Commons Sitting of 3 May 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair shortly after Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CROMER GAS BILL.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  CORPORATION OF LONDON (FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET, DEPTFORD) BILL.
  Amendment made; Bill read third time, and passed.
  BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICKSHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  WISHAW WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read second time, and committed.
  PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
NEW BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Rothesay, Weymouth, and Wood a Bay: Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury; Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
NEW BILLS
  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, relating to the Pilotage District of the Tees: Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury; Presented, and read first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]
  SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  BARRY RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL.
  Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CLERGY MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read first time; and referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
  Read first time; and referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  POOR LAW UNIONS ASSOCIATION BILL.
  Reported from Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 191.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 191.]
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

  COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tuesday next till Thursday, 19th May.
  BALLOT ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.
  To amend the Ballot Act, 1872: Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arnold-Forster, Mr. Lecky, Mr. Lloyd-George, Sir Lewis M'Iver, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Robson, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, and Mr. R. G. Webster: Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 195.]
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  To effect direct local control of the Liquor Traffic in Scotland, and other Temperance Reforms: Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker-Smith, Mr. James Campbell, Sir Mark Stewart, Mr. Thorburn, Mr. Ure and Mr. Yoxall; Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th June, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

  COUNTY COUNCILS ADVANCES BILL.
  To enable County Councils in England and Wales to advance money to local authorities: Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hobhouse, Sir John Dorington, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Humphreys-

  128C
  Owen, Mr. Channing, Mr. Bill, Mr. Brigg, Commander Bethell, and Mr. Lloyd-George; Presented and read first time; to be read second time on Monday, 16th May, and to be printed. [No. 197.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  To amend the Local Government Act, 1888: Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bigwood and Mr. Howard; Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]
PETITIONS.
  NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  For additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  ADULTERATION (FOOD PRODUCTS) BILL.
  In favour, from Driffield, Tetbury, and Northleach; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  Fox weekly payment, from Uxbridge, Wolstanton, and Fulham; to lie upon the Table.
  CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Against, from Peebles, Galashiels, Selkirk, and Dundee; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  Against, from London, Melton Mowbray, and Worthing; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation, from Glasgow, and Eccles; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour, from Aberdeen, Stirling, Newhaven, Whitehills, Paisley, Dundee (3), Glasgow, Lochee, and Biggar; to lie upon the Table.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  Of Kincardine O'Neil, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  From Ossett, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL
  From Govan, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Banff, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  For alteration, from Selkirk and Dingwall; to lie upon the Table.
  In favour, from Leith, Edinburgh, Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, and Hawick; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Rothesay, Barrhead, Ashford, Hull, Newhaven, Yeadon, Romsey, Dundee (2), Camperdown, Glasgow, Irvine, Edinburgh, and Reston; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  In favour, from Thornaby-on-Tees, Hogland Nether, Middleton, Leeds, Kincardine O'Neil, Friockheim, Cloughmills, and Belfast; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Forest Gate, Bevington, Maidstone, Accrington, Newbury, Weston-super-Mare, Mexboro' (2), Sydenham, Manchester, Wilsden, Canonbury, Stony Stratford, Oving, Mickleton, Danby Bottles, Long Eaton, Barnsley, Dorset, Bath, Chelsea (3), Norwell, Stanley, Masham, Heeley (2), Sheffield (10), Brinkworth, Fulham, Hereford (6), Brightside, St. Leonard's on Sea, Topsham, London (2), Bow, Kiveton Park, York (4), Lambeth, Winterwell, Whiteinch, Salford (2), Nottingham (2), Upholland, Preston (2), Ilfracombe, Newton Abbot, Ashburton, Rawmarsh, Halifax, Bolton, Hollinsend, Rochdale, Ramsgate, Castle Donington, Ripley, Hull, Jordanhill, Norwich, Exeter, Marylebone, Torquay (3), Leominster, Milnsbridge, Amesbury, Awsworth, Letton, Burraton, Bearwood, Thornaby, Morley, Friockheim, Dumbarton, Kincardine O'Neil, Stockton-on-Tees, Hoylake, and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  VIVISECTION.
  From Peckham, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Commission during the month of February, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUGAR BOUNTIES (COMMERCIAL, No. 3, 1898).
  Copy presented of Correspondence relating to Sugar Bounties [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2068 and 2072 [by command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPORARY LAWS.
  Register of Temporary Laws for the Fourth Session, Twenty-sixth Parliament, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, pursuant to Report of the Select Committee on Expiring Laws in Session 1866; to be printed. [No. 190.]
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS).
  Return ordered, "of the Accounts, as they are respectively made up, of the Metropolitan Water Companies to the 30th day of September, and the 31st day of December, 1897 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 366, of Session 1897."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
  On the Order for Second Reading,
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): I may at once say what view the Government take as to the attitude

  128G
  they should assume with regard to this Bill. There is a certain Motion down on the part of my honourable Friend sitting below the Gangway referring it to a Select Committee, or I should say a hybrid Committee. That instruction we shall undoubtedly agree to, as we shall also agree to the Instruction which he proposes to move, with it. Our reasons are very plain. There are two things which are wanted with regard to this Bill. We want a great deal more light thrown upon it than we have had at the present moment. In the next place we must show that there is complete agreement between the Irish Members sitting on both sides of the House and the Government, that, although we are anxious that there should be an alternative route of communication between England and the south of Ireland, we are also most anxious that that route shall be a competitive one. I never recollect a Bill brought before this House as to which the House was so little in possession of the real facts as we are with regard to this Bill. From time to time, ever since the negotiations began, there have been constant changes going on. Those changes have been going on even till within the last few days, and what is the result? The result, undoubtedly, is that we hardly know who really are the promoters of this Bill at all. We have got a shrewd suspicion, and more than a shrewd suspicion, that the nominal promoters are not the real promoters at all. Then, in addition to that, we do not know how far this Bill—which deals with a complete scheme, a scheme which would open out communication from Rosslare on the east to Cork on the west—is intended to be carried out, or how far it is the intention of the promoters to pick but parts of the Bill, with the object of later on introducing a scheme, not the same scheme that is in the Bill, but a scheme of a totally different character. Then with regard to those whom we know to be the actual promoters of the Bill, we, do not know
  128H
  how far they are working together. We do not know what their relations one to another may be. We do not know which of these two great railway companies is to, control the other, which is to have the predominant voice; and only recently, within the last few days, there have been various proposals made. One of these railway companies has proposed to buy up the Lismore and Fermoy Railway, and the other proposes to buy up the Waterford, Dungarvan and Lismore Railway. Therefore, we do not know how far they are working in co-operation at all, and, if they are working in co-operation, what their mutual relations are; and we do not know what their real intentions are with regard to the Bill. Under these circumstances the opinion of the Government is that this Bill should be read a second time, and that it should be referred to a hybrid Committee. That, so far as I can see, is the only possible way in which full light can be thrown upon the intentions of the promoters. I should think that everybody would be of one mind as to the fact that it would be a great advantage to the south of Ireland to get a company like the Great Western there. And on the other hand, with regard to the Great Southern Railway, what we are anxious to do is, knowing that they are the owners of the present road to Dublin, to prevent them having the absolute command of both routes. I hope, therefore, that the Irish Members will, one and all, support the Government, and show a firm front on this matter, which we all believe is one of very great importance to the south of Ireland. If the matter is properly handled, I believe that a scheme may be evolved, which would be a great advantage to the south of Ireland; and, of course, I should be sorry to say one single word which would in any way discourage the Great Western Railway. I would rather give it encouragement, and on the part of the Treasury we offer it that encouragement. We feel, as all the Irish Members feel, that this is such an

  129
  important matter, involving, as it does, so much of the future prosperity of the south of Ireland, that we ought not to be left in the dark with regard to it. We therefore think that the hybrid Committee, which the honourable and gallant Member proposes to consider it, would be the best means of obtaining the light that is so urgently required.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I have a notice on the Paper to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, and that being so, I naturally have listened with the greatest possible interest to the statement which the right honourable Gentleman has made. Speaking of that statement generally, I am inclined to say that it must be immensely satisfactory to the Irish Members who are interested in this matter to find that, on the main question which is at issue, the Government, as represented by the right honourable Gentleman, are at one with them. Under these circumstances I am not quite sure that it would be a wise course for me to adopt to persevere with the Motion of which I have given notice; but at the same time I must candidly say that I think the arguments which the right honourable Gentleman has just addressed to this House might all of them have been used with great effect in support of a Motion refusing to give a Second Reading to the Bill. At any rate, everybody concerned must admit that this Bill is one of such large and far-reaching importance to the whole south of Ireland, and the circumstances under which it has been presented to the House at the present moment, are of so strange and so extraordinary a character, that a full discussion, or at least some discussion at this stage of its procedure, ought to take place. I do not think that the interest which we all have at heart would be served by simply agreeing, without discussion, to the course which the right honourable Gentleman has suggested. I think it would be
  130
  well that the whole matter should be discussed here and now, so that everybody concerned outside this House may clearly understand what are the points upon which the Irish Members and the Treasury are agreed. If ever there was a case in which the inconvenience of discussing Irish private Bills in this House was apparent it is the present one, because the subject at issue in this Bill is an intricate and complicated one. There have been many and varied and ever-changing negotiations, spread over a large number of months, and with several railway companies; and although all the circumstances, or most of the main facts, at any rate, connected with this question, are familiar to the Irish Members, it may be truthfully said that those main facts are quite unknown to the general run of Members of this House. But it is essential, in my opinion, that the main facts of this case should be understood, not only in this House, but by the public outside, as soon as possible, and it is for that reason that I venture for a very few minutes to occupy the attention of honourable Members while I endeavour to state those facts. The history of this Bill is a most extraordinary one. There is, in the county of Waterford, a line of railway known as the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway, which was built a considerable number of years ago, and in connection with which there was a guarantee given by the ratepayers of the county and city of Waterford; and for a large number of years those ratepayers have been paying this guarantee at the rate of £14,000 a year, and I believe they are still liable for another 17 or 18 years to continue that payment. In addition to that, the Government—the Treasury—hold a mortgage of nearly £100,000 upon this line, and last year the Treasury determined, in consequence of the accumulation of arrears of interest upon their debt, to foreclose the mortgage and to sell the line. In conjunction with this line there

  131
  is another short line running from Lismore to Fermoy, which belongs to the Duke of Devonshire; and when the Treasury last year threatened to sell the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore lines, two rival proposals were made by two different railway companies to purchase these two lines, each of those companies undertaking to relieve the ratepayers of a certain portion of the guarantee, each of them promising in addition to provide a new and independent route—a through route—from Cork to London. This new route would manifestly be of enormous value to the south and south-west of Ireland, so long as that new route was one which would be in competition with the existing route—that is, in competition with the route which is run at present by the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland, and which now enjoys a monopoly of the route from Cork to London, and which, in matters of freight and matters of through fares, does exactly as it pleases, quite irrespective of the interests of the public. One of these rival proposals for the purchase of these two local Waterford lines came jointly from the Great Western Railway of England and the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland, and they proposed that the new route should be from Cork to Fermoy—over the two local lines in Waterford, and then from Waterford to Milford. This proposal when it was made public, though it received some support in the city of Waterford, and in one or two other places, was vigorously opposed in most parts of the south of Ireland, and it was opposed chiefly upon this ground: that it would not be a competitive route at all, but would still maintain the monopoly of the Great Southern and Western of Ireland Railway; and the upshot of it was that eventually the negotiations which were going on between the Treasury and the Great Western and the Great Southern and Western of Ireland Railways for the purchase of these lines broke down, and broke down quietly, because it was found impossible to obtain from the Great Western sufficiently satisfactory guarantees that under this proposed arrangement the Great Southern and Western would not have the
  132
  monopoly, and would not have a complete control over the new route. So much for the one scheme. The other scheme was put forward by a rival company, the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways Company, which also proposed a new route, which was to run from Fishguard to the port of Rosslare, and thus have a new line across a part of the county of Wexford to Waterford, and from Waterford, by the two local lines which were to be purchased, to Fermoy, and from Fermoy, by a new line to be built, direct to the city of Cork. In this case there could have been no doubt, at any rate, that the new line would be a competitive route—that it would be an alternative route to the Great Southern and Western of Ireland Railway, and a competing one. But what has now happened is this: that the Great Western Company and the Great Southern and Western Company of Ireland, having failed in their joint negotiations, have abandoned their original scheme, and have purchased the scheme of their rivals, the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Company, and now come before Parliament to champion the Rosslare scheme—the Rosslare scheme with certain very essential differences. They propose now to carry out the Rosslare scheme with this difference: that from Waterford, instead of going over the local lines in the county of Waterford to Fermoy, and thence by a new line to Cork, they propose to go from Waterford over the Waterford and Limerick line to Cork, running by Limerick Junction and Mallow; and in order to carry out this purpose, the Great Southern and Western of Ireland Company have entered into an arrangement to purchase the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway, and also the Central Railway Company of Ireland in addition, and the result will be that, if this new arrangement is carried out, the Great Southern and Western Railway Company will not only have their present monopoly increased and perpetuated, and, as I will show, safeguarded in such a way that never at any time can there be a competing route, because the new proposal is not merely what I have stated, but it is also to purchase the two local Waterford lines—the Water-

  133
  ford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway, and the Lismore and Fermoy Line. What for? Is it to be used as part of a new and competing route? Nothing of the kind, because I have been informed in the most authoritative way by the representatives of the Great Western Railway in England that they do not intend to connect the new route to Waterford city by a bridge—that is one end of the local lines—and they do not intend to join Fermoy to Cork—that is the other end of the local lines; so that these two local lines are to be left derelict. Why have they been purchased? In order to render it impossible in future for any route to be made which would be a competing route against the one which they are now establishing by the purchase of the Waterford and Limerick Line, and thus perpetuating the powers of the Great Southern and Western of Ireland Railway. If this scheme is carried out the monopoly of the Great Southern and Western Railway in the south and south-west of Ireland would be established for all time, and it will never be possible in the future to construct a competing route. The right honourable Gentleman says he does not know who the present promoters of this Bill are; that is a figure of speech. He does know perfectly well. They are the Great Western Railway Company of England. He knows that. The Great Western Railway Company are promoting this line; but when this Bill was introduced—this actual Bill which the House of Commons is asked to pass to-day—at the commencement of the Session, it was promoted by the Fishguard and Rosslare Company, and then the Great Western Railway Company presented a petition against it, and this petition, on which I might rest the whole of my case against this Bill is of the most extraordinary character. They say—
  "The proposed railways are quite uncalled for and unnecessary with respect to or for the purpose of either local traffic or through or cross-Channel traffic. The construction of such railways cannot be justified, whether with regard to the demands for railway accommodation or the probability of a remunerative return upon the expenditure of capital involved in the proposed undertaking."
  Remember that those are the words of the men who are now promoting this
  134
  scheme. What do they mean? Here by this Petition the Great Western Railway Company declares that this line cannot be made remunerative, and now they ask the House of Commons to pass this scheme. How are they going to make it remunerative? The only way in which they can possibly make it remunerative is by setting up this monopoly, when they will become masters of the situation, and when they can recoup themselves by increased fares and increased rates upon freights in Ireland. I might go through this Petition clause by clause, and rest my case upon these clauses. Another one says—
  "The lines of the proposed railways have been badly selected, and they are open to many objections from an engineering point of view, and otherwise, the crossings of the Rivers Suir and Barrow in the manner proposed are most objectionable, and will obstruct and interfere with the navigation of those rivers, and with the traffic thereon, and the proposed railways cannot be constructed for the amount of the estimated cost thereof."
  It seems to me to be a preposterous thing that a company, having presented a petition of this kind, should come round and actually support a Bill which they have denounced in that way. I have hitherto spoken of the general interests of the south of Ireland. There are particular interests also. There is the particular interest of the county of Wexford. According to this scheme, a large sum of money will be spent in improving Rosslare Harbour, and in building a railway from Rosslaie across the southern part of the county of Wexford to Waterford. Now, I should be very sorry to have anything to do with or to take any action myself which would be likely to prevent the possibility of a through route from Rosslare being created. My objections to taking that course would be justified by many reasons, one of which is of a somewhat personal character, and that is that the original idea of this through route to Rosslare was conceived and announced nearly 40 years ago by a grand-uncle of mine who at that time sat in this House as Member for Wexford. In addition to that I am bound to the county of Wexford by very close ties, and it would be impossible for me to take any action likely to prevent the creation of this through route. After all, the

  135
  predominating factor must be this: what is the interest generally of the whole south of Ireland? Then, with regard to Waterford, what are her particular interests? I say nothing now at all about the creation of a rival route there, because, so far as I can gather the opinions of my constituents in that matter, they are not afraid of that, and they do not desire to obstruct in any way at all the creation of this line from Rosslare. But what is their interest apart from that? It is proposed to cut Waterford off from this new route. The routes to connect Waterford with the new route at the Waterford end, and to increase her railways at the other end, are cut off, and no connection is to be made between Fermoy and Cork. Then there are the particular interests of Cork. What has Cork to gain from a scheme of this kind? I say that Cork has everything to lose. In the original Bill of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway there were three reasons in favour of Cork. First, there was to be a loop line to connect all the railways in the city of Cork. Secondly, it was proposed to give them a direct line from Fermoy to Cork. Thirdly (and this was the great reason), they were promised a route which would compete with the Great Southern and Western Railway, and would be an enormous benefit to the trade of their city and county. All these things have disappeared, and, so far as I can see, the interests of Cork must be strongly opposed to the passing of this Measure as it stands. But, Sir, over and above all of these individual interests and individual cases, must be the great interest of the welfare of the whole south and west of Ireland generally. This Bill, as it stands, only deals with one portion of this scheme of the promoters, and if this Bill were passed it would be necessary for the promoters to come to Parliament next year again with new Bills dealing with other portions of their scheme. I submit, Sir, that this is a matter which should be dealt with as a whole. I submit that the whole scheme of the promoters should be put into Bills and submitted to Parliament at the same time, and considered at the same time by Parliamentary Committees. What can be the case if this Bill is sent to a Committee? The Committee will be called
  136
  upon to express an opinion upon one portion only. The right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who, I think, is in general agreement with us as to what we want, seems to be quite easy in his mind as to what will happen if the Bill is sent to a hybrid Committee, and if the Instruction of the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite is carried. I do not entirely share that view. The Instruction of the honourable and gallant Gentleman is to the effect that the Committee is to inquire into any, or all, of the proposals contained in the Bill, and to report whether they are prejudicial to the creation of a competitive route in the future. If those are not the words, I think I have given the sense. But this Bill does not contain all the proposals of the promoters. It only contains one small portion of the scheme of the promoters, and it might be quite possible that the hybrid Committee would report that there is nothing objectionable in this Bill, because the Bill will be narrowed down to the building of a line in Wexford. There is nothing in this Bill to create a monopoly in Ireland, but they ought to know that the purchase of the Waterford and Limerick Railway, of the Central Ireland Railway, and of the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway, by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, is really an integral part of the whole scheme; but if they do know that it will be outside their purview. I say that all these things do point to the creation of a monopoly, and I am not entirely satisfied that the appointment of a hybrid Committee is the best method of protecting our interests. I take the ground very strongly that it is dangerous and unwise for this House to pass one portion of a scheme until it has the other portions before it. I think it is unwise for the House to let go its grip upon any portion of a scheme until it has considered and approved of the whole scheme. Now, it is a strange thing that we are asked to pass the Second Reading of this Bill, in view of the statements made by the Secretary to the Treasury to the effect that he himself is in the dark in this matter. In a matter of such vast importance as this every single item of the scheme should not only be

  137
  known to the Treasury, should not only be known to the Irish Members representing the districts, but should be known to the Irish public, and, should be known to that public in time to enable them to express their opinions before the matter is decided in this House. At the present moment, if this Bill is passed, we are taking a leap in the dark, and do not know where it will land us. We do not know what the gentlemen promoting this Bill have in their minds, and I submit that under these circumstances it will be a far wiser thing to postpone the Second Reading until the whole of the proposals are laid before the House. The plans of the promoters are changed day by day. Nobody knows whether to-morrow they will be the same plans that they proposed to-day or not. Only last Monday, at a meeting of Irish Members, we were told that the Great Western Railway were in negotiation for the purchase of the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway, and on Friday, when I called to see the Secretary to the Treasury, he told me that up to that moment he had received no such proposal at all. How can the House act with confidence in dealing with people whose plans change from moment to moment, and whose statements are of that character? You ought not to give any power of this kind on the faith of any promises or any assurances for the future. Their promises and their assurances should be in the Bill you are considering, and therefore I think it is unwise for this House to pass this Bill on the promise that next year another Bill will be introduced giving certain safeguards against monopoly. I find myself in a difficulty about this matter. I believe that the proper and consistent course will be to reject the Second Reading of this Bill altogether. The action which the Government has taken has placed me in a difficulty. I am convinced that the right honourable Gentleman is at one with us in our desire to prevent the creation of a monopoly in the south of Ireland. That being so, am I justified in refusing to accede to the course which he has suggested? I do not like the course. I think it is an unwise one; but if we accept it have, at any rate, this safeguard: that we have the public
  138
  pledge of the Government that they, as a Government, will see that this scheme is not worked in the dark, but that it will be fairly worked. For these reasons I do not feel justified in proceeding with my Motion; but I do say that the people who are interested in this matter in Ireland will look to the right honourable Gentleman, who has now taken a serious responsibility upon his shoulders in this matter, to see that he, acting for the Government, will prove faithful to his pledge, and that at every step of the future procedure of this Bill the interests of the people will be safeguarded, and that every measure necessary will be taken to prevent the creation of a monopoly which would be disastrous to a degree to the whole south-west of Ireland.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: My name, Sir, is the first one which appears on the back of this Bill, and to that extent I do not know whether to say fortunately or unfortunately—I am responsible for its appearance before the House to-day. And yet, Sir, I rise, as the honourable Member who spoke before me rose, in some doubt as to whether it is not my duty to the Irish public, and to the constituency which I represent, to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. That position will seem, perhaps, rather paradoxical to those who are unacquainted with the history of this Bill. But those who have followed the various involutions of its history will see, I think, that a Member situated as I am displays considerable forbearance in not taking the step which I have indicated, and in acceding to the course which the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury has invited us to take. I put my name on the back of this Bill because I conceived that it was a Bill which would doubtless confer great benefits on the people of the south of Ireland, and more particularly because I conceived that it would also confer great benefits on the city of Cork. The preamble of the Bill recites that it is desirable that railway communication should be established between the city of Cork and the port of Rosslare, and it was on the faith of the representation of the promoters that that was an essential part of the scheme that they received

  139
  support from me, and from other public men in the south of Ireland. The Bill now comes before this House after a change of promoters with that essential portion of the scheme dropped, so far as they are concerned, and the desire which they originally professed to connect the borough of Cork with Rosslare in the south of Ireland no longer exists. Sir, these gentlemen, the promoters, came among us in the south of Ireland pledging themselves to the establishment of this through route. On the faith of those pledges they obtained from me, and from other public men in the south of Ireland, valuable support. They obtained the support of the honourable Member for Cambridge, they obtained the support of the honourable Member for South Hants, and they obtained the support of the honourable and gallant Member for Yarmouth, whose public spirit in connection with this Bill entitles him to the thanks of the localities interested in the scheme. Furthermore, they obtained, outside of the support of Members of Parliament, the support of men like the Mayor of Cork, who spent himself night and day in order to preserve their interests, Sir George Courthorpe, and other public men in the county of Cork. They obtained that support, and they induced the public of the south of Ireland to interest themselves in their scheme. They induced the public of the south of Ireland to bring pressure to bear upon His Grace the Duke of Devonshire, to lend his aid to their plans, and to come into the undertaking which they professed themselves anxious to set on foot. They brought pressure to bear upon the Treasury to abandon an arrangement which they had publicly entered into with those two joint companies, the Great Western and the Great Southern and Western of Ireland. And here I will take this public opportunity of thanking the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury for the great courtesy with which he always received us, the great consideration which he always gave to the representations which we made to him, and for his evident sympathy with the object which we had in view, and for his desire to do what was best for the Irish interests and for the benefit of the south of Ireland as a whole. Having com-
  140
  menced the scheme in such a splendid way, I regret to say that it had a very lamentable catastrophe. Having succeeded in obtaining for the promoters of this line the support of, practically, the united south of Ireland, having got the Duke of Devonshire, at some considerable pecuniary risk, himself to give his support to it, and having induced the British Treasury to abandon an arrangement which they had entered into, these gentlemen, behind our backs and without one word of consultation with us, and without, from beginning to end, even saying "By your leave," or "With your leave," go over to the Great Western Railway Company of England, and have a secret treaty with them, and sell their whole undertaking. My opinion is that gentlemen who act in this manner ought to be taught a lesson. I think that promoters of an undertaking of this kind ought to be taught that they shall not be allowed to trifle with the public of these countries, and with a Government Department which watches over interests of this kind. I would, further tell them that the end is not yet. They have at present, by a private arrangement, involving considerable responsibility to individuals, by putting forward certain nominees in the interests of the Great Western Railway of England, made arrangements with the original promoters of this scheme to take over their interests. Well, that transaction, fortunately, has to come before Parliament for its approval. Fortunately, in all of these transactions dealing with railways and their transfer, Parliament reserved to itself the right of reviewing them, of considering them, and of claiming whether they shall be sanctioned or not; and I have to say, on behalf of the public of the south of Ireland, who have been practically tricked in this matter, that when these gentlemen come before Parliament to ask for Parliamentary sanction to this arrangement, we shall be there to scrutinise those arrangements and to see that justice is done to all concerned. If I and other men in my position—or if the gentlemen who interested themselves in this matter—had been gulled in the ordinary way by adventurers and undertakers, I suppose that the best course

