LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

HC Deb 12 July 1898 vol 61 cc697-799

The House resumed the consideration of this Bill, as amended, in Committee.

Amendment proposed [11th July]— Page 8, line 29, to leave out clause 12."—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question proposed— That the words of clause 12, to the word 'large,' inclusive, in page 9, line 2, stand part of the Bill.

Debate resumed—

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

It is much to be regretted that such a clause appears in the Bill at all. I want to know what relevancy there is, what connection, between the proposals of the Government with regard to any local distress in Ireland and a Bill proposing to establish city and district councils in Ireland. I fail to see the relevancy, and I think it is singularly irregular, to put it in no stronger language, to introduce a clause of this character into the Bill. This clause may be looked upon as an attempt to shift upon the bigger shoulders of a poor locality in Ireland the responsibilities of that locality. The people in that locality are not in any way responsive for the state of things which brings about this condition of chronic poverty and misery which exists in the south and west of Ireland. The poverty and misery and distress which exists in Ireland is a legacy of the hateful policy of "Go to hell or Connaught," which the Government of this country established in Ireland a few centuries ago. We have protested against this clause upon the Committee stage of the Bill, and we protest now because the money with which the hunger of these unfortunate people is to be relieved is to come out of the pockets of people very little better off than themselves. What this clause proposes to do is that these unfortunate people, who are always upon the verge of starvation, who live in a state of almost unexampled misery, without knowing any of the comforts of civilisation, are to be relieved by persons whose condition is very little better than their own. So far as the right honourable Gentleman and the Irish Office are concerned, this clause is a clause of the "champagne and Riviera" declaration type. I do not see how it can recommend itself to anyone in this House who is in the slightest way in favour of the principle of local government. The rates in these districts are exceedingly heavy, both the poor rate and the cess. I have looked through the rates for the present year, and I find in Donegal the county cess and the poor rate together amount to 4s. 6d., in Galway to 4s. 1d., in Mayo to 4s., and in Kerry to 7s.; that is, taking the average of the electoral divisions; and that does not include any charge for extra acts which these districts may have to perform. It is these districts, already so heavily burdened, that you propose, by this clause, shall pay an additional rate. We resist this clause because we think it is most unstatesmanlike, and that it is most unjust. Seek some other remedy. Make it, if you desire to arrange it in this form, a county-at-large charge, or leave it where it is at present, a Treasury charge. What you do is to throw the whole responsibility upon the guardians to relieve these rates, which is very sorry comfort for the people, because the guardians are the trustees for the unfortunate occupiers. You ask the guardians to enter upon a course when distress occurs which they know only too well will only lead to their increasing the burden upon themselves and the districts which they represent. It is true that the rate is not to exceed 5d. in the £, but what does that mean? To my mind, it means that no other money will be forthcoming, no matter how deep the distress may be—it may be as great as it was in 1847 and 1848 or 1879, the distress may be far worse than it was last spring; but the Government will not step in and give a grant from the Treasury until that 5d. in the £ has been levied upon these unfortunate districts. I think this is a most unworthy proposal on the part of the Government at a time like this, when we have proved to demonstration that Ireland is very greatly overtaxed. This is a proposal that the poverty-stricken districts of Ireland shall support the paupers. It is not the wealthy people and the wealthy districts which are to support the people, who are only just above starvation at the best of time, but the poor districts. Now, in the remarks which I made yesterday upon the equalisation of rates I pointed out that in London the rich parishes in the west are made to help and assist the poorer parishes in the east. If you made a proposal of that kind, though it might be unjust, it might be tolerable to Ireland; but in this particular case you try to equalise the rate by spreading it over the county. You do not go to the rich counties, but include all the poor ones. The tendency of this clause is to put an unfair amount of taxation upon people who are even now sinking under a burden of debt and taxation, which the miserable soil does not yield the wherewithal to meet. Let the Government find another remedy; let them not throw upon these unhappy people any further burden; let them extend the power of the Congested Districts Board; in some other way bring before this House some method of dealing with the cause of this state of chronic misery and poverty, and not deal with the effects, or attempt to deal with the effects, by any such clause as this. I will say this, that if the Irish people had been entrusted with the task of the local government of the country under some scheme of Home Rule 10 years ago, and the state of things existed now in the south and west of Ireland which does exist, then the Irish people would have lost all title and right to ever govern themselves.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal)

, S.): I have taken very little part in the Debate upon this Bill, but this particular clause is of such an eminently atrocious character that I feel constrained to say a word or two upon it. It is a clause which is absolutely irrelevant to the Bill, and it is the clause of one man. This is the clause of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He felt that he must imprint his individuality upon this Bill, and he has tried to do so in this manner and at the expense of the Irish people. O'Connell used to compare inexperienced Chief Secretaries to barbers' apprentices, who used to learn their trade by being allowed to try their hands in shaving beggars, and I am free to say that I am reminded of O'Connell's comparison when I reflect that it was the Chief Secretary who framed this clause. In one word, this clause is an attempt to grind the poor because they are poor. I sometimes regret that Charles Dickens is no longer a reporter in the Gallery, because I think upon a clause like this he would have been able to have given us some very interesting and amusing descriptions of it. Feeding unhappy urchins upon brimstone and treacle can in no way compare with this principle of feeding paupers from poverty, which is the exact significance of this clause. Let us consider the historiacl appropriateness of this matter. The clause is to carry out the policy of semi-starvation of the right honourable Gentleman and other Chief Secretaries, which succeeded the policy of wholesale starvation of administrators like Cromwell. Now, I would not compare the right honourable Gentleman to Cromwell, I would not do him such an injustice. There are Cromwells and Cromwells, and the right honourable Gentleman is a Cromwell of more or less an afternoon tea character. Let us consider the appropriateness of this. We hear that there are two Bills in hand for the relief of the poor law. One is to indemnify poor law guardians, who exceed their powers in protecting their people from starvation. Under this clause no such Bill could be cast, because it would be the duty of the guardians themselves to support the people, no matter how poverty-stricken they might be. The right honourable Gentleman must know, and I challenge any of those who are friendly to local government in Ireland to speak a word in favour of this clause. No person in Ireland approves of it. It has not the sanction of the people in the slightest degree. It has not the sanction of any section in Ireland. I appeal to my honourable Friend, who is not in the least degree ashamed of this clause, whether he would go down to his constituents and point out to them the beauties of this clause 12. I do not think he would. No matter what the sufferings of the district may be, not one farthing will be given to alleviate the distress of any particular district until it has been taxed to the very utmost extent. The right honourable Gentleman has developed a system and style of his own. There is no such master of antique propositions as he is. Why does he bring in such a passage as this into the Bill. Mr. Speaker is the most tolerant of Speakers, but I think, if I had put such an Instruction into a Bill going into Committee, he would have ruled me out of order, and I would have had to rest content. He might as well bring in some of the astronomical theories of the Ptolemaic system. This clause, is brought in because the Chief Secretary must say, "Alone. I did it." I want to be Complimentary to a doctrinaire and a theorist, and I would be delighted if the Chief Secretary's theories only occurred in an ordinary debating society, but when these theories come into practical effect, and when their success or failure involves the comfort of human beings, I must be rather severe, even to a doctrinaire. Let us see how this theory works. First of all, I will ask the House to recollect that such an idea was never broached, so long as poor law guardians were non-elective boards, and so long as the grand juries had control. This idea only comes in when some slight power is placed in the hands of the people. Supposing that a gentleman is elected to a county council, and supposing the poor law guardians apply to the county council for relief for exceptional distress in a certain locality. He knows that their complaint is well-founded. What else does he know? He knows that the people who return him are the persons to whom every halfpenny is a matter of importance. The Chief Secretary, of course, being a philosopher, has never regarded money as the all essential thing. One shilling is to him of as much importance as £100 or £1,000. This elective member of the council is bound to consider the position of his own constituents; he is bound to consider whether, if this grant be endorsed, he is not, by endorsing it, reducing absolutely to pauperism some of the men who returned him; and he may possibly have to deny this poverty until the people are actually in the throes of starvation. I say this is an inhuman and shocking provision; it is an absolute and utter abrogation by this country of its responsibility—which is this, that, having robbed Ireland, you cannot permit the people to starve. When Irish representatives bring forward the case of their constituents, who are seeking for relief and endeavouring to wring something out of the British Exchequer, how easy it is for the British Exchequer to say, "It is reported to me that hitherto no application has been endorsed by the county council for the relief of distress." At the present moment no one ought to know better than the Chief Secretary that the poverty of Ireland is a disgrace to the country. By a clause of this kind you are dulling public conscience to that distress. I think this is a Chadband clause; in fact, I am complimenting it by calling it a Chadband clause. Why are we acting in this way? The right honourable Gentleman, will succeed—although we shall take good care that the clause will be a failure—in placing it on the Statute Book. He attempts to make the representatives of the starving constituents pay. In my own constituency even in the best of times we have to pay between 8s. and 9s. in the £, and how could the county council, in times of exceptional distress, possibly sanction any increase in the rates on the county at large. This is done for the purpose of making their homes, miserable as they are at present, still more intolerable to the Irish people. He says it will decrease the population in the congested districts. This is the first time I have ever heard it declared that the effect of a clause would be to decrease the population. It certainly will make the population extremely uncomfortable, and make the conditions of life in the congested districts still more oppressive. There is one passage in this Bill—subsection 2—which, perhaps, intends to lighten that burden, but in reality it confers no benefit upon the people. I am ashamed to see such a section placed upon the Statute Book. It repeals the quarter-acre clause which is stated in the Bill to have been passed in 1861. That is an accurate statement, but it does not explain the position to the House. That clause was passed in 1846, and it was incorporated in another Bill in 1861. In 1846 the Irish peasantry were expelled from their homes owing to the famine. So great was this, that they were denied the relief of the workhouse—all who had over a quarter of an acre of holding. The people were forced into the workhouse in order that the Irish landlords should have a free hand to abolish their little holdings. There is, under this clause, a special provision which enables, under certain conditions, and with the sanction of the Local Government Board—who are not responsible at all—the poor to receive outdoor relief without the shame and degradation of going into the workhouse. It says that the Local Government Board can, of their own free will, refuse relief to any class among the poor. The meaning of that is that the Local Government Board can refuse relief to evicted tenants. I will not discuss that further; I only show how the clause works to the detriment of the poor. I challenge any honourable Gentleman from Ireland to get up manfully and say that he approves of this clause. Not one of them will do it. The right honourable Gentleman has not had a single letter, except, perhaps, from some resident magistrate, approving of this clause. Is it the right honourable Gentleman's ambition, he being placed in the accidental circumstances of being able to control the Irish administration, to attempt to vivisect the Irish people, and the poorest of them all?

MR. PLUNKETT (Dublin Co., S.)

The honourable and learned Member who has just sat down challenges any of us on this side of the House to express approval of this clause. As the clause originally stood, I did not approve of it, but as it is proposed to be amended, I do distinctly approve of it, and I think it will be a valuable clause, for this reason. The question before the House appears to me to be an extremely simple one. The whole question is—in the event of these famines occurring, ought there to be local responsibility, not in dealing with the cause of these famines, but in dealing with the famines themselves?

MR. DAVITT

Why not deal with the cause?

MR. PLUNKETT

That is quite another matter. We are not dealing with the cause of the temporary conditions. Well, Sir, as I said, the whole question is—is the Government, either under the existing law, or under such a scheme as they might introduce for dealing with it, to act independently of the local authority, or are they to enforce the responsibility of the local authority? I do not see how it is possible to ignore the local authority, or to act independently of them. I cannot see any sense of making the local authority responsible, without making them contributory. Now, if that is once admitted, the whole question is: what is to be the area of local responsibility? The Chief Secretary considers that the area at present is too small, and I entirely agree with him. Honourable Members opposite say, "If you are going to extend the area it would be much fairer to extend the contribution to the whole of Ireland"; but it seems to me that if their objection is that the Irish contribution will have to be exhausted before this Parliament will contribute from Imperial funds, then there can be no reason, from their point of view, for enlarging the area of local contribution more than we can possibly help. The Chief Secretary is anxious to enlarge the area of local contribution, not for the sake of obtaining more moneys but for the sake of obtaining more assistance in dealing with this problem. He has told us that the limit of 5d., which the county pays, is to be strictly regarded not as a minimum, but as a maximum contribution. I can very well imagine that in the case of exceptional famine the county council might represent to this House that the demands on the county were so large that it was not fair to ask them to deal with the distress in this area, and Parliament in such an instance would very likely not ask for a contribution at all. Honourable Members opposite prophecy that the county councils will refuse to contribute anything at all. I do not think that will be the case. I think, on the other hand, that the county councils will have a real desire to deal with the causes in a permanent way, and so far as temporary relief is concerned, will be very glad in many cases to co-operate with the Government to the extent of some contribution. I regret very much that the matter cannot be dealt with in a cool and businesslike manner. Honourable Members opposite who live in these districts know well, and have often stated in this House—and the honourable Member for South Mayo has expressed the same view, I think, in a letter to the Times this morning—that these recurring periods of distress and of a relief system are intolerably demoralising. Well, that undoubtedly is true, and I hold that the Government relief, administered with the very greatest care, is far more demoralising than any charitable relief. That, I believe, will be generally admitted. I think this clause as it is proposed to be amended will be a useful clause, and I do not think there is any fear that it will be abused.

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)

Mr. Speaker, there is one remark that has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman with which I am disposed to agree—namely, as to the demoralising effect of recurring relief upon the people of Ireland. I have some experience in these matters, and for my own part I am surprised that the people of Ireland in some districts are not more demoralised than they have been where relief has been given. I remember when there was great distress in my own district, and I was asked by a Protestant clergyman to distribute relief. I did it to the best of my ability, and I remember that a case came under my notice in which we offered relief and the people refused it, and referred us to other families in greater distress. In another case, where the goods of the people had all been pawned, we went and offered relief, and their answer to us I shall never forget. It was, "Our forefathers have never received any relief from any person, and we will go to our graves without receiving relief now." I say, therefore, knowing the condition of the people of Ireland to some extent in the west and in the south, that I am surprised that they are not more demoralised in many cases. Now, the Chief Secretary complained last night that no fresh arguments had been adduced by the honourable Member for Mayo in support of the Motion he has made. Well, I think anyone who has followed the Debates which have taken place on this clause in Committee will acknowledge that the arguments put forward by my honourable Friend and by his friends have been left absolutely unanswered, and consequently the same arguments are put forward again. With regard to the replies which the right honourable Gentleman has given to those arguments, I think we may return the compliment and say that he has brought forward no fresh arguments whatsoever. He is as able as any of his predecessors to make black white on this point from his point of view, and if he failed to do so he would be absolutely unfit for the position he occupies. I remember that in the Debate we had last week several honourable Gentlemen who spoke upon that subject wished to show that as much acute distress existed in many parts of this country as in Ireland. Well, Sir, I do not intend to go into that question at present, but I think we might submit one standard and say, if acute distress prevails in many parts of England, will the people be prepared to work for 5s. a week as they are in the West of Ireland? It is notorious that, while many people deny that distress exists in the West of Ireland, the right honourable Gentleman is able to get at the present day and hour as many people as he cares to employ for from 3s. to 6s. a week, and these men, who are able-bodied men, are prepared to tramp long distances to their work and from their work. If that is not proof of acute distress in those parts of Ireland, I do not know what other test you could apply. Well, Mr. Speaker, I for my own part, and I think most of my colleagues, object in toto to this clause; and why? Because it enables the Imperial Parliament to shirk its responsibility, and put on a people already ground down by taxation the onus of supporting the poor. This is a nice proof of the goodness of your rule. It is, in fact, a standing reproof to your rule, that now, after governing Ireland from this House for so many years, we cannot have a summer a little more wet than an ordinary summer without thousands and tens of thousands of the people on the western seaboard and in other parts of the West and South of Ireland being driven to the verge of starvation. It is a nice commentary on the action of this richest of countries and richest of Parliaments that at this day, after so many years of your misgovernment, the partial failure of one crop places our people not merely on the verge of starvation, but actually in starvation. Mr. Speaker, what is the remedy proposed? We are bound to have famine in Ireland under the existing state of things, and we have from time to time pointed out to you that, if you wish to stop this chronic state of poverty and famine, you will have to go to the root of this question, and place the people on plots of ground which will support them. You have refused to do that, and you say the present state of things must go on. Well, if the present state of things goes on we are bound to have these periodical famines and the necessity of giving relief to the people. At present we have some sort of argument for applying to the right honourable Gentleman for relief in cases of distress. This House may pretend to be responsible for the support of the people, but we can well foresee the plausible excuses that will be dished up. If famine occurs in Ireland in the future it will be said that the ratepayers of the locality have not come to the assistance of their fellow-countrymen, and there will be official reports to the effect that the distress has been exaggerated. Now what is the condition of affairs in the West of Ireland? A peasant with a holding valued under £4 nominally pays no poor rates. I say nominally, because anybody who knows anything about the condition of Ireland is aware that provision is always made for the poor rate in the amount of rent which has to be paid to the landlord. Those who are valued at £4 and upwards at present are liable to pay poor rates. What difference is there, I ask, between a man valued at £3 10s. and a mar valued at £4 10s.? Little or no difference; but in the Amendment to the clause supported by the Government you ask men almost as poor as those who do not directly pay the poor rate at present to support equally poor people. I may be told that the Government has put in as a saving clause the 5d. limit, and that in extreme cases the generous Imperial Parliament will come to the assistance of the Irish ratepayers. Well, Sir, that is not my experience of the Imperial Parliament. We are told that it was the duty in former days of this Parliament to prevent people in Ireland from dying of starvation. It was their duty, but how did they fulfil it? In. 1848, 1849, and 1850 the people were dying in thousands and tens of thousands, while the coffers of this great Parliament overflowed and the granaries of the world overflowed, but still this Parliament did not do its duty, for it let the Irish peasants die in ditches like dogs. In my own locality, and in every locality, carts went round every morning to pick up the bodies of men, women, and children who had died of starvation in the ditches and lanes of the country, while this great Imperial Parliament, with its overflowing coffers, looked on with absolute indifference. I do not believe this 5d. limit will work in Ireland. We all know that, the Government is very tactful in finding loopholes and back doors to escape from their responsibilities. We have seen them when convicted of robbing Ireland cringing and complaining to the British public that their own tribunal to which they had referred their case was not fairly constituted, and had been unfair to this rich country. However we look upon it, I think we are bound to disapprove of this clause, which, as I said before, enables the Imperial Government to shirk their duty, and to put on the shoulders of the poor ratepayers much of the relief of the poverty which their own bad laws have produced in Ireland.

MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)

Mr. Speaker, having argued strongly against this clause when the Bill was in Committee, I should not have spoken in opposition to it at this stage were it not for the observations which were made by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. I confess that I was very sorry to hear him, as an Irish representative, giving the authority of his sanction to this most objectionable clause—objectionable in every sense of the word. My honourable and learned friend the Member for South Donegal has in a very severe and incisive manner criticised the clause, and in every word of that criticism I venture to say I altogether agree. How, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin can say that this is a good clause for Ireland, knowing as he does the wants, and necessities of the country, passes my understanding, and I do not know how the constituency which he has the honour to represent will receive his observations on this occasion. It is a most vicious clause, and it will not relieve distress, whether exceptional or otherwise, because it is altogether voluntary on the part of guardians as to whether they put this clause in motion or not. I have no hesitation in saying that there is no union in Ireland in which the guardians would ever venture to act upon that clause in the case of exceptional distress, because the meaning of it would be to call upon poor ratepayers in some of the poorest parts of Ireland to contribute to the starving inhabitants, who are wholly incapable of doing so. Whenever it is proposed to put the provision in force public opinion will be so strong in Ireland that no guardians could safely venture to take such a step, and people will consequently continue to starve just as before. Then the English Government will be able to point to the clause, and say, "Before you come to us for assistance you must put in force such and such a clause, whatever it may be called—Balfour's clause or Plunkett's clause; if that fails, and the people are starving, then it will be time enough to come to us."

MR. PLUNKETT

I may point out to the right honourable Gentleman that I am not the parent of this clause, nor of any other part of the Bill.

MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL

The right honourable Gentleman is the gossip or the sponsor of the clause, not the parent. My great objection to the clause is that it will be perfectly inoperative, so far as the relief of distress is con- cerned, and it will afford an excuse to the Government for the time being to withhold assistance. Why should any particular portion of the country be made to pay for what is called exceptional distress? If there is a famine or a pestilence in any part of the Empire, is not that a misfortune and affliction that ought to be met out of Imperial sources, and not out of local sources? It is against all our ideas of government, it is against all our conceptions of the principles of taxation, that if a country is laid waste either by a plague or otherwise that that plague is only to be met locally, and the Empire at large is not to bear in any sense the burden of it. What is happening now is what happened in 1846 and 1847 by the visitation of Providence. We find that four millions were advanced, by the Government in 1846, and even that sum was condoned by Mr. Gladstone in 1853. It is suggested that under clause 3 some relief is given to what is otherwise so objectionable. But that is no relief. Clause 3 says that half the rate is to be levied on the county at large. Why should it be levied on the county at large? We know where these congested districts are, and we know where these famines prevail. They prevail in counties like Galway, in counties like Kerry, in counties like Mayo. Why should persons living in counties where starvation exists contribute more than persons living in any other part of the country? Then it is said that there is an Amendment which will somewhat cure the effect of this particular clause—namely, that the maximum rates levied on the county at large shall not exceed 5d.; but it does not say that the maximum rate levied on a particular union shall not exceed 5d. As I read the clause there is nothing to prevent a union going beyond the limits. If that is not the meaning of the clause, I must say it is very badly expressed in words. But I pass from that. If it were necessary, by way of a set-off against the £750,000, the amount of the agricultural grant, to say to some of the right honourable Gentleman's followers on the other side of the House, "In future you will not be called upon to relieve the starving Irishmen," then why not have a rate in aid over all Ireland? Such a rate in aid we had several years ago, as the right honourable and learned Gentleman will remember, and at the present moment there is, I think, under one of the Public Health Acts, or the Contagious Diseases Act, power to levy a halfpenny rate all over the country for a local purpose. Under these circumstances, I could not be content to give a silent vote on this question. I feel it my duty to enter my protest, especially when I was reminded by the speech of the right honourable Member for South Dublin of what Swift once said— That if you want to get an Irishman roasted, you must get another Irishman to turn the spit.

MR. LECKY (Dublin University)

I wish to associate myself emphatically with the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. In my opinion it was a most true and most courageous speech, and the attack upon it to which we have just listened from the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone seems to me to reflect a good deal more discredit on the right honourable Gentleman himself than on the right honourable Gentleman who is sitting near me [Mr. Plunkett]. It seems to me that there is still a great deal to be done for the relief of constantly-recurring distress in the West of Ireland. But the first and most essential thing is that local opinion and the interests of local bodies should be in favour of removing people from the kind of land which cannot by any possibility support them. It is a simple fact that a large population in the West of Ireland are living on such land. Something has been done to alleviate the matter by the light railways, which have given them a new market. A little more may be done in the same direction, and by developing local industries, but as long as public feeling in the country is in favour of keeping them

there there will be constantly recurring distress and constantly recurring demands for new doles. As long as local feeling is opposed to their removal there can be no radical cure. I think this clause will have a powerful effect in converting the local bodies in these districts, and that, limited as it is by the Amendment which the Government has introduced, it is likely to work well.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

The speeches of the right honourable Gentlemen opposite, the Members for South Dublin and Dublin University, encourage the hope that an Amendment to divide the extra fivepence between owner and occupier will be adopted. I am sure the right honourable Gentlemen will not object to paying an extra 2½d. in the £ to meet exceptional distress. The effect of this clause will be that the Government will not admit the existence of exceptional distress. There are, however, other ways in which the distress might have been relieved. You might have given the Dublin taxes, which are enforced in that constituency from hackney carmen and others, to the relief of distress. The tendency, however, is to leave all the money which is now diverted out of Irish pockets into the Imperial Exchequer for the benefit of John Bull. But, Sir, if I were an Irish landlord, or an Irish Conservative, I would try to take an Irish line. You can take an Irish line and a Conservative line. But I do not think the Irish Conservatives have always seen what their own interest is. Certainly no Irish line would consent to a clause which would give the English minority excuse whenever money is demanded for distress in Ireland to be able to say, "You must first contribute to its alleviation yourselves by subscribing out of the rates."

The House divided:—Ayes 217; Noes 129.—(Division List No. 199.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Bailey, James (Walworth)	Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hunts)
Aird, John	Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)	Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)
Allhusen, Augustus H. E.	Balcarres, Lord	Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin
Arnold, Alfred	Baldwin, Alfred	Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)
Arrol, Sir William	Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch.)	Beckett, Ernest William
Ascroft, Robert	Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)	Bethell, Commander
Atkinson, Right Hon. John	Banbury, Frederick George	Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Biddulph, Michael
Bigwood, James	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Muntz, Philip A.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Bolitho, Thomas Bedford	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Murray, C. J. (Coventry)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Graham, Henry Robert	Murray, Col. W. (Bath)
Boulnois, Edmund	Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)	Myers, William Henry
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)	Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)	Newark, Viscount
Brassey, Albert	Gretton, John	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gull, Sir Cameron	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Brown, Alexander H.	Gunter, Colonel	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Butcher, John George	Hall, Sir Charles	Pease, Arthur (Darlington)
Carlile, William Walter	Halsey, Thomas Frederick	Pender, Sir James
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.	Pierpoint, Robert
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)	Hardy, Laurence	Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Purvis, Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Heaton, John Henniker	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)	Helder, Augustus	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Channing, Francis Allston	Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.	Renshaw, Charles Bine
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)	Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Chelsea, Viscount	Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)	Hobhouse, Henry	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.	Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Coddington, Sir William	Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Rothschild, Baron F. J. de
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Round, James
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Colston, C. E. H. Athole	Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies	Rutherford, John
Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Seely, Charles Hilton
Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.	Jenkins, Sir John Jones	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cox, Robert	Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)	Jolliffe, Hon. H. George	Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)
Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lancs, S. W.)	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)	Kenrick, William	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Kenyon, James	Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Donkin, Richard Sim	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)
Dorington, Sir John Edward	Knowles, Lees	Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lafone, Alfred	Stewart, M. J. M'Taggart
Drucker, A.	Lawrence Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)	Stock, James Henry
Edwards, Gen. Sir James B.	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)	Thorburn, Walter
Fardell, Sir T. George	Loder, Gerald W. Erskine	Thornton, Percy M.
Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward	Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)	Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)	Waring, Col. Thomas
Finch, George H.	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne	Lowe, Francis William	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Fisher, William Hayes	Lowles, John	Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-	Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.
FitzWygram, Gen. Sir F.	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Flannery, Fortescue	McCalmont, Maj-Gn. (Ant'm N.)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Flower, Ernest	McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)	Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Folkestone, Viscount	McIver, Sir Lewis	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Malcolm, Ian	Wilson, J. W. (Worc'rsh., N.)
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)	Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)
Fry, Lewis	Milbank, Sir P. C. J.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Galloway, William Johnson	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Garfit, William	Milner, Sir Frederick George	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Milton, Viscount	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. (C. of L.)	Monk, Charles James
Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)	Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Giles, Charles Tyrrell	More, Robert Jasper
Gilliat, John Saunders	Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Godson, Sir A. Frederick	Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John
NOES.
Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)	Atherley-Jones, L.	Blake, Edward
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Brigg, John
Allison, Robert Andrew	Barlow, John Emmott	Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.	Billson, Alfred	Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)	Price, Robert John
Burt, Thomas	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.	Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Holburn, J. G.	Richardson, J. (Durham)
Caldwell, James	Horniman, Frederick John	Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)
Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)	Hutton, A. E. (Morley)	Robertson, E. (Dundee)
Cameron, Robert (Durham)	Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.	Robson, William Snowdon
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)	Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)
Carew, James Laurence	Jordan, Jeremiah	Schwann, Charles E.
Causton, Richard Knight	Kearley, Hudson E.	Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)
Cawley, Frederick	Kitson, Sir James	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Clough, Walter Owen	Knox, Edmund Francis V.	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Colville, John	Labouchere, Henry	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Lambert, George	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Crean, Eugene	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Crombie, John William	Leng, Sir John	Souttar, Robinson
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Logan, John William	Spicer, Albert
Daly, James	Lough, Thomas	Stevenson, Francis S.
Dalziel, James Henry	Macaleese, Daniel	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n's C.)	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Davitt, Michael	McCartan, Michael	Tennant, Harold John
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	McEwan, William	Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Donelan, Captain A.	M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)	Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Doogan, P. C.	McKenna, Reginald	Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Dunn, Sir William	Maddison, Fred.	Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Maden, John Henry	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Evershed, Sydney	Mandeville, J. Francis	Wayman, Thomas
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Mappin, Sir F. Thorpe	Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)
Fenwick, Charles	Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand	Wills, Sir William Henry
Field, William (Dublin)	Molloy, Bernard Charles	Wilson, Charles H. (Hull)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montr'se)	Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)
Flynn, James Christopher	Morris, Samuel	Wilson, John (Govan)
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)	Murnaghan, George	Woodall, William
Gilhooly, James	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'ld)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)	Woods, Samuel
Gold, Charles	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Hammond, John (Carlow)	O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dillon and Mr. MacNeill.
Harwood, George	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Hayden, John Patrick	O'Kelly, James
Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-	Pinkerton, John
Hazell, Walter	Power, Patrick Joseph

Another Amendment proposed— Page 9, line 2, after 'large,' insert 'so, however, that the total amount of such expenditure levied off the county at large in any one year shall not exceed a sum equal to fivepence in the pound on the rateable value of the county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The honourable Member for East Mayo has indicated that this limitation of fivepence makes the clause worse, but this provision, I may point out, has been made in order to meet the objections which the honourable Member himself has made. I repeat that fivepence in the pound is not intended to be the measure of what is to be expended by the county council before the Treasury comes to the assistance of the local authorities in periods of distress, but it merely represents the maximum beyond which taxation under this clause should not go.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out the word 'fivepence,' and insert 'one penny.'"—(Mr. Dillon. )

MR. DILLON

We have been told that it is not intended to go up to the limit of fivepence. That is the only shadow of justification for this clause, which we might fairly describe in view of the present condition of the people as a semi-starvation clause intended to see how near you can bring the wretched people in the west of Ireland to starvation without actually causing a scandal. Now the only pretence of a reason which the right honourable Gentleman has given for this clause is that he finds it necessary in pursuance of his policy this year—a policy which has been condemned absolutely unanimously in Ireland, and which has, as far as I can judge, but scant support in this House—he thinks it necessary to do what he describes as fixing a share of the responsibility upon them. Now, if that is all he desires he could do that by a penny rate just as well as a fivepenny rate. Now, Sir, is it not enough in years of exceptional distress to satisfy the right honourable Gentleman's doctrinaire hobby with which he is so enamoured, to absolve these districts of £5,000 a year in the county of Cork, and is it necessary that he must reserve the power to tax them to the extent of fivepence in the pound? It will be £6,000 a year in the county of Mayo, and £9,000 a year in the county of Cork. As the right honourable Gentleman said when we pointed it out before, if it is to be a rate in aid, it ought to be extended over the whole country. Now, I am no advocate of a rate in aid, for I think the principle is a vicious one; and once you admit that these are cases of exceptional distress, and no cases of ordinary distress, you establish an incontrovertible case for Imperial concern and Imperial interference. If you are going to have a rate made at all, I want to know upon what principle of common sense—about which we heard a great deal in the House last night—upon what principle of justice, are you going to fix a rate in aid? Upon what principle are you going to fine those districts which are most heavily struck by this distress? This proposal is positively grotesque, and if there is to be a rate in aid it should be a rate in aid all round. It has been said that if you extend the limit beyond the county that you dislocate the whole systme of the poor law. Are you not dislocating the whole system of the poor law by this proposal? I do not see, it at all. What is local responsibility? You may call Ireland local responsibility just as much as the county of Galway, or the county of Cork. The people a hundred miles away are more tied to the district. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was very generous with this matter because he knew perfectly well that this would never put a single penny on his constituents, who are well able to bear their burdens compared with the unfortunate people that we represent. In a matter of this kind we ought to be treated comparatively lightly. We speak for the people who will have to bear these burdens, and who will feel the bitterness from experience of the burden that will be put upon them. The right honourable Gentleman had said that any further extension of the area of local responsibility would be inconsistent with the system of the poor law. Now that argument is absolutely destructive of the whole principle of the clause, and condemns in the strongest possible way the conduct of the Government in bringing this clause into the Bill at all. Here we have got a Bill dealing not at all with the poor law, and by the Amendment which the right honourable Gentleman is moving he is to introduce a totally novel and unknown system which was never heard of before in connection with the poor law administration—that is levying of a fivepenny rate in aid of exceptional distress to be administered through the poor law. This proposal is going altogether outside the scope of the Bill, and I really doubt whether, if this question had been raised at the proper time whether it would not have been ruled out of order. It is a clause enacting a change in the whole principle of the poor law in a Bill which does not profess to deal or interfere with the poor law at all. Therefore I think that the argument of the right honourable Gentleman is directed against his own clause, and is a very strong argument against the clause in its present shape. Sir, we heard just now a speech in favour of the Amendment from the honourable Member for Trinity College in which he was exceedingly generous at the expense of the unfortunate starving poor wretches who, in the best of years, have great difficulty in keeping their heads fairly above water; and I noticed, when the honourable and learned Member for Louth suggested that the owners of land might bear half of the cost, the enthusiasm of the honourable Member for Trinity College disappeared, and his countenance became rather solemn. The honourable Member said that there was no real remedy for this condition of things so long as there exists a body of men who desire these unfortunate people to live on land of such a character that it is impossible for them to get a living on it or to live on it without being reduced to starvation year after year. Well, Sir, but this land, bad as it is, is heavily rented, and this very year these very occupiers have been dragged out of their miserable homes to pay considerable rents for this valueless land. And now the proposal of this intelligent Government is that in addition to leaving them there—because how can these people leave that land unless the Government produce some machinery by which they can be placed on better holdings—in this starving condition, paying high rents for the land which has been described as worthless by the honourable Member for Trinity College, they are going to throw upon this most wretched population in the United Kingdom the burden and responsibility of providing for extraordinary distress in order to carry out the policy which the right honourable Gentleman has been pursuing in connection with the present distress, a policy which has been condemned in every part of Ireland, as heartless and cruel in the extreme. We know perfectly well the Member for South Tyrone has properly and accurately described what will really be the operation of this clause. This clause is not indeed for the purpose of providing the right honourable Gentleman—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The honourable Member is not in order in discussing that at this stage.

MR. DILLON

Then I will reserve my observations until the question is put that the clause be added to the Bill. I say if the right honourable Gentleman's object be—and it is the only object I have been able to extract from his speeches—to carry out this theory of his, then, I say, he can attain that object by levying a rate of one penny as well as by a fivepenny rate, and in order to test his bonâ fides, I shall move, as an Amendment to his Amendment, to leave out the word "fivepence," and insert "one penny."

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The honourable Member moves this Amendment in order to test my bonâ fides. It is obvious that the arguments used by him to reduce it from fivepence to a penny might be used to reduce it from a penny to an eighth of a penny.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Or increase it from fivepence to five shillings.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

It would be most unwise to place the amount so low as a penny, as in the case of the council exhausting the amount which under the clause it might raise it would be precluded from acting in a case of necessity during a later period of the year. Sir, that the amount at which the minimum is placed should be a substantial one I think is clear. However, I shall be prepared to reduce the minimum to something lower than fivepence, but a penny is too low—say, threepence.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Make it three-halfpence.

MR. JORDAN

Make it twopence.

MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)

This clause provides, in the first place, for a certain expenditure, which is to be incurred by the guardians, and to the amount of that expenditure there is no limit at all. It then goes on to provide that the limit shall be taken from the county at large, and then the right honourable Gentleman provides that the total amount to be levied in any one year shall not exceed 5d. in the £ on the rateable value of the county. The fourth sub-section then provides that the guardians may borrow—there are three interpretations that could be put on the sections—and it might be possible that this is to be taken as a limit of the expenditure, and that the guardians are not to spend under this section more than what would amount to 10d. in the £ on the rates of the county at large. I fail to see why the right honourable Gentleman puts in the words "shall be levied off the county at large." If I have the meaning of these words correctly they mean that no matter what the guardians spend, one-half must be levied off the county at large. Therefore, the meaning of these words is this—that there is no possibility of the Imperial contribution exceeding the amount levied off the county at large.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

There is nothing in the clause to prevent the Government from coming to the assistance of those in need from the very beginning of the distress.

MR. VESEY KNOX

The section provides for expenditure by the guardians, and that includes all the expenditure by the guardians.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

Certainly so.

MR. VESEY KNOX

But so far as the work is done by the guardians, it is provided for by this section. The Government can use the police force to give out the relief, and I can hardly suppose that the Chief Secretary intended that there should be two administrative bodies carrying out relief at the same time.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

There is no question of that.

MR. VESEY KNOX

The expenditure is incurred by the guardians, in the first instance, and we have it provided that one-half of this expenditure shall be levied off the county at large. According to the construction of these words it might seem that one-half of all the expenditure of the guardians was to be levied off the county at large. Now, the Chief Secretary wished to introduce words which would provide that the expenditure to be levied off the county was not to exceed 5d. in the £. He suggests 3d. in the £ now—that is the total amount in any one year, and when we take that in connection with the borrowing powers, I do not see that there is anything to prevent the guardians borrowing a very considerable sum, and that sum being levied off the county at large. I do not know if the Chief Secretary means by these words that the expenditure in any one year which may be levied off the county at large is not to exceed 3d. in the £, but if he does he ought to say so. I venture to think that if the clause came to be construed by the Local Government Board, that it would present enormous difficulties, and that neither the board of guardians nor the ratepayers would in the least understand its provisions.

