Commons Sitting of 5 May 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the Clock.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES (ORDER IN COUNCIL).
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord ARTHUR W. HILL,)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the humble Address of the 19th April, as followeth:—
I have received your Address praying that I will make the Order in Council under the Military Man œuvres Act, 1897, a draft of which was presented to your House on the 17th February last.
I will comply with your advice.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CUSTOMS OFFICES (SOUTHAMPTON) BILL.
  Re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.
  CUSTOMS AND OTHER OFFICES (BARRY DOCK) BILL.
  As amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 199.]
  BOMBAY, BARODA, AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  CHIPSTEAD VALLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  FOLKESTONE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  STAINES RESERVOIRS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  SWANSEA GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  WATERFORD CITY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
PETITIONS.
  ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  For weekly payment, from Lincoln, Hartlepool, Wilton, Towcester, and Brackley; to lie upon the Table.
  CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Against, from Forfar and Arbroath; to lie upon the Table.
  COURT OF SESSION ACT, 1868.
  Of the Faculty of Procurators of Greenock, against alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  EX-OFFICIO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour, from Arbroath, Fullarton, Crosshill, St. Andrews, Darvel, and Stevenston; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  From Stockton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  From Manchester, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  HONORARY BURGESSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  In favour, from Birmingham and Toxteth; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE. (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) BILL.
  In favour, from St. Ives and Leith; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (WOMEN) BILL.
  From Leith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Aberdeen, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour, from Dundee and Irvine; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Peterhead, Saltcoats, Galashiels, Plymouth, St. Andrews, Montrose (3), Brechin (2), Irvine, and Alloa; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Bexhill, Middleton (4), Oswestry, Ilfracombe, Manchester, Mickley, Romsey (4), Sithney, Hilary, Penzance
  352D
  Newlyn West, Brea, Bossullow, Dowran, Nanquidno, Bojewyan, Moroah, St. Just, Helston, Tow Law, Coatbridge, Trewarwett, Church Gresley, St. Ives (2), Lalant, Mousehole, Breage, Ashfield, Syke, Grewelthorpe, Oban, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Timsbury, Braishfield, Pye Bank, Montrose, Hexham-on-Tyne, North Stainley, St. Leonard's, Glasgow (3), Brierfield (4), Willesden, Dorchester, North Wootton, Exeter, Crediton, and Hereford (2); to lie upon the Table.

  SHOPS BILL.
  From Leith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  From Leith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, ETC.
  LAND LAW ACTS AND LAND PURCHASE ACTS (IRELAND) (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented of Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Procedure and Practice and the Methods of Valuation followed by the Land Commission, the Land Judge's Court, and the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland under the Land Acts and the Land Purchase Acts, Volume II., Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUEZ CANAL (COMMERCIAL, No. 4, 1898).
  Copy presented of Returns of Shipping and Tonnage, 1895, 1896, and 1897 (in continuation of "Commercial, No. 4, 1897") [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic) and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2,073 to 2,075 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 455 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented of Statute, made by the Governing Body of Pembroke College, Oxford, on the 7th December, 1897, making an addition to Clause 16, Statute VI. of the College Statutes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 195.]
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Copy presented of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 31st March, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (POSTMEN).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 28th April; Mr. Provand]; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW UNIONS.
  Copy presented of Statement of the names of the several Unions and Poor Law Parishes in England and Wales, and of the population and area thereof, together with the Post-town of each Parish [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COMMONS ACT, 1876 (RUNCORN HEATH AND RUNCORN HILL, CHESHIRE).
  Copy presented of Report by the Board of Agriculture upon an application for a Provisional Order for the regulation of Runcorn Heath and Runcorn Hill, Cheshire [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 196.]

  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the Rates of Duties, Taxes, or Imposts collected by Imperial Officers; (2) the Quantities or Amounts taxed); (3) the Gross Receipts derived from each Duty; and (4) the Net Receipts and Appropriation thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1898";
  "And (1) the aggregate Gross Receipts derived from all such Duties, Taxes, or Imposts under the principal heads of Revenue; (2) the aggregate Net Receipts; (3) the Charges of Collection; and (4) the Produce after deducting these Charges on each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1898:
  "And, Notes to show any changes in the Taxes, Duties, and Imposts, consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget Proposals of 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 404, of Session, 1897)."—(Mr. Goddard.)

  ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered—
  "Giving the number of Arrests for Drunkenness within the Metropolitan Police District of Dublin, and the cities of Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, on Sundays between the 1st day of May, 1897, and the 30th day on

  352G
  April, 1898, both days inclusive, the Arrests being given from 8 a.m. on Sundays till 8 a.m. on Mondays;
  "And, similar Returns for the rest of Ireland from the 1st day of May, 1897, to the 30th day of April, 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 88, of Session, 1898)."—(Mr. William Johnston.)

  TEACHERS OVER AGE (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the number of Male Teachers over 65 years of Age, and of Female Teachers over 55 years of age, teaching in State-aided Schools in Scotland on the 30th day of April, 1898."—(Mr. Crombie.)

  RESERVE AND DISCHARGED SOLDIERS, CIVIL EMPLOYMENT (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the persons employed on the fixed establishment of the House of Commons as messengers, hall-keepers, porters, night watchmen, attendants, cloak room attendants, office keepers, cleaners, and fire lighters, indicating the names by initials, and showing the pay received by each such person in respect of such employment, the date of his appointment, whether he is a Reserve or Discharged Soldier, and, if he is, specifying the rank he formerly held, and the corps to which he used to belong."—(Mr. Brookfield.)

NEW BILL.
  CROWHURST, SIDLEY, AND BEXHILL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read first time; and referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WESTMINSTER BRIDGE AND EMBANKMENT TRAMWAYS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. E. Boulnois.)
  MR. JAMES STUART: It may be for the convenience of the House that I should very shortly give some explanation as to the character of this Bill. It is a Bill for bringing a tramway across Westminster Bridge, and carrying it along the Embankment, past Charing Cross, towards Blackfriars Bridge, thus bringing the traffic which is now landed on the other side of the bridge across the bridge. There is an important feature in connection with this Bill, and that is this: that it has been already passed by this House. In 1891 the London Tramways Company brought in a very similar Bill, which was thrown out in this House, and in the following year the London County Council brought in a Bill similar to the one which was thrown out, and also similar to the present Bill, and that was carried in this House by a small majority. The majority of the previous year which threw it out was about 35. It was carried by a majority of two in the following year, in a House of about the same size. Of course, it then went before a Committee of this House upstairs, and they passed it. There was one Amendment made in Committee—namely, that the tramway, instead of being carried along the Embankment as far as Charing Cross, was stopped opposite the end of the Horse Guards' Avenue. The Bill, in that form, went to the House of Lords, where it was thrown out by the Committee. Briefly, that is the history of what has taken place in connection with this important legislation, and therefore in bringing the Bill before the House again, in a modified form, the London County Council is asking the House to pass a Bill which, in one form, they have

  353
  rejected, and again, in, a slightly different form, they have passed. It is now brought forward in a form very slightly different from that in which it was previously passed. There are two points in the Bill which I would bring before the attention of the House. In the first place, the object of the Bill is to bring the traffic across Westminster Bridge; and in the second place, it is to carry it along the Embankment. I would ask the House to remember that those are not necessarily bound up one with another. That point would be clearly a matter for the Committee to decide, as to where the line should be stopped. Of course, this House is pretty familiar with the objects of the Bill, and naturally it is very familiar with Westminster Bridge. There is a good deal said against the Bill, I know, in private conversation, on account of the increase of traffic which will ensue at this end of the bridge if the line is brought across. But I would very much wish that honourable and right honourable Gentleman would take the trouble to see what happens to the traffic on the other side of the bridge. Across the water the vast population which comes off these tramways is in a very difficult position, as any Member may assure himself of if he cares to take the trouble to look. This is exactly a point which a Committee of the House would go into and settle, and they would see whether the contentions which I am putting forward are correct or not. There are a very large number of persons who come from the south of London across Westminster Bridge daily to their work. We have had figures taken of the number of persons who crossed the bridge in 1892. They have not been taken since. Between the hours of eight in the morning and eight in the evening on a day in 1892, when we had them counted, there were something between 20,000 and 30,000 passengers crossed the bridge, the great number crossing northward in the morning and southward in the evening. That large numbers of people—many of them shop assistants, and others working in the Strand, in Regent Street, and the City—especially the City—have to get out of the tram-
  354
  cars on the further side of the bridge, and cross it—very frequently, I am sorry to say, owing to the numerous changes in our climate—in rain or snow or wet or sludge, of some kind or the other, which incommodes them very much during the rest of the day. If they can be brought across the bridge into the neighbourhood of the Underground Railway they would be saved a certain amount of discomfort, which they can only get rid of now by expenses which they are not very well able to hear. With respect to the promotion of this Bill, the London County Council has brought it in because of the pressure that has been brought to bear upon it by persons on the other side of the water. We had a petition to the County Council some time ago, which I mentioned when I spoke last upon this subject, which is signed by some 60,000 or 70,000 of the inhabitants on the other side of the water. That petition pressed the London County Council to take up some such undertaking as that which I am now advocating. We have communicated with the authorities on the other side of the water, and I will tell you those who are favourable to the undertaking. There is the Battersea Vestry, Newington Vestry, and St. George the Martyr; Bermondsey takes no action in the matter, and the Local Board of Wandsworth is against the Bill—I wish to give the whole thing perfectly fairly to the House; and the vestry of Lambeth is in this position: it supported the Bill of 1891, and the Bill of 1892, which is practically this Bill, but in the case of this Bill, it appears on a petition against it. That position is taken under very peculiar circumstances. It objects to the Bill on one point only, and that is that we do not ask for power to work the tramways in connection with the other tramways on the other side of the water. If we did that it would enable the vestry of Lambeth to get rid of a certain amount of refuse. If we had done that the vestry of Lambeth would have been prepared to withdraw its opposition to the Bill. I may say at once, however, that for the London County Council to have adopted that course would not have been in accordance with

