§ (Further proceedings, on consideration, as amended.)
§
Another clause—
The guardians, with the consent of the Local Government Board, may make regulations for—(a) the conversion of workhouse hospitals into district hospitals, and (b) the transfer of the duties and powers of the guardians as regards such hospitals and the administrative control thereof to a committee of hospital governors appointed by the guardians, consisting wholly or partly of members of their own body, and (c) the payment and accommodation under which private patients may be admitted.
The guardians, acting through the said committee and subject to the regulations of the Local Government Board, shall properly
490
manage and maintain such district hospitals, and may appoint and remove officers and regulate expenditure, and may receive and apply for the benefit of such district hospitals any endowments or subscriptions given by private persons for such purposes.
Subject to the general control of the guardians in respect of all moneys provided out of rates, the acts of the committee shall not require confirmation by the guardians."—(Sir J. Colomb.)
§ SIR J. COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)I think a new clause of this description is very much needed, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)I have no objection whatever to the Amendment.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, CentralI accept this clause in its amended form.
§ MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)So far as I am concerned, I cannot see that the honourable Member for North Louth is justified in accepting this Amendment. This Amendment seeks to convert—
workhouse hospitals into district hospitals and the transfer of the duties and powers of the guardians as regards such hospitals and the administrative control thereof to a committee of hospital governors appointed by the guardians, consisting wholly or partly of members of their own body, and the payment and accommodation under which private patients may be admitted.If so, what is to become of the sick poor for whom workhouse hospitals were originally designed? Where will you put these people if you convert workhouse hospitals into district hospitals? Do you intend to have two sets of hospitals—one for private paying patients and one for the poor? If that is so, then it is not proposed in a very straightforward manner. At present there is accommodation for all patients in Irish workhouses, and if the intention is that paying patients should occupy one set of buildings there is no need for such a clause. That at present is allowed. But if this clause passes it must inevitably lead to the appointment of additional attendants and indefinite expenditure upon officers and upon buildings, which will lead to an additional burden being thrown upon us by the appointment of the new officers, or by giving additional salaries to the 491 existing ones. This clause will open the door to heavy additional outlay upon officers; but it is objectionable, not only on the ground of officers, but on the ground of government. It is objectionable on the ground of government, inasmuch as it seeks to transfer from the guardians all the duties and all the powers and all the administrative business for which they will be elected. Why do you elect guardians? It seems a useless thing to elect them, and then deprive them of all their powers and of all this work. You will always find a lot of clamour—a lot of aspirants who are endeavouring to open the door for new appointments. That is my experience of local bodies. As I said, this clause seeks to deprive the elected guardians—the men elected for the purpose of attending to this very thing—of their duties. It deprives them of their powers of administrative control, and transfers them to a hybrid committee. The guardians will also lose all control over the acts of this committee, except so far as the rates are concerned. Just imagine a board of guardians elected to attend to the affairs of the union and the hospital, deprived of all those powers of administrative control, and of control over the actions of this committee. This clause says—Subject to the general control of the guardians in respect of all moneys provided out of the rates, the acts of the committee shall not require confirmation by the guardians.Just imagine, again, a board of guardians transferring to the committee all their powers, so that the committee may, if it chooses, act quite contrary to the guardians. I think it is a most highly objectionable clause, and so far as I am concerned it is not only objectionable, but it is dangerous. It opens the door to increase of rates, and it is dangerous to the ratepayers. I shall offer my most strenuous opposition to this clause, even irrespective of my honourable Friend the Member for Louth. I do not think it is quite fair of the Government to accept a clause of this kind without fair notice being given. Claiming as I do that this clause will open the door to additional expenditure, I shall oppose it in the very strongest possible manner.
§ MR. MURNAGHAN (Tyrone, Mid)I think that the Chief Secretary might 492 have waited till there was a general expression of opinion delivered in favour of accepting this clause, instead of at once jumping up and saying that he accepted it. What does this clause do? It proposes to strike a blow at the local government of Ireland, because it will enable the guardians who are elected to nominate other men to do the duties for which they were returned. This is taking away with one hand what is given by the other. The right honourable Gentleman told us that committees would be a thing of the past. What is this clause setting up but committees? I say that if the Chief Secretary persists in supporting this clause, he will not be keeping to the promise he made of doing away with dispensing committees. He distinctly told us that these dispensing committees would be done away with, but this clause will create dispensing committees of the worst form. The dispensing committees of the past were at least representative in character. Three-fourths of them were composed of the elected guardians, but in the proposed new clause there is no provision of any kind as to the number of elected guardians that is to form part of these committees. It seems to me that this proposal is so much at variance with the principles of the Bill that we are entitled, speaking here on behalf of the ratepayers, to take up some little time of the House in discussing a matter of this sort. Remember this, that this clause cuts at the very foundations of representative government. What is the use of representative government if as soon as these bodies are elected their duties and powers are delegated to unrepresentative men? I listened to the right honourable Gentleman here on the Committee stage, when he refused to accept an Amendment to transfer from the guardians their duties, and I approved of the course he took then; but I do not approve of the course he is adopting on the present occasion, in trying to whittle away as much as he can the benefits that the Irish people are to receive under this Bill. This clause cuts at the very root of the poor law. It looks as if we were going to give to pauperism a kind of veneer, and it is not to be made into a public affair. That is a principle which will cause people to forget what they ought to do for them- 493 selves, and provide for old age. I think it is a principle that ought not to be encouraged, because we should endeavour to teach the people that the workhouse is a place of resort only when they have no other place to go to. The principle embodied in this clause is one which I believe will create a bad spirit in the minds of the Irish people, because it will make them feel an indifference as to where they spend the remainder of their days. This clause proposes that the committee shall consist wholly or partly of guardians, but it does not say what number of guardians there are to be on it; it does not say that they shall be at least three-fourths, or even that they shall preponderate. It simply says—
The transfer of the duties and powers of the guardians as regards such hospitals and the administrative control thereof to a committee of hospital governors appointed by the guardians, consisting wholly or partly of members of their own body.It does not say what proportion of elective guardians there shall be. If some provision had been embodied that three-fourths of them should be elected guardians I should not have the objections which I have now. But under this clause there may be three-fourths of the outside public in whose selection the electors had no voice. This is a most monstrous provision to insert in a Local Government Bill, and yet the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary jumps up and accepts this clause. Does he think that the guardians of Ireland can carry Acts of Parliament in their trousers? They will do what the clerk tells them. He is the expounder of the law. I adhere very much to the declaration made by Mr. Gladstone, that the professional classes in this House were a danger to the ratepayers. I have seen it verified in the present instance. I say that the presence of the professional classes in this House is a menace to this House, because on every occasion whenever there is anything to be saddled on the rates, and a new burden to be imposed, the honourable and learned Members are at one. I consider that it is a scandal, and I hope that the ratepayers of Ireland, when they see who has imposed on them this new burden, will see who are their friends and who are not. I oppose the Second Reading of this clause.
§ SIR T. ESMONDE (Kerry, W.)I do not belong to any profession, and possibly on that account I may escape the censures of my honourable Friend, but I think he is acting under a wrong impression. This is absolutely and entirely a permissive clause. The whole thing is in the hands of the boards of guardians; they can put this clause into operation if they choose. If they do not choose, they need not do so, and if they do, they have absolute control in their hands. They have the appointment of the committee; they can appoint a committee either wholly or partially composed of their own members. I think that the matter has been introduced with a view to enabling boards of guardians, if they see fit, to place women upon these boards. I think that is a matter of very great importance, and would be unquestionably for the benefit of the working of this clause. I hope that the House will accept this clause, because it meets a case with which I have been recently made acquainted, and with which I think the Chief Secretary is acquainted. In the north of Ireland a benevolent lady was anxious to endow a cottage hospital, but owing to the regulations of the Irish Local Government Board she was unable to have her wishes carried out. If this clause were inserted in the Bill it would enable benevolent individuals who wish to endow hospitals to assist in this good work.
§ MR. DALY (Monaghan, S.)I think that the argument introduced by the honourable Baronet as being a reason for the acceptance of this clause is scarcely relevant, because at the present time women can be guardians, and if that is so what is the necessity for having them on committees? As far as my opinion goes, the argument of the honourable Baronet is a very weak one indeed. I entirely agree with my honourable Friends the Members for Fermanagh and for Mid Tyrone in opposing this clause. It is not brought forward by the honourable and gallant Baronet at all, it is merely brought forward by the Workhouse Association in Ireland, and this Workhouse Association, to my mind, is composed of 495 faddists. They have made some rules, and are trying to ram down our throats some of the most ridiculous rules that can possibly be imagined. This clause reminds me of a wasp sting in the face. It says—
Subject to the general control of the guardians in respect of all moneys provided out of the rates, the acts of the committee shall not require confirmation by the guardians.The committee is to be appointed, and they can spend the money as they like, no matter how extravagant it is, and they are not to be under the control of the guardians. I do not know whether the honourable and gallant Gentleman has studied this clause. If he has not done so I should advise him to do so. It makes me very suspicious to see the honourable and gallant Member bringing forward a clause of this sort, which is sure to increase taxation in Ireland. There is no question, I think, but what this will increase the rates in Ireland; so that, while the honourable and gallant Baronet and his class are getting out of paying a good deal of the poor rates in Ireland, he must needs bring in a clause that will prove a heavy tax upon the ratepayers in Ireland. As far as I am concerned, I will oppose this clause line by line and word by word. I promise that if the Chief Secretary persists in accepting this clause there is not a word in it that I shall not move an Amendment to, and I think it will take some time to give this clause proper and adequate discussion. If the honourable and gallant Member would introduce this clause into England he would have plenty to do. But, as I say, it is the Irish Workhouse Association that is endeavouring to introduce new proposals with regard to the workhouses in Ireland. I am surprised at the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary accepting this clause. Of course, we know it is permissible, but, as the honourable Member for Mid Tyrone said, not every guardian will be capable of interpreting this new clause, and it will seem to some of them that they must have committees to do their work. Any guardian who takes the responsibility of looking after the interests of the ratepayers should consider it his bounden duty to carry out the work he is elected for, and not to have any deputy whatever. If he is 496 not prepared to do his duty, and to look after the entire work he is elected for, he has no right to seek office. I do not like the idea of guardians having the honour of being guardians and deputing the most important duties of their office to a committee. I hope that the Chief Secretary will reconsider this matter, and that he will not put the House to the trouble of going to a Division upon this clause. Clause 28 tells us that committees have been done away with, and here, in the very worst form, they are attempted to be brought in. I cannot see for the life of me why this should be done. If I thought that the poor people would be treated better by the introduction of this clause I would not mind; but I believe it is for the purpose of taking power out of the hands of the guardians, and for the purposes of dodgery and trickery. It is for these reasons that I feel it my bounden duty, on behalf of the ratepayers of Ireland, to give this clause every opposition I can. In this Bill it has been already accepted that committees are to be done away with, and here is the appointment of committees in the worst form attempted to be introduced at this stage of the Bill, and it seems to me it is particularly ungrateful on the part of the landlord class that they, who are escaping the payment of a great deal of the rates, should bring in a clause which will unquestionably make a great increase in the rates. I shall certainly give this clause every opposition that I can.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)I regret that so many of my honourable Friends are opposing this clause. If it were a mandatory clause I could understand the opposition, but seeing that it is wholly permissive, I do not see where these objections come in. I am sure that my honourable Friend will admit this, that the Government would not have accepted this clause if they had not thought it would have been acceptable to the Irish people and to the Irish Members.
§ MR. FLYNNI express my approval of the conduct of the Government with regard to this clause, and I do not think that the Chief Secretary would accept 497 this clause if it were not acceptable to the Irish Members and the Irish people. I think there might be some modification of the last sub-section, but the guardians control the purse, and the body that controls the purse controls the institution, and there could be no abuses in connection with these institutions. Might I also point out to my honourable Friend this: that there are many deserving poor in Ireland who are very reluctant to enter workhouse hospitals, but it would be quite a different thing to enter district hospitals? The board of management is to be composed of guardians and of some outside people, and I think the remark of the honourable Baronet the Member for Kerry, to the effect that under this clause it would be quite possible for a certain number of the committee to consist of women, would be a very strong recommendation. There is a very strong feeling in Ireland for a more humane treatment of the people, and it is quite possible to reconcile that wish with a desire to have this clause put into operation. I hope my Friends will see their way to accepting this, for it is approved by a majority of the Irish Members and a majority of the Irish people.
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)I sympathise with a great deal of this clause, but I think it is my duty to take exception to that portion which gives the committee power to make appointments off their own bat, without the sanction of the representatives of the people. This Bill is to be a Local Government Bill, giving the people of Ireland the right of managing their own affairs and spending their own money, by means of properly elected representatives; but this clause would set up committees as we had under the old management, who will not be under the control of the elected representatives. For my part I have not the least objection to the phrase "workhouse hospitals" being changed into "district hospitals." But there is no necessity for using the argument that, by having these committees, you will get ladies on them. Anybody who knows the working of our poor law system in Ireland knows that there has not been a single lady in Ireland who has gone forward as a candidate who has been elected. We in Ireland are only too anxious to 498 get ladies to act, and in Ireland the women are quite as well qualified to go forward and act as district councillors; and if upon that qualification a lady is elected, I am quite certain, from what I know of the generosity of the Irish people, that she will be one of the first who will be elected to the committee. If we are going to trust the management and the working of local affairs to the Irish people, why should not those committees be appointed by the elected representatives of the people, and from them only? In my opinion, the fact, that these district councils will be elected will go to show that the officers of the people when they are elected have the confidence of the people, or else they would not be elected, and there is no doubt whatever that they will be required to render an account at the end of their tenure of office, as to what they have done with the money and how they disposed of it, and if they misuse the power which their electors give them, well, then they are purely elected representatives, and can be removed. But there is nothing in this clause to prevent the guardians from electing these committees from non-elected representatives. There is nothing at present to prevent them electing persons who are in no way subject to the control of the elected representatives. What is there to prevent the committee which is not subject to the control of the elected representatives of the people from making a job? I say there is nothing in this clause to prevent jobbery being practised by the committee. And I say that, in my opinion, it is neither right nor just that a committee should be appointed from, people outside the elected representatives, with the power to dismiss an official, without the consent of the elected representatives. With the clause, as a whole, I have a good deal of sympathy, and my principal objection to it is the fact that the committee is not appointed, the whole of it, from the representatives of the people. When the committee is elected, all its actions and its duties, whatever they may be, and everything it does should be subject to the approval and control of the board of guardians, and the committee should have no power whatsoever either to appoint an official or dismiss an official, or to raise the salary of an official, however deserving of an increase 499 in his salary the official may be, without the approval and the consent of the board of guardians who elected them.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)Before this clause is put to the House I should like to ask one or two questions upon it. In the first place, it is not quite clear to my mind what the position of the guardians will be if they do, under this clause, transfer their powers to a committee. If, as I gather from the way in which I read the clause, having transferred their powers to the committee, it is competent for the guardians to reassume them whenever they choose—of course I mean at the end of the period, whatever it is—then I cannot conceive that any objection can be raised to it. Because, if the guardians tried the experiment under those circumstances, with the perfect power to reassume the duties they had so delegated to the committee, and they found that it did not work well, or that the people, as a whole, objected to it, the powers would return to the board of guardians, and that would, in my opinion, remove any objection there may be to the clause. The people might try the experiment, and if they liked the system why should they not have it? If they did not like it, then they could alter it. I have more confidence in the Irish people than to say they should not have a chance of trying the experiment, and if it proved to be a failure, then they could at once put an end to it. There is one other point to which I would like to refer, at the end of the clause. Objection has been taken, and I knew perfectly well it would be, by some of the members of the Irish Party who scrutinise very closely, as it is quite proper they should, everything from the point of view of the possible increase in the cost of local government upon the rates, and I desire to direct the attention of my honourable Friends to the wording of the last subsection. The last sub-section says—
Subject to the general control of the guardians in respect of all moneys provided out of rates, the acts of the committee shall not require confirmation by the guardians.Now, I take that to mean—at least, that is how I read it—that the committee when appointed could not do any act upon their own motion which would add a farthing to the rates, but that their 500 action in such a case must be confirmed by the board of guardians. That is how I read the sub-section—that their actions are subject to the general control of the guardians. I will put this point to illustrate what I mean. It has been urged against this clause that these hospital committees might be guilty of great jobbery, increasing the salaries of officials, and so on. If I read this clause aright, it would not be in the power of the hospital committee to increase any salary or do any act unless that act was confirmed by the board of guardians. Now, if that be so, as I assume it is, and that clause will leave the power with the guardians to reassume their control over the hospitals whenever they think fit—I mean at the end of the year, of course—and if it gives them full control over the committees, then it seems to me that it removes most of the objections which have been raised to the clause.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURClearly the guardians ought to have full power and control over the committee, and if the clause is read a second time my honourable and gallant Friend would agree to the insertion of some words which would give expression to the view. I must say, in respect to the general question, I am rather surprised at the extreme distrust which is shown to the popularly-elected bodies who will be the persons to administer the poor laws under this Act. In the first place, the clause is purely a permissive clause; the board of guardians are not compelled to put it into operation. Had the clause been a compulsory clause, I certainly should not have accepted it, but clearly this is a matter upon which the board of guardians should be left to exercise their own authority. After all, the guardians are ultimately liable, and if they elect these committees in such a manner as this they surely should exercise their own authority. Not only is the clause entirely permissive, but the board of guardians could, if they chose, put the clause into force by means of electing a committee of their entire body. There is certainly nothing in the clause to prevent their doing so, if they do take that course to prevent the addition of any member outside their body.