MR. JORDAN

Mr. Speaker, I do not know on what basis the Chief Secretary arrived at the fivepenny rate, or on what basis he subsequently arrived at threepence. My honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo said he would be willing to accept a penny rate.

MR. DILLON

No, I did not say so.

MR. JORDAN

Well, you moved to substitute a penny for threepence, and actions speak louder than words; we have an axiom in our part of the country, when we are making a bargain, to split the difference. In this case I suggest that the Chief Secretary should split the difference with the honourable Member for East Mayo, and make it twopence, which, I think, would answer all the purposes.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

My honourable Friend who has just spoken is, I think, a little mistaken in his commentary on the Amendment of my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo. My honourable Friend, in proposing a penny, did not accept it as fair, but he thought a penny was the reducible minimum to which he could get the Chief Secretary to assent. I am very glad that the Chief Secretary came down to threepence, but I should be glad if he could come a little lower. My honourable Friend will go to a Division on this question, I hope, because we are bound to oppose this monstrous proposal. I really find a little difficulty in speaking calmly of a proposal which I dislike so much. The idea of trying to raise £6,000 from a county like Mayo, where the people are starving, is a monstrous proposal. Well, even the threepenny rate will mean £3,200. If anyone made that proposal with regard to a poor county in England, he would be laughed at. At this moment actually every tendency of legislation in England is in the opposite direction to that proposed for Ireland by the right honourable Gentleman; I might also say that Session after Session proposals are introduced and passed, the whole effect of which is to equalise the rates between the poor parts and the rich parts of London. In other words, why should not the district of St. George's pay a portion of the expenses of St. Giles': and in the same way why should not the district of St. George in England pay a proportion of the expenses of the St. Giles' poor in Ireland?

LORD E. FITZMAURICE

I should like to know exactly what is the proposal before the House.

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

Before the question is put I take it that the meaning of the clause, if embodied as part of the Bill, will give the county council power to levy a special rate not exceeding 5d. in the £ to meet distress in any particular district of Ireland. I would like to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the position of Kerry is regard to the matter. On a valuation of Kerry of £294,496 a rate of 5d. would mean an extra levy of £6,000 on the ratepayers of the county of Kerry. If the House will take into consideration that, from the latest Government Returns, the present average rate in the county of Kerry is 7s. 5½d. in the £, I would like to know from the Chief Secretary how he is going to show that the ratepayers in that county can still contribute 5d. in the £ to meet exceptional or extraordinary distress. Some districts, like my own, have only a rate to pay of from 6s. to 7s. in the £. It is a monstrous thing, in my opinion, that any Government should expect a county like Kerry or Mayo, or any of the western counties of Ireland, to contribute the rate now asked. I might say that several unions I know in the county of Kerry are already in a bankrupt condition. It is utterly impossible, Mr. Speaker, from the knowledge which Irish Members possess, for them to vote for this proposal, seeing what a struggle it is for these poor people to even eke out an existence. With flour at 35s., 36s., and 37s. a sack—

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: No, no!

MR. FLAVIN

It is the truth, and I know it, because I happen to be connected with the trade. I know the price and the lowest price, and it is owing to the refusal of the Government to interfere with the railway management.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. FLAVIN

I merely wished to illustrate my point, Sir, by showing the con- dition of the poor people, and that, in such circumstances, with the price of flour at such a height, it is impossible for them to contribute this 5d. in the £, when it is as much as they can do to keep from starvation.

MR. SPEAKER

It is proposed to leave out "fivepence," in order to insert "one penny."

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

Before the House decides this point, I think there should be an understanding come to first as to whether 3d. would be accepted or not.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

On the point of order, I should like to know, Sir, whether the right honourable Gentleman is going to insist on his Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

The question is that "fivepence" stand part of the clause.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Surely the right honourable Gentleman can tell us whether he is going to stick to 5d. or not?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

As a modification, 3d. was proposed.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Let us strike out the 5d. unanimously. There need be no Division as to that. Then we can discuss what the ultimate figure is to be.

MR. PINKERTON

My honourable Friend seems to have been paying a tribute to the glorious and immortal memory of William III. I expect, in common fairness and in common decency, that every landlord from Ireland, unless he is prepared to contribute 3d., or, at any rate, 2½d., in the £ should refrain from voting.

MR. MURNAGHAN (Tyrone Mid)

I think, Sir, that the Chief Secretary owes it to himself and to the House that he should exhibit some business aptitude in these matters. Why does he lay such obstacles in the way of the passing of the Bill? If this Measure is to be passed the Chief Secretary should stick to a definite line of conduct. That is why I say the Chief Secretary owes it to himself and to the House to take up the position of a statesman in regard to this matter.

MR. MONK (Gloucester)

supported the Amendment.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

As there seems to be some confusion, Sir, I would like to say that the position now taken up is this: the original proposal of the honourable Member in opposition to this clause was that "a penny" should be substituted for "fivepence." Then, as a concession, I suggested that "threepence" should be the amount. Now, as I understand it, if "fivepence" is struck out, the question before the House will be that "threepence" stands part of the clause. If any honourable Member opposite will agree that 3d. should be the sum, and not 1d., I should be prepared

to consider it. What I want is to obviate any discussion which will unnecessarily prolong the consideration of this part of the Bill.

MR. DILLON

I could not consent to withdraw my opposition to even a 3d. rate; but if the right honourable Gentleman will abandon his 5d. rate and move 3d. instead, we can take a Division.

Question put— That 'fivepence' stand part of the clause, and negatived without a Division.

Question put— That 'threepence' be inserted in the clause instead of 'fivepence.'

The House divided:—Ayes 222; Noes 126.—(Division List No. 200.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Garfit, William
Aird, John	Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)	Gedge, Sydney
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.	Channing, Francis Allston	Gibbons, J. Lloyd
Arnold, Alfred	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of L.)
Arrol, Sir William	Chelsea, Viscount	Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)
Ascroft, Robert	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Giles, Charles Tyrrell
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Gilliat, John Saunders
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.
Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)	Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready
Balcarres, Lord	Colston, C. E. H. Athole	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Baldwin, Alfred	Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)	Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.	Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)	Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.	Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)
Banbury, Frederick George	Cox, Robert	Gretton, John
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Gull, Sir Cameron
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hunts)	Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)	Gunter, Colonel
Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)	Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, S. W.)	Hall, Sir Charles
Bartley, George C. T.	Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)	Halsey, Thomas Frederick
Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.
Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)	Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon	Hanson, Sir Reginald
Beckett, Ernest William	Donkin, Richard Sim	Hardy, Laurence
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Haslett, Sir James Horner
Bethell, Commander	Drucker, A.	Heaton, John Henniker
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.	Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.
Biddulph, Michael	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)
Bigwood, James	Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas	Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Fardell, Sir T. George	Hobhouse, Henry
Bolitho, Thomas Bedford	Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward	Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)	Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn
Boulnois, Edmund	Finch, George H.	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)	Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse
Brassey, Albert	Fisher, William Hayes	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-	Jenkins, Sir John Jones
Butcher, John George	FitzWygram, Gen. Sir F.	Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)	Folkestone, Viscount	Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Forster, Henry William	Jolliffe, Hon. H. George
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Kemp, George
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)	Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)	Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)	Fry, Lewis	Kenrick, William
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Galloway, William Johnson	Kenyon, James
Knowles, Lees	Morrell, George Herbert	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Lafone, Alfred	Morrison, Walter	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Laurie, Lieut.-General	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)	Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)
Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)	Murray, C. J. (Coventry)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.	Murray, Col. W. (Bath)	Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Leighton, Stanley	Myers, William Henry	Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)	Newark, Viscount	Stephens, Henry Charles
Loder, Gerald W. Erskine	Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Stock, James Henry
Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Thorburn, Walter
Lowe, Francis William	Pease, Arthur (Darlington)	Thornton, Percy M.
Lowles, John	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Pierpoint, Robert	Valentia, Viscount
Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.	Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)
Lucas-Shadwell, William	Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)	Waring, Col. Thomas
McArthur, C. (Liverpool)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Warr, Augustus Frederick
McCalmont, Mj.-Gn. (Ant'm, N.)	Purvis, Robert	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert	Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
McIver, Sir Lewis	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.
McKenna, Reginald	Reid, Sir Robert T.	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
McKillop, James	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Malcolm, Ian	Richards, Henry Charles	Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Mellor Colonel (Lancashire)	Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Melville, Beresford Valentine	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.	Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)
Milbank, Sir P. C. J.	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.	Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Robertson, H. (Hackney)	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Milner, Sir Frederick George	Round, James	Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.
Milton, Viscount	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Monk, Charles James	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)	Rutherford, John
More, Robert Jasper	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)	Seton-Karr, Henry
NOES.
Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)	Doogan, P. C.	Logan, John William
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Dunn, Sir William	Lough, Thomas
Allison, Robert Andrew	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Atherley-Jones, L.	Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)	Macaleese, Daniel
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Evershed, Sydney	MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n's C.)
	Fenwick, Charles	McCartan, Michael
Bainbridge, Emerson	Field, William (Dublin)	McDermott, Patrick
Barlow, John Emmott	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)
Billson, Alfred	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Maddison, Fred.
Blake, Edward	Flynn, James Christopher	Maden, John Henry
Brigg, John	Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)	Mandeville, J. Francis
Broadhurst, Henry	Gilhooly, James	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Molloy, Bernard Charles
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Gold, Charles	Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)
Burt, Thomas	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Morris, Samuel
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Hammond, John (Earlow)	Murnaghan, George
Caldwell, James	Hayden, John Patrick	Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.
Cameron, Robert (Durham)	Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Hazell, Walter	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Carew, James Laurence	Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)
Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Causton, Richard Knight	Hogan, James Francis	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Clough, Walter Owen	Holburn, J. G.	O'Kelly, James
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Horniman, Frederick John	O'Malley, William
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Pinkerton, John
Crean, Eugene	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Power, Patrick Joseph
Crombie, John William	Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)	Price, Robert John
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Jordan, Jeremiah	Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)
Daly, James	Kearley, Hudson E.	Richardson, J. (Durham)
Dalziel, James Henry	Knox, Edmund Francis V.	Rickett, J. Compton
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Lambert, George	Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)
Davitt, Michael	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Robson, William Snowdon
Donelan, Captain A.	Leng, Sir John	Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

Schwann, Charles E.	Thomas, A. (Carmarthen)	Wilson, John (Govan)
Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)	Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Woodall, William
Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)	Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'ld)
Smith, Samuel (Flint)	Wallace, Robert (Perth)	Woods, Samuel
Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)	Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Souttar, Robinson	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Yoxall, James Henry
Stevenson, Francis S.	Wayman, Thomas
Strachey, Edward	Williams, John C. (Notts)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dillon and Mr.MacNeill.
Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)	Wills, Sir William Henry
Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)
Tennant, Harold John	Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

Question put— That those words be there inserted— so, however, that the total amount of such expenditure levied off the county at large in any one year shall not exceed a sum equal to threepence in the pound on the rateable value of the county.

Words, as amended, inserted.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 9, line 21, after 'Lord Lieutenant' insert 'and the secretary of the county council were the clerk of the peace.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 9, line 22, after 'justices' insert 'and the clerk of the peace.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 9, line 33, leave out sub-section (5) of clause 13.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy. )

MR. T. M. HEALY

Sir, it seems to me that when once you have fixed the salary of a coroner there is no reason for excluding him from both county and district; councils. I would suggest to the Government that he might be elected, or that he might be co-opted. The prohibition is very strong, because he is not even to be allowed to be co-opted.

MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment is to leave out sub-section (5).

MR. T. M. HEALY

To save time, you may as well put my other Amendment too.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 9, line 34, leave out 'or district.'

MR. ATKINSON

Sir, I cannot accept the Amendment, because, if carried, it would have a most objectionable effect. The coroner for a county will be the servant of the county council, who will appoint and who will pay him. In those circumstances, it would be absurd that he should be a member of the body of which he is a servant. The same objection holds good in regard to his acting as a district councillor. The county council have to exercise control over the district council. They have to agree with, or reject, many of its proposals; they have to approve of its expenditure in some instances. To have a member of a district council opposing, or rather instigating a district council of which he is a member to be in conflict with a body whose servant he is would surely be a most improper thing.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I will not press the matter, though I think it is rather hard. Can he be a member of a board of guardians?

MR. ATKINSON

This clause does not disqualify him.

Amendments withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 9, line 34, at end, add— The salary of every coroner shall be in lieu of all sums which otherwise would be payable to him for fees, mileage, and allowances, and shall be fixed with the approval of the Local Government Board by the county or borough council by whom the salary is payable, or in default of the same being so fixed, then by the Local Government Board, and shall not be subject to increase or diminution during his tenure of office: provided that—(a) nothing in this section shall deprive the coroner of the right to be repaid expenses and disbursements lawfully made by him on the holding of any inquest; and (b) the salary of any existing coroner shall not be less than the average annual net receipts of such coroner from his office of coroner during the five years next before the passing of this Act.—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— Line 2, to leave out the word 'mileage.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I move that the word "mileage" in the second line be omitted. I really think the Government ought not to attempt to insert the word "mileage" here. The salary should include mileage. Then you say that the salary of any existing coroner shall not be less than the average annual net receipts. The net receipts will be the receipts after the mileage is deducted, and, therefore, you would be actually keeping the salary down. If you cannot make the clause any better, do not make it any worse. I beg to propose to omit the word "mileage."

MR. ATKINSON

The net receipts shall not be less than the average annual receipts of the coroner. It is the intention of the Bill that you should take all the receipts, and strike an average for the last five years.

MR. CLANCY

The net receipts less mileage.

MR. ATKINSON

No. If he were to receive anything he was not entitled to, then the receipts would not belong to him. The net receipts are what remain to himself from all that he receives, including mileage.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)

I beg to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland if there is a fixed sum for mileage.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The honourable Gentleman withdrew his Amendment.

MR. JORDAN

I simply want to know from the Attorney General for Ireland if the sum for mileage is fixed or variable, because I know public officers make a large sum out of mileage. I know a man who would go 30 miles round about when he could have reached the place by going five miles straight. That man charged a large sum for mileage. In this case you might increase the salary of the coroner by increasing his mileage. What I want to know is, is the sum fixed or variable?

MR. ATKINSON

The honourable Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The coroner gets mileage under the Grand Jury Act. Whatever he has got for mileage during the last five years, it is on that that the average will be struck. If a man goes 30 miles when he might go five, then it would be foolish to pay him.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 9, line 13, leave out 'five' and insert 'three.' Page 9, line 13, leave out 'the passing of this Act' and insert 'the first day of November, 1899.'"—(Col. Waring. )

COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)

said it might work hardly if they appointed men and fixed their salaries upon the rate paid to their predecessors for the last five years. In three years they could bring in more of their own work, and it would give a fairer average.

MR. ATKINSON

I do not think this is a desirable Amendment. Three years is too short an average. I think I know the case to which the honourable and gallant Member refers—that in which a rather supine coroner was succeeded by a more active coroner. But I think that three years is much too short.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed. Page 9, line 34, at end, add— (6) Any existing coroner who may suffer any direct pecuniary loss by virtue of this Act shall be entitled to such compensation as is provided by this Act for existing officers who suffer loss of fees or salary by virtue of this Act or of anything done in pursuance or in consequence of this Act. (7) A county council may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, grant to a coroner who has given his whole time to the duties of his office and who becomes incapable of discharging those duties from old age or by reason of confirmed ill health such superannuation allowance as such council, in concurrence with the Local Government Board, deems fit under all the circumstances of the case."—(Mr. Clancy. )

MR. ATKINSON

I will call the honourable Member's attention to the fact that sub-section 6 is covered by clause 17.

Sub-sections 6 and 7 ruled out of order.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 9, line 34, at end, add 'so much of any Act of Parliament that requires that a coroner for the borough of Dublin shall possess a property qualification shall be and the same is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Clancy. )

MR. CLANCY

I presume I shall be in order in moving this Amendment. I think the Chief Secretary said yesterday that if I made it general he would accept it. It is not necessary to make it general, because the property qualification for coroners is abolished except in the city of Dublin.

MR. ATKINSON

It should read— So much of any Act of Parliament as requires that a coroner shall possess a property qualification shall be and the same is hereby repealed.

MR. CLANCY

In clause 19 it says— Nothing relating to coroners in any other part of the Act shall apply to county boroughs.

Amendment agreed to, with the omission of the words "for the borough of Dublin."

Another Amendment proposed— Page 10, line 21, at end, insert— (5) Where a county infirmary or fever hospital is under the management of a governing body other than such corporation as above-mentioned, the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply, with the necessary modifications, in like manner as if the governing body were the said corporation. (6) A county council may, if they think fit, contribute towards the rebuilding or enlargement or erection on a new site of any county infirmary, whether such rebuilding, enlargement, or erection takes place after the passing of this Act, or is in course of completion at that passing, or towards the reopening of a closed county infirmary, a sum not exceeding in the whole one-third of the sums actually received from private donations or subscriptions for such rebuilding, enlargement, erection, or re-opening, and the foregoing provisions with respect to the management of the infirmary shall apply accordingly."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 10, line 24, after 'Act' insert 'or where part of any such county is constituted a county borough.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 10, line 28, at end, insert— A person shall be disqualified for being elected or chosen or being a member of the committee of management of a county infirmary or fever hospital if he holds any paid office or place of profit under or in the gift or disposal of such committee, or is concerned by himself or his partner in any bargain or contract entered into with the committee, or participate by himself or his partner in the profit of any such bargain or contract, or of any work done under the authority of the committee under circumstances which in the case of a county or district council would disqualify him from being elected or being a member of such council."—(Mr. T. M. Healy. )

MR. T. M. HEALY

I beg to move. Surely there can be no objection to this Amendment.

