§ The House resumed consideration of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, as amended in Committee.
§
Another Amendment proposed—
Page 28, line 13, to leave out clause 45."—(Mr. McKenna.)
§ MR. MCKENNA (Monmouth, N.)I rise to move the omission of clause 45. It contains within it principles of vital importance to the local taxation of Ireland. In the Bill as it now stands the total and what is to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the Irish local taxation is fully secured, and therefore any Amendment which may be moved will not affect the total grant in aid of Irish local taxation. The clause we have now to consider contains two principles. The first is the alteration of the system of raising the local taxes, and the second is the gift So Irish landlords of their existing contribution to the poor rate, amounting, I believe, roughly, to about £400,000 a year. Now Mr. Speaker, I think the House is already fully aware of the reasons which the right honourable Gentleman gives for the first principle contained in this clause. Under the existing system of local taxation the poor rate is divided between the landlord and the occupier. The right honourable Gentleman thinks, rightly or wrongly, that inasmuch as the control of local taxation will come into the hands of the occupiers, who form the great majority of voters, it is desirable to put the whole of the burden of local expenditure upon them. That is the first principle contained in this Amendment. I do not think it necessary to discuss that part of the clause at length. I will only point out that the safeguard which has been given by relieving landlords of all liability for future increase of expenditure with regard to the poor rate is a safeguard which is not considered necessary at the present time in Scotland; nor, as a matter of fact, is it considered necessary or desirable in certain 968 large towns in Ireland, where an extended franchise already exists, and where, as a matter of fact, it has not been found that extravagance has ensued in consequence of an extension of the franchise. But the right honourable Gentleman holds that view, and he is not satisfied that the fact that tenant occupiers would have to pay half the rate would be a sufficient inducement to exercise control over extravagance. The honourable Member for East Mayo has a very important Amendment on the paper with regard to the question of the urban districts, and I do not wish to anticipate anything he has to say on the subject. But there is a certain factor involved in this clause, a factor which has nothing to do with the general principle of local taxation in Ireland. That factor is the direct gift to the landlords of their present contribution to the poor rates of a sum amounting to about £400,000 a year, which, capitalised at 2½ per cent. is equal to something like £16,000,000. This question was really raised in Committee. Had it been answered in Committee I do not know that I for one would wish to trouble the House again by touching upon the matter. But the Chief Secretary for Ireland considered himself justified, as he expressed it, in treating the Amendments dealing with this point with the contempt they deserved; and as we have hitherto failed to receive any reason from him as to why be makes this gift to the Irish landlords I for one feel it my duty to press him for an intelligible reason why, over and above this alteration of the general system of Irish taxation, he feels it incumbent on him to give a grant of £400,000 a year to the Irish landlords. It is quite obvious that the right honourable Gentleman may feel that any explanation he may give might be used hereafter at elections. He may feel that he cannot give any intelligible reason to the English electorate. But I appeal to him as to whether that is a sufficient reason for refusing to satisfy us on this side of the House in a most legitimate inquiry as 969 to why he makes away with such an enormous sum as £16,000,000 sterling to a particular class in Ireland—a class which is not so out-and-out necessitous as to deserve special consideration on the part of this House, We cannot dwell too strongly on the absurdity of burdening the taxpayers of this country on behalf of the Irish landlords. It is not that I have any particular grievance against the Irish landlords. I have no doubt that they, as a body, are like any other class of men you like to select. But why the poorer classes of this country, who we know have to bear a proportion of taxation beyond their means, should not have existing burdens removed from them, instead of having those burdens increased by finding a large sum of money for a particular class in Ireland, it is difficult to understand. In the debate we recently had on the Irish financial relations I think one point was established beyond doubt, and that was that as a fact the contribution from Ireland was in excess of Irish means; whether the money is returned in other ways or not is outside the question for the moment. That is not disputed: the Irish contribution is in excess of the means of the country. But the arguments proved this, that the contributions of the poorer classes of the three Kingdoms are likewise beyond their means. Ireland only contributes more because she has a larger proportion of poor members of the community. Great Britain, likewise, so far as her poorer classes are concerned, contributes beyond her means. If that be the case, if it be established beyond doubt that under our present system of taxation the poorer classes are undoubtedly over-burdened, is it not unreasonable beyond words that we should fail to give any relief to these poorer classes, but should continue the extravagant burden upon them. It is not a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is robbing Lazarus to pay Dives. The honourable Member for East Mayo has declared that this provision to pay the Irish landlords this very large sum is a species of blackmail. Sir, I can understand that Irish Members would be willing to pay this blackmail on the ground of the great advantage they hope to receive under this Bill, but are we justified in consenting to this corrupt bargain? Are honourable Mem- 970 bers who represent poor communities, who represent urban districts where the taxation is immensely high, in being parties to this corrupt bargain, under which an immense sum is taken away out of their control and handed over to a class which, after all, must be admitted to be a rich class? Sir, that part of the right honourable Gentleman's clause is absolutely indefensible. As to that part we have not had one word of answer, and in moving the rejection of this clause I challenge the right honourable Gentleman to state briefly, clearly, and in intelligible words what is the reason for giving £400,000 a year to the Irish landlords. I beg to move the omission of the clause.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, CentralThe honourable Member who moved the rejection of this clause has challenged the Government to give a reason for relieving the burden of half the poor rate on agricultural land. The answer to that is simple. In the first place the financial proposals of the clause are part of the arrangement made by common consent last year in every quarter of the House, with the exception of a section of the Radical Party of England and Wales. The honourable Member has during the Committee stage opposed this provision of the Bill. There was, however, in every portion of the House, including the front Opposition bench, a general agreement, and it was a reasonable thing to solve the problem of local government on those lines. I venture to appeal to the House as to whether, if such an argument had not been come to, it would have been even remotely possible to pass a Bill so complicated and so difficult; whether it would not have been hopeless for us to attempt to pass a Local Government Bill through this House unless some financial arrangement of that kind had been made? But, Sir, there is nothing in this clause which hands over this money to the landlords. There is nothing in the clause providing that the landlord's share in the agricultural grant, which was £300,000 and not £400,000, as the honourable Member supposed, should be handed over to the landlords. There was a general agreement on both 971 sides of the House that Ireland was entitled to it. Supposing it was to be connected with the giving of local government, then the grant must be permanent. What would be the necessary result? It would be that in fixing fair rents in agricultural districts the landlord would get the benefit of this grant. What is really done is to take the precaution that the landlords shall not get the benefit except as regards the poor rate. When the time comes I am perfectly ready to defend what is the real substance of clause 45—namely, the throwing of the burden upon the occupier, not merely in the country districts, but in the towns as well. As regards the contention that the landlord is to receive the benefit of the poor rate, he would have received it in any case. The landlords are to be relieved of the payment of half the poor rate, and the tenants of half the county cess; and as this is done for the purpose of solving the great and difficult problem of local government in Ireland, I do not think the Government ought to be blamed.
MR. T. SHAW (Hawick Burghs)I trust you will forgive me for interposing on the present occasion. I have done nothing in the course of this discussion, though I hold strong views on the financial provisions, to impede the progress of any single clause. What I was particularly anxious to know was what was the defence of clause 45 in this Bill. I am still in a great dilemma, for I do not know whether I have listened to a defence or not.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI replied to the attack upon it.
MR. T. SHAWA reply has only been made to a speech that has been delivered. That may be one reason for not defending this Bill, but as to the merits of the clause, we may hold that there has been no reasonable defence given. What has been said, however, has been the laying down of three propositions. In the first place it is said that this is part of an arrangement. Now I think that of all things most hateful in this House the worst is to introduce anything in the nature of a personal explanation or defence; and when the right honourable Gentleman talks about an arrangement with regard to the finance of this Bill I 972 know that he will candidly acquit me of being any party to that arrangement. When the resolution was placed before this House on which the money was obtained for the purposes of this Bill, I did venture, though with much reluctance, to interpose, and it is only as a sequel to that interposition that I now rise to say that I never will be a party to an arrangement of this kind, which, in substance, appears to be in the nature of a corrupt bargain, and which, in its result, will be productive of much social mischief, if not, indeed, social disorder. The right honourable Gentleman says that this clause does not propose to hand over this money to the landlords. Well, technically, that is so. No doubt it is, so that this clause does not propose to hand ever the money to the Irish landlords by its express terms. But what is the provision of clause 45. It is this: that now and for all time the landlords shall be written out of the lists of ratepayers in Ireland, and the money that will enable that to be done will be money that will come out of the British Treasury. Under these circumstances I must say that it appears to me that the defence of the right honourable Gentleman is a petty defence to the handing over of this money to provide the machinery under which one class alone shall escape payment. If that be not handing over money to the landlords directly it is certainly doing so in an indirect fashion. The last observation made on the subject to which the House listened was that the landlords would not get the benefit, except the benefit of the poor rate. The landlord would get the benefit most unquestionably to the full extent of the poor rate for all time coming. Upon the clause itself I hope to address a few observations to the House which will show that it is not so easily disposed of as might be imagined by the answer that has just been given. I hold that clause 45, supplemented as it is by clause 90, is of no less stupendous importance to Ireland. It is, in a sense, quite separable from the other questions which have been discussed on previous days in these Debates. In the former clauses the money was dedicated to certain purposes, but in the present clause the actual relief, as provided by the provision of the Act, is 973 given to the landlords, by taking them out of the list of taxpayers in Ireland. Now that is a subject upon which no person who has inquired, or who has ascertained the opinion of financiers, can ever have had the slightest doubt—namely, that if you abolish in Ireland, or in Scotland, or anywhere else, a system which exists under which landlord and tenant shall pay equal shares of the local rates, you are abandoning a system which has been acknowledged by all authorities to be the best system of local rating in existence. In Scotland we have had direct examples of the incidence of taxation. The landlords directly pay their half of the rates and the tenants pay their half. Now in Ireland we have the same system, although not direct, but in an indirect fashion; and what is the result of that system? The result, Mr. Speaker, so far as Scotland is concerned, is that upon every proposition for the expenditure of money for local purposes it has produced a community of interests, of common responsibility between landlord and tenant, which is at the bottom of all sound finance in local transactions. What it is proposed now to do is not to relieve the occupier and the landlord alike, but to abandon what has hitherto been a sound system of local finance in Ireland and to substitute for it a system which is universally condemned by the best authorities. It has been said that there is a Commission sitting upon this subject; but, as I have said in a former speech, Commissions have sat upon this subject before now, and the latest dictum of Commissions is only as far back as 1897, when the First Lord of the Admiralty gave to the world his view, which is now before the country—namely, that the best and ideal system of taxation was where landlord and tenant were assessed equally for all local purposes. But, Mr. Speaker, this clause has a still further defect, and it is this: we have had legislation in the line of this Bill already. In Ireland, as I said before, you have an indirect system of taxation, in Scotland you have it direct; but what happened in the case of Scotland when you were dealing with the agricultural grant for Scotland? What happened then was this: it was expressly set out in the Bill that no part of the relief granted should 974 be given to the landlord, but solely to the occupier; now it applied expressly to the poor rate. In the present instance what you have is a declaration twofold in character: firstly, that the poor rate for all future time shall be made upon the occupier and not upon the landlord; and, secondly, a provision that the occupier shall not be entitled, as hitherto, to deduct from his rent. I say that, Mr. Speaker, in a case of this kind we do want something more as a defence of this new departure from a sound and honourable principle than a reference to a particular bargain, made under circumstances which I am altogether unable to understand. And, in regard to the grant conceded by the Exchequer, of this £300,000 of public money to one particular class, I say that until this Government came into power this new system of doles to particular sections of the community, whom we generally suppose are friendly to the policy and principles of Her Majesty's Government, was never before adopted. Mr. Speaker, the House will remember this analogy, which is the only one I can think of with regard to this. Like the student of old, in the story, the Chief Secretary is going along the highway with money in his pocket, and he sees the landlord's hat in front of him, and upon it there is printed: "Give for the glory of God, for justice, and for charity." And, like the student of old, the Chief Secretary stops to give, not on account of the inscription, but because, in the adjoining hedge, he catches sight of two cross-sticks on which rest a blunderbuss, pointing at him, and controlled by the owner of the hat. This grant is not being made out of charity or justice, but because of the landlord's gun. I have spoken of the finance—the unsound finance—under this Bill, but I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about something far more important than the money grant, and that is, what is the future of Ireland, in regard to a matter of the greatest importance—namely, the increasing of her expenditure? The result of buying out the landlord, and removing his name from the list of ratepayers, is that all the increase of expenditure will fall upon the shoulders of those who are least able to bear it in many parts of Ireland—namely, the tenantry, and the tenantry alone. The expenditure will be increased by the 975 extravagant methods of those who will have the control of the arrangements. Mr. Speaker, as these things develop, and as modern ideas progress, the cost of administering local affairs incessantly and regularly increases, because the expenditure on public health, upon roads, and the like under public management increases from year to year. Under these circumstances, I do say to my friends from Ireland that it is a very strange state of affairs that there should be any bargain made under which they have to assent that for all time this increase of expenditure will not fall as before—half on the landlord and half on the tenant—but will fall solely upon the tenantry of their own country. But it is not merely this, but the tenants will have to bear the cost of the progress of modern ideas, consolidations, and increases of expenditure under the Bill. If I mistake not, even the allowances in respect of exceptional distress are placed upon the poor rate. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do say that it is an extraordinary fact that we have the Irish representatives placed in such a position that they are compelled to acquiesce in a situation of this character, that the tenantry of their country shall alone, for all future time, bear the burden of the increase of expenditure, consequent upon modern progress, augmented by the artifices of the Bill, and consequent upon the passing of this Bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a situation which is not only unsound finance, but it is unsound to the point of cruelty. It is a serious outlook for Ireland, from a social point of view, because I can conceive nothing worse for Ireland than that you should tear asunder, by this clause, that community of interests and responsibility in local expenditure which is the best security for the abatement of discontent; and property is not to bear this burden, but it may be set up as an excellent defence of property not bearing a portion of the expenditure that it does not share in the benefits conferred under the Bill. But what do we know in point of fact? Will any honourable Gentleman on that side of the House get up and say that the expenditure under this Bill will not enormously increase the value of property? There will be better Toads, better provision for sanitation, and every one of these things adds to the value of the property. Therefore what you 976 have, as a direct result of this policy, is that on one class of shoulders you place the burden of the expenditure, and another class will reap the permanent benefit of that expenditure. I would say, in conclusion, that no one knows the difficulty I have in severing myself from certain Members of this House, with whom. I have always acted; but the House will excuse me if I say that I cannot get beyond my sincere conviction that the future of Ireland is not to be helped, but, on the contrary, it will have been made somewhat worse and more distressful by the operation of this clause. And to my friends from Ireland I would say these concluding words: are the terms of this bargain so hard and so cruel that you must do this great wrong, and place this great blot upon your country?
§ SIR W. LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)The right honourable Gentleman has said something about an arrangement having been male. Well, I can assure him that I have not made any arrangement with anybody, and I do not know when or where this arrangement was made, but I do think that something ought to be said about this clause, because it seems to me to be the pivot of the whole thing. The Chief Secretary himself has admitted that, for he said that this financial part of the Bill was bound up in the whole policy of the Measure. Well, it does seem to me to be a very unsound financial policy. Two years ago I remember, under the leadership of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, I sat up the whole of the night marching through the Division Lobby to oppose this very principle being applied to English landlords, and I have yet to find out that Irish landlords are any better than English landlords, or any more deserving of public money being given to them in this way. This is exactly the same proposal which we fought against in the English Bill, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will get up, and be as vigorous against this as he was against the proposal made on behalf of the English landlords. Surely we have a right to protest against this policy. The Irish Secretary last night, or the night before, seemed to think that we were rather unfair in pro- 977 testing, but really he ought to be a little tender towards us; if he is mighty, let him be merciful. So long as he has his big majority behind him, we cannot expect to defeat his policy, and all we can do is to protest in this way. I dare say he will tell us as a judge once said to a prisoner who protested his innocence prior to being sentenced to death—"protest, and be hanged." With regard to the policy there is one thing good in it, and only one. It is over and above board, because none of the parties to the agreement make any secret about it.
§ SIR W. LAWSONMy honourable Friend says "Hear, hear!" They made this agreement, and they make no secret about it—it is signed, sealed, and delivered. Who are the parties to this agreement? Well, first of all, there is the Government, and on the other hand, the Irish Party, and these two have agreed together—what to do?—to give a certain sum of money to the Irish landlords. Why? Not because they are particularly poor, not because they are particularly good, not because they are particularly sensible, not because they are particularly serviceable to the State! I know of no reason why they should agree to give this money to the Irish landlords—except one—it is to induce the landlords and their representatives in this House to pass the Bill which we are now discussing. It is a very strange contract. I wonder if honourable Gentlemen on the other side would get up to defend that policy. Either this Bill is good, or it is bad. If it is good, they ought to pass it; but if it is bad, it would be a miserable thing to be bought. The other day I saw in the newspapers a case in the north of England where a bench of licensing magistrates said that they would give a licence to a certain applicant if he gave £1,000 to a local charity. The matter was brought before a superior court, and it was held that the magistrates in so doing were wrong; but that was not so bad as the landlords taking money to pass the Bill through this House. But there are three parties involved in this; there are those who receive the money—the landlords—they are receiving it just the same as the newspapers received it from Mr. 978 Hooley, and if they are willing to take £300,000 a year to grant local self-government to Ireland, how much will they charge for Home Rule? I am very glad to see the gallant Colonel [Colonel Saunderson] taking a note; perhaps we will hear from him the price. Then there will be another agreement—an agreement with the Irish Secretary, who is to pay it over to the Tory Party and their friends in Ireland. Then there is a third party—those who have to provide the money. That is a touch for the United Kingdom. Who is the money got from?
§ SIR W. LAWSONI quite admit that some of it comes from Ireland, but, taken in a lump, it comes from the whole countries.
§ SIR W. LAWSONOh! but yes. I hope there is no harm, being the representative of the people in my constituency, in speaking on the part of the poor taxpayer, who is very hard pressed indeed. It seems to me that the Government are prepared to spend money whenever they get the chance, but still I think if the case was properly put before the electors they would object to this proceeding. Now, look here. Supposing at the last election any candidate in making a speech, had said, "I am in favour of a liberal expenditure of money on the Army and Navy," that would be all right; "I am in favour of a large sum being spent on education," that would have gone down; but would anybody believe that a candidate would be returned if he said, "I am going to vote for £300,000 of public money for the Irish landlords." I do not believe any man would be returned who said such a thing. My honourable Friend on my left [Mr. T. M. Healy] said he had heard no argument against this proposal; all I can say is that I have heard no argument for it. When this policy is put forward everybody sees what it is, but I think it would be better in dealing with public money to be influenced by morality rather than scattering it about. But I say, if we are going on in this way, if we are going to give public money to 979 anybody who can scramble for it, that is Tammany. I would like, before concluding, to say a few words to my Irish Friends. I saw that they had a great meeting the other day about the financial relations between Ireland and England, with Lord Castletown in the chair who, after referring to the proposed Anglo-American league, said—
We are going to have a Pan-Celtic league.I do not know what the Anglo-American league is, but I do know what the Pan-Celtic league is. Lord Castletown said that this Pan-Celtic league is to unite Parnellites, anti-Parnellites, Unionists, and every other kind of Irishman in making a demand for more money and less taxes. I object to being robbed by this league, and also to the poor Irish being robbed in order to pay these landlords, who "toil not, neither do they spin." I would very respectfully give advice to my Irish Friends on this matter—I am an old friend of theirs, and may give them a little advice. I am one of a very few Members in this House who voted for Mr. Butt's Home Rule Resolution; I am no fair-weather Home Ruler, and whatever the Irish Members do on this occasion, I will still vote for Home Rule, because I will be voting for justice, and I do justice even to Irishmen. They know that the only people in this country who are in favour of Home Rule are the democracy, and it would be very difficult to get them to continue to support Home Rule if the Irish Members go on as they are doing. The democracy will say—If this thing means the emptying of our pockets, we won't have it.I do ask the Irish Members to refrain from voting to pay this money, not to the poor, not to the rich, but to the landlords. At all events, our duty is clear; it is on every opportunity to uphold the rights of the people, and in upholding them on this occasion and in this way, it will in my humble opinion save us from physical corruption.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Baronet who has just sat down asked a question which I shall answer in a very few words. Before, how- 980 ever, I go on, I want to point out to honourable Members for Ireland what the Radical Party's idea of justice to Ireland means. It means to give Ireland anything she asks for that does not cost British money. The honourable Baronet said he was quite willing to give a Home Rule Government, and let them go over and fight to their heart's content, but there was one thing he was not prepared to do, and that was he was not prepared to put his hand in his pocket, and let the same justice be done to Ireland as was done to England, Scotland, and Wales. That is a view of justice that may satisfy the Radical Party, but it is not very general in this House, and it does not satisfy Irish Members, no matter to which Party they belong. It has been said, and the right honourable Gentleman repeated it, that a bargain has been made. I never heard a word about a bargain. The Chief Secretary never used the word bargain. [Cries of "Agreement!"] An agreement is in the nature of a bargain. "Arrangement" was the word my right honourable Friend used—the word "arrangement," not "agreement" or "bond." I venture to say, Sir, that if my right honourable Friend had brought in a Local Government Bill for Ireland without giving a similar grant to Ireland as was done to England, Scotland, and Wales, he would have found his Bill opposed by honourable Gentlemen opposite. Even if they do get the money provided by this Bill, a great injustice will be inflicted on Ireland, because for two years you will have withheld what you have given to the rest of the Kingdom. The view of the honourable Member for Hawick is that we ought to have had this Local Government Bill, but no grant with it. Then he drew a picture which I was very glad to listen to, of Irish landlords in a new character—the Irish landlord being at the end of a blunderbuss; but it was the wrong end of a blunderbuss, and I cannot say it requires the imagination of a Scotchman to see an Irish landlord at the other end of the weapon. But I do not think, Sir, that that illustration illustrates the position we assume on this question. We support this Bill as it stands, and I acknowledge freely in the House that if this Bill had been unaccompanied by a grant such as has been given to the rest 981 of the country, I should have opposed it, and, I believe, every Irish Member would have opposed it, and I think we should have been justified in so doing. The honourable Baronet talks about Ireland being a poor country, and he asks what bribe we would accept to consent to a Home Rule Bill. Allow me to remind the honourable Baronet that Mr. Gladstone offered us a bribe of fifty millions, and as much more as was necessary to buy the landlords out—to induce us to accept Home Rule, and we refused it with scorn. I can say certainly—and I think I can speak certainly for every man in Ireland who holds my views—there is no conceivable bribe will ever induce us to give up what we prefer—what money cannot buy—union with this country. We have accepted this Bill, and we have tried to do the best we can with it, and although I for my part imagine there may be some danger attending it, still I believe ultimately, and I have believed all along—if I did not believe it, I would have opposed the Bill—I believe this Bill will prove a success. It has been said by the right honourable Gentleman repeatedly that this money has been given to the landlords. Surely the ratepayers get more than half, and the ratepayers in Ireland are not so rich that they do not value very much the prospects that this Bill holds out to them. According to the right honourable Member for Hawick, rates and expenses will very much increase. If they do, it will be the business of the ratepayers. They will have the power to keep down expenses in the future. They will elect men to do the work, and, if expenditure grows and assumes an alarming aspect, it will be the fault of the people for electing the wrong men to carry out the work. I look upon this grant as tardy justice, and only common fair play, and I cannot conceive how a Radical Member can persuade himself it would have been grossly unjust to England to give to Ireland local government, and at the same time to give what you give to the rest of the Empire.
§ MR. LAMBERT (Devon, South Molton)The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has stated, as I understood him, that this Bill does not give money to the Irish landlord.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONI never said anything of the kind.
§ MR. LAMBERTWe shall give him an opportunity in a few moments to transfer the whole of it to the tenants, and then we shall hear what he has to say. The Chief Secretary in his speech said an arrangement had been come to in this House last May as to the disposal of this money, and I should like to know on what grounds he has based this assertion. I have challenged it before, and we have never had a lengthy Debate of these financial proposals as we have had from the right honourable Gentleman to-day, and he has had his reply from the Front Bench. As an example of the union on the Opposition side of the House with reference to those financial proposals, the right honourable Gentleman has heard the views of the honourable Member for Hawick Burghs, who sits on the Front Opposition Bench.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURHas the right honourable Member for the Hawick Burghs spoken for the Front Bench?