§ MR. FLAVINThat is what we want to do, but you give them the greater power of bringing in outsiders.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURAnd I should be very sorry to see that power taken away; but the extreme distrust which has been shown by all honourable Members in their arguments is not only a strong argument against this clause, but against the entire Bill.
§ MR. PINKERTON (Galway)I object to this clause as a whole. In the first place, it is a clause which, in my opinion, is introduced to deal with a purely sentimental grievance. It is suggested that poor parishioners might be more inclined to take advantage of the medical attention and nursing which they would receive if the workhouse hospitals were converted into district hospitals; but, in my opinion, "the rose by any other name would smell as sweet," and whether you call it a workhouse or a hospital, I believe very few persons will take advantage of the opportunity of being nursed in these institutions. In the second place, I object to powers being given to outsiders. It is not that there is any feeling of distrust upon these benches. I trust my fellow-countrymen thoroughly and implicitly, but, judging by what has taken place in England, and the untrustworthy character of the boards of guardians here, I should never dream myself of giving them any responsible power to appoint outsiders. I do not think we are casting any slur upon the Irish people by opposing this clause. But what I object to is that from the commencement of this clause to the end there is no provision by which the guardians can interfere with any of the committees during the life of these boards. The board of guardians are to be elected for three years, and we may very naturally assume that a committee nominated by a board of guardians must retain office for a like period, and there is no provision what ever by which we can cut short their existence. The very first act of, these newly constituted boards of guardians elected for three years would be to nominate or appoint these committees, and they will retain office and manage the officers of the union for three years—
§ MR. T. M. HEALYAnd quite right.
§ MR. PINKERTONAnd we cannot interfere. I also object to power being given to guardians to dismiss officers, whether it be the medical or any other officer, at the caprice of the moment. At the present moment I object to the Local Government Board riding roughshod over the electors, and I object to their putting all the officers, whether medical or otherwise, not only under the control of the board of guardians, but under the control of these sub-committees. I have no objection to the boards of guardians being elected from the landlords as well as others. I am not prepared to admit that the landlords of Ireland have escaped scot-free, but I think that half of them, at least, have no desire to be cut off from their homes, and I hope that at least half of them will come forward for election to these boards.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)I confess I think the clause as it stands is almost unworkable. Of course, I understand from the Chief Secretary that he will modify it by Amendments, as far as providing power to revoke the appointments of the committee. But, as I read the clause as it stands at present, if the guardians determined to convert a workhouse hospital into a district hospital, and to appoint a committee, there is no power to revoke once the conversion takes place; it will continue for a second period or longer. That is very objectionable, but it probably may be met by an Amendment. There is another aspect of this case with which I am not satisfied. For my part, I am very apprehensive that it will lead to great extravagance, and cause a burden to fall on the ratepayers, if you allow a board of guardians for any reason to shift the responsibility from their own shoulders; if you allow them to elect outsiders to form the committee of management, those outsiders will not be responsible to the ratepayers, for they are not elected by the ratepayers, they will not have to face the ratepayers, and they will not have the same object as the ordinary elected guardians have, to keep down the expenses. Now, the great object of all Irish Members is to guard against the rates being unduly increased, for they know it is the poor occupying tenant who will have to bear the burden in the 503 future. Therefore, I quite agree with the honourable Member for Kerry that this power of co-opting outsiders should be struck out of the clause altogether. As far as that part of the clause is concerned, I confess I feel so strongly the impropriety of having outsiders elected on those committees that I shall vote against the clause, though I approve of the general principle of it. But there is another point which appears to me utterly unintelligible. What is the meaning of this—
Subject to the general control of the guardians in respect of all moneys provided out of rates, the acts of the committee shall not require confirmation by the guardians.I protest, as a lawyer, that I do not understand what construction can be put upon these words, "general control."
§ Supposing the district committee were to incur expenditure to the extent of £20 or £30, or order goods to that amount, would the guardians be able to repudiate that? I apprehend not. It is quite clear those words have no meaning. They have no analogy in any Act of Parliament I know of. I suppose that the object of the framer of the clause was that the rates should not be expended without control by the guardians; if so, I think it would be more convenient if the clause were withdrawn, re-cast, and brought forward to-morrow in another shape.
§
Question put—
That this clause be read a second time.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 207; Noes 77.—(Division List No. 198.)
505| AYES. | ||
| Aird, John | Colston, C. E. H. Athole | Gunter, Colonel |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hall, Sir Charles |
| Ambrose, R. (Mayo, W.) | Cornwallis, F. Stanley W. | Halsey, Thomas Frederick |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. | Hammond, John (Carlow) |
| Arnold, Alfred | Cox, Robert | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Crean, Eugene | Hardy, Laurence |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Crilly, Daniel | Hare, Thomas Leigh |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Harwood, George |
| Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy | Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Haslett, Sir James Horner |
| Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) | Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) | Healy, T. M. (N. Louth) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dalziel, James Henry | Henderson, Alexander |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r) | Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield- | Hobhouse, Henry |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds) | Dillon, John | Holland, Hon. Lionel R. |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Donelan, Captain A. | Howard, Joseph |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Doogan, P. C. | Howell, William Tudor |
| Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H. Smith- (Hunts) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Drucker, A. | Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice- |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l) | Evans, Sir F. H. (Southt'n) | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Evershed, Sydney | Jenkins, Sir John Jones |
| Bethell, Commander | Fardell, Sir T. George | Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex) |
| Biddulph, Michael | Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward | Kenyon, James |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Bolitho, Thomas Bedford | Field, William (Dublin) | Knowles, Lees |
| Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme | Finch, George H. | Knox, Edmund Francis V. |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne | Lafone, Alfred |
| Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) | Fisher, William Haves | Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks) |
| Brassey, Albert | FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- | Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Flannery, Fortescue | Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H. |
| Bucknill, Thomas Townsend | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs) |
| Carew, James Laurence | Flynn, James Christopher | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a) |
| Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton | Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B. | Loder, G. W. Erskine |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) | Fry, Lewis | Lowe, Francis William |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.) | Garfit, William | Lucas-Shadwell, William |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Macaleese, Daniel |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Macartney, W. G. Ellison |
| Chelsea, Viscount | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. | Maclure, Sir John William |
| Coddington, Sir William | Goulding, Edward Alfred | MacNeill, John Gordon S. |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs) | McCalmont, Maj-Gn. (Ant'm N.) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Gull, Sir Cameron | McCartan, Michael |
| M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) | Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| McKillop, James | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) |
| Mandeville, J. Francis | Purvis, Robert | Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Redmond, J. E. (Waterford) | Thorburn, Walter |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Renshaw, Charles Bine | Walrond, Sir William Hood |
| Milward, Colonel Victor | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) | Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe) |
| Monk, Charles James | Robson, William Snowdon | Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent) |
| Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Waring, Col. Thomas |
| More, Robert Jasper | Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm) | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras) |
| Morris, Samuel | Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. |
| Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Saunderson, Col. E. J. | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.) |
| Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Murray, C. J. (Coventry) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Williams, J. Powell (Birm.) |
| Myers, William Henry | Seely, Charles Hilton | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Newark, Viscount | Seton-Karr, Henry | Wilson, J. W. (Worc'r, N.) |
| Newdigate, Francis Alex. | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Nicol, Donald Ninian | Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart- |
| O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork) | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Wyndham, George |
| O'Brien, P. (Kilkenny) | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H. |
| O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) | Smith, A. H. (Christchurch) | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) | Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Stanley, Lord (Lancs) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Pease, A. E. (Cleveland) | Stanley, E. J. (Somerset) | |
| Pease, Arthur (Darlington) | Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir John Colomb and Mr.Clancy. |
| Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart | |
| Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. L. | Stock, James Henry | |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Sturt, Hon. Humphry N. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme) | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. | Price, Robert John |
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Holburn, J. G. | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Bainbridge, Emerson | Horniman, Frederick John | Richardson, J. (Durham) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Hutton, A. E. (Morley) | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Jacoby, James Alfred | Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Billson, Alfred | Johnson-Ferguson, J. E. | Robertson, H. (Hackney) |
| Brigg, John | Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) | Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Kitson, Sir James | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) | Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Caldwell, James | Lewis, John Herbert | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow) | Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cameron, Robert (Durham) | Lyell, Sir Leonard | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | McDermott, Patrick | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Carmichael, Sir T. D. G. | McEwan, William | Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | McKenna, Reginald | Wallace, R. (Edinburgh) |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Maddison, Fred. | Wallace, Robert (Perth) |
| Colville, John | Maden, John Henry | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Crombie, John William | Molloy, Bernard Charles | Warner, Thomas C. T. |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) | Wayman, Thomas |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose) | Wilson, Charles H. (Hull) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Murnaghan, George | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Gilhooly, James | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Kelly, James | |
| Gold, Charles | Palmer, Sir Charles M. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Jordan and Mr. Daly. |
| Grey, Sir E. (Berwick) | Perks, Robert William | |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- | Pinkerton, John |
Resolutions agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed clause—
Line 4, to leave out from the word 'hospital' to the end of the clause."—(Mr. Daly.)
§ MR. DALYI wish to move an Amendment with regard to subsection (a) of this clause by proposing to 506 leave out the word "and" after "the conversion of workhouse hospitals into district hospitals." I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to that part of the clause, and I think it will be a great improvement to have those words in the clause; but as I have heard that the olive branch is going to be held out by the other side with 507 regard to the following part of the clause I should like to know what improvements or Amendments the Government are going to accept from the honourable and gallant Gentleman who has moved this clause, for, to my mind, the whole danger of this clause is in the part immediately following the word "and," which I propose to leave out. I have not the least objection to the conversion of workhouse hospitals into district hospitals for the future, but I think the honourable and gallant Gentleman, when he gets up to reply, and I suppose he will be entitled to reply, will tell us what he proposes to do, although, of course, when he has the Government at his back, he can, I daresay, defy any opposition. But at the same time, if the Government persist in carrying through the whole clause, it will be a vicious clause, and, as I stated at the outset, there is scarcely a line of it that must not be discussed and fought. I hope, therefore, that the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to make some arrangement with the honourable and gallant Gentleman in charge of the clause for some modification of it, so as to prevent any future contention over it. I have great pleasure in moving this Amendment.
§ MR. JORDANI think this Amendment is a very proper Amendment. In view of the title of the clause, which is the "establishment of district hospitals," I have no objection to having workhouse hospitals called district hospitals in future. If they choose to call workhouse hospitals by another name let them do so, although the honourable and gallant Member did not seem to give any good reason for the change. But, as I think, that is a very innocent proceeding, Let them change the name if they do not wish to call them workhouse hospitals, but if you do that do not proceed to do what is contemplated by the further part of the clause, which was drawn up by a lot of adventurers, who wanted to increase their own influence by conferring those powers upon people other than the guardians, and removing these hospitals from under the jurisdiction of the guardians. I have no objection whatever to their calling workhouse hospitals district hospitals. I must support this Amendment.
§ SIR J. COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)Of course, I am willing to meet, in any way I can, any objection to this clause, but I would paint out that this Amendment to leave out one word is a very small matter, and I hope the honourable Member who has moved it will not press it, as I am perfectly prepared to deal with two other points in the clause. I may not be in order in mentioning them now, but perhaps it might simplify matters if I were to say that in subsection (b) I shall propose to leave out after "governors" the words "appointed by the guardians, consisting wholly or partly of members of their own body," and to insert instead "of whom at least two-thirds shall be members of the board"; and then at the end of the clause I propose to put in words which shall give power to the guardians to revoke or dissolve this committee. I. hope that in view of these Amendments the honourable Member will not press his proposal.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)The honourable Member can, of course, withdraw his Amendment by leave of the House, but the effect of his Amendment being withdrawn will be to affirm the rest, of the clause by leaving only the question that the clause stand part of the Bill, so that if the Government wish to introduce any other Amendments they will have to do so in a more elevated sphere.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I am informed by the Clerk at the Table that notice has been handed in of Amendments which will come in immediately before I put the question of the whole clause.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYOf course, Sir, I do not wish to prevent other Amendments being moved, but what I was going to say to the Government was that the opposition already offered to this clause ought to act as a warning to them to make Amendments later on. There is a great objection, apart from the mere question of taxation for infirmaries, to providing not only a poor rate but a rich rate, such as is involved in the extension of these infirmary powers. We have gone 509 very far indeed in the case of county Tyrone, in providing for the erection of new institutions that will be supported really at the cost of the taxpayers, and will probably involve the appointment of a good many new officers, and possibly the superannuation of those gentlemen in a way that is not now provided for. I therefore trust that the Government will exercise great caution in providing for the case of infirmaries when we come to that clause, after the manner in which this proposal has been met. If the ratepayers and their representatives are not to be entrusted with these powers, this Act has no right to be on the Statute Book at all, and if anything is to be said against the capacity or integrity of that body I think it should proceed from other quarters than these benches.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR R. FITZGERALD (Cambridge)The Amendment I have ventured to put down is to this effect—
In line 4, after 'and' to insert 'may take over existing or make provision for future small local hospitals in populous districts and villages.'I am old enough to remember the cholera attacks in Ireland, and in a great many districts there were small local hospitals which were supported in those bad times, some of which have been more or less kept up and maintained up to the present time. But during the past few years, when there has been no violent epidemic, these small local hospitals have had nobody to take care of them, and many of them have got out of repair. I think that where it is possible it is desirable that they should be kept up. It would not require any great expense. In the past they were managed at times of epidemics by a local committee appointed by the dispensary committee of the district, and I do not think these small local hospitals will cause any great additional expense; and of this I am certain, that they are an enormous advantage to the poor. I look forward to the future possibility of having dispensaries where medicines may be given out to the poor, instead of the poor having, as they very often do now, the trouble of going 12 and sometimes 15 miles to the nearest dispensary. These small local hospitals 510 would cost very little, and I hope the effect of this Amendment will be the establishment of sub-dispensaries, in order that we may bring closer to the doors of the poor the medicines which they now have to travel many miles for.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURMr. Speaker, I should like your ruling on this Amendment. I should hardly think it is in order, seeing that under it local hospitals would be taken over which are not at present contributed to from the rates.
§ MR SPEAKERI understand the right honourable Gentleman to mean that a further expenditure of the rates would be caused?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURYes.
§ MR. SPEAKERIn that case, the objection to the Amendment is valid.
§
Another Amendment proposed—
Line 5, leave out sub-section (b) of the proposed clause."—(Mr. Pinkerton.)
§ MR. PINKERTONI beg to move the omission of sub-section 2 (b)—namely—
The transfer of the duties and powers of the guardians as regards such hospitals, and the administrative control thereof to a committee of hospital governors, appointed by the guardians, consisting wholly or partly of members of their own body.I base my reasons for moving this Amendment on the action of the governors in Antrim, my native county, where we have an example of what can be done by incompetent governors. We are building a large asylum in that county, under control of governors elected from the grand jury, and the way in which the work has been supervised by the responsible authorities may be deduced from the fact that they have omitted the important provision of a water supply; they have built rooms without doors; and they are building wings this week and pulling them down the next—indeed, they are plucking every feather out of the wings of the county asylum. My honourable Friends are anxious to give a fair share of the representation to ex-officios, but we protest strongly against such men being appointed in preponderating numbers.
§ SIR J. COLOMBI hope the honourable Member will not press the Amendment. I am perfectly prepared to meet the views of honourable Members providing that two-thirds of the committee shall be appointed by the board of guardians.
§ MR. PINKERTONAfter that undertaking on the part of the honourable and gallant Member, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR J. COLOMBI beg to move to insert at the end of the clause the following words—
The guardians shall have power to dissolve the committee at any time on giving six months' notice, but such dissolution shall not invalidate any act done by the committee before the dissolution.
§ MR. MURNAGHAN (Tyrone, Mid)It seems to me that it would be much better to have a time limit of a year. I fear the proposal of the honourable Baronet would prove unworkable, and I therefore beg to suggest that the words "a limit of one year" be inserted in the Amendment.
§ MR. DILLONI think the proposal of the honourable and gallant Baronet goes far enough.
§
Proposed clause amended—
Line 8, by leaving out the words 'consisting wholly or partly of members of their own body,' and inserting the words 'of whom two-thirds at least shall be members of the board,' and by adding at the end thereof the words 'the guardians shall have power to dissolve the committee at any time on giving six months' notice of their intention so to do, but such dissolution shall not invalidate any act done by the committee before dissolution.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)
§ Clause, as amended, added.