  141
  would have been to hold our tongues and to bear our humiliation with as much dignity as possible. But that is not the case; we took all the precautions that reasonable men could be expected to take. This scheme was accredited to us by a Government Department, and the promoters had been invited to come to us and undertake this project. We did not deal with these people until we had satisfied ourselves that there were behind it men of substance, and, as we believed, men of honour, who were able to carry out the undertaking which they had set on foot, and who, we believed, would so carry it out. All I can say is that I am a poor man, and these men are rich men, but for all their wealth I would not be to-day in the position in which they have placed themselves. So much for the history of the Bill in the past; and perhaps I should to some extent apologise to the House for introducing into a Debate of this kind a matter of, more or less, a personal character. I would not have done it if I alone were concerned in it; but, in the interests of the many public-spirited men of the south of Ireland who have given their support to this scheme, I think it is only proper that on the floor of this House I should make some such statement as I have now done. That being the past history of this transaction, let me say a word or two as to the future. I will endeavour to sever this transaction from its past and to consider the proposals of these promoters in vacuo, as it were, and without any reference to the transaction which may well excite the irritation of my mind. Considering it in that way, and considering it as the promoters now put it before us, it proposes to construct across the county of Wexford a line of railway some 40 miles in length. Some people have said that it is easy to make proposals of this kind in a Bill, and that it is one thing to make them and another thing to carry them out. That may be so, but I, for my part, can see no reason why the present promoters of this Bill, if they do not desire to carry out that undertaking, should go forward with the Bill at all. It would have been competent for them, to use a vulgar phrase, to square their opponents, to sit down upon the concession, and to say:
  142
  "Now we have got hold of the Fishguard undertaking it is no longer a certain rival, and we will drop this proposal for a new railway in Ireland." As they persist in pursuing this Bill, I am compelled to believe, considering the matter candidly, that they certainly intend to carry out their project; and, believing that, I think it carries with it the further proposal that, having made the Wexford Railway, they certainly intend to set up a great main road between Fishguard and Rosslare. They have pledged themselves to us in conference to put upon the sea, between Fishguard and Rosslare, 20-knot steamers, which would be quite as good as those between Dublin and Holyhead. The position which I therefore have to consider is this: Am I justified in stepping in between the south of Ireland, and particularly the county of Wexford, and a large and beneficial scheme such as this undertaking would unquestionably be, simply because the past promoters of this Bill have dealt with the south of Ireland in the way which I have described? Reference has been made to the connection of the Great Western Railway with this project. I have no hostility whatever to the Great Western Railway Company. I believe, on the contrary, that the advent in Ireland of a great English company, prepared to spend its money in developing the railway and other resources of that country, would be a great blessing to every part of Ireland, and for my own part I welcome the Great Western into Ireland, and I only hope that other railway companies will follow their example. Considering, therefore, the proposals of the Bill as they now stand, and considering them alone, I do not think, although perhaps it would be difficult to show, that the city of Cork, which I represent, will gain any special benefit from the undertaking, still it is bound to benefit in a general way with the country as a whole. It will sustain, at any rate, no injury from the proposals which are involved, and I, for my part, if the matter stood there, would not feel myself justified in asking this House to reject the Bill. But the matter does not stand there. Unfortunately the Great Western comes before this House in very bad company. Of the Great Western

  143
  Railway Company itself I do not wish to say one harsh word. Of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland no Irish Member will ever say one good word. They come here promoting a large and important scheme; they will come next year promoting a still larger and still more important scheme, and it is a singular fact, but I believe that out of the whole 103 Members who represent Ireland in this House there is not one who will stand up and say that he is a friend of that company. If that state of things exists, it exists not because of any natural perversity on the part of the Irish Members, but because the management of the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland has been such as not to command the confidence of any section of the Irish public. That is one fact, but we have a further fact. The Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland comes before us as the allies of the Great Western Railway in this Bill. They intend, as we have heard, to come before us next year with an enormous scheme for swallowing up practically every rival line in the south of Ireland. We have heard a great deal of the disadvantages which result to Ireland from having a large number of small lines of railway, and we have heard a great deal of the great advantages which would result to Ireland from an amalgamation of those railways, and from putting them under one central authority. Well, my view of that subject is this: amalgamation of railways is good or bad according to circumstances. Amalgamate as much as you like, so long as you are amalgamating railways which are not competing with one another; but when you carry your principle of amalgamation to this extent, that you propose to amalgamate competing lines, and the fact of whose competition is the sole guarantee which the public of the country have for reasonable rates and proper management, then I say you are introducing a fatal policy into the management of Irish railways. Any considerable scheme for the amalgamation of non-competing Irish lines, would, I think, have the hearty support of all Irish Members; but when a company like the Great Southern and Western Railway Company comes before us with a scheme not for the amalgamation of non-competing lines, but for the suppression of all railway com-
  144
  petition in Ireland, then I warn those gentlemen that they have some very rough weather before them in Parliament when such a proposal as that comes before this House. The position of affairs as regards this great company is most remarkable. Their principal port is Dublin. Their next principal port is Cork. It has always been a matter of wonder to anyone interested in Irish railway development that this great line, having had dozens of opportunities for doing so, never sought to get into the port of Waterford. Yet for 40 or 50 years they have managed their affairs in that retrograde and unenterprising way. Twenty years ago they could have bought the Waterford and Limerick Railway for a song. Twenty years ago they could have bought the Great Central of Ireland Railway for a song. Ten years ago they could have had, for the asking, the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway. What has brought about this extraordinary change in the attitude of this company? All of a sudden, without one word of warning, this company, which would not for twenty years take a present of any of these lines, has become alive to the necessity for railway amalgamation, and they propose to embark almost millions of capital in buying up the Waterford and Limerick line, the Central of Ireland line, and the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore line. Why is this? Because the shadow of competition has cast itself in front of them; because the danger of competition has at last arisen, because the English railway companies have at last become alive to the possibility of assisting their own lines by taking some interest in, and by making some connection with, the Irish companies. The moment this danger of competition arises, the moment this company sees the possibility of any other line than their own laying their hands on any portion of railway traffic, that moment they abandon their traditional policy and make this gigantic proposal for swallowing up every line which has in itself the element of competition with their own. The circumstances of this proposal for amalgamation are most suspicious, and they will require the close scrutiny of Parliament. We Irish Members will deem it to be

  145
  our duty to watch these proceedings very closely indeed, and if any railway directors in Ireland or in England are so ignorant of what goes on in this House as to suppose that the Irish Members will treat these matters as merely in the interests of shareholders, or as merely in the interests of the railway companies, and that they will leave out of sight the interest of the country as a whole, then I tell those gentlemen that they are vastly mistaken. We will watch all their proposals carefully; we will canvas them and scrutinise them, and we claim from the Government of this country that they will not permit one of those proposals to pass except they are satisfied that they are for the good, not of the shareholders concerned, not for the companies concerned, but they are for the good of the Irish public as a whole. That is the position which I take in this matter, and taking that position, notwithstanding my original desire, in view of the conduct of the gentlemen who were first concerned in this scheme, to move the rejection of this Bill, I hold that the Secretary of the Treasury has taken a wise and prudent course—that it is a good thing that we should have an investigation by a Committee of Parliament into this question of railway communication and railway development. I think it is a matter for congratulation that we shall have these gentlemen before us on oath, and that we shall have an opportunity of taking down their words in shorthand and of reducing their somewhat nebulous proposals into a concrete form of clause and sub-clause. There has been a good deal of what I may call "in-and-out running" in the proposals of this company. The Great Southern and Western Company proposed to taken up these Waterford lines as a private undertaking. That is the first proposal. Then the Great Western and the Great Southern and Western acquire them jointly, and then there is a third proposal that the Great Western shall buy one of these lines and the Great Southern and Western the other. These involutions and convolutions are of a character which necessarily excite suspicion in our minds, and while I have said that I shall be very sorry to kill any scheme which has in it any germs of good for
  146
  any district in Ireland, I think at the same time we are entitled to claim that before any scheme of this kind is passed we should have an opportunity of examining the whole question and of hearing in a plain and downright manner what these companies really mean to do, and who will have the control when they carry their undertaking into effect. I join in what the honourable Member for Waterford has said as to the satisfaction which is felt by us that the Secretary to the Treasury, speaking on behalf of the Government, has taken upon himself a responsibility in connection with this matter. I welcome that fact with pleasure, because I think it involves this: That the Government as a whole, and particularly the Government of Ireland, will interest themselves in this matter of railway communication in Ireland, and will insist upon having competitive routes. I am glad of it because I think it means that they will not simply interest themselves in this Bill this year, but that they will interest themselves in a still more important Bill which will come before us next year. Welcoming the action of the Government as I do, I am forced to the conclusion that that action involves this: that when the Government invite the Irish Members to take a certain step on their responsibility, that we, as Irish Members, should at any rate take that course, and should concur in what the Government proposes. Therefore, because the Government advise us to do so, and because I think it advisable that all Irish Members should be as much as possible at one on this question, I concur with the action which the honourable Member for Waterford has taken, and I will support the Second Reading, of course on the understanding that the Instruction of the honourable and gallant Member opposite is proceeded with.
  MR. J. J. SHEE: I do not propose to detain the House very long, but, representing as I do West Waterford, I have a very considerable interest in this Bill, more especially as the city of Waterford pays annually a very large sum towards the guarantee which has been mentioned by both preceding speakers. In connection with the attitude which the honourable Member for the city of Waterford has taken in this

  147
  matter, I desire to say that I do not agree with the honourable Member that it is necessary for the House to have before it the whole scheme which is in contemplation by the Great Western Company of England and the Great Southern and Western Company of Ireland. The honourable Member for the City of Waterford has a strong objection to the carrying of the scheme which relates to the amalgamation or purchase, by the Great Southern and Western Company of Ireland, of the Waterford and Limerick Company, of the Central of Ireland Company, and of the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Company. That portion of the scheme is not now before the House, and when it does come before the House, as I anticipate it will do next year, it will be then for the House to deal with it, and I have no doubt that the Irish Members as a whole, supported by the Government in the matter, will secure the rejection of that particular scheme. My interest in this matter is an immediate interest, for my constituents have been paying for a long period of years nearly £9,000 a year, and still remain liable for a period of 17 or 18 years more to the same annual contribution. Therefore I am in favour of any proposal which will give speedy and immediate relief to the ratepayers of the county of Waterford and to the city of Waterford. I believe that if this additional part of the scheme be brought before the House next year, and if it do not receive the sanction of the House, then I think that the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway will, as the honourable Member for the City of Waterford said, be left derelict by the companies which now propose to acquire it. I have down on the Paper, in connection with this Bill, an Instruction which proposes to ask the Committee to which the Bill will be referred to insert a clause to provide that the proposals made by the promoters for the relief of the ratepayers of the county and city of Waterford are inserted in the Bill. The proposal which the promoters originally made with the ratepayers of the county and city of Waterford amounted to a reduction of 2 per cent., or £5,600 of the £14,000 contributed. As, however, I believe that the Treasury are bound by repeated pledges in this
  148
  matter not to let any Bill pass this House which does not secure relief, and considerable relief, for the ratepayers of the county and city of Waterford, I do not propose to move the Instruction, for I believe that this Bill, coming, as it will, before a hybrid Committee, will put the Treasury in a position—and will put Parliament generally in a position—to secure, if necessary, the revision of the proposals which were originally made by the promoters, and I hope that we shall be able to secure better terms than the terms which were brought forward last year. Since then, of course, a transformation scene has occurred, and the promoters who now put this Bill before the House are not the original promoters. I trust that the Treasury will see its way to secure relief to the county and city of Waterford from the entire guarantee of £14,000 a year, in consideration of the sacrifices that the ratepayers of Waterford have made in the past, because it was in consequence of their guarantee that this Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore line, which is the central fact in connection with all these schemes, was built, and it never would have been built if they had not undertaken to give that guarantee. For that reason I trust that when this question comes before the hybrid Committee the Committee will endeavour in every way possible to secure the best terms they can, with the object of relieving these ratepayers altogether of the burden of that guarantee.
  SIR R. U. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I came into this House ready to vote for the rejection of this Bill. I am one who has suffered, and is still suffering, from having been deceived by one of the companies more or less interested in the promotion of this Bill. I have listened to the explanatory, clear, and straightforward statements of the honourable Members for Cork and Waterford, and I entirely endorse the opinions that they have so fairly expressed. Those opinions are the opinions of those on this side of the House who are interested in this Bill. After, however, the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, I would appeal to the House to allow the Motion for

  149
  the rejection of the Bill to be withdrawn, and the Instruction of the honourable Member for Yarmouth, that it be sent to a hybrid Committee, to be carried. On behalf of those who are acting with me on this matter, and who have been alluded to by name, I thought it advisable that we should express to the House the opinion that we are entirely at one with honourable Gentlemen opposite in this matter.
  SIR T. G. ESMONDE: This Bill not only affects the county in which I live, but it also affects my constituency, which is one of the divisions of Kerry. I have, therefore, some reason for expressing my satisfaction with the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury. The right honourable Gentleman thoroughly expressed my opinion in this matter, and I think that in the transaction of the negotiations in connection with this scheme the right honourable Gentleman has taken a very friendly and kindly part in endeavouring to meet the wishes of the Irish Members. I should be very loath to do anything that would prevent the carrying out of this project—perhaps I should not say this project, but, at any rate, some railway project—because I am fully alive, in the first instance, to the very great advantages which would accrue to my own county by the construction of this proposed new railway, and also the very great advantage which would accrue to my own constituency in the county of Kerry. In the south of Ireland we very badly want further railway connections and further railway development, but this particular Bill or project has been brought forward in so many shapes, and promoted in such very extraordinary ways, that we are justified in feeling somewhat suspicious about it. The history of the proposal has been given, but I may perhaps explain how the proposal was submitted to us in the county of Wexford. First, we were told that an independent company was going to build a railway in Wales, and then start some steamships going 20 knots from Fishguard to Rosslare, and then construct a railway in Ireland. Then we were given to understand that the company had been adequately financed, and had every means and intention of carrying out the pro-
  150
  posal. The residents of the county of Wexford were induced by these representations to take up the case of this railway very strongly. Then, in some extraordinary way, the original promoters of this project disappeared, and gave place to the Great Western Company of England. Then things went on very nicely; we were very glad indeed to hear that that company was going to develop Ireland; but that company disappeared, and we were confronted with our friends the Great Southern and Western Company of Ireland. With all these changes the House will understand why it is that, while we are not anxious to prevent a proper scheme of railway development from being carried out, we are really desirous that the matter should be ventilated, or that it shall be put into the hands of a company which will do the work honestly, so that it may be the means of strengthening and developing the trade of the south of Ireland.
  Question put—
  "That this Bill be read a second time."
  Motion carried.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: After the speeches which we have heard it will not be necessary for me to detain the House for more than a few minutes, because I entirely concur with all that has fallen from the honourable Members for Waterford, Cork, West Kerry, and my right honourable Friend behind me. The object we have in moving for this Committee is to get a little light thrown upon transactions which are now so dark, and we feel it is important, because, as the honourable Member for Cork said just now, there has been a great deal of running in and out throughout the whole transaction. It is certainly true that one of the companies ran in and out by the promises which they made. The object of this hybrid Committee is to take care that the House itself is not run in to commit itself to a policy which will be disastrous to the south of Ireland, and it can, not be too often repeated, although it has been repeated once or twice, that there are concurrent transactions outside this Bill now taking place, which may warn the Members from Ireland as to what they may expect next year. The

  151
  Great Southern and Western Railway, having established itself in domination over the Great Western, is now proceeding to swallow up other railways, so as to complete the whole monopoly. This information is public property. It is known that they have offered for the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore line, and the Central Ireland line, and that they will be coming next year for the sanction of this House to those transactions. It is well known that they have negotiated and arranged for the purchase of the Waterford and Limerick Railway, And that they will be coming next year for the sanction of this House to that transaction. The object of this Committee is to go to the root of the whole matter, and to thrash out all these transactions which have taken place, so that the House shall be put in possession of the facts of the case as they are, so that, if this Great Southern of Ireland Railway Company comes forward next year with these schemes, the House will be able to deal with them as they deserve, and they will deserve, according as they come out from the searching inquiry of this hybrid Committee. I beg to move the Instruction.
  MR. POWER: I believe that I have a right to speak on this subject. I have sat for Waterford since 1885. I support the Instruction that has been moved by the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite, and I hope it is wide enough—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member seems to be under the impression that the Instruction has been moved.
  MR. POWER: On the point of the appointment of the hybrid Committee I should like to make a few remarks. It is not my intention to go through the whole history of this complicated business. The honourable Member for the city of Waterford, I think, has given as lucid a description as to how matters stand as can be given, considering the nature of affairs, because the affairs con-
  152
  nected with this Bill have become as complicated as those of the Far East. Representing as I do the constituency mainly concerned, I wish to say that I am glad that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has made the statement which he has, and I hope that when the matter comes before the hybrid Committee he will make the best bargain that he can. All Ireland is interested in this matter, but the county of Wexford, which pays £14,000 a year, is especially interested. We have paid £308,000, and we are liable for more—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is making a Second Reading speech.
  MR. POWER: Very well, Sir, I will conclude by saying that I heartily support the appointment of a hybrid Committee.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I am not entirely satisfied with the wording of the Instruction. The idea of the Instruction is, of course, to give an opportunity for a full inquiry into the whole of this scheme to see whether, viewing it in all its bearings, the scheme put forward by the promoters is one calculated to benefit the south of Ireland. I am afraid that such an inquiry cannot be made. One of the chief difficulties under which we are labouring is that this Bill does not contain the entire scheme. As everybody knows, part of the scheme is to purchase the Waterford and Limerick Railway. That is not in this Bill. That will come up next year in a separate Bill, and under the terms of this Instruction, it is an essential portion of the scheme of the promoters—namely, the through route over the Waterford and Limerick is excluded from the purview of the inquiry. Then I say that a searching and full inquiry will be impossible. I will not labour this point. I hope I have made it clear. The Bill does not contain all the proposals. This Instruction

  153
  empowers the Committee to inquire into all the proposals contained in the Bill, and will, therefore, exclude from the purview of the Committee some of the most essential portions of the whole scheme. Under these circumstances, I would ask the permission of the House to amend this Instruction. I am a little doubtful as to the words that I would propose, but if the sense of my words is gathered by the House, and if there is no objection, then it will be very easy to put the idea that I have got into more accurate words. I would suggest that the Instruction should run in this way—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they inquire and report whether the adoption of any or all of the proposals contained in the Bill, either in themselves, or in connection with the acquisition of other railways, would prevent or produce proper competition."
  Therefore, the Amendment that I desire to move would be, after the word "Bill," in the second line of the Instruction, to insert the words—
  "Either in themselves or in connection with the acquisition of other railways."
  *MR. SPEAKER: That would be an extension of the Instruction, and cannot be moved without notice. In any case, it would not be in order, because it would be going into matters altogether beyond the scope of the Bill.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members, five to be nominated by the House and four by the Committee of Selection. That, subject to the rules, orders, and proceedings of this House, all petitions against the Bill be referred to the Committee, and such of the petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their counsel, agents or witnesses, be heard on their petitions against the Bill if they think fit, and counsel heard in support of the said Bill against such petition. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records. That five be the quorum."
  Motion agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do inquire and report whether the adoption of any or all of the proposals contained in the Bill would prevent or prejudice adequate competition in the railway system in the south of Ireland, or in the system of communication between that country and England and Wales."
  Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  DISCHARGED PRISONERS' AID SOCIETIES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the new scheme for the organisation of Discharged Prisoners Aid Societies is now in force, and whether there has been any change in the scheme as embodied in the letter addressed to the Chairman of such societies by the Prison Commissioners on the 12th October last?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): The actual order on the subject has not yet been issued, but the new scheme will take effect as from the 1st April, and applications for registration and certificates have already been received from more than 40 societies. No change has been made in the scheme as embodied in the Commissioners' letter.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to page 55 of Mr. Merrick's Report on Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies, from which it appears that some of these societies pay a prisoner's fare home out of the gratuity which he has earned; and whether, inasmuch as provision is made by the Prisons Acts for defraying

  155
  these expenses out of public moneys, he will take steps to prevent such a disposition of the gratuities earned by prisoners?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Yes, Sir; this matter has been under consideration, and steps are being taken in the direction suggested.

  REDIRECTION OF PARCELS.
  MR. J. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the grounds on which a parcel on which 10½d. had been paid was redirected from the House of Commons to Eaton Square free of charge, but when redirected from the House of Commons to the Grand Hotel, Charing Cross (about one-third of the distance to Eaton Square) was held liable to an additional charge of 10½d.; whether, down to 31st May, 1892, when the existing regulations on the subject came into force, parcels, in common with other postal packets, were redirected from one point to another within the metropolis free of charge; and whether he will, having regard to the amount of profit to the Department produced by the present rule, as compared with the inconvenience to the public, restore the old rule, and concede once more the free redirection of parcels within the metropolitan postal district?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): As Eaton Square and the House of Commons are both served from the same parcel delivery office, a parcel under the rule, addressed to one of the places would be redirected without charge to the other. As the Grand Hotel is in the Western Central and the House of Commons in the South Western District, and the two places are served from different offices, a parcel redirected from one of the places to the other would be
  156
  rightly charged additional postage. The reason of the rule is that redirection from one district to another involves a practically new dispatch and possibly additional railway charges. Up to the end of May, 1892, parcels were redirected free from any part of London to any other. In 1892, however, the regulations for redirection of all postal packets were reconsidered, and parcels were treated differently from other postal packets on account of the greater facility with which the charge could be collected, and because on them alone the railway charges are calculated for each particular packet. The Postmaster General is not at the present time prepared to modify the existing regulations so as to admit of parcels being redirected without charge from one part of London to another.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Will the right honourable Gentleman make London one postal delivery so far as parcels are concerned?
  MR. HANBURY: No, I do not see why that should be done.

  LAND ASSESSMENT DEFAULTERS IN MADRAS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the number of defaulters in the Presidency of Madras, in addition to the 56,648 whose lands were sold for non-payment of land assessment in the seven years 1887–94, whose personal property was sold for the same reason in those seven years; whether the Madras land revenue returns for the years 1894–5 and 1895–6 have yet been received at the India Office, and whether they contain this information; and, if so, can he state the number of cultivators whose land or personal property was sold for non-payment of assessment in those two years, and also in the previous seven years; whether he can state the proportion of

  157
  land sold for non-payment of assessment which was bought in by Government, and what was bought by other persons respectively, and whether the former amounts to more than 44 per cent.; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the last Report received from the Madras Government relating to land revenue affairs?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The number of defaulters, whose personal property was sold for nonpayment of land revenue in Madras during the seven years 1887–94, was on the average of those years 7,967 in each year, out of a total number of more than three million holdings under Government besides a very large number under Zemindars. The reports do not specify whether these defaulters were in addition to the defaulters whose land was sold. The Madras revenue returns for 1894–95 and 1895–96 have been received; and they give the numbers of defaulters whose real property and personal property was sold for arrears of land revenue. If the terms "land" and "real property" are assumed for this purpose to be convertible, then the figures are—

  Seven years.

  Two years.

  1887–94

  1894–96

  Defaulters whose land was sold

  56,648

  14,411

  Defaulters whose personal property was sold

  55,772

  6,717

  During the nine years to which the foregoing figures relate the proportion of defaulters' lands bought in by Government was between 44 and 45 per cent.; and the proportion bought in by other persons was between 55 and 56. Copies of the Madras land revenue reports for the years 1894–95 and 1895–96 can be furnished to the honourable Member if he wishes for them. I do not propose to lay them on the Table.

  SAFETY RAILS FOR FISHING BOATS.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been
  158
  drawn to the case of the Peterhead fishing boat Try Again, which put into Buckie Harbour on the 14th instant, having lost four of her crew who were washed overboard; whether there is reason to believe that this loss of life might have been prevented if the boat had been provided with safety rails; and whether he will consider the desirability of requiring the larger class of fishing boats to be provided with satisfactory safety rails?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Fishery Board that the calamity in question was reported to them, but no reference was made to the question of safety rails. The Board, however, have repeatedly drawn attention to the extreme desirability of providing such rails, and at the beginning of this year issued a notice to owners and masters of deep-sea fishing-boats calling their attention to this important matter.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the desirability of largely reducing the number of officers in the Royal Irish Constabulary and place either head constables or senior sergeants in charge of the less important districts, now in charge of district inspectors, and thus give the men of the force a better chance of promotion in a reasonable time, and also effect a further considerable saving to the revenue?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am not prepared to say that the number of officers at present in the Royal Irish Constabulary is in excess of that required for the efficient performance of the duties demanded of them, and it would not, in my opinion, be for the public interest, or for the good of the force, that any change should be made in the existing system of supervision and control. As under a recent Order half, instead of, as formerly, one-fourth, of the promotions to the rank of district inspector are given to head

  159
  constables, any reduction in the number of officers would adversely affect the interests of the deserving men in the ranks for whose benefit the change was made.