  355
  the Standing Orders of the House, as anyone familiar with the Standing Orders will see. There is another objection to the County Council taking that course, and that is, that it would affect the future of tramways which we might possibly acquire sooner or later. The vestry of Lambeth is in no sense opposing this Bill generally, so far as I can make out from the correspondence. It is not opposed to the making of the tramway across Westminster Bridge. I think I have given to the House the position of the local authorities on the other side of the water. Now, as to the London County Council itself. The London County Council passed a resolution to proceed with this Bill in the middle of last year—that would be the late County Council—the usual time for passing these matters. A very large number of members who are Members of this House and of the London County Council—men of both sides of politics—voted in favour of this Measure. That shows that it is not a Party Measure in any sense of the word, and has never been regarded as such. The whole position I take up before the House in the matter is that this, owing to the circumstances which I have described, is a Bill which may very fairly be sent before a Committee. The House must remember that a Committee of this House has passed a Bill which is practically the same as this, and therefore we are only asking the House to send it up again to a Committee, which may consider it under the altered circumstances. There are altered circumstances. In 1891 and 1892 the London County Council stood more or less alone in the matter of tramways. Since that date the Council has obtained further powers with respect to tramways, and the whole policy has become perfectly settled and perfectly definite, and the consequence is that we are creating a tramway here, or should be creating a tramway here, which would be in continuation of the other tramways which we have practically settled to acquire. Under these circumstances, I think there is ample reason for wishing Parliament to reconsider a Bill like this, and for expressing a hope that this House may send it up to a Committee, so that it may judge upon its various merits or demerits, which will be urged on the
  356
  one side or on the other, for or against the Bill. It is usual for the House to send up Measures of this description for consideration by its Committees, and there are only two points which I will allude to for a moment, and then I will sit down. Whatever may be one's views as to the right or wrong system of working tramways, whether or not a local body like the County Council should do it, it is absolutely essential that the power of working them should be in the hands of the local authority, in order to enable it to make a proper bargain with the companies who may be working them. The House, perhaps, is aware that it has itself given to the County Council the same power of working their tramways as are possessed by the tramway companies themselves. In the Vauxhall Bridge Tramways Bill the same power was given as is asked for in this Bill. It was urged against this Bill on a previous occasion that it was inadvisable that a tramway should cross the river. But that point has been settled, because the House has already passed in the Vauxhall Tramways Bill a Measure for carrying a tramway across the river, and, therefore, the general principle on that point is no longer one which is open to discussion. Those are the two points that I wish to call attention to in respect of this Bill. Further than that I have no more to say, beyond asking the House to give this Bill a Second Reading and send it to a Committee upstairs.
  MR. E. BOULNOIS: I have often heard some very clever speeches from my honourable Friend and colleague, and, although he certainly has got a bad case to deal with in this Bill, he has made a very able apology on behalf of the London County Council in favour of this Bill. I am aware that the authorities of this House are not in favour, as a rule, of intercepting a Bill from going to a Committee. They view with disfavour any attempt of that kind. For my own part I think it is better and fairer that all private Bills should go before Committees, in order that they shall be threshed out, because it is quite clear that the House is not a suitable body for dealing with such subjects. But there are exceptions, and I think this is one of those Bills where exception should be made, and

  357
  the House should deal with the policy which the Bill advocates, and refuse to allow it to go before a Committee. The description of the Bill is very fairly given by the honourable Member for Shoreditch. He says, quite truly, that it proposes to cross Westminster Bridge, and then turn at right angles and go down the Embankment to Blackfriars Bridge. The honourable Member for Shoreditch says it is a Bill brought up in a modified form from that which was passed by the House in 1892, but which did not become law, in consequence of the action which was taken in another place. The only modification that I can see is that, instead of the tramway being compelled to stop, as it was made to do by the action of the Committee upstairs, at the end of Horse Guards' Avenue, which is this side of Charing Cross, it is now made to go the whole length of the Embankment and stop at Blackfriars Bridge. My honourable Friend has given the particulars relating to the approval or opposition of the local bodies on the Surrey side of the Thames. There are only a few that are absolutely in favour of the tramway, but he did not tell the House, as I will tell the House now, that all the local bodies on this side of the river through which the tramway proposes to pass are against the Bill, and no doubt if the Bill was read a second time and sent upstairs to the Committee, these objectors would have an opportunity of being heard, and of stating their objections before the Committee. But I think it is rather hard that we should have to pay on the rates the expenses of the London County Council in promoting the Bill and the expenses of these local bodies in opposing the Bill. The greatest number of people who live on the north side of the river are not in favour of the Bill, and they have no opportunity of being heard before the Committee of the House of Commons, because they have no locus standi, and it is on their behalf that I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, in order that the House may prevent this unnecessary and wanton Bill from going any further. I say it is unnecessary, because a tramway which is put down to cross Westminister Bridge is really of no use if it turns at right angles and goes down the
  358
  Embankment. Logically, it should go to Charing Cross, and up Regent Street, or along Piccadilly. I do not know whether honourable Members favour that idea, because it is extremely difficult now to get to the House sometimes, as it is, and with tramways passing and repassing it would be much more difficult. I say that the Bill is unnecessary for this reason also. Anyone who has been on this side of Westminster Bridge and noticed the people crossing will have seen how very few of them turn to go along the Embankment. My honourable Friend has mentioned 20,000 who use the bridge. I suppose he means pedestrians; and he has accurately described their sufferings in walking over the wet, muddy sludge, which they have often to encounter in crossing the bridge. My sympathies go with those people to that extent, and I am very sorry for them. But they do not turn to the right at the foot of Westminster Bridge. They pursue their way to Charing Cross, and do not go eastward at all. Anyone can see that not more than five per cent. of the pedestrians crossing Westminster Bridge turn to the right and go along the Embankment. The Embankment really is for swift traffic, and when it was opened it was astonishing to see what relief it gave to the Strand in that respect. For my own part, I believe that if a tramway were put now along the Embankment, the cabs and carriages would resume their ride along the already congested Strand instead of continuing to take the Embankment, because, if there is one thing more than another that a cab-driver, or any other driver, hates, it is a tramway. There is another proof of the truth of what I say in the fact that during all these years that the Embankment has existed no proprietor of omnibuses—the London General Omnibus Company or the Road Car Company—has thought it advisable to run omnibuses along the Embankment; and the House knows as well as I do that omnibus proprietors are not slow, as a rule, to find out routes on which to put their omnibuses, which are largely used by the public. More than that, it is quite certain that the tramway companies on the other side of the river, if they had thought there was any prospect of taking any number of passengers along the Embankment would have long since started

  359
  those convenient halfpenny omnibuses in that direction, those 'buses which we see every day going in the direction of Charing Cross, and loaded with some of these 20,000 people from the other side of Westminster Bridge of whom my Friend spoke. Besides, nobody who wanted to go into the City from the Surrey side of Westminster Bridge would ever attempt to cross the bridge. If you look at the map which has been sent round to all of us this morning, you will see what an enormous bend the river makes after passing Westminster Bridge to Blackfriars Bridge and beyond; and anyone on the Surrey side of the river would save at least half a mile by turning to the right on the other side of the bridge, and thus reaching Blackfriars Bridge, or whatever his destination in the City might be. I see in the statement which has been sent out by the London County Council that they make a great point that there is an enormous congestion of traffic where the tramway lines end. I believe that there is a congestion; but I believe that if the tramways were brought across the bridge the congestion would be removed to this side of the river, because the bend of the tramways is at a very short angle indeed, and looking at the traffic which comes along Parliament Street already, I think anyone will see that, where there are constant tramways passing or repassing, the traffic would become much more congested, and we should find that there would be much more congestion outside these Houses of Parliament than there is on the other side of the river. Then there is the artistic point of view, which I will leave to other Members to deal with who can do it much more justice than I can. I will only observe this, that all of us are justly proud of Westminster Bridge and the Embankment, and I think we all ought to be grateful to the old Metropolitan Board of Works for having left two such monuments behind them. When the Metropolitan Board of Works ceased to exist, some nine years ago, the London County Council took their place, and since that time has done absolutely nothing whatever to beautify and improve London. [Cries of" No, no!"] I hear one or two "No, no's" from the other side, but I should like to hear details of any beautifying works.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the honourable Member that this is a question of tramways.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I am sorry I was led into a discussion on that point by the other side. But I do say this—that if the London County Council axe now actually going to destroy and disfigure what their predecessors did it will be a great pity. We live, I know, in a utilitarian age; but the destruction, from an artistic point of view, of one of our finest and most modern bridges, and of an esplanade, if I may call it so, which is second to none in the world, would only be justified, in the first place, by public interests, and, in the second place, by conferring a real benefit upon the people of London. I maintain that neither of these considerations exists in this case; and, more than that, that the general public, so far from being in favour of this scheme, are absolutely averse to it. The House of Commons last week, by an overwhelming majority, rejected a scheme which had for its object the spoiling of the approaches to and the appearance of the Houses of Parliament. I trust that to-day we shall have as large a majority in protecting Westminster Bridge and the Embankment, and the Houses of Parliament, which I think all admit form one of the finest features of our great river. I will not detain the House any longer. I sincerely hope that this useless, unnecessary, and wanton scheme will be rejected by a very large majority.
  SIR JOSEPH WHITWELL PEASE: In seconding the Motion, I may say that I have been one of those who have watched the development of Westminster Bridge and the Thames Embankment with some interest. I happened to be one of the Select Committee of this House some years ago to whom was committed the case of apportioning the land of the Embankment between rival claims, and in laying out the building line for occupying that land (which was then derelict), and doing what we could, as Committee of this House, to maintain and improve that which was really brought into existence by the making of the Thames Embankment. I may say I am one of