§ MR. LAMBERTI always consider that our Front Bench is very much more united than the bench opposite. They concur at least in one thing; they read one another's speeches. Mr. Speaker, will the right honourable Gentleman allow me to say that the Leader of the Opposition himself has denounced this—it is in reply to the honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh—as hush money, to bribe the Irish landlords to keep silence. Could any man condemn a thing more than the Leader of the Opposition himself? He has denounced it, and I have a higher opinion of the Leader of the Opposition than to think he would denounce a proposal which he was not prepared to vote against. Now, Mr. Speaker, as to this general arrangement that was made. I presume the right honourable Gentleman refers to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs. What did he say upon this matter? He said—
Of course, the success of the proposals of the right honourable Gentleman"—983 —that was the announcement of the conferment of local government on Ireland—as my honourable Friend the Member for Mayo pointed out, depends largely—in fact, almost entirely, upon the nature of the measure of local government to be granted to Ireland. We must all suspend our judgment upon the whole proposal until we know what is to be the character and the extent of the reform.He, the right honourable Gentleman, said we must suspend our judgment until we know exactly what is the character of the Report; and then the right honourable Gentleman quotes this as being a sample of a general arrangement among all parties in this House as to this proposal. Why, Sir, we have repudiated it over and over again, and we shall continue to repudiate it; and I challenge the right honourable Gentleman to come down here and make an arrangement in this House in which we, as British taxpayers, in common with the Irish taxpayers, have to pay ultimately to the Irish landlords to induce them to accept a measure of local government for Ireland. It has been announced that the Bill would have to go to another place; and what earthly chance is there of the landlords letting go their grip of place, power, and emolument, if they were not protected by some such clause as this? I am not concerned to grease the wheels of the machinery in the other place. The Government have a 150 majority, and if they cannot pass legislation, surely they ought to—and pass it through the House of Lords. If this Bill is a bad Bill it ought not to be passed; if it is a good Bill no one ought to be bribed to consent to it. That is the position I shall take up as long as it is before the House. The Chief Secretary stated explicitly that £300,000 a year will go to the Irish landlords direct.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONWill the honourable Member allow me to ask him whether he, as an agriculturist, accepted the money granted to the tenants in England?
§ MR. LAMBERTCertainly, and I will give the honourable and gallant Member an opportunity to vote this money to the tenants in Ireland. In that event, I hope the honourable Gentleman will be found in the Lobby supporting us to do what 984 the Conservative Party said all along the line, two years ago, in connection with the Agricultural Rating Bill—that the money should go to the tenant and not to the landlord. Of course, we shall have an opportunity of dealing with the question as to whether the tenant is more deserving of the grant than the Irish landlords, but, still, Sir, I do say that the Chief Secretary has made out no case that there has been any general "arrangement" amongst the Members on the Opposition side of the House to vote away £300,000 a year of the money of the United Kingdom for the benefit of the Irish landlords, and I shall continue to oppose it as I have always done.
§ MR. DAVITT (Mayo, S.)I do not intend to trespass more than three or four minutes upon the time of the House in stating the reasons why I will support this Amendment. The honourable and gallant Member opposite in the speech which he addressed to the House a short time ago, said that the opposition to clause 45, on the part of the Radical Party, was due to a disposition on their side not to give money to Ireland. If he will permit me to say so, I think that is not an accurate definition of the opposition given from below the Gangway. If I understand the position of the Radical Members, it is this—that they object to the grant of £300,000 a year out of the Dockets of the taxpayers of Great Britain to the class which have been the dealiest enemies of Ireland's national well-being. In that proposition I heartily join. The honourable and gallant Member also said that every Irish Member would oppose this Bill if the grant to the landlords was not included.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONI beg the honourable Member's pardon. I said if the grant had not been given; I did not mention the landlords.
§ MR. DAVITTI should be glad of the landlords in Ireland getting anything to which they had a just or a moral claim. I shall not consent either in this House or in Ireland to their ever getting from the pockets of the Irish taxpayers that to which they have no claim whatever. I listened with interest to the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the hope that he would advance some new 985 ground, or give some rational reason why clause 45 is retained in the Bill. He asserted that it was in consequence of some arrangement between that side of the House and this. May I ask him this question? If this Bill had been introduced without this clause 45, does he suppose for a moment that a single Member on this side of the House would insist upon giving this grant to the Irish landlords?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe honourable Member knows that no Local Government Bill would have been introduced at all without some such clause.
§ MR. DAVITTBut that is evading my question. There was a Government, which had been in power, of which the right honourable Gentleman was not a Member, which offered to Ireland, not a county government, but a national Government, without a bribe. Sir, I have opposed this clause for many reasons. I support the Amendment because I believe it is a just and proper Amendment. The clause is not needed. What is alleged to be the chief aim and purpose of the Bill? The Bill is to confer county and rural government on Ireland, and surely that act of justice and of constitutional right could be carried through this House without the taxpayers of these three countries being called upon to subsidise a certain class in Ireland for ever with the enormous sum of £300,000 or £400,000 a year. Again, I support the Amendment because I cannot understand why the landed interest of Ireland, or of any other country, should be exempted from the burden of supporting the poor of that country. The ownership of land in Ireland and in this country by a class was more or less acquiesced in by the general community, on the condition that the landed interests should support the poor. It was an obligation on the landed interest alone, and what this Bill proposes to do now, by means of this clause, is to remove almost every vestige of that obligation from the shoulders of the landed classes in Ireland. I am strongly opposed to that. If I could see any ground on which this money was to be given to Irish landlords, on account of their ser- 986 vices to the country, or of anything they have done to increase the fruitfulness of the soil, or because of the beneficent institutions erected by them in Ireland, or of any services whatever they have given in the whole course of their existence to the moral, material, or intellectual advantage of the Irish people, then I could understand why this gift should be made over to them; but it is in defiance of any record of that kind on their part that we are asked in this House to vote this subsidy, which will continue for ever. I protest against it on the part of those taxpayers in Ireland who will have to contribute to this subsidy, as well as the taxpayers of Great Britain. The artisans, the mechanics, the poor cottiers in the west of Ireland, will have to contribute their share towards this annual subsidy, and on their behalf I again record my protest against this dishonest scheme carried out by the Government, whereby they dip their hands into the pockets of the general taxpayer in order to reward their political partisans in Ireland.
§ MR. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthen, E.)I have not spoken on this matter until to-night, but I was hoping that I should hear from somebody on the other side why this sum of £300,000 a year should go into the pockets of the Irish landlords. When the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh rose I thought at once, "Now I shall hear the real reason, or, at any rate, the supposed reason." What did he do? He shirked the whole question. He did not touch the question as to whether this sum was to go into the pockets of the Irish landlords. All he said was that, so far as the Liberal Party were concerned, they were not generous to Ireland—not prepared to give £300,000 a year to anybody in Ireland—in which I venture to think he is grossly mistaken. It seems to me that the Radical Members have never hesitated about granting money to the poor in Ireland. What we do object to is to give it to rich men, unless we can hear some reason why they should have it. I think I should try to swallow this clause if I were given any good reason, because the Bill is an extremely good Bill, but I have not heard any reason why, after the passing of this Act, the 987 landlords should be freed from this liability to the poor, and from the payment of their present share of the poor rate in Ireland. One reason has been suggested, and I cannot help thinking that it is a disgraceful reason if it is true. It is that we are giving £300,000 a year to men who have no right to it, simply to make them hold their tongues, or to get their votes, and if we are doing that we are doing something which is monstrously unjust and unfair, and in time it will revert to the disgrace of our country. I do hope that some honourable Member on the other side of the House will, before the Division is taken, give us some good reason why the landlords should have this sum, and until that reason is suggested the only possible way in which the people of this country will understand the matter is that it is a deliberate bribe, paid to men who have not deserved it and ought not to get it, in order that they might support the Bill either by their vote or by their silence.
§ MR. CRIPPS (Gloucester, Stroud)Before the House goes to a Division I should like to say a very few words as to why I cannot support the Amendment. I am sorry to say I cannot agree with the reason which has been given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Certainly, for my part, I Should not support any proposal which appeared to be either in the nature of hush money, bribe, or dole, because an arrangement had been made between parties in this House on any question of the kind.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI did not say it was a dole.
§ MR. CRIPPSThe Chief Secretary says he did not say it was a dole. Of course he did not, but honourable Members opposite profess to regard it as a dole or a bribe. Let me say a few words in answer to the honourable and learned Member who has just sat down, why I consider this proposal apart from all arrangements absolutely just and fair. As the honourable Baronet who has just spoken said, the principle in this Bill is precisely the same as that contained in the English Bill. What was the principle in the English Bill? It simply was that real property having been rated art about twice the burden which ought to 988 be thrown upon it, that injustice which existed undoubtedly for a long period of years was put right so far as agricultural land was concerned by the English Bill. It was not a question of giving one farthing to anyone. It was merely a question of putting an end to an injustice which had admittedly existed for a very considerable time.
§ MR. S. EVANSWhy did you limit it to five years?
§ MR. CRIPPSI would not limit it to five years, but, whether it is limited to five years or not, that is the principle of the Bill. Let me apply the same principle to the present Bill. In England the remission was given to the ratepayer, who was in all cases the occupier. In Ireland you have the occupier and the landlord. I would not give a penny of this money to the landlord as such, or to the occupier as such. I should give it all to the ratepayer, be he occupier or landlord. Let us deal with the expression "ratepayer." He is the man who is paying too much, he is suffering from injustice, and just as you relieved him in England, so you ought to relieve him in Ireland. That is the whole of this clause, and in voting with the Government, I wish to protest against the terms occupier and landlord in this connection. The ratepayer is the person to be treated justly and that is the object of the clause.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)Mr. Speaker, I only wish to draw attention to a few statements made by the Chief Secretary during the Debate on this clause. In the first place, to do him credit, he never attempted to meet the arguments of the honourable Member for Monmouthshire, but he blandly and clearly stated that this clause must be in the Bill in order to secure its passage. That is the effect of what he stated tonight in his supposed reply to my honourable Friend who moved the Amendment. I have taken down his words. He says—
No such Bill would pass through this House without some such provision.And at a later stage he said that he knew perfectly well the Bill would not pass, and never would 'have been introduced but for the existence of clause 45. That 989 is an admission that the Irish landlords would resist every attempt to do justice to the Irish people, unless they got a consideration for withdrawing their opposition. That is my conclusion from his statement, and he cannot get away from his own words. I doubt whether the Chief Secretary saw the importance of his admission—an admission which I suppose has never before been made in the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown—that we are passing legislation as a result of an arrangement of a financial nature for the relief of the Irish landlords, in order to get this Bill through the House.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI do not accept the conclusion which the honourable Member has drawn from my remarks. I stated that this Bill would not have been introduced without such a clause, and that it was in pursuance of an arrangement come to in different parts of the House last year, but I have never said that I do not think that the arrangement is in itself a reasonable one. I think, certainly, the arrangement is a reasonable one. In 1892 a Local Government Bill was introduced with certain checks and safeguards, but they were so unpleasing to the honourable Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies, that it was hopeless to introduce a Bill of that kind again. It was absolutely necessary to introduce other safeguards, which could only be of a financial character, and it was in order to introduce those safeguards that we put these clauses into the Bill.
§ MR. BROADHURSTMr. Speaker, I hope the House will notice that, as the Chief Secretary progresses and repeats his explanation of this transaction, it grows worse and more disreputable. The Chief Secretary now plainly tells us that it was hopeless to attempt to pass just legislation ['"No, no!"]—allow me to put my own construction on the Chief Secretary's statement—it is evident that he regards it as hopeless to attempt to give a Measure of justice to the Irish people in the form of local self-government without bringing forward extraordinary financial considerations for the purpose of removing opposition from a certain section of the Irish population. ["No, no!"] 990 We all know what that section is. Well, Mr. Speaker, I only rose to call the attention of the House to these extraordinary admissions made here in the light of day that the British Parliament has sunk so low under the management of the Chief Secretary and his friends that it is hopeless to get justice for the people of Ireland without buying off opposition at the cost of the general taxpayers of the country. If any town council in the kingdom had been guilty of such proceedings they would be subjected to inquiry at the hands of the Public Prosecutor, and would probably be proceeded against under the Conspiracy Laws. We cannot mistake the admission made by the Chief Secretary to-night, and I do not know whether this is not an occasion when some constitutional authority should not consider the advisability of impeaching Her Majesty's Government for corrupt bargaining with a certain section of the community in order to buy off opposition. May I say one word with reference to the speech of the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite? He was good enough to say that the Liberal party under Mr. Gladstone had attempted a bribe of 50 millions for Home Rule. I understood him to say that. But the honourable and gallant Gentleman fails to see that the landlords in consideration of that money were to hand over their land to the tenantry of Ireland—in other words, to the Irish nation. That was the bargain and it was not a bargain like this, to pay away money without any return. It was a definite proposal to give this money to the Irish landlords for the surrender of their rights over the land. The honourable and gallant Gentleman's statement was painfully misleading, and as surely as he did not wish it to be misleading he will forgive me, and perhaps think me—
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONOh, no!
§ MR. BROADHURSTThe honourable and gallant Gentleman is not so generous as I thought. I thought he would thank me for correcting his statement, which would appear to disadvantage in the papers to-morrow if not corrected. I shall certainly vote for the Amendment of my honourable Friend on the ground of constitutionally safeguarding the 991 interests of our constituents and preventing in future bargains and arrangements by Her Majesty's Government. I notice that the Chief Secretary did make this admission, that there were a few English and Welsh Radicals who had not been asked about the arrangement, and in a lofty way he seemed to think they were of no consideration—mere incidents in the affair—and that he had to take no account of them whatever. But he finds now he has to take them into account, and they have drawn from him an admission which no Minister has ever been found to make before from the Ministerial Benches. I sincerely hope that this admission will be noted by the House, and that we shall receive a large contingent from the opposite benches in defence of constitutional rights and the purity of legislation.
§ MR. WHITTAKER (York, W. R., Spen Valley)The honourable Member for Stroud a few minutes ago gave a particular reason why the grant was given to agriculture in this country. It was that personalty might be made to contribute to local rates. Having made that statement, I venture to think he cut away from himself entirely any justification for the present grant. For this reason. Ireland receives £150,000 a year as the corresponding grant to the agricultural grant in this country. That was more than Ireland's share as the taxation of personality in Ireland to the estate duties—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! It is not in order to discuss the amount of the grant. That has already been disposed of in a previous section.
§ MR. WHITTAKERI merely wished to answer the honourable Member for Stroud. His contention was that this was a grant from personalty to relieve the burden of rates upon realty. If in order, I should like to point out that already Ireland gets more than her share, and that this particular grant would be five times the amount that Ireland is entitled to because of her contribution. If not in order in pursuing that line of argument out, I will not follow it, but the simple fact is, that the grant proposed would be five times the (amount to which Ireland is entitled by her contribution to the estate duty 992 from which this tax is to be taken. Ireland is already getting more than her share, and its increase cannot be justified by the arguments put forward by the honourable Member for Stroud.
§ MR. PINKERTON (Galway)I am strongly impressed with the purity of political motive displayed on this side of the House. The honourable Gentleman who opposed the agricultural grant is like Mark Twain's good little boy—so honest that he is simply ridiculous. We know perfectly well that the financial arrangement is the foundation stone on which the Local Government Bill is built, and, so far as I am concerned, and looking at this matter from an entirely different standpoint from the landlords, I do not object to the landlords getting their share. The Free Trade policy that has benefited the artisans and manufacturers of England, that has built up the shoddy aristocracy of England, has ruined the agricultural interest in Ireland both of landlord and tenant, and I hold it is sheer hypocrisy on the part of men who have benefited by the decline of the agricultural interest in Ireland to grudge this small concession. I do not hold a brief for the landlords. I am as much opposed to the system of landlordism as my honourable Friend, but I cannot for the life of me recognise the principles of Henry George, when they come from my honourable Friend, who takes occasion to vote in direct opposition to them the next minute. The proper way is not to find fault with the agricultural grant, but honestly and openly to go into the Lobby against the Local Government Bill. I look upon the acts of the landlords in Ireland as Lord Clive did on his excesses in India. I am astonished at their moderation. Considering that under the laws of England until the last few years irresponsible power was placed in the hands of the landlords, as a rule that irresponsible power was exercised in a very moderate way indeed. For my part, as a tenant righter and a Radical, I would rather a thousand times have held land under the old school of landlords than under the newly-enriched individuals who are taking their places. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that you ruled the honourable Gentleman out of order when he was dealing with the excessively generous gift that is about to be extended to Ireland. 993 If we had only a united Ireland, if the landlords had only ventured to trust the people, and had identified themselves with the popular movement at an earlier period, we might have been in a position to wring from the British Treasury even a larger concession than we are now getting. It has been thrown in my teeth that, as a representative of a town, I am supporting this grant to the agricultural interest, but I can assure honourable Members that the low prices which press heavily on the producers are of material benefit to the consumers, and the sooner we put an end to all this cant about the generosity of the British Treasury and John Bull the better. For my part I would sooner refuse the grant than accept it if offered in such a grudging manner. Allusion has been made to the bribe which Mr. Gladstone offered to the land-
§ lords of Ireland. I never regarded it as a bribe, but at the same time I am heartily glad that the landlords of Ireland had not sufficient common sense to accept it. It would have imposed upon the tenants of Ireland an impossible burden. Home Rule would have been too dear at the price of 20 years' purchase on the then existing rents; but now from my standpoint I think this Local Government Bill, with this small concession to the landlords, and a similar concession to the tenants, is fairer to Ireland than the financial proposal of Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill.
§
Question put—
That the words, 'the poor rate shall be made,' stand part of the Bill.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 236; Noes 78.—(Division List No. 218.)
995| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) |
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Galloway, William Johnson |
| Allhusen, A. H. E. | Colomb, Sir J. C. R. | Garfit, William |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Colston, C. E. H. Athole | Gibbons, J. Lloyd |
| Ambrose, William (Middlesex) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.) |
| Arnold, Alfred | Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth) | Giles, Charles Tyrrell |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cornwallis, F. S. W. | Gilhooly, James |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. | Gilliat, John Saunders |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. | Godson, Sir A. F. |
| Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy | Cranborne, Viscount | Gordon, Hon. John Edward |
| Balcarres, Lord | Crean, Eugene | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Crilly, Daniel | Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r) | Cross, A. (Glasgow) | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Cruddas, William Donaldson | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) |
| Barry, R. Hon. A. H. Smith- (Hunts) | Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) | Gull, Sir Cameron |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunkett | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hall, Sir Charles |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) | Daly, James | Hammond, John (Carlow) |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Davies, H. D. (Chatham) | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. |
| Bethell, Commander | Denny, Colonel | Hardy, Laurence |
| Birrell, Augustine | Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. | Haslett, Sir James Horner |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Dillon, John | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Donelan, Captain A. | Healy, T. M. (N. Louth) |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Donkin, Richard Sim | Helder, Augustus |
| Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) | Doogan, P. C. | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. |
| Brown, Alexander H. | Dorington, Sir John Edward | Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hickman, Sir Alfred |
| Butcher, John George | Drucker, A. | Hogan, James Francis |
| Carew, James Laurence | Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Holland, Hon. L. Raleigh |
| Carvill, P. G. H. | Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas | Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) | Fardell, Sir T. George | Howell, William Tudor |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward | Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil |
| Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Field, William (Dublin) | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm) | Finch, George H. | Jenkin, Sir John Jones |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne | Jordan, Jeremiah |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Kenyon, James |
| Chelsea, Viscount | Fisher, William Hayes | Kilbride, Denis |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Flannery, Fortescue | Knox, Edmund F. V. |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Folkestone, Viscount | Lafone, Alfred |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Forster, Henry William | Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) |
| Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Stanley, Lord (Lancs) |
| Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) | O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork) | Stanley, E. J. (Somerset) |
| Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth) |
| Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) | Stock, James Henry |
| Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Loder, G. W. Erskine | O'Kelly, James | Strauss, Arthur |
| Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) | O'Malley, William | Sturt, Hon. Humphry N. |
| Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) | Orr-Ewing, Charles L. | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller | Parnell, John Howard | Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) |
| Lowles, John | Penn, John | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny.) |
| Lucas-Shadwell, William | Pierpoint, Robert | Thorburn, Walter |
| Macaleese, Daniel | Pinkerton, John | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C. | Tomlinson, W. E. Murray |
| Maclure, Sir John William | Pollock, Harry Frederick | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. E. | Vincent, Col. C. E. Howard |
| McCalmont, Mj.-Gn. (Antr'm N.) | Purvis, Robert | Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent) |
| McCartan, Michael | Rasch, Major. Frederic Carne | Waring, Col. Thomas |
| McDermott, Patrick | Redmond, J. E. (Waterford) | Warkworth, Lord |
| M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) | Richards, Henry Charles | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| McKillop, James | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) | Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.) |
| Mandeville, J. Francis | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- |
| Mellon, Colonel (Lancashire) | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T. | Williams, Joseph P. (Birm.) |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Robertson, H. (Hackney) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Milner, Sir F. George | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Milton, Viscount | Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) | Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath) |
| Molloy, Bernard Charles | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Monckton, Edward Philip | Saunderson, Col. E. James | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S. |
| Monk, Charles James | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard | Wyndham, George |
| Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H. |
| More, Robert Jasper | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) | |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Morrison, Walter | Simeon, Sir Barrington | |
| Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | |
| Murnaghan, George | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | |
| Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | Spencer, Ernest | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Holburn, J. G. | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.) |
| Bayley, T. (Derbyshire) | Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) | Souttar, Robinson |
| Billson, Alfred | Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U. | Spicer, Albert |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Kearley, Hudson E. | Stanhope, Hon. P. J. |
| Brigg, John | Kitson, Sir James | Steadman, William Charles |
| Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson | Lambert, George | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) | Strachey, Edward |
| Burns, John | Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) | Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Burt, Thomas | Leuty, Thomas Richmond | Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Lloyd-George, David | Wallace, Robert (Perth) |
| Caldwell, James | Logan, John William | Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lough, Thomas | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Cawley, Frederick | McEwan, William | Warner, Thomas C. T. |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Maden, John Henry | Wayman, Thomas |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Mappin, Sir F. Thorpe | Whiteley, George (Stockport) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Davitt, Michael | Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) | Williams, John C. (Notts) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk) |
| Dunn, Sir William | Palmer, Sir Charles M. | Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid) |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Paulton, James Mellor | Woodall, William |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Philipps, John Wynford | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'ld) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Gourley, Sir E. Temperley | Richardson, J. (Durham) | |
| Haldane, Richard Burdon | Rickett, J. Compton | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. McKenna and Mr. Broadhurst. |
| Harwood, George | Robertson, E. (Dundee) | |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- | Robson, William Snowdon | |
| Hazell, Walter | Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) | |
| Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
§
Another Amendment proposed—
Page 28, line 13, after 'made,' insert the word 'half.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)Mr. Speaker, I rise to move an Amendment, not exactly as it stands in my name on the Paper, because I understand that is not in order, but an Amendment proposing to divide the responsibility for the poor rate between landlord and tenant. We have already discussed the question whether this sum of money is to go to the relief of the poor rate at all. That has already been disposed of. The question now to be disposed of is whether the substantial relief given to Ireland is to be given to the landlord, or is to be divided between the landlord and the tenant. I propose that the whole of this enormous sum of £300,000 a year should not go exclusively to the landlord, but as the rate is divided at the present moment between landlord and tenant, consequently, the relief should be divided in the same proportion. I submit to the judgment of the House, Mr. Speaker, that the landlords are not entitled to the whole of this sum of £300,000, if they are really entitled to anything. At the present the rates are supposed to be divided in Ireland between landlord and tenant equally. That is, you have got in Ireland a system something like the Scotch system, and I want to know from the Government what has occurred to induce them to change this system in Ireland. Has anything been done by the Irish landlords to justify the Government in saying that in future they are to be excluded from payment of any portion of the poor rate at all? My honourable Friend the Member behind me has told the House that the landlords really ought to bear the burden of the poor rate altogether, and that originally they did so; at any rate, the burden of the maintenance of the poor fell upon the land. That is perfectly true as far as England is concerned, but it is rather curious that the whole history of the poor rate in Ireland has been one long series of efforts on the part of the Irish landlords to evade the performance of their obligations with regard to the poor. In England, in the reign of Eliza- 998 beth, the landlords in the landlord Parliament imposed poor rate upon the land. In Ireland, the Irish Parliament, composed of landlords, deliberately shirked the issue. Of course my contention is that the landlords do not deserve this consideration. There is nothing in the past with regard to their treatment of the poor which would justify the House of Commons in saying that, for the future, they are to be excluded from the payment of rates. According to the contention of the honourable and learned Member for Stroud, the land has borne the burden of poor rate quite long enough, and it is time it should be exempted, and that personal property should bear its share. But in Ireland it is quite a recent thing for the poor rate to be paid out of the land at all. The landlords have consistently shirked their duty, and it was only an English Parliament which imposed the performance of this obligation upon them. In their own Parliament the only Acts they passed to deal with the poor rate at all were Acts of Parliament which empowered the granting of licences given to beg, but no rates levied That is true of the Irish landlords; licenses given to beg, but no rates levied upon their property for the maintenance of the poor. I say that landlords who have so treated their poor in the historic past in their own country do not deserve exceptional treatment from this House. I submit, in addition to that, that the way in which the landlords in Ireland have treated their tenants in the past has not been such as to induce the Imperial Parliament to treat them with any exceptional generosity. I have been looking at the record of the Land Commission, and I find there that, during the time between the passing of the Land Act and the year 1897, a large number of cases have been dealt with by the land courts. The aggregate rents submitted to the judgment of these courts amounted to £6,384,000. These rents were cut down by the land courts to £5,047,000, a reduction of £1,350,000; that is, rents were reduced by 20 per cent. Perfectly impartial courts came to the conclusion that the landlords of Ireland were charging something like 20 per cent. upon their tenants in excess of what they ought to have charged; 999 and yet this is the class for whom the Government come to the House of Commons and ask us to vote £300,000 out of the Imperial Treasury in order to relieve them of the burden of the whole of their rates. Now, I should like to know why this treatment should be meted out to one class of the community rather to any other section, and I think it is the first time in the history of Parliament that any proposals have been submitted to it with a view to exempting one class, one section, from the burden of any rate. And why start this precedent with the landlords? At the present moment they are paying one-half. The Government say in future they will pay nothing. As I propose to prove later on, when I come to another Amendment, they go even to the extent of saying that no contract will be valid under which they could be free to pay any portion of the poor rate for the future. I should like to know what the landlords of Ireland have ever done for the State, or anybody else, which would justify the House of Commons in meteing out such exceptional treatment in starting a precedent in their favour of exempting them from payment of poor rate. Poverty in Ireland has been very much the result of the oppression of the landlords.
§ AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Entirely.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEMy honourable Friend behind me says "entirely." Perhaps that would be rather exaggerating the state of the case, because you have poverty here and in every other country, and I suppose poverty will be with us for all time. But anyone who reads the history of Ireland must come to the conclusion that the exceptional state of distress and destitution is very much the result of the conduct of the Irish landlords themselves. Reductions have been voluntarily made by English, Welsh, and Scotch landlords; Heaven knows they were not large enough, but still, there were reductions made. But in Ireland you have had to introduce a court to compel the landlords to reduce the rents. These courts found that they were charging something like a million and a half more than they ought to do upon these poverty-stricken peasantry, and the result of the investigation when these 1000 courts came to review the rents for the second time shows that the first statutory reduction of rents was not sufficient, and the reduction on the second statutory term amounts to another 20 per cent. That is, at the present the landlords are charging something like two and a half millions in excess of what they ought to do by way of rent out of the peasantry of Ireland. What have they done to justify us in relieving them of poor rate? There is another very remarkable fact. I find that the aggregate amount of poor rate has been getting less year by year. It has been getting less for a good many years, and the burden upon individual ratepayers has increased year by year. Why? Because of the depopulation of Ireland; because you have got whole tracts devastated there; because you have got evictions. One honourable Member informed me the other day that there was a district of something like 400 square miles which you could walk across, and not find a single tenanted house from one end to the other. This, I say, has been the result of the conduct of the landlords themselves. The result has been that you have no property upon which to levy your rates, no population which will bear the rates; the burden of the rates is crushing down the populations that are left. The burden increases year by year, and that is the action of one section of the community—the very section that you are proposing to exempt from poor rate by means of this clause. I say it ought not to be done. What is the object of this poor rate? The object of the poor rate, of course, is, in the first instance, to relieve distress—distress, as I have pointed out, created to a very large extent by the action of the landlords themselves, by their extravagant rents, by their neglect of their duties as landlords. But there is another object-lesson which I think is a rather interesting one from the point of view of the landlords. The poor rate is to pay emigration expenses, the expenses of emigrants who quit the shores of Ireland, and, for the future, the landlord is not to bear any proportion of that burden. Well, now, if there is any section of the community that is more responsible than another for driving the peasants to other countries it is the landlords. They are more responsible for the 1001 enormous emigration which you have had from Ireland during the last 40 or 50 years than any other class, and I certainly contend they ought to bear their share of the burden of emigration, seeing that they have been responsible for it to such a very large extent. I contend, Mr. Speaker, so far from relieving them of their whole share of the burden, we ought not to contribute a, single farthing. There is nothing in their past conduct, or in their present conduct, to justify us in doing so, and I move the Amendment which I have already handed in, that this grant should be divided between the landlord and the occupier.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYThe view of the honourable Member is that the Irish landlords are so injurious a class that no public money should be spent in the way which it is proposed in this Bill to be spent in relieving them of their liability to pay rates. That is, I think, broadly, the justification by the honourable Member of the course that he has taken, and it is a view of the case that occupied the House yesterday, and again this afternoon. The Amendments have all rested, I think, on that broad, historical view of the case. Now, Sir, I do not rise to dispute or to discuss it. Much may be said against, the Irish land system, and much may be true. Much may be said, I think, about the mode in which the House has dealt with Irish property, but I do not mean to deal with that vexed question, which really traverses the whole history of Ireland during the last hundred years or more, and which raises, directly or indirectly, almost every possible subject of controversy on what is the most controversial subject in modern politics. I rise rather now to appeal to the honourable Gentleman and his Friends whether this view of theirs—a view which they are perfectly entitled to place before the House—ought not to be considered by this time to have been sufficiently discussed and dealt with by the House. I do not for a moment suggest that honourable Gentlemen who have taken a special part in this discussion were in any sense bound by the first understanding arrived at between the various sections of the Irish Party and the Government. I make no such 1002 charge against them. The honourable Member did on that occasion get up and say that there were portions of the Bill in which he and his friends were interested, and that they would, whether there was or was not an arrangement, insist upon their rights. All I would now point out to the House, and to honourable Gentlemen opposite, is that that right, which I do not deny, has surely now been exercised to the full. They have laid with great pains their views before us yesterday and to-day. I cannot prevent them, if they desire it, from continuing to lay those views before us on the remaining portions of this clause, and the next clause also, but I would respectfully point out to them that if they do they will inflict a very serious and real hardship upon the great bulk of the Members of the House. They will compel a Saturday sitting, which is inconvenient, I think, to all English Members, but especially inconvenient, I am given to understand, to Irish representatives, who will be compelled to remain over here at a time when they had every reason to hope they might, by general arrangement of business, be able to get away. Well, Sir, there is thus this general inconvenience inflicted on the House, and I cannot, so far as I am concerned, see that anything is gained by honourable Members with regard to the course that they pursue. They have desired, as I understand, to bring prominently before the country what they regard as the great blot on this Measure. They have left neither in this House nor outside this House the smallest doubt as to what their views are. I do not believe that any argument could be adduced in favour of those views which they have not put before us with great force yesterday and to-day; and under these circumstances it does seem to me it is hardly from this point of view necessary to inflict a hardship upon the House from which the great body of the House, on both sides alike, suffer, and it seems to me not to be of any advantage even to those who hold the views to which the honourable Member has given such strong expression. I can do no more than make this appeal, but I trust that honourable Members will see that a Saturday sitting is not a course 1003 which would assist them, and I am sure they would not desire it.
§ SIR C. DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)I think that in the spirit of my honourable Friends behind me there is no desire to Debate at greater length than has already been debated the general principles of this question, but the right honourable Gentleman will see if he looks at the Amendment before the House, and also at one or two of the others, that there are some points of detail which are deserving of some discussion. Therefore, I think, we may say there is no desire upon the part of anybody to further prolong the discussion upon the general principles, which we consider have been adequately discussed. We would now draw attention to what we consider are the particular points at issue. What is now before the House specially is the principle of the division of the rate between the landlord and the tenant, and we are giving up in this Bill what we had hoped would have been extended to all parts of the United Kingdom. The First Lord of the Admiralty is not now in his place, but he and many Chancellors of the Exchequer and Presidents of the Local Government Board have pledged themselves to the principle of the division of the rates between the owner and the occupier. There has been no special ground put forward for getting rid of it here. You have it in Scotland in a different form, and you are pledged to introduce it into England, and yet you are giving way on this point to Ireland.
§ MR. DAVITTI would strongly support the appeal which has been made by the right honourable Gentleman. I think honourable Gentlemen on this side of the House have been justified in the line they have pursued, both yesterday and to-day. I believe they were called upon to do and say what they have done by their conscientious convictions. I shall certainly support my honourable Friends in their Amendments, but I do strongly appeal to them to give a favourable consideration to the observation which has been made by the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I do not think any object can be gained by prolonging this Debate, and I think my honourable 1004 Friends have shown by their arguments and their speeches that they had good reason for the line which they had taken up, and that they have set themselves right before the country and need not fear their constituents. A Saturday sitting has been held over our heads in the way of a friendly threat if this Debate is unduly prolonged, and I am sure we do not wish to come here on Saturday. I heartily support the appeal which has been made.
§ MR. LAMBERTAfter having listened to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, if I may be allowed to say so, I greatly regret that the same spirit was not manifested yesterday by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I feel one difficulty, but shall mat detain the House so long by any remarks of mine as I had intended. I think there is extremely strong and good ground for the Amendment of my honourable Friend, but as the right right honourable Gentleman has stated to us that he wished the Debate closed as soon as possible, personally speaking, so far as I am concerned, I am willing to accede to the request. I must say I am very sorry the same spirit did not actuate the Government yesterday. There is just one point, and that is this: under the English Act this grant is going to the tenant in the first place. Now I would strongly advocate that the same principle that is established by the English Act should be carried into effect by the Irish Act, that the money should go to the relief of the tenant, because whenever there has been a question between the working farmer and the landlord in this House I have always been constant in taking the side of the tenant, and I shall continue to do so, whether they be Irish or English. I myself think that the Irish tenants have even more ground for receiving this grant than can be urged with respect to the claim of the English farmer, for this reason: they are very poor, and have not nearly so much money to spend upon the land, and in Ireland they are rented up to the hilt. The competition for land in Ireland is so great that every penny goes into the landlords' pockets, except where the tenant is protected by the land court; but from the farmers I always understood 1005 that the only reason for this loan, for this grant, was to give some consolation to the landlords for what the land court has done, but that was knocked on the head the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who distinctly stated that no one would venture to say—that no landlord would venture to say—that he had been compensated by the English taxpayers, because of the land court. In support of this Amendment, I put in the protest that Ireland will derive no benefit whatever from this money, which goes into the landlords' pockets. It will not go towards the education of the people of Ireland, nor will it make her any more prosperous than she is at the present time. I regret that the Industries Bill was not proceeded with, and I see that in this clause we are giving just about double the amount which the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary thought necessary to carry that Bill into effect. By giving this money to the tenant I think you would raise his taxable capacity, and in the end he would be able
§ to bear a larger rate. I think that the local authorities in Ireland will increase the rates, for the simple reason that you cannot elect local authorities without the people electing them requiring something in the nature of public work to be done, and you cannot proceed with public works without money. By the suggestion which I make, you will increase the rateable capacity of the Irish tenant, and thus enable these local authorities which are to be elected in Ireland to carry out provisions which, from want of money, they will otherwise be debarred from carrying out. I think the Amendment of my honourable Friend is a wise one, and I think it will be a wise thing for this House, and for Ireland, if it gives this grant to the tenant in the first place.
§
Question put—
That the word 'half' be there inserted.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 182.—(Division List No. 219.)
1007| AYES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Gourley, Sir E. Temperley | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Bayley, T. (Derbyshire) | Harwood, George | Souttar, Robinson |
| Billson, Alfred | Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Brigg, John | Hazell, Walter | Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Holburn, J. G. | Wallace, R. (Edinburgh) |
| Burns, John | Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Caldwell, James | Kearley, Hudson E. | Williams, John C. (Notts) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) | Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk) |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) | Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Maden, John Henry | Woodall, William |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Davitt, Michael | Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) | |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Lambert. |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Provand, Andrew Dryburgh | |
| Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) | Rickett, J. Compton | |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Bousfield, William Robert | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Carew, James Laurence | Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth) |
| Allhusen, A. H. E. | Carvill, P. G. Hamilton | Cornwallis, F. S. W. |
| Ambrose, W. (Middlesex) | Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Arnold, Alfred | Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Crean, Eugene |
| Arrol, Sir William | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Crilly, Daniel |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Cripps, Charles Alfred |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Clancy, John Joseph | Cruddas, William Donaldson |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r) | Clare, Octavius Leigh | Cubitt, Hon. Henry |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) |
| Bethell, Commander | Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Colston C. E. H. Athole | Dalrymple, Sir Charles |
| Daly, James | Kenyon, James | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E. |
| Davies, H. D. (Chatham) | Kilbride, Denis | Purvis, Robert |
| Denny, Colonel | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Pym, C. Guy |
| Donkin, Richard Sim | Lafone, Alfred | Rasch, Major Frederic C. |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Crnw'll) | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) |
| Drucker, A. | Lawson, John G. (Yorks.) | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. |
| Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas | Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T. |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Leigh-Bennett, Henry C. | Robertson, H. (Hackney) |
| Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward | Leuty, Thomas Richmond | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Field, William (Dublin) | Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) | Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) |
| Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne | Loder, Gerald Walter E. | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool) | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Flower, Ernest | Lowe, Francis William | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Forster, Henry William | Lowles, John | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) |
| Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.) |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Lucas-Shadwell, William | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Garfit, William | Macaleese, Daniel | Spencer, Ernest |
| Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Stanley, Lord (Lancs) |
| Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Maclure, Sir John William | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Gilhooly, James | McCartan, Michael | Strauss, Arthur |
| Gilliat, John Saunders | McDermott, Patrick | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Fred. | M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward | McKillop, James | Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. | Mandeville, J. Francis | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.) |
| Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Thorburn, Walter |
| Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Molloy, Bernard Charles | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Monckton, Edward Philip | Tomlinson, Wm. E. M. |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Monk, Charles James | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. | More, Robert Jasper | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. |
| Hammond, John (Carlow) | Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) | Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent) |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. | Morrell, George Herbert | Warkworth, Lord |
| Hardy, Laurence | Morris, Samuel | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Haslett, Sir James Horner | Morrison, Walter | Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | Wentworth, B. C. Vernon- |
| Healy, T. M. (N. Louth) | Murnaghan, George | Williams, J. Powell (Birm.) |
| Helder, Augustus | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Hogan, James Francis | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) | Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath) |
| Howell, William Tudor | O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Hozier, Hon. James Henry C. | Parnell, John Howard | Young, Comm. (Berks, E.) |
| Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Pierpoint, Robert | |
| Jenkins, Sir John Jones | Pinkerton, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Jordan, Jeremiah | Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C. | |
| Kemp, George | Pollock, Harry Frederick |
§
Another Amendment proposed—
Page 28, line 14, leave out from 'hereditament' to the end of sub-section 1."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 28, line 17, after 'lodgings' insert 'and except that if made heretofore in respect of a half rent under section 63 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, and the enactments amending the same, it shall continue to be so made.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 28, line 19, after the word 'rate,' insert the words 'except in respect of any
1008
increase in the poundage of such rate which may accrue after the commencement of this Act.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEMy next Amendment is not on the Paper. I put it in yesterday, in order that it might come into the Paper to-day, but through some mistake it has not done so, but the effect of the Amendment—I am not sure that I recollect the exact words, but, starting with the word "rate," on line 19, insert—
Except in respect of any increase in the poundage of such rate which may be accrued after the commencement of this Act.The effect of that, of course, is to prevent what occurred under the English Act. It is a matter requiring serious consideration, and, as we have pointed out, it is 1009 a matter of importance, especially in Ireland, where the poor rate individually is going up, although in the aggregate it is going down. I know some cases where the poor rate is 2s. in the £ at the present moment. That is the basis on which the payment would be made by the Treasury. Supposing that next year, in that particular district, through exceptional distress, or from some other cause, that poor rate goes up to 2s. 6d., the extra 6d., if the Bill is carried through in its present form, will fall entirely upon the shoulders of the occupier. That is exceedingly unfair to the owners of the factories. There was a good deal of trouble in this country with regard to something of the sort, especially among the collieries, where the rate has gone up in consequence of something happening in the district and the extra rate has fallen upon the factories and industrial concerns of the district. In Ireland we have no collieries, and we have not many industries, and those that we have, such as they are, are not in a very prosperous condition. When you deal with the tenant he gets half the cess paid, and there is some encouragement for him to meet this extra burden, but the factories and industrial concerns of that kind do not, and I think it is exceedingly unfair, when they do not get any portion of the cess paid for them, or any other rate, that you should place this burden upon them, with which they have nothing to do. In the course of the Debate on the Irish Local Government Bill we have heard of the crushing of the Irish industries, but here is an opportunity for the Government to say it will not be responsible for any rate that would in the future tend towards the crushing of the Irish industries. I can quite understand the difference between a rate of 2s. and a rate of 2s. 6d. making all the difference between a profit and a loss. There are several concerns in England and Wales where, although no profit is made, they are able to drag on from year to year so long as there is no actual loss, but in cases of the kind a heavy rate would make all the difference. If every additional rate is to fall upon the shoulders of these poor industrial concerns, then the result may be exceedingly serious, and I do appeal to all honourable Members to assist me to prevent this state of things creeping into the Irish 1010 Bill. The tenant has only got to pay half the cess, and if there is an increase he only has to pay his share. Why should not the same rule apply here? The landlord has got his relief; he is to be exempted from all the rates in the district, and I say it is very unfair to the tenants, and still more to the industrial classes in Ireland. I beg to move the Amendment.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe county cess is a different thing altogether. If this Amendment were accepted the result would be that the tenant would deduct from the rent half any additional amount that was put on to the county cess, as well as the poor rate. Over and above that, I do not want to press that; I object to it upon its general merits, and therefore it would be quite unnecessary to attempt to amend it so as to meet that suggestion. The object of this clause has been to throw every increase in the rates upon the occupier in order that he may have every motive for economy. The occupier will have entire control of local government in his hands, and the landlords, who are also occupiers, will in respect to the land they occupy be in exactly the same position. Our object in this clause is to make it to the interests of the occupier to study economy, and the arrangement we have adopted will have the effect of throwing the entire burden of the rates upon the occupier, and at the same time give him the benefit of the rates if they fall. I think the Amendment of the honourable Member is inconsistent with the following clause, clause 46; but that, again, I do not urge, because, as I said before, I object to it entirely upon its merits.
§ SIR C. DILKEWe have no desire to discuss this Amendment at length, but rather to put upon record our views upon the matter. I think there is the very best reason for speaking at length upon this particular Amendment, but we do not wish to prolong the Debate.
§
Question put—
That those words be there inserted.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 151.—(Division List No. 220.)
1013| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Gilhooly, James | Pearson, Sir Weetman D. |
| Allan, Wm. (Gateshead) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Gourley, Sir Edward T. | Provand, Andrew Dryburgh |
| Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire) | Harwood, George | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Billson, Alfred | Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale- | Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford) |
| Brigg, John | Hazell, Walter | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. | Souttar, Robinson |
| Burns, John | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Caldwell, James | Jordan, Jeremiah | Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lambert, George | Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Leuty, Thomas Richmond | Williams, John C. (Notts) |
| Crean, Eugene | McCartan, Michael | Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk) |
| Crilly, Daniel | McDermott, Patrick | Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid) |
| Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal) | Maden, John Henry | Woodall, William |
| Curran, T. (Sligo, S.) | Mandeville, J. Francis | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) | |
| Davies, M. V. (Cardigan) | Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lloyd-George and Sir Charles Dilke. |
| Davitt, Michael | Murnaghan, George | |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Norton, Captain Cecil Wm. | |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) | |
| Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) | O'Malley, William |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Fardell, Sir T. George | Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool) |
| Allhusen, Augustus H. E. | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. | Lowe, Francis William |
| Ambrose, W. (Middlesex) | Field, William (Dublin) | Lowles, John |
| Arnold, Alfred | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Fisher, William Hayes | Lucas-Shadwell, William |
| Balcarres, Lord | Flower, Ernest | Macaleese, Daniel |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch.) | Forster, Henry William | Macartney, W. G. Ellison |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Maclure, Sir John William |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Galloway, William Johnson | MacNeill, John Gordon S. |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Garfit, William | M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) |
| Bethell, Commander | Gibbons, J. Lloyd | McKillop, James |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) |
| Carew, James Laurence | Gilliat, John Saunders | Molloy, Bernard Charles |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. H. | Godson, Sir Augustus F. | Monckton, Edward Philip |
| Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward | More, Robert Jasper |
| Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Goschen, G. J. (Sussex) | Morrison, Walter |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Graham, Henry Robert | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Hammond, John (Carlow) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. | O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Parnell, John Howard |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hayden, John Patrick | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur |
| Colomb, Sir John C. R. | Healy, T. M. (N. Louth) | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole | Helder, Augustus | Pinkerton, John |
| Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth) | Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. | Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C. |
| Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W. | Hogan, James Francis | Pollock, Harry Frederick |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Howell, William Tudor | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E. |
| Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hozier, Hon. James Henry C. | Purvis, Robert |
| Cruddas, William Donaldson | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Pym, C. Guy |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Jeffreys, Arthur-Frederick | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) | Jenkins, Sir John Jones | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Kemp, George | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) |
| Daly, James | Kenyon, James | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T. |
| Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham) | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Robertson, H. (Hackney) |
| Denny, Colonel | Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Crnw'll) | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Donkin, Richard Sim | Lawson, John G. (Yorks.) | Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Leigh-Bennett, Henry C. | Sharpe, William E. T. |
| Drucker, A. | Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) |
| Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas | Loder, Gerald Walter E. | Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.) |
| Simeon, Sir Barrington | Tomlinson, W. E. Murray | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Smith, Abel H. (Christch.) | Tritton, Charles Ernest | Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath) |
| Spencer, Ernest | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Stanley, Lord (Lancs) | Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent) | Young, Comm. (Berks, E.) |
| Stone, Sir Benjamin | Warkworth, Lord | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) | Warr, Augustus Frederick | |
| Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) | Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.) | Williams, J. Powell (Birm.) | |
| Thorburn, Walter | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | |
| Thornton, Percy M. | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 28, line 19, leave out 'and any contract to the contrary respecting such deduction shall be void.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not think there is any precedent for words of this sort. The law steps in and says, "You are not a fit and proper subject for a contract; you may agree to bear your share of the burden of the rates, but we cannot permit you to do so." That, surely, is an extreme proposal, and this is the first time it has been inserted in an Act of Parliament. How very different the conduct of the Government is with regard to the landlord, compared with what it is with regard to the tenant! Whatever the law may be, there is nothing to prevent the tenant entering into a valid contract to pay all his grand jury cess at the present moment. Though the tenant is protected by law, the law says, "We will allow you to enter into any contract you like." I do not see that there is anything in the position of the landlord which calls upon the law to step in and protect him against the tenant. I do not see the object of these words, or any conceivable motive which can have induced the Government to have introduced them. I can understand them saying that the present law is to be altered, and that the tenant is not to be entitled to deduct from the landlord for past improvements. But if the landlord in future likes to make arrangements with regard to the rent or rate, why should the law step in and say, "No; the contract entered into shall be absolutely void"? Why should the law step in and say that the landlords should not pledge themselves in any way? If that is so, it was not explained in Committee. There are a great many other contracts to which those words can apply. I shall be obliged to press the matter to a Division.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe words are intended to protect a tenant against his landlord, just as much as to protect a landlord against himself.
§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)I do not see how the Chief Secretary makes out that this can be worked in the interests of the occupier. If you look at the clause you will see that the occupier would be entitled to deduct from the rent a part of the poor rate. I do not see how it would be an advantage to prevent the tenant making a contract in his own interest whereby a reduction shall be made from his rent in respect to that. This is a clause which certainly is not in any law in Scotland, nor is it in any law in England. Honourable Members on the other side of the House have always claimed freedom of contract, and the only cases in which it is urgent have been the cases of working men, who are supposed to be not quite so capable of defending themselves. Hence the Truck Acts. Landlords ought to be quite capable of defending themselves. But they now seek to prevent freedom of contract where it is in the interests of the landlords.