  NEWFOUNDLAND MISSION.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the object of the mission of the Newfoundland delegates to this country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The object of the mission is to discuss with me the Resolution of the Legislature asking for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the affairs of the colony.

  IRISH POOR LAW FINANCE.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how much the poor rate struck by boards of guardians in Ireland for the year 1896–97 was short of the amount required to leave the unions in Ireland out of debt on the 29th September, 1897?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board are not at present in a position to furnish information in reply to this Question, but a Return is in course of preparation showing the financial condition of each poor law union at the close of the financial year ended in 1897, together with the amount of rate assessed in each union for the expenditure of that year. Some necessary information has not yet been received, but it is expected that the Return will be completed very shortly.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: Will the right honourable Gentleman give a Return also of the amount annually expended in the year?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will consider that.

  IRISH COUNTY CESS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
  160
  land whether he can state the gross amount of county cess struck by all the grand juries in Ireland for each of the years 1895, 1896, and 1897, respectively?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The amounts of county cess levied at the March and July Assizes in the years 1895, 1896, and 1897, respectively, were £1,323,312; £1,280,577; £1,348,859. The amount for 1897 may be subject to some slight revision when the final returns shall have been received.
  MR. DALY: Was 1896 selected as the standard year under the Local Government Bill, because the cess was smaller in that year than in other years?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On the contrary, the figures show that the cess in 1896–97 was greater than in previous years.

  CUSTOM HOUSE WATER GUARD DEPARTMENT.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received the petition, dated October last, of the naval pensioners employed as extra men in the Water Guard Department of the Custom House, a copy of which has been sent him, and which was originally addressed to the Commissioners of Customs; whether it is a fact that the petitioners when engaged were told that they would be allowed to serve till the age of 65, and whether all other extra men who served prior to 1896 have this privilege; and whether he can see his way to granting the prayer of the petitioners that at the age of 60 they should be allowed to remain on land duty at a lower scale of pay until the age of 65?
  MR. HANBURY: The petition referred to was dealt with by the Commissioners of Customs, to whom it was addressed, and was not submitted to the Treasury. It was signed by 34 extra men employed on rowing and other water guard duties on the river in the Port of London, nine of them being naval pensioners. The rule directing the removal of

  161
  these men from the list of water guard extra men at the age of 60 was laid down by Treasury Minute in June, 1894; and 60 is a fair limit of age to which to retain men whose duties require them to row boats among the crowded shipping of the Thames in all states of tide and weather. I am not aware that these men were told when they were engaged that their services would be retained until the age of 65; and certainly no one had authority to tell them so. The other extra men referred to are, I think, those who entered the body of Customs watchers on its formation in May, 1896, and who were allowed—if their services were required and they were fit for work—to remain until 65. But all watchers who have been engaged since that date have to retire at 60; and the Commissioners of Customs were unable to agree to the retention of the water guard extra men after 60, either on water guard or landing duty. The memorialists were so informed.

  CARLOW DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the numbers he has mentioned with reference to the servants and attendants employed in the Carlow District Lunatic Asylum include all servants and attendants, male and female, employed in that institution, whether actually hired by the board of guardians or by the resident medical officer on their behalf; whether the names of 30 servants and attendants (28 female and 2 male) have not been included in the Return made to him, whose average service is about ten weeks; whether he will ascertain who was responsible for furnishing him with an incorrect and misleading Return; whether he will get a Return of the names and length of service of the entire staff of the institution on the 2nd of May; and if, after consideration of this further information, he will have an inquiry made into the causes or reason for so many servants and attendants leaving this institution?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The numbers mentioned by me on Friday last included the cases of all officers and at-
  162
  tendants who have left the Carlow Asylum since the 1st January, 1894, but not the cases of servants hired by the Resident Medical Superintendent on behalf of the governors. The fact, I am now informed, is as stated in the second paragraph. The Return from which the figures already quoted were taken was furnished by the Resident Medical Superintendent. The inspectors of lunatic asylums have called for the information suggested in the fourth paragraph. The consideration of this further information cannot affect the decision expressed by me on Friday last—namely, that I had asked the inspectors on the occasion of their next visit to the asylum to inquire and report whether there is any special reason for dissatisfaction on the part of the subordinate staff of the establishment.

  CONVICTION OF AN OXFORD SOCIAL DEMOCRAT.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a member of the Social Democratic Federation, named Thomas Partridge, has been sentenced to imprisonment for addressing a meeting at Oxford; that similar meetings have been held at the same place in Oxford by members of this body for a considerable time without any interference on the part of the local authorities; and that the disturbance on the occasion which led to Partridge's prosecution was mainly due to the opposition of a dissenting body of youths; whether he is aware that Partridge has been sentenced to a month's imprisonment as a result of this disorder arising out of the opposition to the meeting which he addressed; and that other meetings have been tolerated by the local police in the same place; and whether the Home Secretary will take into consideration the case of Mr. Partridge, and consider the expediency of his release?
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the City Court of Oxford, on 22nd April last, T. Partridge was summoned for obstruction and fined the maximum, 40s. and costs 16s. 6d.; and that the accused elected to go to gaol

  163
  for one calendar month, with hard labour; whether he will inquire whether the evidence showed that any obstruction was intended or took place; and whether he will consider the remission of the sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I had already made inquiry into this case. The prisoner was convicted under the Highway Act, after a long and careful hearing, and was sentenced to pay the maximum fine of 40s., with costs, or in default a month's imprisonment. He elected to go to prison. It is the case that meetings have been previously held at the same place by this body, but, as I am informed, the annoyance and obstruction caused by them had grown to such an extent that the Watch Committee were compelled to take action. It was open to the prisoner to appeal, and if he was dissatisfied with his conviction or sentence, that would have been the right course for him to take. Whatever opinion I might form of the sentence passed, I do not see my way, in view of this right of appeal, and on a general consideration of the circumstances, to recommend any interference.

  CUSTOMS COLLECTORSHIPS.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in inquiring into the case of the outdoor department of Her Majesty's Customs, he proposes to deal with the question of promotion to collectorships; and, if so, whether he will hear the case that can be stated by the outport clerks, superintendents, and collectors who will be affected thereby?
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that a scheme affecting the organisation of the Collectors' Branch is at present under the consideration of the Commissioners of Customs. In connection therewith, due regard will be paid to the interests of those officers whom it may affect.

  CATHOLIC CHAPEL IN THE DUBLIN MILITARY PRISON.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War
  164
  whether the present accommodation for Roman Catholic Divine service in the Military Prison, Arbour Hill, Dublin, was reported by Field Marshal Lord Roberts in February, 1897, as totally unsatisfactory; whether the War Office, upon receipt of this report, directed that a chapel should be provided for Roman Catholic worship; and what steps have since been taken to carry out this order?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): My right honourable Friend has asked me to answer this Question. Improvement is considered desirable in the accommodation referred to, but it had to be excluded from this year's Estimates in favour of more urgent services. It will be considered with next year's Estimates.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a communication was forwarded to him on 28th August, 1897, from the Roman Catholic chaplain of Arbour Hill Military Prison, Dublin, denying and disproving a statement affecting him in a Report of Colonel Garsin, Deputy Inspector of Military Prisons, to the War Office; whether the reverend gentleman demanded, that this statement affecting him should be withdrawn; and whether there has been any acknowledgment of his communication, or any step taken to secure the withdrawal of the statement in question, or substantiate it by evidence?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I will ask my honourable Friend to postpone this Question till Friday. I am not sure that the communication has not been dealt with by Lord Roberts.

  JUBILEE POSTAL REFORMS.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any steps have yet been taken to carry out the undertaking given last year that a house to house delivery of letters would be instituted in every part of the three kingdoms; and, if not why not?
  MR. HANBURY: It was expressly stated at the time the concession was

  165
  made that the work would necessarily occupy a considerable time. Arrangements have, however, already been made for bringing no fewer than 14 millions of letters a year into the free delivery. It was estimated, roughly, that there were only about 16 millions of letters to be dealt with. There is reason to think that this number was an under-estimate, and that the work of affording a free delivery to every house was greater than was anticipated last June. The work is proceeding with all possible despatch.

  INSPECTORS OF MINES.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to give the names of the six inspectors of mines who are to receive an additional allowance of £100 each per annum, and the reasons for such addition to their annual salaries?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The six allowances referred to have been assigned to Mr. Wardell, Dr. Foster, Mr. Hall, Mr. Scott, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Robson. In selecting the inspectors for the allowances I had regard to the special duties some of them perform, the specially large and difficult districts under the charge of others, and generally the length and value of the services they have rendered.

  SKIBBEREEN ASSAULT CASE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police authorities of Skibbereen have knowledge of a girl named Mary Collins, a domestic servant, having been assaulted (as she alleges) on the 20th instant by her employer; whether the girl, who was wounded in the head, was attended by Dr. Roycroft, and what was his conclusion; and whether the police have instituted a prosecution in this case, or intend to do so?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In this case it is alleged by Mary Collins that her employer assaulted her on the 20th April
  166
  by striking her with a whip. It is a fact that she was attended by the medical gentleman named, but, as the case will form the subject of investigation before the magistrates in petty sessions tomorrow, it is not advisable at present to make any further statement in reference to the matter.

  INFRINGEMENT OF THE FACTORY ACTS AT SOUTHAMPTON.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a drapery firm in Southampton, who, for working three girls all night, and for seven hours without an interval, were fined 1s. and costs in each case; whether such a transgression of the Factory Acts constitutes, as stated by the Mayor, but a technical offence; and whether he will consider the advisability of remonstrating with the Southampton bench of magistrates?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My attention has been called to this case. The women were employed for 22½ hours continuously, and from midnight to seven in the morning without even an interval for a meal. The only explanation given was that there was an urgent order, that the women were individually asked if they wished to work without an interval, and that they were allowed to rest next day. The same firm had been convicted last year of a similar offence. The fine imposed in each case was 1s., but, including costs, the total penalty was £2 17s. The amount of the fine is left by the Act in the magistrates' discretion, but I have written to them strongly expressing my opinion that they were not justified in treating the violation of the Factory Acts in this case as a merely technical offence.

  PROSECUTION OF MISS LOUISA BROWNE.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland with regard to the question of compensation to Miss Louisa Browne, who was arrested, imprisoned, remanded, and at last committed for trial, at the instance of the advisers of the Crown in Ireland,

  167
  on a charge of wilful murder, which the Crown have now withdrawn; whether he is aware that in the case of William Habron, who was convicted in August, 1876, of wilful murder at Whalley Range, Manchester, and sentenced to death—a sentence commuted to penal servitude for life—Lord Cross, who was Home Secretary at the period, on 3rd April, 1879, on Habron's innocence having been established, stated in the House of Commons that the Government intended to propose a Supplementary Vote to Parliament for the sum of £1,000 as compensation to Habron; and whether, seeing that in Habron's case the sufferings endured were the effect of a mistaken verdict of a jury, whereas the sufferings in Miss Browne's case are due solely to the action of the Executive Government in instituting the prosecution against her, he will advise the Government to consider the advisability of granting some compensation to Miss Browne?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I am aware of the facts stated in the Question in reference to the case of Habron. But the case of an innocent person like Habron, who was wrongly convicted, bears no possible analogy to that of a person like Miss Browne, who was arrested under circumstances of the gravest suspicion and discharged from prison the moment evidence was given to explain the facts which bore against her. I greatly regret that this lady, whom I believe to be quite innocent, has been caused any inconvenience or suffering, but an investigation was imperative, and the police would have acted improperly had they refrained from arresting her at the time they did. Cases of the kind occur frequently both in this country and Ireland, and there is no precedent for awarding the compensation asked for.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it the fact that on the third remand of this lady before the police magistrate her solicitor implored the magistrate to hear evidence on her behalf, and the reply was that he could not unless the Crown closed their case? Did the Crown refuse to produce their witnesses then?
  MR. ATKINSON: I believe that statement is an exact reversal of the facts.

  SANITARY CONDITION OF POST OFFICES.
  MR. F. MADDISON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state who is responsible for the supervision of the sanitary condition of post offices; whether the officers in charge of the buildings are not permitted to allow the local sanitary authorities to visit the premises; and whether he will direct that when the members of the postal and telegraph staffs complain of the inadequate arrangements made for safeguarding health in post offices, the local sanitary inspector or factory inspector shall be permitted to investigate the cases, being accompanied in the visitation by a member of the taff?
  MR. HANBURY: All post offices which are not provided by the department itself are subject to inspection by the local sanitary authorities. Crown post offices—i.e., those provided by the Department—are, like other buildings, the property of the Government, exempt from inspection by the local sanitary authority. The Postmaster General is responsible for the supervision of the sanitary condition of these offices; and by his direction the sanitary arrangements are under constant supervision by the officers in charge, as well as by the local medical officers to the department; they are also supervised by the professional officers of the Board of Works. When a sanitary inspector desires to visit one of these offices, the officer in charge is instructed to obtain authority for him to do so. Whenever the staff of any office complain of inadequate arrangements for safeguarding their health, the complaint is immediately investigated, and steps are taken to apply any remedies that may be found necessary and practicable. In the circumstances, it is not at present considered necessary that the local sanitary inspector, or factory inspector, should have further facilities for investigation.

  PLAGUE AT CALCUTTA.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any later information

  169
  than has been communicated to the Press respecting the outbreak of the plague at Calcutta; and whether, in dealing with it, every care will be taken not to excite the religious antagonism of the natives?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: My latest information regarding the plague at Calcutta is dated the 1st and 2nd May. The existence of local plague cases has, I regret to say, been placed beyond doubt; and instructions have been given for carrying out the preventive precautions prescribed by the Venice Convention; 23 cases of plague and seven deaths occurred during the last four days of April. I am confident that the Government, in combating the plague at Calcutta, will give due weight to the religious sentiments of the people, and will make every endeavour to obtain their co-operation.

  PRIVATE LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government have had under consideration the advisability of abolishing private lunatic asylums; and whether, in the meantime, a more efficient system of inspection and reporting will be introduced?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answers which I have given the honourable Member on this subject in previous Sessions. The question has not been specially under the consideration of the Government, and it is not proposed to make any change in the system of inspection. The Lunacy Bill, however, now before Parliament, would give the Secretary of State and the Commissioners increased powers over hospitals in regard to regulations and their general management.
  MR. FIELD: Cannot the Government take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the Lunacy Bill to make a reform in the direction I have indicated?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I do not quite gather what the honourable Member means, but if he will be good enough to look at the Government Bill now
  170
  before Parliament, and communicate with me, I shall be happy to give him information on any point.

  DUTIES IN RHODESIA.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any alteration has been made with reference to the duties on goods imported into Rhodesia; and whether the duties at present leviable are the same for all countries?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No Customs duties at all are at present collected by the Rhodesia administration. The only dues on imported goods are transit dues, collected by the maritime countries through which the goods pass.

  BOMBAY RIOTS.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the expected dispatch from the Government of Bombay on the riots which took place in that city in the beginning of March has been received; whether, if such a dispatch is received, he will state the particulars contained in it, especially as regards the origin of the riots; and whether he will place the dispatch upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: (1) The dispatch to which my honourable Friend refers has been received. (2) The Bombay Government are of opinion that the riots were not the result of political agitation, nor deliberately planned, but were merely a sudden ebullition of disorder among an uneducated and fanatical section of the community. They add that the leading representatives of all classes have exerted themselves to allay excitement. (3) The dispatch and its enclosures will be included in the next set of plague Papers laid upon the Table.

  UNIFORM OF THE CARABINIERS.
  MAJOR F. C. RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State

  171
  for War whether he is aware that the uniform of the Carabiniers has been already changed from red to blue, and is now to be changed from blue to red (serge); and if he will give the reason for the alteration?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The uniform of the Carabiniers was changed from red to blue in the year 1851; and the undress frock has now been changed from blue to red. This was done because it was considered necessary that, for service and mobilisation purposes, the regiments composing the corps of dragoons should have interchangeable uniforms. No alteration has been made in the full-dress uniform of the regiment.

  MAURITIUS GARRISON.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will state the augmented numerical strength of the garrison of Mauritius, which renders a general, adjutant-general, and staff necessary?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: As shown at page 22 of the Estimates, the garrison proposed for the year is stated at 2,733, an increase of 1,519 above those taken for last year. The force will by an early date next month be raised to 1,953. The staff at present consists of only two officers, the smallest possible for such a force.

  PHOSPHORUS POISONING.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an inquest held at Bow on Saturday concerning the death from "phossy-jaw" of a match dipper, aged 22, employed at Bryant and May's, and to the coroner's remarks upon the conduct of the manager of the factory; and whether he will consider if the time has come to prohibit the manufacture and importation of the class of matches requiring the employment of the more dangerous kind of phosphorus?
  MR. PICKERSGILL: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for the
  172
  Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report of an inquest held at Bow, on Saturday last, on the body of Cornelius Lean, lately employed at the match factory of Messrs. Bryant and May, from which it appears that Lean was poisoned by the yellow phosphorus used in the manufacture; that the factory doctor, who admitted that the death was due to "phossy-jaw," gave no indication of this fact on the certificate of death; and that the coroner commented on the apparent desire to hush the whole matter up; whether the factory doctor gave the notice to the chief inspector of factories, required by sub-section (1) of section 29 of the Factory Act, 1895; whether the occupier of the factory gave the notices to the inspector and to the certifying surgeon for the district, required by sub-section (3) of the same section; whether an inspector, or some person on behalf of the Secretary of State, was present at the inquest to watch the proceedings, in accordance with section 19 of the same Act; if not, did the coroner send to the inspector the notice of the holding of the inquest, required by that section; and, if such notice was sent, why did not the inspector attend; and what steps does he now propose to take in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My attention has been called to the inquest. The case was not notified either by the occupier or by the factory doctor, and the explanation given by the latter, that he was not sure of the diagnosis, appears to me to be far from satisfactory. In addition to the provisions in section 29 of the Act of 1895, the special rules in force in the factory require every case where there is any symptom of necrosis to be reported. The factory inspector attended the inquest and has visited the works. He reports that in other respects the special rules are well observed. I propose to make further inquiry into the case. No other case of phosphorus poisoning has been reported since the Act of 1895, and the evidence seems at present insufficient to justify the unconditional prohibition of the use of yellow phosphorus.
  MR. R. McKENNA: Has the factory doctor rendered himself liable to any penalty?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: That is a question I would rather not deal with offhand.

  PATENTS LITIGATION.
  MR. F. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the decision of the referee in the test case, Levinstein v. Meister Lucius and Bruning, for a compulsory licence, under setion 22 of the Patent Act, 1883, and which was promised on 29th March, in a few days, has yet been given?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir. The referee has recommended the grant of a licence on certain conditions, too long to explain at this moment, but which I shall be glad to show the honourable Member. I propose to act on his recommendation.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the existing regulations for the appointment of auditors or inspectors to the Irish Local Government Board, and is there an age limit?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under the 3rd section of the Act, 35 and 36 Vic, cap. 69, auditors and inspectors of the Irish Local Government Board are appointed by the Board, with the sanction of the Treasury. Auditors are required to pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners in certain subjects, which are set forth at page 114 of the 27th Report of the Commissioners. They must be over 25, and under 40 years of age when appointed. There is no prescribed qualification, or age limit, in the case of the general inspectors, but I may observe that five of the eight inspectors now holding office gave evidence of their fitness for the position when they were temporarily in the service of the Board, and prior to their permanent appointment. The qualifica-
  174
  tion of medical inspectors is laid down by section 3 of the Medical Charities Act of 1851. They must be practising physicians or surgeons of not less than seven years' standing.

  IRISH COUNTY INFIRMARIES.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he proposes to put down on the Paper his proposed new clause dealing with county infirmaries?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The proposed new clause was circulated this morning.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD VACANCIES.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what appointments have been made to fill up the vacancies in the Irish Local Government Board?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: For the reason stated by me on Friday last, I am not yet in a position to announce the names of the gentlemen proposed to be appointed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is that dependent on the secretary of the Landlords' League?
  [No Reply.]

  OFFICERS' CHARGERS.
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: On behalf of the honourable and gallant Member for East Bradford, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the new paragraph 613 A. in Army Order 41, issued 1st March, 1898, allowing all cavalry officers at Home stations on joining the Army the use of a troop horse as a charger on payment of £10 per annum, applies to all cavalry officers at present serving with their regiments, or only to those officers joining after the issue of the order; and if only to the latter, will he

  175
  state what valid reason there is against according to all cavalry officers serving an equal privilege; whether paragraph 613 B. applies to all cavalry officers serving with their regiments at the specified stations; and whether such officers transferred or promoted to another station or to England would have the privilege continued to them?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The allowance of a troop horse as a charger is limited at home to officers joining the cavalry after the date of the Order. The cost of extending the privilege to all officers would involve the purchase of a large number of horses. Paragraph 613 B applies to all cavalry officers at the specified stations, which are those in which it is difficult to procure horses. At other stations the privilege does not apply.

  BUNCRANA-CARDONAGH RAILWAY.
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether special provision was made in the contract with the Lough Swilly Railway Company for the advance of a sum not exceeding £40,000, for the purchase of land and other preliminary purposes in connection with the Carndonagh Railway Company; and whether, having regard to the fact that tenders cannot be received for more than a month, the Board of Works will avail themselves of those powers, so as to prevent any delay occurring in the purchase of land after a satisfactory tender has been received?
  MR. HANBURY: There is a provision in the agreement with the Lough Swilly Railway Company which authorises the Treasury to make advances to the company not exceeding £40,000, to meet certain preliminary expenses of the undertaking, including the purchase of land, before the company are required to issue their guaranteed share capital; but the object of that provision is merely to prescribe the order in which the respective funds shall be applied to meet the expenses, and it does not enable the Board of Works to disregard the previous
  176
  article of the agreement, which directs that—
  "Tenders shall be obtained by public competition for an entire or inclusive contract for the works, purchase of land, and all other expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by the Board of Works and the Company, in connection with the promotion and construction of the railway."

  GALWAY COUNTY AND DISTRICT COUNCILS.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of resolution from the Ballinasloe Board of Guardians asking for separate county and district councils in the existing riding of the county of Galway; and whether, seeing that the area of the county contains 507,774 acres and the population 41,524 inhabitants in excess of that of Tipperary, he will accede to the request contained in the resolution?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. The facts are correctly stated in the second paragraph. The valuation of the county of Tipperary is £682,681, while that of the county of Galway (including the county of the town) is £477,848. A large portion of the county of Galway is scheduled as congested, and I doubt whether it would be wise to divide the county into two ridings, and to separate the eastern and richer portion from the western and poorer part. The Galway grand jury have not, I believe, experienced any difficulty in discharging the fiscal business of the entire county, and I see no reason why a county council for the entire county should have any insuperable difficulties to contend with either.

  NAVAL WAR.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what arrangements he has made for the purpose of following the naval contest off Manila between the American and Spanish squadrons, with a view of securing naval educational information; and will he also state what vessels have been

  177
  relegated for duty for the protection of British citizens and interests at Manila end other places endangered by the war?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): H.M.S. Linnet was despatched to Manila some time ago. The Commander-in-Chief has since ordered the Immortalité to proceed to that place. Full arrangements have been made for the protection of British interests, and for the enforcement of the laws of neutrality in Cuban waters, and a man-of-war will be sent to the Canaries.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the right honourable Gentleman give the House any further information about the bombardment and destruction of Manila?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: None has reached the Admiralty.

  ILKESTON LEVEL CROSSING FATALITIES.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the inquests held on two children killed within a few days of each other at level crossings on the Midland Railway at Ilkeston; whether he is aware that in one case the jury added a rider to their verdict recommending the railway company to provide means for having the gates automatically fastened when trains were near; and whether he will take steps to ensure the better protection of the public at these level crossings?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: My attention has been called to these cases, and although the Board of Trade have no power to compel the company to take action, I shall be happy to communicate with the Midland Railway Company and see what can be done.

  SOUTH AFRICAN PAPERS.
  MR. J. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether further Papers on the affairs of the South African Republic, in continuation of [C. 8,721], will be circulated before the Colonial Office Vote is discussed in Committee?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: There are no further Papers of general interest.

  DOGS' MUZZLING ORDER IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to relax or suspend the Muzzling Order for dogs in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no intention at present to relax or suspend the Muzzling Order in Ireland. The results of its operation since July last, when it came into force, are very encouraging. During the half-year ended 31st December last, the number of cases of rabies was 162, as compared with 335 cases during the previous half-year. The figures for the first quarter of the present year show a still greater reduction, only 14 cases having occurred in that period, as compared with 150 in the first quarter of 1897. In these circumstances, there is reason to hope that a continued strict enforcement of the Order may, at no very distant date, lead to the stamping out of rabies in Ireland.

  CROWN LAW OFFICERS' FEES.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what sums were paid to the Attorney General and Solicitor General, respectively, for contentious Government business during the year ending 31st March, 1898?
  MR. HANBURY: The information for which the honourable Member asks will

  179
  appear in due course in the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1897–8. But I am unable to state the amounts at present, as most of the Departments have not yet furnished their Returns to the Treasury.