§
Another clause—
Disposal of agricultural grant in case of extension of urban district."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI beg to move to insert the following clause—
Where, by virtue of an order respecting the constitution of an urban county district, 512 whether by the constitution of a new, or the extension of the boundaries of an old urban county district, any agricultural land in a rural district becomes included within the boundaries of the said urban district, such portion of the agricultural grant payable to the council of the county comprising the district as is proportionate to the rateable value in the standard financial year of that agricultural land, shall be applied by the county council in manner directed by the said order for the relief of the said land from rates, whether by the payment thereof to the council of the urban district, in exchange for an adequate exemption from rates or otherwise. This section shall apply to a county borough in like manner as to an urban county district, but in that case the said portion of the agricultural grant shall be paid direct to the council of the county borough, instead of to the council of the county at large.When the Bill was in Committee, I was strongly urged to alter the definition of "agricultural land," so as to include agricultural land in towns. I did not at the time hold out any hope that I should be able to accede to the suggestion, but I did promise that before the Report stage I would consider the whole matter afresh. Well, Sir, I have most carefully considered it, and the conclusion I have arrived at is that we must adhere to the definition of agricultural land which we adopted in the first instance. I have, however, made one or two changes which, I think, to some extent, meet the objections that have been raised. In the first place, Sir, I have put down an Amendment somewhat later for discussion which I will only incidentally mention here, giving power to certain towns of under 5,000 population to disurbanise themselves by easy process. If they take advantage of that power before six months after the passing of the Bill, all the agricultural land in the town will have the same privilege as the agricultural land outside the town. The second Amendment which I now propose in the form of a clause, is framed in order to meet one of the arguments against the definition of "agricultural land." It is to the effect that it renders it difficult, if not impossible, to provide for cases in which there is an expansion of urban boundaries. I agree that there is some force in the argument, and, accordingly, instead of transferring in such cases the amount of the grant in respect of land so included in an urban boundary to the local taxation account, I now propose by this new clause that the amount of the 513 agricultural grant shall be used for the purpose of continuing land so included. The special method of doing this I propose to leave to the order constituting the urban district; but it is suggested in the clause, and I imagine it to be the most convenient way of accomplishing what we desire, that the amount of the agricultural grant in respect of such land shall be transferred to the urban authority in exchange for an exemption given by them for the rates. This, I think, will entirely overcome any difficulty which our original proposal threw in the way of the constitution of the urban district, or the inclusion of land, hitherto in the rural district, in the boundaries of an urban district.
§ MR. DILLONI think, Sir, this clause introduces some very extraordinary fresh anomalies and complications. It is placed upon the Paper in substitution for subsection 5 of clause 43, which, I observe, the right honourable Gentleman has given notice to omit. Sub-section 5, of clause 43, is as follows—
Where, by virtue of any order respecting the constitution of an urban district, any agricultural land in a rural district becomes included within the boundaries of that urban district, the sum payable out of the agricultural grant, in respect of union and district charges raised on such district, shall be reduced by a sum proportionate to the rebate value in the standard financial year of that agricultural land, and the amount of such reduction shall be accumulated in the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, and be applied in such manner as Parliament directs; but the amount of agricultural land payable to the council of the county, in respect of county-at-large charges, shall not be diminished.When we were considering this matter in the Committee stage, we took exception not only to sub-section 5 of clause 43, but even still more to the provision at the end of sub-section 4 of clause 42. Sub-section 4 of clause 42 reads as follows—The provisions of this Act with respect to agricultural land shall extend to every hereditament entered as land in the valuation list, within the meaning of the Valuation Acts, which is not part of a railway or canal, but shall not extend to any hereditament situate within the boundary of any borough or of any town which is (for the time being) an urban sanitary district. And then it is provided by another sub-section that any district made an urban sanitary district within a certain period 514 after the passing of this Act, shall be deemed for the purposes of the Act to have been an urban sanitary district at the date of the passing of the Act. Therefore the effect of these provisions is that any district, being an urban sanitary district, at a certain period after the passing of this Act, shall lose the agricultural grant.Now, Sir, I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman what is the meaning of the words at the end of subsection 4 of clause 42? Is no agricultural grant to be given to Ireland at all in respect of land inside an urban sanitary district? Is there any doubt as to the position of urban sanitary districts to be created, after the passing of the Act, by an order?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIt is proposed that the money shall be retained for the benefit of the land which is transferred to an urban district. An order will fix the manner in which the amount will be employed for the benefit of such agricultural land.
§ MR. DILLONI wish to have the matter cleared up beyond all doubt before I attempt to examine the effect of the new clause. Well, now, Sir, we have had it from the Chief Secretary that the Bill, as it now stands, gives no agricultural grant whatever to Ireland in respect of any land now within the boundaries of an urban district, but in regard to land which may be hereafter brought within the borough boundaries of existing urban districts, or which may form a part of a newly-created urban district, the agricultural grant will be given in the ordinary way in respect of such land. Now, Sir, we have not heard from the Chief Secretary a single reason why agricultural land should not be given to lands now within urban districts. Let as consider the effect of the new clause. Let us suppose an urban sanitary district has within its boundaries 500 acres of agricultural land. The boundaries of that urban sanitary district are in the course of the year extended, and in the course of that extension more agricultural land is taken in. The agricultural grant is drawn in connection with the agricultural land taken in by the extension, but in respect of agricultural land which was previously within the boundaries, the 515 grant for some inscrutable reason is not to be given in any shape or form. What is the ground for that distinction? I think we are entitled to know. The Chief Secretary has said that there is some great difficulty in the way of giving the agricultural grant in respect of agricultural land which is now within the boundary of urban sanitary districts. When the question was considered at an earlier stage it will be within the recollection of honourable Members that the Chief Secretary gave us a Return, from which I gather that the amount in question is £8,000 a year.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURLess than £8,000; I put it at about £5,000.
§ MR. DILLONI think it would affect the figures to an extremely small extent. I feel convinced that, at all events, we should not be far off the mark if we put the figure at, at least, £7,000. This question cuts both ways. Why should these lands be denied this relief when, as every Member may be aware of the fact that when the English Bill was under discussion we fought for three hours in favour of exempting from the English Rating Relief Act land similar to this within the boundary of London itself, and the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that he had arrived at the conclusion that the grossest injustice would be perpetrated if they were denied this relief. We instanced the case of market gardens, where £6, £7, £8, and £9 a year was paid per acre. The Government, however, said, "No, we must give relief to all the land within the urban sanitary districts of England." Now, why are you going to do this for the sake of a miserable sum of £7,000 or £8,000 a year in Ireland? The right honourable Gentleman says it is only £5,000, but although that is a very small thing to the British Treasury, it is a very considerable thing to some of the poor owners and occupiers. Why introduce this distinction in Ireland? Not one single argument has been put forward in favour of this change. I contend that this knocks the bottom out of this clause, because, if the agricultural grant in future is to be given to the urban sanitary authorities, which may extend their boundaries in respect of agricultural 516 land newly taken, how can you defend this proposition? Take, for instance, the case of Dublin. In a very short period of time the boundaries of Dublin will be extended, and to say that these unfortunate owners of land will got no relief from the grant is absurd; but you take five or six hundred acres, and they are to get all the agricultural grant for no conceivable reason except because in this particular regard the British Treasury thinks it can save itself £5,000 or £6,000 a year. Now, Sir, I maintain that the case for giving agricultural relief to agricultural land now within the urban, boundary of urban sanitary districts is tenfold stronger in Ireland than it is in the case of England. In the case of England there was a strong case to be made out against it, for they were large, prosperous cities, where the land in the vicinity had not shared in the general agricultural depression. They did a certain amount of business, and if the thing had been inquired into the value of the articles sold in the districts surrounding English towns would be found not to have decreased; and then there was not the same strong case with regard to agricultural relief. Now, those considerations did not apply in Ireland at all, except in Belfast, Dublin, and two or three other large cities. In the vast majority of urban sanitary districts in Ireland the agricultural land closes up to the very houses in the towns, and is agricultural land in the fullest sense of the word. They have suffered very much from agricultural depression, and in most of these towns the inhabitants look for profit from their land, and some of this land is occupied, in many cases, by bonâ fide farmers trying to make a living out of farming. I say, therefore, that it is inconceivable that in a large question like this, where only some £7,000 or £8,000 a year is concerned, it is a pity this distinction should be drawn, which does an injustice to the occupiers of certain lands. If the right honourable Gentleman chooses to give the landlords this very small sum we do not ask for it, but I do say that he has no right for a single moment to put it forward as a justification for denying to the occupiers of land and the owners in districts around urban districts the relief which they have every right to receive. I received a 517 letter the other day from a body of tenants who had bought their land and were urban district holders of land. They were, therefore, in the position that if this Act passes they belong to a few who would not get the full measure of relief. They held a meeting the other day, and passed a resolution against this proposal that they should be denied the same relief in taxation that their neighbours across the way would get on precisely the same land.
§ MR. ATKINSONI assure the honourable Member that it is not for the sake of saving £7,000 or £5,000 a year to the Treasury that the method chosen in this Bill has been adopted. We have taken the most advantageous definition to Ireland for many reasons, and if that definition was once taken it was necessary that it should be applied all round. We must either take the English definition where land in towns would be included, with the necessity that there might be a survey over the whole of Ireland, and that the relief would not be given for some time, or we should take the specific definition of land taken from the valuation lists. That is the reason why this definition, this simple definition, was taken, and it is quite obvious that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a simple definition dealing with land on the valuation lists, and applying outside with an increase probably on agricultural land, and as soon as you come to the towns abandon the English definition. The Irish definition is applicable, because there has been no survey in towns with regard to it, and the result is based upon the valuation lists in towns which could not in any sense be brought within the definition of agricultural land in Ireland. No distinction has been made in ordinary kitchen gardens in many instances and agricultural land, so that to give a grant to land in urban districts you must have a revaluation. There seems to be an absolute delusion among the holders of urban land as to the benefits they would receive if they were included in the Bill, because when land is taken in as a rule it only pays one-fourth of the county cess. The county cess in this case is sunk in the urban rates, and it only pays a quarter of the county cess in any case. There 518 is another difficulty—the great similarity between the different towns, and the system of differentiation which exists between them. In the more general cases the land is relieved of three-fourths of the county cess. Now, what does this mean? It means that the landlord gets the entire poor rate, but the tenant only gets one-eighth of the county cess. I give this simple instance: supposing that the ordinary county cess were 2s. in the £ in the towns, the occupier of land would only pay 6d.; all that he would get on our system would be 3d., but if you had the English system he would get nothing at all, because under the English Bill land gets nothing in respect of any tax of which they do not pay the whole. If land is relieved by a system of differentiation of the whole of any tax, then there is no contribution of the agricultural grant in reference to that. Take the English definition, and the landlord will get everything; take the Irish definition, and the occupier will only get a quarter or an eighth. It is the owner and occupier, and not the county council or the rural district council, that benefits from the agricultural grant. It comes directly to the owner and occupier. It may be assessed as agricultural land altogether in a year, and the result will be as I have indicated—that if it happened to be agricultural land in 1896, although it was covered with buildings before 1902—
§ MR. DILLONThat is the very argument we use.
§ MR. ATKINSONI can only say it was the only proper arrangement. I can assure honourable Members that my right honourable Friend and myself have spent hundreds of hours over this question, and we have failed to devise a satisfactory system. But this Amendment is directed to an entirely different purpose; it is to meet the objection put forward by the honourable Member for the city of Cork, who said that if agricultural land was taken into a town, and were to lose the benefit of the agricultural grant, then no town could expand, and urban districts could not become towns. It was to meet that objection that we brought forward this Amendment, and therefore we hope it will be passed.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYSir, I quite agree with the right honourable Gentleman that this clause, as far as it goes, is a good one, but the objection of the honourable Member for East Mayo was that it does not go far enough. I will briefly take leave to refer to what the right honourable Gentleman said. He has made one important admission, and I hope it will be taken up by honourable Gentlemen on the opposite side. With reference to the important statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Financial Relations Debate, when he invited the Chief Secretary to apply to him whenever he wanted anything for Ireland. The right honourable Gentleman has said that the difficulty is not one of money, but of drafting, and, therefore, as far as the principle of the clause is concerned, I regard his admission as important—that it is not the aid of the Treasury he wants, but the aid of a draftsman. There is no need, on our part, to force the open door; we have not to deal with the question of principle; we have only to deal with the question of means. There is an old and a true saying, "Where there's a will there's a way," and if the right honourable Gentleman is prepared to admit that he is willing to give us £5,000, or £6,000, then we will use our best endeavours to bring up some Amendment to the clause, which, I hope, at all events, will show our intentions. Accordingly, when the right honourable Gentleman admits that this is not a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, we have only to consider the question of how it is to be done, and this clause, I think, I could bring into shape by altering one or two words. The position the right honourable Gentleman has taken is this: the English Act has not got this clause, and we were bound to give you the proposed clause or the English one. I do not think that was an accurate statement. In some respects the English clause would be bad for Ireland, and in others good. I quite grant that the English proviso is inferior to ours, but it is superior on this very point, and to tell me that you must have this, or the clause in the Bill, is to lay 520 down that no other form of words could be got to carry out what the Irish Members desire. This clause does meet the point as to the extension of boundaries but is there anything to prevent us going further? Is there anything to prevent you enacting that the owners of agricultural land within a town can get the benefit? The Irish Secretary has pointed out that in townships like Bray, where there is a proviso that agricultural lands are subject to differential rating, they will not get the entire benefits with respect to county cess. Therefore, what we are seeking comes to be a very small matter indeed. Towns in the Attorney General's own constituency are the very best example; they would be excluded altogether from the benefits of this Bill.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! It is not in order to Debate that very large question on this clause.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThank you, Mr. Speaker. What I would suggest, then, is, this: let us allow this clause to pass in its present form, and then, when we come to clause 43, let us renew the arguments which might otherwise be delivered on this clause.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)It seems to me that the Attorney General has proved too much in this matter. If it really would be no advantage, surely there can be no reason for putting the Amendment on the Paper. I quite understand the suggestion of the Attorney General that, from the administrative point of view, it would be impossible to extend city boundaries, but, though that may be a weighty argument, it is not one likely to satisfy several of us. Unless I am very much mistaken, there is a very strong feeling with regard to the case of those in the neighbourhood of Belfast who are engaged in agricultural gardening. Under this Bill, market gardeners are excluded from the benefits of agricultural grants, but they are not excluded if outside the borough boundary. Money is given to the authorities on the 521 expressed undertaking that they give a corresponding reduction of rates to the tenants, and therefore you would have an anomaly which would be a serious inconvenience to those carrying on their business as market gardeners. There is one other point to which I wish to draw attention. The allocation of the grant is taken by the whole of the agricultural land in Ireland, when a portion relating to urban districts inside the boundaries should, I think, be allocated to a separate account.
§ MR. DILLONThere is no allocation in respect of agricultural land.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI think there is a good deal to be said in favour of the suggestion of the honourable Member for Louth.
§ MR. ATKINSONIt is impossible to differentiate between the two classes of land as suggested, and I trust the honourable Member for Louth will not press his proposal now. It is a matter of considerable difficulty.
§ MR. PINKERTONI really think, Sir, that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is acting unwisely in regard to this proposition. I think a verbal alteration to the subsection of the clause, to read, "other than agricultural land," would meet the objection now raised. So far as the Amendment is concerned, instead of there being an expansion of the town boundaries, I think we are prepared to accept the suggestion that it should act on land in urban districts.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The question cannot be argued thus on the Report stage.
§ MR. PINKERTONI bow to your ruling, Sir. I have no personal interest in the matter. All I would endeavour to do is to spread the butter a little thinner on the bread in order to include the land in the urban districts. I know that there is no chance, in spite of what has been said about generosity to Ireland, of ringing in the English shilling; but there might be an addition to the sum already granted. I am in favour, Sir, of the urban districts getting fair play.
§ The clause was read a second time, and added to the Bill.
522
§
Another clause—
Page 32, after clause 51, insert the following clause—
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIn putting down this clause, Sir, I would observe that the honourable Member for Louth undertook to see whether or no a clause could be devised which would make the valuation in Ireland such as to render it possible for a county borough to have a re-valuation without causing injustice to the surrounding districts. We are proposing here that any county borough applying to have a re-valuation made can do so; but, as regards the total amount of poor rate to be levied upon the union in which the county borough is comprised, it should be divided between the borough and the outlying districts, the same as before, subject to the condition that the re-valuation may be for a term of years. If that arrangement will satisfy the honourable Member for Louth I think it will enable a re-valuation 523 to be made for a county borough without involving any injustice to the other districts as a general re-valuation.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYSir, I am not disposed to look a gift horse in the mouth.
