the charges now met out of grants-in-aid, amounting to £244,000; first, of one half of the salary of one trained nurse in every union in Ireland who is actually employed and enjoys the

  1243
  necessary qualifications; and, seconly, where the average rate of existing harbour and railway charges of any area exceeds 6d. per £, a sum equal to half such excess. I estimate that there will still remain after all these charges have been met sufficient to provide against any excesses in the charges caused by the transfer of lunatics from the workhouses to the asylums. Such transference, of course, cannot take place all at once, but in the meantime any excess of the £279,000 which for the next six months will accumulate, to provide against any possible deficiency in future years, can be disposed of in such a way as may be afterwards directed. I have now said enough to give the House a fair idea of the main features of the Bill. I now leave the financial provisions and come to the transitory provisions of the Bill—those for the transfer of officers and the transitory condition of things before the new authorities could meet. It is proposed that the Grand Juries shall meet, for the transaction of fiscal and administrative business only, for the last time at the Spring Assizes of 1899.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Good! And not too soon.
  MR. MACNEILL: We shall be glad to get rid of them.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The election of the new bodies will follow immediately afterwards, in March, when they will have at their disposal so much of the agricultural grant as has been accumulated during the previous half year, for the payment of the Irish equivalent grant will cease in September of the present year, and the agricultural grant will take its place. The interests of existing officers will, of course, be respected. The existing secretaries of Grand Juries are to become, and continue, secretaries of the County Councils for the space of a year, at the expiration of which either the County Council could require the secretary to retire, or the secretary could retire voluntarily. In either event, the secretary will be entitled to an allowance of the same amount as if his office had not been abolished. If this opportunity is not taken advantage of by the Council,
  1244
  or by the secretary, he will continue to be secretary of the Council, only removable with the consent of the Local Government Board. On his voluntary retirement at any subsequent date, he will be entitled to an allowance on the Civil Service scale. Other officers will be treated on the same lines as in the English and Scottish Acts. Special provision, however, is made for the case of barony and poor rate collectors. The County Councils will in future be the only rate-collecting authority, and it is obvious that there will no longer be room for a double set of rate collectors. We propose that every County Council shall, within six months of their first meeting, submit to the Local Government Board a scheme setting forth their arrangements for the collection of the consolidated rate, in which the existing rate collectors shall have priority of appointment. Any existing officer continued in the service of the County Council as a collector will be entitled to compensation from the Council, if within five years of the scheme being approved he is dismissed by the County Council for any other cause than misconduct or incapacity.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is proposed to be done with regard to the County surveyors?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The existing surveyors will, of course, not be removable except with the concurrence of the Local Government Board.
  MR. DILLON: What will be done with the clerks?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: In the case of new appointments the appointment or dismissal of these officers will be in the hands of the County Councils, except in the case of the secretary to the Council, the county surveyor and the assistant county surveyor, who will be dismissable with the concurrence of the Local Government Board. Officers appointed by Boards of Guardians will hold office on the same tenure as at present, and the same person will hold the office of clerk to the union and clerk to the Rural

  1245
  District Council. It will seem from what I have now stated to the House that we have set ourselves to a somewhat formidable task. The reform of Local Government in England was the subject of two Bills, and the same is the case with the reform of Local Government in Scotland. In the case of Ireland we are attempting the task—and we are obliged to attempt the task—in one comprehensive measure, and this measure has not been merely to provide for the creation of new bodies, but also to provide for and calculate the amount and distribution of the agricultural grant; and, further, it contains various important conditions with respect to the incidence of rates, If all these matters were perfectly new we should have to be obliged to admit that the task is not merely formidable, but perhaps impossible. But, as the House knows, this is very far from, being the case. The ground has already been explored and mapped out and worked over in the Local Government Acts for England and for Scotland. Much of the mere machinery of the Measure can be provided for by means of the very words of the existing Acts, or by means of clauses of existing Acts, altered only in form and not in substance. No doubt, Sir, this was a very proper subject for full and exhaustive discussion, but that discussion has already taken place. It has taken place in connection with the Debates in the English and Scottish Acts, and I think we are now justified in assuming that, if the House desires to pass this Bill, it is no longer necessary that that discussion should be taken all over again. The result of it may practically be taken for granted. At all events, we have ventured to proceed on this assumption, and where machinery is to be provided, or where reservations are required to be included of a formal and noncontentious character, we have given wide but still well-defined powers to the Lord Lieutenant in Council to provide for such matters by means of adaptation and regulation orders. Further, I am prepared to admit that it is a new departure in draftmanship. At the same time, I think the House will consider that we are justified in the course we have adopted. It will have the effect of very greatly lightening the Bill, while at the same time we have hedged it round with precautious, which
  1246
  will prevent the withdrawal from the full discussion in this House of any matter useful and proper to be discussed. In the first place the subject-matters of these Orders in Council are intended to be strictly confined to uncontroversial matters, and in the case of the adaptation of the English and Scottish Acts, the headings of the subject-matter will be set forth in the body of the Bill, so that if any hon. Member considers that these headings include subject-matter which is not noncontroversial that will have to be dealt with by the addition of a clause in Committee, or on the report stage of the Bill. The full draft of the Orders in Council, as it is proposed they will be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant in Council, will be laid on the Table of this House; and, lastly, these orders to be passed by the Lord Lieutenant in Council within six months of the passing of the Act will be required to be laid upon the Table of the House, and it will be open to either House to object to them by Address to Her Majesty. If such Address is carried, then the order will be ipso facto annulled, and the subject will be again referred to the Lord Lieutenant in Council, who will be empowered to draw out a new order, which will again be laid on the Table of the House as before. Hon. Members will have an opportunity of seeing the Bill, and they will admit that we have created a new precedent, although not one fraught with danger. I have now to thank the House for the patience with which they have heard the statement, which I have done my best to make clear, though it cannot have been otherwise than dry, and I would add some few words in conclusion. I do not think that any hon. Member who has done me the honour to listen to what I have said will be disposed to deny that the proposal I have outlined is an endeavour to carry out the undertaking given by the Government to offer to Ireland a system of local administration substantially similar to that of England, based on the same broad and democratic foundation. The Local Government Bill of 1892 was weighted with safeguards which at that, time were considered necessary in order to meet the not unnatural apprehensions of the land-owning classes that they would be the

  1247
  victims of extravagant proposals on the part of the new public bodies. These safeguards have disappeared from the present scheme, but in their place we have substituted other safeguards which, we believe, will be more efficient and less irritating. Our object has been to make those in whose hands the power is placed to bear their full share of the burden, to make them feel the full effects of their own extravagance, if they are extravagant, and at the same time to enable them to feel the benefits of their economy if they are economical. All the financial provisions of the Bill will be found to tend in this direction. We have further sought to obliterate all distinctions of interest between one class of the rating community and another. If the Bill passes, owners as such will cease to be directly taxed, and, to a larger extent, they will cease to be indirectly taxed. As occupiers they will still, of course, be in the same position as any other. Thirdly, I observe that as owners may be in future relieved from the obligation of paying their half of the poor rate on agricultural land this will not protect them in their capacity as large cess payers from the results of the extravagance of County or District Councils. It is pointed out that one half or more of the total amount of County cess is contributed by a small percentage of county cess payers, and the inference drawn is that this small minority require special protection. I would point out that this small minority is not a class minority; it is not a minority consisting of owners only, but of occupiers who derive a considerable income from land. That alone is something gained, for the large farmers can in this respect have no interest differing from those other large cess payers. But the argument is not so cogent as many seem to imagine. The pressure of a tax is not in proportion to the amount paid by the individual, but to the amount of sacrifice which the payment involves, and a smaller sum may be as heavy a drain on a smaller income as a larger sum on a larger income. In the case of very small cess payers, it is no doubt conceivable, that they might have more to gain from employment on public works carried out at the expense of the ratepayers than they would lose from any additional rates they might be called upon to pay in
  1248
  order to maintain such works. Fears have been expressed that the smaller ratepayers will bring great pressure to bear upon District Councils to induce them to spend money on roads which are not really required, and which can only be regarded as in the nature of relief works. We have made, in the Bill, sufficient provision to meet that case. Not only will County Councils have a veto on expenditure on rural district roads, but we have provided that, without the express consent of the Local Government Board, any expenditure on roads in any district has to receive the sanction of the County Councils if it exceeds by more than 25 per cent. the average amount of such expenditure in the district for three years preceding. Lastly let it be remembered that the amount of the Agricultural Grant will cause a large and immediate reduction in the amount now paid for county cess, and that the rates in future upon agricultural land cannot reach near their present level until the rise in expenditure is sufficient to cover the margin so provided for. Speaking for myself, I am by no means certain that the prophets of evil in the matter of extravagance will turn out to be right. I should not be surprised if, in many respects, the new bodies prove to be more parsimonious than the old Much, however, of the success or failure of the new system will depend on the attitude towards it of those in whose hands the administration now rests. The experience of England and Scotland shows that in rural districts the local gentry are the natural leaders of the people, and that the people willingly recognise them as such. In the past that has been the case in Ireland also, and it may be so again in the future. [An Irish Member: Not likely.] Well, everything depends upon themselves. Will they look askance at the new order of things? Will they stand aside in silence, or play the more manly part, and seek from the Suffrages of their fellow-citizens that position which no others are so well qualified to fill? They may meet with rebuffs at first, but let them persevere, and their reward is certain. I rejoice to know that on this subject several friends of my own who live in Ireland, Members of this House, as well as others, have spoken in no uncertain voice. If the spirit which animated them animates Members generally,

  1249
  the class to which they belong, I for one firmly believe that the changes we now propose will carry with them a healing power rich in blessings for the future of Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that leave be given to bring in a Bill for amending the law relating to Local Government in Ireland; and for other purposes connected therewith.
  MR. J. MORLEY: It was my fortune six years ago to follow the First Lord of the Treasury when he introduced the unfortunate Measure to which the Chief Secretary has just referred, when he mentioned the irritating and provocative safeguards which figured in that Bill. I am sincerely glad to be able to approach the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has just laid before the House in a totally different frame of mind from the frame of mind which was produced by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman who sits near him. The Chief Secretary need not have had any misgivings as to the clear ness with which he stated his case. I confess I have never in this House heard such a difficult, complex, and intricate scheme expounded with greater lucidity or greater precision, and I congratulate him both upon the manner in which he has explained the scheme and upon the principles which seem to have animated him and the Government, on the whole, in framing the Bill. I think, so far as we can judge—but, of course, it would be a waste of time to pretend to discuss the details of a scheme of such magnitude and complexity until we have the Bill, and I should not attempt to do so—I do feel clear from his explanation that it deserves what he claimed for it, namely, that it has been framed upon broad and democratic lines. I go entirely with the right hon. Gentleman in some of the remarks he made at the conclusion of his speech, when he said he was convinced or hoped—and he had good reasons for hoping—that these new bodies which he is going to call into existence, would not be extravagant, and would not show any desire to bring excessive pres sure to bear on one class more than another. But the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, when they support these
  1250
  proposals, will, in this instance, have to unsay a great many things which they said during the discussion on Home Rule. That was exactly the attitude we took in defending the larger proposals. We said that if you gave responsibility and power you might depend upon it that the consequences which ordinarily attach to fiscal and political responsibility would ensue. Now, as I have promised the House, I am not going to discuss at all a single proposal in the Bill; I should ask for a little further information if the Chief Secretary would be good enough to give it to us, upon one point in the Bill. But, speaking upon its general proposals, they seem to me to make entirely and genuinely for the transfer of power from grand juries to a truly popular and democratic elective body. It is 50 years since a Committee of this House reported that the grand jury system was intolerable. Well, 50 years for an Irish reform is not, perhaps, too long a time, and we are glad to have it now at the end of 50 years rather than have to wait 50 years more. I am not sure on the point of the exclusion of ministers of religion. I recollect that, in connection with the Home Rule Bill, Mr. Parnell was for allowing ministers of religion to sit in the Irish Legislature upon the somewhat cynical ground that those gentlemen would be less likely and able to do harm inside than outside. I think that is deserving of some consideration. Something may be said for it from a more generous point of view also. The point that will undoubtedly excite discussion and interest in Ireland will be the entrusting to County Councils, as I understand, all matters relating to compensation for malicious injuries.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: No. They are transferred to the County Courts from the Grand Juries.
  MR. J. MORLEY: That is to say, the County Court judge?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Yes. There will be an appeal from the County Court judge to the judge of Assize, just as there is now from the-Grand Juries.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Just so. The Court of Appeal will be the same as at present. The provisions as to lunatic asylums I

  1251
  most heartily approve of. The Board of control always struck me as a most anomalous body, and the constitution of Boards of governors of lunatic asylums was one of the most troublesome and thankless duties ever imposed upon a Chief Secretary. Therefore, that change seems to me to be one worthy of all approval. I approve also of the proposal that where there is a case of exceptional distress the Boards of Guardians are to be at liberty to go to the County Council and acquire from the County Council power to deal with those districts in the matter of outdoor relief and otherwise; and, as I understand, the county is to bear half the charge of any exceptional payments that may be required in relieving that distress.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: That, roughly speaking, is the case. But the approval of the Local Government Board will be necessary.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Then that is an enormous change. A change for which my hon. Friends from Ireland have been working for some time, and which, I am sure, they will welcome, is in connection with Urban District Councils, where the franchise is to be the Parliamentary franchise. That is an enormous improvement, and a step in the direction of free, popular government. Then there are no longer to be ex-officio magistrates on Boards of Guardians. That is a very important and vital change. Now I come to a point upon which I am not quite sure that I clearly follow what the Chief Secretary has told us—the financial point. Of course, as the First Lord of the Treasury said last year when he announced this scheme, you have two dangers to avoid. You have, first of all, to take care that the landlord who was to be relieved of the payment of half the poor rate should not get that taken from him again by excessive and extravagant administration. There was that danger on the one side. But, on the other hand, it was said that there was a danger that the occupier, the tenant, would be deprived of the relief given in the shape of the county cess by the arrangement proposed, when the Land Commissioners came round to fix the rent. These were
  1252
  the two dangers. The landlord was not to be rated out of his rent, and the tenant was not to be rented out of the relief you propose to give him. I understand, so far as the tenant is concerned, he is to be protected against the abstraction from him of the boon you are going to give him in the shape of enhanced rent by an instruction to the Land Commissioners not to take it into account. That is, perhaps, doing all you can do, but I fail to understand what is to happen to the landlord. I want to know what is to happen to him. I do not see how you have entirely safeguarded him. Take the case of an extravagant County Council. Suppose their expenditure is grossly extravagant. That, of course, will send up the county charge. I do not see how the landlord is to escape from being hit by the enhancement of the county charge.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The Land Commissioners will only take into account the rates in the standard year. Therefore any increase of the rates caused by the extravagance of the new bodies will not be taken into consideration by the Land Commissioners in re-fixing rents.
  MR. J. MORLEY: But I want to know how the landlord is going to contribute to an enhanced county charge put upon him by an extravagant County Council.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: He will not contribute as landlord. He is in the future to be relieved entirely from the payment of poor rates. He will no longer pay them as landlord, but as occupier, if he be an occupier.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Then I am wondering whether you are not giving the landlord more than he is entitled to. As I understand it—of course I don't want to argue it now—you are conferring upon the landlord a total exemption from the payment of any charge for county purposes.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: As landlord.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Then that is a proposal which I call neither broad nor democratic; but I only throw out a note