  361
  those who have consistently voted in favour of the principle of private Bills going up to Committees, in order that all their details may be fully examined into; but I believe with my honourable Friend opposite that there are many cases in which Bills should not go before Select Committees. This is not merely a simple London question for the benefit of the people of London alone. London is the metropolis of this country, which not only exists for the benefit of those who are here from the country occasionally, or for those whose habitual residence it is, but London belongs to all the people of England and to all English-speaking people; and we do hope that some of what have been called the amenities of London will be preserved from what I may describe as acts of vandalism, and it is on this ground that I oppose this tramway. I do not believe for an instant that the London County Council wishes to do anything but what they think would facilitate the traffic of the metropolis, but I believe that this Bill will be inimicable to the traffic of the metropolis. There is another reason against this scheme. It happens that in these days in which we now live great assemblages of people meet on this Embankment in order that they may marshal themselves to go forward to Hyde Park to speak of matters of what they consider to be public interest, and if you make tramway lines and allow tramcars to pass up and down this Embankment, and to go through all these people who assemble there, they will greatly disturb them in the formation of their processions and create danger and disorder. After all, we come back to the question of what is best for the metropolis as a metropolis in which we are all interested. I have a very strong feeling indeed that there is no public necessity for this Bill in regard to the passage of individuals to and from employment. I do not think it is at all necessary for that purpose to make a tramway across the best bridge over the river Thames and along the Embankment. I have also had to do with Committees sitting in connection with public improvements in the Strand. Those public improvements must before long be carried out, and that portion of the Strand where there is generally a
  362
  considerable block in the traffic is that portion which will shortly be improved, and which will open a still better road to the city. If you look at the Thames Embankment as a road from the west to the east you cannot do better, in my humble opinion, than leave it as it is at present—a road for wheeled traffic of all kinds—leave it as a place which is material to the glory of the great City of London. Do not deprive it of a charm which it necessarily has not only for us who only dwell here occasionally, but for those who dwell here constantly, and which would be absolutely destroyed if this Bill were allowed to pass.
  CAPTAIN CECIL W. NORTON: As the representative of one of the districts of South London, I may claim to have some interest in this question. I understand that a whip has been sent round this morning bearing the names of a number of Members who are in favour of the rejection of this Bill. I noticed, however, that few of them had any connection with London, and none of them—with one exception—any connection with South London, and this is manifestly a scheme in the interests of South London. Amongst the objections which are put forward in that whip I find, first and foremost, that it is alleged there is no necessity for this scheme. That was the point generally urged by the honourable Gentleman who spoke opposite. He referred to the disfigurement and mutilation of the bridge, but I fail to see how a couple of tramway lines, laying flush with the roadway, can have any material effect on the architecture of the bridge, We Englishmen, of all people in the world, we, the most practical of nations, ought to be the last to complain of the fact that the bridge would lose any beauty by giving facilities for passenger traffic. We find that in Paris, which, I presume, is as beautiful a city as London, the tramways run through the very best portions of the city and down the very best avenues. We find, moreover, that the roads on their embankments, right and left of the Seine—the Quai d'Orsay and the Cours la Reine—have tramways along them, and we find that quite recently the Municipality of Paris has decided to run a tramway down the Champs d'Elysées. The

  363
  æsthetic side of the question may be put out of sight. It is further stated in these objections that the relief to the. Strand and other thoroughfares will be injured. But one of the objects of this Bill is the relief of the Strand, because a number of persons who now go viâ the Strand would then go viâ the Thames Embankment to the City. Another of the objections is this, that a tramway over Westminster Bridge would greatly obstruct the large and continually growing traffic across the bridge. Why, at London Bridge you have four continuous streams of traffic, and that traffic is regulated almost as if it were laid down on tram lines. Again, the objectors say that the bridge is too narrow for tram traffic. That is a question which the London County Council, who are taking this scheme in hand, have had put before experts. You have 53 feet of roadway, and 16 feet will be taken up by the tramway, leaving 37 feet for the remainder of the traffic. It is also urged by these objections that the bridge is the means of access to the Waterloo Station of the London and South Western Railway Company, and that the making of a tramway across the bridge would interfere with those going to that station. Does that mean that the entire population of South London is to be inconvenienced because a certain number of persons who can afford to go in carriages only require, perhaps, to go once a year when Ascot races are taking place—to Waterloo Station? Is this a question of the convenience of the units who ride in carriages and cabs against that of the scores who ride on tramcars and omnibuses? It is said that if this line is made across Westminster Bridge there will be a great block of traffic in Parliament Street. But the honourable Gentleman who made that objection will be relieved to hear that it is not to be supposed that the tramcars will stop immediately opposite this House, or even opposite St. Stephen's Club. They will necessarily be stopped several yards farther up the Thames Embankment. The great block of traffic, which is not only inconvenient but dangerous, opposite St. Thomas's Hospital is due to the fact that the roadway there is particularly narrow. The Thames Embankment is three times as wide, and therefore it is
  364
  far more suitable as a terminus for the tramway than the present one is. The sixth objection to the making of this line is that the large proportion of foot-passengers over the bridge are not working men. That is an absolutely false statement if you take the term working men and working women in its broader sense. By far the greater number of those who pass over Westminster Bridge, and who are persons who dwell in South London, are clerks, warehousemen, shop assistants, and such like workers, male and female. It would be distinctly a great boon to them if, instead of being obliged to leave the tramway system on the other side of the bridge, they could by means of this extension of the tramway be brought to a point where they could tap the underground railway and the omnibus lines running eastward. I shall be told about the halfpenny 'buses to Charing Cross. During the last 12 years I have crossed Westminster Bridge during almost every hour of the day and night. I do not mean in the early hours of the morning, but at a very late hour at night—say, from seven in the morning until, perhaps, one in the next morning. I have crossed that bridge over and over again, and I know that when the weather is unpropitious it is an extremely difficult matter to get a 'bus, and it is next to impossible to get a cab. I repeat that it will be a great boon to the working classes to be able to travel right across, the bridge in the tramcar. We are told, Sir, that only about 5 per cent. of the pedestrians who cross the bridge turn to the right, along the Embankment, and for a very clear and good reason, too. No working man goes along the Embankment, because time is of infinite value to him. He works long hours, and takes a considerable time in going to and from his work, and along the Embankment at present he has no tramway, omnibus, or vehicle of any sort or kind, of which he can take advantage should he desire to go that way. My contention is that a tramway along the Embankment would prove a great relief to the traffic along the Strand. At a meeting of working men held at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, resolutions hostile to the scheme were passed. Why, Sir, in less than a week I could get demonstrators from

  365
  South London against the Bill which would fill the Memorial Hall 20 times over. I said "demonstrators against the Bill." I meant to say "demonstrators in favour of the Bill." But, however it may be, if any such meeting as that described did take place at the Memorial Hall, it must have been what is commonly known as a "bogus" meeting. To say that the working men of South London are opposed to this scheme, honourable Members must know, is positively a false statement. Will the Members for Brixton, Peckham, Camber-well, Walworth, Lambeth, and Kennington rise in their places and condemn this Bill? I think not. [Two honourable Members—Mr. H. M. STANLEY, Lambeth, N., and Mr. BANBURY, Camberwell, Peckham—rose in their places.] I am delighted, because, as the honourable Member behind says, I have succeeded in "drawing the badger." I am glad that the electors of the constituencies represented by those honourable Gentlemen will now see how far they consult the convenience of those who sent them here. It has not been urged on this occasion, but it was urged in a former Debate, that this would be doing a very great injustice to the District Railway, because many years ago the District Railway paid £200,000 for the privilege of running a line beneath the Thames Embankment. But surely the people of London did not for the sake of £200,000 give away the right to use the upper portion of the Embankment? Of one thing I am convinced, that, although this Bill may be rejected on this occasion by the House, before many years it will undoubtedly pass.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: The reason that I speak in this Debate is that I was requested last summer to head a deputation to the Westminster Vestry which was successful in inducing that body to pass a resolution in opposition to the Bill, and in determining them to present a petition against it. A great deal has been said about South London, but I think the interests of North London should also be considered; and there can be no doubt that if this tramway once gets across Westminster Bridge we shall then hear that it is a cruel
  366
  shame that it should be stopped there, and we shall have pointed out to us the tremendous congestion of the traffic as a reason why we must extend it along Victoria Street, Great George Street, Birdcage Walk, and Constitution Hill to Hyde Park Corner, as being in a straight and direct line. We shall be told that the people of South London want to go that way in order to enjoy the air of Hyde Park, and also we shall be asked to extend the tramway lines, and, with a much greater show of reason, up Parliament Street, through the grand new thoroughfare, and so on to Regent Street. Now, all the constituencies north of the Thames are decidedly hostile to this Bill. If this were only a working man's question we should have to consider fairly whether the rights at present enjoyed by those who are not working men should stand in the way of the convenience of a large number of people. I do not know whether this is a working man's question, and I can only say that, having taken the part which I have described in regard to the deputation to the Westminster Vestry, I have been approached by a very large body of working men, and asked to continue in my opposition to this Bill. The reason they put forward for that request was this, that it is of the utmost importance that the working men of London, especially the people of the East End of London, should be able to demonstrate in favour of various causes, and that any such traffic as proposed by this Bill, would interfere with meetings on the Embankment, and would prevent the proper organisation of the demonstrations—that it would seriously interfere with what they consider to be a decided right and advantage; and they, therefore, say that this Bill should not be proceeded with. I will not go over the grounds which have been taken up by the previous speakers; I only confine myself to those two reasons. As a general rule, I always vote in favour of a Bill going before a Committee upstairs. Having had some experience as a Parliamentary agent, I have naturally every sympathy with those gentlemen who will materially suffer if this Bill is thrown out. But this Bill is not a matter of detail, it is a question of principle, and on a question of principle I am not in favour of leaving it to four gentlemen on