§ MR. CLANCYIn regard to this revaluation, Sir, I have to say that it is not easy to understand how a re-valuation in the past has occasionally taken place, with the result that the value of private property has been raised, while the value of Government buildings has remained absolutely stationary. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not countenance valuations of that kind in the future.
§ The clause was read a second time, and added to the Bill.
§
Another clause—
Page 37, after clause 59, insert the following clause—
§ MR. PLUNKETTI should like to be enlightened as to the effect of this clause as regards the urban councils, who only want an occasional performance, in view of the fact that the county councils only meet every three months.
§ MR. CLANCYI accept the clause, Sir, as carrying out what I wish to see accomplished.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIt is perfectly well known that if you want a stage for a charity performance you can readily get leave from the county council. As far as I can see, the Amendment proposed by the honourable Member for South Dublin is unnecessary.
MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)I beg to support the Amendment, Sir, and I do not think there need be any long discussion on the matter.
§ The clause was read a second time.
§
Amendment proposed—
Line 5 of the proposed clause, after the words 'county of Dublin,' to insert the words 'or the urban district of the county of Dublin.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§
Another clause—
The council of any administrative county may recommend the editing, translating, printing, or publishing any manuscripts relating to the county, and thereupon it shall be lawful for the Royal Irish Academy to undertake the same, and the expenses thereof may be defrayed out of the Irish Church Fund under rules to be made by the Treasury."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ MR. T. M. HEALYSir, I admit that the clause, in the form in which I have now drawn it, is not quite as I should have wished; but I have only drawn it in this way in order to meet the exigencies of the rules of this House, which are more a trouble to me the longer I live. When the Ordnance survey started, the Government began a series of the most valuable publications which by any possibility could have appeared, in any country; and. I think, if you want to get an instance of the meanness of the British Government in dealing with Ireland, this volume which I hold in my hands is an exact proof of that meanness. This volume represents the one publication of the British Government in connection with the Ordnance survey of Ireland. It is probably the most valuable book ever published for our country. Sir, it deals with the county of Derry alone. Not only was it not continued for the other 31 counties of Ireland, but it in headed "Volume the First," and then there is a note in the handwriting of the Librarian of the House of Commons, "No other volume published." The British Government being confronted with the expense of printing the Ordnance survey 525 materials of the little county of Derry, actually never carried their generosity to publishing the second volume. That, Mr. Speaker, was in the year 1837. Sixty-one years have passed away, and the second volume of the Ordnance survey of the county has not been published; and, at the present moment, if you want to pick up a copy of this, you buy it on a bookstall in Dublin for about two pounds, and if you come over to London you can buy it for 1s. 6d. Let anyone who has an interest in the history of his country take up the volume of the county of Derry; it contains everything regarding the history, flora, geology, imports, and exports prevailing at that time, 61 years ago, which any native of the county would desire to have known. There is in existence in the Royal Irish Academy at this moment the materials for 100 volumes like this, all in manuscript, all in a book-case—and a match, or an accident, a fire, would put an end to archives which, once destroyed, could never be replaced. Of the labours of John Donovan, and of the English gentlemen who were brought over to make the Ordnance survey, and of a number of great men whose knowledge has died with them, and the materials for whose knowledge have to a large extent passed away, we have the remains, at all events, in manuscript in the Royal Irish Academy, and my proposal is that, as the British Government for 61 years have neglected to publish even the second volume connected with the county of Derry, that, at all events, if now, under different conditions, a county council should desire to have something of the geology, the botany, the history, the commerce, of their county, as collected by the Ordnance survey at that time, that they should be permitted, under the conditions I have suggested, to do so. And observe this, Mr. Speaker, this Amendment has this great advantage, that it casts no charge upon the British ratepayer. We are asking for no money from Government. We are only asking for the right to spend our own money. The two safeguards imposed are these: first, it must be a work dealing with the county; and, secondly, it must be a recommendation of the county council. 526 And I have imposed the additional safeguards that the Royal Irish Academy and the British Treasury must concur before anything can be done. This is not the first time I have raised this question. I have raised it many times. I have raised it in Debate, and I am glad to think I had the support of some gentlemen connected even with Her Majesty's Administration itself. The Amendment, I think, is a reasonable one. What objection there may be to it I cannot conceive. I would have preferred to have made it in another form; I would have preferred that the county council should have provided the money out of the rates. On the whole, Sir, I do trust the Government may now permit this clause to be added to the Bill. Unlike their proposals about bicycles, it does not raise any rancour. We near a great deal about education in Ireland. Sir, this clause, if carried, will do something to raise the education, not only of the children, but of people of mature years, and will probably also do something to raise the standard of education of Her Majesty's Ministers.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURSir, it may be very desirable that some of these manuscripts referred to in the clause referred to should be published. I make no comment on that; but I am afraid I cannot on behalf of the Government accept this clause. The Amendment, in the form to which it has been changed to bring it in order, seems to add one serious objection to the clause. But, Sir, apart from the objection, I think if this clause were passed we should be allowing the county council to determine that certain expenditure should be undertaken which is not being paid out of the rates raised by them. I hardly think the county council is the body which should be entrusted with the question of whether these manuscripts should be printed or not. I do not think it would be in accordance with practice that the county council, which is, after all, an administrative body, should be entitled to judge with regard to these manuscripts.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLI interpose to urge upon the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary if it would 527 be possible to accept this clause. It may be that some other body would be more competent than the county council to have these valuable manuscripts printed, but, in the absence of anyone else, the Government not coming forward to do so, and not announcing any intention of doing so, I think it very desirable to have this clause, which would empower the county council under certain circumstances to select those ancient documents which might throw light upon the history of the country and save them from oblivion. They are of a most valuable character, and, as pointed out by the honourable Member for North Louth, a fire might destroy them, and there would be no possible means of replacing any of these old manuscripts. I think the objection of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary is of a most technical character. If he admits that there are valuable documents, the cost of publishing them would not be considerable. There is still a large sum remaining of the Irish Church Fund under the Church Disestablishment Act, and no purpose to which it could be devoted is of a higher nature or character than this. I do trust the right honourable Gentleman will reconsider the position, and either accept this clause or take measures to have some of the manuscripts printed.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXThe Corporation of the City of London, though it has many bad points, has done a great deal of good work in publishing its ancient manuscripts, and the Corporation of Dublin has not been behindhand, because it has been publishing its White Books, edited by Sir John Gilbert. I believe the fact is that up to now it has been considered to be within the powers of certain corporations to undertake work of this kind. I question whether they would be able to do so in Ireland if this Bill passes, because they would be obliged to submit to a new system of audit, and, according to the auditor, the common law power of a corporation is a thing to be cut down as much as possible. The probable effect of this Bill will be to take away from certain old corporations the power which they now possess to publish ancient manuscripts which ought to be pub- 528 lished. The fact is that there is a vast amount of this sort of material that it is the interest of the nation should be published. My honourable and learned Friend has really understated the case about the volume which was published and prepared by the ordnance survey authorities. It was really only for one parish. The Government never got forward. After they had published one volume about one parish, the resources of the Treasury apparently were exhausted. Why, there was recently a new territory discovered in Africa by Mr. Rhodes, which was called by his name; and Mr. Rhodes sent a gentleman to examine its manuscripts, and had them published at his expense. But we find the administrative authorities in Ireland, whether they like it or not, are not to be allowed to contribute anything towards this. In England a good many local authorities are having their manuscripts published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission. But, so far as I know, in no case have the manuscripts of any Irish borough been dealt with by the Historical Manuscripts Commission. It is an English Commission, and, naturally, they deal rather with English material. I know they take a very strong view of their duty. In my own case—I edited some documents that came to my hand, and no question was raised as to the historical accuracy—I was told that the Historical Manuscripts Commission made it an absolute rule not to publish any matter which had not been edited by one of their own officers. Consequently, we shall wait a long time before the manuscripts of the Irish boroughs are dealt with by the Historical Manuscript Commission. I hope that if the Government do not see their way to the Amendment of my honourable and learned Friend, they will consent to publish, at the expense of the Treasury, that valuable material which has been accumulating for years, now kept by the Royal Irish Academy, and which ought to be published without further delay. A great deal of this material would require revision before it could be published, but a large part of it would still be of as much value as at the time when it was collected. A considerable portion of it is of a kind that could not now be 529 collected, as it was collected at a time when the districts were Irish-speaking, and when there was much available material to be had from the lips of the people themselves. I venture, therefore, to press this matter upon the Chief Secretary, and I hope that when the pressure of the detail business of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill is over, he will consider the question of the publication of these manuscripts, and confer with the Treasury upon the subject.
§ SIR T. ESMONDEThe honourable and learned Member for Louth has, in my opinion, done a very great public service in drawing attention to this matter. This is really one of the greatest of our grievances in Ireland. There is hardly another country where vandalism has such absolute free play and free scope as in Ireland, owing to the fact that the people there knew nothing whatever of the history of the country. We know nothing whatever of the local history of Ireland, and very little of the general history. On this particular point the Government now have an opportunity of meeting the wishes of Irish people of all sections and all classes, without imposing any charge on the British Treasury. I hope the Chief Secretary will reconsider his decision in this matter, which is one as to which the Irish people feel most keenly. One reason which the right honourable Gentleman gave—it was, perhaps, the only reason—for refusing to accept the clause proposed by the honourable and learned Member for Louth was that the county councils of Ireland were not the proper bodies to decide what historical manuscripts and documents ought to be published in this way. If the Irish county councils do not know what matters are of importance to their localities, and what historical matters are of local interest, I wonder what other bodies are better able to decide that point. I should have thought that people who live in the country, people who know something of the legends and of the traditions of the country, people who were brought up and nurtured in the locality—that they would best know what is likely to interest the locality, and what ought to be preserved. In Ireland 530 we have maps of every Irish barony and every Irish parish made in 1652 to 1656, during the confiscations of the Commonwealth, by Sir William Petty and his associates of the Down Survey. These maps are the foundation of the ordnance survey maps. We know that these priceless manuscripts were once nearly burned; some of them now show marks of the fire which nearly destroyed them. Why should not each Irish county have the maps of that county reproduced? I only give that as one illustration. There was an unfortunate fire in Dublin in the last century, in which an immense quantity of priceless historical material was destroyed. There is no guarantee that a similar accident may not occur at any time, and destroy the remaining historical documents. No one takes any interest in this matter except the officials at the Record Office. There is no interest taken by the Government of the country in these things, which are, after all, the most important of a nation's possessions. I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I think that we Irishmen are fully justified in entering our strongest protest against the refusal of the Government to accept the clause proposed by the honourable and learned Member for Louth. The late Sir John Gilbert, in one of his last letters to me, complained, as we all complain, of the delay which has taken place in the publication of certain Irish historical manuscripts—delay which will result, we all know, in none of the documents being published in our time. If we could get some assurance from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he will expedite the publication of these historical documents, possibly my honourable and learned Friend might be inclined to withdraw the clause; but in the absence of any such assurance, I hope be will persevere, and take a Division upon it. I have spoken of the danger that exists of the remaining historical manuscripts being destroyed by fire, I do not think that point can be too strongly urged on the Government. At all events, if the Government will not allow us to publish these documents at our own expense, I say that it is the duty of the Government to take steps to prevent them from being in danger of destruction by fire. This Bill, as has been well 531 remarked by my honourable Friend the Member for Londonderry, takes away from the corporations of Ireland the power which they now possess of publishing ancient historical documents. That is one of the grave defects of the Bill, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will consider how strongly we feel on this point, and either agree to the clause of my honourable and learned Friend, or give us some assurance that the Government will take steps to secure more speedy publication of these documents.
§ MR. LECKY (Dublin University)I cannot help thinking that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has a little overstated the case against the clause proposed by the honourable and learned Member for Louth. The right honourable Gentleman seems to think it would give the county council the power of deciding, but as far as I can see they will only recommend the editing of the historical documents relating to their own county, and the Royal Irish Academy—one of the most competent bodies in a case of this sort—would decide what manuscripts should be printed. I do not wish to insist upon the particular form of the clause, but I think the Government should do something to accelerate the publication of historical documents. Anyone who has had occasion to study Irish history, must be painfully aware how extremely difficult it is to get access to the materials of county history. I know there are a good many people in Ireland who are inclined to agree with the old lady who said she objected to history and historians, because her principle was to let bygones be bygones, and I confess that the use to which history is often turned in Ireland sometimes makes me sympathise with her, especially in the month of July; but there is much valuable and uncontentious historical material that is at present unget-at-able, and I think the honourable and learned Member for Louth has done good service in bringing this matter forward and urging it upon the attention of the Government.
§ MR. CLANCYThe right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary stated two objections to this clause, the first being that county councils were not the 532 proper bodies to recommend the publication of these manuscripts. I would like to say, in the first place, that that insinuation against the local bodies does not come well from the right honourable Gentleman, after an incident, of which I became aware to-day, which has just happened in Ireland. It appears that so highly does the Local Government Board regard the educational capacity of the local bodies in Ireland that, in sending spraying machines to rural bodies, they actually sent instructions how to use them written in French. I would suggest to the right honourable Gentleman that the way this clause will work out is this. The Royal Irish Academy will probably intimate to some local authority that they should make a recommendation, and, upon their complying, the whole duty of carrying out the matter will rest with the Royal Irish Academy, than whom there can be no more competent body for dealing with such questions. I do not like the prospect of the local bodies in Ireland being deprived of all their power in this matter, as will be the case under this Bill, and I should particularly regret it in the case of Dublin. The honourable and learned Member for Louth referred to a particular book, the publication of which stopped short at the first volume. That book was not half so important from a practical point of view as a book which was published soma years ago by the Dublin Corporation, and which was written and edited by the then law agent, Mr. Francis Morgan, solicitor. It was one of the most important historical documents ever printed, and related especially to the city of Dublin. I would advise honourable Members of this House, if they want to know how a city could be governed in the old days before the reformed corporation, to make acquaintance with that volume, in the course of which they will find it stated that the Earl of Pembroke and other gentlemen of that kind from England got hold of whole streets in Dublin for a barleycorn rent a year. I do not wish to labour this point, but that book is a specimen of what may yet be forthcoming if the Corporation of Dublin is not deprived of the power of publishing such books in the future. The real objection is to spending any money at all. The Chief Secretary objects to our spending 533 even our own money. I am afraid he wants it for another purpose—namely, to meet another demand from Ireland which ought to be met by the Imperial Fund.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIt will be quite impossible to come to any conclusion on this subject before this Bill has gone through its remaining stages. When, however, I am relieved from the pressure of work which this Bill necessarily entails, I will look into the question as to the publication of these manuscripts, and will then confer with the Treasury.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI will ask leave to withdraw the clause. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I heard much the same speech 18 years ago.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Another clause—
It shall be lawful for a county council or a district council from time to time to authorise the laying or removal of any pipe, aqueduct, or wire under or over any public road within its jurisdiction, subject to such conditions for the protection of telegraphs as the Postmaster General may by law impose."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThis clause is to enable a county council to lay pipes or to remove them in any public road within its jurisdiction. Really the roads do not belong to anybody. The power would be used principally for the purpose of getting supplies of spring water, and I think that something should be done enabling towns to obtain a common supply of drinking water. It would not be an unreasonable facility to give.
§ MR. ATKINSONWe cannot accept this Amendment, which would give a power to the county council which no other local body has got. My honourable Friend knows that the whole water supply of Dublin and the surrounding districts is brought in by one set of pipes over a distance of 20 miles, and for the whole of that distance they run under the roads. If this clause were to pass the 14 towns through which these pipes run might all have something to say to the water supply to Dublin, besides which, as the clause stands, it gives power to any particular body to lay pipes in the road in a way that might seriously interfere with pri- 534 vate rights. That is only one instance, but plenty of others might be selected. Such powers as these could not possibly be conferred on ordinary rural authorities—it would be entirely opposed to all precedent, and might be most injurious.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYOf course, I do not want to override any existing Statute or clause, but undoubtedly the law is most miserable as it is. I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Another clause—
No proceeding, civil or criminal, shall lie against a member of any body purporting to act under the authority of this Act, unless such proceeding could be taken against a member of the governing body of any town in Ireland under the Acts regulating corporations or town commissioners."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe Bill, as it stands, does not provide any protection for the county councillors which corporations and other public bodies have. It is a curious fact that in all other Acts there is a protection given, and I think it is only right that the same protection should be given to a county councillor as is given to a member of a corporation or a town commissioner.
§ MR. ATKINSONI do not think the protection sought for by the honourable and learned Member is required so much in the case of a county council as it is in the case of borough and urban districts; but I think they should have the same protection as exists in the case of town commissioners. I have looked into the matter most carefully, and, if necessary, I shall be happy to bring up a new clause.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to withdraw the clause.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe next clause, "Provision for Existing Town Clerks," standing in the name of the honourable Member for Dublin, is one which could 535 not be moved on the Report stage, because it provides that he shall—
be entitled to receive from the council of such borough or district, if he has the qualifications for a superannuation allowance required by the said Act, or the Acts and rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service, a superannuation allowance in accordance with the said Act of 1869.That is clearly a clause which could not be moved on the Report. The next clause, in the name of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth, "Provision as to ballot boxes, etc., at elections," is open to the same objection, because it deals with the provision of ballot boxes, which would have to be paid for out of the public funds.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYMay I submit, Sir, that the word "provide" should be "preserve," and if that word were there I think the clause would not be a charge upon the rates, because it would only be to "preserve" existing ballot boxes which the returning officers have in their possession for Parliamentary purposes, so that they would be applied to these local purposes. I think, amended in that way, with "preserve" instead of "provide," It would not be open to objection.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURWe propose to put down a somewhat similar clause ourselves.