  NEW NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BY FOREIGN POWERS.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the special efforts being made by Russia, France, and Germany in new construction; whether he can inform the House of the amount of the Russian extraordinary appropriation for new construction during the next seven years, also the amounts to be expended by France and Germany, so far as they are known; when he proposes to take Vote 8 of the Naval Estimates, and whether he intends to introduce a Supplementary Estimate; and whether his naval advisers are satisfied with an Estimate of £6,288,697 for new construction in the present financial year, as compared with £7,191,043 voted last year, and £7,384,874 voted in the previous year?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: My attention is, of course, directed to the scale of new construction in all naval countries. I am not prepared to make myself responsible for statements with reference to the amounts to be expended by foreign countries over a long course of years. No change that I am aware of has taken place in the French and German intentions since I presented the Navy Estimates. From Russia an extraordinary appropriation has been announced, but what amount is to be devoted to what we call new construction is uncertain. It is, no doubt, a very large proportion. Our Press has contained very full statements with regard to German, French, and Russian proposed expenditure, with which, no doubt, the noble Lord is familiar. But this whole subject is more fit for Debate than for replies to Questions which must necessarily be incomplete. In answer to the third Question, I cannot say when the Navy Estimates will be taken again, but when they are taken Vote 8 will have, of course, the most prominent
  180
  place. With reference to a Supplementary Estimate, it is quite unusual to make any statements as to possible or probable action in this direction so early in the financial year. The fourth Question, as to the satisfaction of his colleagues with the Estimates, is one which the noble Lord must know no First Lord would answer, and it is therefore invidious to put it. As regards the figures quoted, the noble Lord does not compare like with like, as he adds original and Supplementary Estimates together, and compares them with original Estimates, besides giving an Estimate of £6,288,000 for 1898–9 in place of the Estimate of £7,688,000, as printed in the Navy Estimates.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Arising out of that answer, I should like to ask my right honourable Friend if in his statement on the Navy Estimates he did not say that £1,400,000 was to have been spent last year, and, if so, how he can count this sum both ways, making up last year's deficiency and also as new construction?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The noble Lord counts it the wrong way. He counts it in the wrong year. The noble Lord suggests, and it is not, I think, quite proper to suggest it, that in the current financial year we are only going to spend £6,288,000 on new constuction. He calls that the Estimate for the year, but the Estimate for the year is £7,688,000. That is the amount which we propose to spend, that is the Estimate which is printed in the Blue Books, and it is misleading to call £6,288,000 the Estimate for the year.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Arising out of that answer, Mr. Speaker, my Question was most distinct. Does my right honourable Friend wish it to be counted both ways?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No, I do not count it in the last year.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: It is counting it in the last year.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This Debate must be adjourned, I think, until the Vote comes on.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is it a fact that the three Powers named in the Question are constructing, or proposing to construct, 20 battleships during the next three years?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I cannot say. I do not think it is known how many battleships the Russians are going to construct. So far as my information goes, the Russians propose one, or at most two, battleships. Since that there may be more. How the fresh sum granted is to be distributed is not yet known.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Is it not a fact a battleship takes a year longer to build in foreign than in British yards?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  DECLARATION OF PARIS.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he can say if the assent of Her Majesty the Queen, on 8th April, 1856, to the signature by Lords Clarendon and Cowley of the Declaration of Paris, first proposed at the sitting of the Paris Conference on 8th April, 1856, and signed on 16th April, 1856, was conveyed by any, and, if so, by what document; and, if not, how it was conveyed; and whether the Declaration of Paris has ever been submitted to Her Majesty, or been ratified by Her Majesty, subsequently to its signature on 16th April, 1856?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The draft of the Declaration of Paris was received by Her Majesty's Government on April 7th, 1856. The document was submitted to the Queen, and Her Majesty signified her approval to Lord Palmerston in writing on April 8th. There was no necessity to ratify the Declaration, which contains no ratification clause. It was laid before Parliament by command of Her Majesty.

  IRON TRADE IN SWEDEN AND NORWAY.
  MR. G. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for
  182
  Foreign Affairs whether any Report has been received at the Foreign Office with regard to the recent development of the iron trade in the northern portion of the Kingdom of Sweden and Norway; whether his attention has been called to the railway communication about to be established between the Russian port of Tornea on the Baltic and the iron district of Luossavaara in Norway, terminating at the ice-free harbour of Port Victoria; and whether any Report has been received by the Foreign Office as to the probable diversion of British trade from the Baltic to the Atlantic seaboard?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Reports have been received from Her Majesty's Minister, and from Her Majesty's Consul at Stockholm, drawing attention to the development of the iron trade in the north of Sweden and Norway, and to the proposed construction of the railway in question, which has now been sanctioned by the Rigsdag. One of these reports was published in the Board of Trade Journal for April, and the two others will probably appear in the next issue of the Journal. Special attention has not been called to any probable diversion of British trade.

  SWEDEN AND RUSSIA.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to two statements reported to have been made by Members of the Swedish Parliament in the recent Debate on the Ofoten Railway—namely, that the district through which the railway will pass in Norway is inhabited by a Finnish population likely to appeal to Russia for protection, and that the terminus of the railway at Port Victoria is likely to share the fate of Port Arthur; and whether he will obtain from Her Majesty's Legation at Stockholm an authoritative account of the Debate, with special reference to these two points, and lay it upon the Table?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid that I cannot comply with my honourable Friend's request.

  183
  It would be a most unusual and an undesirable proceeding to lay before Parliament extracts from a Debate in a foreign Legislature on the political view which certain Members appear to take of a commercial undertaking in their own country.

  JAPAN AND THE CHINESE QUESTION.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any dispatches passed between Her Majesty's Government and Japan on the China question other than those between Her Majesty's Government and Sir E. Satow, which appear in the China Papers, No I.; and whether he will lay any such correspondence upon the Table for the information of Members; and, if so, at what date the Papers may be expected?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid there are no further Papers which, with advantage, could be laid.

TOURMALINE.
MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury with what offence the members of the crew of the Tourmaline, arrested by command of the Sultan of Morocco, are charged; whether they have now been imprisoned without trial for a period of over 80 days; whether, in accordance with existing Treaties, British subjects arrested for alleged offences within the dominions of the Sultan of Morocco must be forthwith handed over to Her Majesty's Consular Representative in Morocco; and whether the Foreign Office have taken any, and what, steps in accordance with such Treaty rights, if existing, to procure the liberation of the prisoners referred to from Moorish custody, or otherwise to secure for them a speedy and fair trial?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The action of the crew of the Tourmaline is regarded by the Moorish Government as one, not of smuggling, but of an attempt to introduce arms and ammunition into the country for the
184
purpose of raising an insurrection among the Sus tribes. The accused persons have been brought for a considerable distance overland by the Moorish authorities, and have been handed over, in accordance with the Treaty, to Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier. They will be charged before Her Majesty's Consular Court at that place, under Article 107 of the Morocco Order in Council, 1889, with smuggling arms and ammunition into the dominions of the Sultan of Morocco. Her Majesty's Minister has from the start exerted himself to procure the early surrender and trial of the prisoners, and has been throughout in constant communication with Her Majesty's Government on the subject.

TOURMALINE.

  RAILWAY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN BRITISH BURMAH AND CHINA.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the French Government have already completed their railway system in Tong-King up to the Chinese frontier, and have recently obtained a concession enabling them to extend it in Chinese territory, so as to tap the trade of South China; whether, having regard to the hindrances to which British trade with South China are subjected by the imposition of a heavy tariff on all British goods passing through Tong-King, and by the action of France preventing the opening of the West River to Nanning, Her Majesty's Government will demand a concession authorising the construction of a railway from British Burmah to the upper valley of the Yang-tsze-Kiang, in order to provide a commercial highway for British trade on which no foreign Power can impose differential tariffs, and by which British goods passing over a land frontier of China would be liable to much lower duties than if sent into that country through a Chinese seaport; and whether, with a view to thus connecting by railway two empires containing 600,000,000 of population, in the interests of British commerce, Her Majesty's Government will cause surveys to be made to ascertain the most practicable route?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. Her Majesty's Government are alive to the importance of the question of a possible railway connection between Upper Burmah and the western provinces of China, and when the Burmah line is efficiently advanced towards the Chinese frontier the question of surveys, with a view to possible extensions beyond, will receive their earnest consideration.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Arising out of that Question, may I be allowed to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, having regard to the character of the country to be traversed by the railway, and the considerable time which the survey to ascertain the most practicable route, will necessarily occupy, and having regard to the fact that the French Government have already completed their railway from Tong-King to the Chinese Frontier—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is now making a speeoh. If he wishes for information he must ask a Question.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I apologise, Sir, if I made a mistake. What I want to ask is, whether, having regard to the length of time necessary in making the surveys to ascertain the most practicable route, Her Majesty's Government do not consider it advisable that they should be commenced at once?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The difficulty of the country to be surveyed is no doubt an element of the problem which will not be lost sight of.

  MEMBERS AND DIRECTORSHIPS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that on a Privilege Motion which took place on Tuesday last 112 directors, holding between them 271 directorships, voted as members of this House to allow the vote of a director on a Motion directly concerning his company; and whether he will cause a list of those so voting to be laid upon the Table?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have no means of checking or verifying the statement of the honourable Gentleman; but, even if it be true, I see no reason at all why the honourable Gentlemen in question should not have recorded their votes in the Division referred to.

  ZANZIBAR.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any foundation for the report that the Government contemplate the cession of Zanzibar to Germany again?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have not seen the report. I confess it seems to me a very absurd one.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT IN DUBLIN.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state which of his colleagues is responsible to answer questions respecting the Science and Art Department in Dublin and primary and technical education in Ireland; and whether he can state if it is the intention of the Government to place those educational departments under Irish control with a similar system of connection and local management recently introduced with success in Scotland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Royal College of Science, Dublin, is at present a branch of the Department of Science and Art of the Committee of Council on Education. Questions relating to that Department are answered by the Vice-President of the Committee. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant will reply to all other questions connected with Irish education. The subject of technical education in Ireland has been engaging the attention of the Government, who hope to be able to deal with it.

  SUNDAY CLOSING IN IRELAND.
  SIR THOMAS LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the

  187
  Treasury if he has received copies of numerous resolutions passed unanimously at many public meetings in Ireland in favour of the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill; if he is aware of the strong feeling recently manifested in favour of this Bill and the disappointment that exists at the protracted delay in its passing; and whether he will therefore allow it to retain its position as first Order of the Day on Wednedsay next?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have received a very large number of resolutions in the terms referred to by my honourable friend, and I am aware, as he suggests in the second paragraph of his question, that strong feeling has been manifested in favour of this Bill. But when my honourable friend asks me to reserve next Wednesday for this discussion, I would remind him of facts which he probably knows, although the outside public may not be aware of them. In the first place, if next Wednesday were given to the Bill, it would not render the probability of its passing this Session any greater than it was before; and, in the second place, it is impossible to make exceptions of special Wednesdays in favour of a particular private Member's Bill without throwing the whole Parliamentary business into hopeless confusion.

  AMERICAN TONNAGE DUES.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the clause in the War Taxes Bill now before the American Senate, which imposes additional tonnage duties on vessels arriving in the United States, has been abandoned; and whether tonnage dues will now be levied as heretofore under the Act of 1886?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: So far as we are aware, no final decision has been arrived at by the American Senate on the shipping clause to which my honourable Friend refers. Though I am confident that the fullest attention will be given to the representations of the shipping interest, it would
  188
  not be fitting in me to anticipate the judgment at which the Senate may ultimately arrive.

  TELEPHONE LICENCES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to appoint the Select Committee on Telephone Licences, in accordance with the announcement made by the Secretary to the Treasury on the 1st April; and whether he is now in a position to state the terms of reference to the Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The terms of reference are still under consideration, but it is hoped they will appear on the Paper in the course of the week.

  COLONIAL OFFICE VOTE.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Do the Government propose that the discussion on the Foreign Office Vote shall be resumed on Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; the Colonial Office Vote will be taken.

  AMERICAN-SPANISH WAR.
  MR. O'KELLY: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have received information that the house of the British Consul at Santiago de Cuba has been attacked by a Spanish mob, and, if so, what steps has been taken to secure this officer's protection?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As far as I am aware no information of that character has been received at the Foreign Office.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Can the right honourable Gentleman say whether it is true, as reported in the Press, that the Government have received official information respecting

  189
  the engagement at Manila, and, if so, what is the nature of that information?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I gave a general outline yesterday of the substance of the information we had received.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Has no further information been received since?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; I think nothing.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee:—
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN OF WATS AND MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. DILLONmoved upon Clause 9, page 5, line 11, that "subject to the provisions of this Act" should be left out. This is an Amendment which I do hope the Government will see their way to accept. The object of this Amendment is to give to the county councils the power to appoint and remove the officers of the asylums. Now I must put this to the right honourable Gentleman if I am not correct in reading the Act; as it stands, in Sub-section 5, it is provided that, subject to the provisions of this Act, the county councils may appoint
  218
  or remove the officers of the asylum, but when I turn to see what are the provisions of this Act to which this subsection refers, I find Sub-section 4 of Clause 55 is to the following effect—
  "Where any part of a salary of an officer of a county council is paid out of money provided by Parliament, or from Local Taxation (Ireland) account, he 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; and for the purposes of this enactment, part of the payment to every county council out of the Agricultural Grant shall be deemed, to be paid in respect of part of the salary of the secretary of the county council, and of the county surveyor, and of any assistant surveyor."
  And then upon the next page, Subsection 4, Clause 56, says the provisions of this Act, respecting officers of the county council, shall, subject, as aforesaid, apply to the officers appointed under this section—that is, of course, under the licensing committee, as well in a county borough as in any other county. The grant paid out of the local taxation (Ireland) account for lunatics shall be deemed to be paid in respect of a part of the salary of any resident medical superintend ant or assistant medical officer. Therefore, as I read the Act—of course, if the right honourable Gentleman says I read it wrongly, I will not take up any more time—as I read the Act, in Section 9 you confer upon the committees of the county councils the power to appoint and dismiss the officers of the asylums; but, as I said just now, in Sub-section 4 of Section 56, by some curious kind of artificial arrangement, you take away that power from them.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member is not quite correct under Clause 9; the committee will have the appointment or dismissal of the officers, but subject to the provisions of this Act, which says, in effect, that any appointment or removal shall have the sanction of a superior authority—that is, as regards the medical officers, of course.
  MR. DILLON: That is to say, you take away from the committees of the county councils the appointment and

  219
  dismissal of their officers. They can neither appoint nor dismiss their offices without the consent of the Local Government Board—that is, if my view is right. I fancy that by some oversight you have drafted this wrongly. I think that you really meant to give that power to the Lord Lieutenant, but for the purpose of my argument it does not matter whether the veto was given to the Local Government Board or whether it was given to the Lord Lieutenant. I maintain that the committees of the county councils ought to have power to appoint or dismiss their officers without any veto whatever. I desire to say at the very outset that this Amendment of mine would in no way affect the position of the existing officers. It would simply affect the position with regard to the committees of the county councils and their future officers. Now, I will as briefly as I possibly can, place before the Committee the ground under which this provision in the Act is, in my opinion, improper. In the first place, I will direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has himself placed upon the Paper this morning a Government Amendment dealing with the matter. In Sub-section 5, in a new clause, he proposes to hand over to the joint committee as constituted, without any reserve, veto, or interference, the power of appointment or dismissal of the medical officers of the county infirmaries. I do not think that this Amendment will interfere with the existing officers of the existing asylums, but on what ground does the right honourable Gentleman justify his Amendment giving the joint committees the right to appoint or dismiss their officers without veto, while, at the same time, he denies that power to the county councils? I think a more extraordinary position was never taken up by him. There is another and, as I think, an unanswerable argument in favour of my Amendment. I turn to page 42 of the Departmental Committee which sat in 1891 for the purpose of inquiring into the lunacy administration in Ireland. It was a very strong Committee, and this question was taken into consideration by it. Speaking of the appointment of
  220
  medical officers to the lunatic asylums, the Committee says—
  "Under existing arrangements, the appointment of the resident medical superintendent is vested in the Lord Lieutenant. All other important officers are appointed by the Governors, but the approval of the Lord Lieutenant is required. We agree with the Royal Commissioners of 1858 in much of what they said in regard to these appointments. 'We do not see,' they say, 'why the Executive Government should interfere in these matters, or that its interference has led, or is likely to lead, to a better selection of officers than would be made by the local authorities. It is true that the election may tend to local contentions, and that private feeling may prevail to the prejudice of the institution. We think that there is not a little reason to believe that political influences might lead to an equally injurious result, if the appointments were left to the Executive.' They go on to say, 'It appears to us, however, that the Central Board (that is the General Board of Lunacy) had a veto on all appointments, and that the Executive should have a power of removal on their recommendation, founded on full investigation of the officer's incapacity or misconduct.' The General Boards of England and Scotland have no such veto on appointments, nor is there any interference on the part of the Government with the removal of officers from English and Scotch asylums. These appointments are left in the hands of the local boards, and the outcome is believed to be on the whole satisfactory. Contests for appointments are keen, but the best men are usually chosen. The consciousness of responsibility leads generally to the preference of merit to other considerations. So far as Scotland is concerned, the advice of the General Board is often asked, and freely given; but the responsibility and power of the local boards are fully recognised and acknowledged. There would rarely be any practical difficulty in Scotland in effecting the removal of an officer for incapacity or misconduct, though possibly the removal might not come so sharply as it probably would do if the General Board or the Government had the power to issue an order, which must be at once obeyed, instead of being obliged to depend on reasoning and recommendations. Such recommendations, if well founded and well supported, prove irresistible in the end, though they may not be acted upon without some discussion and some waiting, but a little delay often does more good than harm. The circumstances of Ireland, however, appear to be exceptional, and in view of all that has been brought before us, we recommend that the General Board should have the power of vetoing the appointment of superintendents and superior officers, though we hope that the occasions for the exercise of the veto will rarely arise; and that the Lord Lieutenant, on the recommendation of the General Board, and after an investigation of the grounds on which the recommendation rests, should have the power to order the removal of any superintendent or officer of a district asylum, either on account of incapacity or misconduct."

  221
  Now, not one single word contained in that Report explains what these exceptional circumstances are. What are they? If it has been found to work well in England and Scotland in the appointment and dismissal of medical officers, and has resulted in very keen contests for the appointment of those who have proved their superior merit, then I ask what are these special grounds alluded to in Ireland which call for different treatment, and I ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary before he makes any statement upon this Amendment to explain what they are. Is it to be said they are political grounds? If it is not what other grounds are there? I confess, in quoting this legislation on the lunacy clause of this Bill, that I may have been to some extent prejudiced; but I look at the construction of this clause with no political bias whatever. I had the happiness or misfortune in my youth to be a medical man, and I naturally do take a very keen interest in the medical departments of these institutions. It is purely for that reason that I take up the position I do. I do certainly strongly desire to see these new committees, as regards their power and responsibility, put upon an equality with England and Scotland; and I do claim from and ask the Chief Secretary for an answer as to these exceptional circumstances which necessitate this difference in the law of Ireland. And unless those reasons are overwhelming—and I cannot conceive that they will be—I hope the right honourable Gentleman will accept this Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: At the present moment not merely has the Lord Lieutenant the sanctioning of the appointment of the medical superintendent and the existing medical officers of the Irish lunatic asylums, but he himself actually appoints them. Under this Bill we are taking that power out of his hands and putting it into the hands of committees appointed by the county councils; but we do not think it is desirable or safe to put these appointments into their hands without some sort of check by a central authority. We hand over the control of these institutions to what is practically a body appointed by the county council, but the county council being a popularly-chosen body
  222
  we do not think that we should be safe in removing these checks. If, in course of time, after we had had some experience, it was found that the system which we propose to set up under this Bill works smoothly and well, it will be full time to make such changes as the honourable Member for Mayo desires. In the meantime I can only say: If the committee appointed by the county council under this Bill elect to appoint fit and proper persons to discharge the duties, and will consent not to remove them without good cause, there is not the slightest danger that their action will be interfered with by the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do not think this is a convenient time to raise this question. I think it is a most extensive matter, and I do not intend to continue discussing it, except to say that I have watched the conduct of the local bodies in Ireland for 20 years—many of them years of fierce political excitement. During those 20 years the constitution of many of those bodies has been transformed, but during the whole of that period there has never been a case where a local board has dismissed an official without good cause. The crying vice of these local bodies is that they will not dismiss an incompetent official if they can in any way avoid it. Let him be drunken or let him be vicious, when his case comes up for consideration they say "Poor So-and-so, he has eight children, it will be very hard if we dismiss him." I challenge anybody who has searched the records of the Irish local bodies for the last 20 years to find a single, solitary case of an unjust dismissal.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: It does appear to me that the Chief Secretary has submitted a very slender case for altering the provisions of this Bill from those of England and Scotland. He says that he has not sufficient confidence in the local authorities about to be established in Ireland to give them the powers which the local authorities both of England and Scotland possess. Now, if it had been found to be the custom of local bodies in Ireland to dismiss summarily or in any way treat unfairly their employees, there, no

  223
  doubt, would be some ground for the statement which he has made, but it does seem to me that the local bodies of Ireland behave in exactly the opposite way. I think they are far too lenient, and do not make their officials attend to their duties so strictly as they ought to do. At least, that is my experience of local management in certain portions of the north of Ireland, because I have known cases where men whom I have considered incapable and incompetent have not been so considered by the local authorities, who have retained their services. I have seen those men kept in their positions, and I have seen local authorities make great endeavours to cloak over the shortcomings of their officials. I have never known a case where the guardians did not extend to their very utmost their endeavours in order to grant superannuation to the highest possible extent. With reference to the statement made by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he is of opinion that some care should be taken to protect the officials, I beg to remind him that the present officials will be continued in office, and will have all the protection which is necessary, but I do say it would be very unfair, and would be placing in the Local Government Bill which you are now about to give Ireland a very paltry provision. You will only hamper the future county councils of Ireland with provisions of this class, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will consider this matter further before doing so.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I should like, before giving my support to this Amendment, to ask the honourable Member for Mayo whether he means that the words "subject to the provisions of this Act" shall include "regulate the expenditure" as well as the appointments, because that might make some difference in my consideration, because it appears to me the Amendment would be better if it ran thus: "the appointment and removal of the officers of asylums, subject to the provisions of this Act regulating the expenditure."
  MR. DILLON: I have no objection to that, Serjeant Hemphill. Hinted in that way, I confess I altogether agree with the Amendment of the honourable
  224
  Member. I cannot resist saying—and I say it with the utmost respect—I was sorry to hear the grounds given by the Chief Secretary for his objection to this very reasonable Amendment. It comes to this, that he has such a want of confidence in the new boards which the Government are about to create by the Bill which is now before the House, that he could not safely entrust to these county councils even the appointment and removal of their own officers without restrictions. I was sorry to hear that, because we all hope, in the first place, that the county councils will be representative bodies, thoroughly representative of every class in Ireland. We hope they will represent the intelligence and value of the Irish people—all that is best in Ireland—generally, and we must always bear in mind, so far as the 9th clause is concerned, that it is through a committee that the county councils act, and that the committee may consist, as regards one-fourth, of outsiders, who would probably be experts, and men of the highest position and respectability. Therefore, there is every reason to confide to them untrammelled the appointment and dismissal of their own officials. This is a point I know upon which some of the public bodies in Ireland have had communications. In the first place it is not very clear what the provisions of the Act are that you allude to in this 5th Sub-section, and, as the honourable Member for Mayo pointed out, you must look at section 55, sub-section 4, in order to find out. Now, what does that sub-section say? It says, and it is quite clear, "where any part of the salary of an officer of a county council is paid out of money provided by Parliament, or from Local Taxation (Ireland) Act, he shall not be appointed or removed, nor shall his salary be fixed or altered without the concurrence of the Local Government Board." Therefore the Local Government Board has to control the appointment, and not the council through their committee, as contemplated in section 9. Why should that be? Why should you put the sub-section in a more, or less subsidiary position? You substitute these county councils for the grand juries, which were supposed to represent all the intelligence, and the the power, and worth of the Irish people, and you are going to submit to their