MR. ATKINSON

There is already in the Act a section which carries out the object of the honourable and learned Member's Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 10, line 41, after 'upon' insert 'no ecclesiastical person shall in right of his dignity or office be entitled to be a governor or trustee of any such infirmary or fever hospital as aforesaid."—(Mr. T. M. Healy. )

MR. T. M. HEALY

There still exists a right with certain dignitaries of the Church, by reason of their ecclesiastical office, to hold the office of governor or trustee of an infirmary or fever hospital. Now the Queen's Bench in Ireland has decided that the Disestablishment Act disqualified these parsons, but three judges in the Court of Appeal have out-voted the other judges, and, by a majority of one vote, have decided that the Queen's Bench was wrong; that is, the six judges have decided that the men were disqualified, and three decided that they were not, and the three were able to out-vote the six. Now, it does seem to me that men should not have the right to spend the ratepayers' money by virtue of their ecclesiastical positions. By this Bill you exclude priests from holding any office whatever under the county council, and you also exclude other parsons. Am I to be told that, while you are excluding priests from holding office under the county councils, and clergymen of all denominations, you are still in favour of keeping up an ancient privilege attaching to certain gentlemen who are attached to the so-called Church of Ireland, because they happen to have a right by dignity or office? The archbishop, the bishops, and a number of clergymen and rectors are entitled to come in and vote away the taxpayers' money simply because they happen to be clergymen of a particular denomination, and of that particular Church. Now, Sir, I think it is the 13th section of the Church Act which was passed with a view to destroying that special privilege, but the Court of Appeal in Ireland, by a majority of one, reversed the decision of the Queen's Bench upon that point. The Bill provides that no clergyman is to have any right to sit upon these boards at all. Am I to be told now, "It is true that we disqualify all clergymen and all priests, but certain Protestant parsons shall remain and vote my money away, although they pay none of it"? It appears to me that this Bill disqualifies priests, but allows certain people in ecclesiastical offices to sit on these boards. If a man, because he is a parson, is entitled to hold an office, then I do not see why priests are to be excluded. You have already excluded priests, although they are ratepayers, but these parsons are not ratepayers at all. Then there is the Protestant archbishop of Cashel.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER

He was not an archbishop.

MR. T. M. HEALY

He was a bishop then. But why should the Protestant Bishop of Cashel be allowed to come down and vote away this money? The Government seem to be taking the first opportunity of upholding the decision come to by the judges and restoring that decision, but this Amendment will put clergymen on the same level on which you have already by this Bill put Catholic priests.

SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD

I should like to say on this question that I believe that it is the case now that ministers, priests, and parsons of all denominations take their places upon the boards of hospitals. This is a perfectly different thing from clergymen being allowed to enter the arena of party politics by going on county councils or district councils. I think, however, that the right place of ministers outside their churches and chapels is in the hospitals, but I believe the Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth would exclude ecclesiastics from being on the board of any hospital.

MR. T. M. HEALY

No, no!

SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD

Yes, it would, by virtue of their office. I think there are hospitals in Dublin in which the Roman Catholic archbishop and the bishops are on the board.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Yes, but they are private institutions; not paid for out of the rates.

SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD

Well, I would myself like to see ministers of all religions on the boards of hospitals, for they have a knowledge of the people and the patients who are sent to the hospitals, but I do not think our very much abused rectors and deans and bishops have ever been found any serious fault with for their conduct on these hospital boards. I do not think that this is a very wise Amendment, and I hope it will be withdrawn. I do not think it will affect the question very much, because it will be a great deal watered down when we come to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which deals with the number of people who are in future to constitute these boards, and how many may or may not be elected by the ordinary forms by which they have been elected in the past. In dealing with this question we shall probably have the board of management narrowed down very considerably, and in his Amendment the Chief Secretary will be able to deal with this question. If the Amendment is to remain in the form in which it is now, on the grounds I have attempted to explain to the House I shall vote against it.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The Government are certainly not aware that there are any such cases. If it be really the case that in consequence of some flaw in the Act it did not fully carry out the intention of those by whom the Act was passed, and if it is true that, owing to some particular wording of the Church Disestablishment Act, certain clergymen retain a privilege which it was not intended that they should hold, undoubtedly that right should be taken away. I do not see how we can, under the circumstances, resist the Amendment, and I would appeal to the honourable Member for Cambridge not to press his objection.

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 11, line 2, after 'infirmary' insert 'as regulated by the Waterford Infirmary Act, 1896.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 11, line 2, after 'infirmary' insert 'but if the corporation or county council, respectively, of the city and county of Waterford agree to contribute any sum towards said infirmary, they shall each be entitled to elect annually one governor for every sum of fifty pounds so contributed.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

I hope the Government will have no objection to this. It is simply to give the city of Waterford the same right of sitting upon the board of the infirmary as other people have. At present the proposal of the original Act is that, whilst an individual can obtain a vote by paying £50, the ratepayers of Waterford can only get a vote by contributing £100. I think it is only right that the county and city of Waterford should have the same right extended to them as is extended to individuals. I do not see why the ratepayers should be put in a different position to the ordinary individual, and I think it is also desirable to place them upon an equal footing, because by so doing you would give them a greater encouragement to contribute to these institutions. I think they should have the same franchise as individuals.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The Government will agree to exclude Waterford from the operation of this section upon the ground that a private Act has been passed only recently, dealing, among other things, with the infirmaries and the city. The Amendment, proposed by the honourable Gentleman is practically an Amendment of that private Act. I think it would be undesirable, after having excluded Waterford, to go back to that Act by putting such an Amendment in this Bill.

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)

The Amendment proposed by the honourable and learned Gentleman merely puts the county and city ratepayers upon a par with private individuals. They can have a member on the board for a contribution of £50. The county and city ratepayers can only get a vote on the board by a contribution of £100. I think it would be in the interest of the infirmary itself to accept this Amendment. I think the ratepayers should be put upon an equal footing with individual subscribers, and that if they were they would be more likely to be disposed to contribute than under the present circumstances.

MR. J. REDMOND (Waterford)

This Amendment would not place the ratepayers on a par with the ordinary donors to the hospital. It would put them in a much better position, for the simple reason that the ratepayers have as ex-officio members of the board the mayors and sheriffs, and the Catholic and Protestant clergymen are also ex-officio members. I do not think myself that any further representation is required. Of course, a fair representation is to be desired, because if the representation was not fair the ratepayers would not make their contributions. But the representation is a fair one, and was agreed to in 1886, when the Act was passed. No objection was taken to it then, and none has been taken since. The board, as constituted, was the result of an agreement all round, and as I say, I have heard no objection taken to it, and I think it might be left as it is.

Amendment negatived.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 11, line 24, after 'council,' insert 'unless with the consent of the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

The Government undertook in Committee to consider the question of county councils having the right to promote Bills in Parliament, but I do not see any Amendment down to make any change in the clause. The right honourable Gentleman will remember I referred to the case of Dublin, which, by its right to oppose Bills in Parliament, was able to do a good deal of good. Now the suggestion I make here is that, subject to the consent of the Local Government Board, these powers should vest in the county councils, which would give a very valuable check, and would put a very valuable power into the hands of the county councils. You see the way in which the words run is this— This section shall not empower any county council to promote any Bills in Parliament or to incur or raise any expenses in relation to such promotion. Now it seems to me, although I agree with the Government to a considerable extent in limiting this power if they are able to obtain the necessary consent of the authority, it would only be fair that those powers should vest in the county councils. I beg to move the clause which stands in my name, and I appeal to the Government to carry out the undertaking they gave us in Committee.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The undertaking to which the honourable Gentleman has referred was an undertaking to consider the case of county boroughs. It should not be lawful for the council of the county borough to oppose Bills in Parliament without the consent of the ratepayers. That question hardly comes up upon this clause. I shall, however, be prepared to meet the honourable Member part of the way in the Amendment, which has been put down in the name of the honourable Member for Cork. So far as county boroughs are concerned, I do not think it would be desirable in this Bill to give the county councils the power to promote Bills, even with the consent of the Local Government Board; that may come later on. As regards boroughs the case is somewhat different. The Local Government Board of England are of opinion it might be desirable to give the county boroughs a power of opposing Bills, but there is not the same concensus of opinion with regard to the power of promoting them.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 11, line 30, after 'board' insert 'and agree with the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to take over any marine works constructed or acquired by those commissioners under the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Other Amendments proposed— Page 12, line 15, after 'council' insert 'or the commissioners of a town.' Page 12, line 16, after 'guardians' insert 'and where it appears to the Local Government Board that there are no persons capable of acting as such board or body, the order may be made without the consent of the board or body.' Page 12, line 30, after 'Act' insert 'and the powers of baronial presentment sessions.' Page 12, line 40, after 'aforesaid' insert 'or as expressly provided by this Act.' Page 13, line 11, after 'of' insert 'a portion of the.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendments agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 13, line 13, after '1888' insert 'except sub-section of section 16.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

I do not propose to move this Amendment, but the one that immediately follows, upon behalf of the honourable Member for Cork— Page 13, line 14, after 'apply' insert '(c) no approval of voters shall be necessary to enable the council of a county borough to promote or oppose a Bill in Parliament pursuant to the provisions of the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888.'

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

To enable the county councils to promote Bills without consulting the ratepayers. If the honourable Gentleman leaves out the words, "promote or," I have no objection to it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I will move it in that form.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 13, line 29, at the end of clause 19, insert the words— Provided that for all purposes of assize, general or quarter sessions, civil bill court, making of lists of jurors and jurors' books, and summoning and service of jurors, a borough which has not a separate commission or quarter sessions shall be part of the county in which, at the passing of this Act, it is situate for such purposes."—(Mr. Condon.)

MR. CONDON (Tipperary, E.)

The object of moving this Amendment is to include the boroughs of Ireland, as mentioned in the Amendment, in the city boroughs.

MR. ATKINSON

A borough is not necessarily a county borough, but a part of the county at large, and the wording of the Amendment would not carry what the honourable Gentleman desires at all. A borough is part of a county, and forms part of it for all purposes. This Amendment will not help the matter at all. It will only cease to make the borough a part of the county, and will not have the effect the honourable Gentleman desires.

MR. T. M. HEALY

What I think the honourable Gentleman desires to accomplish, and what the point he takes is, that he feels that you are refusing to make certain towns county boroughs because they have separate assizes. He says, abolish these separate assizes if you like, but leave the town its status. That is the intention. Whether the Government accept these words or not is another thing, but they might accept it. If you abolish the separate assizes you might leave the towns their status.

MR. ATKINSON

That is not the Amendment here. The Amendment here is that for all purposes these boroughs who have not accepted a commission for quarter sessions. It is to all a borough not to be wholly merged, but only partially merged, into a county.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments proposed— Page 13, leave out from beginning of line 21 to the third 'and' in line 22. Page 13, line 24, after 'judge,' insert 'of assize.' Page 13, line 25, leave out from 'compensation' to the end of clause. Page 14, line 12, after 'whether a,' insert 'county or other.' Page 14, line 14, after 'not,' insert 'which is not a county borough.' Page 14, line 18, leave out from '1892' to 'shall,' in line 21."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendments agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 14, line 21, at end, add— Where a town has a population exceeding three thousand, according to the census of the year One thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, but is not at the passing of this Act an urban sanitary district, the Local Government Board shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section seven of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, within twelve months after the passing of this Act, by order in the prescribed manner, constitute such town an urban sanitary district, and such order shall take effect without the authority of Parliament."—(Mr. Hayden.)

MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)

The object of this Amendment is to convert the towns that are not at present urban sanitary districts into urban sanitary districts, and to convert town commismissioners into urban district councils. The object of this Amendment is to vest the administration of those towns in the local bodies instead of, as at present, in the hands of the boards of guardians and in the future the rural district councils, which embrace men coming from a very wide area, and men who have no interest in the town, and who know very little about it. Towns with a population of 3,000 or 4,000 are very much more important towns in Ireland than towns of the same size in England, and many of us think that such towns ought not to be compelled to adopt the roundabout methods of this Bill to become a district council, and that they should be able to become in their own right urban districts, and elect their own councils. If the population is considered too small, I have no objection to its being made 5,000, but the principle of this Amendment is already upon the Statute Book—I think in the Public Health Act of 1878, where the population was put at 6,000 in rural urban sanitary districts—and it is really to extend the principle already on the Statute Book to these towns with a smaller population. I beg to move the Amendment.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

This Amendment cannot possibly be agreed to. The effect of it would be to make all towns with a population of 3,000, within 12 months after this Act comes into force, urban districts, whether those towns desire to become so or not. That is not a proposal which the Government would accept. I think the honourable Gentleman is wrong in saying that all towns with a population of over 6,000 inhabitants were necessarily constituted sanitary districts. They might become so, but they were not constituted sanitary districts ipso facto. But, apart from that fact, under this Bill every place which is a sanitary district is also, whether it likes it or not, a road authority; and a town which has only 3,000 inhabitants ought not to be compelled to not only become a sanitary district but also a rural authority whether they like it or not; but, further than that, the Government have an Amendment on the Paper that towns with a population of under 5,000 shall cease to be sanitary districts, and be merged into another district. If we accepted this Amendment we should be accepting an Amendment totally at variance with our own principle.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 15, line 3, leave out 'one councillor,' and insert 'two councillors.'"—(Mr. Arnold-Forster.)

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)

I do not wish to detain the House long after the discussion which took place last night upon this question, but I do desire to separate the two questions of county councils and district councils.

MR. SPEAKER

Is the honourable Gentleman going to move?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Yes, Sir. I beg to move that two members be elected to the district councils, and one of my reasons for doing so is this, that an opportunity should be afforded of electing women as district councillors. My point is this: that in Ireland there has been a steady increase in the election of women to assist in the administration of the poor law in the shape of women guardians. In the first year of the Act, 1897, the number of women elected guardians was 11, while this year there are 17. In England there are 917 women concerned in the administration of the poor law, and it seems to me a thousand pities that the attempt to reproduce this state of things in Ireland, a state of things which works so well, should be put a stop to. If you allow two persons to be elected, you will be able to perpetuate a system of women guardians, and there is this obvious fact—women have been elected all over Ireland, apart from all political opinions, all political parties recording their votes in favour of the women. I do wish to urge this upon the Chief Secretary, that, if these facilities be not given, it is almost certain that the women element will be eliminated from the poor law administration. There is a strong feeling in every part of Ireland upon this matter, and it will be considered that one man must be returned to the district council, and they will not be represented if they do not return one. There would be a disposition, if they returned two members, to return women to take part in the administration of the poor law. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary will accept this Amendment, or whether he will refer me to the same remedy as he gave me in the county councils.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

This question was, in fact, discussed yesterday, for the same item relating to county council elections was considered by the House. I am afraid I have no encouragement to give to my honourable Friend, who moves such an Amendment as this. What I stated yesterday with regard to county councils applies also to district councils. It is desirable, in the view of the Government, to have a single member elected instead of two members, but I will go this far with regard to district councils. If a difference is to be made as to the number of councillors elected for each district, it would be much better for the district council to have two members than the county council.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 15, line 4, after the first 'division,' insert 'except where the Local Government Board assign more than one councillor to a town or part of a town forming one district electoral division; and the councillors for each district electoral division shall be elected.' Page 15, line 6, after 'more,' insert 'or, in the case of a town or part of a town forming one district electoral division, and returning more than one councillor, one vote and no more for each of any number of persons not exceeding the number of councillors to be elected for the division.' Page 15, line 16, leave out sub-section (4)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendments agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 15, line 27, after 'councillor,' insert 'except that a person being in holy orders, or being a regular minister of any religious denomination, shall be eligible as a guardian."—(Sir charles Dilke.)

SIR C. DILKE

The House will remember that when we were in Committee upon this Bill I moved an Amendment to get rid of all disqualification of ministers of religion and clerks in holy orders. I have not put down that Amendment again, but several Members who spoke and voted against it on that occasion said they thought the ground for the Amendment would be stronger with regard to district councils than it was in the case of county councils, and they expressed a strong desire to see in Ireland, as in England, ministers of religion eligible as guardians, and intimated that they would be more inclined to support me if my Amendment was moved with reference to boards of guardians only. Now, there is a difficulty in applying the absence of disqualifica- tion to all guardians, because some are elected as district councillors also. If we wish to raise the latter case, we can only raise it on clause 67, but I thought it better to raise the question on urban guardians. It is sufficient for me to say that the most useful guardians that we have in England are our clergy and the Roman Catholic and Nonconformist ministers. Now comes the question as to whether the circumstances in Ireland are so different as to preclude the same system being adopted as in England. I listened to the arguments of this House on a former occasion put forward by honourable Gentlemen who took that view, and I am convinced that, as far as this is concerned, they made out no case; they said there might be some special reasons in Ireland for the exclusion of Irish priests. I do not care to believe that. I do not believe in the wisdom of that exclusion, but that is not the question here. The question is now confined to urban guardians, and I do press the Government to put an end to this exclusion, which they artificially introduced into their Bill, which prevents the clergy, who, above all others, I should have thought would have exercised the functions best, from being guardians. I beg leave to move the Amendment standing in my name.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I do hope the Government will make this concession. At the present time clergymen have the right to sit, and are constantly elected. I can well understand the strong line which can be drawn between guardians and dispensary committees and the county councils. In the county councils they have to deal with roads and bridges, and things of that kind; but when you deal with these bodies, which have nothing to do except the management of the poor, I do think that the clergymen should have the right to sit. I think that clergymen are seen at their best when they are interested in and attending to the wants of the poor, sick, and insane. I do not desire that a clergyman should be ex-officio a member of a board because he is a clergyman. All that we ask is that clergymen should not be excluded because they are clergymen from taking any share in the management of the poor, sick, and insane. You are reducing practically the position of the guardians to one of a very limited character. I trust the Government will give way on this clause. The fact is, you are now depriving these gentlemen of the position which they formerly held. They were not hitherto disqualified, and everybody must admit that they exercised very useful functions on the dispensary committees. It is most desirable that men of learning and education should have the right to be elected and sit upon these boards, because, for instance, they are far better qualified to judge of the qualifications, say, of doctors than the ordinary rural person, who might not know the difference between an M.D. or any other degree; they would be sure to know something of the qualifications of the doctors and surgeons who came before them. Why should these educated and learned men be excluded from these boards? I cannot make it out. No wish has been expressed on any side for this exclusion in Ireland. I could understand the arguments as to their exclusion from county councils, but I say there is nothing to be said for the exclusion of clergymen from boards of guardians. You are inflicting a disparity on gentlemen who have hitherto discharged their functions without blame.

MR. DILLON

I want to be clear on the matter. I understand that this Amendment to clause 22 would not affect their eligibility and qualification as district councillors or county councillors—it would only affect the qualification as poor law guardians in urban districts. It, therefore, deals with the same matter as a sub-section in clause 67.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The Amendment raises what is apparently the very simple question, as to whether, in the case of the very limited number of guardians who will be elected by the urban districts, there should or should not be disqualification—preventing a minister of religion from being elected. I may remind the House that in Ireland there is no board of guardians that is entirely confined to the towns; but if once you allow this disqualification, at present imposed by law in the case of guardians elected by the towns, to be removed, I think it would be very difficult not to remove it also in the case of rural district councillors who also discharge the functions of guardians. I must also say that a good many of the objections which have been and are taken by many persons in Ireland against allowing a minister of religion to sit on these boards apply as much in the case of guardians elected in the towns as in any other cases. Until the Bill was brought in, I never heard the question raised as to whether it would be desirable to allow ministers of religion to sit upon boards of guardians. There seems to have been universal acquiescence in the law which forbade them to do so. It is only when changes are made in the local customs by this Bill that this question is raised at all.

MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)

The right honourable Gentleman says there has never been a question before. The restriction was originally proposed in the Poor Law Act, and it was fought very powerfully by O'Connor and other Irish representatives at that time; and it is not a matter in which there have been constant protests raised ever since. That is no reason why, when the whole question of local government is raised and reconsidered, this matter should not be considered entirely afresh. The question seems to me to have taken an entirely new shape since this Bill was introduced. I quite understand the attitude of the Government when they framed their Bill. I can quite believe that they did not intend to pass any reflection in any way upon the Irish ministers of religion, of whatever denominations they belonged to. I am sure there is no feeling of that kind. But since the Bill has been introduced ministers of religion in Ireland have expressed strong views on this deprivation of their rights in being disallowed from taking part in the local government which is now to be conferred upon the electors of Ireland, a very small proportion of whom have hitherto been able to take part in the local government of their country. Hitherto the local government has been a matter from which the vast majority of the people of Ireland have been excluded. Now you are going to put it in a different category; you are going to allow practically all the people except ministers of religion to take part in local government. When the question comes out in that phase, ministers in Ireland have expressed very strong views. It is not that many of them are desirous of serving, because they have other duties which take up the greater part of their time; yet they have a strong feeling against being excluded by law from the right to be elected. It is not fair to them; they do not think it fair to them to place upon them disqualification and exclusion which have not been placed upon ministers of religion in England and Scotland. I venture to think that the case raised by the honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean is a very strong case. So far as northern towns, at any rate, are concerned, there has been considerable difficulty in getting suitable people to act on urban boards of guardians. In small towns it is not so. In the larger towns the average professional men know very little about the condition of the poor; it is only the clergymen and the doctors who know really much about their condition. I think, now that this matter is being reconsidered, that the Chief Secretary ought to look beyond the question of the thin end of the wedge and so forth. I do not see why he should take that view. It does not matter very much that this has not been a subject of very violent agitation; but it is a matter in which those ministers have expressed very strong views. That being so, I fail to see why Parliament should place upon them what they themselves have announced they will regard as a stigma. I am sure such a stigma is the last thing the Chief Secretary would desire to place upon them. They having shown that this is the view that they themselves take, I cannot help hoping that the Chief Secretary will reconsider the whole question in the light of these declarations. I think that they are the people to be primarily considered in this matter.

MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

So far as I am concerned I never heard of such a feeling existing in any part of Ireland. Boards of guardians have existed for many years, but I never

heard either in public or in private any agitation that ministers of different religious denominations should be asked to go on to these boards of guardians. I think it is rather an unfortunate thing that this matter should be introduced at this stage. I think the whole thing should be debated on a subsequent clause. It appears to me that this is only introducing the thin end of the wedge. If clergymen come into boards of guardians undoubtedly it will be used hereafter as a reason why they should be introduced into district councils. I think reverend gentlemen have quite sufficient duties to occupy all their time without these additional duties. In saying that, I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of any clergyman of any religious denomination. What I say applies equally to all clergymen; they have quite enough to do to mind their own business without interfering with other affairs, and I trust the Government will continue the attitude they have adopted. I oppose this Amendment.

MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.)

I should live to point out that there has up to now been no question on this matter, because there has been no local government inquiry before now. You are casting a slur upon the ministers of religion in Ireland that you are not casting upon the clergymen of your own country. As for my own constituency, I can only say that I believe that the people who know most about the poor are the priests and the clergy. If people are ill or in distress, who know more about their sickness and distress than the clergy? They are not paid to do that work; they do it out of love and religious motives. I am sure the right honourable Gentleman cannot wish to perpetuate religious differences in Ireland, and I appeal to him to see that the ministers of religion in Ireland are put on the same footing as those in England.

The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 123.—(Division List No. 201.)

AYES.
Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)	Caldwell, James	Daly, James
Billson, Alfred	Clough, Walter Owen	Dillon, John
Blake, Edward	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Donelan, Captain A.
Brigg, John	Crean, Eugene	Doogan, P. C.
Broadhurst, Henry	Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Fenwick, Charles	McDermott, Patrick	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Maddison, Fred.	Rickett, J. Compton
Flynn, James Christopher	Maden, John Henry	Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Gilhooly, James	Mandeville, J. Francis	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Molloy, Bernard Charles	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Hammond, John (Carlow)	Morris, Samuel	Tanner, Charles Kearns
Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)	Murnaghan, George	Tennant, Harold John
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)	Williams, John C. (Notts)
Hogan, James Francis	O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)
Holburn, J. G.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)
Jordan, Jeremiah	O'Malley, William	Woodall, William
Kenyon, James	Parnell, John Howard	Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Knox, Edmund Francis V.	Pickard, Benjamin	Yoxall, James Henry
Lough, Thomas	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Macaleese, Daniel	Pinkerton, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Charles Dilke and Major Jameson.
MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q'n's C.)	Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Power, Patrick Joseph
NOES.
Arrol, Sir William	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Ascroft, Robert	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of L.)	Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)	Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Balcarres, Lord	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.	Parkes, Ebenezer
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)	Gretton, John	Pender, Sir James
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Bartley, George C. T.	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.	Pierpoint, Robert
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Hayden, John Patrick	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Howell, William Tudor	Purvis, Robert
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Bousfield, William Robert	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l).
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Carew, James Laurence	Kenrick, William	Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Lafone, Alfred	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Saunderson, Col. E. James
Charrington, Spencer	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Clancy, John Joseph	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)	Seton-Karr, Henry
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Lecky, Rt. Hn. W. E. H.	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Loder, Gerald W. Erskine	Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)
Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)	Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)	Lowe, Francis William	Stock, James Henry
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Lowles, John	Strauss, Arthur
Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, S. W.)	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Thorburn, Walter
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Thornton, Percy M.
Dalkeith, Earl of	McArthur, C. (Liverpool)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	McCalmont, Mj.-Gn. (Ant'm, N.)	Usborne, Thomas
Donkin, Richard Sim	McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Dorington, Sir John Edward	McIver, Sir Lewis	Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	McKillop, James	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset).
Field, William (Dublin)	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne	Milbank, Sir P. C. J.	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Fisher, William Hayes	Monk, Charles James	Wodehouse, Ed. R. (Bath)
Flower, Ernest	More, Robert Jasper	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Fry, Lewis	Morrell, George Herbert
Galloway, William Johnson	Morrison, Walter

Another Amendment proposed— Page 15, line 29, leave out from the first 'or' to the end of the line and insert 'part thereof or part of a county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 15, line 39, leave out 'sub-section (a).'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 16, line 2, at end, insert 'and (b) may annually choose a chairman, and, if they think fit, a vice-chairman, from among the councillors; (2) the first business of the council after any triennial election shall be the consideration of the question of election of additional councillors.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 16, line 30, leave out 'nothing in.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 16, line 30, after 'borough' add 'not having a separate commission of the peace, with the substitution of mayor for chairman, but shall not apply to any other borough.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,

Another Amendment proposed— Page 16, line 37, after 'urban' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 17, line 15, leave out 'every urban district council' and insert 'the council of every urban county district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 17, line 24, after 'urban' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 17, line 33, after 'urban,' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 17, line 37, at end, insert— Where an order of the Local Government Board, under the foregoing provision, deals with an application to order any contribution or fixes the terms of an undertaking, and within three months after the order the Board receive a petition against it from either council affected, or from at least one-fourth of the local government electors of any district or county affected, the order shall be provisional only, and a certificate of the Local Government Board that no such petition has been received, and that the order has taken effect, shall be conclusive evidence of those facts."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 17, line 37, at end, insert— (7) District councils shall be entitled to tax their corporate property or to levy a rate within their district, or both, for the purpose of construction and working of railways from the confines of their district to some neighbouring station, and that district councils shall be entitled to exercise the same powers as those now exercised by presentment sessions and grand juries of giving a guarantee for the payment of interest and capital proposed or intended to be invested for the construction of railways or light railways; provided always that the council for the county shall in such event contribute such sums as it may be proved before the county court judge they shall save in road making or otherwise by such line."—(Mr. Condon.)

MR. SPEAKER

I rule this Amendment out of order.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 17, line 39, after 'shall,' insert 'save as respects the revision in this Act mentioned.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 17, line 43, leave out 'an urban,' and insert 'the.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 17, line 43, at end, add— An urban district which is, or is comprised within, a Parliamentary borough, and which defrays the expenses of the registration of the electors of the said borough, shall not be liable to contribute to the expenses of the registration of the electors of the county or counties in which said borough is situate. And if the Parliamentary boundary of said borough exceed the boundary of the urban district, the latter shall be entitled to be recouped the expenses of the registration of the electors of the borough qualifying out of that portion thereof situate outside the urban district in proportion to the number of such electors, and the ascertaining of the amount of such recoupment shall be a matter of adjustment. An urban district, in which the district council is the road authority, shall not be liable to contribute to the salaries or expenses of the county surveyor or assistant county surveyors."—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)

MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment of the honourable Member is out of order. It cannot be taken on the Report stage.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 17, line 43, at end, add— The contribution to be paid by the county council of the county of Dublin in respect of that portion of the barony of Rathdown not included in any township to the urban district council of Blackrock towards the maintenance of the Rock Road shall be on the valuation of the standard year or on such average valuation taken on a number of years as the Local Government Board for Ireland shall determine."—(Mr. Plunkett.)

MR. PLUNKETT

I beg to move the Amendment. It is a very small matter, and I hope the Government will accept it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

This question in respect of the Blackrock contribution arose in 1890, and was the subject of a very close inquiry. When the Dublin Bill was before the Committee last year an attempt was made by Blackrock to escape from the contribution. The matter was fought out by counsel before a Select Committee upstairs of 10 or 11 members, and a great deal of evidence was taken. And now, Sir, as I understand the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, it will have the effect of upsetting the decision of that Committee. I think that would be very unfair. The Government have undertaken to bring in a clause dealing with all the questions of adjustments. There is, undoubtedly, a good case for the revision of urban contributions to county authorities, but these are questions which can only be settled after inquiry.

MR. ATKINSON

promised that the matter should not be lost sight of.

MR. PLUNKETT

I am quite satisfied with my right honourable Friend's undertaking. I therefore withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 18, leave out clause 26. Page 18, line 4, at end, add— And the amount of such poor rate may, if such council think fit, be such an amount as in their judgment will be sufficient, after allowing for sums irrecoverable by reason of premises being empty or any other cause, to raise or discharge not only the sum in respect of which the rate is made, but also such a sum as will meet the expenses, or what is in their judgment a due proportion of the expenses incurred and to be incurred in and about making and recovering the rate."—(Mr. Plunkett.)

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The subject which the right honourable Member's Amendment raises is already covered by the Bill.

MR. PLUNKETT

If that is so, then I am quite satisfied.

Amendment withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 18, line 36, after 'improvement,' insert 'Ireland.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 19, leave out clause 32."—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)

MR. SETON-KARR

I beg to move the Amendment. The clause is a very serious interference with the rights of private fisheries, and is entirely unnecessary. It proposes to give district councils power, upon making a small contribution, undefined in amount, to appoint a certain number of conservators, undefined in number, in Ireland. I will endeavour to show to the House that it is quite possible that members appointed by popular election, at the expense of the ratepayers, may in no way be competent for the duties of the position, which, briefly stated, are to carry out the fishery laws. The clause is absolutely unnecessary, because all classes of interests are now represented on the boards of conservators. I may remind the House that boards of conservators consist of some eight to twelve members, half of whom are appointed by the salt water fishermen, and half by the fresh water fishermen. Now, Sir, I think the House will see that the ratepayers are not directly interested in the fisheries. They are indirectly interested, because it is in the interest of the districts concerned that the fisheries should be properly maintained and managed. Almost the only other persons interested are the persons who take out rod licences and the owners of land abutting on the river, and these are represented on the boards of conservators. Therefore the clause is absolutely unnecessary. The district council areas, moreover, are extremely inappropriate in reference to salmon fishing. A salmon river must be taken, as a whole, as a property; you must take it from the head of the river to the source, from the spawning ground to the sea. The river Foyle, for instance, runs through three counties, the Bann through seven, the Erne through six, and the Shannon through 15 counties, and if all the district councils along these rivers are to exercise power under the clause I submit, Sir, that there must inevitably be great confusion, and, what is more important still, a great deal of inefficiency and incompetency in carrying out the duties of boards of conservators, and in enforcing the fishery laws. I ask the House, what possible object can the district councils have in wishing to make a small contribution from the ratepayers' money to these boards of conservators in Ireland? I am acquainted with some of the largest fishery owners in Ireland, and I am in a position to state that none of them want these contributions. There are no other interested parties than those I have already mentioned, and therefore what possible object can these district councils have in making a contribution and appointing members to these boards? No doubt the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will have something to say about the public fisheries. I may say in passing that so far as the fresh water fisheries are concerned the only valuable fisheries are private property. If there is an open fresh water fishery in Ireland you may take it for certain that the river will not contain very many fish. No doubt the right honourable Gentleman will say something about salt water fisheries. The Shannon has 30 miles of tideway, where drift-net fishing can be carried on upon payment of £3 for a licence. Well, Sir, the individuals who take out the £3 licence are already represented on the board of conservators, as also are all who own a fishery of over £100 in value. Then what other class is there that ought to be represented? Are the inhabitants of the particular districts interested? Under this clause a district council of limited area at the head of the Shannon could swamp the board by its members, and control a fishery which may possibly be situated 100 miles away. That is the construction which I put upon the clause, and which, I submit, it would perfectly well bear. I contend that if the House will consider the question they will see that the power given under this clause to district councils cannot produce the better management of fisheries. The private fisheries of Ireland are estimated to be worth in the gross £400,000, from which a large number of men get a living, and to interfere with them is a very socialistic proposal, and as unjustifiable an interfering with a private estate. What are the functions of these conservators? The functions are to enforce the fishery laws and appoint bailiffs and fishery police. I think I am right in saying that one of the principles of this Bill is that the district councils shall not have anything to do with the appointment and payment of police in Ireland. Yet you are going to give district councils power to appoint fishery police! I can see that there will be a great temptation to put men on these bodies who may be actuated by a desire to gain popularity. The whole value of fisheries in Ireland—and I know something about them—depends upon their being properly protected. It is one of the most important industries in Ireland. It brings many people into the country to spend their holidays, and it brings money into the country; and if you do anything to injure this industry you will be doing a great injury to the poorer part of the population, and at the same time inflict a very serious loss upon a very valuable occupation. I ask the House to consider whether the principle of this clause is likely to conduce to the better preservation of Irish salmon fisheries. Sir, is there anything to be said against the way in which the present boards of conservators carry out their duties? I have made inquiries, but I have heard nothing against the way in which the present boards of conservators, as a whole, perform them. Why, in the name of common sense, therefore, interfere with the boards? Take, for instance, the funds at the disposal of these boards. They are derived from licences, from fines, and from 10 per cent. on the valuation of the fisheries. In most districts—certainly in all the most valuable ones—these fines and charges are always insufficient, and are supplemented voluntarily by the owners of the private fisheries. I know one owner of three large fisheries in the north of Ireland, and he tells me that he not only compulsorily pays £1,200 a year as his share to the Board of Conservators, but supplements it voluntarily by a further payment of £3,000 a year. I believe that is the case in almost every instance of the ownership of private fisheries in Ireland. The owners do not complain; they are willing to make these payments, but they do not want to be interfered with by district councils, and that takes away any excuse that district councils may have to contribute out of the money of the ratepayers. I submit, finally, that this clause, amended or unamended, is very bad precedent. It gives the district councils the right to interfere with private property. If any public authority is to be allowed to interfere with the salmon fisheries of Ireland, I submit it should be the Imperial Government. The Acts of Parliament relating to the salmon fisheries are complicated enough without being further complicated by the introduction of a new and much less authority—the authority of the district councils. It is a bad precedent, and I ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has consulted the Government fishery inspectors of Ireland on the subject of this new clause. These men know more, about the salmon fishing—I say so with great respect—than any Member in this House, including even the occupants of the Government Bench. I will assume that the right honourable Gentleman has not consulted these men, and I ask why he has not done so, upon a question which concerns an important industry in Ireland, and concerns also the livelihood of large numbers of men. I am willing to let the case stand or fall by the advice of the Irish salmon fishery inspectors, and if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will consult these men I do not think this clause will remain in the Bill. A rather important point to which I desire to call attention is the desirability of investigating the habits of the salmon, in salt water. Such an investigation is necessary, but it is not a subject that can be dealt with by an authority like the district council. It has been made the subject of Government action in Norway, and other countries, and is of great importance. The habits of the salmon in salt water are a great mystery, for, after they go to the sea, no one knows what becomes of them. The Government might very well undertake an investigation, which might confer a great boon on Ireland, and lead to a knowledge of the habits of the salmon that might be useful in breeding the fish. The Government have practically accepted the Amendment I have put down on behalf of the salmon fisheries of Ireland, and I thank them most cordially; but, Amendment or no Amendment, the principle of this clause is most obnoxious, and I want to see it taken out of the Bill. The case against the principle of the clause is far stronger than the Government have appreciated. It has aroused very strong opposition on the part of the men concerned. To summarise the opposition to the clause, I say we object to it because it interferes with the ownership of private property; it is unnecessary, because all parties are represented on the present board; and it is mischievous, because it gives the district councils powers which might—I do not say they will—be misused, and inflict injury. I desire to make only one further observation. I was returned to this House by a Tory vote, and I want to support a Tory Government, but the principle of this clause is absolutely inconsistent with Tory policy, and I beg to move that it be omitted.

MR. J. PINKERTON

I trust the Government will not give way on this question. It is a well-known fact that the Conservators in every district of Ireland have acted in a most tyrannical fashion, and have placed arbitrary prohibitions in the way of the salmon fishers. There are two sides to this question. In the first place there are the interests of the fishery owners, and in the second place there are also the interests of the great mill-owners, who are trying, against serious obstacles, to maintain a local industry in Ireland. These men are fighting against English competition, and honourable Members on the opposite side are anxious to oppose any extension of the popular rights of the people which will help these men. I trust the Government will not allow themselves to be browbeaten into surrendering this clause. It is a most valuable clause. I recognise to the fullest extent—and I say this from the Nationalist Benches—the spirit of fair play displayed by this Government in the introduction of this Local Government Bill, and their desire that all interests should be represented and safeguarded, whether they are the interests of fishery owners, of mill-owners, or of the people.