§ MR. SPEAKERIf the clause were only for the purpose of allowing existing ballot boxes to be used for Parliamentary purposes that would not be open to the objection I have raised against it in its present form. The next clause, "Provision for existing town clerks and officers to Town Commissioners," standing in the name of the honourable Member for Belfast, cannot be moved for the reasons I have already given against the clause suggested by the honourable Member for Dublin. The next clause, standing in the name of the honourable Member for North Louth, cannot be moved now, because it deals with harbour boards. Generally speaking, harbours are commercial undertakings, which are in no way connected with local government.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYA clause somewhat to this effect was moved in Committee. 536 I gather that we have some sort of pledge from the Government that they would look into the matter.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXMight I respectfully submit that there is a clause in the Bill which allows local bodies, including harbour boards, to be dealt with voluntarily; and, therefore, by a small extension of the Bill, you could give these compulsory powers to deal with harbour boards. Harbours are already, in an indirect way, provided for by the Bill, and I respectfully submit that this is not beyond the scope of the Bill.
§ MR. SPEAKERA new clause, dealing with matters which are essentially commercial undertakings, is decidedly outside the scope of a Local Government Bill.
SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD (Cambridge)In Committee I moved an Amendment very much on the same lines to the Amendment now before the House, and I was told by the Chief Secretary that the matter should have his consideration.
§ MR. SPEAKERI know nothing about that. These are questions on which I have to exercise my own judgment, and this clause is quite outside the scope of the Bill. The next clause, "Municipal Assessors," stands in the name of the honourable Member for Cork. It is rather doubtful whether he proposes that the two new assessors should be paid assessors. It would not be out of order unless that appeared to be so.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXI have the same clause.
§ MR. SPEAKERYes; in the same words. The next Amendment, "Property qualification of coroner for city of Dublin," stands in the name of the honourable Member for North Dublin. I think that that should come in as an Amendment to clause 13.
§ MR. CLANCYPerhaps I may be allowed to point out that that point is touched in page 57 of the Amendments. "39 and 40 Victoria, chapter 43," does not really apply to the county of Dublin. Perhaps I may be allowed to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether the Government proposes to accept this Amendment?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURWe should not resist it.
§ MR. CLANCYThe property qualification was abolished for every city of Ireland excepting Dublin.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe honourable Member had better bring up an Amendment.
§
Another Amendment—
After the year 1898 lists of Parliamentary electors in Ireland and the local government supplement thereto, and the Parliamentary register of electors, and the local government register of electors, shall in each electoral division or part thereof be made out according to streets where streets exist, and elsewhere shall be made out according to townlands; the names of electors in each townland being arranged in alphabetical order, and all precepts and forms contained in and used under the Registration Acts and the Registration (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall be modified and adapted accordingly."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI understand that the Government have given a pledge to consider this matter. This is a question of alphabetical preparation of lists. We discussed it for a long time in Committee, and it was agreed it was simply a question of a clause to be moved.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI do not think I can accept the clause in its present form. I agreed to accept a clause, but I am afraid there are some objections open to this one. In the first place, it contains some proposition to make double entries, and I think it would increase the expense in setting the matter in type. The clause is to some extent based upon the provision in the English Act; but in the English Act the system is not compulsory, and it does not apply to country districts at all. It appears to me also that the words "where streets exist" are doubtful. Does that phrase "where streets exist" apply to every urban district? I think it is obvious that if the lists have to be made up by electoral divisions you will have to determine whether they are to be made up by streets or otherwise. I am ready to consider now whether you can apply the provisions which are in force in England to Ireland, that is to say, to the borough districts.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWe have them already in Ireland.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThis matter really requires more consideration than I have been able to give it now.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWhat I suggest to the Government is this. I will withdraw this clause now, and I ask the Government to take into consideration whether between now and the Committee stage they will themselves put down a clause. I certainly think they are wrong in not accepting this. I think they ought to accept it. But will they do what I suggest?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURYes. I will do that, but without any absolute pledge that we will frame it in any particular way.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYCertainly, we never give an absolute pledge. I beg leave, Sir, to withdraw the clause.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe next clause standing in the name of the honourable Member for Derry, "Tramways and Canals," cannot be moved on the Report stage for the reasons I have already given.
§
Another clause—
The council of any county borough may, if they think fit, appoint two municipal assessors, on or before the 31st day of January in each year, to execute for that year, in lieu of the town clerk, all powers and duties in relation to the registration of electors and to jurors' lists, and such duties in relation to the collection of rates as the Town Clerk may assign to them, and at elections for such assessors each councillor shall have only one vote."—(Mr. Knox.)
§ MR. VESEY KNOXI venture to hope that the Government will allow this Amendment to be passed. There are many boroughs in Ireland where there is considerable difficulty in the working out of the divisions which come under the general law as amended by this Act. I think it would be only right that an opportunity should be given to those local authorities who wish it to attempt an experiment of adopting in Ireland the system which has worked so very well in Scotland. In Scotland the registration is very much less expensive than in any other part of the United 539 Kingdom. The reason is that the lists are prepared there by special officers, who give to the matter trained skill and attention, and those special officers prepare the lists so well that the revising barrister in Scotland has comparatively little to do. Now, I do not say that the Scotch system could be applied to the whole of Ireland, but I believe that it would be a great advantage if it could be applied to some places in Ireland; say in those places where the councils wished to try the experiment. After all, it will not be an untried experiment, because it has been tried for a long time and has worked very well in the neighbouring country of Scotland, and is one which the Chief Secretary will admit has much to recommend it. This might also be described as an importation from Scotland, and in that sense I think the right honourable Gentleman ought to support it. Objection may be urged that the officials appointed for this purpose by corporations might be appointed according to the views of the corporation, whether they happened to be Nationalist or Conservative, or whatever views they might happen to have. In order to prevent officials being appointed in that way, I propose that the existing procedure which now has effect in the case of municipalities shall be used for this purpose, and that each voter shall have a vote—that there shall be an election by the corporations, and that at the election each member of the corporation shall have one vote. In that way I think you would have fair security that in those boroughs there would be one of the assessors who would represent more or less one party and one who would represent the other. I do not think that it is possible in most parts of Ireland to get any one man who can be trusted by himself to make up the electoral list fairly. I do not speak for the whole of Ireland, because I know that there are parts where party feeling is not so high, but speaking for those parts with which I am better acquainted, I do not think it is possible to get any one man, however good and honest he may be, who can be trusted to make up the electoral lists with real impartiality. I think if you have one man for each side, the two watching each other, you are likely to get justice. I think also you will get 540 economy. A vast deal of the time of the revising barrister is spent which would not be spent if the lists were properly prepared. The lists are thrown before the revising barrister without any care whatever by officials who are paid to prepare them. They do not really care about them because they have the idea that the thing will be fought out, and that it does not much matter, because there will be the party agents to deal with them at the party expense. It would be found a most satisfactory thing if instead of all this work of preparing the lists being done practically before the revising barrister, they should be prepared by competent officers, and the revising barrister should have less work to do when he comes down to the city. Furthermore, it would be found that this would not throw any increased burden upon the rates of a town, because it would be necessary for the town to employ officials in connection with the rates, and the work of preparing the Parliamentary list would work in with that duty; and I do not think, therefore, that it will be found that if this Amendment were accepted it would lead to any increased expense being thrown upon the rates of the town. It is put in such a form that it will not be imposed upon a town without the express wish of the town, and I think it gives adequate security for the fair representation of both parties. I therefore venture to very strongly express the hope that the House will be able to accept this clause.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe Government cannot accept this clause upon the extraordinary view that it is impossible to find an honest man in Ireland.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXIt is not a question of finding an honest man, but of securing an honest result.
§ MR. ATKINSONI think if the clause were carried we should be placing the boroughs at an unnecessary expense. I have three objections to this clause. It is, as I said, an unnecessary expense, it is not an efficient way of obtaining a result, and it is an unnecessary creation of officers. In the past I think the work has been properly done, and I cannot understand why it should be thought necessary that the preparation of the election lists should be delegated to two 541 men to whom the collection of the rates is to be delegated—one, I suppose, to collect for the Conservatives, and the other for the Nationalists.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXThe clause only intends that these men should be employed in the collection of rates at other times of the year.
§ MR. ATKINSONThat is the most objectionable feature of the scheme. It would be most objectionable to have a partisan collector employed to put on as many votes as he possibly could on his own particular political party, and who will therefore pass by every partisan in asking for the rates, the non-payment of which would disqualify for a vote; and then you would have the other collector harrying them for the rates.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXIt is no use my proceeding. There is nothing in this Amendment which cannot be done by the corporation now; the only thing is that these corporations will, under the existing state of things, appoint persons on one side only, whereas my Amendment would secure that there should be one on the other side to watch. I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe other Amendment is out of order, because it authorises the payment of money by the Treasury, and that is an Amendment which cannot be moved on a Report stage.
§
Another clause—
Notwithstanding anything in the eleventh section of the Dispensary Houses (Ireland) Act, 1879, a lease to a board of guardians made thereunder may be for any term which the owner has power to grant."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI hope there will be no objection to this Amendment. It is a very small one.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI shall not offer any objection to there being added at the end these words, "not being less than 60 years." I believe as the clause stands at present it is the result of a misprint; it should have read "not being less than 60 years," but as it is printed it reads, "not being more than 60 years."
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIt is to be attributed to the wisdom of the British Government that they have accepted the clause. I beg leave to accept the right honourable Gentleman's Amendment.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe question is that these words be added at the end of the clause, "not being less than 60 years."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The clause, as amended, was added to the Bill.
§
Another clause—
Where the undertaking of a tramway company becomes, or has become, the property of a county council, pursuant to the provisions of the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, or any Order in Council issued thereunder, the council may enter into an arrangement with any railway or tramway company, with any of whose railways or tramways the said undertaking is connected, for the working of the said undertaking, upon such terms as may be agreed upon."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThis clause is intended to meet two cases which have arisen in the county of Cork, where, under the Tramways Act, the grand jury has been compelled to take over an existing light railway, and has been compelled to work it at a great expense, without their having a chance of entering into an agreement with the tramway company, who could work it better with less cost. This simply provides that the grand jury, nstead of working the railway themselves, can hand it over to another company, who, with greater knowledge, will be able to work the undertaking with greater success. It is not at all a controversial matter.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI explained on Friday that I would accept this clause with regard to tramways and light railways, provided that the acceptation of it by the Government should not be made a precedent, and used as an argument against us in the future. There is, I admit, also a case made out for this. I think it is desirable that a change should be made in the law, and upon this clause we shall offer no opposition, provided it is understood that it will not be used as an argument against ourselves if on future 543 occasions more extensive proposals in this direction should be made. I would suggest, however, that after the word "may" in clause 9 there should be added words providing that the powers under this clause should only be set in motion with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYNow, really, that is monstrous.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXMight I point out that in England, under the English Tramways Act, a corporation which acquires a tramway cannot work it itself, but must lease it, unless it gets special Parliamentary powers? In Ireland, when the local authority gets a tramway it must work it itself and cannot lease it. Now we are only asking that the Irish authorities should have power to do that which the English authorities must do.
§ MR. ATKINSONThis means the insertion of a new clause, and in that case there are many things to be considered. There is the safety of the public, which in these matters is very much at the mercy of the company. Certain powers are given to you by an Order in Council, which is equivalent to an Act of Parliament. All those powers are vested in the grand juries at present, and this clause is to enable them to contract with some other company without having any Parliamentary power to do so, or Order in Council, without any responsibility upon any person to see whether the company to whom the railway is to be handed over is giving adequate competition, which to the public is so desirable. It might be that the company, with which the corporation had contracted to work this line, have not the means to do so, and we are to have no authority to exercise control over them or pass an opinion upon them, because the corporation, upon its own motion, under the powers of the Tramways Act, could at once hand it over to be worked by another company.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXThat is the law in England now.
§ MR. ATKINSONNo; they must lease it. I should suggest that this power should not be given, save with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant in Council.
§
Amendment proposed—
Line 4, after the word 'may,' insert 'with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant in Council.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI accept that Amendment.
§ The clause, as amended, was added to the Bill.
§
Other clauses—
That the urban district council of Newry, at any time within six months from its first meeting, shall have the right to elect whether the area within the jurisdiction of the said council shall be declared to be in the county of Armagh or of Down, and the Local Government Board shall have power to so declare it, and shall so declare it if required to do so by the said council.
The urban district council of Newry shall not be liable to contribute to the salaries or expenses of the county secretary, county surveyor, or assistant county surveyor of the counties of Down or Armagh, or to the expenses of the revision of the lists of electors of said counties outside of said urban district."—(Mr. Carvill.)
§ MR. CARVILLI beg to move the clauses which stand in my name. I may explain to the House that the borough of Newry is situated in a most peculiar position, in so far that the inhabitants have never been quite able to agree as to which county they should form part of—Armagh or Down. Therefore they come to this House to ask that an option should be given to them any time within six months after the first meeting of the council, and that time would enable the people to come to the conclusion as to which arrangements would be best for Newry, whether they should form part of the county of Down or of Armagh. With regard to the second clause, it will be seen that we simply ask that by the working of the new Bill no charges should be inflicted upon the town of Newry which it has hitherto been exempted from. I think the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has frequently stated, with regard to the urban district councils, that the present status will be maintained, and in making this Bill we should not be inflicted with greater rates. Therefore, I ask the House to accept this clause: I am only asking what I under- 545 stand the Government is willing to concede.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIt will be impossible to accept this Amendment. In the first place, it should not rest with Newry alone to decide what county it should be placed in. Not only that, but we have already a clause that if any district is dissatisfied with the decision of the Local Government Board, it has the right to appeal within six months. If Newry is dissatisfied with the decision of the Local Government Board as to which county it should be placed in, then it should appeal, within six months of the passing of the Act, to the Local Government Board. I do not see why Newry should itself be placed in a different position to any other county in Ireland. With regard to the second clause that the honourable Gentleman moved, the same consideration largely applies. There is no possible reason why Newry should be placed in a position by itself, nor that it should be relieved from contributing to the county-at-large cess. Why should it cease to do so?
§ MR. CARVILLWhat we object to is that under the new arrangements Newry may not only have to defray the expenses of its own officers, but it may also be obliged, as part of the county, to defray a portion of the charges of similar officers for the county which we do not at present pay.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIf there is any arrangement that Newry should not contribute to other county-at-large charges that will be continued, but if there is no such arrangement. I do not see why they should cease to do so. I object on several grounds to a special clause of this kind. If it is put forward on behalf of Newry that it has a valid claim, then the clause ought to be extended, but if the claim put forward is not valid in the case of other places in Ireland, then I do not see why Newry should be treated differently to them.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI have felt a great interest in connection with these towns and their treatment in this Bill, and I think there will be great trouble later on. It is a curious fact that all the town- 546 ships around our towns have made a similar arrangement to that which my honourable Friend proposes with regard to Newry. There is one thing which my Friend has forgotten for the moment, and that is that he has put down an adjustment clause, under which Newry will be liable to readjustment. I agree with the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that any law with regard to this matter should be general. I do think that the Government, by the two clauses which they have brought in, have to some extent met many of the proposals put forward by my honourable Friend.
§ Motion that the clauses be read a second time negatived.
§
Another clause—
Nothing in this Act shall prevent any high constable and collector, or collector of a barony or district, from collecting in like manner as if this Act had not passed any county cess comprised in any warrant held by him prior to the next spring assizes, whether he had lodged the amount thereof to credit of the county treasurer or not, and for the purpose of such collection such warrants shall remain in full force and effect for the period of two years from the date of their issue, and notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any existing Act of Parliament contained, such high constable and collector or collector of a barony or district shall, by virtue of such warrant, be entitled to enforce within the period aforesaid the collection of all county cess included therein by distress or other legal process, except such portion as may be dealt with as irrecoverable or uncollectable under the provisions of the next succeeding paragraph of this section.
Provided that if such constable or collector alleges that any portion of the said cess not recovered by him is at the appointed day irrecoverable, or from sufficient cause uncollectable, and that if this Act had not passed he would have been relieved by the grand jury from paving that portion, or that such portion, if paid in by him, would have been presented to him by the grand jury, he may apply to the county council to relieve him from so paying that portion, or if he had paid it to the county treasurer, to repay him the sum paid; and the county council, if it seems, having regard to the diligence used by the high constable or collector, and to the poundage he received in respect to the collection and to all the circumstances of the case, equitable to grant the application in whole or in part, may so grant the application, and pay the necessary sum as part of their expenses in the execution of this Act.