  225
  being snubbed by the Local Government Board without either rhyme or reason, putting a veto on their appointing or removing their officers. I do hope the right honourable Gentleman will have more confidence in these bodies which are to be created by this Bill, and that he will not press any further objection to the Amendment of my honourable Friend.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I entirely agree with the observations which have fallen from the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. Of course, the result of the county councils about to be established is more or less problematical, and I think it would be extremely unwise to place in the hands of the county councils this power without the sanction of a superior authority. At the present moment, in England the guardians cannot dispense with the services of a doctor, a master, or a matron, without the consent of the Local Board. Why should it therefore be so in Ireland?
  MR. DILLON: I suggested that the law in Ireland should be the same as in this country, so far as it applies to the administration of the lunatic asylums.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: All I can say is that it would be exceedingly unwise to establish by this Bill for all time the principle that the county councils should have this power. I have no doubt at all in my own mind that when a good case for dismissal is made out the Local Government Board would consent to the dismissal of the officer. Why should this arbitrary power be given to the county councils to dismiss doctors from the asylums? It is a very technical matter, and quite outside the intelligence of the county councils. Therefore I think the Chief Secretary is quite right in taking up the position which he has.
  MR. FARRELL: In my opinion the contention of the honourable Member for Mayo is a stigma upon the county councils. The honourable Gentleman must know very well that it only affects two officers, the medical superintendent and the medical officer, and the honourable Gentleman must know that no person can be appointed by any committee of
  226
  the county council but properly qualified. Why cannot you give the local committee the power and the rights that they have in England? If it is put forward by the Government that there is no reason for opposition and for this Amendment, I think, from the point of view of the medical officers themselves, that they would be quite satisfied to put their case in the hands of the local authorities. I myself have had some experience during number of years with the management of this question by boards of guardians, and I entirely endorse the statements made by the honourable Member for Tyrone. I hope that the non possumus attitude of the right honourable Gentleman will not be kept up, and that he will accept this Amendment.
  MR. DALY: I would prefer to have the charge of the officers under the Local Government Board, because I have seen several cases in Ireland where the Local Government Board have actually dismissed officers, and the board of guardians have petitioned the Local Government Board to re-appoint them. I would prefer that the Local Government Board should have control of them in future. I think the right honourable Gentleman need have no fear to leave the management of the officers in future to the county councils. I think that the right honourable Gentleman cannot have any difficulty in accepting this Amendment. I think the officers will be better in the hands of the county councils than in the hands of the Local Government Board, and I speak from the experience of ten or twelve years as a poor law guardian. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give the people a chance of having the management of the officers in regard to all matters under the control of the county councils, and that he will see his way to accept the Amendment of the honourable Member for East Mayo.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think I can point to one such case. I fully recognise the truth of the remark that fell from the honourable Member for Cork, and I entirely recognise that, as a rule, every public body in Ireland hesitates to exercise their powers of dismissal, even when they ought to exer-

  227
  cise them. I have found it necessary on more than one occasion to direct the Local Government Board to dismiss an officer whom the guardians were anxious to retain. But I regard the question of appointments as of much more importance than that of dismissals, and it is because we wish to guard against the danger of improper appointments being made, at all events in the earlier years of this new system, that we cannot consent to this Amendment.
  MR. DILLONsaid he would invite anyone who objected to the Amendment to show that there was more danger of unworthy motives creeping in in the case of appointments made by local bodies than in the case of appointments made by a central body. Under the Bill the county infirmary committee would have an absolutely unchecked power to appoint or dismiss their medical officers. It was very easy to ruin a man by simply vetoing his appointment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURappealed to honourable Members to bring the discussion to a close, and he pointed out to the honourable Member for East Mayo that if his words were left out the effect would be, among other things, to remove the sanction which the Bill gave to the appointment and dismissal of medical officers.
  MR. TULLYsaid that, as a matter of fact, the local boards were anxious that the responsibility and the odium of dismissal should rest upon the central authority. It would save a great deal of litigation if the power of dismissal rested with the central authority. There was a case he knew in which a town council had the power of dismissal without the intervention of the central authority. He thought that the large body of opinion in Ireland was that these appointments should be controlled by a Central authority. There was a great deal to be said on the other side of the question as well as on the side to which they had been listening.
  MR. DILLONsaid he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing now, but he would raise the question on a subsequent section.
  The Amendment was withdrawn.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLmoved his Amendment in regard to clause 9, page 5, line 12, to insert after the second "and," the word "all." He said the subsection of the clause appeared to him to be extremely insufficient. It provided that the powers under the Lunatic Asylums Act of the Lord Lieutenant, or the inspector of lunatics, as to those matters, and as to land and buildings, and as to the appointment of governor or directors, shall cease, and that the Board of Control for lunatics shall be abolished. The object of his Amendment was to go on and provide for the transfer of those.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid he need scarcely remind his honourable Friend that if the powers ceased it was impossible to transfer them afterwards.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WATS and MEANS after the usual interval,
  Notice was taken that there was not a quorum, but when the CHAIRMAN counted 40 members were present.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: There has been a difference of opinion, Sir, on these Benches as to the difficulty of defining what the supervising authority of these asylums ought to be. Up to the present the work has been largely done by the usual inspectors of lunatic asylums, and it has been suggested that the work might be more satisfactorily done by inspectors under the Local Government Board, but the Government have declared against that; and what I wish to make clear at present is that, whether the inspectors be inspectors of the Local Government Board or inspectors of the Lunatic Asylums Board, a full public inspection there shall be; and that that inspection shall not be an inspection by unpaid persons, but shall be an inspection by persons who are paid and whose duty it is to go into these institutions and examine them, in order to see that the inmates are properly treated. Mr. Lowther, having that object in view, I was sorry to find within the past few hours that the Government had dispensed with one official whose experience would have been most valuable—I mean the visiting physician. Until a few yeas

  229
  ago there was in connection with every lunatic asylum a visiting physician, who lived outside the asylum, and whose duty it was to visit the asylum; and there is, in point of fact, a relic of that system still in existence in the City of Cork, where a visiting physician still exists. But as those officials have dropped off elsewhere, others have not been appointed in their places. Now, my view is that the more you allow officers who are outside to be engaged in this business, the better it is, and I believe the Amendment I have to propose only carries out the views of the Government. Therefore, I beg to move—
  "in Clause 9, page 5, line 17, after 'abolished,' to insert 'Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the powers of the Lord Lieutenant to appoint inspectors of lunatics as heretofore, or the power of such inspectors to visit lunatic asylums, and make such examination and inquiries as they are now empowered to make, or the powers and duties of such inspectors under the Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Act, 1875.'"
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I agree in the intention of the Amendment, but, Sir, I think it is totally unnecessary, and would only be confusing. The Amendment is in the nature of a saving clause, but it does not, as a matter of fact, cover all the powers which at present the Lord Lieutenant and the Inspectors in Lunacy have and which the honourable Member desires to preserve. It not only does not cover all those powers, but I am afraid the enumeration in the Amendment will tend to throw doubt on those powers which are not specifically mentioned in it. Among them are the powers of the Lord Lieutenant to vary districts and to convert a gaol into a lunatic asylum, the duty of the inspectors to visit every gaol or workhouse, or house of industry, in which any lunatic is confined, and to inquire the various methods of treatment, and other powers which the inspectors should exercise; and, again, the power of the auditor to make an order for payment in the event of an amalgamation of lunatic asylum districts. I only mention these, but there are one or two others, and it would be undesirable, as I am sure the honourable Member will see, to take an incomplete enumeration of this sort, as the effect would be to throw doubt on the powers
  230
  which are left out of the enumeration. And, further, all the objects which the honourable Member seeks to gain are, I believe, sufficiently made clear in Part 2 of the first Schedule to the Bill.
  MR. M. HEALY: I have no desire to persist with my Amendment, having regard to the suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman that it is unnecessary, and that the object will be met by the schedule. But I may state that I have carefully studied the Lunatic Asylums Act, and I conceive that my Amendment would save to the inspectors all the powers which the Government would desire them to have. Of course, Sir, there is no necessity for specifying the power of the inspectors to visit gaols or workhouses, because those are not here affected, and my Amendment is only a proviso to Clause 9, and will not in any way trespass on the power of the inspectors of lunatics to visit gaols or workhouses. Neither would it affect their power to visit private asylums, for that is not mentioned in the clause. As regards the variation of districts, I am glad the right honourable Gentleman has alluded to that, because there is considerable doubt as to what will be the effect of this clause on the whole of that question. I think the effect of the clause, as a whole, will be to stereotype the existing law in some respects. Of course, something depends on the schedule of the Bill. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman thinks that the Lord Lieutenant will still have power to direct asylums to be built in certain cases; but I hold, Sir, that the power of the Lord Lieutenant to map out districts and direct that asylums shall be provided for each of them will be at an end. And similarly, Sir, as regards the apportionment of the charges, that power is also at an end, because the apportionment is now entirely carried out under the Act of 1878, and as the right honourable Gentleman is aware, that Act this Bill proposes to repeal. As a matter of fact, it was not included in the last Lunatic Asylums Act. It enabled the inspectors of lunatics to fix the proportion in which each district was to contribute, and I consider that that particular duty is affected by Sub-section 7 of this clause, so that in future the inspector will have

  231
  nothing to do with the assessment of the charge. I take it that, as the right honourable Gentleman says, he wishes to preserve to the Lord Lieutenant the power of varying districts, that that power will exist in the future as it has existed in the past. May I take it also that he will preserve the power of the Lord Lieutenant to cause new asylums to be erected in any district, because if he will not I do not see the advantage of changing a district in that way?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think he will still have power to alter districts, and in any district which has no asylum, of course, it would be the duty of the council to see that proper accommodation for lunatics is provided.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: In view of what the right honourable Gentleman says, although I have a strong opinion as to the necessity for the proposal, I have no desire to persist with my Amendment.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I propose now, Sir, at the end of line 21, to move the insertion of the following words—
  "And as to the conditions, and payments, and accommodation under which private patients may be admitted into and detained in an asylum."
  This, I think, will be a convenient way of meeting the point raised by the right honourable Member opposite. The matter was referred to in the House last night, and I think it is very desirable that there should be some provision in the Bill with regard to it.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: This is the draft of the Amendment that I beg to move. Clause 9, page 5, line 23, after "effect," insert "and shall have the same effect for the purposes of the fourth section of the Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Act, 1875, as if made by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council." Clause 9, page 5, line 27, leave out from "to" to "and," in line 30, and insert "rateable value." This Amendment raises a somewhat important question, and I venture to put it forward for the careful consideration of the Committee. It may be that opinion will be divided upon it, but I am of opinion that a modi-
  232
  fication in the clause would be a desirable change. My Amendment changes the ratio under which different counties united in lunatic asylum districts are assessed for the purpose of contributing to the maintenance of patients. Now, so far as I have been able to read the Lunatic Asylums Acts there has been no law on the subject. The matter has been in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, and where two or three counties are united to form a lunatic asylum district it rests entirely with the inspectors to say in what proportion the several counties shall bear the charges. Henceforward, owing to the transfer of these institutions, it becomes necessary for the Government to put forward some scheme by which this important matter will not be left longer in the discretion of any official, but should be a matter of dry law. The method by which the Bill proposes to deal with the matter is this. It directs that the proportion payable by each county shall be fixed according to the number of lunatics, "according to the average of the three local financial years which ended next before the last triennial election of county councillors." Now I propose, on the other hand, that the charge shall be fixed by the rateable valuation of each county, and in making that proposal I think I ought to have the support of the Government, in view of a later provision in the Bill which proposes that where a union is divided between two counties the union charges should be apportioned between each divided part in proportion to the rateable value. Now, we in Ireland have been saddled for 16 years with the absurd system of divisional rating. Instead of taxing the union as a whole, the union was sub-divided in an arbitrary manner, and the law has been that each area has been built to support its own poverty. That has been an absurd system, and I cannot conceive what the advantage of it is. I believe it was in the interests of the landlords. According to my Amendment we get rid of that absurd system, and henceforward we will have the system of union rating. It proposes very much to do for the lunatic asylums district what has been done for unions—the plan of union rating. I do not understand why the plan of divisional rating

  233
  should have been selected for the lunatics, when you have got rid of it for the purposes of union rating. I conceive that, while arguments might be adduced for the proposal of divisional rating of the case of ordinary poverty, no argument can be put forward with respect to lunatic asylums. No such argument could be addressed in the case of lunacy, because, in lunacy there was no special condition to produce it. The number of lunatics who can be adduced in any county is not a matter peculiar to the circumstances of the county, it must depend upon the decrees of Providence. Now, at one time one area would produce a larger proportion of lunatics than another, and I cannot conceive why the Government should not have done in the case of lunatic asylums districts the same as they now do in the case of unions. My plan would have this further advantage—that the ratio would not vary for three years. As the clause at present stands a fresh assessment will have to be made every three years, and in my proposition the contribution of the area will be fixed by its rateable valuation; in other words, a rich area will contribute to the relief of the poor area, and the place with the large rateable valuation will come to the aid of the poorer district. It is a remarkable thing that up to this time there has been no fixed law on the subject, and the country has not even known on what principle the asylum inspectors proposed to make their assessments. I do conceive that the best plan would be that, when you have two counties in a lunatic asylum district, the contribution should be fixed, not by the number of lunatics, but by the rateable valuation of the district. That is the scheme of my Amendment, and I think it is worthy of consideration.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This is one of the questions that it is almost impossible to discuss on abstract grounds. I do not say that, in principle, I have a very strong opinion one way or the other, but I hold that the Government are bound to make up their minds what system they will adopt, and it appears to me that if we were to adopt the principle recommended by the honourable Member it would create a great amount of discontent, and we do not think it
  234
  worth while to do that for the sake of a principle. You have to consider the maintenance of patients, and the Bill proposed is practically what has been in operation—namely, that each county should pay for the patients that it sent to the asylum. As regards buildings, until recent years the apportionment has been made on the basis of accommodation. The latest case of the Richmond Asylum was most carefully considered by the Privy Council, who considered that the fairest system of apportionment would be to average the number of patients during previous years. We have followed the decision of the Privy Council on that subject, and I hold that in deciding on the average number of patients we have taken the best course. The Chief Secretary has said he is more or less indifferent with regard to this question. I would suggest that, as the right honourable Gentleman is more or less indifferent, he should accept the Amendment of the honourable Member for Cork. It is, in my judgment, a most reasonable Amendment, and one that should receive due consideration from the Government. I happen to be the governor of an asylum, in which the lunatics come from two counties, Sligo and Leitrim, and I know that the largest proportion of lunatics come from the poorest districts, both in Sligo and Leitrim. As the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary is not much concerned one way or the other, I would ask him to listen to the appeal of the honourable Member for Cork, and endeavour to introduce into the government of lunatic asylums the principle of union rating instead of divisional rating. This would relieve the poorer districts, and place upon shoulders able to bear the burden a certain amount of responsibility. As the honourable Member for Cork has said, the principle of divisional rating is to this effect, that the poorer the people are the more poverty they have to support. The poorer the people are in Sligo and Leitrim, the larger the number of paupers they have to support. I believe it would tend to the improved management of these asylums, if this Amendment were accepted.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I confess I think the clause better as it stands. I know that a good deal of

  235
  difficulty arose with reference to the Richmond Asylum, which is an asylum contributed to by three or four counties—Wicklow, Louth, the town of Drogheda, and the county and City of Dublin. Complaints were made by Wicklow and Louth that, whereas the number of lunatics from these counties to the Richmond Asylum was very few, they were taxed in proportion to the population. I think it is a fairer principle that the tax should be in proportion to the number of lunatics contributed by each county. I happened to be in office at the time this question of complaints about Richmond Asylum was considered. It was brought before the Privy Council, and the result was, if my recollection is right, that the proportion was regulated according to the population. But, whether that was so or not, I think the principle is fair. It would be very hard if in an asylum 500 lunatics came from one county, 50 from another, and only 10 from another, that the county supplying the lowest number should be as heavily taxed as the county supplying the larger number.
  MR. J. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: The question is simply one of proportion, or rather, of apportionment, of the cost of these joint asylums, and I do not entertain the slightest doubt that the apportionment should depend upon the services rendered.
  MR. J. J. SHEE: In connection with this question of proportion, tion, nobody contests the fact that the poorer a district is, the greater is the number of lunatics in proportion to the population. It comes, in fact, to this, that we tax the poorer districts more heavily in proportion to valuation than the richer districts. As anybody who has studied the statistics of lunacy in Ireland knows, in those counties where there is tillage land lunacy prevails to a larger extent in proportion to the population than in the counties where there is grazing land. The poorer the land, the greater is the proportion of lunatics to the population. That being so, it follows that if you tax in proportion to the
  236
  number of lunatics you impose the heaviest tax on the poorest districts. The principle in this case is precisely the same as in the case of union rating; and as the Government have accepted a change in the law on that question, as against divisional rating, there can be no reason why they should not agree to a change in this other matter simply because it is a change. The right honourable Gentleman, the Chief Secretary alleges that the change proposed by this Amendment, if made, may produce discontent in those districts which would be affected adversely by it, but there is no ground, so far as I can see, for any such assumption. On every ground of justice and fair play a district should not be mulcted simply because it is a poor district; it should be treated fairly and on a level with the richer districts. Therefore I think this Amendment deserves a little more consideration from the Chief Secretary than the right honourable Gentleman has given it. The Chief Secretary has stated that, so far as the principle is concerned, he has no objection to accepting this Amendment, and his only argument against acceptance is that it may produce discontent. But there is no foundation in reason or probability for that contention, and I think the Government would do well to accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and Amendment negatived without a Division.
  Amendment proposed, page 5, line 32, to strike out the words "in case of dispute."
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I propose to leave out the words "in case of dispute," because they will lead only to circuity. It is much better to have some authority to decide what the proportions should be. The clause itself says the committee shall be a joint Committee, with a representation of each council, determined in case of dispute by the Lord Lieutenant, in the same proportion as that in which the expenses are to be defrayed; but the clause itself indicates the proportion, and I do not see what object there is in anticipating that there will be disputes as between

  237
  the different parishes and then leaving it to the Lord Lieutenant to settle. It is not a matter of much importance; it is only a question of arithmetic, and it will only cause delay and create, perhaps, a burning grievance if you refer it to the Lord Lieutenant as if it were a disputed matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The right honourable Gentleman says it is only a case of arithmetic, and if it is only a case of arithmetic it will hardly be necessary to bring it before the Lord Lieutenant. I do not think there will be any difficulty about the matter. The Lord Lieutenant is brought in to decide the proportion in which the councils are to be represented. In that case he might obviously desire it. Then the Lord Lieutenant will decide it, and I think the words are clear.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: It occurs to me that there is really nothing about which there can be a dispute. The words are—
  "And the committee for the asylum shall be a joint committee of the councils of the counties, with a representation of each council."
  I leave out, for argument's sake, the words—
  "Determined in case of dispute by the Lord Lieutenant."
  The concluding words of the clause are—
  "In the same proportion as that in which the expenses are defrayed."
  Now, given that the expenses are an ascertained figure, and that proportion is fixed by Act of Parliament, why, then, put "in case of dispute" on a matter which ought not to be disputable?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: But a dispute might arise on some question in regard to the number of the committee.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: But the number of the committee is not an element at all in ascertaining the proportion.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is "a representation of each council." The Bill says that the representation must be in a certain proportion, but it does not fix the number.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not accept
  238
  the Amendment of the honourable Member for Tyrone. I have a very considerable objection to too much interference on the part of the Lord Lieutenant with the operation of the county council; but I do say that in this case, it is putting if in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to fix the number, whereas the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman is that it is only in case of dispute that the Lord Lieutenant's interference would come in. The clause as it stands is much better than as amended by the right honourable Gentleman.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think this involves a provision in that part of the clause which I certainly regard as of some importance. Sub-section 3 provides that—
  "There shall be transferred to the council, acting through that committee, the business of the governors and directors of the asylum, under the Lunatic Asylums Acts, and the committee, subject to the general control of the council as respects finance, may act without their acts being confirmed by the council.'
  What this Amendment proposes is that the natural child of the county council, the committee, should be enabled to rise in rebellion against its own parent. As regards the finance mentioned in Sub-clause 3, it can be got rid of if the Lord Lieutenant thinks fit. That is my reading of it, which says, practically, that on matters of finance the council is the supreme authority. It does not relate to the case of two counties where they differ. I imagine that if you have your joint committee managing the asylum, and making certain financial proposals, and you have one concurring county and the other dissenting, as the clause stands you might get rid of it. What this clause provides for is, I take it, for the case of an asylum governed by a single county.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: But the Act provides that where a district comprises two or more counties there shall be a joint committee.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes; a joint committee.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Well, let the right honourable Gentleman consider

  239
  that two of the county councils may be against the decision of the committee. Suppose, now, that there is a committee formed by two counties to govern one asylum. The first part of the clause says that the financial questions shall be subject to the approval of the council. But the right honourable Gentleman proposes in this Amendment that, where a committee makes financial proposals, in such a case as I have put, though each of the counties may disapprove of what the committee has done, the committee will be able to override the action of both counties if it succeeds in persuading the Lord Lieutenant to approve of its action against the two counties which are contrary. It appears to me that we are entitled to demand that this Amendment shall be limited to the case where it is only one out of two counties. It seems to me a monstrous thing that if all the counties which go to make up the joint committee shall disapprove of any proposal, it shall still be possible for the committee to override the decision of all the districts concerned. Take the county of Cork, which you propose to divide—which I hope you will not. If you do you will have the committee constituted of so many members from East Cork, so many from West Cork, and so many from the city. That committee might make some financial proposals. All the three counties—East, West, and the City of Cork—might dissent from such proposals, but nevertheless the committee could go up to the Lord Lieutenant, and say—
  "These three counties dissent from the financial proposals, but we think they are necessary, and we ask you to sanction them."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Sub-section 3 says—
  "Subject to the general control of the council as respects finance, may act without their acts being confirmed by the council."
  Well, Sir, this committee might recommend expenditure for a particular object, and one or more counties in the district might dissent, and the whole scheme might be supported with one objection. The honourable Member in his speech says it might simply mean all counties concerned—or two or more, as the case might be—being opposed to this expen-
  240
  diture, and then the joint committee might apply to the Lord Lieutenant to grant it. Well, Sir, if such a case should arise, I should undoubtedly think that the Lord Lieutenant would refrain from making the order. But it is not to be supposed that even in that case there is no remedy where the committee think that expenditure of that kind is necessary for the proper accommodation for the union. Under Sub-section I it is provided that—
  "If it appears to the Lord Lieutenant that any council fail to perform such duty, he may order that council to remedy the failure within the time and in the manner specified in the order."
  Under a subsequent clause of the Act, he has the power of controlling, in respect of maintenance. In the case of a single county council, he could adopt one of those procedures, and with the joint county councils we have thought it necessary to provide for where one county council or several object to the expenditure, although the others may agree to it. It may be that technically this does leave it just open to take that particular procedure to enforce it against the counties they represent, but I think it is a very remote danger.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: We have been listening to lectures all over the country upon the awful prospects of extravagance that the county councils in Ireland will be guilty of when they once get control of their own affairs. There is a dreadful feeling on the part of the large ratepayers; it is suggested that the one desire of the county councils will be to spend to the utmost possible extent. Now, I have observed all through this Bill a tendency to compel the county council to incur expenditure which the county council does not want to. I observe that the right honourable Gentleman has followed up that practice, in which he makes it compulsory for the county council to make these grants to the counties which before, apparently, the section of the Act left optional, and now we have this extraordinary proposal that a joint committee sent up by two or three or more counties will now form the joint committee. If the counties protest against any particular form of expenditure, the joint committee being in

  241
  favour of it, the joint committee have the power of going up to the Lord Lieutenant, and saying, "The counties are all wrong; we know better than they do," and though the committee are one and all opposed to this expenditure, the Lord Lieutenant upon being appealed to can make them spend this money. I did think that the right honourable Gentleman was going to say that it is not right to give the Lord Lieutenant power to compel a group of counties, united to resist a certain form of expenditure, to incur that expenditure, and it does seem to be absolutely unnecessary.
  MR. JAMES C. FLYNN: I do not think the danger may be quite so remote as the Chief Secretary appears to think, and we can hardly expect in this House to be treated as if phraseology were of more or less small consequence. Well, Sir, it seems to me that in this Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman the part is greater than the whole, because obviously here a joint committee appeals from the more powerful body to the Lord Lieutenant. I think that, Sir, is rather vicious in principle, and is possibly also vicious in practice. I have followed the arguments of the honourable Member for the City of Cork, and I cannot conceive, particularly in a case like that, where presumably we have two or more counties, it possible, when these counties refuse their sanction to any expenditure, that they will be compelled to incur such expenditure upon the appeal of a small delegated body. I think that would be reversing the principle of local government into a sort of topsy-turvydom. I cannot conceive that a joint committee, fully acquainted with the needs of the lunatic asylums, could forward such proposal. On the other hand, let us conceive the case where a meeting of the joint Committee of the Asylum Committee is held at a short notice and without proper warning to the full body of the committee, and at a small meeting expenditure is embarked upon, surely the county council ought to have the power to deal with such expenditure. I do think this appeal to the Lord Lieutenant is the negation of the principle of popular control which this Bill presumes to set up. I do not think we have been unreasonable on these Benches in pressing for the
  242
  fullest possible powers for the county councils. I do not say that where the joint Committee appeals under any conceivable circumstances to the Lord Lieutenant that the Lord Lieutenant will act in an unreasonable manner, but the very fact that we have to appeal to him is not consistent with the clause itself, because the Committee well know that the new local bodies have larger powers than the present board of governors. If you compare the present power of boards of governors with the power that is to be conferred on these new Asylum Committees, you will find that these new Asylum Committees get very much larger powers. That may be a very desirable thing, but it is quite another thing to say that they shall go beyond that, and by appealing to the Lord Lieutenant shall overrule the bodies which called them into existence. I cannot conceive why the Amendment is brought forward at all.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the honourable Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy) will wait until the Report stage, I shall be prepared to undertake that where a majority of the county councils concerned are opposed to any object approved by the joint Committee, this particular method of applying pressure by the Lord Lieutenant shall not be applied.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have always understood that a writ of mandamus would apply to such a case.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: By this Amendment we seek to provide a simpler method.
  The Amendment was then agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move to add, at the end of Clause 9, page 5, line 34, the following words—
  "Proceedings had or taken by any such Committee shall be had or taken in the names of the said councils jointly, and proceedings had or taken against any such committee shall be had or taken against such councils jointly."
  I cannot understand, as the clause stands, how the proposed Committee proceeds. It is not a corporate body, and consequently has no corporate existence. If a case arises in which the Committee propose to commence an action, will it