MR. ATKINSON

The honourable Member for St. Helens says the conservators do not want money, but that is the first time I ever heard of it. The Amendment put down by the Government provides that the contribution from the district council shall be applied for by the Board of Conservators; but if they do not want the money they need not apply for it. The object of putting it in this clause was simply to provide funds to enable the conservators properly to preserve the rivers and increase the supply of salmon. The honourable Member for St. Helens seemed to argue that the fisheries of Ireland belonged entirely to the private owners. I could refer him to many Acts of Parliament to show that that contention is perfectly preposterous. As amended, the clause is a perfectly harmless one.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

formally moved the addition of words providing that the district council might make a contribution towards the expenses of the Board of Conservators, "at the request of conservators of such fishery district."

MR. T. M. HEALY

If the Government had accepted the Amendment I moved to provide fish hatcheries, of which there are two in Ireland already, it would have been a very important contribution towards the upkeep of these salmon fisheries. The present system is far from satisfactory to the people, and only sets them against the law, and makes them sympathise with poaching. It would be much better if the gentlemen on this Board of Conservators showed a little more discretion in their dealings with the people. The Irish people can be led, but they will not be driven, and, above all, they will not be driven by a number of gentlemen coming over for a few days' occasional fishing in Ireland and acting as if they owned the whole country. The real way to preserve fishing in Ireland would be to interest the people in it, and make them feel they have a voice on these boards, and to that extent it would have been better if the Government had allowed their clause to remain as it was originally, instead of now making it optional upon the conservators to request a contribution.

MR. FLYNN

I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that in order to facilitate business and get on with the work, if we consent to the original clause, that honourable Members opposite will not persist in moving these Amendments one after the other, because I think that would be most unfair.

MR. SETON-KARR

With regard to these fisheries, I have introduced year after year in this House a Bill—

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER

And it has never passed.

MR. SETON-KARR

No, because you always block it. I sat on the Committee which drafted that Bill, and it was the outcome of a compromise—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The terms of this Amendment do not entitle the honourable Member to go into that subject.

Another Amendment proposed— Line 2, after 'district' add 'made in pursuance of a resolution passed by such board at a meeting specially convened for the purpose of considering such resolution.'"—(Mr. H. Robertson.)

Amended Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 19, line 3, after the first 'of' leave out to 'a" in line 4, and insert 'that board.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 19, line 7, at end, insert— Any such contribution shall be an annual contribution for a period of not less than three years, but (unless renewed) of not more than five years, and shall be a debt to the board of conservators, and the clerk of such board may sue for the same on behalf of the board."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 19, line 8, leave out 'making' and insert 'upon paying in any year.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 19, line 9, leave out 'annually.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 19, line 10, after 'Act' insert 'for that year.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

It seems to me that these rates are paid chiefly for the benefit of the gentlemen in the upper waters, and there is a great want of some provision to equalise the representation. The local subscribers only pay about £300, and the result will be that the county council will always pay the best share, and will be in a minority on the board. I do think that the amount of contribution to the cost should, to some extent, decide the question of representation, and in this respect the proposal of the Government is most unfair. One man on the river Blackwater practically pays more subscriptions than the whole of the people in the upper waters. This is more intensified by the fact that the river requires watching most up in the direction of the spawning beds, and it is there really where the concentration of attention is necessary. It will be in the interests of the people in the county of Waterford to subscribe for the preservation of the fisheries in the county of Cork, but the county of Cork do not wish them to do it. It seems to me that this Amendment goes far in advance of anything that is actually required. The business of the fishermen in the lower waters depends entirely upon whether the spawning beds in the upper waters are preserved or not. They live in the county of Waterford, and the place where the watching of the river is required is in the county of Cork. Supposing they agree to pay £200 or £300 for the watching of the river, the men in the upper waters may not pay a penny, because the owners are in a majority, and they may do as they like. I think we have already provided adequate protection for the gentlemen in the upper waters, and I would respectfully submit that the honourable Gentleman the Member for St. Helens would have been well advised if he had accepted the Government clause as it stood. It was a reasonable compromise, and I feel quite sure that the Chief Secretary did not put this on the Paper without having a consultation with the gentlemen concerned. You are now taking away with one hand what yow gave with the other, and this brings in the principle of taxation without representation, or, at any rate, taxation with insufficient representation, which is almost worse.

DR. TANNER

Will the right honourable Gentleman offer some explanation with regard to the river Lee, county Cork. On that river the noble Earl of Bandon pays a certain sum of about £16 a year, and he makes out of the fishing something like about £60 a year, and he never pays one penny towards the conservators of the river. He is a specimen of those gentlemen whom you are now trying to uphold. I am, however, not going to say very much upon these points. You cannot get any money out of the proprietors, and you try to get it all out of the anglers, and the anglers' association, and you try to get all the money out of the men who happen to be the true fishermen, the poor fishermen in the lower waters. That is the way they try to work it. I sincerely hope that this matter will obtain the serious consideration of all true gentlemen in this House of Commons.

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 19, line 35, at end, add 'the appointing body may revoke in whole or in part any appointment or authority made or given under this section.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 20, line 7, after 'council' insert 'and their urban district shall be a county district of the said county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 20, line 11, leave out 'heretofore.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 20, line 13, at end, insert 'provided that the coroner for the borough of Galway shall be elected by the district council of the said borough.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

I wish to point out that this is most unfair to Galway. The position of Galway, I think, deserves some sympathy at the hands of the Government. It has been shockingly treated by this House and by the House of Lords. Now, Sir, if Galway had remained under the schedule, but for the House of Lords, under this Bill, it would have retained its power of appointing a coroner. What the Government do is this: they abolish Galway as a county of a city and transfer its power to make roads over to the county councils. But with regard to the appointment of coroner, towns like Carrickfergus, and one or two other places, they retain the right to appoint their coroner, whereas Galway, because it is not in the schedule of 3rd and 4th Vic., will lose that right, and it will go to the county council. I ask simply that Galway should be put on the same footing as Kilkenny. It is a far larger town than Galway; in fact, it is almost twice its population, but the House of Lords, in 1840, struck Galway for a malicious purpose out of the list in the schedule, allowing to remain in Kilkenny, Drogheda, and a number of other towns of that description, with the result that Kilkenny will still retain its right to appoint its coroner, whereas in the town of Galway that right will lapse after the appointment of the existing coroner, and will go to the county of Galway at large. Now, anyone who takes up the map of Galway will see the absolute unfairness of this proposal. It returns four Members to this House. The men in the far distant places of the county have no concern whatever for the borough of Galway, and yet, forsooth, they are to have the right to appoint the coroner for the borough of Galway, which many of them have never visited. The Arran Islands are in Galway Bay, and the people there hardly ever visit the mainland, and they will have a right to return members to the Galway county council and elect a coroner for the county town of Galway. This perversity is so extraordinary, to insist upon thrusting this British ramrod into our affairs without any necessity whatever to interfere. I move a reasonable proposal, that the town council of Galway shall continue to elect its own coroner, as other town councils do. Drogheda has elected a coroner, and will continue to do so; and Carrickfergus will continue to elect its coroner, and all the merged counties and cities will continue to elect their coroners. Then, why make a scapegoat of Galway? I think the Government owe Galway 50 years of reparation, and now you are proposing to turn the place upside down without any regard to local tradition or local feeling. I do appeal to the Government to do to Galway this one little act of justice and give it back its mayor and corporation. It had a mayor for hundreds of years before that power was taken away by the House of Lords.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! I must remind the honourable Member that the question is about the coroner.

MR. T. M. HEALY

My point is that if Galway had a mayor it would have a right to elect a coroner. That is the absurdity of the position taken up by the Government. Therefore, I do hope that the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to make some restitution to this ancient town, and if he will not give it its mayor, I hope he will leave us the right to appoint the coroner.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The honourable and learned Member for Louth says that some 50 years ago Galway was prevented from being constituted a borough by the action of the House of Lords, and that, in consequence of that a hardship has been inflicted upon Galway which we ought to take into consideration. If, however, we once begin making exceptions, where are we to end? So long as you are acting in a general way, it is impossible to make exceptions.

MR. PINKERTON

Galway suffers very severely under this section. I think in this particular case, as my honourable and learned Friend the Member for North Louth has pointed out, it is rather hard that Galway should be forced into this very singular position. If the Members of the Government study the map they would see the utter inconsistency of allowing this to continue, and of depriving Galway of the right to elect a coroner. If the right honourable Gentleman could only see his way to accept the Amendment it would simplify matters very much. I am prepared to go a long way towards accepting the new arrangement, and, so far as Galway is concerned, I think it should be allowed to retain this little privilege of electing its own coroner.

Amendment negatived.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 20, line 24, at end, add— (5) Notwithstanding anything in this section the sheriff of county Kilkenny shall not act as returning officer of the borough of Kilkenny, but the mayor of said borough shall be the returning officer thereof, and all writs for the return of a Member to serve in Parliament for said borough shall be directed to the Mayor of Kilkenny, and the law applicable to returning officers shall apply to him accordingly."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Amendment negatived.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 20, line 25, after 'improvement' insert 'Ireland.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 20, line 39, after 'Act' insert 'of 1854.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— Page 21, line 10, leave out from 'the,' to 'but,' in line 11, and insert 'last published census for the time being.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 21, line 15, after 'against it,' insert 'if the petition is before the first election of rural district councils.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 21, line 17, leave out 'or after the appointed day from the' and insert 'comprising the town or any part thereof, or if the petition is after such first election, then from at least one-fourth of the local government electors within the town, or from the guardians of the union.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 21, line 21, at end, insert— An order of the Local Government Board, under section seven of the Public Health Act, 1878, for adding any town having a population according to the last census of less than five thousand, and being an urban sanitary district to a rural sanitary district, if made before the end of six months after the passing of this Act, and if the powers of the grand jury in respect of roads have not been previously transferred to the sanitary authority of the district, shall, unless within three months after the order is published the board receive a petition against it from at least one-fourth of the parliamentary electors registered in respect of qualifications within the town, or from the guardians of the union comprising the town or any part thereof, take effect without the authority of Parliament; and a certificate of the board that no such petition has been received, and that the order has taken effect, shall be conclusive evidence of those facts: provided that until the expiration of ten years from the said year, an order shall not be made constituting such town an urban sanitary district."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 21, line 26, at end, add— (3) If two or more urban district councils determine, by resolution passed by a majority of three-fourths of each council, to amalgamate and to combine their respective districts into one united district, the Local Government Board for Ireland shall make an order for such amalgamation and union on such conditions and subject to such provision as the Board may deem just and the councils may approve.

1. "(a) Provided that in calculating the amount of the county-at-large charges for the purpose of apportioning the amount to be paid by any urban district council, there shall be deducted from the amount of such county-at-large charges, the sums paid or payable by the county council for the salaries of the county surveyor, the county secretary, the county solicitor, and the sums paid for legal and office expenditure in relation to the business of the county council, and any portion of any county-at-large charge for which no provision is otherwise made by law.
2. "(b) Any urban district council may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, and with the consent of the council, by a three-fourths majority of the district proposed to be annexed, extend their boundaries by annexing any adjoining district not included within the jurisdiction of any urban district council, subject to such conditions as the board, with the approval of said council, may deem just."—(Mr. Plunkett.)

MR. PLUNKETT

The Amendment which stands in my name is a very comprehensive one, and it is quite open to the Government, if they think fit, to accept a portion of it if they cannot accept the whole of it. The object of it is that in cases where all the urban districts concerned wish to amalgamate and are anxious to save expense of a Provisional Order they may proceed through the Local Government Board. The second part of the Amendment allows the council of such invited district, if of sufficient size, to become a county borough; and the third portion allows any district council to annex any other district, provided that that district agrees. The object of the Amendment is simply to avoid the expense and delay of going to Parliament when there is really no opposition from any of the parties concerned.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the right honourable Gentleman propose to move them all together, or one by one?

MR. PLUNKETT

I will move them separately. I move the first portion.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

The question may be a very proper one for the consideration of the House, but it would come under the consideration of the House by means of a private Bill.

MR. PLUNKETT

withdrew the first portion of the Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the right honourable Gentleman move the other two?

MR. PLUNKETT

No.

Amendment withdrawn.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 22, line 8, leave out 'two counties,' and insert 'more than one county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 22, line 18, after 'county,' insert in the execution of this Act or otherwise.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 22, line 22, at end, insert— Where any expenses so incurred by the council of a county may by virtue of any enactment, or any direction given there-under, be levied off an urban district, they shall be called urban charges."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 22, line 27, leave out 'district,' and insert 'county district or districts.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 22, line 28, at end, insert 'urban charges or.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 22, line 30, after 'urban,' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 22, line 31, leave out from 'the' to 'shall,' in line 33, and insert 'demands of the county council or in connection with the poor rate.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed, to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 22, line 33, leave out from 'defrayed' to 'out of,' in page 23, line 2."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 23, line 3, after 'expenses' insert 'not above mentioned, but.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 23, line 3, after 'urban' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 23, line 5, leave out from the second 'Act' to 'shall' in line 11."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 23, line 15, at end, add— The expenses incurred by the council of a county borough, if incurred in meeting the expenses of guardians, or in connection with the poor rate, shall be defrayed out of the poor rate, and if not so incurred and incurred in relation to the business transferred to the council by or in pursuance of this Act or otherwise in execution of this Act, or as incidental to their powers and duties as a county council, shall, where the like expenses have hitherto been defrayed out of any rate levied by the council of the borough other than county cess, or than a rate levied under the enactments relating to county cess, continue to be so defrayed, but in any other case shall be defrayed out of the poor rate. Provided that the foregoing provisions with respect to the expenses incurred by the council of an urban county district or county borough shall not extend to the expenses incurred under any provision of this Act amending or extending the Public Health Acts."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 23, line 22, after 'or,' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 23, line 25, at end, insert— Provided that the receipt given by a collector, in the case of payment of rates, or, where the treasurer is a banking company, by the secretary or clerk of the council in the case of any payment unconnectd with rates, shall be a good discharge to the person making the payment, but the amount of the payment shall be forthwith paid by such collector, secretary, or clerk to the treasurer."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 23, line 27, leave out 'such,' and insert 'their county or district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed— Page 24, line 1, leave out clause 42."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

In the absence of my honourable Friend, who did not expect this Amendment would come on to-night, I move the omission of the clause, in order to challenge the policy of the Government with reference to this sum of money. Hitherto British Members on this side of the House have not taken any prominent part in the discussion on this Bill, as we recognised that the matters dealt with mainly concerned honourable Mem- bers from Ireland; but when we some to this particular proposal of voting three-quarters of a million it is a matter concerning the whole of the United Kingdom. I am prepared to discuss the question of the financial relations of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. For all I know, Ireland is entitled to the three-quarters of a million, or to the three millions, in accordance with the claim already put forward. On the whole, I sympathise with the claim of Ireland in that respect, but this proposal is an entirely different thing. This is voting a sum of money ostensibly for Irish purposes, but it is a proposal which the Irish Members themselves did not demand, which they did not support, and which they now go to the extent of saying that it is not a payment on account as between Great Britain and Ireland. That is rather a serious matter. If there is a sum of three millions which Ireland is overtaxed in respect of, and if the Irish Members say that they will take three-quarters of a million on account and deduct it from their claim, and that they are perfectly willing that the money should be expended in the way suggested in the clause, seeing that they are primarily responsible, it is a matter more for them than for the representatives of any other part of the United Kingdom. If the Irish Members say that they are willing that this money should go to reducing the rates of the landlords, that is the last word in the matter. But that is not the position they take up. The Government say to them, "We will not give you a Local Government Bill for Ireland except this three-quarters of a million goes to the reduction of the rates on land in Ireland." It is a payment to the representatives of the Government in Ireland as a sort of compensation to the English garrison in Ireland. That is the position, and it is incumbent, as a matter of duty and obligation, on Members for British constituencies to challenge it. The honourable Member for Louth, in the course of the discussion, very frankly said that it was a bargain, and he was not going to defend it. The honourable Member for Mayo regarded the transaction as a perfectly flagitious one. He said that a bargain was a bargain, and that if he could not get the boon of local government for Ireland except on the condition of supporting this grant, which did not come out of the Imperial Treasury, but out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, and which was not to be entered against Ireland, then he would accept it. I frankly confess as a Welsh Member, if a similar boon had been offered to Wales on similar conditions, I would find myself in a great difficulty if called upon to vote against it. No other course would be open to me except to vote for it, especially as the money would be got from the taxpayers of England, Scotland, and Ireland. What is the defence of the Government for this particular proposal? They cannot say it is an equivalent grant, because there was a sum of £150,000 voted to Ireland two or three years ago, which the Government called an equivalent grant. But now they do not put the proposal on the ground of an equivalent grant. What they say is that they are setting up a new authority in Ireland, and of transferring to it the powers of the grand juries. The new auhority is to be democratic, but will not pay the bulk of the rates, which will be paid by the minority, which practically belongs to a different party, and that consequently there would be every inducement to reckless expenditure. In the first place I may point out that the Government are stultifying their own principles. The very essence of their case is that they are trusting the Irish people with very large powers. I am not sure, after conversations I have had with Protestants in Ireland, that these powers are not larger than the powers proposed to be conferred by Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule of 1893. I do not mean that they are of a wider character, but if the Government assume that the Irish people are essentially vicious and mean to exercise every power they possess to persecute the minority, whether landlord or Protestant, I am not sure that the powers conferred by this Bill do not equip the majority in Ireland with greater powers of irritation and annoyance against the minority than would be given by Mr. Gladstone's Bill. Therefore I submit, in the first place, that the Government are rather stultifying the principle of the Bill by saying that they trust the Irish people in every county, barony, and parish in Ireland, but at the same time they will not trust them in the matter of expenditure. I venture to challenge the suggestion that the Irish people are likely to embark on reckless expenditure. Human nature is pretty much the same in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The accusation of reckless expenditure against the London County Council has really not been justified. The London County Council elected in Conservative constituencies surely need not be defended. What has been the case with regard to parish councils and county councils? I am arguing from analogy. So far from the county councils having embarked on reckless expenditure, very few of them have put into operation all of the powers with which they have been endowed. In every Report of the Local Government Board submitted to this House since the County Councils Act and the Parish Councils Act there has been a constant complaint that the councils would not put into operation a great many powers they ought to have exercised with regard to allotments, district nurses, and a number of other questions. What is the reason? The reason is that when you come to an expenditure of rates it is not a party question anywhere. Take a parish in Wales when it is a question of expenditure on allotments or the building of a bridge or a county asylum. You will find that the farmers, who may be all Liberals, will look first to the rates, and will be most careful about the expenditure. Now, why should it be different in Ireland? You have exactly the same class of people to deal with, and I find that farmers as a rule, so far from being extravagant, are exceedingly parsimonious. The honourable Member for South Molton, who has had experience of boards of guardians and district councils, knows how exceedingly parsimonious they are with regard to the rates, and how they cannot be got to spend money on the poor, where it ought really to be spent. Poor rate expenditure is, of course, a matter very relevant when we come to consider the question of paying half the poor rate of Ireland. The farmers in Great Britain have not done their duty in the matter as regards poor law expenditure. They are always cutting down and fining in every possible way the expenditure upon our poor law system, and my own opinion is that if the boards of guardians in this country were to do their duty, and exercise to the full the powers entrusted to them by the present poor law system, there would be less necessity for the crying need for an old age pension system. Why should it be different in Ireland? You are assuming you have in Ireland, on the one hand, a number of small tenants, and on the other hand the landlords. That is true with regard to a small portion of the country in the west. You have a small number of cottars whose rates are paid by the landlord, but if you take by far the greater portion of Ireland you will find you have to deal with the same conditions as in Scotland or Wales. You have got farmers who look upon every penny of expenditure of the rates. They have got to do it. Times are so bad in all parts of the country that £1 extra on the rates is a very serious matter. Therefore I say that so far from there being any danger of reckless expenditure, it would be to the interests of the farmers and ratepayers of Ireland, quite as much as to the interests of the landlords, to keep expenditure down. It is true that in the case of a landlord £100 or £150 may be added to his rates, but in the case of a small struggling crofter, whose rent is £10 or £15, an extra 10s. on the rates would be, practically, quite as serious. Therefore there would be every possible inducement for economy. Judging from experience in this country, I do not think that, as a rule, the county councils elected by the people are more extravagant than the old privileged bodies. I do not make any charge of reckless extravagance against the old bodies, but at the same time they indulged in unnecessary expenditure. I know of two or three prisons which were built in Wales at enormous expense, which were not necessary. I say that these new bodies are not more likely to be extravagant. I think they will be far more cautious than the old quarter sessions and grand juries in these matters, and consequently there is no occasion for any apprehension on the part of the Government that these new bodies will incur any very extravagant expenditure if you entrust them with the full powers which the grand juries have. But I object to this grant on another ground, Mr. Speaker. I object on the same ground as that upon which we protested against the grant in England. We fought that grant strenuously when the Agricultural Rating Bill was proposed in this country. Why did we do so? We objected to this system of doles to particular classes of the community. What is this proposal? It is practically a proposal to handover a sum of £700,000 or £800,000 a year to one particular class of the community. We have already given £2,000,000 a year to the landlords in England. We have given hundreds of thousands to the landlords in Scotland. That is what the Agricultural Rating Bill has done, and the experience of the working of that Bill proves it. Of course, if you relieve the burden upon land, as I shall point out, to the extent of £2,000 or £2,000,000, you are bound to increase the value of that property by the sum by which you relieve it from expenditure. What difference does it make whether you lighten a burden by way of mortgage or rent-charge, or by way of the rates? Let me take the charges for any particular piece of land, say an estate of £1,000 a year. Say £200 would be rates, £300 would be mortgages, £500 would be tithe rent-charge. If you pay half of the rent charge, or tithe rent-charge, one half of the rates, what difference does it make? So long as you lighten the burden upon the land you increase the capital value of that land to the extent that you relieve the burden upon it. I say this is a system in order to benefit one particular class in Ireland, and it is not the most deserving class. I do not wish to make any attack on the landlord class in Ireland, but I am sure most honourable Members who have read the history of Ireland, and honourable Members who have watched the course of legislation in this House during the last 30 years, must have come to the conclusion that a good many of the numerous difficulties which Governments have had to confront in Ireland have been attributable, to a very large extent, to the action of the landowners in that country, and I say we ought to protest against a sum of £750,000, when we cannot find money for old age pensions in this country—we ought to protest against a sum of three-quarters of a million being voted in order to relieve the burdens of one class of the community.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the honourable Member move?