Provided always, in the event of the refusal of such application by the county council, the high constable and collector, or collector of a
547
barony or district, may appeal from such refusal to the Local Government Board, who shall entertain the subject matter of such appeal, and make such order thereon as to them seems just.
Provided nothing in this section shall affect the right of the county council to recover such uncollected cess, or so much thereof as they shall deem fit, and all provisions in any existing Acts of Parliament applicable to the recovery of such cess by grand juries shall apply to the county councils under this Act."—(Sir John Colomb.)
§ SIR J. COLOMBThis clause, or a great deal of it, is contained in clause 88.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThis surely, Sir, should not be moved except on clause 88.
§ MR. SPEAKERThis appears to be really an alternative to clause 88. If this clause is carried, it will be necessary to strike out clause 88; you could not carry them, together.
§ SIR J. COLOMBThis clause would embody in clause 88 matters which are not now included in clause 88.
§ MR. SPEAKERThen it would be the proper way to move it as a new clause in place of clause 88. If it is possible to take clause 88 as a basis upon which to move this as an Amendment, then this should be moved as an Amendment upon clause 88.
§ SIR J. COLOMBUpon a point of order, without the consent of the right honourable Gentleman, I understand I could not move to amend clause 88.
§ MR. SPEAKERWhen clause 88 is reached in the Report stage, the honourable Gentleman may propose his Amendment.
§
Another clause—
Any contract in writing which, if made by private persons would not by law be required to be made under seal, may, if made by a county or district council, be made under the hand of any two councillors acting by the direction, and on behalf of, the council."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI do hope the Government will see their way to accept this proposal. It is a very reasonable proposal—namely that a corporation or 548 county council shall be at liberty to conduct their proceedings without sealing-wax. Will you accept it?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURNo.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYNo; of course not. I will tell the House why the Government cannot accept this proposal. Every corporation now can make their contracts without seal; being able to do that, all they have to pay to the British Government is a stamp duty of 6d. But when you come to county councils and corporations, which have to make them under seal, there is a stamp duty of 10s. This is a proposal on the part of the Government to make them pay a stamp duty of 10s., every time they make a contract, to the British Government, because sealing-wax is resorted to on the document. In the whole of the English section of the Commissioners Acts, every town, not being a corporation, can make its contracts not under seal, and, although the grand jury at this moment can for many purposes dispense with the stamp duty altogether in the preparing of its contracts, you are going to levy a 10s. stamp duty in the future. In this country we have heard of the abatements to which Ireland is entitled under the Act of Union—it was not an Act of Union, it was a Treaty of Union, made between two Parliaments; it is a misnomer. These proposals in the Local Government Act which you are going to give us are miserable Treasury dodges. They are intended to shave the heads of the Irish people a little more; as if they were not sufficiently shorn already. I do not see why you should, upon a contract, levy a duty of 9s. 6d. more than you would otherwise receive. Take the Towns Commissioners: they can make a contract by two of the Commissioners signing it, and thereby they save 9s. 6d. from being sent to Downing Street to be spent in street improvements in London, costing £3,000,000 a year. It is a most monstrous thing that you should not accept this very moderate proposal.
§ MR. ATKINSONThis Act does not place these corporations in any worse position than any other corporation in the three kingdoms. Every county council is a corporation, and every county 549 council or other corporate body, must contract by seal. We have to see that any amendment in the law shall be general, and I followed the judgment of Lord Blackburn, in which he laid it down that it was most important that in all serious acts of these bodies their contract should be by seal. He was dealing with the powers of public bodies under the Agricultural Act of 1875, and he delivered a judgment Showing how wise it was to require every formality of the seal. First of all, it was required for the concurrence of the person authorised under the seal, and it also relieved the person who took the contract from making inquiries as to whether the authority had been properly given to affix the seal. He is subject to no inconvenience of inquiry as to the validity of the contract if the seal is there. It may be possible with regard to the Towns Commissioners that the necessity for using the seal is dispensed with, but then the affairs which they have to transact are comparatively small, whereas the affairs which the county councils will have to transact will be comparatively large. The exception is made in the case of Towns Commissioners exercising sealing powers, because of the small amounts of their contracts.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYDoes that apply to district councils?
§ MR. ATKINSONNo; the affairs which they have to deal with are large also. There is no argument whatever why the general law of England should be entirely dispensed with, with regard to these corporate bodies, which will have very wide and extensive powers.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLI hope the House will adopt the clause of the honourable Member for North Louth. This proposal of the Government will impose a considerable tax upon the Irish counties. It is substituting the county councils for the grand juries, which were not corporate bodies, and any contracts entered into by the grand juries did not require to be under seal. The Towns Commissioners are corporations, but they can act without the solemnity of a seal. In the Towns Improvement Act a special section was introduced to obviate 550 the necessity of the seal. Old common law doctrines applied to old common law corporations made it a necessity to use a seal, but that does not apply to new corporations, like the Towns Commissioners, or the county councils called into existence by this Bill. Under the Joint Stock Companies Act, where companies are incorporated and become bodies corporate, there is always a provision that they may enter into contracts binding them, without the solemnity of a seal, through the medium of their secretary, so as to remove the necessity of paying a 10s. stamp upon their ordinary transactions. All you have to do in this clause is to have a resolution passed by the county councils and the district councils, authorising the chairman or two of the councillors to put their names to the documents, and when that is done they would be empowered to give it all necessary solemnity. I think it is very unreasonable to impose this duty on the ratepayers.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXI support this because I think the Government have not met the point by saying that it imposes no greater hardship upon these corporations than any of the corporate bodies of England. That may be correct, so far as it goes, but the law imposes upon the Irish councils an obligation which it does not impose upon the English county councils. That is the obligation of contracting for very small amounts. It will be necessary for Irish county councils to make a great many more contracts in the course of the year than the English councils do. The English councils take very few contracts in the course of the year, they have a standing contract by which the roads are made and repaired, and only in very exceptional cases do they make a contract at all. The county councils in Ireland will have to make a vast number of contracts, and while you extract very little from the English county councils, you will extract very large sums from the Irish county councils. I beg to say that the sum involved in this clause is at least as much as the £5,000 a year we are to receive on the Agricultural Vote, of which the House has heard a good deal. The whole amount is very much larger than that spread over the whole time. The grand 551 juries have been able to get on very well for a considerable time without contracting under seal, and I do not see that there is any necessity for any such solemnity being put upon the county councils, which was not binding upon the grand juries. The grand juries had had many faults, but I have never heard of any act of undue formality in their proceedings was one of them. They have been able to do without the adventitious aid of the seal and 10s. stamp. I do think the circumstances are very different, inasmuch as you impose upon the Irish Local Government conditions which are not binding upon the local bodies in England. It is only fair that you should allow them to make their contracts without these seals, which we all know will reduce our prosperity, and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is necessary now to put a duty upon all contracts of 10s., whereas all these years past a sixpenny stamp has been good enough. I think the Amendment ought to be accepted. The circumstances are different, and you impose a very much heavier tax upon Ireland than you do upon England by a similar law.
§ MR. MURNAGHAN (Tyrone, Mid)It does not seem to me that the Chief Secretary should make local government any more involved than is necessary. It seems to me that it is not necessary to go to the expense which this Bill makes possible; it is not at all reasonable. Of course, to England the sum of £3,000, or £4,000, or £5,000, may seem a small item, but to Ireland as she is it would be a matter of very serious moment. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will deal with the entreaties coming from this side of the House. I do not hear of any opposition, except that coming from the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who, of course, in the inner recesses of his heart, is anxious to see this Amendment carried. I cannot believe that an Irishman will desire to see any burden inflicted upon his country; and I would therefore impress upon the Government the desirability of yielding on this point.
§ MR. JORDANThis is another question among many where the Bill purports to confer privileges and rights and in which we have to pay for 552 our right and privileges either large or small sums. Though this may appear a small sum, nevertheless, the case is on all fours with the other provisions of the Bill dealing with other sums of a larger amount. The new councils, in my opinion, are to supersede the old grand juries. But the old grand juries, so far as I am aware, did not pay any stamp duty for contracts for repairing old roads, nor did they pay for contracts entered into for making new roads, nor for contracts for building bridges, and other matters of that sort. Now, if the new councils are to supersede and be a substitute for the old grand juries, I do not see why the new councils should be compelled to pay stamp duty. Now, we are to have rural district councils and urban district councils, and the amounts to be paid for those contracts must be numerous and large, and if every contract is to have a 10s. stamp, I do not know what the total amount charged to Ireland will be; at any rate it cannot be less than about £5,000. It would be much more than £100 a year to each county. I do not think that would nearly do it, because you have three councils—urban councils, rural councils, and county councils, and each of these councils would enter into contracts, some of them trifling contracts, but others more serious. If a 10s. stamp is to go on each, the total amount will be excessive. At every step, as I said, when the power and right and privilege of enjoying our franchise is conferred upon us, we have to pay enormous sums. I protest against this continual opening of the doors for the payment of these large sums. By the time this Bill is passed, what with one clause and another providing for large payments and creating new offices, I cannot tell where the taxation of the rural districts of Ireland will end. I strongly appeal to the Government not to put the new councils in a worse position than the old grand juries.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe Government will be prepared to accept the addition of the words, after the words "district council," in line 3, "if the subject matter thereof do not exceed £50 in value." That would exempt all contracts under £50 in value.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWe will accept that. I think it will save us many thousands of pounds.
§ MR. ATKINSONWe were impressed by what the honourable Gentleman urged—that in the case of these small contracts the stamp duty might be oppressive. With larger contracts it would be different.
§
Amendment proposed—
To insert in line 3, after the words 'district council,' 'and the subject matter thereof do not exceed £50 in value."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
The charge for auditing the accounts of a county council in any year shall not exceed the sum of £100."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 1, line 14, to leave out from 'county' to end of line 21."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 2, line 3, to leave out 'by or.'
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 2, line 4, to leave out 'one councillor,' and insert 'two councillors."'—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§ MR. PLUNKETTI am sorry that there is not in the House a larger representation of Ireland at this moment, because this Amendment raises a large question of principle which I did not expect to have to move myself. I thought the honourable Member for North Armagh would have moved it, and perhaps, Sir, you will be able to allow a little latitude to the discussion, owing to the fact that when this principle is once decided upon by the House as regards county councils, the same principle will be accepted with regard to district councils, and a great 554 deal of after discussion would be saved. Sir, the object of this Amendment is to give the Bill every opportunity of working well in its operation. It is held by a great many of my political friends in Ireland, and I think by many, if not all the honourable Members opposite, that the success of the policy of this Measure will largely depend upon whether the elections are conducted upon purely political lines, and whether the candidates are chosen with strict regard to their administrative capacity and their other qualifications for the work to be undertaken. Now, Sir, I believe that I am in touch with the public feeling of Ireland, and that there is every intention to give this Bill a fair chance, and to respond to the appeal made by the Chief Secretary in his introductory speech, when he said he trusted that all classes in Ireland would treat this legislation of the Government in the spirit in which it was offered, and would not treat it upon partisan or political lines. But a difficulty will arise in one-member constituencies, perhaps more in the elections of district councils than in those of county councils. At present in the rural districts the candidates for election will probably consist of elected guardians and ex officio guardians. Well now, however anxious the electorate might be to draw their representatives from both bodies, they can hardly be expected to reject their elected man, especially where he has served them well, in favour of a man who has never submitted himself, and who has had no reason for submitting himself, to popular election. It is a very healthy sign in Ireland that almost from every county, I think from every county, the grand jury class have announced their intention of standing at the forthcoming elections. I think that every man in this House would wish to see a certain number of them elected, and that there are many who hold that it would be impossible to launch these new bodies, especially the county councils, under favourable auspices if the class which has hitherto had the exclusive control of the business were altogether pushed aside. There is another reason for having two-member constituencies which has been impressed upon me from several sources, and that is that the female sex have great hopes of coming to the front in local government elections in Ireland, 555 and that they think it is extremely hard upon them that no electors should have an opportunity of dividing their favours between male and female candidates. The objection taken by the Government, if objection is taken, will no doubt be on the ground of administrative inconvenience. Well, it is held by some that the new bodies will be inconveniently large if they were to be by my proposal numerically doubled. I do not myself believe that any inconvenience would arise. On any of these bodies the actual work, for a short time, is done by the few; and while I frankly admit that it is not wise to have a large number of men or ladies upon these bodies who are not going to do any work upon them, still upon the whole, after giving the best thought to the subject of which I am capable, and drawing upon such sources of experience as I possess, I have come to the conclusion that the interests of this policy would be best served by giving, I will not say every inducement, but, at any rate, every opportunity, to the Irish people to show that they are not going to conduct these elections upon party lines, but that they are going to try to render the policy of the Government efficient and successful by drawing the best men in Ireland into county government from whatever class or whatever party they may be drawn. I can honestly say that I have myself no political object whatever in making this proposal, but that I am sincerely anxious to do everything in my power to keep politics out of local government in Ireland, whether they be the politics with which I agree, or the politics to which I am opposed. I beg to move my Amendment.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)Sir, I did not move my Amendment to insert "two councillors only shall be elected for each electoral division," because it was pointed out to me that the Amendment of my honourable Friend carried out my object in a better way. I moved, Sir, this Amendment on a former occasion, and since the time I moved that Amendment I have received from various parts of Ireland representations strongly endorsing the action I took on that occasion. My honourable Friend has said that it is his wish that politics should be kept out of these 556 elections. Well, I suppose that would be the wish of anybody who desires to see this Bill work successfully, but we all know perfectly well that the political proclivities of the various candidates have formerly been the cause of their election or rejection. And what I believe is this, and it is the reason why I support this proposal for a double-member constituency, that if you have two members you have the more chance of the various shades of political opinion in Ireland being represented on these boards than you would have if you have only one candidate for a division. If one candidate happens to belong to one party and one to another, the natural instinct, I imagine, of Irishmen will be to favour the candidate, quite irrespective of his capacity for administrating public affairs, mainly according to the party to which he belongs. I do not say that means simply that there may not be good candidates of the Nationalist body, but we must remember that the members of that body are not absolutely united, and that it includes several parties. Therefore, I can conceive that candidates might be proposed for a county council in Ireland either Unionists or followers of the honourable Member for Mayo, the honourable Member for Louth, or the honourable Member for Waterford. But if there is only one member, I venture to say, knowing my countrymen pretty well, that the question will be whether or not they shall support their own man or their own councillor. Well, now, Sir, my hope is that if there are two members for a county council the various shades of party in Ireland will exhaust their patriotic and political proclivities in voting for one member, and will vote for the other on the ground of common sense and reason. That, at any rate, is my hope. If, I will suppose for the sake of argument, I happened to be standing for the same constituency as the honourable Member for Mayo, those who belong to his party would vote for him, while no supporter of mine would vote for him; and yet, Sir, if the constituency gave way to their political proclivities by voting for the honourable Member, they would give way to ideas of common sense and vote for me. Now, Sir, that is so obvious that I need hardly have said it. 557 At any rate, Sir, it is an undoubted fact that the Irish grand jurors unanimously supported the idea of two candidates. If, as honourable Members opposite have said, it would be perfectly useless, as if they returned one Nationalist we should return the other member; yet the result might be favourable to us, and not injurious to them. Therefore, as it would not injure either party, I do not see why they should have any objection to agreeing with our view. It may, of course, be said that the councils would be too large. I do not think that would be found to be the case. I rather fancy that after the novelty of these councils has passed away the attendance of members will be slack. Members will realise that their attendance involves a great loss of time, and therefore a considerable loss of money, and the difficulty will be to get them to attend. Therefore I say that it would be a very great advantage, to my mind, to have a larger number of gentlemen sitting on the councils than is now proposed. I do not say that in favour of one political side or the other, but I do say that it favours a large attendance on the councils of men who have the time and the leisure to attend to the business of the county. Of course I know perfectly well that in the west of Ireland and in the south of Ireland honourable Gentlemen opposite, if they choose, need hot return a single representative to the county council of the party to which I belong, but even if they did it would be an advantage to have men returned on the county council who have the leisure and the desire to take charge of county affairs. But if there are two representatives in all the divisions the electors might very easily vote for their own political friends, and at the same time supplement that vote by voting for some political opponent. At any rate, Sir, I say that if it satisfies a considerable minority of Irishmen it can certainly inflict no injury upon the majority, and under those circumstances I cannot see that there need be any objection on either side. I hope that the reasonableness of this clause will commend itself to Her Majesty's Government, and that either in this House, or in another place, consent will be given to 558 the proposed system of double representation on the county councils.
