§ MR. MACALEESEOn behalf of the hon. Member for South Monaghan (Mr. DALY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Poor Rate struck in 1896–97 yielded over £50,000 less than the sum required for the maintenance of workhouses in Ireland for the year mentioned; whether he can state why the year 1896–97 was selected by the Government as the standard year to fix the grant in aid of rates under the Local Government (Ireland) Bill; and whether he will advise the Government to contribute to the maintenance of workhouses in Ireland on the expenditure of each recurring year?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe hon. Member has apparently forgotten to take the Parliamentary Grant into account in making his calculations. It is true that the poor rate struck in 1896–97 yielded about £50,000 less than what was required for the maintenance of the destitute and sick, but the deficit was provided for, as in every other year, by the usual Parliamentary grants for medical and educational purposes, etc. The year 1896–97 was selected by Government as the standard year, because it was the latest year for which the figures are available on which the elaborate calculations necessary in order to arrive at the amount of the agricultural grant are based. In addition to this, there was a further reason against selecting the year 1897–98. The intentions of the Government were announced a year before the Bill was introduced, and it was desirable to guard against the danger that Boards of Guardians, by adopting a higher rate than was necessary, might seek to obtain, in perpetuity, a larger grant than the union would be entitled to upon the basis of its normal poor law expenditure. I do not think, if the average of the previous five years were taken instead of the year 1890–97, that Ireland would have been a gainer. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.