  243
  proceed in the name of the members of the Committee, or will it proceed in the name of the Committee as a whole? I imagine it would not proceed in this way, because it is not a corporate body. The only other way for proceedings to be taken would be in the names of the county councils jointly. Take again the case of a Committee being sued by a contractor. How is he to sue the Committee? Is he to sue the individuals who compose the Committee, or is he to sue the Committee itself? He cannot do that, because the Committee is not a corporate body. It appears to me that this is not a logical and rational mode of dealing with the subject, and the Amendment is devised to meet the case.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think the Amendment necessary, though I have no objection to accepting it. Any action taken will not be the action of the Committee, but that of the county council acting through the Committee.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I hope the right honourable Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, I accept it.
  On the Question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
  MR. DILLONsaid: I desire to refer to the rapidly increasing burdens cast upon the ratepayers in connection with the charge of lunatics in Ireland. I am not prepared to move the rejection of the clause, but I think, on the other hand, it would be a very foolish thing, and hardly an honest thing, if we were to leave the Government under the impression that the people of Ireland, or the Irish representatives, accept, without protest, the policy of casting on the ratepayers the increasing burden of the lunatic charge in Ireland.
  *MR. W. E. H. LECKY: In rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name my object is to give expression to the wish shared in by a large number of public bodies and a great number of private persons in Ireland that the Government shall keep the control and management of the lunatic asylums in their own hands, and not throw the care of this large, poor, and, unhappily increasing class of persons upon per-
  244
  fectly new and inexperienced bodies, overburdened with a great quantity of other work, and drawn largely from the same class of men as now constitute the Poor Law guardians. I do not think that this is a question either of politics, or of class, or of creed. It is essentially a question of simple humanity. It is of vital importance to this unhappy class that they should be under the care of medical officers who have devoted themselves exclusively to this particular work, who have given up other practice for it, and who, in fact, are thoroughly qualified to perform this special class of duties. Under the present circumstances this is very fully secured. The superintendents are chosen by the Lord Lieutenant from the senior assistant medical officers of all the asylums in Ireland, and there is every possible guarantee that they are thoroughly tfficient. In the Bill, as it stands at present, there is no guarantee whatever of that kind. They are not even required to have assistant medical officers, though I believe an Amendment will be accepted which will at least, in this respect, mitigate the evil. We wish, as much as possible, to keep these asylums in the hands of the State, and in doing so we are following the example of nearly all the great democracies of the world. In the United States, and in all our Colonies, the protection of lunatics is more and more placed in the hands of State asylums, managed by persons who are, for the most part, if not exclusively, paid from State funds. I think we have very strong grounds in Ireland that this should be done. Poor Law guardians, as they at present exist, form the bodies most closely resembling the future county councils, and I venture to say there are very few persons who know country life in Ireland who will not say that the medical patronage of those bodies has been marked by more abuses, perhaps—and that is saying a good deal—than any other class of patronage in Ireland. In many cases medical officers are appointed either on the ground of religion, or on the ground of politics, on local grounds or by all kinds of jobs, and they are often perfectly unsuited for their positions One gentleman, for example, told me that within his own district three successive medical officers had died of delirium

  245
  tremens. They had all, I believe, been appointed on the ground of religion. It is one of the greatest grievances in Ireland that the poor have so often to be attended by such men. A large number of the lunatics in Ireland are actually under the management of the poor law guardians. There are more than 4,0000 at present in the workhouses, and the last report of the Inspectors of Lunacy—it was only one of a long series of such reports—has given the most emphatic condemnation of the manner in which lunatics are treated in these workhouses. The inspectors speak of the very unsatisfactory arrangements in the workhouses for this class, and of the unwillingness of the guardians to take any steps to improve their condition. They speak also of the fact that, in spite of the constant recommendations of the Local Government Board—and I would particularly dwell upon this—the attendance on the insane is still left in the hands of pauper inmates, who are ignorant, untrained, and inexperienced, and who do not pay sufficient attention to these unfortunate persons. They state that in almost all cases the recreation provided for the able-bodied is most unsatisfactory, and they give descriptions of patients infested with vermin, and treated by nurses who have had no experience whatever. In one of these workhouses it will hardly be believed that during the whole of the past year the male lunatics had been left without anyone, not even a pauper inmate, to look after them. Now these are the kind of evils we are most anxious shall not penetrate into our lunatic asylums. I fully admit that it is impossible to deal with the subject without dealing also with the question of who is to pay for these asylums. For my own part, I frankly confess that I think these asylums ought to be an Imperial charge. This is done in a large proportion of the most civilised countries of Europe. However, any Amendment of that kind must emanate from the Treasury Bench, and I am afraid it is only too clear that such an Amendment will not be accepted in that quarter. I am myself so convinced of the vital importance and necessity of the management of lunatic asylums being kept in the hands of persons more responsible and more experienced than
  246
  the county councils are likely to be that I should be inclined to accept such an amendment even if the financial arrangements remained as at present. I do not, however, believe that such a measure would find general acceptance in Ireland, but I think there is at least a compromise. We might insist that the major part, at all events, of the expense should come out of the Consolidated Fund, and only a minor portion out of the county revenues. At present it is exactly the converse of that. The Government pay 4s. a week for a pauper lunatic, but this is considerably less than half the total expenditure. I think we might reverse the case, and say that the county might fairly furnish 4s. a week, and that the remainder ought to come out of the Consolidated Fund. The case I am urging has been brought forward repeatedly by grand juries in Ireland, by members of boards of guardians, and by asylums boards. It must be remembered that those whose care is in question are the one class in the community who cannot complain if their interests are neglected or mismanaged; and, having regard to the manner in which boards of guardians have behaved in recent years, it requires some courage on the part of the Government to commit the care of lunatics to bodies similarly constituted. We believe that to do this will be an act of folly not far removed from an act of crime. Lunatics ought to be kept out of this Bill altogether, and a separate Bill dealing with them ought to be brought forward. At any rate, the responsibility must rest wholly with the Government, and therefore I move to omit the clause.
  MR. DILLON: With the financial considerations brought forward by the right honourable Gentleman I heartily agree, but I cannot, and he would not expect me to go with him in his protest against local control. I point, as a conclusive and complete answer to the argument of the right honourable Gentleman on the latter point, to the fact that while for 80 years the lunatic asylums in Ireland have been under the central Government, they had, until within recent years, been a scandal to humanity and to the whole country. How the right honourable Gentleman can say, in face of that, that there is a prospect of better

  247
  treatment under central control than under local control, is inexplicable. Feeling in Ireland is absolutely unanimous against the policy of the Government as contained in the lunacy clauses of this Bill—namely, the policy of throwing all the costs and all the responsibility for an increased charge in respect of lunatics on to the ratepayers of that country. What has been the recent history of this question, financially? It was only in the year 1875 that the law was so altered as to allow of an Imperial contribution of 4s. a head being paid as a grant-in-aid towards the maintenance of lunatics in Ireland. The Government contribution in that year was £56,000, in 1885 it was £98,000, and in 1896 £130,000. It is estimated that in the year 1897 it amounted to £143,000. It has increased, therefore, within those 23 years, from £56,000 to £143,000—that is to say, it has nearly trebled. Although the number of lunatics has gone up to this extent, there has been a tremendous decrease in the population of the country. While there are nearly a million and a half less people in Ireland now than there were when this law came into operation, the Government contribution has increased from £56,000 to £143,000. The daily average number of lunatics resident in asylums in Ireland has increased from 7,600 in 1875 to 13,700 in 1896. We are entitled, before we consent or approve of a policy which has for its object the throwing of the tremendous burden of future increases upon the ratepayers of Ireland, to inquire whether we have any reason to hope that this charge has reached its highest limit, or nearly reached its highest limit. When we come to look at the question, which is a very important one for the ratepayers, we have most abundant evidence to show that this tremendous increase has not reached its limit. The skilled gentlemen who formed the Departmental Committee of 1891 stated in their Report that—
  "The progress exhibited by the figures is not an upward progress at a uniform rate, but it may nevertheless be described as showing a steady and rapid rise, and showing no indication of any tendency to stop."
  I will quote some of the figures given by these gentlemen in reference to lunacy, which are appalling. In 1885 there
  248
  were 258 lunatics per 100,000 of the population in England. In 1889 there were 260 per 100,000—an increase of only two. In Scotland there were, in 1885, 233 lunatics per 100,000 of the population, and in 1889 that number had increased by 12—namely, to 245. Now let us turn to Ireland. In Ireland, in 1885, there were 411 lunatics per 100,000 of the population and in 1889 that figure went up to 452. That is to say, in Ireland there were very nearly double as many lunatics per 100,000 of the population as there were in England and Scotland. Then comes a terrible passage in this Report. These gentlemen were asked to inquire and give their opinion as to the cause of this extraordinary, increase, as regards Ireland, and they deliberately placed it on record, as their opinion, that the increase of lunacy in Ireland was due to the fact that for a long period of years the best elements of the population—young men and young women, between the ages of 18 and 40—had emigrated, leaving all the weak, deformed, and feeble at home. Now, that is a probable condition of things which deserves the consideration of the Government, and which justifies us. Now, that is only one aspect of the question, but there is another extremely important aspect. Since the year 1891, under, as I believe, the benevolent system of the inspectors in lunacy appointed about that time, and the modified laws of lunacy administration in Ireland, there has been an increase in the cost of lunatics, and an enormous increase in the cost of providing accommodation for them, and we are still far from the end of this enormous cost. Every humane man must look forward to, and hope for, a further increase in the annual cost per head of lunatics, so that we have not only to look forward to the increase of lunatics in point of numbers, but also an increase in the annual cost of those lunatics, if they are to be attended and treated in a proper and humane manner. That accounts for the very great increase which has taken place. There are a few cases which I should like to bring to the notice of the Committee, in order that I may give honourable Members an idea of the enormous burden, which is put upon the shoulders of the ratepayers by this demand for increased accommodation of

  249
  lunatics. I take as an instance the asylum for county Mayo, which in 1886 had accommodation for 260 patients; that number had increased in 1896 to 485. Now, accommodation has been provided for 490, and the increase has been so great that now it is not sufficient. Then, again, take the case of Ballinasloe Asylum, serving the counties of Roscommon and Galway. It was strongly represented that these two counties should be separated, so enormous was the increase, and that a separate asylum should be built for Roscommon. After a great deal of negotiation the project had to be abandoned, because the expense was so great, and a detached block was built to Ballinasloe for 150 patients. In 1889 the number had increased from 150 to 717, and now it has 1,004 patients of both sexes. When the asylum at Ballinasloe was built the patients were only 150 from the two counties, and the population was double what it is at the present day. So that we find, with a vastly decreased population, you have had to make provision for 1,004. I maintain that in this Bill the Government has not made anything approaching an adequate provision for the charges of maintaining lunatics in Ireland. I may be asked why we raise this question upon this portion of the Bill. We raise it here because, as the right honourable Gentleman knows full well, we cannot move an Amendment upon the Financial Relations Committee to increase the charges, and I think it is only right, before the Government goes to a Division, to raise it. The whole thing is monstrous. This particular clause embodied in this Bill shifts the burden of responsibility for all increased expense, and the increase of lunatics of Ireland from the shoulders of the Government and puts it upon the people of Ireland, without any opportunity being given for the expression of the universal opinion of Ireland upon the matter.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I can speak upon this matter, I believe, of the uni-
  250
  versal opinion of Ireland. There is no question upon which the Irish people are absolutely united more than they are upon the fact that this Bill makes no adequate provision at all for this matter. If the Treasury would consent to-day to disburse the amount which it would take to build a torpedo destroyer, it would—and I say it without hesitation—settle the whole question. From the richest nation in the world I must say I do not think it is too much for a poor country like Ireland to claim in the name of justice and in the name of humanity this consideration. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Mayo has drawn, to my mind, certainly a most terrible picture of the Irish people. He has shown that while the population is decreasing the number of lunatics is greatly increasing.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Thanks to your landlord system.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I cannot say what it may result from; some people think it is whisky, some people stealing, and some people believe it to be politics, but I cannot tell. I know if the honourable Member for Mayo is correct—and I have no reason to doubt his figures—that there is a large decrease of population, and a large increase in the number of lunatics. If this continues to go on the result will soon be arrived at when all the Irish people will be lunatic. But I do believe that the honourable Member knows perfectly well that a great number of these unfortunate and demented people are sent into asylums now who in former years used to be kept and cared for at home. It is now much easier to get one of these unfortunate people into an asylum to be treated there than it was in times gone by. I do not think the increase in the number of lunatics in the asylums of Ireland is in any way to be attributed to the increase of lunacy among the Irish people. I have not seen any such increase in the county in which I live, and I really

  251
  believe that the increase of lunatics is due to the cause which I have indicated rather than to any decrease of the mental powers of the people. What we ask—and I think it is a very moderate request on our part—what we say is that the State ought to take over all these lunatic asylums. We say the State ought to contemplate a large increase for the maintenance of lunatics, for this reason: recent medical science shows that with more attention there are more cures, and necessarily greater attention involves greater expenditure. The greater the expense the larger proportion of cures, and I say that money laid out to relieve and benefit the most afflicted portion of our population is money well expended. I do not dare to hope that we shall soften the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the extent of causing him to pay the whole of the expense of the lunatic asylums of Ireland. I only wish we could; but I am afraid, knowing the cast-iron character of my right honourable Friend, that we cannot. But what I say is, I think it would be a fair proposition, I think it would be a fair thing, if, having regard to the financial condition of the country at the present moment—the counties pay £174,000 and the Government pay £144,000 a year; that is to say, we pay proportionately the larger amount—it would be a fair thing if that order of things were reversed and the Government paid the larger and the counties paid the smaller amount, and let any increase be borne by the State. Increased expenditure for the lunatic asylums in Ireland is inevitable if they are to be conducted upon the principles laid down by the medical scientific research of the age. If you want to get the best results, and cure lunatics in the manner in which they should be cured, and have them attended as they should be properly attended, it must entail a far greater expense than is at present incurred. Therefore I say that should be borne by the State—besides which, it would be infinitely better for
  252
  the lunatic system if it were taken out of the control of the county councils and given over to the State. You would then have a homogeneous system, embracing the whole of the asylums. You would have influence in the State for getting the best men, and no expense ought to be spared in endeavouring to secure the very best men as doctors for these asylums. And we make this request and it is a very moderate one. There is no question which has excited so much attention in Ireland as this. All classes have joined together and all creeds upon this question, and I think this very moderate demand is one which ought to commend itself to the consideration of the Government and the Committee.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. E. HICKS BEACH,): Of course, everything that honourable Members do not approve of in this Bill is put down to the niggardliness of the Treasury. I will venture to trouble the House with a few observations, not because my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary differs in any way from the view which I take, but because my honourable Friend who has just sat down has directly appealed to me. The question before the Committee seems to me to be of a double character. The very broad question of State management and payment with regard to lunatic asylums I would by no means dismiss as impossible for consideration in the future, but I venture to say it is not a matter which ought properly to be considered with regard to this Bill. As a question of principle, I do not see why, if lunatic asylums in Ireland are to be managed and paid for by the Government, they should not also be managed and paid for by the Government in England and Scotland. The same principle obviously applies to both. We have been told that in Ireland there is likely to be a very large increase of lunatics. I am not quite sure that the increase of lunacy which appears to have occurred in the past may not be largely explained by the very different conditions

  253
  under which lunatics are now dealt with, and that, as my honourable Friend has admitted, many unhappy persons in Ireland who were formerly left in their hovels are now properly treated in asylums. But I am afraid there is some, thing beyond this, and that the grant of 4s. per head has occasionally been a temptation to keep persons in the lunatic asylums who would not have been kept there if the asylums had been conducted wholly at the cost of the ratepayers. My main point is that if throughout Great Britain and Ireland the State were to manage and pay for the lunatic asylums, taking the present figures it would impose, in regard to Ireland, an increased burden of £220,000 a year on the Exchequer, and with regard to Great Britain an increased burden of something like £2,000,000. That is a matter which, I think, ought not to be lightly undertaken by Parliament. The Government, during their tenure of office have been very much blamed for what they have done to relieve the ratepayers at the expense of the Exchequer; and now that the whole question of local taxation has been referred to a Royal Commission, to attempt such an enormous change as this would be in the incidence of local taxation, without a complete consideration by the Commission of the necessities of the case, would be a thing which no Government would be justified in recommending to Parliament. Therefore, Mr. Lowther, although the proposition of my right honourable Friend may be a matter for the future, it is, I venture to suggest, not a matter that can be considered at the present moment. What then are we to do? The honourable Member for Mayo does not agree with the suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dublin University; he entertains the belief that these asylums ought in the future to be under local popular control in Ireland, as they are now in Great Britain. I am very much disposed to share that view. I do not think there is any
  254
  real desire in Great Britain that the present management of lunatic asylums should be altered, and I can well conceive that there may be reasons which would make the management of lunatic asylums, as it is now in Great Britain, preferable to any general, uniform, and, so to speak, cast iron system of Government control. That, sir, is a question for the future. For the present we can only attempt to place the management of lunatic asylums in Ireland on the same footing as they now are in Great Britain.
  MR. DILLON: But my point is the increased cost to the ratepayers in the future.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Why are we to provide for an increase that is problematical? In this Bill the Government are providing liberally for the present needs. We are providing, in addition to the amount of £140,000 which is at present expended, a sum of £35,000, a great part of which will be devoted to this purpose. What have honourable Members to complain of in that? In a matter of this sort the future ought to take care of itself. If there is to be popular management of lunatic asylums, why is there to be no burden upon Irish ratepayers? Is it right, is it to be tolerated that there should be popular control, and that the funds for this purpose should be entirely supplied, or nearly all supplied, out of the Imperial Exchequer? I will not be responsible for any such proposition as that. Greater changes, as I have said, must wait for future consideration, and that is the only answer I can give to the proposition of my right honourable Friend.
  MR. DILLON: I quite admit that if there is to be popular control there must be a certain burden on the ratepayers; but what we object to is that the Government should take advantage of a Bill giving rights of popular control to the people to hit the ratepayers again through, the lunatic asylums.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I am bound to say that I think the Chancellor of the

  255
  Exchequer is unfair in trying to terrify the House of Commons by saying that if the Amendment of my right honourable Friend is agreed to it would involve an expenditure of £2,000,000 a year. There is no doubt about it—for the census returns prove it—that we have in Ireland but the miserable remnant of a race. ["No, no!"] That is the fact. Among the Irish in America there are a smaller proportion of lunatics than among any other race there, whilst in Ireland there are a larger proportion of lunatics than among any other nation in the world. The honourable and gallant Member opposite says it is a question of whisky, or tea, or politics. It is not that only. There are more deaf mutes in Ireland than in any other country. I do not suppose that the deaf mutes are affected by politics. Even the Orange drum cannot reach the ear of the deaf mute. The question arises whether it is fair to apply to a poor country—a country which is afflicted with a greater charge of this kind—precisely the same rule in financial matters which you apply to the richer country, which has not been afflicted with the long curse of historical misfortunes which has fallen on Ireland. I do not know that between local control and central control there is a very great difference in this matter. I believe there is a very great importance in the point whether we in Ireland are to have taken into account the fact of our peculiar affliction, and to receive some greater measure of financial assistance than the people of Great Britain. I know, of course, that the subject of lunacy appears in some ways to be amusing, but it is a fact that, proportionately to population, we have twice as many lunatics as Great Britain. That is a census fact. It is the fact that the proportion of lunatics in Ireland has increased much more rapidly than in England or Scotland. Of course, it may be said that people are, owing to better administration, now treated as lunatic who before were allowed to foam at large, but that is the case in Scotland as well. The fact is that the proportion has been increased much more rapidly
  256
  in Ireland than in England or Scotland, or in any other country of Western Europe. If you look at the American figures, the reason becomes plain. The strong and vigorous part of the population of Ireland have been driven beyond the seas, and only this remnant of a race remains. I do trust that the House will give weight to the claim put forward by the honourable Member for Dublin University, that you should take into account, in dealing with Ireland, the special circumstances which afflict her at the present time with this large burden. On this ground, though I confess that, as between popular control and State control, I prefer any sort of local control, for I have no great belief in the virtues of any central control; still, on the question of whether there should be a special financial system applied to the conditions of Ireland, I venture to support the Amendment that he has moved.
  *MR. H. C. PLUNKETT: At nearly all the meetings called in Ireland to discuss this Bill, the unanimous desire has been that we should support the honourable Member for Dublin University in moving the omission of this clause. We are all glad whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer intervenes in an Irish debate; as a general rule he figures merely as the inexorable Jorkins of the Chief Secretary. I think the right honourable Gentleman has entirely misunderstood the claim that we make on the British Treasury in this case. He has put it to the House that it is an unreasonable demand that we should ask the Treasury to pay the entire cost of the maintenance of lunatics in Ireland, while we in Ireland should have the right of deciding as to who should be classified as lunatics. That is a most reasonable objection. He says it is quite unreasonable on our part that the Treasury should provide for an anticipated increase of lunacy, which is entirely problematical. I do not think anybody will contend that,

  257
  if the State is to control our lunatics, we should not have to pay anything at all towards their maintenance; but all that has been said by the honourable Member for the University of Dublin, and by the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh, is that the Treasury should pay a larger proportion than they now do, and if they want to protect themselves let them pay so much per capita. If they pay, for instance, two-thirds of the amount, it is quite certain that the fact that we have to pay one-third will prevent us from artificially increasing the number of our lunatics. But, as between State control and local control, I think there is a great deal to be said for the former. The Chancellor of the Exchequer objects, as I understand, to what he calls a cast-iron uniform system. In dealing with social and economical problems, it is quite true that local control is often necessary in order to keep in touch with local conditions, but in the case of the insane poor there is a great deal to be said for a thorough uniformity of system. I believe that the treatment of the insane is almost an exact science, and the more cast-iron and uniform your system is the better. I do not see how you can treat lunatics in one district in one way and in another district in another way. Consequently, I think that the objection to a uniform system in the case of the insane entirely disappears. As regards the increase of lunatics in Ireland, it is quite true it might be largely due to a different system in classification, but if the remarkable statement that has just been made to us by the honourable and learned Member for Londonderry is true, and if the average of lunacy among the Irish of the United States is lower than the average of any other nationality in that country, so that the Irish race, as a whole, are not more afflicted with lunacy than any other race, certainly the conditions in Ireland are very peculiar, and justify very exceptional treatment.
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX: I may say that the statement I made is based on the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. PLUNKETT: I accept that, and I am quite sure it can be verified. Although I have met a great many insane Irishmen in the course of my experience, I may say that I have lived a great many years of my life in the United States, and, as far as I can recollect, I have never met a single insane Irishman there. I am quite sure that the census figures, on which the honourable and learned Gentleman relies, are perfectly accurate, and, if that be so—I do not want to rake up the whole history of the question, or to enlarge the scope of this debate, but I do think that the figures show that, owing to many circumstances, Ireland has a claim to special treatment at the hands of England. There is, of course, the larger question of financial relations which I do not venture to introduce as a little side issue in this Debate, but it would be idle for us to disguise the fact that every Irish Member in the House has, at the back of his mind, this financial question in considering this clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I confess I have great sympathy with the Amendment, but I wish to say why it is that I am unable to support it. I am bound to say, having had experience of five Chancellors of the Exchequer—three Liberal and two Tory, or, perhaps, one Liberal Unionist and one Tory—I have never had the honour of saying a single word in favour of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer before, but he seems to me to be the only one man that I have known who has some idea of doing something in relief of the local rates. I first noticed it in 1884 and 1885 on the question of the registration of voters, when he led the whole Tory Party to sanction the proposal to put the cost of the registration of voters upon the local rates. I do go that length in his praise, and I do not know that I can go any further. Now, the right honourable Gentleman who has moved this Amendment has moved it upon a principle that commands my entire sympathy, but what are we on this side of the House to do? So far as the clause goes, it is in favour of giving us local control. Are we to vote against that? What would happen if