§ MR. DILLONThe object of this Amendment, according to the speech of the honourable and gallant Member who last addressed the House, is to get returned on the county council the grand jurors and the ex-officio guardians who were abolished by the Bill. The honourable and gallant Member entered into an elaborate argument to show that in point of fact the classes to whom this Bill proposes to hand over the control of the county councils will be found unfit to do the business. Well, Sir, if the gentlemen to whom the honourable and gallant Member is so anxious to again hand over the control of county affairs in Ireland are so fit for the business, why have we spent all this time in discussing the Bill? We have had these gentlemen before. We have had them in undisturbed possession of the management of county affairs for many years, and we are thoroughly sick of them. I object to this Amendment on two grounds. Looking at it from the point of view of honourable Members opposite, I do not think it will achieve their object at all. The contests will be fought on either political grounds or on non-political grounds. If they are fought on non-political grounds, then any candidate who comes forward will have a chance of being elected if he recommends himself strongly to the ratepayers, no matter what his politics are. But if they contests are fought on political grounds, then politicians who are voting as politicians will insist on electing both of their men, and they will not, as some seem to think, paralyse their one vote given as politicians by giving their second vote for the man who holds exactly the opposite view. A more preposterous idea I have never heard. I object to the Amendment on the second ground that the increased membership increases unduly and unnecessarily the difficulty of getting suitable candidates. The gentlemen who have been bought over to support this Bill by a large slice of the grant imagine that by compelling the districts to elect two members in the poorer parts of the country there may be a difficulty in securing two suitable candidates, and they think the electorate 559 will be compelled to fall back on ex-officio guardians and grand jurors. Well, Sir, I think they are building upon a false foundation in that respect, but I object to people being compelled to seek in the small, poor districts in certain parts of Ireland two candidates when one is quite sufficient to represent them. Honourable Members opposite have sold their power in Ireland for a good solid bribe, and yet they want to get it back again by this device. I object to our people being driven in any district to bear the totally unnecessary burden—and it may be a very unpleasant burden in some poor districts—of providing two representatives to do the work which could be amply done by one. Now, Sir, the honourable Member made one extraordinary remark which I suppose he thought would stir up differences in the Nationalist ranks. Well, Sir, there have been certain differences amongst the Nationalists which are rapidly clearing, and which before long I expect will clear altogether. But are the Irish Unionists so very united? When we find that the honourable Member for Belfast left this House a day or two ago for the purpose of attending a meeting, the first resolution to be submitted to which is a vote of thanks to the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for his defence of Protestant principles, and when the honourable Member for South Belfast, interviewed on the question, said that he would stand on the platform and support the resolution with all his heart, I think we have conclusive evidence that even in the ranks of the Irish Unionists there is by no means unanimity. The desire is to treat Ireland in this matter, as in many other matters, as a country inhabited by fools who cannot conduct their business like the people of this country. Was it ever argued in favour of the English Local Government Bill that there should be two representatives for each constituency, in order that a Tory and a Liberal might be elected? No, the argument is preposterous on the face of it. If the Government, in the original draft of their Bill, had taken up the position that they preferred double-member constituencies, and had given solid grounds for that proposal, apart from the ridiculous arguments now 560 advanced in favour of it, we could have considered the matter on its merits, though I am convinced the weight of argument would be against two-member constituencies. But that is not the point. The Government have introduced their Bill, and defended their Bill, and the right honourable Gentleman in charge of it has said that he is strongly opposed to the introduction of two-member constituencies. Therefore we have the declaration of the Government that in their deliberate opinion the original plan is the best, and we must assume it. That judgment has been formed on the basis of the advice given by the responsible authorities. We have now a demand made on behalf of the ex-officios and grand jurors—the men who have been deprived of the control of local government—that this Amendment, which has been condemned by the Government on its merits, and which is opposed by the vast majority of the Irish Members, shall be introduced into the Bill for the sole and solitary object of enabling Irish landlords to get back their control in the local government of Ireland. I desire to draw attention to one other point. The Government have made special provision for the co-option of members, and there is a special provision to enable local bodies to co-opt their chairmen. It is, therefore, quite possible that the chairman may be an outsider, and not be elected at all. But in spite of the fact that the Irish Unionists have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage, they seek, instead of accepting the arrangement, to get back control of the local bodies. I do not think they will get back their control, but I say it would be a monstrous thing to set aside the principle adopted and introduce a new arrangement in order that those gentlemen, of whom we have already had experience, should have the control of local affairs.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYSir, I hope that the House will not allow this discussion to lapse into a duel between honourable Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies on this side of the House and honourable Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies on that side, upon matters which, after 561 all, are not strictly germane to the discussion. I believe there is an absolute agreement between the two sides in spite of the speeches we have just heard as to the object which ought to be attained, and which ought to be aimed at in arranging the constituencies under the new system of local government. Those who have heard the speeches on this subject might be led to suppose that the object of my right honourable Friend in proposing this Amendment was to cheat the new constituencies of their right to elect the persons of their choice, and might equally think that honourable Gentlemen opposite looked forward, as one of the most satisfactory results of the Measure, to excluding from all influence in the management of local affairs those who have hitherto, I think, with great ability and honesty done the grand jury business in Ireland. I believe that neither of these views is correct. The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, if my memory does not betray me, is one of those Who expressed the most cordial desire that whatever changes there might be introduced in Ireland by this Bill, at all events fitting persons would not be excluded from dealing with county affairs simply because they happened to differ in political opinions. This was the opinion freely expressed by honourable Members opposite during the earlier stages of the Measure, and I am fully persuaded that they are still the sentiments which animate honourable Gentlemen. Well, Sir, in these circumstances, if we are all agreed as to the end to be attained, why should any bitterness be introduced into the discussion as to the machinery best fitted to accomplish that result? Sir, the honourable Member for East Mayo has spoken of ex-officio guardians, whom, he said, I think, he abominated, or some very strong expression of that sort.
§ MR. DILLONI have no recollection of using any such expression.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYWell, there need be no dispute about it. If the honourable Member thinks I have misrepresented him I withdraw. At any rate, it was thought that ex-officio members of boards of guardians were not, as a rule, habitual attendants at the meetings of the board, and did 562 not do the work for which they were appointed.
§ MR. DILLONWhat I said was that we had experience of grand jurors and ex-officios for nearly a century, and we were sick of them.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYThat is a criticism which ought not to be levelled against grand jurors as grand jurors, and though everybody in Ireland agrees that the existing system, is one which cannot be maintained, I do not think it true to assert—and I think honourable Gentlemen will not desire to assert it—that grand juries have neglected their county business. That being so, it is desirable, and indeed this view has been admitted, that at all events there shall be some element of the grand jury system upon the new elective bodies, and the only point upon which there is the slightest division is not as to the desirability of the end which my honourable Friend has in view in bringing this Amendment forward, but as to whether the machinery Which they have proposed is the machinery best calculated to carry out those objects. Well, Sir, I frankly admit that I am extremely doubtful as to whether my honourable Friends are right. It is not a point upon which prophecy can be safely indulged in, or upon which a wise man would express an absolutely confident opinion; but I do feel that it is extremely doubtful whether the plan of having two members instead of one for each constituency will have the effect which my honourable Friends anticipate of giving the electorate a wider latitude of choice of Which they will take advantage in the selection of persons already experienced in county business. It is perfectly true, as my honourable Friend contends—and I think it is a strong point—that so far as the district councils are concerned the electoral positions are already occupied by the elected guardians, who have filled the place, and now fill the place practically of district councillors, and of course such persons will not be, and in most cases, ought not to be, rejected by the new constituencies simply because this Bill has been changed. So far as these districts are concerned, there will at first be very little room indeed for the 563 class who, no doubt, will be more than fully represented by the ex-officio element, and who may desire to come forward as elected guardians. Sir, I think that argument has great force, but I would remind my honourable Friend that the arrangement is essentially temporary in its character. It only lasts, and can only last, so long as the existing constituencies are filled by the existing members. As time progresses these members will drop out of the ranks, and it will then be open to the constituencies, without sacrificing those who have done their duty in the past, to elect such members as they think best qualified to carry out the business of their respective districts.
§ MR. PLUNKETTThe first elections are the most important.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYMy right honourable Friend interrupts me by saying the first elections are the most important. That may be true, though I do not think it is the whole truth. But I may remind my honourable Friend that any failure in the first elections is more or less provided for in the Bill by the obligatory election, both on the district and the county councils, of a certain number of gentlemen who have already had experience of county affairs. My honourable Friend must therefore remember that this particular object has already been partially met. Then, Sir, there is one other argument which I will venture to lay before the House, which seems to me to carry weight. It is true that in double-member constituencies you may begin to get more gentlemen who have already had large experience of county affairs; but do you anticipate that you will get a larger proportion of those gentlemen? Do you anticipate you will double, or as much as treble, the number of persons belonging to this grand jury class who will be elected upon the new bodies? I do not presume to say that you will not, but I venture to say the result is, at all events, a doubtful one. When I have so far surveyed the arguments I really think I have put before the House the chief considerations which apply to this discussion. The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down appeared to think there was an absurdity in having two- 564 member constituencies. I do not agree, but if it is true the alleged absurdity applies quite as much to England as it would apply to Ireland, for in the metropolis, which has a larger population than all Ireland, and constituencies for local purposes are all double, the system does not produce the disastrous consequences which the honourable Gentleman appears to anticipate. But while I am inclined to think that the object which I believe both sides have in view—namely, that of giving a fair representation to every class in Ireland, and not least to the class which has hitherto had experience in county affairs; while I say we are all agreed upon that, our view is that that object will be best fulfilled by the Bill as it stands. Nevertheless, I think that great and generous weight ought to be given to the opinion of those who naturally believe, and in many cases really believe, that this Bill is for them practically and substantially a Bill of disfranchisement. While, therefore, I deprecate any change in the Bill as it was put before us, I shall frankly say that, if it is shown that the great mass of those for whom my honourable Friends have claimed to speak, really think that their claims to a share in the management of the local affairs of their country would be better met by double constituencies, then I certainly shall not resist the introduction of such an Amendment in another place. I still hope, however, that the arguments which I have ventured to lay before the House will have weight with my honourable Friends, and those for whom they speak. Doubtful as the point is, I still think the balance does incline in the direction in which the Bill was originally framed. Nevertheless, if a very strong Parliamentary opinion is held by those who have a special title to be heard on the question, if those who are specially, I will not say injured, but whose present position is specially affected by this Bill, feel strongly upon it, then I do not think that a claim so put forward and so supported ought to be resisted either by the House or by the Government.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLThere are various objections to the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman being carried. In the first place it will encum- 565 ber the district and county councils with such a number of representatives as would obstruct the proper course of business; and, in the second place, it will be departing from the precedent of the English Local Government Act. Has there been any reason given by the supporters of this change for introducing a departure from the English precedent? The only reason I can trace is the idea of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and of the honourable and gallant Member for Armagh, that possibly by this means an occasional Tory may get into the county councils. How can that be brought about. Supposing there were only two candidates, and each elector has a vote for each candidate, if the preponderance of electors as Liberal or Nationalist—call them by what name you will—what reason is there to suppose that one vote will be given for the Tory and the other for the Home Rule candidate? The result will be precisely the same according to the political opinion of the majority of the constituency. But the whole trend of modern ideas of representation is towards the abolition of double representation. If the Amendment is carried, it will only lead to great heartburning and great additional expense in the elections. The change will be perfectly useless and inconvenient, and it will increase unduly the number of county councillors. A council of 120 or 180 members will be much more unworkable than a council of half that number. "What is everybody's business is nobody's business." That applies to councils of this character. Why, then, should we alter the whole structure of this Bill? The House ought to support the Government Measure as it was originally introduced. We cannot control what may be done in the House of Lords, but I do not think that is an argument in favour of adopting the Amendment. We should send forth the Bill in the shape we think most consistent with justice and reason, and the House of Lords may take upon themselves the responsibility of making any change they wish to force upon the country.
§ MR. BUTCHER (York)In considering this Amendment we ought to have regard to what is most likely to improve the constitution of these elected bodies. 566 The honourable Member for Mayo is affected by a sense of alarm lest the effect of this Amendment would be to introduce grand jurors to the county councils. I have never heard this Bill justified—the Government never justified it—on the ground that the grand jurors should be excluded from county government. The reason of this Bill is that there is in Ireland a demand that local government should be conducted by elected members. It is universally admitted that the business of the grand jurors is well done——
§ MR. DILLONNo, no!
§ MR. BUTCHERAnd the object of the Bill is not to sweep them out of existence. In elections in Ireland politics enter more largely than at elections either in England or Scotland, and for that reason no method which can be devised will prevent the entrance into these bodies of political groups. What, however, we have to secure is the efficiency of the new local bodies which are to be created. If we are to have only one member for each electoral division of the county council, it is absolutely certain that, in most parts of the south-west and west of Ireland, a man will be elected for his politics, and not for his efficiency.
§ MR. DILLONWhat about the north?
§ MR. BUTCHERIf it is so in the north—as I daresay it is—I should equally deplore it. I am convinced that Members on this side, as much as Members on the opposite side, would deplore that a man in the north of Ireland, or a man in the south of Ireland, should be elected for his politics rather than for his capacity to do local business. At the present moment we are enjoying a period of political repose in Ireland, and, if there are two members, there is some chance that if one candidate is elected for his politics the second may be chosen for his efficiency. This will secure a good start for these new bodies. I do not think that a good start will be secured, or even assisted, by the provision in the Bill for co-opting members. Two objections have been put forward to the Amendment. One is that it would not get rid of the curse of politics in these 567 local elections, but I do not admit that would be the case. Many who know Ireland best believe that the Amendment would have that effect. But, supposing the worst results take place, we shall be in exactly the same position as at present—no better and no worse, and therefore it seems to me that that objection has no weight. Another objection—which has been put forward, to a large extent, by the First Lord of the Treasury—was that even if the Amendment is successful in securing the return of good men, it will be successful only in a few instances. I do not disguise from myself the fact that there is such a possibility, but the Amendment will be largely justified if it secures the return even of a few of the men who have devoted their time and attention to local affairs. In the hope that it will secure the election of men who sincerely desire to forward the interests of their country as apart from the interests of a political faction, I strongly support the Amendment.
§ MR. PINKERTON (Galway)It seems to me a rather foolish argument to say that, by putting up two people of the same political complexion, you can alter the constitution of these bodies. Two blacks will not make one white, and two men of the orange colour in politics will not make one green. I do not agrees with the statement that the grand jurors in Ireland have acted badly. Considering the responsible powers they wield, I think they have acted very well indeed, and I am most anxious to see them have a fair representation. They may not know much about public business, but I am more inclined to credit them with honesty than ability. The House will pardon me if I give an illustration. In county Antrim a local asylum is being constructed, and the grand jury have wasted £100,000 in building it in a locality where there is no water supply and in constructing rooms without doors.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The honourable Member is not speaking to the Amendment.
§ MR. PINKERTONI only wished to point out that, while I am in favour of grand jurors having a fair representa- 568 tion upon the county councils, it is not because I think they are more intelligent than the poorest men in the country, but because I think that, on the whole, they are honest. As it stands at present the poor man will have to fight his way against it, and I am inclined to oppose the Amendment.