  367
  a Private Bill Committee, however eminent they may be. For the reasons which I have urged, I trust the House will reject this Bill.
  MR. G. T. C. BARTLEY: So far as the question of tramways is concerned, I can quite understand that it is a personal question. Those of us who ride on tramways like them, and everybody else dislikes them. But, on the principle that we have given our sanction to them in the past, it is clearly obvious that we must extend them in places where they are wanted. I had the misfortune to vote for this Measure some years ago, and I shall do the same to-day. Although, of course, I do not care to see the tramways along the northern part of the Thames—where, by-the-bye, I live—the fact remains that this tramway will be an enormous advantage to a great proportion of the people of this great city of London, and will increase the means of locomotion to those who live south of the Thames. We cannot get away from that fact, and it seems to me that this question divides itself into three parts. There is the question of doing away with the congestion on the other side of the bridge. Those of us who have passed along there know perfectly well that this tramway terminus on the other side of the bridge is an extremely dangerous place. The horses, by a somewhat old-fashioned system, are turned round, and the whole traffic of the roadway is continually stopped by this arrangement. It has been urged that Westminster Bridge will be completely spoiled by the trams passing over it. I really think that to be an exaggerated statement. It cannot be more injured by the trains passing over it than it is by a series of omnibuses, and, although we may not care very much about it, there is no doubt that for people to be shot out of a tramcar on a wet day on the other side of the bridge, and to have to find their way afoot across the bridge, is a serious state of affairs, which I think we are bound to alter. Then it is said that the Embankment should not be spoiled. In my constituency we have tramways on roads so narrow that it is really impossible for a carriage to pass between the tramcar and the kerb. If ever there was a road absolutely fitted for
  368
  the purpose of tramways, it is the Thames Embankment, and although I personally enjoy using the Embankment very much, and should be personally sorry to see these tramways, still it is obvious that they must go there. We have sanctioned tramways in almost every part of London, and it does seem to me to be rather absurd that we should endeavour to prevent them from going down the Embankment, because they would come near to this House. Whether we pass this Measure to-day or not, it is quite clear that the tramways will have to come over the bridge before very long. It is quite clear that they will have to go along the Embankment, and therefore I shall certainly support the Second Reading of this Bill. As I said before, many of us do not like it, but in London we must do our very best to extend and increase the facilities for locomotion in every possible way.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The London County Council which has introduced this Bill is the local authority, and in that capacity is mainly responsible for London traffic. I venture to say that if the Corporation of Glasgow or the Corporation of Liverpool were providing a similar Bill to this, Members on both sides of the House would defer to the suggestions of the local authority in the matter of regulating the traffic of its own city. I think that the House of Commons will do well to ignore any personal objections that its Members may have, and will deal with this Bill as they would with the Bill of any municipal corporation by sending it upstairs to a Committee. Every Member of this House must be acquainted with the extraordinary growth of the London traffic, the congestion of that traffic in some streets, and particularly the dangerous congestion which exists within the precincts of this House. This state of things is due to one of two reasons—reasons which the House of Commons is mainly responsible for. What do we find? From Kensington Town Hall to Westminster Bridge, through St. James's Park, the Green Park, Hyde Park, and Kensington Gardens—owing to the privacy of these public parks—the traffic from the west is diverted round Piccadilly, down Cockspur Street, to Parliament Street, to get over West-

  369
  minster Bridge, and the effect of that is to bring to the corner of Parliament Street a large amount of traffic that is dangerous to legislators and inconvenient to the general public. In order to minimise that to some extent the London County Council proposes that the traffic in Parliament Street shall be lessened by taking the traffic from South London over Westminster Bridge, down the Victoria Embankment, which is relatively unused, and discharge that traffic at points like New Scotland Yard, Charing Cross, the Temple, and, finally, at Blackfriars Bridge. If that were done we should have much relief to the traffic going from south to west by Parliament Street, and from east to west over Westminster Bridge. There would also be great relief to Ludgate Hill, Fleet Street, the Strand, and Parliament Street. It is for these considerations that this Bill is mainly introduced. What are the arguments against it? We have heard the argument of the legislative Sam Weller from the Member for Marylebone, who used the stage coach argument that Sam Weller senior would have used 70 or 80 years ago; but beyond an objection to 'buses and trams, what the average coachman, especially the conservative coachman, feels, there was no single argument in the honourable Member's speech. I venture to say that the House of Commons has only got to go to the Surrey side of Westminster Bridge and see the struggle that the people have to get in and out of the trams to be convinced of the necessity for this Bill. Honourable Members, when next they go to Henley, to Ascot, and to Goodwood, will observe that, through the tramway having its terminus on the Surrey side, Westminster Bridge is frequently blocked with cabs and other vehicles, and the effect of that is to cause a danger to life and property, and to be a disgrace to the local authority, which cannot by any means, especially if this Bill is rejected, prevent that condition of things from continuing. It is in order to prevent it that we propose that the tramways shall stop, not at the Surrey side, as they do now, but shall be allowed to go over Westminster Bridge, and discharge at one, two, three, or four points upon the Embankment. First let us deal with the passengers who come from the south, the south-east, and south-west of the Surrey
  370
  side of the water—generally speaking, not very rich people. They are people to whom a penny or twopenny ride is a very serious consideration. What is the result of the present state of things? In this country we have much weather, but very little climate, and it is a great consideration to shop girls, and especially to working women, that they should not be turned out on the Surrey side of Westminster Bridge to wrestle with Government clerks for a halfpenny 'bus, and in many cases to walk over the bridge and get wet through, and stand in their wet clothes for an hour or so. From mere humane considerations this Bill ought to pass. We go over the bridge to Parliament Street, and what do we see there? We see that Parliament Street is getting more and more congested. But why is it so congested? It is congested because the tramways discharge their passengers on the Surrey side, and because they are not allowed to cross the bridge and discharge them at various points along the Embankment. The Tramways Company have put on 30 or 40 halpenny 'buses that are responsible for certainly half of the congestion—the dangerous congestion which exists outside this House. I suggest that if these tramways came over the bridge these 'buses would be discontinued, and that obstruction would be removed to that extent. Now I come to the aesthetic objections to the Bill. I do not see how a straight line of rails down the Embankment will affect the view of the Embankment in any respect whatsoever. I cannot see how it will affect the bridge, and I cannot understand Members who wanted the Westminster Improvement Bill passed objecting to this Bill on the ground that it will interfere with the aesthetic view of the Embankment. Let us deal with the practical details of the Bill, and I think that is the chief thing to deal with. I believe that the Thames Embankment is wide enough for the swell who drives and for the poor man who rides. I believe it is wide enough for the prosperous stockbroker in his hansom cab and the prosperous journalist in his private carriage. What is the width of the Embankment? From wall to wall it is about 140 feet wide. The roadway is 90 feet wide, and if this Bill is allowed to go upstairs to a Committee there will be one or two suggestions made in order to suit the conveni-