  259
  we rejected the clause? Are we to go back to the Irish grand juries? When my honourable Friend the Member for St. Stephen's Green Division shakes his head I know there is a great deal in it. I agree entirely that it is rather shabby and mean to throw the extra cost of lunatics on the ratepayers of Ireland, but I could tolerate that if the clause was not otherwise obnoxious. I do not want to see a huge series of prisons erected in all the Irish counties in which if an unfortunate wretch goes in from one cause or other, I do not say what, he is to abandon hope directly he goes inside the door. I think these unhappy men should get something like fair treatment, and should have some hope infused into their minds; they should be treated as Christians, and made to feel that they have something in common with the world around them.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: May I venture to suggest to the Committee that this matter, after all, would be better discussed when we get to Section 42 of the Bill? The effect of this Amendment, if carried, would not be to place the control of lunatic asylums in future under State control. If the Amendment were carried we should simply preserve the existing system. The existing system, whatever may be advanced against it, has undoubtedly a great deal to recommend it. I must say I do not think this Amendment would improve the position; but, however that may be, if we are to have a discussion on the financial point, I think that should be deferred until Clause 42 is reached, when it can be properly raised.
  MR. CLANCY: I trust that the appeal which has just been made to us by the right honourable Gentleman to close this discussion is not intended as a rebuke to those who have taken part in the Debate, because there can be no more important subject than that which is raised by this clause. For this reason I make no apology for saying a few words in justification of the vote which I intend to give. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dublin University stated that at the meetings that had been held in Ireland the desire had been expressed that the Amendment before the House should be carried. Now,
  260
  that Amendment proposes to hand over to the State, or, rather, to hand back, as the right honourable Gentleman has just explained, to the existing authorities the management of lunatic asylums. What was proposed by the right honourable Member for Dublin University was to hand back those asylums to the State, and also that the State should at the same time be called on to maintain them.
  *MR. LECKY: May I say that the honourable Member for North Dublin is not quite accurate? What I wanted to convey was this: that the feeling of those meetings was that the greater part of the expenses should come out of the Consolidated Fund, and that later on, at any rate, the whole management of these institutions should be under the control of the State.
  MR. CLANCY: I accept the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman. Taking the view I do of the financial relations between this country and Ireland, I cannot admit the position of the right honourable Gentleman, because I say that if the State paid twice the amount that they do they would not even then be doing bare justice between the two countries. If we had an Irish Parliament the care of lunatics would be placed under a special Government Department in the capital, because it is a very special subject, and expert treatment of a high order is required. Until that takes place, I confess that I should prefer to have local control, and I would not thank any British Government for paying the whole of the expense, because I believe the whole of the money is Irish money and not British money. The right honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone had an Amendment on the Paper which I am surprised he did not move—I mean the Amendment proposing that the powers conferred on the Richmond Asylum by the Act of 1897 should be exercised by the joint committee. Last year the governors of the Richmond District Lunatic Asylum came to Parliament and, at their own expense, obtained a special Act enabling them to borrow money on more favourable terms than they could secure under the ordinary law. That, I under-

  261
  stand, is one of the Acts which will be affected by this Bill.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That will not be affected by this Bill at all.
  MR. CLANCY: I am sorry that I did not understand that; I am only surprised that that was not explained to the Committee before.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: The reason I did not think it necessary to move the Amendment was because of the subsequent Amendment that stands on the Paper in my name, to insert in Schedule 1 "The Richmond Lunatic Asylums Act, 1897." That would have the same effect.
  *MR. J. G. BUTCHER: The question of the control of lunatics in Ireland has been considered and reported upon by Committees on more than one occasion. A Commission was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant in 1890, and the conclusions to which they unanimously arrived were embodied in a Report which was issued in 1891. The Commissioners especially considered this question as to the general control of lunatics in Ireland, and the great feature of their Report was that they proposed to establish a general body have control of lunacy administration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that the question cannot be finally determined until we have had the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of local taxation. This Bill proposes that, pending a final decision of this question, the control of lunacy matters should be transferred to these new and untried bodies in Ireland. Now, what I ask the Committee to consider is, having regard to the admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we cannot at present arrive at a final result, would it not be better to leave matters in their present state until we can have some legislation which will be really final? If we adopt the proposals recommended in this Bill, transferring the existing powers of the Board of Control to the county councils that are to be set up, we may hereafter be told that it will be very difficult to introduce legislation on the subject. If, on the other hand, we leave matters as they at present stand, then I trust the Government, at no distant date, may be induced to bring in a Bill
  262
  dealing with the whole question of lunatics in Ireland, private lunatics as well as pauper lunatics, and embodying in it the recommendation contained in the Report of the Mitchell Committee, that a general body should be established having the control of lunatics. This would once and for all put the matter upon a final and satisfactory footing.
  Question put, "That Clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 251; Noes 25.—(Division List No. 86.)
  On Clause 10,
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The Amendment I rise to move on this clause proposes to preserve the existing grand jury procedure with respect to the making of a new road, or the widening of an old one. That procedure is probably the simplest and most inexpensive that could be devised, whereas, on the other hand, the procedure proposed by the Government to be substituted is most costly. I have never been able to understand why the Government should desire to make any change in the procedure which has worked fairly well during the last 60 years, and to substitute for that a Parliamentary procedure, which will be slow and cumbrous and exceedingly costly. Let me point out this to the Committee. Under the Grand Jury Act of 1889, you do not technically acquire possession of the land itself, you simply acquire for the public an easement over the land, and if any person desires that the grand jury should construct a new road he has to serve notices so many days before the presentment sessions on all the occupiers concerned. That is practically the only preliminary, and after that notice in the simplest possible form the matter is heard by the presentment sessions, which approves, or disapproves of the road. Then the matter comes before the grand jury, and they approve or disapprove. In this way the public authority has the power of making a road by a procedure as simple as can be conceived, and involving no expense whatever. If the landowner claimed that any damage had been done to him, all he had to do was to serve a notice on the chairman of the presentment sessions and the chairman of the

  263
  grand jury, and then the traverse was presented for trial by a judge and jury at the Assizes, and the judge and jury assessed that damage. Let me point this out. Antiquated as our Irish grand jury system is, it contained 60 years ago the provision for betterment for which you in England are now fighting so strenuously. It provides that where a party alleges that he has suffered by having a new road made, the jury in assessing his damages may take into account whatever benefit the party derives from the making of the road. Now, that is the simplest procedure conceivable, and what do the Government propose to substitute for it? A procedure by Provisional Order, which is founded essentially on our Parliamentary procedure. You have first to advertise three times in the newspapers, which is, of course, an expensive procedure. Then you have to serve notices on the owners and occupiers. Then you have to petition the Local Government Board, and you have to prove your case under the Standing Orders exactly as you have before a Committee of Parliament. Then the Local Government Board in Dublin send down an inspector, who holds an inquiry, and, strange to say, when that inspector comes he cannot even assess the damage to the land. All he has to do is to hold an inquiry into the question whether the road is desirable or not. If the Local Government Board grant the Provisional Order you have to serve notices on all the occupiers, and again to advertise it at great expense, and then, in the ordinary course, your Provisional Order would have to be sanctioned by Parliament, Fortunately, the Government see the wisdom of providing that the Provisional Order may be confirmed by the Privy Council; but even then that is a most costly process, because the parties have to go to Dublin, they have to have a hearing before the Privy Council there, and the Privy Council simply decides the mere issue whether or not it is desirable that the road should be made. That is only the preliminary stage, because when they approve it you then have to take proceedings under the Lands Clauses Act to acquire the land. You have to serve fresh notices, and lodge a petition to the Local Government Board, and an arbitrator is sent down from Dublin who pro-
  264
  ceeds to assess the value of the land. All this means enormous expense to the locality. I have known it to cost £50 for the inspector alone. The inspector generally makes a personal visit to the land, and, speaking generally, the procedure is as costly as can be. Now, why should the Government desire to substitute this cumbrous, difficult, and costly proceeding for the existing simple procedure by traverse? I have ransacked the Grand Jury Act in vain to discover any reason why the existing procedure should be changed. It may be said that under the procedure by traverse the road cannot be made until the holding of the Assize; that is to say, you can only do it twice a year. Well, surely that is quite often enough. Slow as it is, it is not so slow as this procedure will be, and it is infinitely less costly. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  "In Clause 10, page 5, line 36, after the word 'duties,' to insert the words, 'other than the making of a new road or the widening of an old road.'"—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  MR. KNOX: I trust the right honourable Gentleman will accept this Amendment. I can see no reason for changing the practice which has worked well for so many years. It is even older than my honourable Friend said. I believe the practice dates back to an Act passed by the Irish Parliament last century. It is principally due to this procedure that we have any roads in Ireland at all. We have references to it in Arthur Young's "Travels in Ireland." The subject is certainly too important to be discussed in the few minutes now remaining, and I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question—
  "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again"—
  put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  House adjourned at 12.5.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 9.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 4, line 37, to leave out the words 'Lord Lieutenant,' and insert the words 'Local Government Board' instead thereof."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. JAMES C. FLYNN: The proposal in this Amendment is one that will be viewed with disfavour by many Irish Members. It proposes to transfer to the Local Government Board new and very large powers, more especially in connection with this important matter of the treatment of lunatics. The question is specially important, because we are brought face to face with the dismal, and disheartening fact of a remarkable increase of lunacy in Ireland. We must at present be prepared to accept the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that we
    190
    shall have Parliamentary control in connection with the treatment of lunatics in Ireland, by the fact that the salaries of the inspectors of lunatic asylums are upon the Votes of the House. Last night, too, the Chief Secretary pledged himself that in all matters connected with this service in Ireland, he would be prepared to defend the action of the Lord Lieutenant. Of course the right honourable Gentleman is aware of the difficulty in which Members of this House are placed, especially in supply in a matter of this kind, owing to the fact that we cannot discuss the executive or administrative action of the Lord Lieutenant, because his salary does not come before the House, but is put upon the Consolidated Fund. But, in view of the Chief Secretary's statement last night, we must recognise the fact that the House will, at any rate in the future, have control of this department, as it had in the past. With regard to this particular matter, however, I object to taking the control from the Lord Lieutenant and placing it under the Local Government Board, and I believe that the majority of Irish Members would not view with favour, but with considerable disfavour, a change from the law as it is to a system which would place these matters under the control of the Local Government Board.
    MR. JAMES DALY: After long years of experience as a poor law guardian, and having also some knowledge of the Local Government Board, I look with the greatest suspicion upon any proposal to give that Board new powers. I found the Local Government Board to be an iron-bound, inflexible body, and no board of guardians could get them to do anything reasonable, except in connection with a Motion to increase the salaries of officers, although the work of the officers might not be increased in the slightest. So far as the Amendment now before the Committee is concerned, it is just about the "toss of a button" whether

    191
    it is accepted or not, and I think the Committee might throw up the button and vote according to the way it falls. But from my experience I am not in any way enamoured with a proposal for placing any more powers in their hands. It has been suggested, and suggested very wisely, I think, that this whole question should be placed under the control of somebody separate and distinct from either the Lord Lieutenant or the Local Government Board.
    MR. GEORGE MURNAGHAN: I desire to support the Amendment, because I have no doubt that the change it proposes is absolutely necessary. We have been told that the management of lunatic asylums in Ireland could be no worse than it has been in the past, and if it is so it shows that a change is absolutely necessary in the future. I support the Amendment on the ground that the management of asylums would be better under the control of the Local Government Board, than under the inspection of some dark horse appointed by the Lord Lieutenant—an inspector whom we do not know, and who would not be responsible to this House. The Chief Secretary has stated that he would defend any action of the Lord Lieutenant, but that is because the right honourable Gentleman has a chivalrous instinct to defend the acts of any official. I repeat, Sir, that the asylums would be better under the management of the Local Government Board than of some appointee of the Lord Lieutenant, who would perhaps know nothing of the work, about whom we would know nothing, and about whose actions we would know very little. I think the Local Government Board have stepped in very frequently on behalf of the poor when the guardians were parsimonious or indifferent. I believe I should speak out what I feel, and my impression is that it would be a happy change for the poor lunatics in Ireland if this matter were placed under the management of the Local Government Board. They have machinery at their disposal to inquire into the management of these institutions, whereas the two inspectors of lunacy in Ireland have not the time and cannot give that patient
    192
    and detailed examination necessary for the proper management of the asylums. I therefore desire to support the Amendment proposed by the honourable and learned Member for North Louth, and I do trust that before the Report stage is reached the Chief Secretary will give the matter his consideration and see if effect cannot be given to the representative opinion of Ireland on the matter; for I hold that the vast majority of those who understand the management of such institutions are in favour of the duties being transferred to the Local Government Board.
    COLONEL E. J. SAUNDERSON: I am in favour, as far as I can see, of this Amendment. A great deal of the success of this Bill will depend on the Local Government Board, and I think the Board ought to be the one body dealing with the Bill in Ireland, as it will be ultimately responsible, through its representative in the House of Commons, for what is done. It is a mistake, to my mind, to bring the Lord Lieutenant into contact with the counties under the Bill. I do not think that the Lord Lieutenant would personally know anything about the questions brought before him. You would not expect him to visit a lunatic asylum, or to himself inquire whether the county councils were properly managing the asylums. The real way to deal with questions arising in the county councils is by one authority, not two. That one authority should be the Local Government Board, which we can bring to book in the House of Commons, and not the Lord Lieutenant, who is to the House of Commons a vague personality, which cannot be pinned down to any particular action. With regard to the Local Government Board, I hope that before this Bill leaves the House of Commons that Board will be considerably stronger than it is at present. I do not think that the Local Government Board is at present a strong Board. It ought to be made stronger, and made strong enough to have an opinion of its own—not merely to reflect the opinion of the Chief Secretary. It appears to me that on the status of the Board will mainly depend the success of this Bill. No one will doubt that in Ireland, when this Bill

    193
    becomes law, a vast number of questions will arise involving a great deal of expense, and the Local Government Board will have constantly to deal with such questions; and I venture to hope that the Lord Lieutenant will not be dragged into affairs of this kind. Local administration ought to be dealt with by one body, and there should be no division of powers. The Local Government Board ought to be able to deal with the inspection of lunatic asylums, as it will have to deal with other matters. The county councils will, of course, have a very great influence on how the Act will be administered, but I do not think that the Local Government Board is at present a sufficiently strong Board to deal with questions which will arise in the future. I agree with the Amendment, and hope the Local Government Board will be the authority to deal with all questions arising under the Act.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am unable to accept this Amendment, which would hand over to the Local Government Board the duties now exercised by the inspectors. As the honourable and gallant Member has announced his intention of supporting the Amendment, I may state that I have already explained that the acceptance of the Amendment would involve an alteration in the administration of the existing Lunacy Acts which I am not prepared to make in connection with this Bill. The honourable and gallant Member has given us his idea of what the Local Government Board should be, but I may point out to him that one of the greatest difficulties in connection with the government of Ireland is the existence of boards which are more or less independent of the Parliamentary representatives of the Government, and I certainly would be no party to so alter the constitution and powers of the Local Government Board as to remove responsibility from the Chief Secretary. I would rather increase that responsibility. As regards the powers and duties of the inspectors, it seems to have escaped the attention of most honourable Members in this Debate that we are proposing a very important change in the arrangements as regards lunatics in Ireland by trans-
    194
    ferring to the county councils powers, and throwing on them a direct responsibility which the governors have not hitherto shared. It is not intended to reduce or diminish the powers at present possessed by the inspectors; and, in so far as the Executive in Ireland is to take any part under this Bill in the management of lunatic asylums, of course, the Chief Secretary, as representing the Irish Government, will be responsible.
    MR. J. DILLON: This is undoubtedly an exceedingly important Amendment, but I would suggest that it has been sufficiently discussed now. I have been listening to the Debate, but I still retain the view I expressed at the commencement of the discussion. The honourable Member for Mid Tyrone, in giving his views as to the administration of lunatic asylums, does not appear to have fully investigated the present system and the system now proposed. Under the Bill the whole administration is given over to the county councils, and only the question of inspection practically remains to the Lord Lieutenant. I cannot depart from this particular Amendment without saying a word on behalf of those inspectors of lunatic asylums who have come in for such a flood of abuse. I differ from the view put forward, that these officials are not efficient, and that the administration of the Lunacy Acts has gone from bad to worse. I believe that since the present inspectors were appointed the condition of the lunatic asylums in Ireland has vastly improved, and I think it is cruel that men should be abused who, apart from politics, have not given offence to anybody, who are engaged in the important task of alleviating suffering, who came to that task at a time when the condition of the asylums was appalling, and who have laboured hard, and I say laboured successfully, in spite of enormous difficulties. There is one other fact to which I wish to refer. We have heard last night and to-day an extraordinary display of trust in the Local Government Board. Although I admit fully that the Board sometimes gets on well—for instance, in the case of the Labourers' Acts—I cannot at all share the trust displayed even in the present Local Government Board. Our latest

    195
    experience is in connection with the distress, and what I hold is that, from the natural operation of the inspection of the Board, its tendency is to cut down and pinch, and be on the look-out for extravagance, and in that respect is father disqualified for dealing with the administration of a department where more freedom and generosity should be exercised. Therefore, I do not agree that the Local Government Board is an ideal, or even a desirable, body to superintend the administration of the Lunacy Acts. But if we want any further argument to strengthen that view we have it in the speech just delivered by the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh. If we do not altogether trust the present Local Government Board, I should like to know what the future Board is going to be. If I were inclined to support this Amendment I should require to know the nature of the mew appointments to be made, and whether they would increase the hold of the Local Government Board on the confidence of the Irish people.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 272; Noes 98.—(Division List No. 84.)
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: The Amendment I have to propose is—
    "Clause 9, page 4, line 43, leave out 'one-fourth,' and insert 'one-tenth.'"
    It was understood, Sir, when this Bill was introduced that this Measure, as far as possible, would constitute public boards on an elective basis, and that there would be as little as possible—and very little, if any at all—of the ex officio element introduced on these public boards. Now, Sir, one of the most important public boards in Ireland is the Lunatic Asylums Board, and it seems to me that in proposing this clause as it stands, the right honourable Gentleman has taken away with one hand a considerable portion of what he has given with the other. He proposes, in the second section of the clause, to set up a committee. It reads—
    "The duties of the Council under this section shall be exercised through a Committee appointed by them, and if the Lord Lieu-
    196
    tenant fix a number, of the number so fixed; and out of that Committee a number not exceeding one-fourth may be persons not members of the Council.
    From that it appears that the Lord Lieutenant is to still retain the power of nomination.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is a misapprehension on the part of the honourable Member. The Lord Lieutenant will not appoint.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: If that is so, then there is no necessity for my Amendment, and it at once falls to the ground. I understood from the words of Subsection 2 that the Lord Lieutenant was to nominate.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The Amendment of which I have given notice in some degree serves the same purpose as that of the Amendment proposed by the honourable Member for Louth. On that Amendment the Member for Armagh made a statement with which I very much agree, when he said that it was not desirable that in these matters the Lord Lieutenant should be unnecessarily brought in. I do think that these are duties quite outside the Lord Lieutenant's position, and I do think it is most unsatisfactory, from every point of view, that his name should be introduced into every detail of local administration in Ireland. My Amendment is—
    "Clause 9, page 5, line 6, leave out subsection."
    Now, I think that sub-section is totally unnecessary. I was under the impression that under this Bill these matters could not be gone into, except with the concurrence of the Board of Works; but even then, I think the sub-section is unnecessary, and it seems to me to be outside the province of the Lord Lieutenant that he should be called in to decide plans and contracts for the purchase of land and buildings, and for the erection, restoration, and enlargement of buildings. These things should be dealt with by the county council, because they are matters which the Lord Lieutenant

    197
    will have very little information upon, and therefore I think the sub-section is unnecessary. It may not be a very important point, but I submit that there is no necessity for it.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe this question is of the very highest importance. The honourable Member seems to be quite unaware that this position we have taken up has been taken from the English Lunacy Act of 1890. Under that Act the plans and contracts for the purchase of land and buildings, and for the erection, restoration, and enlargement of buildings have to be submitted to the Secretary of State.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: That is very different from the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member says that is very different from the Lord Lieutenant. I am surprised that honourable Members conversant with the Government of Ireland seem unable to understand that the Lord Lieutenant is a constitutional expression for the Irish Government. The words "Lord Lieutenant" in this clause mean that the Irish Government is to decide.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then all I have got to say in reference to that is this: if you persist in bringing the Lord Lieutenant into this Bill your administration of local government in Ireland will not tend at all towards the chance of its being a success. One of the things we complain of in Ireland is the very thing just stated with so much emphasis here by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary—that the Lord Lieutenant is the representative of the Irish Government. I think the honourable Gentleman the Member for Armagh, and other Members sitting over on the other side, will not agree that that is a position which the right honourable Gentleman ought to take up now. The Lord Lieutenant ought to occupy a position, if any at all, of impartiality in the country, and to bring him into the position of Secretary of State for this country is to give something to his position which it was never intended that he should have at all. I think the Secretary of State under the English Bill occupies a totally
    198
    different position from the Viceroy in Ireland, and it is upon those grounds that I move this Amendment. I said the matter was one of comparatively small importance, and I do not propose to proceed to a Division on it unless it is considered necessary. For myself, I altogether object to the Lord Lieutenant being brought into these things. It is most unwise, and the more you do it the less satisfaction you will give in Ireland.
    MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary just now was astonished at the ignorance of the Irish Members in not knowing that the Lord Lieutenant was a constitutional expression. No one, I think, would be more electrified than the Lord Lieutenant himself to hear that he has been spoken of as a "constitutional expression." The right honourable Gentleman requires, before he uses such words, to have an extremely good memory. Now, let me take this constitutional expression, used here in reference to the Lord Lieutenant, and let me survey it by what took place only yesterday afternoon. Yesterday afternoon the right honourable Gentleman was asked across the floor of the House whether he had considered the propriety of giving some remission of the punishment to an unfortunate woman who was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for stealing some shillings' worth of eggs, and the right honourable Gentleman said that the honourable Member ought to know that that does not come within his department, but that it was the Lord Lieutenant's. There is the constitutional expression coming in. That, Sir, is a simple pretence; the Lord Lieutenant, I am sure, will be very much amused when he finds out what the right honourable Gentleman has stated to be the position of his heavy father. The right honourable Gentleman seems to have an alternative position. Sometimes he assumes all the responsibility, and sometimes he is the whipping boy for the Lord Lieutenant, and we have now to find out which he really is. The right honourable Gentleman has given us the constitutional position of Lord Cadogan, but his lordship differs from the right honourable Gentleman, and consequently he will be

    199
    surprised to know this. I happen to know how Lord Cadogan describes his own constitutional position in public speeches in Ireland in which he has stated that in his hands is the responsibility for the whole Government of Ireland. That is his statement. I will not dwell in reference to this part of the subject except to say this much, that it is utterly absurd for these Bills and these provisions in Bills to bring in the name of the representative of the Queen, and to say, in a sentence which is supposed to express fair and proper language, that the Lord Lieutenant does so and so when you tell us upon another occasion that he does nothing of the kind. Let us settle the responsibility on the right horse, and let us—as has been described by an honourable Member of the opposite side of the House—not for ever be bringing in the representative of the Royalty to do most unroyal functions. I shall be very glad to hear the right honourable Gentleman's opinion upon that subject, and, better still, I should like to hear Lord Cadogan's opinion of the statement of the right honourable Gentleman.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I do hope that we hall not have to vote upon this Amendment, because that will strike out the whole of the sub-section. Now, whatever may be our opinion of the Lord Lieutenant or the Local Government Board with regard to matters of this kind, we all agree that there should be some control somewhere in some Government department over the purchase of land and buildings to any large extent, and over the contracts and plans in regard to the enlargement and building of asylums. In the Division which has just taken place with regard to this question I hesitated a good deal how to record my vote when I saw that honourable Members from Ireland did not agree amongst themselves which way to vote. I think, however, that having settled the matter for better or for worse as to whether the Lord Lieutenant or the name of the Local Government Board should be inserted, I do not intend to travel over those arguments a second time. Having put the words "Lord Lieutenant" in, I do not think we need now discuss the question of putting in the words "Local Government Board." What
    200
    we are really discussing is, as the Chief Secretary has pointed out, as to what the control of these plans and contracts is to be. In England, as has been pointed out, the Lunacy Commissioners, who are really a branch of the Home Office department, are responsible to the Home Office, and these gentlemen constitute the body which holds the inquiry. And certainly, although the county councils may think their requirements are excessive, nevertheless, I do not think anybody will deny that, taking the operations of the Lunacy Commissioners together, their advice and their recommendations have led to a very important improvement in the lunatic asylums in England. With regard to the sanctioning of loans, I should rather like to clear up this point. I understand that the Board of Works or some other body will come in. It is only in reference to plans and contracts that they have to be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, but when you arrive at the borrowing stage, then you have to come to another department. Although this machinery may seem a little complicated, you have to go to the Local Government Board to get your loan. This may, perhaps, seem cumbrous, but it has, on the whole, worked well enough in England, and so we need not be afraid of following the same course in Ireland.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: The honourable Gentleman seems to have put this down as if it raised the issue between the Lord Lieutenant and the Local Government Board in Ireland, but that is not so. The point is this: that, as the clause stands, with this subsection in it with regard to plans and contracts for the buildings you require, you have first to go to the Lord Liedtenant and then to the Local Government Board.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: No, no.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: The honourable and learned Member says "no," but I think it is so. This sub-section deals with the erection of buildings and the acquisition of land. That means capital expenditure, and capital expenditure means borrowing, and borrowing means going to the Local Government Board. The honourable and learned Gentleman alluded to the Order in Council. Now,