  1253
  of warning to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a point upon which I am quite sure he will have to face a considerable amount of criticism. It is a most important and serious point, and I hope he will be able to clear it up, or that the Bill will clear it up.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I may just explain that the landlord will, of course, not be liable—will not be punished—if the new bodies are extravagant, because the rent will have to be fixed with reference to the rates of the standard year and not to the rates as they may be hereafter. On the other hand, if the now bodies are economical and able to save money, the whole of such saving will go to the benefit of the occupier, and the landlord will not participate in it.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Until we see the clause I do not want to continue the discussion. I will only point out this, that the right hon. Gentleman, in an admirable passage, with the spirit of which I entirely sympathise, said he hoped that the landlords of Ireland would take their fair part in this local administration. Yes, but then they will be taking part in that local administration, though they will not themselves be the bearers of any portion of the burden which this local administration may impose. You are taking off the landlord in Ireland a burden which never lay upon him in England. Of course, as everybody knows, the landlord in Ireland now pays half the rates on holdings over £4, and on holdings under £4 he pays the whole of the rates. However, I will not labour it, but that, I am sure, is a part of the Bill which will need to be very carefully examined, because it really goes to the root of the matter, and I am not satisfied quite that the Government have got over the difficulty which the First Lord of the Treasury indicated when he made his announcement last year. As to the other minor clauses of which the right hon. Gentleman informed us, it would be a pure waste of time to say anything about them until we have seen them, and until we have heard what the Irish authorities, and the local authorities especially, think of them. So far as the general purpose of the Bill is concerned, of
  1254
  course, we on this side of the House maintain, as we have always maintained, that you are beginning at the wrong end—that it would have been better to begin with a large central body, of which Lord Salisbury truly said it would be less likely to fall into error than some of these local bodies. That is the position we still hold, but as the country, and as this House, has not yet assented to that view of the situation, I will only say that I, for one cordially welcome this set of proposals, subject, of course, to all the reservations which further examination and criticism may show to be necessary; and I do not think, so far as I know, that the Bill will find on this side of the House any kind of criticism of which the Government will have any reason to complain.
  MR. DILLON: I am sure I am only giving expression to the views of all Members for Ireland who sit around me when I say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made the clearest exposition of a complicated Bill that I have ever listened to, and that we have acquired a clearer idea of the Bill than we conceived possible at the beginning of his speech. The Irish Nationalist Members, as is well known to this House, adhere to the view, which we have frequently expressed, that the wiser and the more promising way to deal with this Irish problem would be to set up, first of all, that central executive authority, which must count for a great deal in the working of any local institutions in any country, and which would give to those local institutions of Ireland a fairer chance for smooth and successful working than we can hope to have under present circumstances. But while holding those views with undiminished force, we hold that it would be absurd not to give a frank and friendly reception to any serious attempt on the part of the present Ministry to remedy the dreadful condition of things which has prevailed so long in Ireland respecting local government, and I feel bound, at the very outset of the brief utterances I shall make, to recognise that the Bill which has been explained to the House by the right hon. Gentleman is an immense advance on the proposal that was

  1255
  made in 1892, and that, coming from a Unionist Government, I think it justifies, so far as he has explained it, in all its main details, the promises which have been made that it would be a broad Measure, conferring upon Ireland, with one or two exceptions to which I shall briefly allude, the same privileges which have been given to England and Scot land. Now, there are just two or three points that I propose only to glance at for a moment which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with. First of all, I take the question of the control of the police. I confess I hardly expected he would deal with that question. It is a very thorny question, and one which I do not propose to deal with at present; nor do I say for a single moment that I think the Irish Members would be justified in impeding, in obstructing, or in any way belittling a large Measure of local government, satisfactory on all other points, simply because it fails to deal with the control of the police. But I only point out that that is one important particular in which his proposals fall short of the rights that have been conferred upon the people of Great Britain. There is one other point to which the right hon. Gentleman made no allusion; he did not deal at all with the all-important question of the relations between the local bodies which the Bill proposes to set up and the Local Government Board, or Central Authority. I do not, however, press him for further information on that question. I simply mention it by way of reservation, because I have no doubt that it will be cleared up when the Bill is printed and the discussion upon the Second Reading takes place. There is, however, one point in connection with the financial provisions of the Bill to which I would like for a moment to direct his attention. He pointed out that, under certain circumstances, in the event of exceptional distress, such as affects tenants in the West of Ireland at the present moment, Boards of Guardians in the distressed districts may apply to the County Councils for additional powers, and that the County Councils may grant those powers, subject to the veto of the Local Government Board. Now, I can only describe that as an attempt to shove off on the district bodies in the Western counties the duty of providing for exceptional distress,
  1256
  and to relieve the Local Government Board of their responsibility. I think the words of the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what has taken place, were exceptionally sinister and alarming, when he said that if some provision such as this was not introduced into the Bill, it would be probably necessary for him to introduce nearly every year exceptional legislation to deal with distress.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I meant relief in connection with union rating, and not in connection with exceptional distress.
  MR. DILLON: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if this provision were not inserted it would be necessary for him to introduce exceptional legislation in reference to distress.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: What I said was that if union rating was not adopted. I was not referring to the provision which enabled the County Council to intervene in cases of exceptional distress.
  MR. DILLON: What made me allude to that particular provision is this—that it looks to me, as I said before, like an attempt to shove off, on the Western counties the duty of providing for exceptional distress, and of relieving the Local Government Board of that responsibility which they, even this year, are endeavouring to get rid of, but which they are shamed into accepting some share of. As regards union rating as a principle, of course that is a totally different matter, and so long as union rating does not carry with it an attempt to throw upon the poorest districts in Ireland the whole responsibility of dealing with exceptional distress I shall have non-opposition to make to that provision. I come for a moment to the question of assessment of damages. The proposal to transfer the jurisdiction in regard to assessing damages for malicious injuries to the County Court would be a great improvement on the present system, but I can see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not go a step further, and either do away with that most invidious power altogether in Ireland, at the same time that he is doing away with grand juries, or transfer the power

  1257
  to the County Councils. I have no intention of occupying the time of the House by prolonged observations upon the provisions of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the rating provisions. I should be very slow to commit myself in any way for or against these suggestions, until we have had an opportunity of examining them at leisure and in print. I entirely understand the idea which underlies the suggestions the right hon. Gentleman made; I entirely understand that the idea, of the right hon. Gentleman is that in future the landlord, as landlord, shall not be at any additional expense incurred for County Councils. Of course, he will pay as occupier of land, and be on an equal footing with any other occupier, and will have to pay his share in that respect; but I believe that these instructions, which are to be given to the Land Commission, to protect the tenants and occupiers against the allowance made for them passing into the pockets of the landlord, in one way or another, will be, to a large extent, inoperative. There is just one other point in connection with this grant in relief of the rates to which I wish to allude. The right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the generosity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making an additional grant of money to what he called the agricultural grant. But he said not a word about the arrears which are due to Ireland, during the last two years, during which there has been hung up for Ireland's use £160,000 per annum, instead of £730,000, which we are now told is the fair and just sum to which she is entitled. After this Bill passes into law I should hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be able to extend his generosity a little more, and give us, if not the whole, at least a considerable portion, of the arrears which are due to Ireland in respect of the grant in aid to agriculture made to Great Britain. We admit that this is a large and valuable Measure, so far as the right hon. Gentleman has explained it. I think it is a Measure which, if carried out on the lines sketched out by the right hon. Gentleman, would do great good to Ireland, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as we are concerned, although we do not agree with his policy, we would be
  1258
  disposed to give this Bill fair play, and do our best to work it in all good faith. It is, I am sure, intended as an honest aid to Ireland. I still maintain that the picture of a bright and beautiful Ireland, as drawn by the right hon. Gentleman, would be more likely to be realised by the establishment of such a central Government as we advocate. But when I turned for a moment to consider the future fate of this Bill. I was struck by the extraordinary sentence in the speech delivered by the First Lord of the Treasury to his constituents in Manchester. He said—
  "If we find ourselves unable, by the action of Parliamentary criticism and comment, to create that broad, free, and popular Local Government in Ireland, we shall deeply regret it, but we shall feel that we are not called upon to ask the British taxpayers to give £700,000 to Ireland."
  Sir, that is not the way in which Governments generally introduce Bills. As a rule, they introduce Bills with the intention of passing them, and they do not do so stating beforehand that if Parliamentary criticism is not in their favour they will not proceed with them. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to treat this Bill fairly, as a first-class Measure. Of course, I know that we do not, as a rule, from these Benches, discuss a Bill in any unfair spirit, but I ask for a fair and reasonable amount of Parliamentary time, and we ask that it should be treated as a first-class Parliamentary Measure, and that the power of the Government shall be used in carrying it through on the broad lines that I have indicated.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I realise very little can be gained at this moment by the discussion of the details of this Measure, but I think possibly it may be of use for a few words to be spoken by one or two Members on these Benches, so that the House may realise that upon this Measure, so far as the Nationalist representatives are concerned, there is no difference of opinion at all, and in the passage of the Bill through this House. I trust that all sections of the Nationalists here will be able to act together. For my part, I wish to associate myself with the compliment which has been paid by the

  1259
  hon. Member for East Mayo on the lucidity with which this Bill has been introduced, and I think it is only fair to say frankly to him and my colleagues, that if the Bill is accurately sketched in his speech to-night, then it is an ample fulfilment of the pledges given last year, which pledges were received with great pleasure by all sections of people in Ireland. I will not venture to speak upon the details of the Bill until we have the Bill in our hands. However, I may be permitted to make one or two comments. With regard to the much-contested point of compensation for malicious injuries, I admit the proposition by the Government is a very plausible compromise, that is, the transference of this jurisdiction to the County Court, with an appeal to the Judge of Assize, but I am not entirely satisfied with that proposal. I myself, remember that when this question of Local Government was being discussed some years ago, I made the proposal with regard to that Measure which, I think, will be far preferable to that contained in the Bill. I proposed that this should be tried by a Judge of Assize with a common jury, in the same way as an ordinary traverse of a presentment, and that would have met the case, whereas now the proposal that is made is that the County Court should first deal with it, and then an appeal taken to a Judge at Assize, sitting without a jury.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Not necessarily without a jury. It will be exactly the same appeal as at present.
  MR. J. REDMOND: Yes, but the appeals of the County Court are tried by a Judge of Assize without a jury.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Exactly the same. The case is traversed.
  MR. J. REDMOND: If it is to be tried as an ordinary traversal, with a jury, at Assize, then that entirely meets the objection I made. I was dealing with it as though it would be tried like an ordinary appeal from a County Court judge without a jury. Very well, I pass from that. I have only two observations to make—one with regard to the Local Government Board, which would be the central governing authority. Of
  1260
  course, I admit that it is very difficult for a Government to propose a Central Governing Authority which would have the confidence of the Irish Nationalists under the present circumstances. The Local Government Board in England is in an entirely different position to the Local Government Board in Ireland. The Local Government Board in England has a Parliamentary Representative on the Front Bench, and is in touch with public opinion here. The Local Government Board in Ireland is not in touch, and is not in the same position as in England. I admit the difficulty of providing a Central Authority until you have in Ireland a system of Home Rule, without which no system of Local Government could really successfully be worked. On the question of finance I have no more to say than this: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, if I understood him correctly, with some mistrust, because I understand last year when this proposal was made that it was greeted with a chorus of approval from all sections, including even the Front Opposition Bench. What was the proposal? The right hon. Gentleman truly says it is not a very broad or democratic proposal. I admit that, but it amounts to this—that it is the price to be paid by the Irish people for the purpose of getting this system of democratic and popular local government. It was put forward on that ground by the First Lord of the Treasury, and it certainly was so accepted in every quarter of the House where it was mentioned.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Let me correct my hon. Friend, there was no plan and no system last year. The right hon. Gentleman said they hoped to devise a scheme which would prevent either of the two evils coming forward.
  MR. J. REDMOND: My recollection cannot have led me so far wrong as to lead me into this mistake. Was it not stated by the First Lord of the Treasury last year that half of this money would go to relieve the landlords of the poor rate, and the other half to relieve the tenants of the county cess? Is not that the plan that was then mentioned, and publicly approved on that Bench by the

  1261
  right hon. Member for Stirling. On that account I hope the somewhat faltering nature of the approval from the Front Opposition Bench does not mean that this Bill will, on that ground, encounter very much opposition from the Liberal Party. I have listened with the greatest possible sympathy to the appeal the right hon. Gentleman made to the landlord class to assist in the proper working of this Bill, and I sincerely hope that his appeal will be effectual with them, and more than that, I hope the appeal he has made to them will also be made by the friends and representatives of the people to the people to reciprocate that feeling. If this Bill is worked successfully, I believe it will constitute an unanswerable argument for Home Rule, but I believe it cannot work successfully unless it is worked in a spirit of broad-mindedness and toleration on both sides. Of course, grand juries, owing to their constitution, have been to a large extent failures, but it would be absurd to deny that on every one of the juries in Ireland there have been country gentlemen who have shown the greatest aptitude for business, the greatest industry, and the greatest ability; and I say it would be a monstrous thing if by working the elections for these County Councils upon narrow sectarian or political lines men of that class were excluded from the service of their country on these Boards. Therefore, I sincerely hope those who speak with authority to the people of Ireland will reciprocate the appeal which was made by the Chief Secretary to the landlords, and that we may find in the future these bodies representing all classes of the people working in perfect harmony, and without any trace of political rancour, for the good of Ireland.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I think my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has underrated the Measure so ably described in the House by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I think the general consensus of opinion expressed freely on all sides of the House was that a proposal of that kind would be acceptable. Of course, I do not intend now to ask the House to criticise this very complicated and difficult Bill; but perhaps I may say a word or two on behalf of the class to which I belong, and
  1262
  in whose name I have more or less the right to speak. First of all, let me say a word about grand juries. Of course, this is in one sense a revolution, it takes; the power away from the class that has used it for so many years and gives it to another. Well, Sir, I, and I think most reasonable men in Ireland, have seen that this was a necessity, and for my part I last year cheerfully accepted it. I think there are not very many landlords in Ireland who, however they may dislike this necessity, and, of course, they do, and I never found anybody yet who liked power taken away from himself and given to somebody else, but however I believe they may dislike that, they must see, and we see, and I think the House sees, that that necessity could not be postponed. With regard to grand juries, I have had the honour to act as foreman of grand juries in my county for a very great number of years, and I have heard the right hon. Gentleman this very afternoon rather scoff at the name; but I defy anyone in this House who may have critically examined into the conduct of business by Irish grand juries to point out a case of malversation of public funds, or maladministration of business which they have to perform.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I could give you 100 cases.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I do not want 100, I want one. I defy any one of them to bring forward a case of maladministration of the affairs of that country. I must say I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the view he has expressed that a new system shall be less expensive than the old one. Sir, this is an experiment you are about to try. At first, I think, this is inevitable, that at first the cesspayers and the ratepayers in Ireland will find it somewhat costly. I hope I am wrong, but I believe, undoubtedly, that will be the case, for this reason: that in the nature of things the gentlemen who will be elected in Ireland to carry on county business will be gentlemen who have never had anything to say with regard to the county business before. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that the case was in our hands. Now, how can it be in our hands? The

  1263
  legislation of this House and the legislation of the past generally produced the necessity of every landlord in Ireland having a law suit with his tenants once every few years. That is a question which is extremely unpopular. It has one side, however, it may be liked by—the other side. That, Sir, I do not think will improve the relations between the gentry of Ireland and the future voters, but it will bring about in those boards the presence, of course, of the class to which I have the honour to belong. Then I will say to my right hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Waterford—so far as I know I am speaking for myself and a good many of my friends, and I am sure I speak for the great majority of the gentlemen and landlords in Ireland—that we have no intention of sulking, we have no intention whatever of sitting with our hands folded; but you will find that those who own land in Ireland will come forth and offer themselves for election by the new voters, and it will not depend on them, as my right hon. Friend has said, but it will depend upon the good sense of the new voters whether that class which has for so many years, and so successfully, carried on county business in Ireland find themselves on the new boards. Well, Sir, I sympathise entirely with every word that has been spoken on the subject by the hon. Member for Water-ford. I think this will offer a great opportunity to Irishmen of all classes, and of all creeds, and of all political thought to meet together for a common purpose—namely, for the benefit of their country. So far as I am concerned, Sir, I can only say this: that any action I may take and any Amendment I may support during the progress of this Bill through this House will have one object alone. I will certainly not attempt to defeat the Measure, for I accept it completely. My object, as an Irishman knowing something, at any rate, of county business, and I think the object also of my hon. Friends, will be directed to making this Measure a permanent success. Of course there are many things in the Bill that I do not at present understand. My right hon. Friend says that this Bill is to take effect in 1899. Now, I should like to have heard
  1264
  from the Government that the £730,000 is to be earmarked for Ireland, that they will put the £730,000 by for Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: It will go to the Irish landlords.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I do not think the Irish landlords will be much benefited by this Bill.
  MR. DILLON: They will get every penny of it.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: So far as I can see, the Irish lawyers will have the benefit of it. So far as I understand my right hon. Friend, this will involve a new Land Bill, and all the rents in Ireland will have to be resettled, and I imagine the lawyer class are somewhat hurrying this Measure on, and we do not know whether the landlord is to pay the shot or the county or the Government, but I am afraid it will be the landlord. However pleasant it may be to fee a lawyer, all I can say is I do not think the doing so tends to the wealth of any class of the community I think that this Bill, complicated in its character, will receive your careful consideration. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester equally applies to this. All I can say is this: that no threat, from whatever quarter it may come, will prevent us taking steps to make this Measure a really honest, good, and lasting benefit to Ireland, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will see that this will not be from any evil design on our part to impede this Measure, but so that we should really understand these questions in Ireland, and know what probably will be the result in the future of the action of the House; but we have only one object in view, that is to make it a success for Ireland and her people.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend, with regard to his challenge as to the grand jury, we are quite willing now to fight the matter very hard. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I think he is entitled to claim to the fullest extent that he has carried out the pledges that have been made by Her Majesty's Government in former Sessions on this subject. I think I may further add that this Bill will be received in