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

Yes, Sir.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

Mr. Speaker, the financial arrangements of this Bill form an essential part of the scheme of the Government. As such they were accepted not only by honourable Members on this side of the House, but by honourable Members from Ireland and also by representatives of the Front Opposition Bench, when the policy of the Government was first announced last year. Nobody knows better than the honourable Member who has just spoken that if this clause were to go the rest of the Bill would go to pieces. Sir, that being so—I am glad to hear the honourable Member recognises the truth of what I have said—holding the views that he does, the honourable Member ought to have voted against this Bill on the Second Reading. Sir, it appears to me that for a small section of this House to raise this question again and again on the Committee stage and on the Report stage—

MR. T. M. HEALY

Five times.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

Is nothing less than a downright waste of time, and I must express the hope that the friends of the Bill will not add to that waste of time by taking the trouble to answer the arguments of the honourable Member and his friends, as the House has decided over and over again.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

I shall be glad, despite the somewhat fervid injunctions of the right honourable Gentleman, to say a few words in support of this proposal to omit the clause, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary gave me the proper cue for the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper. He says that, practically, without this clause the Bill would go to pieces. Well, that is exactly the charge we bring against this Bill. We agree with what was said very eloquently by the honourable Member for East Mayo in the first discussion on this clause. We believe in the policy of the late Lord Randolph Churchill, the honest and straightforward policy of giving to Ireland, freely and without question and without qualification, on equal and similar terms, the rights of local self-government that were about to be given to England; and that was an intelligible policy, a just policy, and a policy which placed honourable trust in the people of Ireland. Well, my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo denounced the Government for their betrayal of the principles enunciated by Lord Randolph Churchill, and for the way in which they had handled this subject. He said— We are called upon now, instead of having a free and unqualified gift of local self-government, to pay a bribe, or blackmail, or whatever it may be called, of £300,000 or £400,000 a year, which ought to have gone into the pockets of the people of Ireland, through a Measure which ought to have been freely given to the people of Ireland. That is exactly the ground upon which I shall challenge the policy which the right honourable Gentleman says is the financial corner-stone, the very principle and beginning and end of this Bill. Now, perhaps the most staunch supporter of these proposals, the thorough and chief defender of everything in the Bill in this connection, is the honourable Member for Derry City. He said £300,000 a year to the landlords is a large amount, but it is a cheap price to pay for the practical relief given under this Measure. Yes; but who pays? According to the calculation of the Financial Commission, and according to the calculation which the honourable Members from Ireland adopt, one-eleventh of this £300,000 that is to be paid to the landlords to accept this Bill is to be paid by the people of Ireland, and the remaining ten-elevenths by the British taxpayer. But if the figures given the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are to be taken as correct, that we have reached a stage at which the contribution of Ireland is only one-thirty-sixth, we are in the position, as representatives of the British taxpayers, to challenge 35 times more strongly this question than the Irish Members can. We have to pay the giant's share of this compensation to the landlords. Well, now, Sir, we challenge this proposal, and we say that this Bill, if brought in, should have been based on pure and honest principles, and not on the principles of blackmail and bribery to any class to swallow any proposals of the kind. We say this is a disgraceful misappropriation of public money, and we say we have the right to denounce these proposals, as most insulting to a large section of the United Kingdom. The Chief Secretary referred to what passed last year, when these proposals were first foreshadowed. I really think any Member of the Government should be ashamed of what passed on that occasion. The First Lord of the Treasury, when he threw over the Bill of that year and brought forward the present proposal, distinctly based it upon this ground, that local government could not be granted to Ireland without giving a guarantee beforehand to the landlords of the country that they should not be taxed out of existence by the authorities to be created. The honourable Member for Derry based his justification of these proposals definitely on the ground taken by the Financial Relations Commission, and he used words to this effect. He said— Great Britain owes to Ireland some three millions a year; that the Irish are overtaxed to that very extent. We do not expect, human nature being what it is on this side of the Channel, that you are going to pay it back all at once, but we mean to take it as we can get it bit by bit. I do think we get back the smallest bit in the form proposed by the Bill. I challenge these proposals, therefore, on this ground, on the ground chosen by the honourable Member for Derry himself. He must take the justification of his proposal distinctly on the result of the Financial Commission's Report. I should like to know what practical man, after listening to the admirable speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury the other day, after reading the article contributed by, I believe, Sir Alfred Milner to the Edinburgh Review last year, can any longer believe in the fiction of this enormous sum due to Ireland under the financial relations inquiries. The contribution of Ireland, if you make allowance for these contributions to local expenditure in Ireland, and the large proportion of revenue raised in Ireland which is now applied to the local expenditure for local purposes in Ireland, balancing the revenue raised in Ireland that is contributed to Imperial purposes, is £1,980,000, or one-thirty-sixth part of the Imperial revenue. After this Bill is passed it will be reduced to only £1,365,000, or 1–52nd part of the Imperial revenue. Well, then, if you are going to treat the question on the 1–20th basis, adopted by the Irish Members—I believe some of them even go further—if you take the 1–20th scale only, instead of paying £1,980,000, Ireland ought at present to be contributing £3,500,000 to the Imperial revenue. I say the whole of the case has been demolished by further investigation on that subject, and by the speeches we have listened to here, and therefore there is no justification whatever on that ground. Well, there is, perhaps, a justification, and a limited justification, in the relatively higher rating in Ireland. I do not think any practical man who has looked into the question would seriously deny that. But, on the other hand, what is the amount of the grants from the Imperial Exchequer which are devoted to the relief of local taxation in Ireland? They amount to over £2,000,000, and, with the Estate Duty Grant and the local licences, they amount to nearly £2,500,000. The grants in aid from the Imperial Exchequer for local purposes in Ireland amounted last year to £2,037,398, and the estate duties and licences under the Acts of 1888 and 1894 and the Act of 1890 amount to nearly £2,500,000. And, as the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out in 1888, Ireland was treated very generously with regard to the adoption of the scale of 80, 11, and 9; that the actual sources of revenue, so far as they were raised in Ireland, are actually considerably less than the 9 per cent. which was granted to Ireland under these terms. Now, Sir, I do admit that Ireland is a very poor country. In one of the speeches on this matter the other day, it was treated as a question of strict justice. I would prefer to treat it as a question of generosity. I would gladly welcome proposals, wise proposals, such as came from the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, for the further development of education, agriculture, and all the higher public works among the Irish people, by a large expenditure of public money. That is a wise and sensible and intelligent policy, but the policy of this Bill, which we challenge and ask the House to reject, is a policy of simple bribery and corruption, and a policy which, I think, is an unjusti- fiable assignment of public money to the subvention of a single class in Ireland. I ask, why should money go simply to the landlords and the agricultural ratepayers in Ireland, and not to the whole of the Irish people? Why should not it go to relieve the Irish labourers and the populations in the towns as well as the landlords and tenants in Ireland? These financial proposals which we are told are the very corner stone of the Bill, have evidently arisen from the desire of the Government to gratify their friends, the "English garrison" in Ireland. They have seized upon this opportunity after many years waiting. We know that long ago, when the late Mr. W. H. Smith dealt with this question, and brought it before the House in the first proposals of the Ashbourne Act, he distinctly justified those proposals on the ground of compensation to the landlords in Ireland for the losses imposed upon them, most properly and most justly, in my opinion, by the Irish Land Acts. That is the basis of the whole proposal from beginning to end. The Bill, as far as this clause is concerned, is, in the first place, a compensation Bill for Irish landlords, and, in the second place, it is a blackmail Bill, to enable this Government to carry out this policy, and at the same time to gratify their friends. I challenge the whole of this policy. I think it is a disgraceful misappropriation of public money, and I think it is a disgraceful disregard of the true principles upon which local self-government should rest in Ireland, as in every other portion of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, I support the motion.

MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)

I think it would have shortened the Debate if the Chief Secretary had treated the Amendment with more consideration, and had attempted to defend this clause. In fact, he has not attempted to defend it at all. All he said was, if this clause goes the Bill goes. That is an admission made by the Chief Secretary on the part of the Government that this Bill has very little merit indeed, apart from the enormous bribe he is prepared to pay for the passage of this Bill. Practically it comes to that. We know very well that when a Conservative Government produced a Local Government Bill for England it was not then found necessary to give an immense bribe in order that the Government might pass that Bill for England. They passed it on its merits, and on the principle that it was right and just to give local government to England. Well, I ask the House, why is it that the Government on this occasion do not come down here and say exactly the same? "We consider it right and just to give the right of self-government in local matters to the Irish people, and we give it on the same lines and the same principles as those in the English Bill." Not a bit of it! They have practically told us to-night—and I hope that the country will take note of this at the various by-elections which will doubtless take place very soon—that this Bill is based merely on the system of giving a gigantic bribe to enable it to pass safely and smoothly through this House without any trouble and difficulty to themselves. I think the Chief Secretary really was rather hard when he twitted us upon the small number opposing this Bill in Committee. Of course we all know that the Liberal Members sitting for English constituencies are a small number in this House at the present moment, but the great bulk of Liberal Members sitting on this side of the House did support the various proposals to cut down the financial grant in this Bill. As shown in the first Division that was taken on this very question, 107 Liberal Members voted, in the second Division 96, thus showing that the Liberal Members who were present, with few exceptions, did vote against the proposal of the Government. So I think the right honourable Gentleman somewhat unfairly twitted us upon our small numbers on that occasion, and all the more so when we remember that during the last General Election the Liberal Members who were seeking re-election were accused by Tory candidates untruly throughout the length and breadth of the country that they were anxious for, and would vote for, a Home Rule Bill that would impose additional taxes upon the working classes of this country. I ask, Mr. Speaker, what is the Government doing at the present moment? They are passing a Home Rule Bill of a kind which will impose additional taxes on the working men of this country, as they have already admitted. What particular reason is there why this large grant should be given in aid of local taxation in Ireland? It cannot be because at the present moment Ireland unfairly pays too large an amount of local taxation, because only the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his speech as regards the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland that respecting the grant in aid from the Imperial Revenue Ireland did very well indeed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that of every pound spent in local services in Great Britain the rates bore 10s. 6d. as against 9s. 6d. from Imperial sources. On the other hand, Ireland for local purposes receives from the Imperial Exchequer 13s. 6d. in the £, while she only contributes by her local rates 6s. 6d.; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer drove that home, and made that all the stronger, when he said that in addition Ireland under the legislation now before the House would receive an additional £615,000 a year. So that Ireland at this moment, apart from this grant of £615,000 a year, is receiving an undue proportion in aid of local taxation. The injustice is made even greater from the point of view of the English taxpayer, because Ireland at this moment receives an unfair and undue share in the pound for relief of local taxation, and now, in addition, the Government come down to this House asking further for over half a million of money in further aid of local taxation in Ireland. I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why it is the Government do this, except on one ground, which has not been denied in this House by supporters of the Government, that they do this as a bribe—hush-money it has been described—for the easy and safe passage of the Bill. That may be very well from the point of view of the Government, and of Members supporting the Government, but how they can expect Members sitting on this side of the House, representing English constituencies, to be satisfied to allow the Government to carry their Bill by means of bribery I cannot understand. Therefore I think we have every right, and it is our duty, to protest very strongly against this system of carrying the Bill at the expense of the taxpayers whom we represent in England.

MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)

I should like to say a few words, by way of adding my protest against this clause and supporting the Amendment for its omission. I do not do it at all on the ground of the question of financial relations. I prefer not to enter into that matter at all. I do it on the ground of objection to the growing system of subventions to local authorities out of the Imperial purse; and what this clause in effect does is to add another to the modifications which have been made of late years in the methods of levying rates. When we remember, Sir, that, apart from the Education Acts and the grants which are given to local authorities under those Acts, we are now sending down to local authorities something like £12,000,000 a year, I think it is really not too much for us to take up a little time in protesting against a system like this. The difference between this Act and the English Act is very remarkable. When the Act of 1896 was passed for England the alleged necessity for that grant was agricultural distress, but here the reason assigned is altogether a different one. The reason assigned here is really that the landlord should be safeguarded before these popular councils are granted to the people of Ireland. What the Government, in effect, says, is this: the people of Ireland are not to be trusted with local government, and therefore, before giving them these privileges which are now enjoyed by the people of England, we will withdraw from them power over that part of the rates which is paid by the landlord, and to do this we, by this clause, pay the landlord's rates. "That is what the Government, in effect, is saying. Well, the unanimity amongst the Irish Members in favour of this Bill is, perhaps, not remarkable from one point of view; but look at it from another point of view. There is evidence here of a complete mistrust of the Irish people as to local administration I can quite understand the eagerness of Irish Members to get this Bill through, because to them undoubtedly it is a Bill which sets up local governing bodies in Ireland, a thing they have been wanting—rightly and justly wanting—for years, which they have asked for in every possible way, and have taken every opportunity of making their wants known here. But there is another side to this. Besides the mere setting up of local authorities in Ireland, I think it should be looked at from this point of view: that it changes the basis of rating. For 57 years in England personal property has been exempt from rates, and that by Statute. I believe I am right in saying that in Ireland personal property never was rated. Now, such subventions as are given in this case really do this; they substitute Imperial money—that is, money raised by income tax, money raised by the consumption of beer and tea, and tobacco, and the like; money, in fact, which is raised on personalty—what this clause does is to substitute money raised on personalty in place of money which has hitherto been raised and charged on immovable property. That is the serious position, to me, of these subventions, of these grants in aid. It is getting behind the old Act, which said it shall not be lawful to rate personal property. It is a method of getting round that, and, in fact, making personal property pay what has been paid, and ought to be paid, and has been decided by legislation should be paid, by real estate. As I said before, to my mind that is not at all a question of proportion. As to whether the amount is large or small, I do not go into the question from that side in the slightest degree, because, from my point of view, the injustice falls on the Irish peasant just as much as it falls on the English peasant. The Irish peasant will have to put his hand into his pocket just as the English peasant will, in order to pay his quota, as he pays into the Imperial money bag, to relieve the landlords of their rates. That is, in effect, what this clause does, and it is what it seems to me should be pointed out in the most distinct way. It is giving a tremendous advantage to the landlord. There is a distinct three-fold advantage even here to the landlord. In the first place, he is immediately relieved of his rates. He no longer has to pay these rates which, he has been paying. In the second place, that relief of his rates must add enormously to the capital value of his land, as has already been pointed out. There cannot be two questions about that. This is land which will come into the market undoubtedly at some time or other. There is land hunger in Ireland. These people will want to buy their land. When they do buy it, they will have to pay for it an increased sum, on account of the passing of this Bill. On account of this grant now being made by the clause to the Irish landlords, they will have inevitably to pay a larger sum for the land which they buy. That is the second advantage. It is a very large one. It is difficult to estimate; if you capitalise this grant by, say, 20 years' purchase, it becomes an enormous sum of money. Well, then, there is a third advantage, and that is that it frees the landlord from any future increase in rating, on account of improvements, that may be effected in the country. Now, I think that is a very serious thing when you come to look into it. It is perfectly clear. Take a holding what at the present time pays £20 a year in rates, and in the course of a few years some workhouse or other public institution will be erected; the amount required for that holding might be £25 a year. All that the Imperial Exchequer will pay will be the half of the £20—that is, £10—and the extra £5 will have to be found by the ratepayers who remain. That is the effect of it. You cannot get away from that fact. The landlord is relieved from his rates, and therefore any improvement that is effected out of the rates must necessarily fall more heavily upon the other ratepayers who remain. I think I see another difficulty. Suppose the landlord is an occupier, and sits in these local bodies. He can vote in these local bodies moneys for the expenditure of rates which will improve his property. He can vote for them as an occupier. That property, if agricultural land, will not bear this increased expense. That is the effect. I think it is a little hard for the Secretary for Ireland to say that We are wasting time in bringing such things as this to the notice of the House, because, after all, it is not a mere question affecting the Irish people. It is a large question for them, I quite admit, but it is a question also affecting the English people, and we have a perfect right to voice the feelings of the English people on this subject. Holding such views as I do on the effect of these subventions, no one can charge me with inconsistency in this matter. I have always taken every opportunity of voting against these grants in aid, and I always shall do the same thing.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

It will not be well for those who are friends of the Bill to prolong the Debate, but I personally feel so much ashamed of the position which my friends here have taken having regard to their past conduct upon this matter, that I cannot help saying a few words on the subject. My honourable Friend who introduced the Debate seemed to found his argument chiefly on the position taken up by the honourable Gentleman the Member for East Mayo. The great thing that we must remember with regard to this matter is that it is not a new subject. It was discussed in 1896 and in 1897, and we are now in 1898 discussing it again, with all freshness as if we had never seen it before. Well, the point is this, Sir, that it was the Liberal Party who, in 1896, took it up and pressed it upon the Government, and the Liberal Party, by one of its most distinguished leaders, who advocated it in 1897, and there was not a single Liberal Member on these benches behind me who voted against it on that occasion. My honourable Friend who has just sat down said he never missed an opportunity to vote against this proposal. He missed an opportunity in 1897. Not a single Liberal Member voted against it. My honourable Friend here has laid the chief blame at the door of the honourable Member for East Mayo, so far as there is blame. He said the honourable Member for East Mayo had described this as a flagitious waste of public money.