    201
    the borrowing powers of county councils can only be exercised by going to the Local Government Board. Now, it appears to me, Sir, that though the honourable Member who has last spoken suggests that the only objection involved is that of being cumbrous, I think that cumbrousness is itself a sufficient objection. I do not see why this matter should not be taken up by one Government department after one inquiry. But as the Bill stands, it will be necessary, when the county council wish to acquire or extend any building, first to go to the Lord Lieutenant, who, by this section, is given the power of approving plans and contracts and incidentally the power of altogether refusing to sanction them. The one thing involves the other. It is not so much a mere matter of the plans and specifications involved in the section, but it is the control the Lord Lieutenant has over the question as to whether the county council will be allowed to extend its buildings or not. Why should there be more than one inquiry? Why should not the county council make the proposal, as we have settled it is now to be the Lord Lieutenant? But afterwards, when they have got the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, they have to go through a second bother of going to the Local Government Board, who will again rake up the whole question of the necessity for the building, the official position, and whether the plans are proper plans; and they may compel in that way the county council to have the whole thing over again. There is a second point arising on this clause. It gives the Lord Lieutenant a special power in relation to expenditure on lands and buildings, and, curiously enough, that is the very one department of lunatic asylum administration in which the Imperial Treasury make no contribution whatever to the expenditure. As I understand, Sir, with regard to lunatic asylums, when the county council or the grand jury at present expend money, either on buildings or land, they get no Imperial assistance whatever for that expenditure, and under this Bill they will get none. The Imperial contribution is a contribution of so much per head for the lunatics maintained or provided for in the asylum, and that is a mere contribution for maintenance. But when capital expenditure of this kind has to be incurred, the Im-
    202
    perial Government gives no contribution whatever towards that department of lunatic asylum expenditure, and for that reason, Sir, it is an expenditure which has been largely increasing, and which has become very oppressive. Now, it does seem unfortunate that the one matter, as regards which the Lord Lieutenant should exercise special control, should be that very department of the county council's duties relating to pauper lunatics, and the right honourable Gentleman defends that. I do not know whether there is anything to be said in favour of it, and how we are to get any satisfaction on the point I have raised that there ought not to be a double inquiry whenever land or buildings are required.
    MR. J. J. SHEE: My opinion of this clause is that the Lord Lieutenant will have to sanction the erection of all buildings or alterations, however small they may be. It seems to me that if those who have control of the lunatic asylums desire to provide additional sanitary accommodation, for instance, they will have to approach the Lord Lieutenant first for his sanction. In order to do so they must first draw plans for the purpose, and enter into a contract, and the expenditure itself on the plans and contracts must all receive the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant. Furthermore, it seems to me that if they desire to renew, for instance, the roof of the house—suppose the slates are falling off—this clause, as it stands, will compel them to go to the Lord Lieutenant to get his sanction for the purpose of putting on new slates to restore the roof to the building. Then, again, I think if the scullery is to be whitewashed the Lord Lieutenant's sanction will have to be obtained. I think some maximum of expenditure should be left to the Commissioners of the lunatic asylums. If the clause proposed that when the expenditure exceeded £500 of £1,000, then the Committee would have to go for the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, I could understand it; but as it is at present, the Committee cannot enter into any arrangement whatever for the restoration of any buildings, or for the enlargement of any buildings; for instance, the adding of a scullery to a

    203
    lunatic asylum—they could not go in for anything of that kind under the clause as it now stands. Therefore I think that unless some maximum of expenditure is allowed to the Committee of the lunatic asylums, which they can spend without the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, the clause is extremely ridiculous.
    *SIR B. W. FOSTER: With reference to this clause, we have in this country the Local Government Board on one side, and the Commissioner of Lunacy at the Home Office on the other, and although it seems acumbrous arrangement, it works on the whole fairly well in England. In Ireland we are now adopting a system of local government which is just as elaborate as the system in England. I think we should remember that while in England we have, to enable that to be carried out, various departments represented in this House, in Ireland we have neither the several departments nor their representation in this House, and therefore we are obliged to have resource to general method of central control over expenditure such as this, and consequently the Lord Lieutenant becomes a convenient expression for the Government of Ireland. It must be in all cases referred to some department in Dublin when there is any extension of buildings required. We have in England that sanction granted by the Local Government Board or by the Lunacy Commissioners. Now, we have no equivalent system in Ireland, but the real Home Office sanction in Ireland is given by the Lord Lieutenant, and that is the method of expressing the Government sanction in Ireland. Until you have in Ireland—which I hope you will have some day—a similar body represented in this House, or in some other House, until you have such a body I think you would be wise to put up with an expression like this, which carries out, as nearly as can be under the circumstances, which we have in England.
    MR. FLYNN: I think this power with regard to the plans and contracts should be given to the county council itself rather than to the Lord Lieutenant. It must be quite obvious to the right honourable Gentle-
    204
    man that there must be a great deal in the arguments just put forward. I can quite understand that in the erection of new buildings and large edifices and substantial additions it is necessary that there should be some revision of the work by some other body; but in the case of smaller alterations or small expenditure, I think the right honourable Gentleman might very well accept an Amendment in the direction of a maximum sum—say £200 or £300. Of course, I do not like the sub-section at the present moment, but I think that the suggestion of the noble Lord is a very good one.
    MR. JOHN DILLON: I think there is a good deal of force in what has been said, because, no doubt, as the section stands, it might set up a most absurd condition of things, because the smallest thing could not be carried out without submitting contracts and plans to the Lord Lieutenant. As I understand this sub-section, the real object of it is this: that the plans for additions should be submitted to the Inspectors of Lunacy. I take it for granted that the Lord Lieutenant, in dealing with these matters, will act in conjunction with skilled advisers, who would inspect the plans and give their opinion as to whether the proposed new buildings were up to the mark as regards scientific arrangement, and whether the accommodation was sufficient to provide for the efficient treatment of the lunatics in the asylum. That is the way in which I suppose this sub-section is intended to act. But if there is any force in the statement of the Lord Lieutenant that the expression meant him personally, that would enable the Chief Secretary to give, in respect of any action of the Lord Lieutenant's, the same answer he grave in the House last night, that it did not belong to his Department. I think there is a very strong case against the words in the subsection.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: There are clauses in the English Lunacy Act dealing with this subject, and I daresay that they have been incorporated in some part of the Bill. Therefore, probably, the object of the honourable Member who has just spoken is provided for. In the English Lunacy

    205
    Act, as honourable Members who represent English constituencies are aware, there are special clauses under which committees of the county councils have the control of asylums, and they have certain special funds provided to meet repairs and small alterations out of the funds which are provided in the manner laid down in the Act. It is only when they have to provide for matters which require a loan that the permission of the Lunacy Commissioners and the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board is called in. But, although I have not had time to consider it, the point having been raised rather suddenly, I think it exceedingly likely that the Government have incorporated in the schedule some of these powers; and, in any case, if they have not, it would be a very easy thing to extend the schedule and to deal with this very practical point raised by the honourable Members from Ireland.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We have not incorporated those provisions in the English Act, nor do I think it is at all necessary. I cannot imagine that any difficulty will arise in connection with the words in Sub-section 4, for, really, it is a condition which has been practically taken from the English Act, and in England it has given rise to no sort of difficulty, and has not caused any friction. Sir, it is clear that on the one hand it would be very inconvenient to take from the Local Government Board powers which it possesses in every other case of sanctioning proposals of local bodies. On the other hand, it would be equally inconvenient to take away from the Inspectors of Lunacy, who will be the advisers to the Lord Lieutenant, their discretion as to whether such enlargments and alterations are suitable.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman what in the English Act corresponds with the Irish Lord Lieutenant?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Secretary of State.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The Secretary of State has an office, and a large competent staff to advise him. Will anybody tell me who are the gentlemen who are
    206
    the engineers to the Irish Lunatic Asylums Board?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: They have an architect attached to the Board.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Who is the architect? This Amendment shows the absurdity of the Government insisting upon retaining the decision in their own hands. The inspectors and directors, as I understand the matter, are the same people. That is to say, they go out as inspectors and inspect the lunatic asylums, and give their opinion upon the sanity of the inmates and the condition of the buildings. Then, on their return to Dublin Castle, they meet as a board, and as a board they recommend to the Lord Lieutenant what, as inspectors, they had recommended to themselves. That is the system in Ireland. Will anybody tell me that is comparable with anything that happens in England? Who are these inspectors? None of them were ever in a lunatic asylum until they were appointed. In addition to their ordinary functions they are to give opinions on the purchase of land. What do they know about the purchase of land? They are to settle contracts, they are to settle plans, they are then to provide for the erection, restoration, and enlargements of buildings, and these works are not to be carried into effect until they are approved by the Lord Lieutenant. Now, the inspectors who are to do this work are Dr. Plunkett O'Farrell and Dr. Courtenay. These gentlemen are to have the honour of revising the entire work of the county councils. I should like to know who made these gentlemen rulers and judges in Israel? Why should the opinion of these doctors be sought as to whether a building should be three stories or two stories high, or whether it should be slated or tiled? The Local Government Board have attached to their office a number of gentlemen who are well competent to act in these matters, but these two doctors have really no experience in them. They were appointed without experience, and yet the Government cling to the proposition that they are to override the 32 county councils of Ireland. And this is what is called local government! A more reasonable Amendment could not have been

    207
    proposed. Why are plans to be submitted to these two gentlemen? What do they know about plans? We are told that the Lord Lieutenant has an architect to advise him. Who is the architect? His name is Mr. Ussher Roberts—C.B., I need hardly say—one of the well-known Roberts family who are employed in various situations in Ireland. Therefore it comes to this, that the whole of the 32 counties in Ireland are to sit at the feet of Mr. Ussher Roberts, C.B. He is practically the Lord Lieutenant. I condemn the hypocrisy of this system, which puts in his Excellency when you mean Mr. Ussher Roberts all the time. These legal fictions have come down to us from olden times, but the modern legal fiction is the creation of the right honourable Gentleman. Why not put Mr. Ussher Roberts in the clause, with possibly his photograph as a frontispiece? That would be the proper way to deal with this section. I cannot understand the mean action of the Government in dealing with the question of lunatics in Ireland. The Government have refused to do their duty by these lunatics for the last 50 years, and they now cast the responsibility upon the unfortunate ratepayers, who will have to build these asylums themselves, and pay the piper. Why didn't the British Government provide the necessary accommodation when the Treasury had to pay a portion of the cost? They neglected their duty, and now, forsooth, we are to do all the work ourselves, and Mr. Ussher Roberts is to have the advantage of compelling us to draw the plans in conformity with his views.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is difficult to take the honourable and learned Gentleman seriously. His argument is that the Local Government Board should be entrusted with responsibility in this matter, and not the Lord Lieutenant. And for what reason? The reason assigned is that the Local Government Board has a staff competent to investigate such questions as those of buildings. Then the honourable and learned Gentleman decried the inspectors of unions, and went on to say that if they were to keep the Lord Lieutenant in the clause the effect would be that, instead of the Lord Lieutenant, it would be Mr. Ussher Roberts who would have complete control. Well, Sir, if that is a sound
    208
    argument, it is an equally sound argument, against putting the Local Government Board in the clause, because the Local Government Board will also act through its officials. I should not have risen to point out what is obvious if it were not for the fact that this is the third time that the honourable and learned Member has depreciated the qualifications of the inspectors of lunatics and denied that either of them had any experience in regard to lunacy matters. Dr. O'Farrell is one of the best inspectors of the Local Government Board, and a distinguished doctor, and Dr. Courtenay was, I believe, resident medical superintendent of the Limerick Asylum for five years before he was appointed as inspector of lunatics.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I wish to quote the actual clause to which I alluded just now. I was rather disappointed by the reception given to what I can assure the right honourable Gentleman was a perfectly friendly suggestion. Section 266 of the English Lunacy Act, 1890, would meet the point raised by one or two honourable Members from Ireland. I will read the section, which will show that the right honourable Gentleman was mistaken in his observations with regard to a financial limit. There is a financial limit in this section, which is as follows—
    "The Visiting Committee of an Asylum may, of their own authority, order all necessary and ordinary repairs. They may also, of their own authority, order all necessary and proper additions, alterations, and improvements, which the Asylum may require, to an amount not exceeding £400 in any one year."
    And then the clause goes on to say that—
    "An order for repairs, additions, alterations, or improvements to an amount exceeding £100 shall not be given, unless the order is approved and signed by at least three visitors at a meeting of the Visiting Committee, duly summoned, upon notice that the proposed expenditure is to be considered thereat."
    I suggest that the section, which gives the necessary freedom to the committee up to a certain amount, should be included in this Bill.
    MR. STRACHEY: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary if he has ever acted as a visiting justice, or

    209
    as a member of a visiting committee of a county council? I fancy he never has, or he would not have made the statement that there would be no difficulty in working in England such a section as the one to which the Amendment has been moved. Under this section it would be impossible for us, without going to a higher authority, to enlarge our cowsheds, to erect a pigsty, or to do anything that was necessary on the farm. Restoration may simply mean whitewashing or painting. It is perfectly ridiculous to have to go to the Lord Lieutenant for his sanction to do such work as that. I cannot see why the same free hand with regard to necessary expenditure on improvements should not be given to the visiting committees of lunatic asylums in Ireland, as is given to those asylums in England.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I was not aware of the sections in the English Act referred to by the noble Lord. I will consider the point between now and the Report stage of the Bill.
    MR. KNOX: It will not, in my opinion, be possible to carry out the clause as it stands without completely revising and consolidating the Irish Lunacy Acts, either by an Order in Council or by a subsequent Bill. It was found impossible in England to work the system in connection with the county councils, without amending and consolidating the Lunacy Acts. I believe it is possible to do this by an Order in Council under the present Bill, and, if that is so, I think the Chief Secretary would do well to consider the matter. The chief reason which he gave against the transference of these powers to the Local Government Board, will go, because it is impossible to attempt to set up this new system in Ireland without revising the Lunacy Acts. On the point as to whether the gentlemen comprising the Board of Control are fit people to revise plans. I have formed a strong opinion to the contrary, based on two cases. The first case was that of Belfast. Dr. Plunkett O'Farrell swore on oath before a Committee of the House of Commons, on the Asylums Bill of 1892, that the asylums standing in Belfast would be sufficient for the needs of Belfast for a great number of years to come. No sooner was the Bill passed
    210
    than this same doctor, acting as the Board of Control, purchased 100 acres of land outside Belfast, and commenced building a new asylum for the city. And that is not all. In his evidence, which was sworn before the Committee, he gave the strongest testimony possible against the system of auxiliary asylums, which, he said, was a bad system, and one which ought never to have been permitted. No sooner had the Bill passed, than he approved, in the case of Belfast, of the very system of auxiliary asylums which in his sworn evidence he had condemned. What is more, he said that the worst of all systems was the system of using workhouses for the accommodation of lunatics that were not dangerous, and yet he is one of the professional advisers of the Chief Secretary, who are responsible for the provision in this Bill which proposes to adopt that very system—a system which, according to the sworn evidence of Dr. O'Farrell, is the worst possible system. I have formed an opinion of Dr. O'Farrell as a result of that, and I do not consider that the interests of the Lunacy Board in Ireland are improved by having Dr. O'Farrell in the position of a responsible official. The second case is the case of the asylum of Deny. Years ago it was decided that the condition of the lunatic asylum of Deny was horrible—a sin against civilisation. But what steps were taken to remedy this state of affairs? The delays of the Board of Control were something extraordinary. They delayed buying land, they delayed in getting the plans approved, and in inviting tenders for the work, and when the plans were approved they were so enormously above the estimate that it was found absolutely impossible to carry them out. The effect of their action has been to leave for five years the lunatic asylum of Deny in a most horrible condition. I understand that the department of the Board of Control which is specially condemned is the architects' department. I have heard from gentlemen engaged in the profession that they regard it as an indignity of the worst type that they should have to get their plans approved by a gentleman like Mr. Ussher Roberts, who cannot be said to be at all competent for the work. After the plans have been approved by Mr. Roberts, the contract has to be approved by Mr. Lane (solicitor to the Board of Control and the

    211
    Board of Works), and then you have to go to a third department—the Local Government Board—to get their approval to the borrowing of the money for the carrying out of the work. The fact is it will be found impossible to carry out this section as it stands. The entire system of lunacy administration in Ireland needs to be put on a more satisfactory basis. Though most parts of the Bill before the Committee have been extremely well worked out, those relating to the administration of the Lunacy Acts have not been so well considered. That is because the Chief Secretary has been advised, not by the Local Government Board, but by gentlemen less efficient.
    *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I am not going to detain the Committee at any length. I certainly think this clause is objectionable, but not on exactly the same grounds as those put forward in other parts of the House. My objection to the sub-section is that, after plans have been prepared, contracts entered into, and other expenses incurred, the Lord Lieutenant will have the power of absolutely vetoing the whole work. I think the sub-section ought to be so framed that before any expense is incurred, the necessary approval should be given. I suggest that Sub-section 4 should be dropped for the present, and that at the Report stage a sub-section might be framed which would meet the objections which have been urged.
    MR. CLANCY: I do not know what course the Government are going to take, but I would advise my honourable Friend to go to a Division, unless the Chief Secretary consents to abandon Sub-section 4 and bring up fresh words at the Report stage, or some subsequent stage. My honourable Friend's object in moving this Amendment was not to get rid of all control. What we object to is that three or four Government departments will have to approve of these plans, contracts, and specifications before anything can be done. The right honourable Gentleman said the Board of Works would have nothing to do with the matter. I do not understand how that can be. The county councils will get transferred to them the business that is now transacted by the governors of lunatic asylums, and the
    212
    governors of lunatic asylums cannot do anything in the way of erection, restoration and enlargement of buildings without bringing in the Board of Works architect, surveyor, and solicitor, and the Board of Works secretary and chairman. I do not see how the transference of the powers of the boards of governors to the county councils will get rid of the Board of Works. And then, after you have had the approval of all these bodies, you are to get the approval of the Board of Control. In my opinion the Chief Secretary has entirely evaded the essential point upon this matter, and if he does not agree to omit the sub-section and to bring in other words to meet the points that have been raised, I will advise my honourable Friends to go to a Division.
    MR. SHEE: I support what the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has said; this clause is very badly drawn from beginning to end. As the honourable Member on the Front Opposition Bench said, it is extremely absurd that, after the county council has incurred great expense, say, in the investigation of a title for the purchase of land, they should have to go to court for the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, which approval the Lord Lieutenant may possibly refuse on occasions. On that point alone I think I am justified in saying that this clause is very badly drawn. Then as to the point which I raised, and which was emphasised by the noble Lord when he quoted from the English Act, by which it appears that the county councils cannot move without the approbation of the Lord Lieutenant; the honourable Member who sits below me proved from his experience of the working of the English Act that such an arrangement is of no necessity. On all these points this sub-clause has been very badly drawn, and therefore I think that the honourable Member who has moved the omission of this clause should press his proposal to a Division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 121.—(Division List No. 85.)
    MR. FLYNN: The Amendment I wish to move is not on the Paper, but I handed

    213
    it in at the Table. My Amendment is with the object of leaving out the words "Lord Lieutenant," and substituting the word "county council." There is a great deal of difference between omitting a sub-section and trying to amend it; and I think it will be acknowledged by all that, if for the purposes of this section the power of revision is given to the county council, it will be a great improvement indeed upon the Bill. In the first place we are not supposed to think that the Lord Lieutenant himself has any special knowledge of the architecture of these buildings. The Amendment which I have ventured to bring forward is based upon this principle. The Government are supposed at first to have some control or some responsibility in connection with the management and maintenance of the general working of the asylums before they are handed over to the county council, but with regard to the buildings and erections, and so on, all the expenditure has to be borne by the county councils themselves. So that in other words the Government want to retain the power in connection with these enlargements and repairs, towards which they do not contribute a penny. All the expense falls upon the local rates and the county council, and whereas it would not be unfair that the Government should retain a power of revision in connection with the general work of lunatic asylums, it would be quite unnecessary and quite unfair that the Government, whether through the Lord Lieutenant or the Local Government Board or any other body, should seek to hamper the county council in connection with the committees of management. I may, perhaps, illustrate the argument I am endeavouring to put before the Committee very briefly by reference to the Cork Lunatic Asylum, one of the largest in the entire county. I regret to say that, owing to the great increase of lunacy, which I am sure is equally deplored by the benches opposite as by these benches, it has become necessary to erect very large additional buildings indeed. But the necessary work of erecting these buildings, bringing forward the plans, estimating the expenditure, etc., is at a standstill, owing to the deadlock which has grown up between the Board of Control (which would be abolished by this Bill) and the present
    214
    governors of the asylum. It has never been denied that the present governors of the asylum carry on their work in the most efficient manner. They are representatives of the different classes and sections of politics in the country, and they do the ordinary work of the asylum properly and efficiently, and now they are face to face with this state of things, which illustrates the danger of passing this sub-section as it stands. Whereas they had a free hand in connection with the management, the maintenance, and the general conduct of the working of the asylum, in connection with any addition to the buildings, or enlargement, they possess no control whatever. But there is a worse state of things even than that, and I presume it exists with regard to every lunatic asylum in the country. The Board of Control (and, I presume, under this sub-section the Lord Lieutenant and his advisers will claim the same power), not only not sanction, but they send down their own architect and order the erection of buildings without consulting the local governors, who are supposed to be entrusted with the government of the asylum. Is there any reason whatever, or common sense, why the Lord Lieutenant should have the revision of these plans? You will have a county council whose powers are delegated to a local lunatic asylum committee. That local committee will have a great deal of power. Unquestionably there is no doubt they will have a large responsibility thrown upon them, and they are not likely to indulge in any extravagance of expenditure, and it is quite possible that, instead of there being extravagance of expenditure, it will be quite the other way. Besides, before a penny can be expended, the local committee will have to refer the matter to the county council—a body which can deal with it, and a body which is not likely to sanction extravagance or unwise expenditure; and, while I do not at all approve of the idea that there should be a transfer of powers to the Local Government Board, it is quite a different thing to transferring them to the county council, which most of us who are acquainted with the management of the work will agree is a proper body to exercise control over these matters, and, as far as buildings, important alterations,

    215
    and enlargements go, the matter would, I think, be quite safe in the hands of the local committee, subject, of course, to the supervision and control of the county council. I beg, therefore, to move, in Sub-section 4, line 8, that the words "Lord Lieutenant" be left out, and the words "county council" substituted.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already expressed the opinion that it is essential that the plans for buildings and accommodation in connection with lunatic asylums should be subjected to the approval of some central authority. It is done in England, and it is done in Scotland, and I believe it is done in every country in the world where lunatic asylums are established. So far as the honourable Member proposes to substitute the county council for the Lord Lieutenant is concerned, I cannot accept the Amendment. If the county council desires, before sanctioning the expenditure of the money, to see the plans and contracts, I presume it will be competent for them to do so. They have a general power of control.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I desire to support the Amendment of my honourable Friend, which, I think, is a very reasonable one. If the county councils are placed, as they are placed by this Bill, in charge of lunatic asylums, they have proper officers to supervise any plans and specifications that may be made out. I think that the right honourable Gentleman is drawing the line a little too tightly. He refuses them any control over the alterations or additions that may be required in the lunatic asylums, although they have to find all the money that is required. I think there is every reason for an Amendment such as this, and I sincerely trust that every effort will be made to induce the Government to give their serious attention to this matter.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I hope that I shall be able to persuade the honourable Member that there will be very serious difficulty in working out his Amendment in practice. The Committee must recollect that the Asylums Committee is, in the eye of the law, quite independent of the county council, and
    216
    may represent, and actually does represent, many different county authorities; and, therefore, in a case of that kind, which might happen fairly often in Ireland, you would have to go, not to one authority, but to several, and it would be a very considerable practical difficulty. Then, again, it must be borne in mind that the application for a loan, as I read this Bill, must, as is the case in England, proceed from the county council, and, therefore, supposing that the section is passed in its present form, it is a mistake to imagine that the county council will have nothing to say upon these points. The county and borough authorities are the bodies which contribute between them the expense of maintaining these asylums, and, that being the case, it would always be idle for the Asylums Committee to attempt to run, in important matters, counter to the views of the county council and the different borough authorities. Under these circumstances it appears to me that it is necessary, in order to get a sanction for entering upon enlargements, additional buildings, or new buildings, to go to some central authority, and not to the county council alone, and it does not much matter whether that central authority is the Local Government Board or the Lord Lieutenant. The subject is a highly technical one, and I trust that I have made it quite clear to the Committee; at any rate, I have endeavoured to do so.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The great fault of a central authority in a case like this, where the gentlemen who form the boards are also the inspectors of the board, is that they cannot put an intelligent view of their case before the central authority, and the returns of the travelling expenses charged by the inspectors who visited the outlying asylums show how little attention they pay to their business. The idea of a central authority as put forward here, is an absolute sham, and yet right honourable Gentleman will accept no change in this clause. It is the worst drafted clause in the Bill, and in the opinion of all who have studied the matter likely to prove most unsatisfactory in the working of it. Some one took the point against me that there was no power. The first clause provides that if it appears to the Lord Lieutenant that

    217
    any council fail to perform such duty he may order that council to remedy that failure within the time and in the manner (if any) specified in the order. Now we are going to put in a power on Amendment in regard to the most important duties of the council. We are putting a most tremendous power into their hands. I think the supervision of the county council is sufficient, and I say the central authority is a sham, and the right honourable Gentleman knows it to be a sham at the present time, but it was intended to make it a reality in the future, but the Government took very good care that it should not be at their own expense. They have tolerated this system for 50 years, and now, for the first time, they are stricken with sympathy for the Irish lunatics, and will take care that they shall be provided for.
    MR. FLYNN: There is one point which I think very important, which the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has not yet referred to, and that is that the whole of these expenses are to be borne by the local taxpayers. But these inspectors who go down to see the lunatics, of course, make reports and make suggestions, and it appears to me that the county councils are to be silent committees. Of course, I quite see the point that the lunatic asylum may be in two or more comities, but it is for us to amend that in that respect. I do not wish to press this matter to a Division, but I did hope the right honourable Gentleman would have given the matter some further consideration.
    The Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.