  1265
  Ireland from one end to the other with comparative satisfaction, and we also feel that this House has for the first time brought in that kind of Measure for the relief of the country which I may describe in the words of the Croat Book as the "shadow of a mighty rock within a weary land." Now, Sir, the right hon Gentleman, in his very lucid speech, left two points uncovered, untouched on, for which we must await the terms; and I, for myself, reserve my criticism on the apportionment of the rate between landlord and tenant, and the machinery by which he proposes to carry out that proposal. Perhaps I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is a very easy means of getting at the apportionment. I think the House wonders that, with the able assistance they have in Ireland, they do not propose to the tenants of Ireland some scheme of purchase by which the landlords could finally disappear with a sufficient sum in their pockets. I think with respect to the clause as to compensation or voluntary purchase, some scheme of that kind, although it bore the aspect of over-generosity to the landlords, would be well received by the tenants in order to bring about some final settlement of the land question. I have only dealt with tenantable lands in the hands of certain gentlemen, whom I should be very sorry to see disappear from the locality altogether, and I cordially agree with what the hon. Member for Waterford has said, that Members will, in their localities, take up and treat this Measure in a fair spirit: and if they do I am sure it will be. So far, at any rate, as the districts with which I am acquainted are concerned, I may say, there is no desire for anything else, except a friendly co-operation in making it work with new districts and new Boards. But the landlord party have recently, to some extent, come into contact with the popular party in the matter of financial relations in Ireland, and whether it has improved these financial relations or not, I think it has greatly improved the relations which have previously existed between the two classes, and a better understanding, comparatively sneaking has been arrived at on both sides, and if the same spirit continues, the landlord party will get more than their share in the administration of
  1266
  the Bill of the right hon. Gentlemen. There are two other matters which I will comment upon on the present occasion. I attach immense importance to the power of road-making in Ireland, and I heard, with some dismay, just now, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that this power of road-making would come in some way under the restraining check of the Local Government Board. He said, if the capital expenditure for making roads exceeds 25 per cent. in any one year, then it would have to receive the approval of the Local Government Board. Sir, permit me to say that it is exactly in those districts where roads are required that these provisions will work injuriously. In Kerry, the difficulties of your work will be intensified, and the roads there are in a most picturesque position, leading to the lakes, and through a very beautiful country, where it would be possible, to a great extent, to finish the construction of the roads to the most magnificent passes in Ireland from the County of Cork to the County of Kerry, where there are unfinished roads on the property of Lord Bantry and Lord Lansdowne, where it would be a great and beneficial work to construct a road, even on the tourist road. It would be a great means of benefiting the country and benefiting the unfortunate people who now carry their loads on their back. I venture to say that the proposal is desirable, and, so far as the enactment goes, I have no desire to put any restriction on the making of the roads. I think if the Government will take out that restrictive provision from their Bill it will be much more acceptable. There is another point in the Bill with regard to the lunatic asylums, and I believe that proposal will be received with general satisfaction by all classes. I do not, however, understand the right hon. Gentleman to say anything on the subject of the grant. I take it that the statutory grant will continue as a separate grant as it did in the past. I should like to say, speaking at large, for the safeguarding the positions of the officers of the Grand Juries, that, as the measure is not to come into operation until March of 1899, I think it would be only fair that those powers as to those officials should only be in regard to the appointments that had already been

  1267
  made. It would be a very wrong thing indeed to allow jobs and officers to be appointed in the Government. We have been approached during the Recess by gentlemen connected with the Poor Law bodies and others to see that they get their rights, and I can assure the House that every Party, without distinction to politics or sect, are anxious that these people shall get paid. I rather resent the proposal to give these gentlemen a right to retire in the first year. I think it is rather a hardship on the County Councils. For instance, a number of these gentlemen are quite young men, and it is not unlikely that the County Councils might desire to have their services, and yet these gentlemen are to have the right to march off with their pension or allowance. I think the county should have the right to the services of these gentlemen so long as no new task is placed upon their shoulders. And I think any gentlemen connected with the counties, if they receive this Bill in a receptive manner, would find that the new county administration would rather lean on them as a guide, and that they would come to be the props, the pillars, the foundation, on which that administration would rest. Unless the County Councils are disposed to get rid of these gentlemen they should not have the right to retire into private life—some of these gentlemen have only been appointed within the last two or three years. I can quite understand the Government saying that gentlemen who are 60 years of age, or whose offices are abolished, should have the right to retire with an annuity or a grant; but to say that a young man, with only two or three years' service, should be allowed to retire upon an annuity or gratuity to come out of the ratepayers' money, is a thing that I cannot comprehend. I am sure the Government will see their way to make some change upon that point. I would also like to say that if the Poor Law authorities are to be restrained from making new jobs in the interval, that the Government themselves, on the question of the Asylum Boards, should similarly refrain from making new jobs. I regret that instances have occurred in appointments which have been made in asylums appointments, and I think they should as steadily refrain from similar
  1268
  jobs. I think they should place upon themselves the restrictions they propose to place upon the Guardians and rating authorities. There are two or three other matters I should like to say a word as to. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say what he did, but I do think it is a hardship that the country is to bear the expense of the Parliamentary Register. If you reckon up the costs of the Parliamentary Register last year, it amounts, I daresay, to some £150,000, and I do think some automatic means ought to be devised to remit that burden from the ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that, like in the English Act, lodgers will be included; but I would point out that the English Act does not include lodgers. Then another thing I would like to say a word upon, and that is the £10 occupation. In England a £10 occupier cannot vote unless he resides within seven miles of the constituency; but in this case you might have a £10 occupier residing in London coming over to vote in Galway. Then again, it is not necessary to say that England should have a lodger vote for Parish Councils. The Parish meeting in England is an aggregate meeting, and really has very little power.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The Parliamentary franchise is also in operation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: On the whole, I am not quarrelling with the Government, because they are in a very great difficulty; but let me point out what their proposal is. Roughly, the distinction between the lodger and the inhabited householder is very small, because the landlord resides on the premises; but if the landlord chooses to march out of the house, the lodger immediately becomes the inhabited householder. Again, the landlord must pay the rates, or he cannot vote, but the lodger can. The least we can ask of the Government in this matter of the lodger vote is that they will give us the English law in its entirety; that there is now an opportunity of extending it to Ireland, and that they will take advantage of it. There is one other matter I should like to observe. In

  1269
  England the Coroner is appointed by the County Council.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: That is also to be done.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The next point that I mention is that I hope that the Clerks of the Peace may also be elected secretaries to the County Council. A Clerk of the Peace in England is always a secretary to the County Council. There is a good deal to be said for the introduction of that reform. The Government will carry the House and the country with them in their proposal with regard to the union rate. I do not think the landlords now have any objection to raise on the score of right, but I am not so sure that I entirely concur with the Government in their proposal for the lopping-off of counties from the benefit of the Local Government Board. I should like to see a local inquiry on the subject before that was acceded to. The only other remark I wish to make is in regard to malicious injuries. The Government, no doubt, were in a difficulty with regard to that. It is not likely that we should be so blind as not recognise the difficulties of the situation; but I would suggest to the Government that they should retain the tribunal of first notice—the County Council—which will be in the position of Judge of Assize. Judge of Assize would then be the determining authority. There will be very little difference in it because the Judge of Assize is now the deciding authority, but I think the Judge of Assize would feel very much strengthened in his position in granting or refusing these grants for malicious prosecution if he had something in the nature of a grand jury to fall back upon. Finally, I say, I make this proposition to the Government. They propose that this Bill should come into operation in March, 1899. I gladly heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh the suggestion that the money portion of this scheme should date at a much earlier epoch, but I am loath to believe that the Government meant anything else. May I make this further suggestion: the elections of May taking place in March,
  1270
  1897, must necessarily take place triennially in March. The month of March is, in my judgment, not a suitable time for holding the elections.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Then I will take May.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I was going to suggest the month of June. It is a most convenient thing when you are holding these pollings to have the long summer days for the purpose, because it enables people to go and come from the polling in the daylight, and it is equally convenient for the officers to conduct their business in the daylight, and it is more likely to bring aged people and women to do their duty at the poll, rather than in the winter months. The Government have before them a very large task, but I do not think it too large, seeing that they have the goodwill of everybody in the House to rely upon. I join with the hon. Member for Waterford in deprecating any opposition to giving the landlords their fair share of this grant. I am quite willing, as a measure of social peace and political reform, to give the landlords what they are getting, and I hope no pedantic opposition will be offered upon this point on this occasion by Gentlemen who may not come from our country. I can understand opposition from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mayo, who has so strong a feeling against landlords that he would only give them their return ticket, but I do not see that anybody else not connected with our country has the same right to intervene in a matter of this kind. When English Bills are before the House, Irish Members do not intervene, though we may have our duties to discharge in the Division Lobbies. But I can only make this assurance: That I never understand the merits of any English question that I vote upon. I, therefore, would now suggest that, as we cannot suppose the Englishmen cannot take a keener interest in Irish questions than Irishmen do in English questions, that we may fairly be relieved from the criticism upon this question. There remains, however, the position of the House of Lords. The Government will have considerable difficulty in that quarter with regard to certain of their proposals. We have had

  1271
  a taste of their quality upon the Bill of 1896; but I trust on this occasion that—as the proposal is sandwiched with a considerable amount of jam for the landlord party—even the House of Lords will make up their minds to swallow this Bill without a wry face. The right hon. Gentleman, in his manner as well as his policy, is to be heartily congratulated on this occasion.
  *MR. LOUGH: I think, in looking at any of these Irish proposals brought before this House, there are two standpoints from which we should examine them. The first is the broad standpoint of principle, upon which the Bill is based. Now, from the broad standpoint of principle, I think everybody must congratulate the Government upon the happiness they always enjoy when they face the Irish question by bringing in a Bill of this character, and approach the Irish people with a Bill based on broad democratic and liberal lines. And upon this measure they are certainly to be congratulated. Now, the rule we ought observe in examining the details of any Irish proposals—and everybody here seems to be agreed upon it—is a very wise and liberal provision; but we ought, from that very fact, to be upon our guard, because it is in passing measures in this very liberal manner that we have made the greatest mistakes in Ireland. Everybody who has stood up and spoken tonight is in favour of this measure, and it is in no unfriendly manner that I now rise to examine the details of it. My reason for carrying out that practice is that we were asked by the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury to give suggestions to the Government. I will, in the most friendly way, point out that, throughout, one of the difficulties which the Government has to contend with in carrying out these very wise provisions is the assessment of the rates in various parts of the country. Let us take that point: in one district it is 1s. 2d.; another 2s. 4d.; and in another 8d. in the pound. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has explained that for the purposes of the Bill, it will be assumed on the assessment of the rate which has already been levied. The effect of that will be that in the places where they paid 2s. 4d. in the £ last year they will only pay 7d. next, and
  1272
  so obtain relief to the extent of 1s. 9d. in the £, whilst in the places where they paid 8d. last year, they will only get relief to the extent of one penny.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: That would not be so, because the amount paid under the grant will be spread over the entire area.
  *MR. LOUGH: I will also mention the railway charges. If there is any charge of which the rates ought to be relieved, and which Ireland might claim to be released from entirely, this railway charge is one. No local authority had anything to say when the arrangements were made by which this rate was imposed. It was devised in this House, and even 6d. in the £ is a high rate to levy when it is remembered that no Irish Authority has any effective control over the companies. Resolutions of the Grand Juries and recommendations from the inhabitants of the districts through which these railways pass, have had no effect whatever on the companies, and there is no provision in the Bill which gives the County Council any control in return for the advance which it is asked to make.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: But the Board of Works has full power.
  *MR. LOUGH: I happen to live close to two of these railways, and nothing could be more oppressive to the inhabitants than to have to pay such a high rate in return for the very bad and dear service which they receive. There are two other points I desire to make. With regard to the large grant of money towards relief of the Rates provided by the Bill, I believe a great many Members for English constituencies think that this consideration on the part of the Government will go some way to settle the demands of Ireland for financial relief. Two considerations go some way to show that that will not be the case. The first is that the principles on which this grant is made on the land was devised in 1896, two years after the Report of the Royal Commission on the financial relations between the two countries. Since that time half the rates have been paid in England, Wales, and Scotland. When the same relief is extended to Ireland it is merely putting right one new financial inequality, but it does not settle claims