  371
  ence and the objections of honourable Members, as to which way would best suit the public generally in the location of the tram lines. We could either have the tram lines near the gutter on each side, letting the vehicular traffic go in the middle of the road, or we could put the tram lines down the centre, and leave the vehicular traffic to the sides. Seventeen feet only will be occupied by the tram lines, and that will leave a width of road available for vehicular traffic wider than Victoria Street. There will be 73 feet of roadway clear for cabs and other vehicles, whether you have the rails on the side or in the centre, and that is sufficient to enable both sections of the public to have their respective conveyances. Then we come to another argument used against this Bill, and that is that demonstrations will be inconvenienced. I thank honourable Members opposite for their sympathy to demonstrators. It is the first time in their lives that they have ever expressed such a feeling, and incidentally they express that sympathy for the first time when their own convenience is likely to be affected. Anyone who knows anything about demonstrations (and I know very little) will find that in the largest demonstration we have ever massed on the Thames Embankment, you could run a double tram line down the centre and there would be sufficient room for the processionists, as any competent police officer would be able to tell. But I am told that there is another class of persons who object to the tramways, and that is the class who think that the Metropolitan Railway Company may be affected if this healthy competition is established. Then we are to understand that the modern æsthete is in favour of blow-holes for the dividends of private companies, but is not in favour of tramways for the riding public. If our beautiful Embankment can be vandalised by the Underground Railway, with its stinking blow-holes, poisoning the air, and making a hideous eyesore to the Embankment, which I should like to see removed—if that can be done for private profit, are we to listen to æsthetic objections to a tramway, when these objections come from shareholders or directors of the Metropolitan Railway Company responsible for these abominations? The objections to tramways are mainly senti-
  372
  mental, and the objections to this Bill are perhaps made to gratify a prejudice against the London County Council. But I believe that the House of Commons will put itself above the personal or the prejudiced view, and will look at this Bill from the point of view of what is best for the convenience of millions of people. I say that these people demand a tramway over Westminster Bridge. They demand that you should not turn people out on the Surrey side in wet weather and cause them to walk across the bridge. I am positively convinced of this, that, if the tramways are allowed to go over Westminster Bridge, the county council, as the bridge authority, will see that the tramway lines are kept in the best possible condition, as good as they are on the Clapham Road—which are admirably kept—and if this Bill passes and the tram lines go down the Embankment we may be able to kill two birds with one stone by taking up the macadamised road when the tramway is laid, and putting down a fine hardwood pavement from one end to the other—a pavement that would give the cab rider that splendid smooth ride and the private carriage rider the beautiful ease to which we should like to accommodate them. But, whether that is done or not, two millions of people in the south of London demand it, in the interest of the men who work, and who produce the wealth of this city; and if the West End of London were polled, and if the people of the West End had to choose as to whether their occasional inconvenience should weigh against the daily, material, pressing personal wants of the people, I believe that they would subordinate their personal inconvenience and æthestic feelings, rather than that men and women should be subjected to the daily and hourly inconvenience which they are now caused. In the interests of the vast majority of the people of this city who demand this great boon, I ask, with some confidence, that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee in the ordinary way, so that the London County Council may be enabled to deal with the traffic of London to the satisfaction of themselves as the local responsible body, and to the convenience of the travelling public.
  MR. GRAY: This is a Bill which I think the House not only can deal with, but ought to deal with. The site is one which is known to every Member of the House, and the conditions of life around it are also well known. That being so, it enables us to deal with this proposal as we dealt with the Westminster Improvement proposal. The House ought to intervene in dealing with this Bill, and ought not to allow it to go to a Committee, because if it passes through this House we should shortly have the county council asking to use the roads of the west of London, and under these circumstances it becomes the duty of the House to deal with the matter at once. I do not propose to recapitulate the arguments which were so well brought forward by the honourable Member for Marylebone. In my opinion, he made out an overwhelming case against this Bill, and I am hopeful that the House will throw it out to-day with a majority as emphatic as that which rejected the Bill a few days ago. Assuming that there is a need for bringing the tramways across the bridge, then, without doubt, the direction that they should take would not be along the Victoria Embankment, but round Parliament Square, along Victoria Street to Victoria Station, turning off to the right along the new road which we are about to construct along Whitehall, taking passengers from the south of London to Trafalgar Square, and the shop girls—for whom the honourable Member opposite speaks—to their shops in. Regent Street and Piccadilly Circus. There is not a single road throughout the whole length and breadth of London better served than the Thames Embankment in the matter of traffic. Anybody who wishes to go from Westminster Bridge to Blackfriars would never dream of travelling along the Embankment in an omnibus or tramway, whilst they had the Underground Railway at their disposal. The fact of the matter is that anyone who has watched the traffic over Westminster Bridge as I have done for 20 years will find that it does not bear off to the east—it goes more or less westward, or uses the Westminster Bridge Station of the Underground line. What will happen if the trams are brought across Westminster Bridge? It is said that will not be a
  374
  terminus; but I say that of necessity it will be a permanent stopping place for everybody that comes across, if it is to be any good at all. Every tramcar crossing the bridge will have to stop at the foot of the bridge, and those who are familiar with the permanent stopping places of trams know what that means. These will be horse-drawn cars, and there will be mess and filth and stench all day long right at our very front door. The House will recollect that, when we were passing a Bill dealing with motor-car traffic, one of the arguments was that it would minimise the amount of horse traffic in London. I have often opportunities for watching what is transpiring at tramway stopping places, and it is my experience of what occurs at them which determines me in opposing the creation of one here at our own very doors. Those who desire to cross Westminster Bridge under cover can avail themselves of omnibuses crossing there, without adding to the disfigurement of Westminster by putting a tramway line down. There is one argument which has not been referred to. If it be assumed that this Bill is opposed in the interests of well-to-do journalists and Conservative coachmen, then the honourable Member who thinks that has quite mistaken the position. This is one of the very few Bills that have come before the House as to which deputations of working men have come here opposing the passing of the Bill, and I refer to a class of working man whose comfort desires consideration—those who have to spend their whole working day in the Strand and Fleet Street. Let honourable Members go down the Strand or Fleet Street and see the hundreds of young men having their luncheons under uncomfortable conditions—standing at public-house bars, and so on—and then watch them as they go to the Thames Embankment for fresh air—the only place where they can secure an hour's quietude, an hour's comfort. I do not refer to the well-to-do journalist, who can take refuge in his club, but to the man who has had to labour at his desk all day long; and it is he who cornea to the Lobby and asks his Member to vote against this Bill, because his chance of getting a little tranquillity during the day will be destroyed by the traffic which will

  375
  pass along the Embankment. If I am asked for evidence as to what representatives of the Press think of this scheme, I can only say that out of their own contributions they have provided a fund for petitioning against the passing of this Measure, because it is a well-recognised place of resort for those seeking peace and quietness. Those who have had any experience of the Strand and Fleet Street know that it is a common practice to gravitate to one of the finest promenades that London possesses—a promenade which this Bill proposes to spoil. Reference has been made to replacing the macadamised road by a wood pavement, but my opinion is that if the London County Council once gets a line along there for their trams there will be no wood paving. The experience of other places will be repeated, and we shall find the macadamised road turned into a hard, noisy stone paving, not only resulting in the destruction of the Embankment from an aesthetic point of view, but resulting also in ceaseless noise and constant turmoil. If there is not to be ceaseless noise and constant turmoil, then that is a clear argument that the line is altogether unnecessary; for, if it be necessary, it will be used all day long. The passing of this Bill will not only result in spoiling the site immediately opposite this House, it will not merely be destructive of the approaches to the river, but it will prove to be the thin edge of the wedge, and a thin end that the House ought to very closely watch. If you once get lines across the bridge, then, in twelve months, we shall have a further Bill for taking them along Victoria Street, Whitehall, the Strand, and some of the finest thoroughfares that London possesses will be utterly destroyed. We have here near to us the two ends of two magnificent thoroughfares—Victoria Embankment and Chelsea Embankment. In a few years we may hope to see them united, and I most sincerely hope that we shall not be taking the step we are asked to to-day, and, running a tramway along the Embankment, spoil that prospect for ever. The traffic along there and over Westminster Bridge can well be met by omnibuses without this needless and vexatious line being
  376
  made. I trust that we shall without hesitation reject this Bill, and I feed quite certain that if that is dons my London friends will be heartily glad to find that the House of Commons has set its face against it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am rather sorry that this Debate has been made to turn into something of a class question. The honourable Member who has just spoken has based his objection to the Bill largely on the inconvenience to Members of this House, or partially on the inconvenience it will cause to Members of this House. If this House stood in one of the most central portions of London, and then the honourable Gentleman had said that the making of these tramways would be a nuisance, I could have accepted his argument; but I do not think that any Member of this House would be justified in objecting to this Bill on the ground of any inconvenience it might cause to Members of this House. Then there is my honourable Friend the Member for Battersea. He has put great force into the class argument. If I thought that the argument was well founded, I confess I should have found it impossible to go into the Lobby against my honourable Friend. His argument amounts to this: that the working classes, men and women, are deposited on the other side of Westminster Bridge in all kinds of weather, and are compelled to get out of the tramway, and either walk across the bridge or get into an omnibus. I regard that as a very strong argument indeed; but it is an argument from which I deduce two consequences: one in agreement with my honourable Friend, and the other in opposition. I am agreed with him in thinking that there is a strong case made in favour of bringing a tramway across the bridge, but I do not agree with him in the further consequences that will follow, and that brings me to the argument of the honourable Gentleman the Member for North Islington. His argument proved too much. He says that, having allowed tramways elsewhere, how can we object to this one? The reason I object to this one is because I think there are certain conditions of London that will be absolutely ruined

  377
  Now, with regard to the argument of my honourable Friend about people having to get out of tramways on the other side of Westminster Bridge, what does that lead him to? If the trams come to this side of the bridge they will have to get out there, too; and as their destination is often the West End of London, they would not be in the least bit better off by the line going along the Thames Embankment. I know South London almost as well as my honourable Friend. I lived in it for years. I stumped nearly every part of it during various elections, and I know that what happens is that the traffic in the south of London divides itself into two streams—the one going east to the City, and the other going to Westminster Bridge, and then on to the West End. The latter part of the traffic will go to the West End by the present means, whether you have a tramway on the Thames Embankment or not. One of my chief objections to this Bill is that I dislike the idea of the Thames Embankment being destroyed, and I say that on æsthetic grounds, and I am not ashamed to do so. We ought not to be afraid in this House of mentioning such a thing when the beauty of a locality being interfered with is under discussion. That is the kind of language used by those vandals who put trams—which my honourable Friend is such an advocate of—in the ancient streets of the beautiful metropolis of Paris, and have absolutely destroyed it beyond repair. The Thames Embankment plays a large part in the life of the working classes of this country. It is their playground, and ought to be made a playground more than it is. If I had my way there would be a half-dozen military bands playing along it every Sunday. I am afraid if I were a Scotch Member that that admission would go against me on election day. But that is the function which, in my opinion, this Embankment ought to play in the life of the working classes of this country, and if you are going to tear it up and destroy it by a tramway to this extent, you are destroying the possibility of its fulfilling that function. I have another objection. I know that a good many gentlemen are able to sleep in all kinds of circumstances. Everybody who
  378
  has studied the life of modern cities must know that noise is one of their greatest curses. For that reason I will give my opposition to every tramway that goes beyond a certain portion of London. I have the benefit of some experience upon this question. Anybody who has lived in the city of New York has found a reason there against the extension of the tramway system to certain portions of the city. Why, Sir, Broadway is one of the worst streets in the universe, mainly because of its tramways. If you admit the system in London you will destroy one of London's greatest conveniences and greatest protections—namely, the facility with which it can get to certain portions of the West End of London. For all these reasons, notwithstanding the appeal of my honourable Friend the Member for Battersea, I shall vote against this Bill.
  MR. BANBURY: I only wish to say a few words on this subject. I object to this Bill on the ground so ably stated by my honourable Friend opposite. The people of South London who want to go to Blackfriars Bridge can already do so in a much shorter time than by going to Westminster and then down the Embankment to Blackfriars. The honourable Gentleman for Battersea, when he states that the shop girls are badly used by having to get into halfpenny 'buses, does not proceed to say that these halfpenny 'buses run down the Embankment. If he did that there would be some ground for his statement that a tramway down the Embankment would be a convenience. The halfpenny 'buses do not run down the Embankment. It is very evident that when they get this side of Westminster Bridge they would get either into a halfpenny 'bus or the Underground Railway. We must also remember that all along the Embankment there are underground stations which people can use, and when you get to the end of the Embankment you come to Blackfriars, which is of no use to anybody. People who go to Blackfriars go to the City. It is absolutely impossible to suppose that the tramway should be continued along Queen Victoria Street, because it is