§ MR. MCKENNAI was not in the House when the right honourable Gentleman made his answer, but I understand that he objects to these words being excluded. The point can be met by inserting in clause 46 a proviso that clause 46 shall operate except where the landlord has continued to agree to pay half the rate. There would be absolutely no difficulty in inserting that proviso in clause 46. It seems to me a most extraordinary interference with the freedom of contract. The right honourable Gentleman wishes to put the whole of the burden upon the occupier. In whose interest does he wish to do that? Solely and admittedly in the interests of the 1015 landlord. If the landlord, with the knowledge of the risk he runs, chooses to enter into this contract, surely it is no business of the House to interfere on behalf of the landlord, who undoubtedly is competent to enter into a contract if he pleases. I put it to the right honourable Gentleman, who is a member of the party who has always opposed any interference with freedom of contract, what is the public necessity for those words in the clause? There is absolutely no necessity to protect the landlord; he does not need protection. In the interests of the public no necessity is shown. The only conclusion one can come to is that the right honourable Gentleman, by inadvertence, put this into the Measure, and is too proud to
§ allow it to be excluded. Now, in the case of the towns, it will cause an undoubted amount of difficulty and confusion. The system in Ireland has worked admirably, in which the landlord paid one-half and the tenant one-half of the rates. They may prefer, for their own reasons, to continue to do so. Legal troubles and delays are bound to ensue. I support the Amendment of my honourable Friend.
§
Question put—
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 48.—(Division List No. 221.)
1017| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Drucker, A. | Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) |
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Fardell, Sir T. George | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. | Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) |
| Ambrose, Wm. (Middlesex) | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manch.) | Loder, Gerald Walter E. |
| Arnold, Alfred | Field, Wm. (Dublin) | Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lowe, Francis William |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Fisher, William Hayes | Lowles, John |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Flower, Ernest | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Balcarres, Lord | Forster, Henry William | Lucas-Shadwell, William |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) | Galloway, William Johnson | Macaleese, Daniel |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Garfit, William | Macartney, W. G. Ellison |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Maclure, Sir John William |
| Bethell, Commander | Giles, Charles Tyrrell | McCartan, Michael |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Gilhooly, James | McDermott, Patrick |
| Carew, James Laurence | Gilliat, John Saunders | M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) |
| Carlile, William Walter | Godson, Sir Augustus F. | McKillop, James |
| Carvill, Patrick George H. | Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Mandeville, J. Francis |
| Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. | Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks) |
| Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. | Goschen, G. J. (Sussex) | Molloy, Bernard Charles |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Graham, Henry Robert | Monckton, Edward Philip |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) | More, Robert Jasper |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Hammond, John (Carlow) | Morris, Samuel |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Murnaghan, George |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hayden, John Patrick | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles R. | Healy, T. M. (N. Louth) | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Colston, C. E. H. Athole | Helder, Augustus | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) |
| Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth) | Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. | O'Malley, William |
| Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W. | Hogan, James Francis | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) | Howell, William Tudor | Pinkerton, John |
| Cruddas, William Donaldson | Hozier, Hon. James Henry C. | Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C. |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | Pollock, Harry Frederick |
| Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal) | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E. |
| Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) | Jenkins, Sir John Jones | Purvis, Robert |
| Daly, James | Kemp, George | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham) | Kenyon, James | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Denny, Colonel | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) |
| Dillon, John | Lafone, Alfred | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Crnw'll) | Robertson, H. (Hackney) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) | Roche, Hon. J. (East Kerry) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny.) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard | Thorburn, Walter | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Thornton, Percy M. | Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath) |
| Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.) | Tomlinson, W. E. Murray | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Simeon, Sir Barrington | Tritton, Charles Ernest | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Smith, A. H. (Christchurch) | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Spencer, Ernest | Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent) | |
| Stanley, Lord (Lancs) | Warkworth, Lord | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Stone, Sir Benjamin | Warr, Augustus Frederick | |
| Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier | Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.) | |
| Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) | Williams, J. Powell (Birm.) | |
| Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Gourley, Sir E. Temperley | Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Harwood, George | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Bayley, T. (Derbyshire) | Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- | Souttar, Robinson |
| Billson, Alfred | Hazell, Walter | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Brigg, John | Holburn, J. G. | Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) | Wallace, R. (Edinburgh) |
| Burns, John | Jordan, Jeremiah | Whittaken, Thomas Palmer |
| Caldwell, James | Kilbride, Denis | Williams, John C. (Notts) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lambert, George | Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk) |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Leese, Sir J. (Accrington) | Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid) |
| Crean, Eugene | Leuty, Thomas Richmond | Woodall, William |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Maden, John Henry | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) | |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Llloyd-George and Mr. McKenna. |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Parnell, John Howard | |
| Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) | Provand, Andrew Dryburgh | |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Rickett, J. Compton |
§ After the usual interval,
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 28, line 22, at end, add 'provided always that this section shall not apply to any county borough, borough, or town as defined in this Act.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
§ MR. DILLONWhen I brought forward at the Committee stage the clause which I now propose the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House admitted that the operation of this clause and the application of this clause to boroughs, and, in fact, to all those who had not benefited under the agricultural grant, was no part of the so-called arrangement which has been so often referred to, and no argument has up to this point been placed before the House why the incidence of rating in the boroughs and towns should be altered by the present Bill. The reason given for this was that it was done in the interests of symmetry and the general system of rating in Ireland. I do not, however, attach much force to that argument, because we all know that an elaborate inquiry is at present in progress on the whole question of rating, an in- 1018 quiry which extends to Ireland as well as to England, and the only ground on which the Government justify their action in altering in the present Bill the whole system of rating and the incidence of rating in Ireland, is that it is essential to the great change of the local government in the rural districts that the landlords should be protected and certain safeguards given to them. I do not understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that the same considerations apply to urban districts, and therefore I do not see that any grounds have been stated or any argument brought forward in favour of altering the incidence of rating in the urban districts. I do not desire to enter into this question at any length, because I did state my views pretty fully on the Committee stage; but what I desire now is to point out what is the attitude of the Government as the result of the consideration which they promised to give to this proposal. I cannot find that they have put down on the Paper any Amendment on the subject that I expected to find as a result of that promise. But, without desiring to again go over the ground which was gone over in the Committee stage, I desire for a 1019 moment to refer to one matter which is a new matter in connection with this particular aspect of clause 45; that is, the new clause which has been put down by one of the honourable Members for Belfast. It is a long clause which is to be considered, and it is included amongst the Government clauses in respect of which the Government are going to recommit the Bill, and, as I understand it, is intended to provide especially for the convenience of certain owners of property in Belfast, who strongly object to the operation of this clause. I understand—but I may be entirely wrong—that there are in Belfast a certain number of property owners, and a considerable number of persons who own small workmen's dwellings, which are so characteristic of Belfast; and in that city a system is in force—and I am not sure that it is not in force in other cities in Ireland, but I know it is in force in the city of Belfast—under which the owners of these houses or blocks of workmen's dwellings can compound with the rating authorities and get a discount. That is to say, if the owner undertakes to be responsible for the rates he gets an allowance of perhaps 10, 15, or 20 per cent., which is that much less than the rates would be if collected under the ordinary circumstances directly from the tenant. That is what I am given to understand is in force in Belfast, and I understand that it was to meet cases of that kind that the honourable Member for Belfast put this clause on the Paper. As far as I can see, that clause itself seems very technical and intricate, and, of course, the Attorney General for Ireland understands it better than I do; but, as far as I can understand it, that clause in no way meets my Amendment, and if the Government refuse to leave the rating of Irish towns as it stands at present and leave the system unchanged I shall oppose to the utmost of my ability the clause of the honourable Member for Belfast. I only wish to state that now, because I have some reason to believe that the Government intend to accept the clause of the honourable Member for Belfast without meeting the objections that have been made. Now, Sir, what I want to know is this, and I move the Amendment for this purpose: I do say that I think it is most unjust and unreasonable that as regards towns and county 1020 boroughs, as defined in this Act, which get no benefit whatever either as regards the occupier or the owner from the agricultural grant, they should have their system of rating altered, and altered, it may be, to the great injury of the occupier. That is what I stated before, and I want to know on what grounds the Government justify this. I will only, in conclusion, state what is the actual operation of this. I know perfectly well that clause 45 must be read in conjunction with clause 90, and while the whole burden of the rate is thrown upon the occupier in the urban district—take my own district for an example—the landlord pays half the rates at present, and the tenant pays half. I know that I should be entitled under the adjustment of rent clause to deduct from my rent half the rates which hitherto have been paid by the landlord, but according to the adjustment of rent clause, I should only be entitled to deduct half the standard rate. So that in the city of Dublin, where I have a lease for 99 years, if the rates increased by 6d. in the £, whereas under my contract the landlord should bear half of that increase—under this Bill, without any notice whatever given to me, I am to bear the whole burden of the increase in the rates. If that is not the meaning of the Act I should be glad to hear some explanation of it. As I read the Act, the effect of clause 45 read in connection with clause 90, is that the whole of the increase will fall upon the occupier, whereas under the law, if left alone, the occupier will bear only half the burden of the increase and the owner half under the present Irish system. The Government say, in the case of the rural occupier, "We offer him some advantage, as we pay half his county cess, although he has this additional burden." Well, I frankly accept the position. We were parties to this grant on the Second Reading of the Bill, although I did not accept the arrangement last year. On the Second Reading of the Bill, after I had carefully read the Measure and recognised in it a great measure of emancipation for the Irish people, as we were told that we must either accept the financial provision or do without the Bill, I decided to swallow these conditions. But that 1021 applied only to the case of the rural occupier, where you offer a reduction of half his rates at the same time that you throw upon him this full responsibility. In the case of the rural occupier and the city occupier, that the latter should be compelled under this Bill, although obtaining no financial relief whatever, to bear a greatly increased burden in addition to the rates, while the burden is to be lifted off the landlords, entirely surpasses my comprehension. I beg to move this Amendment.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe honourable Member for East Mayo is quite correct in his statement that this matter formed no part of the arrangement to which he has alluded. In the discussion on this Bill it was agreed that the burden of the rates should be. Thrown upon the occupier entirely, but I may also say that it formed no part of the original arrangement that we should extend the municipal franchise in Ireland, as we actually have done. Well, Sir, the reason why this provision was inserted was this: when my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury introduced his Bill in 1892 it also included the municipal franchise, but, as the House will remember, that Measure provided for a system of minority representation. The Government have abandoned the idea of minority representation, and this is the construction they have put upon it. Our idea now is to throw the burden of the rate in the first instance on the occupier, so as to let the responsibility rest upon those who have the power.
§ MR. DILLONThe right honourable Gentleman might explain why he extended the franchise in Belfast, where they have a private Act, because other towns in Ireland have no such private Acts.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURWhen the Government introduced the franchise they had to take care that there was some safeguard, and we inserted this provision as a safeguard. The honourable Member has referred incidentally to a clause which is down in the name of my honourable Friend the Member for Belfast, and he has taken it for granted that that clause put down will be 1022 accepted by the Government in the interests of certain property owners in Belfast. Well, Sir, if we do accept that clause, a point which has not yet been absolutely decided, it will certainly not be upon the grounds put forward by the honourable Member for East Mayo, for my honourable Friend has put it down upon other grounds. It is entirely a question of the collection of rates. It has been represented that in Belfast and other places there are conditions which make it difficult, perhaps almost impossible, to collect the rates. My honourable Friend put the clause down to meet those cases, and when the proper time comes for the consideration of it the Government will have to decide whether they will accept it or not. The honourable Member may rest assured that that clause has been put down on the Paper merely from the point of view of facilitating the collection of the rates from a fluctuating class of the artisan population. The honourable Member for East Mayo has stated that this provision, as applied to towns, will, in the case of long leases, be that the amount of deduction which the tenant will be allowed to make from the rent will be measured by the rates in the standard year. That apparently was so as the Bill was introduced, but when this matter was being discussed in Committee this was pointed out with great force by the honourable and learned Member for Louth, and I admit frankly that a provision of that kind was open to very serious objection. Now, in order to meet that objection we have put down an Amendment which has apparently escaped the attention of the honourable Member for East Mayo. It is an Amendment to clause 90, and he will find it at the end of the Amendments to that section. The effect of it will be that where a lease has more than five years to run the amount of deduction which the tenant may make will be measured not by the standard year, but by the amount which was deducted before this Act was passed. I think in the case of long leases the landlord must take the rough with the smooth, and he must be taken to have run the risk; but in the case of the very short leases the landlord would not anticipate so important a change in the law as has been created by this Bill. There is, Sir, 1023 just one other remark I wish, to make. The honourable Member, to judge from his speech, imagined that this applied to all municipal rates whatever. I may, however, point out that it only applies to the poor rate and what was county cess, unless, indeed, the town council adds to the poor rate anything which is collectable as the poor rate. That is a matter which it is competent for the council to decide.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)I shall not detain the House more than two or three minutes, but I desire to express my entire concurrence with this Amendment. I do not think there has been a shadow of fair play towards those large towns and county boroughs. The right honourable Gentleman must be aware that for years there was an agitation going on to assimilate the municipal franchise in Dublin, Waterford, and Cork with the Parliamentary franchise, and the Government have actually yielded to that in respect of the borough of Belfast and the borough of Londonderry, and by Acts of Parliament, since they came into power, the municipal franchise in those places has been assimilated to the Parliamentary franchise, while no consideration whatever has been given to county boroughs like Waterford, Limerick, and Cork with regard to this assimilation of the municipal to the Parliamentary franchise. Now, I think it was suggested by the honourable Member for East Mayo that this adjustment of rent clause does not meet the case, because by section 90, sub-section 1, letter B, it is provided that—
Where the amount is to be raised for union or district charges, then in respect of union or district charges in that union or district as certified for the standard financial year.That is what applies to houses in the city of Dublin. Now, everyone knows that the poor rate and, what is equivalent to it, the county cess is increasing from year to year in Dublin. If you look at the statistics of the rates for the last 10 years it will be found that they vary. Sometimes they are 1s. 10d., 2s., 2s. 4d., and 2s. 6d. Why, then, should a landlord in Dublin or any other borough be relieved from any surplus that may arise over and above the standard amount? I say there has 1024 been no arrangement for that. I do not admit that any compact has been entered into on behalf of the Irish party or on behalf of those interested in boroughs, and I do respectfully ask the right honourable Gentleman to yield this point, which he knows to large cities will make a very great difference in the rates which they will have to collect. Like my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo, I myself am the holder of a lease in Dublin, and therefore, as far as the Amendment mentioned by the Chief Secretary goes, it may help such leases, but I think that only emphasises the injustice to those who hold yearly tenancies or leases of less than five years, because the exception admits that there has been no difficulty in enabling the tenant under certain leases to deduct his half of the surplus from the landlord's rent, therefore no machinery is required. If it can be done in the case of long leases, there is no reason why it should not be done in the case of yearly tenants or of leases of from three to five years.
§ MR. MCKENNAWith regard to the case of towns and cities in Ireland, I am sure we must all sympathise with the desire of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers, but the right honourable Gentleman seems to have overlooked a provision in the Bill. He seems to have forgotten apparently that the great mass of the proletariat living in towns and urban districts will not under his Bill, as it now stands, pay rates themselves, and consequently his safeguards absolutely disappear.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI think the honourable Member is mistaken.
§ MR. MCKENNAThe right honourable Gentleman may not be aware that it is the custom of people of the poorer class to live in tenements and lodgings, and if he will look at his Bill he will see that there is an exception in clause 47, which reads—
Such rate shall be made on the occupier of the hereditament, except where it is a house let in separate apartments or lodgings.Consequently we find this, that the proletariat who do, as a matter of fact, live 1025 in tenements and lodgings will be voters under this Act, although they will not be ratepayers, and consequently the very class of people whom the right honourable Gentleman wishes to safeguard the ratepayers against will be on the register as voters, but will not be on the rate book as ratepayers. Now, if the right honourable Gentleman accepted the Amendment of the honourable Member for East Mayo he would not be diminishing in one iota the real safeguards in this Bill. We know from Scotch experience that there is no likelihood of extravagance merely because the franchise is extended. We know that from, experience in London, and also in the large cities in Ireland, such as Dublin, Belfast, and Londonderry, where they have now got the extended franchise similar to the Parliamentary franchise, and where the landlords pay half the rates. It is proved by Scotch and Irish experience that this supposed safeguard is not necessary; but what are we to think of an argument based upon a safeguard that does not exist?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIt does exist.
§ MR. MCKENNAThe right honourable Gentleman says it does exist, but he must know, as a matter of fact, in Dublin, and in other cities in Ireland, the poorest class of the inhabitants live in lodgings and tenements, and they will be on the register, and they will not be ratepayers. Therefore his safeguard is to meet a case that does not exist, and to provide against an evil which experience has shown has never arisen.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)The Amendment in question is certainly an improvement on clause 45, but anyone who understands the tenure of houses in towns must know that the question naturally arises, why does this Bill deal with county boroughs and towns at all? They do not get one penny out of the grant, because the agricultural grant does not touch them. In the county boroughs we have local government at present, for we have already our mayors and corporations, and all that you have done is that you have reduced the municipal franchise to the Parliamentary limit. Is the argument to be that you are afraid of these men who will exercise 1026 the franchise in future? The honourable Member has corrected this, and, of course, those who live in tenements and in houses occupying a certain number of rooms will also have a vote, and you have no protection against them. To put it in a very few words, you are needlessly and uselessly introducing a vast amount of confusion into the present relations between landlord and tenant in county boroughs and towns, which it is absolutely unnecessary that you should have done at all. Take the city of Cork, and the same argument will apply elsewhere. In that place large numbers of the humbler class live in houses let at moderate rentals of about £15 and £20 a year: I mean the clerks and the better class of working men. The system is that these men never pay rates at all. They pay their rent half-yearly, quarterly, or monthly, as the case may be, but in nine cases out of ten they pay no rates. You now impose upon them the necessity of paying half the rent in advance. I say that is unnecessary, and you are introducing into these county boroughs a complicated system which is utterly uncalled for. Then, again, you do not protect the yearly tenant, but you protect the leasehold tenant in the Amendment proposed by the right honourable Gentleman. You do not protect the yearly tenant at all, who has hitherto been in the habit of paying the city rate and the poor rate, and who deducted one or two small items, and half the poor rate, from his rent, but now you deprive him of that altogether. I believe that he has to give the landlord notice to terminate the tenancy before he would be entitled to a release, and he must accept the new tenancy. I have been looking through this clause and applying the best of my intelligence to it, but I cannot see why it should be introduced at all in connection with county boroughs or towns. I freely admit that the Amendment put down by the right honourable Gentleman is an improvement on the clause as it previously stood, but without saying anything about it I will conclude by again repeating that, in my opinion, the clause was totally unnecessary, and it implies a mistrust of those citizens who are entitled to the municipal franchise, and that it is a provision in the. Bill which was 1027 totally unnecessary, and which I believe will not do any good.
§ MR. DILLONI am sorry that the right honourable Gentleman could not see his way to go further than he has done in the Amendment to which he has drawn my attention. I admit that it is a concession, and I am extremely anxious to expedite the progress of business, although under ordinary circumstances I should most certainly have pressed my Amendment to a Division. I now ask leave to withdraw it.
§ SIR C. DILKEBefore the Amendment is withdrawn—and I do not know that permission will be given to allow it to be withdrawn—I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman if we can have any further information as to the most remarkable arrangement or about the two arrangements which were made upon the introduction of this Bill. We have heard a great deal about one arrangement, but to-night the Chief Secretary told us that this matter was no part of the original arrangement.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI can explain that. I used that as a sort of incidental reference to what fell from the honourable Member for East Mayo in regard to the arrangement originally come to in May last, in which he stated that when he saw the Bill he was prepared to fall in with our financial proposals rather than lose the Bill altogether.
§ SIR C. DILKEI will not pursue the matter further. The House is always very jealous of these arrangements made in advance, but, as the Leader of the House admitted, we were no parties to the arrangement.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not think the Chief Secretary has disposed of the substantial point, and I do not think it matters so much whether there was an arrangement or not. The point is whether this is to be regarded as purchase money for the municipal franchise. If it is, I think it is a thoroughly corrupt idea, and it is an idea which has tainted the whole of this Bill. It is absolutely corruption and bribery on the part of the Government. What is the principle? 1028 The principle is this. Irishmen are entitled to self government, and to the franchise as part of that self-government. They are entitled to that as citizens of the United Kingdom. The Government admit this, and their supporters admit it, but they say, "We will not confer it upon them unless they pay a certain price." Now, one portion of that price is to be paid out of the Imperial Treasury. The right honourable Gentleman does not deny for a moment that these towns are perfectly competent to exercise the franchise otherwise he would not have conferred it upon them. He cannot dispute the proposition that they are entitled to it, but he says, "I will not confer it except upon a certain condition." It is a most corrupt bargain, which is only to be carried out on the condition that it penalises somebody else, and penalises townspeople in the interests of the landlords. As a protest against this system of corruption and the buying of privileges at the expense of somebody else, I think we ought to support the Amendment.
§ MR. LAMBERTI should not have intervened at this stage but for the interruption of the honourable Member for Carnarvon. I think we are entitled to say that this proposal is only adding insult to injury. If these people pay a portion of the taxes, this proposal is actually upsetting an arrangement which has existed for years, and this Act puts them to the trouble of having a new arrangement, while they have the privilege of paying for the benefit of somebody else. This is a thing which ought not to be, and I do not see why, if he does not give the ratepayers in the towns any relief, he should put them to the expense of entering into a new arrangement with the landlord. If he would do something for the towns in Ireland and in England he would have a very good case with which to come to the House. As I said before, I think it is only adding insult to injury that the people in the towns should have to pay towards the rates of the agricultural landlords.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 174.—(Division List No. 222.)
1031| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Healy, T. M. (N. Louth) | Palmer, Sir Charles M. |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Hedderwick, T. C. H. | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Hogan, James Francis | Pinkerton, John |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Holburn, J. G. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Bayley, T. (Derbyshire) | Horniman, Frederick John | Provand, Andrew Dryburgh |
| Billson, Alfred | Jameson, Major J. Eustace | Richardson, J. (Durham) |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Brigg, John | Jordan, Jeremiah | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Kearley, Hudson E. | Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Kitson, Sir James | Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Burt, Thomas | Lambert, George | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Caldwell, James | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Cawley, Frederick | Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) | Souttar, Robinson |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Leuty, Thomas Richmond | Spicer, Albert |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lewis, John Herbert | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Crean, Eugene | Logan, John William | Strachey, Edward |
| Daly, James | Macaleese, Daniel | Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | McCartan, Michael | Wallace, R. (Edinburgh) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | McDermott, Patrick | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Davitt, Michael | McEwan, William | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Maddison, Fred. | Williams, John C. (Notts) |
| Dillon, John | Maden, John Henry | Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Mandeville, J. Francis | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Molloy, Bernard Charles | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro') |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) | Woodall, William |
| Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) | Morris, Samuel | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'ld) |
| Gilhooly, James | Murnaghan, George | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Gourley, Sir E. Temperley | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) | |
| Hammond, John (Carlow) | O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. McKenna and Mr. Lloyd-George. |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Hazell, Walter | O'Malley, William |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir Alex. F. | Colston, C. E. H. Athole | Garfit, William |
| Allhusen, A. H. E. | Compton, Lord Alwyne | Gedge, Sydney |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth) | Gibbons, J. Lloyd |
| Arnold, Alfred | Cornwallis, F. S. W. | Giles, Charles Tyrrell |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. | Gilliat, John Saunders |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cranborne, Viscount | Gordon, Hon. John Edward |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Crilly, Daniel | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Graham, Henry Robert |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) | Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Gull, Sir Cameron |
| Bethell, Commander | Davies, H. D. (Chatham) | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. |
| Denny, Colonel | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. | |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hanson, Sir Reginald |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. | Hardy, Laurence |
| Brown, Alexander H. | Drucker, A. | Hare, Thomas Leigh |
| Butcher, John George | Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas | Haslett, Sir James Horner |
| Carlile, William Walter | Fardell, Sir T. George | Helder, Augustus |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) | Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward | Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. |
| Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.) | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) | Howard, Joseph |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Field, William (Dublin) | Howell, William Tudor |
| Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne | Hozier, Hon. J. H. C. | |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Fisher, William Hayes | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick |
| Charrington, Spencer | Flower, Ernest | Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Forster, Henry William | Kemp, George |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Kenyon, James |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Fry, Lewis | King, Sir Henry Seymour |
| Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready | Galloway, William Johnson | Lafone, Alfred |
| Laurie, Lieut.-General | Murray, C. J. (Coventry) | Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) |
| Lawrence, Sir EDurning- (Corn.) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny.) |
| Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) | Pease, Arthur (Darlington) | Thorburn, Walter |
| Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) | Pierpoint, Robert | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs) | Pollock, Harry Frederick | Tomlinson, W. E. Murray |
| Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) | Purvis, Robert | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. |
| Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swans'a) | Pym, C. Guy | Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent) |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Waring, Col. Thomas |
| Loder, G. W. Erskine | Richards, Henry Charles | Warkworth, Lord |
| Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) | Rickett, J. Compton | Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.) |
| Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- |
| Lorne, Marquess of | Robertson, H. (Hackney) | Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L. |
| Lowe, Francis William | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.) |
| Lowles, John | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | Williams, J. Powell (Birm) |
| Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Lucas-Shadwell, William | Saunderson, Col. E. James | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Sharpe, William E. T. | Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath) |
| Maclure, Sir John William | Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.) | |
| M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| McKillop, James | Smith, A. H. (Christchurch) | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Monk, Charles James | Spencer, Ernest | |
| More, Robert Jasper | Stanley, Lord (Lancs) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Stone, Sir Benjamin | |
| Morrison, Walter | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | |
| Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | Sturt, Hon. Humphry N. | |
| Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEWe have entered our protest against these financial clauses. The next Amendment stands in my name, and is—
To insert, after 'Acts,' page 28, line 24, the words 'and the value of a holding shall be ascertained under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts.'I do not wish to occupy the time of honourable Members any longer, and, seeing that no object would be gained by this particular Amendment, I do not propose to move it.