  1273
  founded on other instances of unfair treatment. Since 1894 the increase in taxation has been £700,000 per annum, so I do not think the Government would expect us to find in the Measure—although everybody has received it in the most hopeful manner—a solution for the financial claim. Upon the question of Home Rule one does not like to argue in an angry spirit with a Government which is introducing a liberal and democratic Measure for the benefit of Ireland. But I think that the creation of these local authorities will strengthen the demand for a central authority which would work in harmony with the democratic local bodies, and so these County Councils will increase rather than diminish the demand of the Irish people for Home Rule. To the First Lord of the Treasury I would make the appeal to go on in the spirit in which he has started. He has already produced a good Land Bill, he has approached the question of the Catholic University in a friendly and liberal spirit, and there is now a good Local Government Measure before the House. If he could see his way to proceed still farther with this work of settling the Irish question, and undertake to deal with the question of a central authority, and so bring the Irish question to a final solution, he would make the Irish legislation of this Parliament famous in the annals of the country.
  *MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: I desire, in a few words, to disassociate myself in the strongest manner possible from what has been said on these (Irish) Benches in respect of the Irish landlords. I think they are not entitled to the praise and gratitude of the Irish people, or of the Members of Parliament who come here to represent the Irish people. I hold quite a contrary opinion. Without any desire to say anything harsh about the landlords as a class, I maintain that the whole of the poverty of Ireland, which is to be relieved by the measure now before the House, the Local Government Bill, is due to them and the landlord system. I, for one, shall give the greatest opposition in my power to proposals by which Her Majesty's Government propose to provide for the relief of their political supporters in Ireland out of the public purse. If such
  1274
  legislation were proposed in any State in America it would be called "Boodling." Under this Measure the landlord class will receive something like £700,000 a year. Every penny of the grant will eventually go to the landlords. It will increase the value of their property, and will cause them to increase the number of years purchase to the tenants who might wish to buy their holdings; and I assert that that is a matter to which the Government ought not to be a party, and I desire to disassociate myself in the strongest possible manner from what has been said on these Benches upon that part of the measure.
  MR. COURTNEY: I should like to be permitted to associate myself with those who have gone before me, and express my congratulations to the Government for the lucidity and brevity with which the Bill has been introduced. I do not think I ever witnessed a more admirable exhibition of Parliamentary exposition. As to the Bill itself, it was conceived in the most liberal spirit. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has taunted the hon. Member for Armagh with the manner in which he has received this scheme in regard to the distribution of the grant, because it will tend to largely relieve the landlords; but the safeguard proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary appears to me to be entirely sufficient to obtain a fair proportion for all the particular classes whom you intend to benefit. Sir, the Bill seems to me to be a large and liberal Measure, and I have the greatest confidence that it will attain the results which my right hon. Friend anticipates and intends, while it is as broad a Measure as the right hon. Member for Montrose could have devised. Of course, the success of a Measure of this kind must depend upon the character and number of the Members who are chosen to sit in the County Councils, and with respect to that point I should like to ask a question of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. Under the English Act some counties, such as Yorkshire, are sub-divided, and I should be glad to know whether in Ireland, under this Bill, any counties are to be sub-divided?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Yes; Cork and Tipperary.
  MR. COURTNEY: That is what I wanted to know; and I should like my right hon. Friend to say what he supposes the average number of these Members who will compose these Councils will be. Will they be something like our English County Councils? Can my right hon. Friend give any suggestion as to the average size of these County Councils, for their successful working will depend largely on their size?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I must, of course, speak with reserve, but my idea, speaking generally, is that the County Councils will consist of about 30 members.
  MR. COURTNEY: Of course, it is no confession on my part to say that this method of election is not the one which I approve; but as I have failed to realise my ideal in England and Scotland, I cannot propose to make Ireland the basis of an experiment which has not been allowed to be applied to other parts of the United Kingdom. I would simply end my remarks, as I began, by congratulating my right hon. Friend on the admirable way in which he has introduced this Measure, the success of which I hope and believe will be fully equal to his expectations.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to throw one discordant note into the chorus which at present has welcomed this particular Measure, and I should desire particularly to associate myself with all those Members who have recognised the lucid, clear, and able manner in which the Chief Secretary has introduced this Measure. But, Sir, while I say that, I do not propose to indulge in any expression of unreserved gratitude until we have seen the Bill in print and it comes before the House for second reading. Mr. Speaker, I was one of those who opposed the principle of the Agricultural Rating Bill for England, the Bill in aid of agricultural rates in England in 1896, and, I think, the same argument on which that Measure was opposed applies emphatically to such Bills for Scotland and Ireland. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the principle
  1276
  on which those Measures proceeded was vicious, and vicious in the extreme. I have always contended that local burdens should be liable to local resources, and, as a corollary of that, I have always held, with regard to Rating Bills, that these indirect doles to landlords are most vicious in principle. If the landlord is unable to get his rent from the resources of the land for the reason that its productiveness has failed and that prices have gone down, I would submit that the pressure should be borne by him equally with the other classes of the community. However, Sir, politics have been defined as the science of compromise, and as a compromise between classes hitherto hostile in Ireland, and a compromise in the directtion of peace, I join in welcoming the Bill; and in that respect I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Government of which he is a respected Member. But at the same time I, of course, quite agree with all that has been said by the hon. Member for West Islington that it must not be supposed either in this House or in this country that, in welcoming this Bill and doing all we can to encourage its progress through all its stages, we are waiving our claims upon this House, or Parliament, or the country at large, to discuss the financial claims to redress which rest upon entirely different grounds and upon broader and higher principles. It has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin that the right hon. Member for Montrose could not have framed a larger Bill than this; and as to difficulties which may arise in this House or another place, the right hon. Gentleman will not require from me any suggestion as to the quarter which difficulties of this kind may be expected to come from. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary a question with regard to baronial guarantees. I did not find an answer to it in his lucid speech, and, of course, it was impossible for him to throw light upon every detail of the Bill. I do not know how localities will stand in future with regard to baronial guarantees as to railway construction.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: They will stand precisely as they are at present.
  MR. FLYNN: We should like the County Council, if possible, to have some larger powers than Grand Juries have at present, or than Poor Law Boards have. The Poor Law Boards have only a power of remonstrance. When they give a guarantee they part with all control. In the constituency I have the honour to represent, as I understand the case, a guarantee has been given in connection with which, under the present Grand Jury system, there will be no satisfaction to the cess payers, for although the railway is a public convenience to the locality, not one penny of reduction has been made. At present no local body has more than the power of remonstrance, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible under this Bill, in connection with baronial guarantees for the construction of railways, to give some power to the County Council. It would be for the interest of the public at large, as well as for the localities concerned. There is only one other matter of detail which I will mention, and, of course, I am sorry, after the right hon. Gentleman's able exposition of the Bill, to inflict upon him unnecessarily questions of detail. But in the course of his lucid speech I ventured upon an interruption. He was speaking as to secretaries of Grand Juries having an option of voluntarily retiring, and I would ask him, in connection with that, what is to become of the staff? I believe that under the Grand Juries Act no power was taken or given for the secretary of the Grand Jury to appoint a staff, and that, therefore, the secretaries had themselves to employ their clerical staff, so that, although they have done all the work for the various Grand Juries, from a public point of view they are not public servants at all, but more or less the private servants of the secretary to the Grand Jury. I do not know whether there is any other matter which I wish to bring before the right hon. Gentleman. I only hope that if the Bill cannot be enlarged and widened in its scope, whatever may be done by the Party opposite or in the country, the right hon. Gentleman will not consent to introduce any further unnecessary or irritating safeguards or restrictive powers which are not at present a part of the Bill.
  *SIR ALBERT K. ROLLIT: Sir, as an English Member who has had long experience in Municipal Local Government, I desire to say one or two words on this Bill. When I was first elected to this House, in 1886, I declared very strongly to my constituents during the election, and afterwards in this House, in favour of Local Government for Ireland as a Measure which I believed would carry with it some of the great advantages which had been and were being produced by self-government in our own country, and I welcomed extremely the announcement made shortly afterwards from the Treasury Bench that Irish Local Government would be dealt with similarly and simultaneously with English and Scotch Bills on the same subject. Well, Sir, those Bills were carried, to the benefit of both countries, but I confess that when the Bill of 1892 was proposed from the Treasury Bench, it failed in some very important respects to fulfil the declarations which had been made by the Conservative Government of the day. Sir, the Bill, its essentials, and in its main structure, was not open to such strong objections as were expressed with regard to it in some parts of the House. The franchise was wide, and its areas were good, but it had safeguards which were not only bad, but which I said, and I think, would have been illusory. For that reason, having advisedly committed myself so strongly to the principle of Local Government for Ireland, I have thought it my duty ever since to support Local Government Bills for Ireland, from whatever part of the House they may have been produced, and I have consistently spoken in favour of and helped forward the Municipal Franchise Bill, Bills for improving County and Poor Law administration, and other Bills connected with municipal and county government for Ireland when they have been moved from the Nationalist Benches; my name has been on the back of several of them; and I well remember how in 1887 some half-dozen of us, including the late Lord Randolph Churchill and Lord Curzon, supported the Irish County Government Bill of 1887 against our own Party, but in that we believed to lie our pledged duty to our constituents and to the State; and, Sir, in the end, they do best

  1279
  for their Party who do their best for the State. Well, Sir, those being my views, it may well be understood why I welcome the wideness of this Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed to this House—a Bill which seems to me to carry with it every recommendation to those who believe as I do in Local Government as a good measure for Ireland, as well as for other parts of the United Kingdom, as a matter of right and justice, for equality is equity, and of advantage, and consequently as of a very healing character. An appeal is made to this House, and I am glad to join in it, in connection with this Measure, and to men of all Parties, to contribute to removing the differences of Ireland and to promoting united action, and I trust that appeal will not be made in vain, and that those who are qualified by education and position will lead, as they can if they will, and if they will make the necessary sacrifices of leisure and pleasure, which carry with them high compensations in public gratitude for the fulfilment of public duty. There are one or two points of detail on which I will say a word. As I understand—I had not the opportunity of hearing the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's able speech—a proposal with regard to aldermen does not exist in this Bill as in the Act for England. I opposed in 1888 the proposal to have county aldermen in the case of England, and I think this new departure may prove to be productive of great advantages. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the chairman of the Rural District Councils would be ex-officio members of the County Councils. That seems to me to mark an improvement in local government by co-ordinating its various branches and by making local government by the County Council more essentially local by bringing into it representatives of local knowledge and experience, which must be of great advantage. I hope that, as in England, not only chairmen of County Councils, but of District Councils will be enabled to occupy the position of ex-officio magistrates. At any rate, I think the suggestion is worthy of consideration. A remark made about Registration seems to me to be worthy of very great attention, because at present every inconvenience,
  1280
  obstruction, and impediment is placed in the way of the duly qualified voter, whereas every facility ought to be given to him to get upon the register, from which it should be difficult to get off, and this both in Ireland and England, where Registration reform is most urgently needed. If some sort of automatic system could be devised it would be a great reform. Now, Sir, there is only one other point which I wish to touch upon. Some danger attaches to the views of those who rightly, but too strenuously, advocate economy in local government, for it is too often forgotten that mere unwillingness to expend money is not necessarily economy. We want an enterprising administration of local government in our various counties. The object should be to make those works which will prove to be productive and remunerative to those who undertake them, both in giving them greater enjoyment of health and strength, and making a good return; and it cannot be too often remembered that in these local matters parsimony is not necessarily economy, but may be the reverse. I hope this united administration in Ireland will be characterised by some fearlessness in regard to rates, when rates may prove to be advantageous, and that there will be enterprise as well as economy in the development of local government and institutions and public works to the great advantage of the country.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: (Tyrone, N.): In this Bill—which I regard as one of great promise, and from which I certainly think it possible to expect that great benefits will flow to Ireland—there are one or two points to which I would like briefly to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and of the House. On these points, it may be, perhaps, owing to my own want of attention, I have not found in the very lucid and able statement of the right hon. Gentleman explanations which are altogether clear to my mind. Now, first, I did not hear from the right hon. Gentleman in what position exactly the tenants of holdings valued under £4 a year were to be placed. As I understand, and as the House, or, at least, the Irish Members, are aware, at present the tenant of

  1281
  such a holding does not pay any poor rates, nor is he liable for any poor rates, and the whole weight of the poor rate falls upon the landlord. Now, under this new system is there any change in that respect? Will such tenants still be exempt from all poor rates? As I understand from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the poor rates, and the county cess as they are now called, will be consolidated. There ceases to be a distinction, and I do not know what provision there is that will exonerate the occupying tenant of holdings valued under £4 a year from being liable for so much of that rate as consists of poor rate. That is a point which requires clearing up.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Perhaps I may say that in my statement I did not go into every variety of detail, but if the right hon. Gentleman will wait he will see how the Bill is drawn.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I only wished to call attention to this point, because it is an important matter; but I will pass over it, and touch upon another matter, on which I think little light is thrown, relating to compensation for malicious injuries. Anyone who knows the circumstances of Ireland knows that some of the most important duties discharged by Grand Juries are with regard to what are called malicious injuries. They form the subject of presentments where a house is burned, or other malicious injury done to property, or malicious injury done to the person. There are provisions at present to enable the Grand Jury, under certain conditions, to award compensation, and the compensation so awarded forms a very large and heavy item or the county cess. Now, I think there is a little obscurity in the proposals of the Bill, as put forward in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. At present the proceeding is this: The person whose property is supposed to have been maliciously injured, comes before the Baronial Sessions, popularly called Road Sessions, to get a presentment, which, if given, goes before the Grand Jury at the Assizes. The Grand Jury can reject or approve of the presentment passed by the Road Sessions; and if the presentment passes
  1282
  both the Grand Jury and the Road Sessions, any cess payer can apply to the Judge for liberty to enter what is called a traverse which enables him, if the Judge allows it, to bring the question before a common jury in the ordinary way. Will the right hon. Gentleman say how is the proceeding now to be initiated? Is it to be initiated at once before the Judge of Assize, or is there to be a preliminary application to the rural district or the County Council?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Yes.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Well, I do not quite understand how it is to be. I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments, while I explain the difficulty which is in my mind. I do not find whether, if a malicious injury takes place, in future the party injured is under any limit of time. Now, he must make application within a certain number of days after the commission of the offence.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I may toll the right hon. Gentleman that the procedure is settled by rules, but I really think these details are hardly proper for discussion on the first reading.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I do not want details, but I want to know whether the initial tribunal is to be the County Court judge.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Yes.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: And is he to have the assistance of a jury or not?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: No.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Then there will, perhaps, be a right of appeal to the Judge of Assize. Well, of course, I reserve my criticism for that part of the Bill until I have its provisions before me, but I am bound to say that as at present advised, it does not appear to me to be a very happy mode of ascertaining the compensation to which the injured person may be entitled. The only other

  1283
  point to which I wish to advert is this I am afraid very much that the effect of the general provisions will be to throw possibly an additional burden upon the tenant for the relief of the landlord. What I mean is this: In an exceptionally bad year, if there is a failure of the crops or excessive distress, which has occurred, and may occur again, in Ireland, the rates may be considerably higher than the standard rate of 1896 or 1897. Now, no matter how high your consolidated rate may become, as I understand, the result is to relieve the landlord altogether from it, and any increase must necessarily fall upon the occupying tenant. I am assuming that the occupying tenant is now liable, for argument's sake, because it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman that he, generally speaking, was so liable, but that means very serious results for the tenant, and, therefore, when you are framing a clause with regard to it, I trust there will be some provision made which will prevent an additional burden being thrown upon the tenant's shoulders. There is another matter I very much wish to comprehend as to this Bill. In fixing a fair rent, the amount of the county cess which will form part of this consolidated rate is to be taken into account in favour of the tenant. I am afraid there will be enormous difficulty in apportioning that in such a way as to do full justice to the tenant, and I do trust that the attention of the House, when the Bill is in our hands, and before its consideration on second reading will be drawn very closely to that matter, and that the section will be so drafted that it will be impossible for the tenant to be in a worse position than he is at present, by reason of the county cess being consolidated with the poor rate.
  MR. CAREW: Before we agree to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman I should like to call attention to one point. I wish to ask the Government a question as to whether they will entertain in this Bill a proposition for extending the boundaries of the City of Dublin. In 1883 a Commission sat, which unanimously reported in favour of such a proposal, and I am sorry that the Chief Secretary should not have taken advantage of the opportunity
  1284
  which this Bill affords for making such a provision. I intend to move an Amendment at the proper time, when the Bill goes into Committee, and I hope that the Chief Secretary will reconsider his position in the matter. However, that is all I intend to say on this Bill at present, and I will only add that I congratulate the Chief Secretary on securing such practical unanimity, both from these benches and from the other side of the House, in regard to his proposals. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will signalise his tenure of office by passing this Measure in addition to his Land Bill.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I hope I am right in supposing that this Bill will come into operation in 1899.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Yes. I stated so in my speech.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I am glad to elicit that fact, and I also gather from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the English Bill will not be followed in one respect, and that is that there will be no distinction between the rating of arable land and the rating of houses. In England, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, agricultural land is only rated one half its assessed value, and I hope that principle will not be followed.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Of course, we do not propose to follow the system of England.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I gathered that that was so. I think it would be an invidious thing if they were rated at only half their assessed value. There is another point—as to the area of the District Councils. As I understand, in the case of the ordinary Poor-law Union, which forms part only of one county, the area for the District Council would be the area of the Poor-law Union, less any part of the Poor-law Union which may be in the local sanitary district. I confess that I think that is somewhat too large an area. I think it is an unfortunate decision on the merits of the question. Secondly, as I understand it, in the case where a Union includes part of two counties, if each part is large enough to be a separate district, it would be given a separate District Council, but the two parts will still remain one for