  379
  almost impassible to get along Queen Victoria Street as it is. There is also a large block at the end of Blackfriars Bridge, which will be intensified if it becomes a terminus for tramway lines. It is in the belief that this Bill offers no real advantage to the people of the south of London that I intend to vote against it.
  MAJOR JAMESON: We have heard that this Bill is put forward in the interests of the working men. That I deny. I say that nothing can be more detrimental to the working men who come from Hammersmith or Kensington than to do anything to compete with the already overburdened Metropolitan and District Railway. That railway is only ordered by this House to run one workman's train per day. As a matter of fact, it runs 35, and has carried 6,850,000 passengers. The honourable Member for Battersea has said that some 2,000,000 people are to be considered in South London. Here you have 6,000,000 working men already in possession, and are you going to do anything which would stop that train service from being carried out in the way it is being carried out? My experience as Her Majesty's Inspector of Factories, both in North Kensington and South Kensington, is that the working men do not go to their work to the City either by the Strand or by the Embankment, and if you go down there you will see that the class of people who do use it are certainly not the class of people for whom it is necessary to make a tramway. I hope, in the interests of the working men, that the House will reject this Bill. I am not at all in favour of the arguments of the Member for West Ham. They are absolutely against my convictions on this subject. The only subject I am at one with him is that the Bill should be rejected.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: I wish to call the attention of the House to certain arguments which have not been used in favour of the Bill. It seems an extraordinary thing for a Member on this side of the House to be in favour of this Bill, be cause I have heard so many speeches against it. I have studied this question, and I am convinced that this Bill will be of great utility, and will do a great deal in preventing congestion of traffic in this
  380
  neighbourhood. It is proposed that a tramway should go over Westminster Bridge and then down the Embankment by two lines of rails close together on the south-west side. That would not at all interfere with the traffic in any way that I can see. I do not at all appreciate the arguments which have been adduced by the honourable Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool about people being disturbed in their sleep. Nobody sleeps on the Thames who is likely to be disturbed by the trams running. The great traffic from the north and northwest to the south goes down Charing Cross and along Parliament Street. If the tramway were running over Westminster Bridge and along the Victoria Embankment to Blackfriars, the traffic would go down Northumberland Avenue, and then go to the south of London, and I am convinced that in that way a great deal of good would be done. I was myself opposed to this Bill. I have voted previously against the Bill, but I am now convinced that it will be a great advantage to the traffic of London if this Bill is allowed to pass, on condition that the two lines of trams were close together, on the south-west side of Victoria Embankment. Then the whole of the road on the northern side of the Embankment would be perfectly free for carriages. If that is done I am convinced that it will relieve this congested part of London to an enormous extent, and I fail myself to see any danger. I have read the evidence given by the police inspectors, where they say that certain stoppages would occur. I think that they are anticipating that the tramways are going to unburden right in the middle of the road on this side of the bridge, whereas what would be necessary would be that we should see that all the trams have to go a little way down the Embankment before they are allowed to stop, none being allowed to stop on the bridge. The police have the regulation of the traffic and they could easily manage that. The House will, in my opinion, make a great mistake if it does not give this Bill a Second Reading; if they did that, the suggestions which I have made, and which I think would tend to improve the Bill, could be properly discussed. Some people say that we do not want a tramway coming into the centre of London,

  381
  but you must understand that if this tramway goes along the river side there are no streets to cross with the trams, and there is no traffic to interfere with. It would run straight along without interfering with anybody, and, with the lines running close together, would not in any way interfere with the traffic. I do hope that gentlemen on this side of the House will consider the arguments and points I have put before them. Speaking from the point of view of one who knows the Metropolis well, and who is in the habit of driving through the Metropolis a great deal, and who has a great many conveyances blocking up the thoroughfares, I think this would be a great improvement, and would do a great deal to unite the north and south of the Thames.
  MR. KNOX: Under this Bill the trams will be horse trams, and it would be beyond the scope of the Committee to alter that provision under the Standing Order, so that they must remain horse trams should this Bill pass. Now I consider that a horse tram is an anachronism, they would not be permitted in any other city in the world to be set up. The London County Council has absolutely opposed every attempt at electric street trams. They have refused to allow the existing trams to be equipped with electricity, they have refused to allow electricity to be used at all for trams, and under this Bill they provide that it is not to be an electric line.
  MR. STUART: The London County Council has under consideration the question of electric tramways, and it has been represented to them that the subject ought to be dealt with as a whole.
  MR. KNOX: In other parts of the world this question has been dealt with as a whole. In every progressive city in the world, by private enterprise, electric tramways have been erected, and when my honourable Friend beside me alluded to a tramway down the Champs d'Elysée he did not inform us that that is to be an electric tram. But this is to be a horse tram, and there is all the difference in the world between the two.
  382
  I would as soon think of voting for a rate-aided stage coach as for this Bill.
  Question put—"That the word 'now' stand part of the question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 248.—(Division List No. 87.)

QUESTIONS.

  GRATUITIES TO SCOTCH PRISONERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate how many persons discharged from local prisons in Scotland during the year ended 31st March, 1897, received a gratuity of £2?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Prison Commissioners for Scotland that one prisoner received a gratuity of £2 in the year ended the 31st March, 1897.

  GRATUITIES TO ENGLISH PRISONERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons discharged from local prisons in England and Wales during the year ended 31st March, 1897, received a gratuity of £2, the maximum allowed by the Prison Act?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): The information which the honourable Member asks for is not immediately available, and would involve a good deal of labour to collect. I have called, however, for a Return covering a shorter period, and shall be happy to communicate the results to him when they reach me.

  IRISH PAUPER LUNATICS.
  MR C. J. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take steps to have the Treasury grant for the support of Irish pauper lunatics increased, as, for some years past, it has

  383
  not been able to defray one-half of the cost of such patients, which, on its initiation, it was supposed to do, the rate-in-aid amounting to 4s. per week; and whether he is aware that the rate-in-aid allowed to Scotch asylums was increased last year to 4s. 3d. per week?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): It is not correct to say that the Parliamentary grant in aid of the cost of maintenance of Irish pauper lunatics was supposed, or calculated, to defray one-half of the cost of maintenance. The grant has always been a contribution in aid of the local cost of maintenance at the maximum rate of 4s. a head per week. The contribution has been limited to this maximum rate, irrespective of what the local cost may be, and it is not proposed to increase the rate. The honourable Member is also under a misapprehension in regard to the Scotch grant. The contribution in aid of pauper lunatics in Scotland is fixed by an Act of 1892 at £115,500 per annum, and is paid out of the Local Taxation Account for Scotland. It is true that this grant in the year 1896–7 was equivalent to a rate of about 4s. 3d. for each lunatic whose maintenance cost 8s. per week, or upwards. Where the cost of maintenance was less than 8s. per week, the rate was proportionately less. For the year 1897–8 the grant was equivalent to a rate of 4s. 2d. per week in cases where the cost was 8s. per week or upwards. No grant is allowed in Scotland in respect of any expenditure in excess of 8s. per week. The Irish grant, as the honourable Member is aware, has hitherto been borne on the votes, and a sum of £143,653 is provided in the Estimates for the current financial year.

  LETTERKENNY RAILWAY TAX.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Derry Grand Jury and the Dunfanaghy Board of Guardians with respect to the necessity of arrangements by the Treasury to relieve the ratepayers of the tax now paid for the Letterkenny Railway; (2) do the Treasury propose to hand over any sum
  384
  to this company; (3) is it the fact that the company is paying a dividend of 7 per cent. on its entire system, while exacting 4d. in the pound off a congested district in Donegal; (4) can he say what security the guaranteeing baronies have as to the method of calculating earnings and charging expenses on the guaranteed part of the system under which the ratepayers are called upon to make good a deficit while other parts of the line are earning 7 per cent; (5) have the Board of Works power under the Act of 1896 to order an inquiry into these matters; (6) can he state the average earnings per mile per week of the guaranteed portion and the non-guaranteed portion of the line, with the outlay charged against each section; and (7) whether the Treasury have statutory authority to examine into the accounts of every Irish railway whether State-aided or otherwise?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): (1) I am aware of the resolution of the Dunfanaghy guardians, but not of that of the grand jury. (2) If the company referred to is the Lough Swilly Railway Company—which I believe pays a dividend of 7 per cent.—it is in contemplation to pay certain moneys to that company for the construction of the proposed new Donegal lines; but such payments have no reference to the Letterkenny line. (3) The railway company do not exact the rate of 4d. in the pound. That rate is levied under the provisions of an Act of Parliament for the purpose of paying principal and interest of a loan of £35,000 advanced by the Board of Works for the construction of the Letterkenny railway. (4) The Board of Works have power to examine—and do examine—the accounts of the Lough Swilly Railway Company, so far as regards their working of the Letterkenny line. By the agreement under which the company work that line, 34 per cent. of the gross receipts are taken by the Board of Works to pay their charges in respect of a loan of £50,000, the first of two loans which they advanced for construction of the railway. The local rates are chargeable only in respect of the second loan of £35,000. As the Board's receipts from the undertaking do not suffice to cover their charges in respect of the first loan,

  385
  the rates have to bear the full charge for the second loan. (5) The Act of 1896 does not apply to this railway, which was constructed under earlier private Acts. (6) The average earnings per mile per week of the guaranteed line are nearly £8. (7) No. The Board of Works has power of examination into any railway on which it has a mortgage, and the Treasury has also special powers under agreements for the construction and working of certain railways under the Acts of 1889 and 1896.