§
Amendments proposed—
Page 28, line 32, after 'or' insert 'other urban district or the commissioners of any.'
Page 28, line 37, after 'lodgings' insert 'and except that if made heretofore in respect of a half rent under section 63 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, and the enactments amending the same, it shall continue to be so made.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendments proposed—
Page 30, line 11, leave out 'any charge in connection with.'
Page 30, line 42, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 44, and insert 'in the execution of the Labourers Acts, 1883 to 1896,
1032
when incurred in the standard year, shall not be deemed to have been special expenses within the meaning of this section, and when hereafter incurred, whether in respect of transactions begun before or after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 31, line 25, leave out 'said salary of one trained nurse,' and insert 'salary of the trained nurses.'"—(Sir T. Lea.)
§ SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)This subject has already been debated, and on that occasion, I think the feeling of the House was clearly in favour of the proposal contained in this Amendment. I do not wish to repeat the arguments I used on the previous occasion. It is merely a question of the amount of money to be paid, and in the interests of good nursing I ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to accept my Amendment.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIt is impossible to accept this Amendment. The amount of money at our disposal is limited, and the proposals of the Bill are most advantageous. There are also 1033 reasons in connection with the provision of nurses to workhouses which justify our proposals.
§ MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)I think the Amendment is a reasonable one, considering that the Local Government Board often compel the guardians of the unions to appoint trained nurses. In view of that compulsion we have a right to ask some such concession as is proposed in this Amendment. To refuse it will be unfair, ungenerous, and against the interests of the poor, the sick, and the afflicted. I desire to impress upon the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary the desirability of accepting this Amendment.
§
Question put—
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 31, line 29, after 'workhouse' insert 'or engaged in the teaching of destitute or pauper children.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Another Amendment proposed—
Page 32, line 16, after 'Lord Lieutenant' insert 'on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation of those facts.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Another Amendment proposed—
Page 32, line 19, at end, insert 'provided that this section shall be held to apply to harbour charges in Bray, Dungarvan, and Kinsale.'"—(Mr. J. O'Connor.)
§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.)The town of Bray is excluded from the benefits of clause 50, and I venture to think that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary must see that Bray is quite entitled to the benefits of inclusion. The town commissioners have gone to great expense in building a harbour. It was not a harbour designed for the purpose of attracting visitors or 1034 tourists, but as a refuge for the fishermen of the district. Many lives are lost on this part of the coast, and the construction of the harbour was recommended by the fishery inspector and by a Royal Commission as a public work, and as security for the fishermen engaged in that locality. I am sure the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will see that it is unfair to exclude Bray from the benefits of this clause, and I trust that he will devise some means by which the town may benefit.
§ MR. FLYNNsupported the Amendment, remarking that the municipality of Bray found itself saddled with the cost of this harbour, and he thought they were entitled to the benefits of the clause.
§ MR. DAVITTMay I appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment of the honourable Member for Wicklow, especially as everyone must admit who has been there that Bray is one of the most charming spots in Ireland, and the citizens have shown a praiseworthy spirit of industry in trying to make it attractive to visitors.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURBray is a very rich district, and I do not consider that it is entitled to special privileges. I cannot see my way to accept this Amendment.
§ Question put, and Amendment negatived.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLI only rise to say that, having argued in favour of Bray and other towns, I do not want to do it again. I only trust that at the next General Election the non possumus attitude of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary with regard to Bray may be recollected, and that the people will bear in mind what they get for supporting the right honourable Gentleman.
§ MR. PLUNKETTI hope the electors of Bray in my division will take no such action.
§ Question put.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 33, line 24, after 'counties' insert 'at large.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 23, line 25, at end, insert 'and.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 33, line 26, leave out from 'not' to 'counties' in line 27, and insert 'if it is conveniently possible to avoid it, be divided between more than two counties, and shall not in any case be divided between more than three.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 33, line 28, leave out 'so.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 33, line 28, leave out 'two counties' and insert 'more than one county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 33, line 29, after 'part' insert 'so far as it is not contained in an urban sanitary district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.
1036
§
Amendments proposed—
Page 33, line 29, after 'size' insert 'and rateable value.'
Page 33, line 34, leave out 'two counties' and insert 'more than one county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 33, line 36, at end of line, insert as a separate sub-section—
Where the boundary of any county or borough or county district or other area is altered by or in pursuance of this Act or any Order in Council made thereunder, the consequential alterations of the ordnance map shall be as soon as may be made through the Commissioner of Valuation in manner directed by the Lord Lieutenant in Council."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
MR. T. M. HEALYMay I ask if this Amendment is one that ought to be inserted? It is true that there are counties which are to remain for electoral purposes unchanged, but why the ordnance map is to be altered because of alterations made by the Local Government Board I cannot see. It may be that the Government understand the thing sufficiently, but it appears to me that it is not a thing that ought to be inserted in the Statute. It ought to be left to Departmental direction. This is the first time that you have provided for alterations in the ordnance map. We are putting in a provision that where the boundaries are altered for the purposes of this Act alterations in consequence are to be made on the ordnance map. It is a very doubtful provision. Where should we be? We may be in the county Cork for one purpose and in the county Kerry for another purpose.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThis Act does not touch the Parliamentary boundaries; they will remain distinct from the boundaries established under this Act. It is difficult to make alterations in the 1037 ordnance map. It is clear that these alterations should be made, but if the honourable Member insists upon the omission of the Amendment I shall be glad to omit it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 34, line 11, at end, add—
The power of the Local Government Board to divide a poor law electoral division into wards or to combine poor law electoral divisions for the purpose only of election shall cease, but nothing in this Act, nor in any Order made thereunder, shall affect—(a) any power of the Local Government Board in relation to sanitary districts under section 7 of the Public Health Act, 1878; or (b) the general power of the Board to combine, divide, or otherwise alter district electoral divisions; and the Board in the exercise of any such power may divide any townland.
Provided that any Order of the Local Government Board combining, dividing, or otherwise altering district electoral divisions, if made after the first day of May in any calendar year, shall apply to lists of electors in the next calendar year, and to any register of electors formed out of such lists, and to elections held after the time at which the register of electors so formed has come into force, and shall not apply previously."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 34, line 16, after 'militia' insert 'police registration.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 34, line 25, after 'shall' insert 'subject to variation of boundaries.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.
1038
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 34, line 30, leave out from 'of the' to 'or' in line 32, and insert 'Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Question put.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 34, at end, add—
The court house of a county at large when situate within a county of a city or town shall, while it continues to be such court house, be deemed to form part of the body of such county at large; provided that if any court held for the county of the city or town is held in such court house, the court house shall then be deemed, for the purpose of the jurisdiction of that court, to be part of the body of the county of the city or town.
It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen, on petition from the council of any borough other than a county borough by letters patent, to revoke the grant of the commission of the peace for the borough, and to make such provision as to Her Majesty seems proper for the protection of interests existing at the date of the revocation.
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the same officer shall continue to be clerk of the Crown, and when the offices of clerk of the Crown and clerk of the peace are amalgamated, shall be clerk of the Crown and peace for the county of Antrim and for the county of the city of Belfast constituted by this Act, and the same officer shall continue to be clerk of the Crown and peace for the county of Londonderry, and for the county of the city of Londonderry constituted by this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of section 25 of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, 1843, nor the provisions of section 1 of the Quarter Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1845, which relate to the county of the city of Kilkenny.
The Juries (Ireland) Acts shall extend to any county of a city constituted by this Act in like manner as if it were mentioned in the same class in the first and second schedules respectively to the Jurors Qualification (Ireland) Act, 1876, as that in which the counties of the cities or Dublin and Cork are mentioned, and jurors' books shall be made for such county of a city accordingly."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§
Question put—
That these words be inserted.
§
Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment—
Line 6, after the word 'town' to insert the words 'and any court now held in the county of Dublin may also be lawfully held in a court in the county of the city of Dublin and vice versâ.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§
Question put—
That these words be inserted in the proposed Amendment.
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Words inserted in the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 37, line 20, after 'business' to add 'and if such board room and offices are situate outside their district, to hire a board room and offices.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 38, line 14, to leave out from beginning of line to end of line 18, and insert—
The council of a county, upon a proposal made by the council of a district in which any old road or public work is situate, or where the expenses of the maintenance of the road or work are levied wholly off the county, then, without such proposal, may, if the road or work appears to such county council to be useless, and they resolve so to do, stop up or abandon the road or work; but if an objection by any ratepayer is lodged in the manner and within the time determined by an Order in Council under Part VI. of this Act, the said resolution shall be of no effect unless approved by the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 38, line 40, after 'council' to add 'or county court.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 39, line 5, to leave out 'under the Grand Juries Acts.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
1040
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 39, line 8, after 'surveyor' to insert 'or surveyors.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 39, line 12, to leave out from the second 'and' to 'be' in line 15."—(Sir Thos. Lea.)
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid that this Amendment was unnecessary, because, although by the Schedule the old Act was repealed, the Local Government Board still retained control.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 39, line 26, to leave out from beginning of line to 'part' in line 32."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 39, line 35, after the second 'surveyor' to insert 'and any such secretary or surveyor or assistant surveyor shall not be appointed or removed, nor shall his salary be fixed or altered, without the concurrence of the Local Government Board, and he shall have such qualifications (if any) as may be prescribed.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 40, line 23, after 'council,' to insert 'provided that an officer shall not be disqualified for superannuation by reason only of his acting as an officer of a school attendance committee under the Irish Education Act, 1892.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 40, line 37, after 'officers' to add 'or to the powers of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council or the Lord Lieutenant under sections 68 and 69 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
1041
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 41, line 1, after 'necessary' to insert 'for the performance of their duties in relation to lunatic asylums.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 41, line 11, to leave out 'appointed under this section' and insert 'of a lunatic asylum, save that all reference in that Act to the approval of the inspectors of lunatics or of the Lord Lieutenant shall be repealed.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 41, line 12, leave out from beginning of line to 'the grant' in line 16."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 41, line 19, after 'officer' to insert 'and any such superintendent or medical officer shall not be appointed or removed, nor shall his salary be fixed or altered without the concurrence of the Lord Lieutenant, and he shall have such qualifications (if any) as may be prescribed. '"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 41, line 26, after 'treasurer' to insert 'and in the case of the clerk.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§ MR. CONDONhad on the Paper the following Amendment:—
Page 41, line 41, at end, to add—(5) An urban district council may, with the approval of the Local Government Board, appoint a medical officer of health for their district and pay him a salary, and after such an appointment the district shall not be liable to contribute to the additional salary granted to the medical officer of a dispensary district by reason of his being medical officer of health: provided that the powers of this section shall not be exercised so as to diminish the salary or emoluments of any existing officer.
§ MR. SPEAKERruled that, as the Amendment proposed to deal with salaries, to be paid out of the rates, it was out of order on the Report stage.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 14, to leave out sub-section 1, of clause 67."—(Mr. Dillon.)
§ MR. DILLONI altogether fail to understand what considerations induced the Government to introduce into the Bill the sub-section the omission of which I now propose. When I objected, on the Second Reading of the Bill, to the principle of this exclusion, which I regard as a penal provision, I was told by some honourable Members that the clergymen in Ireland of various denominations have no objection to this provision, and the Chief Secretary, in his speech on the Second Reading, gave, as well as I remember, as the solitary reason in favour of this extraordinary departure from the law, as it prevails in Great Britain, that he considered that the business of Irish county and district councils would be more economically administered if clergymen were kept off those bodies. I thought at the time that that was a very feeble and slight reason for introducing into a popular Measure like this a provision which I felt sure would excite the greatest possible bitterness and feeling. What has occurred since then has fully justified the anticipations that I formed on the Second Reading. When the Standing Committee of the Irish bishops met they in the strongest possible terms protested against this proscription. About three weeks ago, when the general annual meeting of the Catholic bishops was held at Maynooth, they passed unanimously a resolution protesting against the denial to Roman Catholic clergymen of the ordinary rights of citizenship. Similarly, the Catholic clergy of the Diocese of Cloyne, under the presidency of the bishop, the Most Reverend Dr. Browne, met this last week and protested against this deprivation of civil rights. I confess that I deeply regret that this question has been raised by the Government at all. I think it is most unnecessary, most unwise, for the Government to raise this question in the present Bill. I have always held the view, and I hold it still, that if the Government had simply left the law in this regard in Ireland the same as it is in Great Britain, the cases in which clergymen would have stood for the county councils, or for the district councils, would 1043 have been extremely few; I do not believe there is any great desire on the part of the Irish clergymen to enter the county councils, and I believe the cases in which they would have stood would have been very few, and they would have been cases well known to all of us, where in certain very poor districts it is exceedingly difficult for the people to obtain any educated man to represent their views on the council, except some popular local clergyman. But, as I say, if the question had been let alone, it would not have been a large question; it would have been confined within extremely narrow limits. I am convinced that if this matter had been left alone, and the law had been made the same as it is, in Great Britain, very few clergymen would have come forward. Some might, and I think it would have been very desirable if they did, and very much to the advantage of the unfortunate people. But I felt that when the Government, animated by whatever motive, introduced this law of proscription aimed at the clergymen of Ireland, and differing from the law as it exists in Great Britain, they were raising a very serious question indeed, and we are entitled to ask this question. We have been told on innumerable occasions that the object of the Government was to make this Local Government Bill for Ireland in all its main particulars the same as the law is for England, except where special circumstances in Ireland necessitated a departure from the English law. Now, we are entitled to ask what are the special circumstances which justify a disability being placed on the clergy in Ireland? It is in the answer to that question which must be given that I see the whole mischief of this business. When we first raised the question what was the answer of the Government? The only answer given on the Second Reading was that, in the opinion of the Government, the business of the county councils, and the poor law unions would be more economically administered if the clergymen were kept off. Why does not that apply in Great Britain as well as in Ireland? It was perfectly manifest to every Member of this House that that answer was not the real answer. In Committee there was another answer given which I confess astonished me, 1044 coming from any man of the intelligence of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The answer given by him was that there are certain special circumstances in Ireland connected with the influence of the clergy, which, made it extremely undesirable that they should be admitted to the county councils, and we were given to understand that it was because of the great political influence exercised by the Catholic clergy in Ireland—because there was no attempt in Committee to deny that this Measure of proscription is aimed at the Catholic clergy of Ireland chiefly, and I say entirely—the Government took this position, that the reason of this alteration of the law was that the Catholic clergy in Ireland are possessed of an amount of political influence which renders it desirable to proscribe them as a class, and to drive them off all these representative bodies. Sir, I think a more foolish reason was never given in favour of proscribing a class. In my judgment, a more fatal policy was never entered upon by a Government than to proscribe a class—I do not care what class it is—and deprive them of their right to represent the people, on the ground that their political influence was too great. Has a Government ever succeeded in diminishing the influence of any class by such a proscription. I say that the whole of our political history teaches us that such proceedings always end in failure and disaster, and I believe that when you endeavour to draw a wall against a class to debar them from their rights of citizenship, the effect is invariably to increase the influence of that class amongst their own people. Let me examine for a moment what would be the logical effect of carrying out the principle laid down by the Chief Secretary in his speech in Committee. You consider it dangerous that the Catholic priests or clergymen of any denomination should be admitted as candidates for the councils in Ireland, and you object on account of their too large political influence. Are you going to prevent them by this law from using their political influence? If that be your motive, then you are logically bound to go a great deal further. Why not forbid them from exercising the franchise; why not forbid them speaking at elections; why not 1045 forbid them from expressing any opinion upon political matters at all? I say you will not lessen their influence by this proscription, and, further, I say that you will rob this great enfranchising Act of a great deal of its healing effect on the Irish people by sending it to that people poisoned and marred by an insult to a most respected body of men. I go further than that. I say it is an insult levelled at the whole people of Ireland. What is the ground on which the Government base or seek to justify this provision? It is, in point of fact, stripped of fine phraseology, that we are a priest-ridden people, and that we cannot take care of ourselves against our own clergy. I say that that is not only an insult to the Catholic clergy. I believe from what I have heard that not only the great body of Catholic clergy, but a very large section of the Protestant clergy are against this provision. It is an insult levelled not only at the Catholic priests of Ireland and at the clergy of other denominations, but it is an insult levelled at the whole people of Ireland, because it implies that the people of Ireland are ignorant and priest-ridden, and unable to work this great Measure of local government, unless the law protects them against the clergy of their own Church. Would this provision have been inserted in the Bill if Ireland had been a Protestant country? It is put in specially, because Ireland is predominantly a Catholic country. I say, therefore, that it is an insult levelled at the priests of Ireland and at the people of Ireland; that no sufficient justification has been shown for it; that it has, as I fully expected when I first heard the right honourable Gentleman explain the opinion of the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill, aroused feelings of the bitterest animosity in the minds of the Catholic priests, and bishops, and that instead of achieving the legitimate objects which the Chief Secretary had in mind, it will entirely fail and will have no effect whatever in diminishing the Influence of Catholic priests or of clergymen of any religious persuasion in Ireland, but that it is an insult which will be deeply and bitterly resented by them and will furnish, I daresay, in the future matter for agitation and for demands for redress. I hope that after the Debate 1046 that took place in Committee the Government will see their way to alter their minds in regard to this clause. I think it would have been greatly to the advantage of the Bill, and would have improved its chances of smooth working if this question had not been raised at all, but it has been raised, and I venture to say that the time will come when the Government will realise that in inserting this provision of the Bill they have made a great mistake.
§ CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.)As an Irish Protestant I desire strongly to support the Amendment and to join my Catholic colleagues on these benches in urging the Government to reconsider their position—in my humble judgment their very unfortunate and mistaken position—in regard to this important matter. It appears to me to be only too transparently evident as my honourable Friend has just said, that the insertion of this provision is directly aimed at the Catholic priests of Ireland, who, as everyone knows, form the vast majority of the Irish clergy. Now, as the Resolution which my honourable Friend has referred to clearly and forcibly points out, this provision virtually deprives the Irish priests of their civil rights as citizens, rights which have been freely extended to the clergy of Great Britain, and as this Resolution points out, the fact that the clergy of Great Britain enjoy these rights makes the exclusion of the Irish clergy all the more invidious and offensive. As far as I can understand, the chief reason—and I think the only reason—that has been advanced for this provision is that the Catholic clergy of Ireland possess very considerable influence over the Irish people. But, Sir, it must be remembered that the Irish clergy possess that influence because they have always stood by the people in their troubles and difficulties, and have always assisted and advised them in all their troubles. It is because I am convinced that the advice and the assistance of the Irish clergy of all creeds would be of the utmost value in conducting the business of these new councils that I strongly support the Amendment of my honourable Friend.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONI am not at all surprised that this Amendment has been moved by the honourable Gentleman 1047 the Member for East Mayo, because it is mainly owing to the influence of the clergy that he and so many of his friends find themselves in this House. The honourable Member for East Mayo says that this is a reversion to the old penal laws. It would be so undoubtedly if it proposed to exclude the Roman Catholic clergy, and did not exclude the clergy of other denominations, but the Government propose to exclude the clergy of all denominations. And permit me to say that the only denomination in Ireland that has objected to this exclusion is the Roman Catholic denomination. None of the other denominations in Ireland have objected to it. They have all unanimously come to the conclusion that the exclusion from these councils of the clergy of all denominations is an exclusion that ought to form part of the Bill. Now, the honourable Member for East Mayo says that in this country the clergy are permitted to participate in county government. I venture to say that, if in this country—in England, or Scotland, or Wales—there was a clergy possessing the great power that the Catholic clergy of Ireland possess—
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLWhat about the Primrose parsons?
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONIf the English clergy possessed that power, and if they used that power not simply in the exercise of their religious functions, but for the purpose of obtaining political power and domination, I venture to say that the English people would never consent to allow the clergy to sit upon local governing bodies. I have every respect for the clergy of any religious denomination in their proper place, but it is idle for us to shut our eyes to the fact that in Ireland the Roman Catholic clergy have not been satisfied with exercising their authority and influence in the promulgation of their religious beliefs, but that they also devoted themselves to achieve political domination in Ireland. I remember the Meath election and other elections where the Roman Catholic clergy have achieved a dominant influence in many constituencies in Ireland. If they choose, they have a right to take that line, but you cannot eat your cake and have it; you cannot achieve domination in politics in Ireland, and then come 1048 forward in the House of Commons and place yourselves on the same level as other denominations who have never attempted anything of the sort. The honourable Member for East Mayo read some resolutions come to by the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, which resolutions concluded with what, as far as I can make out, was a threat, and I am afraid they are just the people to carry out that threat, but I do not think the House of Commons ought to be dominated by a threat from the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland or anybody else, and I say that if the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland choose to make this threat, that in itself is an extra proof of the justice of this exclusion which is contained in the Bill. I have pointed out before, that it is impossible to divest our minds of the fact of the immense power which, as the honourable Member for East Mayo will not deny, the Roman Catholic bishops and priests of Ireland exercise not only on the religious views but upon the political views of their people. At election times every Roman Catholic chapel in Ireland is a rostrum from which politics are preached.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONThe proof of it is that 40 or 50 Members opposite are returned to this House in consequence of the influence exercised by the priests. We cannot shut our eyes to this fact. I ask the House to consider what chance would any Irishman have in standing for a county council if his own parish priest is to stand against him. Of course, it would be absolutely hopeless. There would be no semblance of fair play. The result of accepting this Amendment would mean that in a great part of Ireland, in the south and west, and in a great many of the midland counties, the county councils would be altogether under the influence of the priests. Judging by their action in a recent case, I should say that their action on the county councils will have a very considerable effect in increasing the immense-power that they already possess in Ireland. If the Protestant denominations in Ireland felt keenly on this subject they would have shown it very clearly, and they have not shown anything of the 1049 kind. There has not been a single meeting of any denomination of Protestants to protest against this clause. I know the Protestant mind of Ireland better than many honourable Members of this House, and I most emphatically deny that any of the Protestant denominations feel aggrieved in the slightest degree by the clause as it stands. Therefore I hope the House will not accept the Amendment of the honourable Member for East Mayo. As to this clause being an insult to the Irish people, I cannot conceive that that statement will have any weight in this House. If it is an insult at all, it is an insult to me, as much as it is to any other Irish Member here. I do not feel in the least insulted. I hope the House will stick by the Government and reject the Amendment of the honourable Member.
§ MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)I desire to associate myself entirely with what has been said by my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo. We have had some experience in this matter in England. When the Municipal Corporations Act was passed the Parliament of that date saw fit, on imperfect information, to exclude ministers of religion from the councils. When, in the year 1888, we reconstructed our system of local government in the counties, by a Measure proposed by a Conservative Government, we resolved with the unanimous consent of both Parties in this House—
that clerks in holy orders, and other ministers of religion, shall not be disqualified from being elected.Those are the words of section 2. That legislation was followed when we came to create our district and parish councils, and no one has yet been able to rise in this House and say that it has been attended with any pernicious results. Indeed, it is consistent with the most obvious principles of local and democratic government. Why should you exclude from the choice of the electors, who, after all, are the ultimate judges, any particular class of the community from the position of candidate, and from the opportunity of being elected? If the priests have those occult powers of mischief which have been depicted in such lurid colours by the honourable and gal- 1050 lant Member opposite, the electors can reject them if they see fit. ["Oh, oh!"] Why not?
§ AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Because they are afraid.
§ MR. ASQUITHThen they are not fit for self government at all. The electors in Ireland are or are not free and independent, and capable of being entrusted with the management of their own affairs. If they are so much under the domination of the priests, what does it matter whether you exclude the priests? Because, if you do not have the priest, you will have the priest's nominees. What difference does it make whether the priest or a person named by the priest is selected? We in this country have found that the free and full extension of the area of choice, coupled with the free and full extension of the area of those who are to choose, has been attended with most beneficial results, and I cannot possibly see upon what ground, consistently with the principle upon which this Bill is based, the application of that principle to a particular class in Ireland should be denied. The honourable and gallant Member opposite has spoken of the enormous influence which he says is possessed by the Catholic priests of Ireland. Does he imagine that the influence of the priests is going to be destroyed or whittled down simply by excluding them from themselves becoming candidates? If their power exists, it will exist equally well, and be exercised equally effectively, whether the priest or anybody else is nominated. What the House has now to face is this question, whether in extending local self government in Ireland it should arbitrarily exclude from the possibility of being elected a single class of the community equally qualified by every consideration, both of property, of intelligence and of common sense, whether it should exclude those persons from among the number for whom the electors may vote. I fail to see how, consistently with the principle on which this Bill is based, such an exclusion can be justified, and I believe all parties in this House will agree that if local self government is to be a reality we must make the area of 1051 choice co-extensive with the area of the electorate.
§ SIR T. ESMONDE (Kerry, W.)I would remind the honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for Armagh [Colonel Saunderson] that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland is not an established church, and that whatever power the Irish Catholic clergymen have comes to them, not by reason of an establishment, but from the people. The power of the Catholic Church in Ireland, to which the honourable and gallant Member objects, comes to the Catholic priests directly from the Catholic people, and for the reason that the people of Ireland have confidence in their priesthood—a confidence which the priesthood eminently deserve.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONI thought it came from the Pope.
§ SIR T. ESMONDEThen all I can say is the honourable and gallant Member must improve his education in these matters. There is one point which has been omitted in this Debate, and it is this: that on the grand juries there is no objection whatever to clergymen of the Established Church in Ireland, or Protestant Church, serving upon the grand juries. I have myself repeatedly served upon grand juries in Ireland, on which clergymen of the Protestant Church have also served. I do not see why, if this power was allowed to Protestant clergymen under the old régime, it should be denied to Catholic or Protestant clergymen under the new régime. The honourable and gallant Member objected to the declaration of the Irish Roman Catholic bishops, and he said that the bishops in that declaration held out a threat to this House to which he hoped the House would not yield. Sir, the Roman Catholic bishops merely asserted the constitutional rights of the Roman Catholic clergy; they merely asserted their rights to the privileges of citizenship; they made no threat to this House, but simply relied on the justice and fair play of this House to see that their constitutional privileges and rights were respected. I do not for a moment suppose that if this provision were not included in this Bill the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland would ever serve upon 1052 Irish county councils, or would ever be inclined to serve upon them, but I object to the provision simply on account of the stigma of political inferiority which it is sought to cast upon a very large section of Irish citizens, and I join heartily with the honourable Member for East Mayo in his protest against such an exclusion.
§ MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)As an Irish Catholic I oppose the Amendments proposed by the honourable Member for East Mayo. I do so with the full consent and approval of very many priests, both in Ireland and England. I have received approval of our action from many of the best class of priests both in this country and in Ireland. They, with us, think it would be a cruel thing to pit an Irish priest, speaking perhaps from the altar, as a candidate against one of his own congregation for a place upon one of these boards. If this proposal of the Government be such an insult to the Irish people and to the Irish priests as the honourable Member suggests, it is certainly strange that several weeks went by between the Second Reading of the Bill and the time at which an Amendment was put down to reject this proposal by any Irish Member. As a matter of fact not one single Member from Ireland moved in this matter until the right honourable Gentleman who sits on these benches, the Member for the Forest of Dean, moved in the matter.
§ MR. DILLONI beg the honourable Member's pardon. I put down this Amendment I think the second day after the Second Reading. It is true the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had moved in the matter, but it was only an hour or two before my Amendment appeared on the Paper.
§ MR. HAYDENAs a matter of fact the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman appeared first on the Paper, and it was not till a considerable time after that other Amendments were proposed. It is also notorious that not one word has been said by an Irish priest or bishop to resent this terrible insult, and nearly four months elapsed before the First Reading of the Bill and the resolutions of the Irish bishops, which the 1053 honourable Member for East Mayo has read. There was also an additional fact that in the Divisions that took place on the Motion in the Committee stage, out of all the Irish Members only 29 of those who sit on these benches voted against this insult to their priests, who are so largely responsible for sending them to this House. In the Division which took place on that question in a less important form a few nights ago only 35 out of the 70 men sent here to represent them supported them, which goes to show there is little reality in their statement that the proposed exclusion is an insult to the priests of Ireland. We who sit on these benches represent a very large body of Catholic opinion, and I think we can speak for a certain number of priests. We have no desire to deprive priests or anybody else of the rights and privileges of citizenship, but we say that a class that has abused its privileges, that has united against the liberties of the people:—["Oh, oh!"]—yes, it has united against them, and anyone who wishes to find proof of that can find it in the report of the Meath election petition.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN (Donegal, W.)They have been the defenders of the liberties of the Irish people for hundreds of years.
§ MR. HAYDENI say we do not wish to deprive priests of the rights of citizenship, but we are not afraid to say to you in the House of Commons, and we are not afraid to say it in Ireland—we have said it in Ireland, and we were subjected to insult and persecution for saying it—that we wish to preserve the rights of citizenship for the vast majority of the people of Ireland, and the majority of the people are far more important than any class, and we say that their liberty cannot be preserved to them if representatives of the majority have to stand up as candidates for these local bodies against their own clergymen, who have advantages that no laymen can possess, and who have shown that they can and will use those advantages to the utmost extent.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)I regret that I cannot on this occa- 1054 sion support my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh. This is not a matter of politics at all, and I do not agree with the honourable Member for Roscommon that the rights of citizens are being supported by those who are opposed to this Amendment. I believe what was said by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife was perfectly true—that it is futile to attempt to war against the influence of the priests by excluding priests from the exercise of the rights of citizenship. I believe, on the contrary, that the sooner you bring the priest into the open the sooner you make him feel that, with the privileges of citizenship, he has to observe the responsibilities of citizenship. The moment you give to the priest, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, some privilege because he is a priest, or the moment you take away from him some privilege because he is a priest, you make him more or less a citizen. It seems to me that the whole history of Europe in the past, and the whole history of Europe in the present, is a pregnant lesson against giving special privileges to the clergy, or inflicting special disabilities upon them. I agree with my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh that the influence of the priests at elections in Ireland has been disastrous. Nothing, to my mind, can be more positively deplorable than the influence of the priests in politics. But I do not believe for a moment that when you bring the priests into the forum of public criticism, when you subject them to the rough and tumble of an election, when they have to stand the criticism of opposing candidates—I do not believe that you will make them more powerful than they are now. I believe that Irishmen are like other people, and that they will want to get their business done in some way, and if they find that it is ill done by their representatives, be they priests or laymen, they will very summarily dismiss them and put others in their place. I cannot see anything in the teaching of history or in contemporary politics in favour of the special exclusion of clergymen of any denomination from the sphere of local government. I hold that a man is neither 1055 more nor less a citizen because he happens to be a priest. For these reasons I shall support the Amendment of the honourable Member for East Mayo.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife, who intervened in this Debate in support of the honourable Member for East Mayo, laid great stress upon the example of England, and in those solemn tones that he knows so well how to adopt he told us that in this country the admission of ministers of religion to the county councils was unanimously agreed to by every party in this House. Now, Sir, compare that unanimity with the difference of opinion that exists on this question in Ireland. Had my right honourable Friend considered the comparison I think he would have seen that the cases of England and Ireland do not stand exactly on the same footing. But my right honourable Friend used an argument of a kind that I must confess did not greatly impress me. He said that this was a matter for the electors. The electors might reject those whom they thought unfit and elect those whom they thought fit, and he said that if it was necessary to impose those disabilities on the choice of the electors that only proved that the electors were not fit for self government. The electors are free and independent persons, says my right honourable Friend, and therefore should require no protection. Sir, let me appeal to that logic which so distinguishes the right honourable Gentleman, and let me ask him this question: Take the ballot; what is the ballot but a protection of the free and independent elector? But, again, my right honourable Friend says it should be left to the electors to choose whom they should elect as their representative. If that is so why should not the same principle apply to, the election of Members of this House, and why should not women have the right to become members—a proposition of which my right honourable Friend has been a consistent opponent? I think it is perfectly clear that in practice we have never recognised these general arguments from democratic principles. We have always looked, and rightly looked, to the considerations applicable in each particular case that has presented itself. Now I 1056 come to the speech of the honourable Member for East Mayo. The honourable Member says that it was most unwise of the Government to raise this question. He says we should have left the English law as it stands, and then it seemed to occur to him that Ireland is not in this matter, and in some other matters also, governed by English laws, but by Irish laws, and then he used a strange phrase. He said, "We should have left or made the law the same as in England." 'Now, there is a great deal of difference between "leaving" and "making" the law the same. Whatever our wishes might have been it was absolutely impossible for us to avoid raising this question. What we have done is as regards all councils except county councils, to leave the law in Ireland exactly as we found it. Had we done what the honourable Member wishes we should have been obliged to insert a special provision, so that under no circumstances could we avoid raising the question. The honourable Member for East Mayo says that the proposed exclusion of ministers of religion from membership of the county and district councils has created a bitter sense of injustice in Ireland. Sir, I very much doubt that. I have received during the course of this Bill innumerable representations upon very many points connected with it. I have received some communications upon this particular point, but out of all the communications I have received during all these months the only one addressed to me personally with reference to this clause in a sense adverse to the proposal made by the Government was from a Protestant clergyman, who objected to clergymen being excluded. I think he was almost a unique specimen of his class. I have, however, received a certain number of communications, not only from Roman Catholic laymen, but from Roman Catholic priests, and in no single case has there been any expression of the strong feeling of resentment of which the honourable Member for East Mayo talks. Of course, I know on what he bases his statement. He rests on the declaration of the hierarchy, but whether that declaration corresponds with lay opinion in Ireland is another question. The declaration of the hierarchy rests upon what they describe as the ordinary 1057 rights of citizens. Can the right to be elected to serve on administrative bodies in this country be properly described as an ordinary right of a citizen? Ministers of religion of any denomination have no right to sit in this House. Then take the case of local government in England. It is perfectly true, as my right honourable Friend said, that the ministers of religion were by the Local Government Act of 1888 admitted to membership of district councils and county councils, but there was at the time an existing disqualification to their sitting on the councils of municipal boroughs. Was that disqualification removed? No; it exists at the present moment. As a matter of fact, we have, so far as the existing law goes, not deviated from it on this question, but have strictly followed it. We have adhered to the English precedent in every respect, except that we have not admitted ministers of religion to membership of the councils. Now, why have we done that? I observe that Roman Catholic bishops in their declaration have said—I will not call it a threat, but they have stated—that if the priests are debarred from sitting on the councils, they will, at all events, continue to exercise their influence outside. Here we come to the real point. What kind of influence is it that experience shows is exercised by the priests in Ireland? Sir, I am afraid there can be no doubt that it has been most unfortunately, as I consider, the practice of the priests in Ireland to carry into the domain of politics the arms of spiritual warfare. That is the real distinction in this matter between England and Ireland. In England such a thing does not occur, or, if it does occur, it is immediately resented by those upon whom it is brought to bear. In Ireland, unfortunately, that is not so. I ask the House: suppose a Roman Catholic priest, say, in the west of Ireland, were to stand for one of these county councils; does anyone who knows Ireland imagine for a moment that the electors would really be perfectly free to use their judgment, and that they would use their judgment merely as to whether the election of such a priest increased the strength of the administrative body?
§ AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Certainly.
1058§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI hear one honourable Member say "Certainly." I am sure myself that the real conviction of even honourable Members who sit opposite, is that every influence would be brought to bear, spiritually and otherwise, to ensure the priest's election. ["No, no!"] I will grant, if you like, that very few priests would stand if they were eligible, but I say that those who did stand could not afford not to be elected, and it is certain that they would use their influence, not merely as ordinary citizens, but as priests, to secure that election. I say actual experience in Ireland abundantly bears that out, and it is really impossible for anybody who is acquainted with the condition of affairs to dispute it. My right honourable Friend the Member for Belfast has admitted all this, but he has not drawn the conclusion from it which we have drawn. He says that whatever influence the priests now possess they will continue with undiminished power to use, although that influence will be exercised outside. Now, I do not believe myself that whatever the power of the priests may be outside, it is the same thing whether they sit or do not sit upon these councils. If they do not sit upon these councils, we believe that these administrative bodies will be freer to exercise their judgments apart from priestly influence. I admit that there may be a good deal to be said on the other side. One of the difficulties in connection with the administration under the new system which will be established by this Bill will be that of securing a sufficient number of instructed and capable men to fill the posts of councillors, and I am perfectly ready to admit that in many cases, in mere point of ability and education, no better candidates could be found than the priests. No doubt there is something to be said on both sides, but, weighing the arguments and judging the matter impartially, I believe that the interests of administration will be best served by maintaining the Bill as it at present stands.
§ MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)I venture to think that the honourable and gallant Member for Armagh was hardly correct in the facts which he put before the House. It is idle to deny that the 1059 clergy of Ireland of all denominations exercise a greater influence than the clergy of England. That is true of the north as well as of the south; it is true of Protestants as well as of Catholics. It is due to facts in the history of the country, to which it is unnecessary to refer, but which are within the knowledge of every Member of the House. Nobody acquainted with Belfast would deny that Dr. Magee exercises a great influence in that city, and I believe deservedly. I would remind the House of the fact that, although I believe there have been few instances of Presbyterian ministers being returned to this House from Scotch constituencies, there have been such ministers returned sometimes as Nationalists and sometimes as Unionist Members. There is no doubt that the priests and clergy of all denominations do exercise in Ireland a very great influence. But why are you to have men of this great influence excluded practically from all the local bodies? The exclusion does not exist to-day. There are a number of local bodies existing in Ireland to-day upon which clergymen are permitted to serve. Take the case of grand juries. Priests as such are not excluded from the grand juries, nor are Protestant ministers of religion. Take, again, the presentment sessions. There is nothing to prevent them sitting on those bodies. Take, again, the district asylums boards. Those boards are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, which means, of course, the Chief Secretary. It has been the custom of successive Chief Secretaries, year after year, to appoint a large number of ministers of religion to sit upon those boards, and I would ask the Chief Secretary why, if it is inconsistent with free administration, he has appointed priests and even bishops to sit upon the asylums boards? Has he ever had a single complaint from a layman, a member of those boards, that any undue influence was attempted to be used as a clergyman by one whom he himself had nominated? And I would remind him that one of the chief administrative duties which will be taken over by the new councils will be those of the asylums boards. We have the fact that the Chief Secretary has year after year nominated priests to take part in important adminis- 1060 trative duties, and yet now we are told that the people are not to be allowed to elect the very men whom the Chief Secretary himself has appointed. I put it to the House that that affords a clear proof of what it is the Chief Secretary really means. The right honourable Gentleman, in proposing and adhering to this clause, does not show so much a distrust of the priest as distrust of the people of Ireland. The only precedents the right honourable Gentleman could cite for this exclusion were two, and both were due to the same period in the history of this House. There is the exclusion which is contained in the Irish and English Municipal Corporations Act, and there is the exclusion under the Irish Poor Law. During the period of Whig domination there was a general distrust of allowing the clergy to have anything to do with political affairs. I do not suppose there are many Whigs left in politics to-day; I find they have apparently on this point their successors behind me, but, however, there are not many Whigs in this House to-day. The Whigs of that time, with a narrow spirit that has not been held by the Liberals who succeeded them, were against allowing the clergy the rights of citizenship. They were not allowed to take part in municipal politics, and in Ireland they were refused any part in the administration of the poor law. With those two exceptions, due to an exceptional period in our administration, there is no precedent for the exclusion which the Chief Secretary now proposes. Then, again, these county councils will be the authority for technical education. There is no more important duty which will be confided to the new bodies than that connected with technical education. And it is essential that for a good system of technical education you should have harmonious working between the elementary schools and the technical systems. In almost every parish in Ireland the priests are the managers of the elementary schools; so that you are excluding the very men whose knowledge and experience would be of the greatest assistance in dealing with the important subject of technical education. I ask whether that is not entirely contrary to the interests of good government. I will refer to another instance. On the Congested Districts Board, of which the 1061 Chief Secretary is a member, there is a Catholic bishop and another Catholic priest. I would ask whether the presence of these gentlemen upon that board has not been found of the greatest service in its deliberations, and why? Because in the congested districts which they represent, there is unfortunately, owing to the social condition of the country, the greatest difficulty in finding men of education who can give up sufficient time for public service, and to perform public services with the requisite ability. Under this Bill it will be necessary in the congested districts to select many hundreds of men to perform these local duties. I ask why there should be excluded from the new bodies the very clergymen who have been proved by the voice of the Chief Secretary—I suppose we could point to no higher example of administrative wisdom—to have been always of great service in practically the same capacity. I venture to think that in the interests of good government in Ireland the decision at which the Government have arrived is most unfortunate. I admit, of course, freely, that from some points of view something may be said for this exclusion as for every exclusion, but I venture to think that the experience of all other countries points against the wisdom of the Chief Secretary's decision. Take the case of France. There is no more anti-clerical Government than that of France, and yet priests in France are eligible for every public body—for the Councils of the Departments, for membership of the Chamber of Deputies, and even for membership of the Senate. There is no district in Ireland where priests have more influence than they have in Lower Brittany. Priests are members of the Departmental Councils in Brittany, but I have never heard that their influence there has been found contrary to the interests of good government. I never heard that even the most extreme anti-clerical member sent to represent the most anticlerical part of France in the French Chamber of Deputies has got up and moved the exclusion of the clergy. Surely the Chief Secretary, the spokesman of a Government returned to power largely by the influence, the legitimate influence, of the clergy of the Church of England in this country, as the 1062 spokesman of their interests in English matters, ought to be ashamed of taking an extreme anti-clerical position in this House which, none of the anti-clericals of France would ever venture in the French Assembly to adopt. It is not a position, I venture to think, which will facilitate the working of this Bill. I should have thought that a Conservative Government would have recognised that in the main the clergy of Ireland are a conservative force; that if at various times in the past they have been driven into opposite courses it has been mainly by such exclusions as that which is imposed by this clause. It seems to me extraordinary that a Conservative Government should propose to exclude from the local bodies of Ireland the most naturally conservative force in the community, and I venture to think that in doing so they are not true even to the traditions of their own party, that they have committed a mistake in the interests of their party, and, what is still more important, a mistake which will leave an embittered feeling in the minds of those whom it is the greatest interest of every man who is entrusted with any share in the government of Ireland to reconcile to the existing state of affairs.
§ MR. PLUNKETT (Dublin, Co., S.)As I am forced to throw in my lot with this Amendment, I hardly like to give a silent vote. I cannot agree with the honourable and learned Member who has just spoken. I think it is ridiculous to talk of the decision which the Government has arrived at as an insult to the clergy. I cannot imagine anything more conciliatory than the tone adopted by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary throughout, and I think we must all agree that there has never been a Minister who sat upon those benches who has shown lass bigotry on all religious questions in connection with Ireland.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXI do not think that I made any attack upon the tone adopted by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I merely said that the proposal was one which had not been made even by the most anti-clerical members of the French Assemblies.
§ MR. PLUNKETTAt any rate, I do not think the proposal is anti-clerical, 1063 because, after weighing the pros and cons with great ability, the right honourable Gentleman has arrived at the opposite conclusion to that at which I arrived, not, I admit, on quite so deep grounds, but simply upon my own experience in Ireland and with a very large knowledge of the Irish priesthood. Sir, this House has largely interested itself in the attitude of the priest in politics in the past. It ought to be remembered that the priest has not always been in politics in Ireland. O'Connell brought him in, and he has remained there ever since. I think anyone who knows anything of Irish life will bear me out when I say that the number of priests who have taken an active part in politics is grossly exaggerated. The vast number of priests who attend to their religious duties and take no part in politics are never heard of at all; they do not appear in the newspapers, and those who do appear in newspapers are taken as a type of the entire class. The influence that they are exercising in politics is undoubtedly very much less now than it has been, in even recent years. I feel too very strongly that the Government show a want of faith in the healing effect of their Measure. If their Measure succeeds, as I believe it will, I am quite confident that the inducement for the priests to take an active part in politics will be very much less than it has been in the past. Furthermore, I am certain that they have no desire at present to take an active part in local administration. There may be a few districts where it is very hard to constitute the new councils without their aid, but those are very poor and backward districts where politics do not run high. In the few cases where priests are likely to be elected I do not think their election would do any harm. To put the whole matter in a nutshell, I do not believe myself that the priests want to take part in the working of these bodies. If I did think they were anxious to do so I should certainly vote against the Amendment, but I think that their exclusion will do a great deal more harm than their admission.
MR. T. M. HEALYIt is hopeless to expect anything like an effective Debate upon this question; but I should like to ask the 1064 House and Government to consider this matter in relation to the subject-matter of the Bill itself. Everyone who has spoken upon this subject has assumed that these county councils will be legislative bodies. They will be nothing of the kind; they will be purely administrative bodies. What are the subjects to be dealt with by these bodies? Roads, fences, bridges, drains; those are the main subjects. How can sacerdotalism possibly come into such work as that? It is ridiculous to suppose that it can come in at all. Another part of the duties of the councils is the making, levying, collecting, and recovering poor rate, the business of the guardians under the Diseases of Animals Act, and the Destructive Insects Act of 1870." These are the subjects upon which the "terrible priest in politics" may be supposed to be brought to bear within the county councils. Then as regards their powers outside the county council, does anyone believe the priest will stand for the county councils? I do not believe if this Amendment were accepted by the Government that throughout the length and breadth of Ireland one single Catholic priest would stand; and I further believe that the bishops who passed the resolution, if any priest attempted to stand, would instantly make a synodical decree preventing such candidature. But it may be said, why do you struggle against this prohibition if that be so. I believe the bishops passed this resolution simply in order to resent what they regarded as an insult. I believe that the Chief Secretary is free from all taint of bigotry; I make no such charge against him, although undoubtedly we have had again and again to differ with him. I believe he has brought in this prohibition largely in order to sooth the bigotry of those in the north of Ireland who fear the inclusion of the priests, and who would regard that inclusion as another objection to the establishment of a system of local government for Ireland. I believe if this Amendment were passed, the only effect it would have as a practical measure would be that you would have scores of Presbyterian and Protestant clergymen in Ulster acting as candidates and sitting as county councillors, whereas I believe that no one single Roman Catholic would seek election at all. The right honourable Gentleman has stated that 1065 exclusions already exist. But, Sir, when were those exclusions passed? The Poor Law Act was passed in the first year of the reign of the Queen, 1837, eight years after emancipation. The Municipal Corporations Act was passed in the third and fourth Victoria, 11 years after emancipation. Are the models of the Queen's reign in that respect to remain unchanged after 60 years' experience, after 60 years' toleration, after 60 years' emancipation? Are the Queen's subjects to be treated in the same way and in the same spirit at the conclusion of her reign as they were at the beginning in Ireland, and in Ireland alone? This Debate has been to some extent a painful one for Irishmen. I agree that there was some force in the argument of the Chief Secretary that there was divided opinion in Ireland in relation to this question. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Roscommon has taunted Members sitting on these benches with being the priests' representatives. I should like to know what we were when Mr. Parnell was chairman of a united party. Were we then the priests' representatives? I can only say that Mr. Parnell's return to this House was largely due to the very priests referred to by the honourable Gentleman, and especially to the Bishop of Meath. Be that as it may, I admit that such speeches as we have had to-night lessen our hope of having an effective Division, much less an effective Debate, upon this question; but upon the whole, looking at the position of the Government without heat, and, I hope, with some endeavour to appreciate the difficulties that he in their way, the conclusion I have come to, as a juror, upon this difficult question is that, instead of diminishing, the power of the priests by the course which you have taken, you are driving them into a position of antagonism—you are driving them to the front. They believe that this exclusion has been levelled against them; they believe that they are now a proscribed band in Ireland. Speeches such as that which has been made tonight by the honourable Member for Roscommon are not likely to induce them to lessen their efforts or diminish their influence. It is opposition of that kind which will lead them to put forth further effort and further determination. The only result, I believe, of this exclusion will be that instead of having peaceful elections 1066 —elections in which solely questions of administration will be considered—another element will now be imported into these contests, from the fact that the Orange Party on the one hand and the Party represented by the honourable Member for Waterford on the other, have joined hands in a kind of blood brotherhood on this question, in order to exclude the priests from their due share in the administration of these county affairs. That, I think, will be the only result. I think it is a deplorable result, and upon the whole I think that, however strongly the honourable Member for Waterford and his friends may feel, they might perhaps have done better for themselves and their country, and the religion they profess, if they had left the advocacy of these exclusions solely and entirely to the Orange and Ascendancy Party.
MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)Speaking as the representative of the St. Patrick's Division, Dublin, unopposed at the last election, I think I am entitled to voice the opinion of my constituents upon this subject. My colleague, the honourable Member for Roscommon, who represents probably the most Catholic constituency in Ireland, is also entitled to voice his opinion. We have heard a good deal in this Debate from Gentlemen who say that they voice the entire Catholic opinion of Ireland. I deny that. There is a large amount of educated independent Catholic opinion in Ireland that is entirely with us on this question. We have had read to the House a manifesto from the Catholic bishops. The bishops—of whom I desire to speak with all respect—did not issue a manifesto at the time of the Parnellite crisis, when certain dignitaries of the Church practised something very like coercion towards the Parnellite candidates. It is because I am in favour of freedom of opinion and of liberty of action in political matters that I intervene in this Debate at all. We are told by honourable Members on this side of the House that we are intolerant to the clergy. I want to know what tolerance the clergy showed during the time of the Parnellite crisis. We have been told also that there were exceptional circumstances why this exclusion should not exist. I say that these special circumstances which exist in Ireland at the 1067 present time go to justify the exclusion. We have not forgotten the Meath Election Petition, and we remember the famous phrase, "fire to his heels and fire to his toes." We are told that reverend gentlemen are denied the rights of ordinary citizenship. I say they are not ordinary citizens. I maintain, as a Christian and as a Catholic, that, where a man is charged with a sacred mission, he is better employed in the sphere of his elevated duties than he is in mundane politics. I do not desire to say anything disrespectful, but I ask the House to imagine an election in Belfast with the Rev. Dr. Kane as a candidate on the one side and the Roman Catholic parish priest on the other. What would be likely to happen, in such a case, on the Shankhill Road? I am quite certain that honourable Members who vote against us, in their calmer moments, will come to agree with the conclusion at which we have arrived, and that is that in the future the administrative government of Ireland will be far better carried on without any sectarian influence, and that it is for laymen to manage lay affairs. This is really no policy of exclusion, because ministers of religion have never asked for these positions. So far as I am aware, there is no desire on their part for them. Probably, I have as much intercourse with the priests of my religion as any man of this House, and I have never heard from any priest or parson (and I have friends amongst the parsons, too) the slightest desire to interfere in the management of county councils. I do not intend to further delay the House, but I hope that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will stand by the clause he has introduced, and I can tell him, as an independent Member, that a large body of Catholics in Ireland, including a number of priests, will thank him for the course he has taken.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURIt is not unnatural that a question of this kind should induce a certain amount of feeling and a certain strength of language, but I cannot help deprecating the continuance of this discussion. I do not wish to survey again the arguments which have been brought before us, but there is one observation which 1068 I should like to make. The learned Gentleman who spoke last but one, and spoke very temperately and ably upon the subject, rather regarded this as an attack upon, or an insult levied at, the Roman Catholic priests. I can assure him that that is not the intention of the Government. Our intention was the very opposite of any attack or insult upon the Roman Catholic priests. The clause deals with ministers of all denominations, and it is not levelled against one or another, and the honourable and learned Member himself will admit, I think, that if the clause were cut out of the Bill the number of priests who would be likely to take part in county council work would not be very great. I frankly admit that this is a question upon which there is, and perhaps inevitably must be, some difference of opinion. We have given very anxious attention to the matter, and we are inclined to think that, in the interests of all concerned, laymen and clergy—laymen of all political opinions, clergymen of all denominations—and in the interests of local government in Ireland, the exclusion to which exception has been taken would, on the whole, be advantageous. But, Sir, however that may be, am I not right in saying that, in my judgment, the Debate has now sufficiently covered every aspect of the question? Difficult as the question is, apt as it is to raise unpleasant controversies even between friends, we may perhaps now come to a decision upon it. I would just remind the House that we have still much work to do, and I trust the appeal that I make will not be thought unreasonable.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)I do not regard this as a question which raises religious differences at all. I think it is quite possible for men of different religious creeds to have different views of this question. To my mind, it is a question which goes down to the very roots of religious liberty and statesmanlike progress. I confess I cannot share the view of the honourable Member for Roscommon and the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh, that the best way to meet what they regard as clerical domination is an exclusion like this. I do not fear any power which is associated with responsibility; what I do 1069 fear is irresponsible power. I can find no answer whatever to the argument of my right honourable Friend the Member for East Fife, that if there be a strong clerical injuence in Ireland—and no one can deny that there is—you have to make your choice between dealing with the priest or with the nominee of the priest, and that in one case the priest has to come in and fight the question simply as a secular question and a question of public affairs; and, in the other case, the priest exercises his influence without any responsibility whatever. It has been said here to-night that clergymen of all denominations are excluded from membership of this House. I have always been against that exclusion. I have seen clergymen in the French Assemblies, and I do not see any reason why anybody should be excluded from the public bodies of the country to which they cannot be admitted without the free choice and vote of their fellow-citizens. Catholic clergymen are admitted to public bodies in this country; they are members of boards of guardians and other bodies, and are found to be very good members too. Now, what is the position that I am asked to place myself in by those who oppose this Amendment? I am asked, as an Irish Nationalist, by the assistance of English votes against the majority of Irish votes, to inflict an exclusion upon Catholic priests in a Catholic country which is not inflicted upon them in a Protestant country. I confess I am utterly unable to reconcile that position with my views as an Irish Nationalist in this House. I am not more in favour than any Member on the opposite side of the House can be of undue clerical influence in political affairs,
§ but the law is quite able to deal with cases of undue clerical influence, and so long as the clerical influence is used openly no harm can be done. The mistake honourable Members seem to me to make is this. They think to exclude clerical influence by excluding the priests. In my opinion, they are going the best way to unduly exaggerate that influence.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLThis is a matter about which I feel so strongly that I would not like to give a silent vote. I regard this clause as a gross and deliberate insult to every minister of religion in Ireland, no matter to what denomination he belongs, although, no doubt, it is more particularly levelled at the Roman Catholic priesthood. I have read a work entitled "The History of England in the Eighteenth Century," and I find there 40 pages devoted to an account of "priest-hunting" in Ireland. That is a book written by W. E. H. Lecky. I wonder what has become of it? This clause I call a "priest-hunting" clause, and it deserves to be cut out and pasted in that chapter written by the right honourable Member for Dublin University. The clergy of Ireland deeply resent this insult to their cloth. It will alienate any little sympathy the priesthood may have got with the right honourable Gentleman, and they will no doubt follow out the policy suggested in the declaration of the bishops that has been read to-night, and see that their influence is exercised to the best of their ability.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 74.—(Division List No. 223.)
1071| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Clancv, John Joseph |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. |
| Arnold, Alfred | Bullard, Sir Harry | Cohen, Benjamin Louis |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Burdett-Coutts, W. | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse |
| Baillie, J. B. B. (Inverness) | Butcher, John George | Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready |
| Balcarres, Lord | Carew, James Laurence | Compton, Lord Alwyne |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r) | Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) | Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.) | Cornwallis, F. S. W. |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) | Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. |
| Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hunts) | Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Cox, Robert |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.) | Cubitt, Hon. Henry |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin | Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Charrington, Spencer | Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Chelsea, Viscount | Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H. | Purvis, Robert |
| Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Pym, C. Guy |
| Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs) | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Redmond, J. E. (Waterford) |
| Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward | Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Field, William (Dublin) | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) |
| Finch, George H. | Loder, G. W. Erskine | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. |
| Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne | Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T. |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l) | Robertson, H. (Hackney) |
| Folkestone, Viscount | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller | Round, James |
| Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Lorne, Marquess of | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Fry, Lewis | Lowles, John | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Saunderson, Col. E. James |
| Godson, Sir A. Frederick | Lucas-Shadwell, William | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Smith, A. H. (Christchurch) |
| Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Maclure, Sir John William | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Graham, Henry Robert | McKillop, James | Stanley, Lord (Lancs) |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Milbank, Sir P. C. J. | Stanley, E. J. (Somerset) |
| Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Sturt, Hon. Humphry N. |
| Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. | Milton, Viscount | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. | Monk, Charles James | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Hanson, Sir Reginald | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Tomlinson, W. E. Murray |
| Hardy, Laurence | More, Robert Jasper | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) | Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent) |
| Haslett, Sir James Horner | Morrell, George Heroert | Waring, Colonel Thomas |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Helder, Augustus | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.) |
| Henderson, Alexander | Murray, C. J. (Coventry) | Wentworth, B. C. Vernon- |
| Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. | Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.) |
| Howell, William Tudor | Nicholson, William Graham | Williams, J. Powell (Birm.) |
| Hozien, Hon. J. H. C. | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks) |
| Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath) |
| Lafone, Alfred | Parnell, John Howard | Wylie, Alexander |
| Laurie, Lieut.-General | Pease, Arthur (Darlington) | Wyndham, George |
| Lawrence Sir E. Durning- (Corn.) | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Young, Comm. (Berks, E.) |
| Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) | Pierpoint, Robert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) | Pollock, Harry Frederick | |
| Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) | Pretyman, Ernest George | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) | Hammond, John (Carlow) | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- | O'Brien. P. J. (Tipperary) |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Hazell, Walter | O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Healy, T. M. (N. Louth) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Bethell, Commander | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. | O'Malley, William |
| Billson, Alfred | Horniman, Frederick John | Pearson, Sir Weetman D. |
| Blake, Edward | Jameson, Major J. E. | Pinkerton, John |
| Brigg, John | Joicey, Sir James | Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C. |
| Caldwell, James | Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Carlile, William Walter | Jordan, Jeremiah | Provand, Andrew Dryburgh |
| Carvill, Patrick G. H. | Kemp, George | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Kilbride, Denis | Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry) |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Knox, Edmund Francis V. | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.) |
| Colville, John | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land) | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Crean, Eugene | Leuty, Thomas Richmond | Strachey, Edward |
| Crilly, Daniel | Macaleese, Daniel | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Curran, T. B. (Donegal) | MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu's C.) | Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) |
| Daly, James | MacNeill, John Gordon S. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Dillon, John | McCartan, Michael | Williams, John C. (Notts) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Maddison, Fred. | Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Mandeville, J. Francis | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'ddersf'ld) |
| Gedge, Sydney | Molloy, Bernard Charles | |
| Gilhooly, James | Morrison, Walter | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Murnaghan, George |
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 16, at end, insert 'until a period of two years has passed after the passage of this Act."—(Mr. Murnaghan.)
§ MR. MURNAGHANEven after the Division we have just had, I venture to hope that the right honourable Gentleman will accept this Amendment. After the first elections, and when the country has had time to settle down to the working of the new régime, there can be no reason to continue the disqualification of a highly-respected class of the Irish community. I think the right honourable Gentleman is desirous of doing what he can to meet the wishes of the Irish people, and I believe that if he will accept this Amendment he will remove what is a great blot upon the Bill.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI cannot accept this Amendment. If, as we believe, there are valid reasons for excluding the clergy, those reasons will be none the less valid two years after the passing of the Act.
§
Question put—
That those words be there inserted.
§ Negatived.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 19, after 'guardians,' insert or commissioners of a town."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 21, after 'elector,' insert or resident, as required by this Act."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 21, at end, insert—
Any member of the council of a county or county district or board of guardians or commissioners of a town who, after the passing of this Act, is convicted of acting when disqualified, or of voting when prohibited, shall, for a period of seven years after such conviction, be disqualified for being elected or being a member of the same or any other such council, board, or commissioners."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ MR. VESEY KNOXI should like the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General to explain the reason for this Amendment. Why is not the ordinary law sufficient? The Amendment may be necessary from a drafting point of view, but I think it should be safeguarded by providing some sort of appeal, as is done in the case of disqualifications imposed under the Corrupt Practices Act. It is possible that a man may be disqualified by a mere accident, and the court should have power to excuse the disqualification in such cases.
§ Mr. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that an appeal would be provided.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 27, at beginning, insert 'outside a county borough."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 30, after 'district,' insert 'and such direction, if given, may authorize the poll for a councilor for a district electoral division to be taken outside that division, if it is taken within the county electoral division comprising it."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 30, leave out 'and,' and make the rest of the sub-section into a new sub-section."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 31, after 'election,' insert 'of such councillors."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 35, leave out from 'of a' to end of line 36, and insert 'rural district council shall be the fifth day, and of a county council the twelfth day next after the said day of election of councillors."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
1075
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 37, at beginning, insert 'outside a county borough."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 42, line 39, leave out 'ninth day of June which,' and insert 'day next after the said day of election of councilors, which day."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 43, line 2, leave out 'in a town or township having commissioners' and insert 'of the commissioners of a town."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 43, line 4, to leave out 'twenty-fifth day of November,' and insert 'fifteenth day of January."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ MR. DALYpointed out that this change would be more inconvenient. In many municipal boroughs the election took place on the 16th October, and the Amendment would involve a re-election within about three months.
§ SIR J. HASLETTI think this is a very unfortunate change. The entire machinery of county boroughs under the Municipal Corporations Act is based on taxation, and no possible object can be served by altering it. There is no impossibility in having the register of electors perfectly ready on the 25th November, and I cannot see what is gained by altering the existing machinery. Perhaps my right honourable Friend will state why he considers the alteration necessary.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURFor various practical reasons the 25th November has been held to be an inconvenient date, and we have been strongly urged to make the change to the 15th January.
§ Amendment agreed to.
1076
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 43, lines 6 and 7, leave out 'first day of December,' and insert 'twenty-third day of January."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 43, line 9, leave out from 'office' to end of line 12, and insert—
(2) In the case of the council of a borough the ordinary day of election of councilors and aldermen shall be the fifteenth day of January, and the quarterly meeting of the council shall be held at noon on the twenty-third day of January, and at such hour oh such other three days before the fifteenth day of January then next following as the council at the quarterly meeting in January decide.
(3) The first business transacted at the said quarterly meeting in January shall be the election of the mayor, and the outgoing mayor shall retire and the newly-elected mayor shall come into office on the ordinary day of retirement of the mayor, or as soon after as the new mayor has made a declaration accepting the office, and the ordinary day of retirement of mayor shall be the day of the said quarterly meeting, or if the council have, by a general resolution, so directed, the following twenty-third day of February.
(4) In a county of a city or town the selection of three persons qualified to fill the office of sheriff shall be part of the business transacted at the said quarterly meeting in January, and the day of that meeting and the ordinary day of retirement of the mayor shall respectively be substituted for the first day of December and the first day of January, in section four of the Municipal Privilege (Ireland) Act, 1876.
(5) In the case of the council of any borough or urban district, or the commissioners of any town, the outgoing aldermen, councilors, and commissioners shall retire, and the newly-elected aldermen, councilors, and commissioners shall come into office on the sixteenth day of January, and that day shall be the ordinary day of retirement of aldermen, councilors, and commissioners.
(6) The fact that an outgoing mayor, chairman, alderman, councilor, or commissioner has ceased, upon the new register of local government electors coming into force on the previous first day of January, to be a local government elector shall not disqualify him for continuing in office until the abovementioned ordinary day of retirement of mayor, chairman, alderman, councilor, or commissioner, as the case may be, and also, if he is a mayor or chairman, and a new mayor or chairman has been elected, until that new mayor or chairman has made a declaration accepting the office."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ MR. FLAVINBy sub-section 4 of this proposed new clause the date of the 1077 election of sheriff is provided for, but I think what is not provided for is whether he will have to retire on the 15th November.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe sheriff will continue to hold office.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 43, line 12, at end, insert—
Where any members of a joint committee or joint board are appointed by any county or district council, whether under this or any other Act or an Order in Council, and the council are elected triennially, the members appointed by such council who are in office at the date of any triennial election shall continue to be members of such joint committee or board until the day after the first meeting of the newly elected council, and the consideration of the appointment of such members shall be part of the business at the said meeting after the election of mayor or chairman."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 43, line 14, at end, add 'an election in any urban county district may be held and the poll may be taken at any suitable place within the borough or town which the urban district council may appoint."—(Mr. Condon.)
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI do not think this provision is necessary. Under other sections of the Bill the corporation will have all the powers necessary to provide suitable places for polling stations.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 43, line 17, leave out 'fixed' and insert 'appointed under Part VIII. of this Act."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 44, line 8, after 'demand' insert less 10 per cent. which may be deducted as and for the cost of collection, irrecoverable rates, pensions, and office expenses."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. T. M. HEALYI submit that the amount allowed in the Bill for the ex- 1078 penses of collection is altogether insufficient. Under the existing law the Collector-General got 20 per cent. of the cost of collection. I admit that the Dublin Corporation can collect the police rate cheaper than the Government could, because they have the existing staff of officials, but the result of the change will give 15 per cent. more to the Government than they are entitled to. I think the 10 per cent. I suggest is perfectly fair, but if the Government prefer it, I should have no objection to add to my Amendment the words—
Or such sum, if any, as ascertained by the Local Government Board to be the actual cost.I do not see why the Treasury should make a profit of £700 or £800 a year by this change in the law.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI have carefully gone through the memorandum provided by the collector, and I have had that memorandum submitted to one of the best of the Local Government Board auditors, and he reports, and I am sure he is right, that if the amount of the loss had been taken every year at 5 per cent., it would more than pay the cost to the corporation. Further than that, the offer that I made to the honourable Member was that the Government would be prepared to allow 5 per cent. to be deducted, and also to pay their proportion of the expenses of pensions. I notice that the honourable Member's Amendment includes pensions.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURBut the offices are now abolished. It does seem to me that if the corporation are going to take over the collection of the rates they ought not to charge the Government more than the bare cost of collection. As a matter of fact, at 5 per cent., the corporation will gain on the transaction, and in addition to that we offer to share the pensions. The honourable Member will bear in mind that the question of pensions is not of permanent importance, because in the course of a few years they will disappear as the officials die 1079 off. Therefore, I think, it is quite right to separate the two heads of expenditure However, I think no reasonable objection can be made to the clause as we have drafted it, and I do not see my way to accept the Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALYI am bound to say that I have a very handsome concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer later on to the Dublin Corporation which will bring them in something like £50,000 a year, and therefore I will withdraw the Amendment.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURYes; the corporation are bound to gain on the transaction.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Transpose clause 68 so as to come after clause 51."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 46, line 21, after 'send' insert 'without payment."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 46, line 24, leave out 'such' and insert 'the said."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 46, line 24, after 'union' insert 'and the Evidence Act, 1851, shall apply as if the copy were a certified copy within the meaning of that Act, and every person shall have the same right to inspect and take copies or extracts from the said copy as he would have if it were a poor rate, and section 70 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, and any other enactment relating to such inspection, copies, or extracts, shall apply accordingly."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
1080
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 46, line 38, leave out sub-section 1."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 47, line 1, leave out from 'electors' to 'shall' in line 2."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 47, line 4, at end, insert—
Where persons are entitled in respect of the ownership of a freehold, copyhold, or leasehold qualification in an electoral division of a Parliamentary borough to be registered as Parliamentary electors for the county and not for the Parliamentary borough, the names of such persons shall be entered in a separate list for such division, and that list shall, for the purpose of local government elections, form part of the local government register of electors for that division, and for the purpose of Parliamentary elections shall form part of the register of Parliamentary electors for the Parliamentary county."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ MR. VESEY KNOXIt seems to me that this Amendment is open to very great objection. The voters referred to will presumably be non-resident, because if they had any residential qualification they would come on the register in another capacity. There is no such provision in any of the English Acts. In the English Acts nonresident freeholders have no votes for municipal purposes, and I fail to see on what ground it is necessary to give them votes in Irish boroughs. There will be, I think, great difficulty in working out this provision. The way in which it will operate will, I think, be this. In some divisions of the borough there will be a close contest between the two parties, and those who have a residential qualification in another division of the borough, and who happen to have a freehold qualification in the doubtful division, will prefer to vote in the division in which they have the freehold qualification. I venture to think that in this matter there is no justification for departing from the English precedent. The English law in this 1081 respect has worked well for about 60 years, and I do not think we should now depart from it.
MR. T. M. HEALYLet me point out that a distinct pledge was given, when this Bill was in Committee, that no attempt would be made to affect the Parliamentary franchise. Yet the Government are now turning the borough Parliamentary franchise into the borough municipal franchise. That is a conversion not known to the law. The Government gave us a very distinct pledge in this matter, a pledge as solemn as ever was given in this House, and reiterated again and again. The real reason of the Amendment is to meet the case of the city of Derry. You have already got three wards out of five in the city of Derry, with an absolute majority in permanence for the ascendancy party in the city, and that does not satisfy you. I repeat that I regard this Amendment as a breach of the distinct pledge given by the Government on the faith of which we on this side made considerable concessions.
§ MR. ATKINSONdenied that the Amendment was a breach of faith in the smallest degree. It was proposed for the very purpose of fulfilling the pledge to which the honourable Member referred.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXI beg to move to leave out from the word "list" in the fifth line to the word "for" in line 7. There may be words in some other part of the Bill which meet this point, but I should like it made clear. This will definitely raise the question mentioned by the honourable and learned Member, whether a franchise should be created for municipal purposes in Irish boroughs which do not exist in English boroughs, and for which there is no possible justification. Why should non-resident freeholders be allowed to vote in boroughs in Ireland when they are not allowed to vote in boroughs in England? That is shortly the point, and in order to take the sense of the House, I beg to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
To leave out from the word 'list' in line 5 to the word 'for' in line 7."—(Mr. Knox)
§
Question proposed—
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI propose this new clause in fulfillment of a pledge which we had given; but judging by the hard words that have been used, honourable Members opposite seem to entertain a real objection to it, and I am perfectly ready to withdraw it.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 47, line 16, after 'several' insert 'district."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Page 48, line 11, at end, add—
(11) For the purpose of carrying out the revision of the lists of Parliamentary electors and the local government register of electors of the county borough of Dublin, the present revising assessors for the borough of Dublin are hereby appointed to be Dublin revising barristers, subject to the provisions and with the like powers as if they had been so appointed under an Act passed in the twentieth and twenty-first years of the reign of Her present Majesty, entitled 'An Act to enable the Lord Lieutenant to appoint revising barristers for the revision of lists and registry of voters for the city of Dublin."—(Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.)
§ MR. SPEAKERThis Amendment, I understand, would involve a payment from Imperial sources, and therefore it cannot be moved on the Report stage.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 50, line 7, after 'relating' insert 'amongst other matters."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 50, line 37, after 'guardian' insert and town commissioners."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
1083
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 50, line 37, after 'guardians' insert 'and town commissioners, and committees appointed by or comprising members of any of such councils guardians, or commissioners."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ MR. JORDANBefore we pass from this clause may I ask one question of the Attorney General? There is an Order in Council provided under this 73rd clause which gives the Local Government Board the power to make rules for the appointment of returning officers. I have had a resolution sent to me—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe honourable Gentleman does not appear to be speaking to the Amendment now before the House.