  1285
  Poor-law purposes. Therefore, the Poor-law Board will meet together just as at present, with the same area. I confess that generally, on that part of the Bill, I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well if, at a subsequent period, when the redistribution of areas is dealt with, the Poor-law system should be treated with a very broad hand. He has shown by the Bill which he introduced into this House last year, or the year before, that he is not much in love with the present system of Poor-law administration, and I think it would be a very good thing if, in small counties, the county were to be made one Poor-law Union. At present the number of poor houses which are hardly used at all is a source of great financial waste. However, on these points we shall probably have an opportunity of discussing hereafter an Amendment, and I will not, therefore, dwell upon them now. The area should be small enough to allow of a District Council meeting being attended without the loss of a whole day, and such an area should be fixed for Poor-law relief as will tend to economical administration. There is one other point. I think, in many cases, it would be a very objectionable thing if Freemen are to have municipal votes. For one thing, Freemen are not attached to any part of the borough, and there is an obvious difficulty in allowing them to assign themselves to any ward they may choose, because they would naturally assign themselves to the ward in which their votes would have the greatest political effect. I agree generally with my hon. Friends in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the manner in which this problem of Irish Local Government has been approached.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I desire to say a few words, and to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the manner in which he has introduced this Bill. I desire also to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford in expressing a sincere hope that difficulties will not be put in the way to prevent the aristocracy serving their country on these boards. I hope this class will be given every inducement to come in, both for the reason that believe it to be in the best interests of
  1286
  Ireland that they should place their great business capacity and their educational training at the service of their country, and because I believe that the bringing of this class into direct contact with the masses of the people in matters of Local Government will result in making every one of them not only Home Rulers, but active agents in hastening the day when Ireland will possess an independent Parliament. I am certain that that is bound to be the result, because they will learn from association with the people that the people desire to have them there, and they will take that pride in helping to benefit their country on the local Councils that they will not rest until they secure in their own capital a Parliament of their own. I desire to ask for a little explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. He omitted Kilkenny, which I represent, from the list of towns which he mentioned in his speech, and which he proposes to deal with under his Bill. I want to know why the city of Kilkenny is omitted. Kilkenny is by far more ancient, both as a city and as a Corporation, than those he has mentioned. I further wish to know whether Peers and women are eligible to sit as County Councillors?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Of course, Peers will be allowed to sit as County Councillors, but the Government has left the law in Ireland as to women exactly as it is in England. Women will be enabled to sit on the District Councils, but not on the County Councils.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Unless the right hon. Gentleman can give some satisfactory reason for leaving out Kilkenny, I should like Kilkenny included. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to kindly tell me on what grounds Kilkenny has been left out.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: It was necessary to draw the line somewhere, and the Government have drawn it at a population of 25,000. All urban districts in Ireland will be, to a certain extent, autonomous under the Bill.
  MR. FLAVIN: I should like to ask what will be the position of existing medical officers under the Bill?
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give me information on one or two points. Like all the Irish Members, I welcome the Bill, because I think it will let a good deal of fresh air into the Local Government of Ireland. Some hon. Members object to this Bill on various small grounds. I think, on the contrary, that we should welcome it in every possible way if it proves anything like what has been outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to Urban Sanitary Authorities under this Bill, I think in small places it would be to their disadvantage to be created urban authorities, because they will have to pay their own cost of collecting the rates, and the making of roads, whereas if they were rural authorities, the county would contribute towards the collection of the rates and the making of the roads. What will be the position of those small bodies of Town Commissioners? The rates collected by these bodies are swallowed up by the salaries.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Facilities will be given to such towns to become urban sanitary districts. If they do not become urban sanitary districts, their powers will remain the same as now.
  MR. TULLY: I think it would be an advantage if Town Commissioners were abolished where they are not a sanitary authority. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do something that will be welcomed in this direction. Another complaint has been made that the bodies constituted under this Bill are likely to be extravagant. I think, on the contrary, that the danger we may have to expect under this Bill is that they will err on the other side. My experience of the West of Ireland tells me that it is not the large ratepayers, as a rule, who grumble about an increase of taxation. It is the men who are rated at £5 or £10 or £20 who make the most fuss; they complain considerably more than the men who are rated at £100 or £150. I think the result of the passing of this Bill will not be to encourage extravagance in the administration of local affairs in Ireland; it will work, in my opinion, more in the direction of parsimony.
  1288
  I would rather fear its results in that direction. One of the things we suffer from in Ireland at present is the extremely bad state in which the public roads are kept, and to put them into good condition would involve so large an expenditure that I am afraid the men who will be elected on these new bodies will shrink for a long time before consenting to incur it. I should like to inquire from the right hon. Gentleman how the accounts will be kept by the new bodies, and what system will be adopted with regard to publishing those accounts, so that the people concerned can see them.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: That will be governed by rule.
  MR. TULLY: I have some knowledge of the Grand Jury system of accounts in Ireland, and I think that is the best system. I am quite aware that tremendous frauds have been carried out in connection with these accounts, but the system is far ahead of the system of accounts adopted with regard to Poor Law Boards and Town Commissioners. The Grand Jury issue a book at each assizes, in which is set forth every penny expended, the name of every contractor, the amount he receives, and the names of his sureties are all set forth. In the case of Poor-law Unions it often happens that not even the Guardians know how the money is expended or to whom it goes, and, in one union, the Local Government Board auditor was not able to trace how the money was going.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The matters to which the hon. Member is referring are rather remote from the question before the House.
  MR. TULLY: I was merely illustrating, Sir, the desirability of insisting, under this Bill, that the accounts should be presented in such a form as to be intelligible to the man in the street. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make some provision for the publication, annually, as in the case of the Grand Juries, of a proper report, so that the ratepayers throughout Ireland may have some means of seeing how the money is spent, to whom it goes, the price of the contracts, and the names of the contractors.

  1289
  I conclude, by joining with the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight, in bearing testimony to the excellent manner in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill. I am sure the Bill will be highly popular in Ireland, and will secure for the right hon. Gentleman a great deal of popularity in our country.
  MR. J. CALDWELL: This is a Bill which proposes to give to Ireland popular Local Government, and in so far as the Bill carries out that object, it will have the hearty support of the people of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman must notice, however, that in introducing a Measure of this character he is doing away with the objection which was stated so largely to the Home Rule Bill—namely, want of confidence in the ability of the Irish elector to manage his own affairs. I should like, however, to know the grounds on which the Government justify giving £765,000 out of the Imperial Treasury to Ireland, while conferring upon her the same measure of Local Government which England and Scotland enjoys. This is a point which affects the whole of the ratepayers of the United Kingdom. If Ireland is not entitled—and I suppose the contention on the other side has been until lately that Ireland is not entitled—to anything more than she has, then we want to know why it is that it is necessary to give a sum of £765,000 a year to the landlords and tenants—particularly to the landlords—in Ireland, in order that Ireland should enjoy this Measure of Local Government. We know what was said on a former occasion when the sum of half a million of money was proposed to be given out of the Imperial purse for local management in Ireland. If Ireland is entitled to £765,000 now, it takes away the feet from all that was said before by the opposite Party with regard to that grant.
  Bill brought in and read a first time; Second Reading fixed for this day fortnight.

  REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I now move for leave to bring in a Bill, a corrollary of the Measure just introduced, to make provision with respect to the registration of electors for the purpose of Local Government in Ireland.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he intends to fix the Second Reading of this Bill?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I believe this Registration Bill will have to pass the House some time before Easter in order that sufficient time will be given for the preparation of a register of electors.
  Bill brought in and read a first time; Second Reading fixed for Thursday.

  SUPPLY.
  [FIRST ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1897–8.

    CLASS I.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed,—
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,647, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1898, for maintaining certain Harbours, Lighthouses, etc., under the Board of Trade, including a Grant in Aid."
    MR. J. CALDWELL: I wish to call attention to these Estimates. I find there are supplementary Estimates amounting to about

    1291
    £12,000 already. First of all is brought in one of £19,087; then we have a supplementary Estimate of £11,915 in May, 1897; and now we are asked, before the financial year closes, for £1,647. I must say that this is a very unusual proceeding in the Estimates of this country. We do not make changes of that kind without some very special reason, and I am sure the President of the Board of Trade will not expect to get this money without some little explanation. No doubt, the sum is a small one, but, added to the very much larger sum of May, 1897, it makes a very considerable total. If the Chairman refers to the original Estimate, he will find that the sum originally was £200 for the repair of the tender Richmond, and now we are asked for an extra £1,400. I should like to know whether this is the last sum that will be required for the repair of this tender, or will there be another £2,000 or £3,000 in the Estimates to be brought in? I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade will be able to give an explanation.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In my opinion this is the proper method of providing for these lights houses, but I wish to point out that in 1894 I drew the attention of the then President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Mundella, to the fact that the lighthouses at the Bahamas were failing to fulfil their purpose, that a considerable number of them were irregular, and did not revolve at the proper intervals. I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now aware if these lighthouses are doing their work and revolving in their proper period?
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That question does not arise here. This vote is simply for repairs to a steam tender.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This tendar is kept up in order to see that the lighthouses are doing their duty efficiently, and it is most important that they should revolve at the proper intervals.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The repairs to the tender will not make
    1292
    the lighthouses revolve at the proper interval. The hon. Member must confine Himself strictly to the vote.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: If you rule that the efficiency of the lighthouses does not come into the question of the tender, I will not pursue that subject further. But I wish to point out—and this is my main reason for rising—that this is the first item of an enormous series of items and supplementary Estimates, Estimates supplementary to those we have already considered, discussed, and passed. I wish to know whether this particular Estimate ought to be a supplementary Estimate? It is an Estimate for repairs to a steam tender, and in the original estimate £229 were voted for that purpose, the balance of the estimate being for crew, coaling, and incidental expenses. Now, Sir, this tender is well known; it is an old friend of my own; it is known to be a vessel of what sailors would call the "clumbunghy" class—old, worn out, and in constant need of repair. I suggest that, when the Government prepared the Estimates for last year, they should have known, they must have known, that this tender would be in need of very considerable repairs during the year with which we were then concerned.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
    The necessary number of Members having returned—
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES, resuming, said: I wish to point out that the Government knew that this tender would be in need of repairs, and in presenting the original Estimates only proposed £200 for that—merely for £200—and then, at the end of the financial year, a demand is made for an additional £1,400, which, I submit, should not have been a supplementary Estimate. The necessity for it must have been foreseen, and it should have been included in last year's Estimates. The system of asking for merely a part of what is wanted, and demanding additional sums, is injurious to the financial methods of the House in discussing questions of detail. I repeat, Sir, that I

    1293
    have no complaint to make of extravagance in regard to the conduct of the lighthouse service, either abroad or at home; but I want the Government to exercise the foresight and prudence that every private employer exercises, and in giving an estimate of the amount of repairs likely to be required by this steam tender they should not have asked merely for £200, and then, at the end of the financial year, come to us and say, "We have made a mistake, and want another £1,400." I trust the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, will give an explanation.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: From the observations that have fallen from the hon. Member for Lynn Regis it might be thought that it is a matter of fiendish satisfaction and immense pleasure on the part of the Government to bring in supplementary Estimates. I have never found any of my colleagues desirous of rushing in supplementary Estimates. These are necessitated by certain matters over which the Government have no control. Within my own experience this is, so far as I can recollect, the very first supplementary Estimate I have asked in connection with the Board of Trade, so that, whatever may be the sins of omission and commission on the part of my colleagues, the accusation does not apply to myself. It must be evident, I think, that it is much more difficult to estimate in the case of a tender like this, situated at a distance, than if it were on a home station, and under our immediate care. The hon. Gentleman opposite asks whether this £1,400 is the last sum to be asked for in connection with this tender—the Richmond? No, Sir, it is not the last sum; it is the first sum. The estimated cost of repairing the tender is £3,300, and the £1,400 represents the amount that will have to be expended during the present financial year. The reason why the £1,400 now asked was not put in the original Estimate is that the Board of Trade had
    1294
    not the information demanded. If my hon. Friend the Member for Lynn Regis desires to see the light revolve as rapidly as he would wish, he will grant that it is necessary to have an efficient tender. That is the whole secret of the matter, which after all cannot be complained of, having regard to the fact that we have to deal with a vessel at a very considerable distance from these shores.
    MR. J. G. WEIR: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has said that Members on this side of the House seem to think that the Government take a fiendish pleasure in adding to original Estimates.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: This is a supplementary Estimate upon a £3,300 job; it is the first portion of that sum.
    MR. J. G. WEIR: I say the Government ought to have known what would be wanted, and not have sprung upon us matters of this kind. It is so much the worse if this is only the first sum. We ought to have had the Estimates in our hands last year. Since you, Sir, rule that the lighthouse question is not to be touched upon, I should like to ask to what extent, in consequence of the inefficiency of the tender Richmond, have the lighthouses suffered? Like my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Lynn Regis, I object very strongly to these large sums being put down in this way. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade says this vessel is a long way off; but I maintain the Government ought to have known at the beginning of the Session what these repairs would cost. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade what the repairs to this tender consist of? If the sum of £3,300 is for repairs, and these repairs, as I understood him, are to be done at Bermuda,

    1295
    I should like to know what is wrong with the tender that £3,300 requires to be spent on it, and who is to do the repairs; and are they to be done in the Navy Dockyard at Bermuda? So far as I know Bermuda, there is no repairing shop there.
    MR. J. CALDWELL: From the manner in which the President of the Board of Trade has answered I do not think he has any information before him. The right hon. Member must observe that we are dealing here with a tender, and with a question of repairs. It, therefore, is an old ship that is being repaired, and what we want to know is—
    "Is it prudent to spend £3,300 in repairing a tender, which, probably after repair will be useless?"
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inform the House where this vessel was built, what was its original cost, and if it is worth spending £3,300 upon in repairs; if it is still required, and for what service, and what is the nature of the repairs to be done upon it. This House is in the position of a business firm; we are dealing with public money, and it is necessary that we should find out whether this money is being appropriately spent. We cannot find that out unless we get from the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, the explanation for which I have asked. Is this expenditure to be limited to the Estimate, because we know that nothing is more common in this House than for an Estimate like this, of £3,300, to become £5,000 or £6,000. We want to know if these repairs are to cost £3,300, or double that sum, and what kind of tender this is that the money is being spent on? On the face of it, it does not appear that this is a proper sum to be spent on that tender.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, a simple way of meeting my objections. He has the Estimate for the repairs in his hand;
    1296
    let him give us the date of it. If it is such that it could have been put in the original Estimates, I must vote against it.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I cannot tell the exact date and I cannot imagine why the hon. Member for Lynn Regis should imagine that this supplementary Estimate was deliberately kept back.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg pardon; I did not mean that. What I meant was that, having made too small an Estimate originally, the Government, finding themselves in the position of having a very large surplus this year, are throwing some of it away on this old tender.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I don't quite understand what the hon. Member means. We have only, since the Estimates were prepared, obtained from Bermuda the estimate of the cost of repairs to this tender, and it was impossible to put it in the original Estimate. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Gateshead, as to where the tender is to be repaired, I am not in possession of that information, but the hon. Gentleman has supplied the answer to his own question, for he has said there is no public dockyard at Bermuda, and, therefore, the tender will have to be repaired—if he is correct—by a private firm. With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid. Lanark as to the Richmond being an old ship, he seems to take it for granted that it is old. We have no information which would enable us to accept that description. I believe, as a matter of fact, that the vessel was built in 1891, but I have not come down to the House with the exact age of the ship, and the precise details of what is wanted here, and what is wanted there. We have submitted the estimates to the House, based upon information given to us by those on the spot, in whom we have every confidence, and we ask the House to support us in this vote.
    The Committee divided.—Ayes 57; Noes 87.

    AYES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Austin, Sir Jno. (Yorkshire)

    Gourley, Sir. Edw. Temperley

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Holden, Angus

    Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

    Blake, Edward

    Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Crean, Eugene

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Crilly, Daniel

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    M'Cartan, Michael

    Tully, Jasper

    Daly, James

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Dalziel, James Henry

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Davitt, Michael

    M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

    Williams Jno. Carvell (Notts)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Leod, John

    Woodall, William

    Doogan, P. C.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Finucane, John

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonpt.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murnaghan, George

    Mr. Weir and Mr. Caldwell.

    NOES.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mnc'r)

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Monk, Charles James

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Fison, Frederick William

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A J. (Manch'r)

    FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

    More, Robert Jasper

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds)

    Flower, Ernest

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptfrd)

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur B.

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Foster, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grh'm (Bute)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Ben.

    Gedge, Sydney

    Penn, John

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curz'n

    Bethell, Commander

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir Jno. Eldon

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Purvis, Robert

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Butcher, John George

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert. Wm.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

    Heath, James

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Helder, Augustus

    Saunderson, Col. Edward Jas.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth'r (Down)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Cox, Robert

    Kenvon, James

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Kimber, Henry

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Knowles, Lees

    Williams, Josh, Powell- (Birm)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

    Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh

    Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall)

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Dane, Richard M.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Wyndham, George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Drucker, A.