  PRESTATYN (FLINTSHIRE) BURIAL DISPUTE.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on recently receiving notice of the intended interment under the Burial Act of 1880 in the church cemetery of Prestatyn, Flintshire, of Mrs. Jones, who had resided in apartments in the parish for 18 months, the vicar refused to allow the burial to take place, on the ground that the vestry had in 1879 resolved that none but ratepayers and old inhabitants should be interred in the cemetery; whether interment in the parochial graveyard cannot be claimed by law for any person dying in the parish; and whether any steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of such an occurrence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have made inquiry of the vicar about this case, and am informed by him that the resolution of the vestry, referred to in the Question, was directed against the interment of persons other than parishioners, and that he did not consider Mrs. Jones to be a parishioner. The vicar's refusal was given, as I understand, before any notice under the Act of 1880 was served upon him. Neither the vestry nor the vicar have, of course, any power to limit the right of burial given by the common law, but whether that right existed in the present case is a question which it is for the law courts and not for me to decide. It is stated that a meeting of the vestry has been called for
  386
  to-day to consider the question of rescinding their resolution.

  NEW FOREST VERDERERS' LITIGATION.
  MR. SCOTT MONTAGU): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what were the costs incurred by the Office of Woods and Forests or the Crown in the late case of New Forest Verderers v. the Crown; whether the Treasury is aware that the future costs of similar actions in the public interest might have to be raised by increasing the fines and dues from the commoners, who were for the most part totally unable to pay any increase; and whether he would therefore recommend that a portion at any rate of the charges thus undoubtedly incurred in the public interest should be repaid by the Treasury?
  MR. HANBURY: The costs of the Crown in the recent case, which was compromised to avoid still greater expense out of all proportion to the value of the interests involved, were £635. The costs of the Verderers were, I understand, paid out of a capital sum available for the purpose, and no levy was made upon the commoners. It is hardly correct to say that the Verderers took the action they did in the public interest. It appears to have been taken solely in the interest of the local commoners for the protection of their grazing rights. I fear the Treasury would not be justified in paying for the defence of these private local rights at the cost of the general taxpayer, especially as the question of costs were left entirely for the court to decide, and it rejected the Verderers' application for costs, without even calling upon the Crown to reply.

  POSTAL TELEGRAPH CHARGES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will allow "Charing

  387
  Cross" to be placed in the same category as "Llanfairpwllywyngyll," and counted as one word in telegrams; what would be the estimated loss to the Department by allowing "Kentish Town" to be charged as one word; and whether he is aware that "St. Peter" is charged in telegrams as one word, but "Saint Peter" as two words?
  MR. HANBURY: The rule that the names of separate towns and villages should be treated as one word is, I think, both reasonable and easily understood. If parts of towns are treated as one word it practically means charging as one word the whole of the address except the name of the addressee. The only possible estimate that can be made of the probable loss on charging Kentish Town as one word is ½d. each time that district is mentioned in a telegram. Names with the prefix "St." are treated as similar names with the prefix "O"' or "Mac."

  SECRETARYSHIP OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, on the recent appointment of a new keeper and Secretary to the National Gallery, the Treasury took advantage of the opportunity to discontinue the allowance of £125 in lieu of a house, made as a personal allowance to the late officer, and to revise the salary of £750 for the office, which is considerably more than those paid for any of the similar posts?
  MR. HANBURY: The allowance of £125 for a house ceased on the retirement of the late holder—as I hope other allowances will also cease. The salary has been reduced from £750 to one commencing at £600, and rising to £750 in eight years. The salary is in excess of that for the similar post at the Tate Gallery, only because this official has extra duties to perform as secretary and accounting officer to the trustees.

  WICKLOW COASTGUARD STATION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Inspecting Commander of Coastguards, lately appointed to the Wicklow station, whose headquarters are in Wicklow town, and whose duty and service require his presence on the coast, lives several miles inland; and whether this is in accordance with the regulations of the Coastguard system?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Inspection Commander of the Wicklow Division of Coastguards resides at Glenealy, four miles from Wicklow, as no suitable house could be obtained by him in Wicklow, or nearer than Glenealy. This is in accordance with the regulations of the Coastguard.

  PROPOSED CEMETERY AT BALLYMA-CARETT.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the report of Dr. Henry (the Medical Officer of Health of Comber, county Down) to the rural sanitary authority of Newtownards Union, with regard to the proposed new cemetery for the Ballymacarett side of Belfast; whether steps will be taken to carry out his suggestion for the prevention of the pollution of the Comber River by the drainage from the cemetery; and in what direction it is proposed to discharge it?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have been furnished by the Local Government Board with a copy of the Report of Dr. Henry, referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. The agreement for the purchase of the site of the proposed cemetery has not yet been completed, and the Board, before expressing their approval, will require to be satisfied that the site is a suitable one, and that the drainage of it can be effected so as not to be injurious to public health. The direct

  389
  tion in which it is proposed to discharge the drainage has not yet been decided by the Corporation of Belfast.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM OFFICIALS' PENSIONS.
  MR. C. A. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware of the complaints which have been made by the attendants and messengers at the South Kensington Museum against the unequal operation of the principle on which Her Majesty's Treasury have lately assessed their pensions; whether these complaints have been supported by the official heads of that Department; whether their justice has been admitted by the Committee of Council on Education; and whether, under these circumstances, it is practicable that the grievances of these civil servants shall be referred for inquiry and report to the Select Committee which is now sitting on the Museums of the Science and Art Department?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): Complaints have been made by the attendants and messengers at the South Kensington Museum as to the assessment of their pensions. These complaints have been forwarded by the Committee of Council to the proper quarter. It is not within their province to determine the principles upon which pensions shall be assessed. The question whether the Select Committee on Museums now sitting should inquire into and report upon this matter is one which the Committee itself should, in the first instance, determine.

  BUTLER ESTATE, COUNTY GALWAY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to
  390
  the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in carrying out the sale of certain holdings on the Butler estate in the county of Galway, in reference to which an order was made by Mr. Justice Ross, under Section 40 of the Land Act of 1896, in December last?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In this case I am informed that some delay has occurred in the office of the solicitor having carriage of the sale, due, apparently, to the resettlement of the rental. The resettlement is in progress, however, and it is hoped that the request for an inspection pursuant to Section 40 will soon be issued.

  ENTERIC FEVER AMONG EUROPEAN TROOPS IN INDIA.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have arrived at any conclusion regarding the cause of the great increase in enteric fever among European troops in India; whether the investigations which it was promised should be made are concluded; and whether it is proposed to adopt any special measures to arrest the spread of this malady?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): No definite conclusion has been arrived at as to the cause of the increase in enteric fever among British troops in India, and the investigations on this subject are still proceeding, selected medical officers having been specially detailed for this duty. Generally, the measures taken to check the spread of the disease are the improvement of the water supply, the provision of pure milk and butter, and improved sanitation of camps, cantonments, and barracks. One cantonment, Dragshais, where there have been serious outbreaks of enteric fever, has been completely evacuated for a year, pending the installation of an improved water supply and the disinfection of the barracks and their vicinity.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING IN SCOTTISH WATERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that 33 per cent. of the persons convicted for illegal trawling in Scottish waters during the years 1896 and 1897 went to prison rather than pay the fines imposed, will he state why the provisions of Section 10, Sub-section 6, of the Sea Fisheries Regulations (Scotland) Act, 1895, were not enforced against the owners of the offending vessels?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The provisions of the sub-section referred to were not enforced against the owners in the cases mentioned, because the sub-section did not apply to these cases.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state when the Congested Districts Board propose to take steps with a view to the acquisition of land for the purposes set forth in the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act of last Session?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Congested Districts Board are giving the matter their best attention, although as yet no land has actually been acquired.

  MAPS OF NORTH KERRY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state in what condition of preparation are the 1/2 500 scale maps of North Kerry, and especially those in connection with the districts of Newtowmsandes and Tarbert; and whether he can say how soon it is expected the appointed agent in Tralee will have the maps on sale?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): The whole of
  392
  north Kerry has been surveyed on the 25-inch scale, and the sheets are now in various stages for drawing and publication. Those which comprise Tarbert and Newtownsandes will be published about the end of September, and will then be available for sale by the agent in Tralee.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right honourable Gentleman say why, seeing that this portion of Kerry has been surveyed for the past 12 months, the maps have not been printed?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: So far as I know there has been no delay that could have been avoided. I will inquire if there are any circumstances in the case with which I am not acquainted.

  DISTRESS IN COUNTY KERRY.
  MR. FLAVIN: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Kerry I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that an inquest was held on the 27th ultimo, at Killurly West, near Cahirciveen, county Kerry, on the remains of a poor man named Joseph Griffin, at which the sworn evidence of Mary Griffin disclosed the fact that the deceased and his family had no potatoes since December, 1897, with the exception of some received from the union for seed purposes, a portion of which they were compelled to eat, and that the diet of the family for several months past was Indian meal mixed with a little flour wet with water, also black tea, without any milk, as a drink; that it was also sworn by Mary Griffin that the money she had earned as a hired servant to take her to America had to be spent by her to purchase food so as to prevent the family starving; and that it was sworn at the inquest that several members of the family, including the mother, were unwell and in delicate health for a long time, and that the coroner's jury stated in their verdict that the death of Joseph Griffin was accelerated by insufficiency of food; and whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of such incidents?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have read a newspaper report of the proceedings at the inquest referred to in this Question, and have instructed the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry on oath, at the earliest possible date, into the circumstances surrounding the death of Griffin.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the Local Government Board inspector was supplied with this man's name last December as being in immediate want of relief? Is it not the case that no steps were then taken?
  [No Reply.]