§ MR. JORDANI wanted to ask the Attorney General a question on the clause itself.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Amendment of the Chief Secretary is the only question now before the House.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 51, line 30, before 'Act' insert 'or any other."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 51, line 35, after 'sessions' insert and councils, authorities, and officers affected by the Act."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 51, line 37, at end, insert 'for securing to existing officers until they begin to receive remuneration under the provisions of this Act the like remuneration as they would have received if this Act had not passed."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 51, line 38, after 'for' insert 'regulating."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
1084
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 53, line 1, after 'councils' insert 'or guardians."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 54, line 6, at end, insert the expression "county at large" shall include "riding at large."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 54, line 12, at end, insert 'the expression "presentment sessions" includes road sessions and special road sessions."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 54, line 14, after 'jury' insert 'and presentment sessions."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 54, line 23, at end, insert 'the expression "judge or assize" shall, as respects the county of Dublin, or the county of the city of Dublin, mean the high court or any judge thereof."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 54, line 32, at end, insert 'the expression "maintenance," when used in relation to any road or public work, includes the reasonable improvement and enlargement of such road or work."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 55, line 25, to leave out 'day appointed' and insert 'appointed day."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 56, line 10, at end, insert 'the expression "Pensionable office" means an office coming within the provisions of any Act authorizing the grant of a superannuation allowance."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
1085
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 56, line 10, at end, to insert—
The expression 'Dublin Metropolis Police Acts' means the Acts specified in Part V. of the first schedule to this Act; each of the Acts relating to the Dublin collection of rates specified in Part IV. of the first schedule to this Act is in this Act referred to by the short title in that schedule mentioned."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 56, line 18, to leave out from the first 'mentioned' to end of line 19."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 56, line 29, at end, to insert—
The Order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council relating to the division of Tipperary maybe varied by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, so as to bring the same into conformity with this Act and with the Orders in Council made in pursuance of this Act, but otherwise shall continue in force."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 56, line 31, after 'council' insert 'or county court."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, line 7, to leave out 'seven' and insert 'fourteen."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, line 9, at beginning of line, insert 'the foregoing provisions of."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, line 10, at end, add—
The Local Government Board in the case of the first election—(a) may give a direction under this Act with respect to a district electoral division not being a polling district, although there is no representation made by the county council; and (b) if of opinion that any district electoral division ought to be divided, may allow more than one councilor
1086
to be elected for that division, and in that case each elector in that division shall at the first election have one vote, and no more, for each of any number of persons not exceeding the number of councilors authorized by the Board to be elected for that division.
A poor law electoral division as adopted in fact for the purpose of registration in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight shall be deemed to have been legally so adopted, and shall, except so far as the Local Government Board otherwise direct, be a district electoral division for the purpose of election of county and rural district councilors and guardians at the first election under this Act."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, lines 13 and 14, leave out 'twenty-fifth day of November' and insert 'fifteenth day of January."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, line 14, after 'and' insert 'except in the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, line 16, after 'day' insert 'next after the day."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, leave out lines 18 and 19."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, line 19, at end, add—
Provided also that members of joint boards shall not be disqualified from sitting on such boards by reason of their ceasing to be members of the constituent authorities which they have up to the twenty-fourth day of November next represented, but shall remain in office until the termination of the term for which they were originally appointed to serve on such boards."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§ MR. PLUNKETTI move this Amendment in order to get an explanation from the Government as to the effect of the interregnum between the termination of the old Act and the commencement of the new.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThese gentlemen are not disqualified.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, line 20, after 'county' insert 'other than a county borough."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, line 20, after 'assizes' insert 'or in the county of Dublin at the Easter presenting term."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, line 21, after 'choose' insert 'or appoint a committee to choose."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, line 30, leave out from 'shall' to their in line 31, and insert 'at."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 57, line 39, after 'chosen' insert 'and additional councilors so chosen or appointed shall also be additional guardians."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 58, line 1, after 'this' insert 'part of this."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 58, line 15, leave out 'existing."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 58, line 16, to leave out the words 'county solicitors."—(Mr. Flynn.)
§
Question proposed—
That the words 'county solicitors' stand part of the Bill.
§ MR. FLYNNI have no objection whatever to properly and fairly observing the interests of exercising officers where they are interfered with, by the Bill, but I certainly do object to treating the county solicitors as entitled in any way to compensation. I should like to hear what justification the right honourable Gentleman can suggest.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURWe have simply followed the precedent of the English Act.
§ MR. CREAN (Queen's Co., Ossory)I do not think it is sufficient justification to say that a similar provision is in the English Act. There may be circumstances which make it justifiable in an English Act which do not apply to Ireland at all. I sincerely hope the Government will give way in this matter. We have let a number of matters go by without opposition, although as to some of them we have felt rather strongly, but in this case I can conceive no justification for including such an official as the county solicitor.
§ MR. JORDANI suppose that in a case where a man has not been six months in office he will be entitled to compensation.
§ MR. ATKINSONThere is a proviso that the officials shall have held office for a given time. In the English Act the matter is dealt with in exactly the same manner. As honourable Members know, the remuneration of the county solicitors is very small. Compensation is provided under section 120 of the English Act, and it would be very hard to say that in such a matter as this Irish officials should be treated differently from English officials.
§ MR. DALYI think the right honourable Gentleman is scarcely consistent. The section of the Act that he referred to provided for superannuation to the coroner, and, as the right honourable Gentleman himself pointed out, the coroner does not give the whole of his time to his duties.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe coroner is not affected under this clause. Clause 120 of the English Act which is scheduled to this Act gives the compensation.
§ MR. DALYI hope the Government will not persist in objecting to this Amendment. We have been going very smoothly up to the present point, and I think we deserve some concession from the Government upon a matter on which we have formed a pretty strong conclusion.
§ MR. MURNAGHANI certainly shall insist on taking the Division upon this question, because we have really had no justification from the Government for allowing compensation to this official.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURSub-section 8 provides for the case of existing officials.
§ MR. ATKINSONSub-section 8 provides for the transfer of duties, and subsection 11 provides for compensation.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI really think that this is not a matter that is worth fighting about. The question is an extremely small one, and, as a matter of fact, we all know that these gentlemen are never removed from their offices at present, so that if they are disturbed by reason of this Act, it seems to me that they are entitled to compensation.
§ MR. PINKERTONThe only argument in defence of this provision is based on the English Act. That, after all, is not a very conclusive argument. I would point out that, as the Bill was originally introduced, it did not contain a provision for the county solicitors.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 36.—(Division List No. 224.)
1091| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Arnold, Alfred | Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. | Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. | Loder, Gerald Walter E. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finch, George H. | Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r) | Finlay, Sir Robert B. | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Fisher, William Hayes | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller |
| Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hunts) | Folkestone, Viscount | Lorne, Marquess of |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. | Gedge, Sydney | Lucas-Shadwell, William |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) | Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Macartney, W. G. Ellison |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Godson, Sir Augustus F. | Maclure, Sir John William |
| Bethell, Commander | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Graham, Henry Robert | Milton, Viscount |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Gray, Ernest (W. Ham) | Moon, Edward Robert P. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) | More, Robert Jasper |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. | Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.) |
| Carlile, William Walter | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) | Hardy, Laurence | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.) | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Murray, C. J. (Coventry) |
| Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) | Haslett, Sir James Horner | Newdigate, Francis A. |
| Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. | Hayden, John Patrick | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Helder, Augustus | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. | Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Howell, William Tudor | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Charrington, Spencer | Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil | Parnell, John Howard |
| Chelsea, Viscount | Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C. |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Kemp, George | Pollock, Harry Frederick |
| Colomb, Sir John C. R. | Lafone, Alfred | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E. |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Purvis, Robert |
| Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. | Lawrence Sir E. Durning- (Corn.) | Pym, C. Guy |
| Cox, Robert | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) | Renshaw, Charles Bine |
| Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) | Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead) | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs) | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. |
| Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T. | Sturt, Hon. Humphry N. | Williams J. Powell (Birm.) |
| Robertson, H. (Hackney) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Round, James | Thornton, Percy M. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Tomlinson, W. E. Murray | Wyndham, George |
| Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | Valentia, Viscount | Young, Comm. (Berks, E.) |
| Saunderson, Colonel E. J. | Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent) | |
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Waring, Colonel Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Stanley, Lord (Lancs) | Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.) | |
| Stanley, E. J. (Somerset) | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Hammond, John (Carlow) | Maddison, Fred. |
| Billson, Alfred | Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- | Mandeville, J. Francis |
| Brigg, John | Healy, T. M. (N. Louth) | Molloy, Bernard Charles |
| Caldwell, James | Horniman, Frederick John | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) |
| Carvill, Patrick G. H. | Joicey, Sir James | Murnaghan, George |
| Colville, John | Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jordan, Jeremiah | Pinkerton, John |
| Daly, James | Knox, Edmund Francis V. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Dillon, John | Leuty, Thomas Richmond | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Macaleese, Daniel | Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu's C.) | |
| Field, William (Dublin) | MacNeill, John Gordon S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Flynn and Mr. Crean. |
| Gilhooly, James | McCartan, Michael |
Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 58, line 19, leave out 'existing.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 58, line 21, leave out 'who,' and insert 'provided such deputy.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 58, line 22, after 'office' insert 'and also any assistant to the secretary of the grand jury who has devoted his whole time to the duties of his office, and who has been employed in such duties for not less than three years previous to the date of the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
§ MR. FLYNNI hope the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. The assistants are not a very large number, but they have gained experience in their work, and I think it would be highly desirable that they should be transferred.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI am unable to accept this Amendment. An "assistant to the secretary" may, and mostly would be, a mere clerk deputed at odd times to do mere clerical work.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1092
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 58, line 23, leave out the first 'existing.'"—(Mr. Gerald, Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 58, line 27, leave out from 'urban' to end of line 28, and insert 'county district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 58, line 40, at end, insert—
And the former service of any existing county surveyor in any county other than that of the county council to which he is transferred shall, for the purpose of superannuation, be reckoned as service under that council; provided always that such other county or counties shall be bound to pay to such county council, by way of contribution to such superannuation, such sum as the Local Government Board shall determine to be the proportion properly payable by such county or counties."—(Mr. Pinkerton.)
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe result of this proposal would be to throw an unwarrantable burden on the county council, and I cannot agree to the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1093
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 58, line 40, after 'service' insert and the service of any existing county surveyor in any other county shall be reckoned as part of his service."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 58, line 41, after 'jury' insert 'or any existing assistant county surveyor.'"—(Sir Thos. Lea.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 59, line 2, to leave out from 'council' to end of sub-section."—(Mr. Flynn.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 59, line 2, after 'hundred,' insert 'and ten.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
§
Question proposed—
That the words 'and ten' be there inserted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 59, line 3, after 'then,' insert 'or at any time thereafter during the period of five years immediately following said last day of March.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ MR. PLUNKETTThe only object of this Amendment is to allow a longer period during which the secretary and his new employers can see how they get on together. I think it is a very useful provision, and I commend it to the consideration of the Government.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe effect of this would be that if a man did serve five years it would be impossible to remove him. I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1094
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 59, line 6, after 'abolished,' insert and such allowance shall be calculated upon the prescribed scale upon the number of years of completed service."—(Mr. Flynn.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI cannot accept this. The terms of the grant have been most carefully considered, and we must abide by them.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 59, line 29, to insert the words 'every county council shall within one month after its first meeting.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ MR. DILLONI understand that the right honourable Gentleman is prepared to accept an Amendment giving some time for the preparation of the scheme.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURWe should have no objection to six weeks.
§ MR. DILLONPerhaps the right honourable Gentleman will make a note of the matter, and have some alteration made in the House of Lords.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 59, line 11, at end, insert—
Provided, however, that such compensation shall be two-thirds, and in any other case not less than one-half, of the salary and emoluments then payable to or receivable by such secretary."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 59, line 12, after 'the,' insert 'expiration of five years from the.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 60, line 3, leave out 'deputy,' and insert 'assistant.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Amendment negatived.
1095
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 60, line 5, to leave out 'such,' and insert 'rate.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 60, line 5, after 'collection,' insert 'or the collection of other public rates.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 60, line 7, leave out 'new officers,' and insert 'officers not transferred to or previously employed by the council.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 60, line 8, at end, insert—
Provided that any existing poor rate collector of the guardians who shall express his willingness to serve shall be entitled to be preferred as an officer under such scheme."—(Captain Donelan.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ CAPTAIN DONELANThis Amendment affects a very large class of officials in Ireland. The present poor rate collectors under the guardians have been in the habit of discharging very important duties with reference to the Franchise Acts in Ireland, and they are therefore thoroughly acquainted with the preparation of voters' lists. Under the circumstances I think it would be of advantage if they were given preference in the selection of officers under the new scheme.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI think this is a matter that may well be left to the county councils themselves. They would naturally, I suppose, give preference to competent and experienced men.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 60, line 11, leave out from 'received' to 'a gratuity,' in line 21, and insert—
An existing officer (a) if he holds a pension-
1096
able office, and has within the prescribed time notified his willingness to serve, shall, if he is not continued by the scheme as an officer of the county council, be entitled to receive from the county council the same compensation under this Act as if his office were abolished; and (b) if he holds a pension able office, and has not within the prescribed time expressed his willingness to serve, and is not continued by the scheme as an officer of the county council, shall be entitled to receive from the county council a gratuity; and (c) if he does not hold a pension able office, and either within the prescribed time expresses his unwillingness to serve, or is not continued by the scheme as an officer of the county council, shall be entitled to receive from the county council a gratuity. Every gratuity shall be."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 60, line 13, after 'council,' insert 'or who, if continued, expresses his unwillingness to serve.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 60, line 33, leave out from 'hold' to end of line 35, and insert 'a pension able office.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 61, line 2, after 'union' insert 'or dispensary district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 61, line 3, after 'becomes,' insert 'in the opinion of the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 61, line 9, after 'the,' insert 'approval of the Local Government Board, any county or district council may at any time make a special agreement with any of their officers as to the conditions upon which he is to enter into or continue in their service, or as to the manner in which his duties are to be discharged, and any such agreement shall be binding upon such council and their successors, and upon such officer; and, in the absence of any such special agreement, then.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§ Agreed to.
1097
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 61, line 17, leave out 'salary,' and insert 'remuneration.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 61, line 18, leave out 'sanction,' and insert 'determine.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 61, line 25, after 'district,' insert 'or in an urban district out of any borough or corporate fund.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 61, line 34, at end, insert—
Any difference as to the council to whom an officer is transferred by this Act shall, in the absence of agreement, be determined by the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 61, line 43, at end, add—
(20) Every pension, allowance, or other compensation granted under this section shall be payable to, or in trust for, the officer to whom it is granted, and shall not be assignable for, nor chargeable with his debts or other liabilities."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 1, after the first word 'clerk,' insert the words 'or any other officer.'"—(Mr. Field.)
§
Question proposed—
That the words 'or any other officer' be there inserted.
§
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 3, leave out the words 'or incapacity.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§
Question proposed—
That the words 'or incapacity' stand part of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 8, after the word 'service' insert the words 'on the abolition of office.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 12, leave out the word 'Treasury,' and insert the words 'Local Government Board' instead thereof."—(Mr. Field.)
§
Question proposed—
That the word 'Treasury' stand part of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 17, before 'peace,' insert 'Crown and.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 22, leave out sub-section 2."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 25, leave out sub-section 3."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 33, at end, add—
Every existing justice of the county of the town of Galway, or the county of the town of Carrickfergus, shall be a justice of the county of Gal way or of Antrim, as the case requires, in like manner as if he were named a justice in the commission of the peace for such county; and the said county of the town shall, until any other district is made, form [part of the county petty sessional district to
1099
which it adjoins, or if it adjoins more than one such district, then of the district with which it has the longest common boundary and any such existing justice shall, except when at quarter or general sessions, act only within the petty sessional district of which such county of a town forms part."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 36, leave out the words 'if he were to retire on the appointed day,' and insert the words 'when he shall here after retire' instead thereof."(Sir John Colomb.)
§
Question proposed—
That the words 'if he were to retire on the appointed day' stand part of the Bill.
§ SIR J. COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)As I read this clause, it would appear that it is only those who are actually entitled by age to retire, and to retire on the appointed day, that will be entitled to superannuation. Suppose A and B under this clause have served their 20 years, and that A, on the appointed day, is 60 years of age, then he comes under the operation of the clause; but if B is 60 years of age on the day afterwards, he does not come under the clause.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that if it was the general wish of honourable Gentlemen opposite that 20 years' service should be sufficient to qualify for super annuation he was willing to make the change; but he certainly would not assent unless the proposal was generally agreed to.
§ MR. FLYNNThere will certainly be no general agreement on this side. So far as I am concerned, I should feel it my duty to go into the Division Lobby against the Amendment. I think the Government went far enough in the clause as it stands, and I hope they will not go any further.
§ MR. JORDANSuppose a young man is appointed at the age of 20, and he 1100 serves till the age of 40, he is then in the very prime of life, and yet you propose to retire a man with a pension, and set him free to take employment somewhere else. That I contend would be an enormous hardship on the ratepayers. If this Act is to contain so many provisions for pensions and superannuation allowances it will inflict an injury on the community rather than a benefit. It is our advantage to be as economical as we can consistently with the improvement of the country.
§ MR. DILLONI venture to rise only for the purpose of pointing out that it will be useless to go on with this discussion, because the Chief Secretary said that he would not accept this proposition unless there was general unanimity. It is plain from the speakers we have heard that, there is no such unanimity. I did not rise to express an opinion on the Amendment one way or another, but to point out that time is valuable.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe question is one of considerable difficulty. The clause is one of the most difficult in the whole Bill. It has been most carefully considered by the Government, and I hope the honourable Member will not press his Amendment.
§ SIR J. HASLETTIt certainly is hard that a man who has seen 35 or 40 years' service should be cut out from receiving any superannuation allowance because he does not happen to be 60 years of age on the day he is compulsorily retired.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXI hope the Government will stick to their own proposal in this matter, both here and in the other House. I fail to see why we should give pensions and superannuation allowances with this liberality to all sorts of officials.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 39, after the word 'misconduct,' to insert the word 'incapacity.'"—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
§
Question proposed—
That the word 'incapacity' be there inserted.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he could not accept the Amendment, which was inconsistent with the principle of the clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 40, after 'to the,' insert 'Acts and.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, line 41, at end, add—
For the purpose of the provisions of this part of this Act with respect to existing officers, the expression 'qualified for superannuation allowance,' shall mean qualified as regards age and length of service, and the devotion of his whole time to the service."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ MR. FLAVINinquired whether this Amendment would not result in excluding district officers from superannuation allowances.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid that the case referred to would be covered by the Act of 1889.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 62, after line 41, add—
The qualification for a superannuation allowance herein referred to shall be having had on the appointed day a minimum service of twenty years, anything in the Local Officers Superannuation (Ireland) Act, 1869, or this Act to the contrary notwithstanding."—(Sir Jas. Haslett.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 63, line 13, after 'irrecoverable,' Insert 'or from sufficient cause he has been unable to collect same before the appointed day.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 63, line 13, leave out from 'irrecoverable' to 'he,' in line 15."—(Sir John Colomb.)
§ Agreed to.
1102
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 63, line 22, leave out 'may,' and insert 'shall.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 63, line 24, at end, add—
Nothing in this Act shall prevent any high constable and collector or collector of a barony or district from collecting in like manner, as if this Act had not passed, any county cess comprised in any warrant held by him prior to the next spring assizes, whether he had lodged the amount thereof to credit of the county treasurer or not, and for the purpose of such collection such warrants shall remain in full force and effect for the period of two years from the date of their issue, and, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any existing Act of Parliament contained, such high constable and collector or collector of a barony or district shall, by virtue of such warrant, be entitled to enforce within the period aforesaid the collection of all county cess included therein by distress or other legal process, except such portion as may be dealt with as irrecoverable or uncollectable under the provisions of the next succeeding paragraph of this section.
Provided that if such constable or collector alleges that any portion of the said cess not recovered by him is at the appointed day irrecoverable, or from sufficient cause uncollectable, and that if this Act had not passed be would have been relieved by the grand jury from paying that portion, or that such portion, if paid in by him, would have been presented to him by the grand jury, he may apply to the county, council to relieve him from so paying that portion, or if he has paid it to the county treasurer, to repay him the sum paid and the county council, if it seems, having regard to the diligence used by the high constable or collector, and to the poundage he received in respect to the collection, and to all the circumstances of the case, equitable to grant the application in whole or in part, may so grant the application and pay the necessary sum as part of their expenses in the execution of this Act.
Provided always, in the event of the refusal of such application by the county council, the high constable and collector or collector of a barony or district may appeal from such refusal to the Local Government Board, who shall entertain the subject matter of such appeal, and make such order thereon as to them seems just.
Provided nothing in this section shall affect the right of the county council to recover such uncollected cess, or so much thereof as they shall deem fit, and all provisions in any existing Acts of Parliament applicable to the recovery of such cess by grand juries shall apply to the county councils under this Act."—(Sir John Colomb.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ MR. DALYI hope the Government will not accept this Amendment, because it is a matter which affects my constituency very much. I put a question to the Chief Secretary yesterday upon this very subject. At South Monaghan the collector has been in the habit of being in league with the landlords of that district, and has from time to time neglected to collect the cess upon evicted farms. The cess collector is also the poor rate collector; the same man collects the poor rate and the county cess. When a case comes before a grand jury of a man who has neglected to pay his cess, the common practice of the grand jury is to forgive the cess upon evicted farms. For this reason I object entirely to the first proviso in this Amendment.
§ MR. ATKINSONI do not think there is any need for this Amendment. Under the grand jury system the collector gives a bond for the payment of the entire amount that he has collected. The only effect of the clause as it stands is that if the collector has actually paid the entire amount, but has not succeeded in collecting the entire amount, he should be able to go to the grand jury, and ask them to pay him back such amount as he has not been able to collect.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLI think it is perfectly unreasonable, after sitting continuously for more than 12 hours, that we should be asked to consider an Amendment of this kind. I shall certainly oppose the Amendment if it is pressed to a Division. If I may be allowed to express an opinion, I think the way in which this Bill is being rushed through the House is turning legislation into a farce.
MR. T. M. HEALYI think those who have turned legislation into a farce are the gentlemen who were engaged all day yesterday in obstructing the progress of business. Coming to the Amendment itself, I think it is right that these gentlemen should have an opportunity of making a case before the county council.
§ MR. DILLONI cannot see the least objection to this Amendment so far as regards the first part of it. With regard to the second proviso, giving the collector power to appeal from the county council to the Local Government Board, I think that is rather a large order.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURMay I point out there would hardly be any appeal of that kind, because in all probability the man who did appeal would cease to be the elector for the county council.
§ MR. VESEY KNOXThese cess collectors are paid at an extraordinarily high rate, and I do not think a case can be made for any special advantage being given them. Under the third proviso, I am afraid that the barony collectors will be always appealing, and there will be endless trouble between them and the county councils.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 63, line 37, after 'effect,' insert 'as from the gale day next after the appointed day.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 64, line 25, leave out 'a person,' and insert,' an occupier.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 65, line 2, after 'rate,' insert 'of poor rate or county cess, as the case requires.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 65, line 2, at end, insert—
Where any change of the rent of a holding, whether by way of reduction, payment, or deduction, caused by the provisions of this section, would amount to less than sixpence, no such change shall be made; and where though exceeding sixpence it would involve a fraction of sixpence, then, if the fraction amounts to threepence or upwards, the change shall include the full sixpence, and if the fraction amounts to less than threepence the change shall exclude the fraction."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
1105
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 65, line 22, leave out from 'where,' to 'The,' in line 25, and insert 'part of the holding is agricultural land and part is not agricultural land, shall distinguish the rateable value of each such part.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 65, line 27, at end, insert—
Where the existing tenancy of a holding in an urban district is constituted by a lease of which not less than five years are unexpired on the appointed day, then, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, the rent of such holding shall be unaltered, but the occupier shall be entitled to deduct from his rent such portion of the amount of poor rate actually paid by him from time to time in respect of such holding, as he would have been entitled to deduct if this Act had not passed, or if he was entitled before the passing of this Act, to deduct all the poor rate and county cess, then the whole of the poor rate so actually paid."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§
Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment—
Line 2, after word 'lease' insert the words 'for lives or a lease.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ Agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Transpose clause 90 so as to come after clause 45."—(Mr. Dillon.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 66, line 10, leave out 'poor law auditors,' and insert 'officers.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
1106
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 66, lines 14 and 15, leave out 'poor law auditor,' and insert 'officer.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 66, line 27, after 'operation,' insert 'Provided that in that year the jurors' lists and books shall be made out by the same officer and in the same manner as if the said order had taken effect.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 67, line 3, leave out from 'operation' to end of line, and insert 'as to rural district councils and guardians on the twenty-fifth day of March, and as to county councils and urban districts on the first day of April, and as to all other matters on the first day of April.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 67, line 4, after 'or,' insert 'on.'—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 67, line 4, after 'day,' to insert not more than twelve months.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 67, line 5, after 'as,' to insert 'in any case.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 67, lines 6 and 7, to leave out 'provisional council or.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
Page 67, line 14, at end, to add, as separate sub-sections—
Provided that the enactments relating to the registration of local government electors
1107
or to the elections, or to any matter required to be done for the purpose of bringing this Act into operation on the appointed day, shall come into effect on the passing of this Act.
A reference in any enactment of this Act to the appointed day shall mean the day upon which such enactment comes into operation."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
§ Agreed to.