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Sir William Walrond and

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    *MR. MONK: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the other Powers are paying the same contribution as this country towards the cost of the bridge over the Jew's river on the road to Cape Spartel.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman knows the condition
    1298
    under which this lighthouse is kept up. The lighthouse is kept up by 10 foreign nations, as without it the Straits of Gibraltar could not be navigated. These 10 foreign nations, held the Convention of Morocco on the 18th February, 1865, whereby they undertook to keep up, and the Sultan of Morocco allowed them to keep up, this very

    1299
    important lighthouse. From that day to this, the Powers have each paid us, under the Convention they were bound to pay, one-tenth part of the cost of the maintenance of the lighthouse. It was for the maintenance of the lighthouse that we undertook to be subscribers. But this vote that we are now asked for in a supplementary way, should have been in the original Estimates. It has nothing whatever to do with the lighthouse—it is for the erection of a bridge in Morocco, in the territories of the Sultan of Morocco, and I should have thought that the Jews or the Sultan ought to have erected that bridge themselves, and that the House of Commons should not be called upon to pay any part of the cost of erecting a bridge over a river in the territories of Morocco. If we erect this bridge, I see no reason why we should not erect every bridge in Morocco—no reason at all, and the hon. Member behind me has already asked whether the Powers have contributed a similar portion. The total cost is £2,470—because if we are paying £247, and 10. Powers are paying a 10th part each, the total cost must be £2,470—that sum must represent the total expenditure. However, such a sum as that, for erecting a bridge over the Jew's River, is entirely extravagant. It is a sum much higher than it ought to be. I think I know the river in question, and no doubt it is subject to torrents, and consequently the bridge may be a somewhat more extensive bridge than in other parts of Morocco where there is no liability to torrents of this kind, but, still, the sum of £2,470 is a very large sum for erecting a bridge, and I say that neither England nor any one of the other Powers has any business to be called upon to pay one farthing towards its cost: especially as we have no control over it whatever, and that is a totally different thing to the lighthouse, over which we have some control. There is another point. By the Convention of 18th February, 1865, to which I have referred, it is recited that the Sultan of Morocco gives permission to the 10 nations to maintain, this lighthouse, and it is also provided that he himself is not to pay any portion towards it, because he has he Navy. That was a very good reason then, but it is no reason now, because
    1300
    he has got a Navy. At any rate he has got an armed vessel, which has captured a British trader, and consequently the Sultan should pay his part, because he has now come into the position by which he undertook to pay his part towards the maintenance of this lighthouse. It is not 10 nations, but 11, that are called upon to maintain this lighthouse. He has a navy, and has, as I have already said, captured a British trader, and the time has arrived when the 11th nation should be called upon to pay its share, and therefore the first question I would ask is: Is the cost of this bridge to be £2,470? Secondly, I would ask whether it is built in the territories of the Sultan of Morocco, over which the 10 contributory Powers have no control whatever; and thirdly, whether he is prepared to call upon, or has already called upon, the Sultan of Morocco, who now has a navy, or the beginning of a navy, to bear his share towards the cost of the bridge?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The hon. Gentleman objects to this being in the Supplementary Estimate, but as the Board of Trade did not become aware of the claim till June, 1897, the hon. Gentleman will see that it could not be included in the original Estimate. Then he says that it is quite true that, by the Convention, we had to pay for the lighthouse with other Powers. The bridge in, question was for communication between Tangiers and the lighthouse, and application being made for our share towards its construction under the Convention, we had no option but to pay, as we are interested in keeping up the connection between Tangiers and the lighthouse. The hon. Gentleman says: Why do not we call upon Morocco to pay her portion? Well, Sir, the reason we do not call upon Morocco to pay her portion is, that by the Convention of 1896, according to my recollection, the several Powers, minus Morocco, agreed to bear their share in any expenditure connected with that lighthouse. We have received an application from the chief Power interested, for our contribution towards the expenditure, and at the same time by the Convention we have no option whatever but to pay

    1301
    for our portion of the expenditure. I may say that I think, having regard to the fact of the large amount of British shipping interested in this matter, if we can get off by paying a proportion of one-tenth, along with nine other Powers, we get off very cheaply indeed, having regard to our great interests in that part of the world. If Morocco were to be called upon to pay the proportion which she is not bound to pay, I think it would reduce our contribution by £25; and when the difficulty of getting money out of Morocco is considered, I think it is hardly worth our while to enter into a correspondence in order to reduce our contribution by £25.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £50. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, was unable to give us any information about this ship; he has also failed to give us any information about this bridge which it is proposed to build, and which should be built by the Jews or by the Sultan of Morocco, instead of by us. The right hon. Gentleman says that Her Majesty's Government did not wish to call upon Morocco to subscribe towards the expenditure of building this bridge. Well, he represents the British Government. I represent a constituency in Ireland, and if he says he is not going to call upon Morocco to pay towards the expense of the construction of this bridge, I say that I do not wish my constituents to be taxed for the construction of the bridge. I therefore beg to move the reduction of this vote by £50.
    MR. J. CALDWELL: I do not think that the information given by the right hon. Gentleman is at all adequate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has read the Estimate that we are dissussing. It is item "E: Grant in aid of the construction of a bridge." That is the point I am discussing, and not the lighthouse. What we want to know is whether this bridge is used exclusively for the lighthouse. If that is so, then I can understand that the bridge, in these circumstances, is a proper charge. If that is so, what do we want a tender for to go out to the lighthouse if we have a bridge? With regard to this particular bridge, the right hon. Gentleman will, of course, tell us
    1302
    whether it starts from the shore to the lighthouse.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: It does not start at all. It crosses over the river.
    Mr. J. CALDWELL: In the face of the Estimate, it does not appear as if it went out from the shore. It is, then, to cross a river. Now I want to know whether that river is entirely in the territory of Morocco, and whether this country has got an arrangement with the Government of Morocco. With regard to this bridge, erected with other people's money, supposing they do not contribute to it, we want to know whether there is going to be an arrangement by which the bridge will not be interfered with by Morocco. You are here dealing with the expenditure of British money, and I venture to say that it is a most unusual proceeding that we should spend our money in making a bridge which, for aught I know, may be a bridge for the convenience of the district, not merely for the lighthouse, but, it may be, a general bridge for the purposes of the inhabitants of Morocco, for which we have got no bargain and no guarantee whatever that, if we pay the cost of this bridge, we shall have the slightest claim to keep it. I suppose the bridge has been built already. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us when the bridge was finished, and whether it is a wooden, iron, or a stone bridge. After all, we want to know to whom the bridge belongs, and how long it has been built. Is this Estimate in respect of a bridge which might be a convenience to the inhabitants of the district, to cross the river? With regard to this Estimate, I should like to know how much the bridge will cost altogether, and who are contributing to its cost, as regards other Powers? And then, if the bridge is finished, I should like to know the date when it was finished. If the bridge is not finished, I should like to know whether this is the whole of the Estimate, or whether this is practically only half of what we have to pay. We do not know whether the bridge is finished; we do not know whether you have got any absolute right to that bridge, and that it will not be interfered with by the

    1303
    Sultan of Morocco. These are questions which we do expect to be answered when a matter of this kind comes before the House, and public money is being spent—not in this country—if it were, it would not matter, because we should benefit by it. But the money is being spent in a foreign country, and we have nothing laid before this Committee to show that we shall have the smallest claim, after that bridge is built, to it, or that we have got any guarantee that we shall be allowed to use the bridge for the purpose for which it is intended. I say that the President of the Board of Trade should give us a little more explanation. We must excuse him, because he did not expect these Estimates to come on to-night. That is probably a reason why he should not have taken them up. If he has the information, I hope he will give it to us on the particular points which I have mentioned.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think the hon. Member has been treating this matter more as a Scotch joke but it is not one. It is a bridge across a river in Morocco. I may now say that I have obtained a reference to the Treaty, and I find that applications were exchanged with Tangiers in 1867. It is true that it was signed on the 3st May, 1865. But, Sir, what is the use of a Treaty with the Sultan of Morocco? What I wish to call attention to is this: First of all, the hon. Gentleman opposite has called into question the security of the lighthouse. Now the Sultan undertakes to furnish a sergeant and four soldiers to take care of the lighthouse. That is part of his solemn obligation to the ten nations of Europe, although the ten nations are allowed to administer it and pay for it. The river is some distance from the lighthouse. It is certainly a long way from Tangiers. I think I remember this river. I think I had once to swim across it, but it is certainly a considerable distance, and undoubtedly it is the territory of the Sultan of Morocco, and what I wish to know is this: There are constant revolts, especially on this part of the coast; what guarantee have we got for the safety of this bridge when it is built? How are we to know that those close to it may not come and capture it. The
    1304
    sergeant and four men are at the lighthouse. They are not to be at the bridge. I submit that we ought to have a sergeant and four more soldiers at the bridge. Then there is another point. How many more bridges are we going to be asked to build? It seems to me that the Sultan should take the task upon himself. I am very sorry that Her Majesty's Government have had to propose this Vote. I acquit the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the Supplemental Vote, but he did not give me the date in this case. He has given me the date in this instance, and I think the fact of it being a Supplemental Estimate is perfectly justified. I think, however, that the British House of Commons ought not to be called upon to vote any money at all for this purpose.
    MR. J. C. FLYNN: I wish particularly to draw the attention of the Committee to another view of the question. The original Estimate for this bridge was £60; now it is £247. I venture to say that if the Works. Department of the London County Council had done anything of that kind, the Unionist Press of London would have been in full cry denouncing them for their extravagance and utter incapacity. We have had no explanation, of the fact that this bridge, which was originally estimated to cost £60, is now going to cost £247. That is very extraordinary. Well, we are prepared to make allowances for the right hon. Gentleman not being able to give full particulars, but something more is necessary in the way of explanation. It has been my privilege and duty to discuss the Estimates at considerable length in former years, but I search the records of my experience in vain for a case similar to this, in which an original Estimate is quadrupled when it comes to this Committee. We must persist in our demand for a Division upon this question, unless the right hon. Gentleman gives some explanation for the original Estimate, which was £60, now being more than four times that sum.
    MR. JAMES DALY: I have heard several questions asked of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not hear any asked as to who is to get the contract

    1305
    for this bridge, and whether it will be put out to some firm that will carry it out in a proper and satisfactory manner. It is necessary, when we are expending such a lot of money, that the construction of this bridge shall be placed in competent hands. It is a matter that I feel very strongly about, and I would like to have from, the right hon. Gentleman a statement on this point. Can he tell me and the honourable Members of this House who has got the contract? I have not heard whether this bridge is to accommodate more than the people of Morocco, or simply those who go to the lighthouse. It is a, matter that troubles my mind whether tolls are to be charged. It is no reason why, after the money of this House has been spent in the construction of this bridge, that foreigners, even the Sultan himself, should be allowed to cross it without paying. I can assure the honourable Member who laughs that I have no more respect for the Sultan than any common member of the community. He is no more to me than any ordinary member, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain this, which is most unsatisfactory. Of course, the honourable Member for Lynn Regis opposed this vote, and then he wanted to back out of it by having a shot at honourable Members on this side of the House. I do not blame him for initiating this discussion, for I think it will turn out very useful, taking it all round. I think the right hon. Gentleman, will come in future, when he requires a vote of this description, prepared with a satisfactory explanation.
    *MR. WILLIAM WOODALL: I desire to know if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give us any information, or inform the Committee whether the International Convention for the maintenance of the lighthouse also involved the maintenance of the road all the way from Tangiers to Cape Spartel, or if that be not the case, how it comes about that the International Governments, who want the lighthouse, are called upon to construct this bridge? We all know that in Morocco the roads are of the simplest kind, and wheeled vehicles practically unknown. The Committee
    1306
    had a right to know more of the necessity for, and the character of, the bridge in question.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: If it is accepted that the official maintenance of the lighthouse is a matter of interest to the maritime Powers, the hon. Gentleman will see that the communication with the lighthouse ought also to be in a satisfactory condition. It is with a view to secure that, that this permanent way is being constructed. It is for the convenience of the lighthouse, and not for the convenience of the Sultan.
    MR. J. CALDWELL: Have you made any arrangement whereby the road is to be kept up; also, I would like to ask, is the bridge only for access, or is it for any other purpose?
    MR. J. C. WILLIAMS: Are we to maintain as well as build it?
    MR. J. C. FLYNN: The amount is comparatively insignificant, but surely the principle of the thing is what we want an explanation of.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I explain that £60 was a tenth part of the annual sum of maintaining the lighthouse? The £60 has nothing to do with the bridge; it is the tenth part of the £600.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, for the information of the House, whether the other nine Powers contribute to the building of the bridge, because it is either a part of the lighthouse or it is not, and if it is part of the lighthouse, the other nine Powers are equally required to contribute.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: They all contribute.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: It seems a very expensive bridge. As I understand, this is only the tenth part of the expense of the bridge. I would also ask for an answer to the question put by the hon. Member behind me whether the Government consider themselves bound to maintain the entire road

    1307
    from Tangiers to Cape Spartel, or is the bridge necessary for the maintenance of the lighthouse?
    MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what sort of a bridge it is—whether it is to be a stone bridge, an iron bridge, or a wooden bridge; what is to be its length, and what is to be its breadth, and whether the plans and specifications of it have been laid before the House of Commons?
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: Her Majesty's Minister is not able to give any definite answers to the questions which have been addressed to him by Members from this side of the House. He does not know the length of the bridge nor the breadth of it. He does not know in what manner it is to be
    constructed. He does not know whether it is to be constructed or not. It was no doubt very kind of the hon. Member for East Lynn—for King's Lynn—to come to the assistance of Her Majesty's Minister. I say that Her Majesty's Minister should be prepared to answer all the questions which the Member for King's Lynn has undertaken to answer to this House. We appeal to him for information. We appeal to the Minister of the Crown, but as the hon. Member for King's Lynn has undertaken to inform this House in regard to this bridge, I would ask him to get up in his place to answer the questions.
    Question put—
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 101.

    AYES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Pirie, Captain Duncan

    Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Austin, Sir Jno. (Yorkshire)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Holden, Angus

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Billson, Alfred

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

    Burt, Thomas

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Caldwell, James

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilt'n

    Kilbride, Denis

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Colville, John

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Tully, Jasper

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Crilly, Daniel

    M'Leod, John

    Weir, James Galloway

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Daly, James

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Williams Jno. Carvell (Notts)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Woodall, William

    Davitt, Michael

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Murnaghan, George

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Owen, Thomas

    Mr. Patrick Aloysius

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    M'Hugh and Mr. Flynn.

    NOES.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mnc'r)

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A.. E.

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds)

    Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready

    Fison, Frederick William

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Cox, Robert

    FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Flower, Ernest

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Ben.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Forwood, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur B.

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristl.)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

    Foster, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

    Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Bethell, Commander

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gedge, Sydney

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

    Dane, Richard M.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Drucker, A.

    Gourley, Sir. Ed. Temperley

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Heath, James

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Helder, Augustus

    Milbank, Powlett Chas. John

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arth'r (Down)

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Saunderson, Col. Edward Jas.

    Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampst'd)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Howell, William Tudor

    Monk, Charles James

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Kenyon, James

    More, Robert Jasper

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Kimber, Henry

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptfrd)

    Williams, Josh. Powell- (Birm.)

    Knowles, Lees

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh. N.)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grh'm (Bute)

    Wyndham, George

    Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall)

    Penn, John

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curz'n

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Sir William Walrond and

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Purvis, Robert

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Class III.
    (2). £5,000 for the Irish Land Commission (Supplementary).
    Resolutions to be reported.
    MR. J. C. FLYNN: I think we are on this vote entitled to fuller explanations than one given with the Estimate. With regard to this and singular votes, we are unfortunately in this position: the Report of the Commission has not yet been presented, and, consequently, we cannot refer to it at any considerable length. I think, however, we cannot too strongly condemn the appointments of these temporary Assistant Commissioners. I hold that to ensure that they do their duty properly and impartially, they should have security of tenure in their offices; otherwise they cannot be expected to be impartial as between landlord and tenant. I observe that one additional temporary Commissioner is appointed for the six months ending the 31st March next. It is not the sum to be paid to him that I object to; it is the principle that is wrong, and, as I hold, utterly indefensible. It is a matter of public notoriety that hundreds of thousands of tenants are now appealing to get their rents fixed for a second statutory term; surely, then, the appointment of the Assistant Commissioners should be permanent and not temporary. We have frequently protested against this system from these Benches. We say it is intolerable and indefensible that a man entrusted with such high and important duties should only hold a temporary appointment. He ought to feel that he is perfectly independent,
    1310
    and it is impossible for one appointed for such short periods to do his duty satisfactorily. There is a question I should like to ask about the Report of the Commission recently issued. It was in the newspaper offices at Dublin a fortnight ago; it reached the newspapers in this country the next morning. Yet we Members of this House have not received it. In that I submit that we have been treated with discourtesy. But to revert to the appointment of temporary Commissioners, I submit that the system is vicious and wrong. The Government might have learned something from experience. Complaint has frequently been made of these appointments, and one gentleman who possesses a stronger power of characterisation, if not vituperation, than many of us—at any rate, a stronger power of invective—has called these officials "labourers paid by the day or week." I say that men who are supposed to possess a competent knowledge of land, and to be able to deal with complicated and intricate questions, such as are involved in the numerous Irish Land Acts, should be in a proper and permanent position, otherwise it would be better to sweep away Irish land legislation altogether. The Commissioners had to discharge duties, on the proper performance of which largely depend the peace, contentment, and prosperity of Ireland. They must do their work without fear, favour, or affection. Therefore it is most unwise on the part of the Government to only appoint them for such short periods.
    MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: I take this as I take every opportunity of protesting against the appointment of temporary Commissioners. I think it is a growing scandal, and I canot understand on what grounds these appointments are made. These gentlemen have practically the duty of settling the incomes of a large number of persons in Ireland for good or for evil, and they are settling them on principles absolutely unknown to jurisprudence. I feel strongly that the alternative suggested by the hon. Member opposite is the only satisfactory one. Let the Government look the facts in the face, and employ gentlemen on terms which will enable them to act as independent judges, otherwise you place them in an invidious position. They know that as soon as their short term of office has expired they will have to go back into private life after having occupied positions as arbitrators and judges in which they have been subject to the most acute criticism. Men, whoever they may be, who are called upon to judge between man and man are exposed to great temptation. This is recognised in our judicial system, in which it is ordained that judges should hold office during the pleasure of the Crown. In face of that, how can the Government defend these temporary appointments? I join in the protest made by the hon. Member opposite.
    DR. TANNER: I wish to point out that this Supplementary Estimate is required for an additional temporary Assistant Legal Commissioner, from September 23rd, 1897, to March 31st, 1898, who is to get £626; for eight temporary Assistant Non-legal Commissioners, from different dates from April 1st, 1897, to March 31st, 1898, who are to have £2,403; and for one additional temporary Registrar to a Sub-Commission, from September 13th, 1897, to March 31st, 1898. Now, Sir, I would point out this fact: that the round sum required is £5,000—plus nothing, minus nothing—simply £5,000; and I would
    1312
    ask hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House, how they are to obtain this sum. In connection with the salaries, there is a large additional sum which has been acquired without the attention of Parliament. This is a serious matter, and it is necessary to correct it. This having been done without anybody's knowledge, an Estimate is brought in, and this House is asked to consent to it. Our friends on the opposite side of the House, who profess to be dissatisfied with the Irish Land Commission, do not know that we have an extra Irish Land Commissioner earning £626. Putting it plainly, no one is satisfied with these appointments, but yet the money has to be paid because the big man cannot get on without the temporary assistant. Then we have a Non-legal Commissioner "from various dates." To put such an item down appears to be ridiculous. Cannot they give the dates? Is one man to get a larger fee than another? Well, it is a small thing that the British taxpayer is willing and able to pay. It is only £2,043; but that cannot be the whole amount, because you cannot have your Commissioner without you also have your Assistant Non-legal Commissioners, without you have an additional temporary Commissioner, and also an additional temporary Registrar to a Sub-Commission, from the 13th September to the 31st March. Sir, I maintain that if these sums of money are to be obtained, and if there is to be a precedent, I submit that in the first place we ought to have a pledge from the Government of the day, who are perfectly competent to reduce the conditions upon which certain moneys should be demanded. Accordingly, I think, instead of passing this Vote over in the ordinary way in which a great number of these items are, at the expense of the taxpayer, that we should require a solemn assurance from Her Majesty's Government that what has been done has been done for the best, not merely for the taxpayer, but also for the ignorant tenants who require the assistance of these Commissioners. I simply say this: That in my district of MidCork there is a great amount of