§ SIR J. COLOMBUpon this Amendment I cannot agree with the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh. The object of bringing forward this Amendment is not really to improve the machinery of local government in Ireland but to provide vacancies to be filled by those who have hitherto been the chief members of boards of guardians and other bodies. I object to that, and I am sorry it has been proposed, because I think if this Bill is to be successful and be of real benefit to Ireland we should not give it a send-off with anything that looks like a sly attempt to insert into the system of popular government in Ireland something to secure the election of a particular class, who might not otherwise be elected. I believe myself in the common sense of the people of Ireland in this matter. I am perfectly satisfied that in a very short time they will find that electing people because they have certain views on Imperial politics is not the best way of doing their business. I fully expect that too much politics—what we may call national politics or Home Rule politics—may be represented there at first. I think it is perfectly natural to expect such a policy for a time, but I believe it will be only a temporary thing. It appears to me that it would be unwise to pass this Amendment in favour of double-member constituencies. I find that the argument has been used that electors would not like to turn out the sitting members in order to put one of the grand jury class in, and therefore you should double the representation. But that does not apply to county councils at all. That is an argument that can only be used for district councils; it is not an argument for county councils. Then upon what grounds are we advocating dual constituencies for the county councils? If my honourable and gallant Friend takes that view and agrees that it is not applicable to county 569 councils, I want to know what argument is applicable. Well, Sir, I believe myself that if this Bill so goes forth to the people of Ireland they will have all sorts of ways of obstructing, and it will have less chance of being successful. If you bring it forth with the obvious purpose of arranging for an artificial representation, then I say that the Bill will not do the good you expect it to do. Take the case of district councils. It is argued that you are disfranchising half your present boards of guardians—the ex-officio members. I maintain that, although that may be true in theory, it is not true in actual fact, because, most unfortunately, the ex-officio members over the larger part of Ireland have not attended very regularly to the business of the guardians. A certain few have; I know there have been certain brilliant exceptions. I am speaking of the south and west of Ireland only, and not of the east and north. But I say, Sir, that has been the fact in the western districts, where only a very few of the ex-officio guardians have attended to the business, and my own impression is that in those remote districts, where there are one or two members who have attended to the business regularly, they have a very good chance of being returned later on, because they have proved their value; and I believe that the very essence of this whole Bill is not to deal with one class or another, but that the men who are on the spot and have shown themselves capable of doing the business, whether they are small or large ratepayers, or whether they are large or small landlords, are the men who by electors' choice can come out at the top. Upon this occasion I must dissociate myself from my honourable and gallant Friend, for I think myself that in many parts of the country the big ratepaying class will make their voices heard, and will be returned on the single-member constituencies. I must say that I attach a great deal of weight to the paucity of suitable condidates, because, knowing as I do the remote districts of Ireland extremely well, I am bound on this occasion to agree with the honourable Member for East Mayo. I say, Sir, that it would be a misfortune in those districts to double the number of members, because these would be a great difficulty 570 in getting a sufficient number of good candidates, which would be rendered necessary by the adoption of double-member constituencies. Therefore, on the whole, I prefer that this Bill should go forth as it is; and I do not share the alarm of some of my honourable Friends with regard to the future working of single-member constituencies. I have said this because I think myself there should be a fair field and no favour, and I am quite content to leave the future to be settled by self-interest, which has always been displayed in the character of the Irish electorate when their pockets are concerned; and, though at first theoretical politicians may secure a majority on account of party considerations, I think in the end electors will elect the best men to look after their money independently of politics.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)The opinion and the desire of the First Lord of the Treasury, as he has stated, is that such a solution of this question might be arrived at as would not exclude any class from representation on the county council. Now, I go a long way in the direction of wishing to secure the end which the honourable Member for South Dublin has in view, not only for the sake of getting those on the county council who have been accustomed to local government work in Ireland, but also that the county council will be open to women, and the double-member constituencies might facilitate women becoming members. But, Mr. Speaker, this really does not solve the question on which we are engaged. The question is whether the double-member or the single-member constituency will best secure the end which the right honourable Gentleman has in view. I think, in solving this question, that we have not paid attention enough to the great example we have got of this principle here in the great area of London. We have got in London the same districts divided for one purpose into single-member constituencies, and for another purpose into double-member constituencies, and for another purpose the same area is divided into a sort of 11 different constituencies with the cumulative vote. If we look into these three systems, and bear in mind the elections that have recently taken place, we may gain much 571 information upon this subject. It may be said that the difference of opinion is not so great in London as in Ireland, but we might fairly call one side the grand jury class and, on the other hand, the democratic class, and look at these three elections for the sake of argument. Now, we have had four elections during the last nine years. We have had four county council elections, four school board elections, and two Parliamentary elections in London, and what I may call the grand jury class has always succeeded best in the elections which have taken place in single-member constituencies. The Progressives, who may roughly be said to be in line with the democratic candidates at the county council elections, always succeed best in the elections which take place where the constituencies are divided into double-member constituencies, and certainly the minority has never had such success in the Parliamentary election, and we must not presume that you will do so by making double-member or any other constituencies. I think that any attempt to "fake" the constituency on one side or the other is bound to fail. I think the nondurable Gentleman who has just sat down made a very sensible speech, and I join with him in saying that all classes who have rendered good service will not be excluded from still continuing to help in the government of their country. But they will not be assisted, I say emphatically, by any manipulation of this Measure in this House, and this particular class can only get on these councils by placing them selves before the people and amending their views in accordance with those of the bulk of the electors. They will have to trust to the electors; and, if they do, I think they will fare very well, because they have the advantage of experience and they will have to trust themselves to a free and open election. When matters are considered from every standpoint I think that the provision embodied in this Bill is just as safe.
§ MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)I should support the Amendment of the honourable Member for South Dublin if I thought it would do anything to carry out the object which he has in view. I think it would be an advantage to the county council if some of these grand 572 jurors who have done the work well in the past could be returned, and very properly returned, on the county councils of their various localities; but anything more foolish and idle than to imagine, after the experience we have had of double - member constituencies in the past, that such a thing would come to pass I cannot conceive. Just imagine such a constituency in the north of Ireland. Suppose that a county council—even in Belfast, say South Belfast, which would be a two-member constituency, and, of course, it would have to satisfy its political conscience in returning, say, the honourable Member for South Belfast, who sits in this House, and suppose as the other member we put forward the honourable Member for East Mayo—now, if the honourable Member for East Mayo's candidature were advocated only by members of his own party, he would get hardly any following at all, and if he had any chance of being returned at all he would have to have his candidature advocated, say, by myself. I can imagine myself saying, "Satisfy your political conscience, and vote for Johnston, and, having done that, give your other vote for Dillon"—
§ AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: And common sense.
§ MR. RENTOULYes, and common sense, to reverse the argument. I can imagine that it would hardly be safe, unless there is a higher moral tone in the south of Ireland than exists in the north of Ireland, to say that things would work amicably and well with two members of opposite colour sitting for the same constituency. I think there would be very little chance of any such thing coming to pass. In my own experience of this matter I advocated this in my own constituency in the county of Down to the effect that they should make a point of returning to the county council a fair proportion of Roman Catholic Nationalists in proportion to the inhabitants, and I was denounced in many newspapers, and my suggestion did not receive many words of approval. I cannot imagine and conceive anything more foolish than the suggestion of the honourable Member for York that this state of things would come to pass; there would be two members sitting for the same constituency 573 of opposite colour and politics. For example, there was a case, not long ago, in the city of York, and I recollect that a strong appeal was made there, asking, "Are you going to return a Radical, and so practically disfranchise this city of York?" That appeal was made so effectively, especially by my honourable and learned Friend, that, in point of fact, the city of York arose out of the disgraceful position in which it then stood, and it now stands in a respectable position. That I could just imagine would be what would take place in regard to the county councils in Ireland. If by accident two members of opposite colour got in, the very next election the strongest possible effort would be made by both sides in order that each side should win and make the constituency thoroughly represented by one particular party. There is only one single double constituency in the whole of Ireland. I imagine two members of that constituency challenging each other to contest to see which member really represented that constituency. That is what happened in the only double constituency in Ireland, and that will happen extremely often in the county council elections in Ireland, and instead of the county council working amicably and well this double-member system will throw in a bone of contention, and will make a difficulty, which, I think, should not exist. As the honourable and learned Member said a week ago, that the county council will discuss politics is only to be expected, and it is very probable that that will happen. That is exactly what happened in the case of the London County Council, although they had this splendid method of double-member constituencies and everything was advocated by honourable Members from this side to make it work well, and yet the London County Council discussed for a whole day whether they should hold public meetings or not in Trafalgar Square. If the London County Council discussed things outside their power and sphere we may imagine that the same thing will happen to the new bodies in Ireland. But that should not discourage anyone, because after a little while they will come right in Ireland as they have come right in the London County Council. The honourable Member for York said that if two-member 574 constituencies did no good they would do no harm, but I think that they will do a great deal of harm. I have no hesitation about it at all, and I say that I cannot conceive anywhere in Ireland where the electors would wish to set themselves deliberately to return two members to neutralise each other. The honourable and learned Member says, "Why neutralise each other?" If they do not neutralise each other, what is the good? If the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh is returned along with the honourable Member for East Mayo, and if the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh follows the honourable Member for East Mayo, then what good will be done? You will say we get in a man our own particular colour, but he is voting exactly as a Nationalist. If the two members vote opposite and neutralise each other, then that simply means that the constituency for which the two members are returned is practically disfranchised. The point raised by the honourable and learned Member for York is that by doubling the entire membership of the county council you do so on the supposition that a large number of members will not attend, and that a very large number will stay at home. Well, that is a very bad assumption to start with. I think some measures should be taken to see that they do attend with a tolerable amount of regularity, or retire from the council. To say that there should be 60 members where 30 would be amply sufficient, in order that there may be 20 in attendance, and that the others are to be whipped up only to carry some particular question, that is the worst state of things that could possibly be. If the argument is, as the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh has said, "Let us have a large number of members, on the ground that only a few of them will attend," I think that is the worst argument that can possibly be found; and, therefore, I think it would be a great danger to the council to have a large membership and a considerable portion of them not attending. Then there is the other case, in reply to the argument of the honourable and learned Member for York, in regard to the elections themselves. Anyone who has gone through an election as a 575 colleague of anyone knows how many hardships occur. There is a distrust very often of each other. One member may think that his colleague is not treating him quite fairly regarding plumpers and voters, and, again, each member is made responsible for any slip that is made by his colleague. If his colleague commits a corrupt practice by carelessness or through his agent the other member is responsible also, no matter how he may have safeguarded himself. Therefore every man who stands in a double-member constituency must stand by the colleague that any constituency may choose for him. My constituency could select any man they liked for my colleague, and compel me to run as the colleague of that particular man. I know that has been a grievance with dozens of members of the London County Council, who have declared that they have been put in the most painful positions by being run with persons whom they did not care to run with. Therefore this proposition is simply increasing and intensifying the difficulty of anyone who becomes a candidate to have this double system, which does no good of any sort or kind. But there is something which lies deeper and is more dangerous. I particularly want this Bill to go to Ireland with the name of not being a jerrymandering Bill. If this Bill goes forth as an honest and fair Bill without any attempt to so fix it that certain persons will be thrust in here and there whether the electors want those persons or not; if this Bill goes forth honestly and fails, it will be a splendid argument for us against Home Rule, for we should be able to say, "You have had a chance of showing whether you have any administrative ability, and you have proved that you have not." On the other hand, if the county councils work exceedingly well and beneficially, I admit that it would be a good argument in favour of Home Rule, and, if that were so, Home Rule would not be so dangerous if the men on the council had proved their fitness. So that, under these circumstances, we want this Bill to go forth to Ireland, giving to the country individual liberties, as far as possible, like the English Bill. Now, the English Bill has not a single double-member constituency in it with the exception of London. If the double- 576 member constituency should be put in, either in the House of Lords or here, such a thing can only be done to meet what has been done in London, which is much more populous than Ireland. At the same time there are many other reasons, which I shall not enter into now, put forward why this double-member constituency was given to London at the time the Local Government Bill of England was passed. I think, if the opinion of London could be taken at this present moment, it would vote 10 to 1 against double-member constituencies. They have been tried in London and nobody likes them, and you have only to turn up the record of the last county council election to see where you have got candidates of different colours for different constituencies. Almost throughout London the candidates are almost always two Moderates or two Progressives. Therefore the great reason why I hope that the Government will keep the Bill as it stands as single-member constituencies is that it will undoubtedly strengthen the Bill when it goes to Ireland. This line has been taken up by the honourable and learned Member who spoke before me, who, though an Irishman, represents an English constituency; but I represent an Irish constituency, and I have said practically what I have stated here to-night in my own constituency, and I do not find many of my own electors against single-member constituencies. The honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh said that there was a strong demand in Ireland amongst the Unionist Party for double-member constituencies. Well, I have only to say that I know nothing of such demand, and I have not heard of it before.
§ MR. PLUNKETTI should just like to be allowed to say that as the First Lord of the Treasury has met us most fairly in this matter, and told us that if there was a very strong feeling in favour of the clause the Government would accept it; and, as there does not appear to be such a unanimous feeling in favour of it on this side of the House I do not wish to press my Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it. We had a very prolonged Debate upon this very point in Committee, and those 577 in favour of it were afraid to go to a Division. Surely it is at least highly irregular that we should have a second Debate on the Report stage on a matter that was distinctly decided at the Committee stage; and what makes it more complicated is that the First Lord of the Treasury made a statement that there was a strong probability that his proposal would be revived in another place. I do not think it ought to be revived without a Vote in this House being taken upon it, and under these circumstances I think some definite course should be taken by the Government.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I understood the right honourable Member to say that if this proposition were not accepted here it would not be pressed.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)Allow me to say that I understood my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury to say that if there was a strong expression of opinion from Ireland in favour of this proposal it would be considered in another place.
§ LORD E. FITZMAURICE (Wilts, Cricklade)Perhaps, after what has fallen from the honourable and gallant Member for Armagh, the First Lord of the Treasury may be able to state a little more clearly what the understanding should be. I understood him to say that if this proposal went to another place with the support of what is called the Unionist Party, although he might regret it, he would feel it his duty to give way to their wishes. It is hard to imagine that those who sit in another place will not be influenced by what happens in this House. I will now put it to the honourable and gallant Member for Armagh whether, after this discussion, it can possibly be said that there is any approach to unanimity of opinion amongst his own political friends in favour of this Amendment. It has received very scanty support, and several of his most influential political allies and supporters have spoken strongly against the Amendment. And therefore I earnestly hope that, to say the least, we shall have an assurance from the First Lord of the Treasury that, so far as this House is concerned, as the 578 great majority of opinion of the House, and of the Irish Members generally, is against this Amendment, it will be understood that this Amendment leaves this House without any recommendation.
§
Question—
That the words 'one councillor' stand part of the Bill.'
§ Put, and agreed to.
§
Amendments proposed—
Page 2, line 7, leave out 'provided also that the division,' and insert 'the county electoral divisions.'
Page 2, line 14, after 'give' insert in a county electoral division.'
Page 2, line 31, at end, insert 'the county council may choose from persons qualified to be councillors one or two persons who shall be additional councillors during the term of office of the council by whom the choice is made.'
Page 2, line 33, leave out from 'councillors' to 'and' in line 35.
Page 3, line 7, leave out 'of assize.'
Page 3, line 10, after 'by' insert 'or in pursuance of.'
Page 3, line 15, leave out 'a criminal character of.'
Page 3, line 15, after 'law' insert 'relating to crime.'
Page 3, line 16, leave out 'of the grand jury.'
Page 3, line 26, leave out from 'council' to end of sub-section (2).
Page 3, line 29, after the second 'the' leave out 'to the injury' in line 30, and insert 'council for the county and the council for the district in or within one mile from the boundary of which county or district.'
Page 3, line 36, leave out from 'and also' to 'may' in line 38, and insert 'where the area off which the compensation awarded is to be levied is less than the whole county, the council for any county district comprising all or any part of that area.'
Page 4, line 4, before 'compensation' insert 'the.'
Page 4, line 11, leave out 'a proceeding' and insert 'any proceedings.'
Page 4, line 13, leave out from 'regulate' to 'the' in line 15.
Page 4, line 15, after 'section,' insert 'including costs and the service of all preliminary notices and the time within which any proceedings are to be had or taken.'
Page 4, line 18, after 'but' insert 'the time may be extended and.'
Page 4, leave out from beginning of line 22 to end of clause, and insert—
(8) Save so far as fees are taken, by an existing clerk of the peace for his own use,
579
court fees shall not be payable in any proceedings in the county court under this section."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ The Amendments were agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 4, line 25, at end add—
(9) The enactments mentioned in Part I. of the first schedule to this Act, and this section, shall extend to the whole of Ireland so far as they do not already so extend."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)I think this is a new way of dealing with the people of Belfast. An Amendment was made at the Committee stage expressly on behalf of the people of Belfast, and I venture to think that there should be a slight verbal change in this Amendment, or otherwise the people of Belfast may be injured in the streets without being able to get compensation. There is every reason why they should get compensation, as in any similar case that arises in the rest of Ireland. I cannot think that the Government wish that people injured in the streets of Belfast should be unable to get the same compensation that they would get if injured in Dublin, and I venture to think, therefore, that it is necessary to make a slight amendment in this Amendment, and I would propose, after the word "shall," in the second line of the Amendment, that there should be inserted the words "as from the 31st of March, 1898." That, I think, will meet the case of the city of Belfast, and place it practically on the same footing as the rest of Ireland. I only want to provide that where there has been a riot in the city of Belfast during the progress of this Bill through the House, we should make the law retrospective to some extent, and that the men should get compensation. The Chief Secretary, I am sure, has no wish that policemen should be injured with impunity in the streets of Belfast, or the men who were injured should be without compensation. I put the matter on the broad ground that a policeman or any other person who gets an injury in the streets of Befast ought to have rights just as if he was injured in any other town in the United Kingdom. The Government has assented to that, so far as the future is concerned, and I think 580 they might assent to that so far as the immediate past is concerned. I beg to move that the Amendment be amended by inserting after the word "shall," in the second line, "as from 31st March."
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
After the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'as from the 31st day of March, 1898.'"—(Mr. Knox.)
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThere are very strong objections to retrospective legislation, unless a very powerful reason is suggested. On that ground I hope the honourable Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
§ MR. DILLONI only wish the right honourable Gentleman had shown on all occasions the same scrupulous objection to retrospective legislation as he shows now. I recollect two or three Coercion Acts, in which we spent hours making the action of the Bill retrospective and creating offences before the Bill was passed, and the Government of that day saw no difficulty whatever in making a law affecting a number of subjects retrospective. But this is simply a law to obtain compensation for officers injured in the discharge of their duty.
§
Question—
That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment.
§ Put and negatived.
§ Words inserted in the Bill—
§ Amendments proposed—