MR. DILLON

And I say so still.

MR. LOUGH

Well, Sir, I am going to quote the honourable Member for East Mayo. On the 13th May, 1896, when the English Bill was before the House, the honourable Member for Derry City moved, an instruction that the grant should be extended to Ireland in the form in which it is now extended.

MR. DILLON

No; extended to Ireland in the form in which it is applied to England. At the time I was opposing the English grant, and I did oppose it night after night.

MR. LOUGH

Well, I will enable the House to judge in a moment. The honourable Member's present description of the Bill is that it is a flagitious waste of public money. In 1896, Sir, he went into the question of Irish rates. He mentioned that in Carlow they were 1s. 11d., in Clare 2s. 11d., and he said that the poor rate in Ireland averaged at least 2s.; that is not quite accurate—and, adding county cess, he arrived at a local rate of 4s. in the £. It was evident, therefore, that if the amount of rates on agricultural land in England was only 2s. 4d., the local burdens in Ireland were far heavier. If this Bill were extended to Ireland, that country ought to receive nearly half as much as England had received under the grant. That is what the honourable Member for East Mayo said in 1896. I think, with submission, that, having said that in 1896, and having appealed for half the amount that was given to England, when the Government do give £730,000, which is about half the amount—when they give it to pay the half of these rates which he had described as so large—he is going a little too far when he describes it as a flagitious waste of public money. The second Debate was in 1897, on May 6th. It is curious how all these Debates come on in May. In this Debate again the honourable Member for Derry City moved a similar Motion—that opportunity should be taken to extend the grant to Ireland—and on that occasion we had the opinion of the Liberal Party very fully expressed, and with perfect unanimity. Let it be remembered that every Liberal who was in the House voted in favour of the extension of this grant to Ireland, and none against it.

MR. CHANNING

No!

MR. LOUGH

The honourable Member for Northampton says he did not vote in favour of it. I did not say he did. I said that every Liberal who was present voted in favour of it, and no Liberal voted against it. It makes rather a strong case against the Liberals who are now opposing it that the Liberals raised the point in 1896 and in 1897, and now that the Government are granting it in 1898 a certain number of them go against the proposal brought forward. I think, really, this is greatly to be regretted. For my part I have not changed my mind. I draw a great distinction between this grant and the grant that was given to England, and for the very reason that I stated when opposing the English Measure, I think the English grant was a very unjust grant, because it was given to a very small section of the community at the expense of the rest. I think that the Irish grant is a very righteous grant, because it gives much needed relief to the great bulk of the community of an agricultural country. Well, the position is a perfectly tenable one. I think the grant is right for another reason. It is right because the rates in Ireland are at least twice as high as the agricultural rates in England. You have 4s. in the £, against 2s. 2d. In Ireland the rates are increasing, year by year; in England they are diminishing. An honourable Member asks me how much they are. I will give the House the figures. The local rates 60 years ago in Ireland were 2s. 6d. per head of the population. The local rates to-day are 17s. 6d. per head, so they are seven times as high as they were 60 years ago. Therefore a far better case exists for applying this grant to Ireland than that which existed for applying it to England. There is another reason. This House is responsible absolutely for these high local rates in Ireland. This House has never allowed publicly elected local authorities to control these affairs. It was this House, and even the Liberal Party, which imposed the heaviest burdens on the Irish localities. It was, for instance, the Liberal Party which constructed the worst light railway in Ireland, under which alone there are, in some districts, now rates of from 2s. to 5s. in the £ to be paid. Another example may be found with regard to workmen's houses. There are taxes for every workman's house erected in Ireland, under a scheme that was devised from these benches, of £5 per house per annum, levied on the locality. Think of that burden on 30,000 houses—houses of poor workmen—levied on the locality for the construction of those buildings under legislation devised from these benches. It was all done with the best intentions, no doubt, but it did not work; and it would be a most mean and shabby thing for this House, when passing a Bill giving authorities in Ireland power to manage their own local affairs, to do what my honourable Friends here ask it to do—to say, "Let them have the authority, but let them have no monetary assistance for the obligations which we have thrown upon them." This House is responsible in Ireland for local rates as well as Imperial taxes, and it is one of the measures of justice which this House should undertake to relieve the burden of these rates.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER

But what about the landlords?

MR. LOUGH

I am asked what about the landlords? There is not a word about the landlords in the clause. I will deal quite fairly, if my honourable Friends will allow me. There is a clause, I believe clause 45, in which a certain undue share is allocated to the landlords. That is the clause to vote against. I voted against it last time, because I think it is an unfair allocation of the money. My position is perfectly consistent. What does this clause do? It simply does the same thing in Ireland that you have already done in every other part of the United Kingdom. If the principle is wrong, my Friends are still more wrong in voting against at now. If the principle is bad, we voted against it before it was applied, but when you have carried out that principle in five-sixths of the United Kingdom, it is a monstrous injustice to deny it to the other sixth. There has been a good deal of criticism on these benches of the fight honourable Gentlemen who lead the Liberal Party. I venture to say, in this matter, they have set a good example to their followers. They have not taken any part in this unfair opposition, as I think, to the grant proposed. My right honourable Friend the Member for Montrose, and the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, and I believe, the Leader of the Opposition, did not see their way to take any part in this opposition against the grant, and I do think that after the action of Liberal Members in 1896 and 1897 what is being done now is very ill-judged indeed. For myself, my position is clear. Having voted as I did in 1896 and in 1897 I cannot turn round now, as some of my Friends will. I stick to my opinion. I regard it as a most just Measure for this House to undertake, and I firmly believe that if my Friends think they will carry any further extension of Local Government in Ireland without also considering the financial basis upon which the new Constitution will rest, they will be disappointed again as they were before.

MR. DILLON

The Chief Secretary for Ireland made a very wise and pertinent appeal to the friends of the Government proposal not to address the House, and certainly I think the speech to which we have just listened is full confirmation of the wisdom of that course. I have reason to say, "Save me from my friends." I had no idea of intervening in this debate, and I shall not occupy the attention of the House for more than a few minutes. I only rise to say, in respect to the utterly uncalled-for and absurd attack made by the honourable Member for Islington upon me, having taken no part in this debate, and not intending to take any part in this debate, that I withdraw not one single sentence that I have uttered in connection with this grant. I claimed that this grant should be given to Ireland when the Agricultural Ratings Bill was before the House on this ground, that although I objected to the whole principle of these subventions set up here in England, if you give the grant to the agricultural interest in England you are bound to give a similar grant on the same lines to the agricultural interest in Ireland; but I never said then, I do not say now, that you are bound to give that grant in an unfair way, on different lines to those on which you gave it to England, so that the landlords should collar about £300,000 a year more than they would get if the grant had been on similar lines to the English grant. My position throughout the whole business is this. The Government, with an enormous majority, said to the Irish Members last year, "On these terms you can have local government, and if you won't consent to these terms, you will not get local government." We considered the price, and, although we did not like it, and we did consider it a very scandalous way of treating the Irish people, we said we were prepared to pay the price, heavy and bitter as it is to pay, rather than wait for an indefinite period for this great measure of emancipation. These were the terms upon which we agreed to support the Measure, and I have supported it, and I shall support it on the present occasion, because we agreed to support it last year. It was a bargain which was forced upon us by the irresistible power of a Government with 150 majority. I think they ought to have given us this benefit, as they promised to do, without exacting this price, but as they decided to exact this price and have told us repeatedly that we must pay the price or do without local government, I said then, as I say now, we are willing to pay the price, although we deeply resent this treatment.

MR. MADDISON (Sheffield, Brightside)

Mr. Speaker, as one who has availed himself of every opportunity to support similar proposals to that now before the House, I take the opportunity of saying a word or two. I listened with great regret to the speech of the honourable Member for Islington. It was so totally different to the feeling which pervades the great working class constituencies of this country. He appeared to me to be, and not only appeared, but I am quite certain he was, a far more extreme advocate of the landlord party than the honourable Member who has just sat down, who is the responsible leader of the Irish Nationalists. Mr. Speaker, what I want to say is this: that I support the Motion before the House as a hearty Home Ruler. I would not like there to be the slightest suspicion that in anything I might do there was any antagonism to the demands of the Irish people for the largest possible form of self-government, and, Sir, if these proposals, if this money, had been given to those wretched, starving Irish peasants on the west coast, although it might go against some of my views on political economy, I would support it heartily, because there is a real need for it. But, Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member for Islington, who has spoken on behalf of the Government and of the landlords, did not give us a single argument in his speech to combat the views of my honourable Friend, who sits on my right, to show that this money would not go largely to the landlord class; that, having gone to the landlord class, it would not have the effect which the honourable Member pointed out. Now, Mr. Speaker, I also join with my honourable Friend in objecting to these doles to particular classes. I am a working man, and I know that amongst the working classes of this country there is an enormous amount of poverty, and also a temptation placed upon men like-myself to listen to arguments and to demands which would cause us to come to this House and make, on their behalf, certain demands which, for the moment, would appear to benefit the working-classes. Now some of us, at great risk, have set ourselves against what we believe to be false and pernicious doctrine, but how are we to do it, Mr. Speaker, if Her Majesty's Government are giving large sums of money to one class of the community, or largely one class, and to the very class which, putting any controversy aside, at any rate, is the most comfortable, lives the best, and is, at all events, most removed from penury and want. Now, Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency composed almost entirely of the working classes, and of small tradesmen, and I feel it to be my duty here to-night to raise my voice as a humble Member of this Houser against the unjust method of giving public money—which these poor men in my division will help to contribute—when there are large numbers, not only of the working classes, but of tradesmen, who find the greatest possible difficulty in paying their rates. Now, I may be very dense—honourable Members opposite seem to agree, and I am not going to controvert that—but, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to see why, if you give to-Irish landlords, whom Irish Members have told us, and for my part have demonstrated, have been the great curse of their country—if you are going to give half or three-quarters of a million of money in order that they may receive their rates—or rather they will be relieved from the necessity of paying their rates—I have no answer to the small shopkeeper in my constituency who demands that I shall stand up in this House and ask to have his rates paid for him. [Cries of "Divide! Divide!'] Well, Mr. Speaker, I am putting a point of view that honourable Members will have to meet in a place where they do not cry "Divide, divide!" and I venture to say that these English constituencies, and London constituencies as well, will relieve some honourable Gentlemen of the possibility of crying "Divide, divide!" Now I have only to say in conclusion that this proposal to omit this

clause does, without doubt, endanger the Bill, according to the right honourable Gentleman but, Sir, those of us who have in our humble capacity done our best to give Irish Members not this sort of restricted Local Government but a full Measure, Mr. Speaker, which will satisfy not a number of grabbing landlords but the national spirit of Ireland—a spirit, I venture to say—

MR. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move— That the Question be now put.

The House divided:—Ayes 172; Noes 39.—(Division List No. 202.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.	Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas	Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)
Arnold, Alfred	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Arrol, Sir William	Fardell, Sir T. George	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward	Loder, G. W. Erskine
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)	Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)
Balcarres, Lord	Field, William (Dublin)	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)	Finch, George H.	Lorne, Marquess of
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)	Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hunts)	Fisher, William Hayes	Macaleese, Daniel
Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin	FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose	McCalmont, Maj-Gn. (Ant'm N.)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)	Flannery, Fortescue	McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Fry, Lewis	McKillop, James
Bousfield, William Robert.	Garfit, William	Milbank, Sir P. C. J.
Brassey, Albert	Gedge, Sydney	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Milton, Viscount
Butcher, John George	Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)	Monk, Charles James
Carew, James Laurence	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	More, Robert Jasper
Carlile, William Walter	Godson, Sir Augustus F.	Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Morrell, George Herbert
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.	Morris, Samuel
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Mount, William George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)	Murnaghan, George
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)	Gull, Sir Cameron	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hammond, John (Carlow)	Murray, C. J. (Coventry)
Charrington, Spencer	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.	Newdigate, Francis A.
Chelsea, Viscount	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Nicholson, William Graham
Clancy, John Joseph	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready	Howell, William Tudor	Pinkerton, John
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil	Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.
Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Pretyman, Ernest George
Crilly, Daniel	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)	Purvis, Robert
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Jordan, Jeremiah	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)	Kenrick, William	Richards, Henry Charles
Dalkeith, Earl of	Kenyon, James	Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Daly, James	King, Sir Henry Seymour	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.	Knox, Edmund Francis V.	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lafone, Alfred	Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Doogan, P. C.	Lawrence Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)	Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)
Dorington, Sir John Edward	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)	Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.	Rutherford, John
Saunderson, Col. E. J.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Seely, Charles Hilton	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny.)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Sharpe, William Edward T.	Thornton, Percy M.	Wilson, J. W. (Worc'r, N.)
Sidebotham J. W. (Cheshire)	Tollemache, Henry James	Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)
Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)	Tomlinson, W. E. Murray	Wylie, Alexander
Skewes-Cox, Thomas	Valentia, Viscount	Wyndham, George
Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)	Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)	Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.
Stanley, Lord (Lancs)	Waring, Col. Thomas
Stock, James Henry	Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Strauss, Arthur	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)	Williams, Col, R. (Dorset)
NOES.
Allison, Robert Andrew	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Billson, Alfred	Horniman, Frederick John	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Brigg, John	Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Broadhurst, Henry	Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)	Strachey, Edward
Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson	Lambert, George	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Caldwell, James	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Warner, Thomas C. T.
Causton, Richard Knight	Lough, Thomas	Wills, Sir William Henry
Channing, Francis Allston	McCartan, Michael	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Woodall, William
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Paulton, James Mellor
Evershed, Sydney	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Maddison.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Richardson, J. (Durham)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-	Rickett, J. Compton
Hazell, Walter	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Question put accordingly— That the words 'as from the' stand part of the Bill.

The House divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 33.—(Division List No. 203.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Crilly, Daniel	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.
Arnold, Alfred	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Arrol, Sir William	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)	Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy	Dalkeith, Earl of	Gull, Sir Cameron
Balcarres, Lord	Daly, James	Hammond, John (Carlow)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)	Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Hanson, Sir Reginald
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hunts)	Donelan, Captain A.	Haslett, Sir James Horner
Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin	Doogan, P. C.	Hayden, John Patrick
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)	Dorington, Sir J. Edward	Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)
Bentinck, Lord H. C.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.
Bousfield, William Robert	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.
Brassey, Albert	Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas	Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Howell, William Tudor
Butcher, John George	Evershed, Sydney	Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.
Carew, James Laurence	Fardell, Sir T. George	Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-
Carlile, William Walter	Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward	Jameson, Major J. Eustace
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)	Jebb, Richard Claverhouse
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Field, William (Dublin)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)	Finch, George H.	Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne	Jordan, Jeremiah
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Fisher, William Hayes	Kenrick, William
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)	FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-	Kenyon, James
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Flannery, Fortescue	King, Sir Henry Seymour
Charrington, Spencer	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Knox, Edmund Francis V.
Chelsea, Viscount	Flynn, J. C.	Lafone, Alfred
Clancy, John Joseph	Fry, Lewis	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-Corn.)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Garfit, William	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Gedge, Sydney	Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)
Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)	Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)
Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.	Godson, Sir Augustus F.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Crean, Eugene	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Loder, Gerald W. Erskine
Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.	Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Stock, James Henry
Lorne, Marquess of	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)	Strauss, Arthur
Lough, Thomas	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur	Sullivan, Donald (Westmeath)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Pinkerton, John	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Macaleese, Daniel	Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
MacNeill, John Gordon S.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny.)
McCalmont, Maj-Gn. (Ant'm N.)	Power, Patrick Joseph	Tanner, Charles Kearns
McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)	Pretyman, Ernest George	Thornton, Percy M.
McCartan, Michael	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Tollemache, Henry James
McKillop, James	Purvis, Robert	Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Mandeville, J. Francis	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Valentia, Viscount
Milbank, Sir P. C. J.	Richards, Henry Charles	Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)	Waring, Col. Thomas
Milton, Viscount	Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.	Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Molloy, Bernard Charles	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Monk, Charles James	Robertson, H. (Hackney)	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)
More, Robert Jasper	Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)	Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)	Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Morrell, George Herbert	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Morris, Samuel	Rutherford, John	Wilson, J. W. (Worc'r, N.)
Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)	Saunderson, Col. E. James	Wodehouse, Edmd. R. (Bath)
Mount, William George	Seely, Charles Hilton	Wylie, Alexander
Murnaghan, George	Sharpe, William Edward T.	Wyndham, George
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)	Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.
Murray, C. J. (Coventry)	Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Nicholson, William Graham	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
NOES.
Allison, Robert Andrew	Horniman, Frederick John	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Billson, Alfred	Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)	Strachey, Edward
Brigg, John	Lambert, George	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Broadhurst, Henry	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)	Warner, Thomas C. T.
Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson	Maddison, Fred.	Wills, Sir William Henry
Caldwell, James	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)
Causton, Richard Knight	Paulton, James Mellor	Woodall, William
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Channing and Mr.Lloyd-George.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Richardson, J. (Durham)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Rickett, J. Compton
Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Hazell, Walter	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

And, it being after Midnight, further proceeding on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.