    1313
    difficulty in getting the tenants to go to the Courts at all. Yet, notwithstanding this, we are called upon to pass these exaggerated items, and I maintain that hon. Members opposite to me, if they were in my place, would agree in saying that you should try and do your beat for those tenants who are willing to buy their own land (because it is their own land). Moreover, I think it is my duty to point out to hon. Members on both side the inordinate amount of money that is being spent in doing nothing.
    MR. DANE: I wish to join my hon. Friend in expressing disapproval of the temporary character of these appointments. It will give dissatisfaction to both landlord and tenant in Ireland. Unless you make the office of Land Commissioner a permanent one, the Treasury should not contribute to it, because there is absolutely no check whatever on the office, and I do hope the Government will direct their attention to this, because it is a matter that causes great dissatisfaction.
    MR. D. KILBRIDE: I wish to join my voice with those hon. Gentlemen who have raised theirs against this Vote largely on the ground that these Land Commissioners act in the capacity of Judges, and I cannot conceive that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should desire, as he does, that their decisions should not be open to adverse criticism. I cannot see that he himself would be desirous of making these temporary appointments. We all know that if temporary lay Commissioners are appointed by the Conservative Government, by the Landlord Government, that the popular feeling in Ireland with regard to them will be that, owing to the fact that they are so appointed, they will, in order to secure their reappointment on the expiration of their term of office, be bound to give decisions in favour of their patrons, the landlords. I do not think this tends to increase the respect of the populace when British law is administered in Ireland; and also, in my opinion, there is some objection open to temporary Commissioners who may be appointed by the Liberal Government, because they would be open to the same objection, except that it would come from the other side. The objection to
    1314
    these temporary Commissioners being appointed is that they would decide, according to their political views, either in favour of the landlord or the tenant, and would do strict justice to neither, for they are only human, and intensely human, and because they would be anxious for reappointment at the expiration of their term of office. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary must see himself that it is absolutely essential that confidence should be established in the decisions of the Land Commissioners, and that it is impossible to have any confidence whatever in their decisions so long as you have this system of temporary lay Commissioners. For that reason, I am very pleased to be able to support the hon. Gentlemen on the other side who have objected to this system of temporary Commissioners. I must say the system of sending down new lay Commissioners, that has been alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for North Fermanagh, is, I think, a new practice, and is a practice that certainly did not prevail in the early days of the Land Commission. At that time, I think, without a single exception, the lay Commissioners had to view a farm to see whether the evidence that was given was true or not. Now, it appears to me that the practice—instituted, I suppose with the object of saving money—that one lay Commissioner is entrusted with this extremely delicate work, is hardly just—a gentleman who, we must all acknowledge, knows nothing about the Land Commissioners in Ireland. Largely divergent views are expressed by the witnesses of the landlords and the tenants, and this gentleman has to decide upon the point. It would surprise this House to hear that on a small farm, of limited area, you will hear one witness get up and swear that the improvements on that land are fully worth £200; and then you will hear a competent witness on behalf of the landlord say that he has visited the land, and that all the improvements have been pointed out to him that have been made, and he will swear that the whole lot is not worth £10. Now, that is a pretty strong conflict of testimony.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The question the hon. Member is now addressing himself to does not arise here. That arises

    1315
    on the general question of the Land Commissioners.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With great respect and with great submission the question does arise here. Here are eight temporary Assistant Commissioners, and those are the gentlemen to whom my hon. Friend is referring. And with great respect, in the case of a purchase especially being detrimental, the functions of these gentlemen are called into question, and there is a distinct allegation of misconduct. This is a Supplemental Vote, but it is a full Vote in respect to these men, and in respect to their conduct during the time with which the Vote is concerned.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: If the hon. Member challenges any action taken by any one of these eight Commissioners, of course, he is in order; but if he is challenging any question of general system, it is not a matter which the Assistant Commissioner is responsible for. That is a matter that the Land Commissioner is responsible for, and it is a matter which must arise upon the Vote for the Land Commissioners.
    MR. KILBRIDE: What I was directing the attention of the House to was this: that it is an extremely bad thing that the onus should fall on one gentleman, a temporary Assistant Lay Commissioner, of deciding where there is such a divergence of opinion. Where there is such a conflict of testimony given on a Land Commission that the onus should be thrown on one person, even if he be a Land Commissioner, it is bad enough, but it is ten times worse when it is thrown upon a man who is only a temporary Commissioner. I think it is a scandal in any case, but the scandal is ten times as great when it is thrown upon a gentleman of this kind, seeing that he must decide more or less in favour of the landlord. I have no desire to make any attack on any gentleman who is a Member of the Land Commission, and I have no desire to make, in any case, a personal attack on anybody. I believe the Government have a difficult task before them, and I think the only possible way of giving confidence to the country, to the landlords, and to the tenants, of the justice and impartiality of the decisions of these gentlemen is, not to make temporary,
    1316
    but to make permanent appointments. When I say permanent appointments, I mean that they should be made for three or five years, and that these gentlemen should not be mere emergency men, brought in for twelve months merely and appointed at so much a day—three guineas a day, and appointed from day to day. I say that to have persons under such conditions of appointment, acting in the capacity of Judges, is disgraceful and contrary and foreign to all principles of English law. I know the Chief Secretary for Ireland is not responsible for this. It is the Treasury that is responsible. It is because the Treasury think that by adopting this practice they can manage to save a few thousands of pounds in the twelve months. That is the reason for this state of things. But I say that the Treasury should adopt a more liberal attitude, and should spend a little more money in making permanent appointments. That where they save a few thousands of pounds a year they save it at the loss of the respect of the country. Nobody in Ireland is satisfied with the result, either landlord or tenant.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I do not intend to take any part in this discussion, and I feel myself in some little difficulty. I just want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the second clause. I do not wish to say anything upon the general question. An additional temporary Commissioner was appointed on the 21st of September. Now, I think that date is important. On that date a temporary legal Assistant Commissioner is appointed, at a time when, as everybody knows, a new tribunal was to be initiated, and that new circumstances were going to take place over which this temporary legal Commissioner will have supreme control; and having regard to the fact that in the month of September, on the very day—the 23rd September—when the Committee was actually sitting in Dublin, and when the whole of the Land Commission was on its trial, this took place; I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give me any explanation as to why a new man without any experience—I do not know the man, and I should be sorry to make any personal, attack upon anybody

    1317
    —should be placed in that position he was to assist in the work of those tribunals Why should he establish a new tribunal? I would ask him himself to consider what would be the effect on any man, even if he were in the position of an immovable judge, knowing that another tribunal was discussing the matter and criticising his action; the effect would be very bad. But what would be the effect upon a man who was only in a temporary position there to-day and dismissed to-morrow when he found a tribunal which was investigating into the facts and the personnel of these positions? Let me ask for this explanation: Why did he in such a case appoint a gentleman wholly and entirely unacquainted with judicial matters to decide on such a very serious matter as dispute between landlord and tenant? I asked whether, under the circumstances, the Land Commissioners should sit at all while the Commission was sitting, because they were really on their trial; but I should say in this case the right hon. Gentleman has out-Heroded everything in making a temporary judge at this time. The fact of his being a temporary judge makes it worse. I think I am entitled to get an explicit answer from the right hon. Gentleman upon that point, and I am also entitled to bitterly complain that, having regard to the report on the points, that the private Commission has been criticised in the papers when we have not the report before us? How is it that that report has got into the hands of the Press and the House of Commons has not got it before them? I will also ask the right hon. Gentleman this question, though it almost seems cruelty, but it is a very serious matter: How it was that a temporary legal Commissioner was established under the circumstances which I have detailed?
    MR. J. TULLY: I object to this principle of temporary Assistant Commissioners. I think it is a vicious one. I think these temporary appointments stand in the way of what we regard as the settlement of the Land Question, namely, making the tillers the owners of the soil. I find here you are voting for eight temporary Assistant Commissioners a sum of £2,400. So that being the salary of eight temporary Assistant Commissioners
    1318
    for 12 months, you have £300 a year for each Commissioner, or £6 a week for each man you let loose upon the rents of the tenants. Now, I think it is a very vicious principle to adopt for you to pick up such men as you can find, who, finding their other occupations unremunerative, will take up such a position at such a figure as this. You do not even give them a permanency, but leave them, as mere lodgers in the department. It is a vicious principle, and one that exposes them to too much temptation. On the tenants' side, it is contended that they do not reduce rents in order to hold on to their positions, while the friends of the hon. and gallant Member urge, when these gentlemen find rents arranged out of court, that, in order to create work for themselves, they give greater reductions in certain cases in order to tempt the tenants to come into court, and those cases are brought to a Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal knock off the reductions, and the tenants find themselves at a loss in the end. Now, I say the appointment of these temporary Assistant Commissioners is wrong and dangerous.
    MR. J. H. CAMPBELL: I should like to join with hon. Members on the other side of the House in the protest against these temporary Commissioners. I had the misfortune to be present during the greater portion of the inquiry by Lord Fry's Commission into the working of the Land Acts. While I do not intend and do not desire to go in any way into that matter, or to in any way anticipate the Debate which I think must necessarily arise hereafter upon the subject of that Commission, I think I am not travelling outside the scope of this discussion when I say that the witnesses before that Commission, those on the side of the landlords as well as those on the side of the tenants, were agreed in condemning the system by which the men entrusted with the judicial function of determining rents held office on such a precarious tenure. Hon. Members have little idea, I think, of the enormous amounts represented by the disputes with which these gentlemen have to deal. Their decisions, which are often upon large pecuniary amounts, is final; and, while a litigant suing for the smallest

    1319
    coin of the realm in a civil action can have his rights determined by the highest tribunal in the land—namely, the House of Lords, there is no appeal from the decisions of these temporary legal and lay Sub-Commissioners which involve hundreds and thousands of pounds a year. Now, I make no attack at all upon the personnel of these temporary Commissioners. I believe, having regard to their emoluments and the duration of their office, they are as good men as can be got for the money. But there is no man of any standing, either in my profession, or in the profession of valuer or land surveyor, that would take one of these temporary appointments. The result is that these gentlemen who are engaged for these brief periods are necessarily taken from the ranks of either the tenants' or the landlords' valuers, and, having spent a few months in the service of the Government, they must return to their former positions as tenants' or landlords' valuers, and the result is that they are extreme advocates on the one side or on the other, and neither tenant or landlord has any confidence in the decisions of a Court so constituted. I am aware, of course, that in this matter the Government and the Treasury are in a certain state of embarrassment, for this reason. The applications naturally came in at first in large numbers; immediately after the passing of the Act of 1881, they came in in hundreds. Now, the period is up and it becomes necessary to fix rents for a new period of 15 years, and there are again a great many cases before the Commissioners. But all that is simply a matter of money, and there are various departments in the Land Commission for which Sub-Commissioners could be drawn in times of pressure, and if there were no work in the way of fixing fair rents for them to do, they could be engaged in other departments. Therefore, in the interest of economy and certainly in the interests of justice it is desirable that these men should have a permanent tenure of office. Then, apart from their uncertain tenure of office, the rate at which they are paid is by no means sufficient to obtain the services of the best men. There is another matter which I think strongly shows the impropriety of this precarious tenure. These Assistant Commissioners have no means whatever of learning their work except by experience. It is an undoubted
    1320
    fact, strange though it appear, and I think it will appear strange to hon. Members from England, who are accustomed to Courts of Justice in this country, and especially accustomed to Courts of Appeal, that, although the Land Commission was originated in the year 1891, and we are now in 1898, up to the present time, neither in public nor in private, in Court or out of Court, has the Land Commission given their Assistant Commissioners an idea as to what is meant by "Fair rent." They delegate their authority to these men, but——
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to go on with a criticism of the policy of the Land Commission. As long as he confines himself to the Temporary Commissioners, he will be in order.
    MR. J. H. CAMPBELL: My object was not to criticise the action of the Land Commission, but simply to show that, in order to get Assistant Commissioners competent and qualified for the work, we should have men who have knowledge and experience, and that the brief periods during which they hold the office gives them no opportunity of acquiring that experience. For these reasons, and apologising to the House for having taken up so much time, but, nevertheless, feeling that, in the interests both of the landlords and of the tenants, this is a matter which is essential to the proper administration of justice, I am glad to be able to join my Friends the hon. Members for Irish constituencies sitting on the opposite Benches in a protest against what we believe to be a vicious and pernicious system.
    MR. J. J. CLANCY: I should like to make one correction of the speech of the hon. Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division. He rather conveyed to the House that these temporary Commissioners (I do not think he alluded to the permanent Commissioners at all) were taken from both sides, and that, therefore, one or other of them occasionally gave effect to the tenants' as well as to the landlords' views. My recollection is, that there is not one single man, with one exception, who has been taken from the tenants' side, or has been known, on any occasion, to adopt the tenants' views. If the hon. Member had been longer in this House and better acquainted with the matters that have

    1321
    come out in the course of our Debates and proceedings on this subject, he would have known that all these Commissioners, even those appointed under a Liberal Government, were drawn from the landlord side. Then the hon. Member also referred to the practice of appeals, and I understood him to disapprove of the law which provides for appeals to the House of Lords.
    MR. J. H. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member is not quite correct. What I said was this: that having regard to the state of the law which confines the final decision of these questions to the Land Commission the importance becomes all the more manifest of seeing that the Commissioners held office permanently.
    MR. CLANCY: The hon. Member alluded to the difficulty of taking cases to the House of Lords, and I thought his suggestion was that even in small cases, involving only £10 or £15, there should be facilities for carrying them to the highest tribunal in the land. What I was going to say was, that when there was an appeal to a Court consisting of Mr. Justice Mellor and Mr. Commissioner Lynch, there was ample protection at all events for the landlords. What I contend is that the Government should act fairly in regard to these appointments, and should not follow the practice hitherto adopted of making their selections from one side only. It is non sense to say that in all Ireland they cannot get 10 or 15 men, even on the tenants' side, who would be fair-minded men, and I consider that it is most unfair that the tenants should not be represented.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: On a former occasion I ventured to point out that from the point of view of the land-owning class in Ireland, no system could be more vicious in our estimation than that of these temporary Commissioners. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has placed the question exactly in the proper light. The question is not whether a Commissioner is the landlord's or tenant's man, but whether he is a man likely to arrive at a just decision on one side or the other. As to there being a difficulty in getting men in Ireland fit to fill these posts, I never met a man in Ireland who did not feel himself perfectly fitted to be a Land Commissioner,
    1322
    and particularly with three guineas a day attaching to the position, the temptation is overwhelming. Sir, it is very hard for the House of Commons, mainly composed of Englishmen, Scotch men, and Welshmen, to conceive the position of affairs in Ireland. I should like any English, Welsh, or Scotch landlord to be in this position: that at any moment, without warning, some outsider, who probably knew no more about land than he knows about building an iron clad, should get three guineas a day to come down on my estate, or that of any other unfortunate Irish landlord—for they are very unfortunate——
    MR. CLANCY: How about the unfortunate tenants?
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I say it is a monstrous thing that a man should get three guineas a day to start away to Cork or Ulster, and there state what the value of the land is, and that that value should be settled by his dictum for 15 years. I think I have heard my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland condemn the provisions of the Act of 1881, but that Act is the law the land, and we must do the best we can with it. But what I blame the Government for is this, not for not upsetting the Act of 1881, for that could not be done, but for carrying out the proposals of the Act of 1881 in the worst way that could be conceived; that is, by giving these men authority to lay down for 15 years what is to be the value of the land, which may, in many cases, mean ruin on one side or the other, and after they have done that to retire into private life with what they have made out of the job. Another thing I have pointed out before, and that is this: that it is a tremendous temptation to an Irishman, at all events—I do not know what it would be to an Englishman or a Scotchman, or a Welshman—to feel that the more he reduces rents the fuller will be his court, and the longer will his three guineas a day last—
    MR. CLANCY: And expenses?
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Three guineas a day and expenses. Sir, I say that I cannot conceive any rational man in this free country considering that it is fair to the two classes, the landlords on the one side and the tenants on the other, that men should be paid three guineas a day to fix rents all over Ireland when they have

    1323
    no qualifications whatever, and by the precarious tenure of their office cannot acquire the experience. For once I cordially sympathise, for a wonder, with hon. Gentleman opposite. The only reason it is done—I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary entirely agrees with me—is that if you can get anything cheap it is good enough for Ireland—cheap and nasty. I did hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I believe is a right-minded man in the main, would see his way to loosen his purse strings to the extent of doing away with what is a reproach, and what, in my opinion, brines contempt on the administration of the Land Acts in Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The hon. Member for MidCork has called attention to the delay in presenting the report of the Fry Commission. I can assure the House that there has been absolutely no delay in preventing the report. As to its getting into the papers before it was issued to Members, that is a matter for which the Government is in no way responsible. But the hon. Gentleman goes on to say that the Government should have taken warning from the evidence given in the Land Court, and avoided making those appointments. Now, one of these appointments was made so lately as on the 23rd September of last year; the appointments have been going on between the 1st February last year and the 31st March this year, and one temporary Commissioner was appointed on the 13th September, 1897. It is obvious that these appointments, at all events, were made before the Fry Commission began its sittings at all. I am quite aware that the hon. Member for South Donegal thinks that we ought to have interrupted the whole work of the Land Commission, while the Fry Commission was sitting; but I may remind him that that was not the view taken when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for the Government of Ireland, and to say that because a Royal Commission has been appointed to investigate the proceedings of the Land Commission, all the proceedings of the Land Commission should be interrupted until the Commission of Inquiry has reported, is a suggestion that does not belong to the region of practical politics.
    1324
    Now, a good many complaints have been made in the course of this Debate that these gentlemen have been appointed by the week, or even by the day. As regards the Senior Commissioners, that is not so. They do not receive their appointments by the day There are, no doubt, temporary Commissioners appointed, and they are appointed till the 31st March of each year. I did not expect this Debate to come on to-night, and I have not got the exact figures with me, but, if I recollect rightly, there are 370 or 380 Sub-Commissioners engaged in fixing rents, about one half of whom are permanent Commissioners. Some three or four only are paid by the day, and the remainder hold their offices for periods varying from a few months to a year, or more. It will be seen that their office ceases at the end of the financial year, and there is obviously some practical convenience in that. At any rate, we have simply followed the practice which we found in existence when we came into office, and there are obvious reasons of convenience for it. I observe that there are certain divergences between the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite. While the hon. Member for North Galway argued that the temporary Com missioners would necessarily decide in favour of the landlords, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh argued that they endeavour to reduce rents too much, in order to fill their courts and keep their appointments. My hon. Friend, if he will allow me to call him so, who has just been returned for the St. Stephen's Green Division, considers that this is entirely a matter of money, while my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh thinks there is no Irishman who would not be prepared to regard himself as competent to accept one of these posts at a salary of £3 3s. a day. I think those differences in the arguments of hon. Members are significant. If I may tell the House my own candid opinion upon this matter, I think there are many theoretical, and there may be some practical, arguments in favour of permanent appointments. On the other hand, I do not consider, personally, that experience shows that those who are appointed for a comparatively limited period, either necessarily give, or are likely to give,

    1325
    untrustworthy decisions. On the contrary, these men are on their trial; they know that the question whether they are, or are not, to be reappointed, depends on whether they do their duty in a satisfactory or an unsatisfactory manner. Hon. Members on both sides seem to think that the chance of their being reappointed depends entirely upon whether their decisions are pleasing or displeasing to the Executive of the day. I say that their reappointment depends on the manner in which they have discharged their duty, and that must not be forgotten in the consideration of this question. Of course, there are arguments in favour of having these appointments made permanent; but, on the other hand, there are administrative difficulties in the way of having them all permanent. Supposing all these 370 gentlemen were permanent, it means a salary of £800 a year each; and, perhaps, in four years, one half of them would have no work to do at all. I think when it is stated in that way the House will see that there are two sides to the question; it is not merely a question of the parsimony of the Treasury, as one hon. Gentleman seemed to think. And, while I will not say what course the Government will ultimately adopt in regard to this matter, because we must wait for the Report of the Fry Commission, which will have to be considered carefully, at the same time it does not appear to me that the arguments are all on one side.
    MR. J. DALY: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the question of the reappointment of these Sub-Commissioners depends upon whether or no they have done their duty satisfactorily. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman who are the judges as to whether these gentlemen have satisfactorily discharged their duties. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are unanimous that the appointment of temporary Commissioners is not a good method of fixing fair rents in Ireland. These temporary Commissioners are what we are accustomed to call in Ireland emergency men. They are made use of for the time being, and I for one have no confidence in a man who takes a temporary position. They must be very hard up indeed to take such a position,
    1326
    and it must be expected that they will play into the hands of the men by whom they expect to get reappointed. It is the general opinion in Ireland that the judgments of these men are in favour of the landlords and against the tenants. The system is due to the niggardliness and parsimoniousness of the Government. I for one should be quite ready to vote even a larger sum than the amount put down in this Vote, to enable fair rents to be fixed by men competent to the task. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what test is applied to these gentlemen before they are appointed temporary Commissioners, and who is the judge of their fitness? The fixing of fair rents at present depends entirely on the whim or notion of these Sub-Commissioners, and they seem to be appointed without any regard to their fitness for the particular cases to be investigated. For instance, a man may be sent from Limerick, where butter is the principal thing that the farmers live by, to fix fair rents in Ulster, where flax is largely grown. In fact, the whole thing seems to be done in the most haphazard fashion. As the right hon. Gentleman has promised to consider the subject, and particularly as he has gone through a very heavy ordeal this evening, I should not care to put him to the trouble of a Division, but I think we are entitled to a reply on these points.
    MR. M. J. FLAVIN: I wish to join in the protest against these temporary Commissioners, and for this reason—the mere fact of their being temporary appointments makes them subject to the influence of the party likely to have the power to reappoint them. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, noticed the very peculiar unanimity of feeling amongst Irish Members upon this question. I am very glad to see that unanimity of feeling, and I hope and trust that it will continue. He also stated that the question of the reappointment of the temporary Commissioners rested entirely on the way they did their duty. Evidently, from what we have heard to-night, the temporary Commissioners do not satisfy either the tenants or the landlords themselves, and if either of the two parties are not satisfied, I should like to know very much who is to decide whether they have done

    1327
    their duty satisfactorily or not. The Chief Secretary, no doubt, does his duty as best he can, but I believe that the great majority of the men who receive appointments are men of whom he knows very little; he has to take his information about them at secondhand. I agree with what my hon. Friend, the Member for South Monaghan, has said—that a man who always lives in the South of Ireland is totally unfit to fix rents in the North of Ireland. A man who is well acquainted with agricultural values in the North of Ireland may know nothing at all about the South of Ireland, because in the extreme North and the extreme South of Ireland things are managed on entirely different principles. In the South of Ireland we have principally butter; in the North of Ireland we have practically none. Therefore, I feel that these men should be placed in a position of permanency, in order that the interests of the landlords on the one side, and of tenants on the other, should not interfere with the administration of justice. I have seen cases where these men have made only ten per cent. reductions, when everybody knows that the fall of prices in the South and West of Ireland is more like 20 or 30 per cent. This shows the folly of appointing men who have no practical knowledge of the matter with which they are to deal. If you want to have duly qualified men, you must give them permanent positions and make them independent of all conflicting parties. If you do that, I believe you will ensure the proper carrying out of the work, instead of having a system which is condemned by landlords and tenants alike.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think, Sir, this is hardly a convenient occasion for the discussion of the general question the Land Commission, and I would appeal to hon. Members not to continue a discussion which can result in nothing. It is quite evident, after the Report of Lord Fry's Commission which has recently been placed in the hands of hon. Members, that the whole question will have to be carefully considered. We are simply considering now a policy, in favour of which there is much to be said, and against which there is much to be said; but I would remind the House that it is not our policy, but the policy which
    1328
    has been universally pursued since the Land Acts came into operation. I hope hon. Gentlemen will not carry the discussion to any greater length.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: In view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and in view also of the fact that Irish Members on both sides of the House are unanimous in their condemnation of these temporary appointments, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether he cannot see his way to postpone this Vote until after the Report of the Fry Commission has been discussed.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: The hon. Member must be aware that that is quite impracticable.

    CLASS IV.
    Motion made and Question proposed—
    "That a Supplementary Sum not exceeding £20,710, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge, which will come In course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1898, for Public Education in England and Wales."
    MR. T. LOUGH: There are several discrepancies in these Estimates to which I should like to call the attention of the Committee. First, as to the Annual Grants for Day Scholars, the Revised Estimate is for 4,470,000 scholars at 19s. 7½d., whereas the original Estimate was for 4,407,614 scholars at 19s. 4d. I think I am right in assuming that the gross deficiency, which amounts to £48,000, arises from the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit, which was taken as the basis of the original Estimate. I should like to know whether we may not expect that this particular item will be larger in future years than it is now. Then, going through these Supplementary Estimates, it appears that the Government were wrong not only with regard to day schools, but with regard to evening schools. As to the Annual Grants for Evening Scholars, I regret to see that the excess is not very large, only £5,539; but I rejoice to read the note that—
    "The deficiency is caused by the average attendance having increased at a more rapid rate than was anticipated."
    I should like to ask whether there is not a prospect of a still greater increase

    1329
    there, and whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this amount will be sufficient for the coming year. Then, with regard to Grants to School Boards, there is a very important difference between the original Estimate and the revised Estimate. Instead of £132,900, £142,000 is required. The note says that this deficiency is caused by the grants claimed being higher than the statistics at the disposal of the Department when the original Estimates were prepared showed to be probable; but I should like to receive some rather more detailed explanation. And, generally, I would like to ask for some explanation as to these discrepancies.
    MR. J. H. YOXALL,: I regret, Sir, that the sum which the right hon. Gentleman has to propose to-night is not even larger than it is. The number of scholars in evening continuation schools—179,000, according to the Revised Estimate—is far from satisfactory, and does not compare favourably with the number of evening continuation scholars abroad. If you go to the small country of Saxony, with only three millions of population—one-tenth the number of our population here—you find they have half as many evening scholars as we have. I hope that everything will be done in the direction of encouraging a greater attendance of scholars at these schools. I would also point out, if I may, one or two reasons why this matter of evening continuation schools is so unsatisfactory. I do not think you can expect children who leave school at 10 or 11 years of age to have any idea of continuing their education in evening schools. Such is our lax system of attendance and the low standard of attainments required before a child may leave school, that only one child out of every seven remains on the day school register after the age of 12. That being the case, it is not to be wondered at that the evening continuation schools are empty when they ought to be full. Another reason why these evening continuation schools are not so successful as they should be is to be found in the way they are managed with regard to the Education Grant. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to devise or accept some plan to remedy the present cumbrous system of registration, which is most tedious, and wastes a great deal of time. Then, I should like to call attention to the way
    1330
    in which the Estimate of the "Annual Grant for Evening Scholars" is made up; 179,000 evening scholars at 17s. 11d., as against 172,017 at 18s. in the original Estimate; that is one penny difference in the rate per scholar. That is typical of the penny wise and pound foolish policy which the Department pursues. You will never get a satisfactory attendance in evening schools until——
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: It is not open to the hon. Gentleman to go into the general policy of the Department on this Supplementary Estimate.
    MR. YOXALL: I am pointing to this difference of one penny between the original and the revised Estimate as typical of the vicious principle——
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss what he calls the vicious principle on this occasion. The proper time to discuss this is when the Education Vote is before us. At the present the only question before us is this Supplementary Estimate.
    MR. YOXALL: I regret, Sir, that I am not able to pursue that line of argument, but, of course, I am bound by your decision. At any rate, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether by improving the system of registration and in other ways, he cannot increase the attendance at these schools. We cannot hope to have a satisfactory system of education until we have a greatly-increased attendance at these evening continuation schools, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the importance of doing everything in the power of the Department to encourage them.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir J. GORST,): The discrepancy between the original and the revised Estimate of the grant for day scholars is due, as explained in the note, to the fact that when the original Estimate was made the Department had no right to assume that the 17s. 6d. limit would be repealed. No Bill had been introduced into this House to repeal it, and therefore the Estimates were framed last year on the basis of the 17s. 6d. limit being continued. It was on that hypothesis that the amount per child was estimated at 19s. 4d. When Parliament, by the Voluntary Schools Act of last year, set aside the 17s. 6d.

    1331
    limit, the grant became greater to the extent of 3½d. per child, and it became necessary to submit to the House in the present Session a revised Estimate, taking into account that increased grant. Then, concurrently with the increase of the amount of the grant per child, there was a reduction in the number of scholars earning the grant. That reduction, of course, from an educational point of view, is a great misfortune; it shows that the number of children in the schools has not increased to the extent which a year ago was anticipated. When the Estimates were under discussion last Session, I warned the House that the means of securing the attendance of children at the schools appeared rather to have lost their efficacy, and that the attendance was not improving as fast as it had been in former years. This accounts for the saving of £42,000 which we anticipated on sub-head H. There have been fewer children in the schools than was anticipated, and there is a less fee grant by £42,000. Then, with regard to evening continuation schools, I am very glad to say that there is greater increase in attendance than was anticipated a year ago, and I am sure the House will view that increase with satisfaction, although it may not be altogether satisfactory from the point of view of the Exchequer. Then, with regard to the new grant to School Boards under the Act of last year, I think it was pointed out in the Debate last year that our information on the subject was very imperfect, and that it was difficult to ascertain the number of scholars that would secure this increased grant, and still more difficult to ascertain the exact amount which they would be in a position to claim. The note on page 6 of this Supplementary Estimate shows that in both particulars we were wrong in our anticipations; we rather over-estimated the number of School Boards that would apply, while we under-estimated the amount that they would be entitled to receive; and the nett result is a deficiency of as much as £9,010. Considering that this was an entirely new kind of Estimate, I do not think it at all discreditable to the Department that they should have got so near as that. It is only a difference of £9,000 on a total of £132,000.
    MR. LOUGH: That is on balance. All the estimates were wrong.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: I said so; we over-estimated one side, and under-estimated the other. I dare say the hon. Member would have done better, but I really think that it does credit to the officials that, upon very imperfect information, they came so nearly right.
    MR. J. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether the 710 Boards will receive £200 a piece, or whether some will receive more and some less?
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: Each Board will have £200.
    DR. CLARK: I should like to point out to the House that, in consequence of the Government refusing to abolish the 17s. 6d. limit in Scotland, England will be getting a much larger share of this grant than is her right.
    MR. J. C. WILLIAMS: This is a very important vote, and it should be properly discussed. I beg, Sir, to move that you report progress.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. C. Williams.)
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
    Committee report progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

  CUSTOMS OFFICES (SOUTHAMPTON) BILL.
  Second reading deferred till Thursday.
  CUSTOMS AND OTHER OFFICES (BARRY DOCK) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

  SPECIAL JURIES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.