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in accordance with his promise given on the 5th April, he has considered the question of instituting an inquiry into the past and present management and working of the Gas Light and Coke Company, with a view to putting an end to the system whereby gas consumers on the north side of the Thames have to pay 3s. per 1,000 feet as against 2s. 3d. per 1,000 feet on the south side; and whether he is now in a position to make an announcement on the subject?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Board of Trade have been carefully considering this question. They have no statutory power to hold an inquiry. If the honourable Member thinks it desirable to move for a Committee of this House, I will see that the proposal receives careful consideration.

  OMAGH LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the medical staff of the Omagh Lunatic Asylum and the inspectors of lunatic asylums attributed the late serious outbreak of typhoid fever in the
  394
  institution to defective sanitary arrangements; and that, on the other hand, the sanitary expert, Mr. Parry, is of opinion that the most probable and immediate cause of the epidemic was the imperfect and unsuitable arrangements for water storage, and the want of attention to the cleanliness of the water tanks; who is accountable for the condition of the water tanks; and, will he state what steps have been taken to safeguard the health of the patients, and prevent a recurrence of the state of things discovered by Mr. Parry?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The medical staff of the Omagh Lunatic Asylum and the inspectors of lunatic asylums attributed the late outbreak of epidemic disease in the institution to defective sanitary arrangements, including the water supply, to which special attention was drawn in the inspectors' report, and an analysis of the water directed to be obtained. There was no material difference between the medical opinion and that of the sanitary expert, Mr. Parry; although it is true that he dwelt specially on the unsuitable arrangements for the storage of water and the want of attention to the cleanliness of the tanks. The asylum staff, acting under directions of the Resident Medical Superintendent, is responsible for the condition of the tanks. The drainage and all the sanitary appliances have been remodelled on the most approved plans, and alterations have been made in the water tanks which will facilitate their being cleansed.

  WESTMINSTER BUILDING FATALITY.
  MR. HUBBARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any first aid was rendered to the wounded on the occasion of the disastrous collapse of a building in Orchard Street, Westminster, on the 21st ultimo, when a number of persons were injured, seven being killed; and, whether any steps can be taken by the Government to develop an efficient ambulance service for London?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The men injured by this accident were removed

  395
  immediately to Westminster Hospital, only 350 yards distant. This was considered a better course than attempting to render first aid in the presence of a great and excited crowd. The five most seriously injured were, I am told, under treatment at the hospital within four minutes of the occurrence of the accident. Eight ambulances, from different police stations, and one horse ambulance arrived promptly on the scene, and of the 100 constables present, 70 were competent to render first aid. I have every reason to think that the police ambulance is thoroughly efficient.

  FINES ON RENEWALS OF LEASES.
  MR. BILLSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of the fines on renewals of leases upon which income tax has been charged in England during the past five years?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The information could only be obtained by a return from each surveyor in the United Kingdom, and I do not think that the result would justify this, especially at a time when the surveyors are very busy with the new assessments.
  SIR J. T. BRUNNER: Will the right honourable Gentleman consider the preparation of a return confined to the County of London?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will inquire about that.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the whole of the 236 Voluntary schools which have refused to join any association, or what number of such schools have applied for a grant under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897; whether in any cases the Grant has been refused; and, if so, what is the number
  396
  of such schools, and on what ground has the grant been refused; and what is the number of such schools whose claims to grants under the Act are still under consideration?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The number of unassociated schools which applied for a grant was 66. The grant was refused to 31 schools: 25 on the ground that their refusal to join an association was unreasonable; 6 on the ground that they were not necessitous. There are no claims still under consideration.

  TELEGRAPH WIRES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
  MR. J. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what right, statutory or otherwise, has he to place, and what is the usual practice of the Post Office authorities in placing, wires for telegraphic purposes across the lands of private individuals without their consent; and within what period the authorities, when called upon to have such wires removed, do so?
  MR. HANBURY: Under the 21st section of the Telegraph Act, 1863, the Postmaster General, as successor to the Telegraph Companies, has the right in urban districts to place wires for telegraphic purposes across the lands (with certain specified exceptions) of private individuals, after the consent of the local authority has been obtained to the placing of poles or wires in the adjoining street. He is under no obligation to remove the wires, though he is under an obligation on the receipt of 14 days' notice to so alter them that they may not interfere with the raising or extension of buildings on such lands. Outside urban districts the Postmaster General has no right to place telegraph wires across the lands of private individuals without their consent, except along highways; and the consent, in all cases, specifies the period within which the wires shall be removed in case the consent should be withdrawn.

  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. J. W. LOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it would be possible for a parent to be prosecuted three times on account of each unvaccinated child between the ages of 12 months and 14 years should the Vaccination Bill now before the House become law—namely, first, under section 29 of the 30 and 31 Vic., c. 84; secondly, by means of an application for a magisterial order under section 31 of the same Act; and thirdly, for disobedience of that order; and whether he has considered that the fines and costs in those three prosecutions might amount to the sum of £4 6s. 6d.?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): If the Vaccination Bill becomes law, a parent could only be proceeded against twice for penalties in respect of the same child, once under section 29 of the Act of 1867, and once under section 31 of that Act; but before proceedings could be taken for a penalty under section 31 a justice must, after summoning the parent to appear, direct the child to be vaccinated within a certain time. The maximum penalty in each of the two proceedings would be 20s., but a parent might be required to pay costs, and the amount of such costs, I believe, varies in different districts.
  MR. LOGAN: Then am I wrongly informed? Would it not be possible for a parent to be prosecuted the third time for disobedience?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I understand the answer I have given is complete.

  POONA PUNITIVE POLICE.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Bombay Government consulted the local officers before imposing upon the city of Poona a punitive police, costing Rs.230,400; whether he is aware that both the District Magistrate of Poona and the
  398
  Commissioner of the Division protested against this police being imposed; whether the Commissioner was censured by the Government for making this protest, and threatened to resign unless the censure was withdrawn; whether the censure was accordingly withdrawn or modified; and whether he will lay the correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The decision to impose for two years a punitive police, costing about Rs.11,500 per annum, upon the city of Poona was arrived at by the Bombay Government, who are alone responsible for it; and their action was approved by me in Council. I am not in possession of any information as to the various opinions of such subordinate officers as may have been consulted, and I should not be prepared to lay on the Table of the House any correspondence which may have taken place between the Government of Bombay and its subordinates on the subject.

  LIGHTHOUSE DUES AND TONNAGE TAXES.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had before him and has considered any invitation to Her Majesty's Government to co-operate with the Government of the United States of North America in abolishing all lighthouse dues, tonnage taxes, or other equivalent tax or taxes on, and also all other fees for official service to, the vessels of the two nations employed in the trade between the THE ports of Great Britain and the United States; what other such dues, taxes, or fees are levied in Great Britain on United States vessels besides light dues; whether he will consider what steps can be taken with a view to the abolition of light dues as well as of any other such dues, taxes, or fees, as indicated in the Act of Congress of 1886, in order to secure for British vessels a total exemption from tonnage dues in the United States similar to that now extended there to Dutch vessels; and whether, in view of

  399
  the importance of the matter, he will reconsider the provisions of the Mercantile Marine Fund Bill, with a view to its effect upon the charges on British shipping in the United States?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: My answer to the first question is in the negative. No dues, taxes, or fees (except light dues) are levied in Great Britain on United States vessels for official services—if by official services are meant services rendered by the Government, as distinguished from services rendered by harbour or dock authorities. The Government are not prepared to depart from the policy contained in the Mercantile Marine Fund Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right honourable Gentleman answer the last paragraph but one of the Question?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir; I am not prepared to take any such steps.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right honourable Gentleman not even consider whether steps can be taken?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir; I think not.

  FEES OF THE LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that the Attorney General receives a salary of £7,000 and the Solicitor General £6,000, and that several thousand pounds a year are also paid to each of these officers in respect of contentious business under the Treasury Minute of the 5th July, 1895, will he consider the advisability of abolishing the existing arrangement in favour of one for a fixed salary to cover all business of whatever sort done by them in virtue of their office, as in the case of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland?
  MR. HANBURY: The arrangements under which the Law Officers receive remuneration for all business done for any
  400
  Department of Government, and are debarred from private practice, were carefully considered in 1895, when the Minute of 5th July of that year was issued. It is not proposed to alter it.

  TELEGRAPH EXTENSION TO APPLECROSS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Secretary for Scotland on the 3rd December, 1896, stated, in response to an application for a telegraph extension to Applecross, that the case had been noted for consideration for assistance from the grant for telegraphs, assuming that grant to be renewed, which is administered by the Secretary for Scotland; and, in view of this promise, will he refer the application to the Congested Districts Board for consideration?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I informed the honourable Member on the 22nd of last month how the application should be laid before the Congested Districts Board for their consideration.

  ALLEGED POLLUTION OF THE RIVER NETHY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that the water of the River Nethy, which forms the water supply for the village of Causer, in the Badenoch district of Inverness-shire, is admitted to be polluted, he will suggest to the Inverness County Council the advisability of enforcing the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, with a view to the prevention of the discharge of sewage into the river immediately above the village?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The pollution referred to by the honourable Member is not admitted by the local authorities, and the Secretary for Scotland does not consider that he can carry the matter further.
  MR. WEIR: Is the pollution not admitted by the Local Government Board for Scotland?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on this subject the other day.

  QUEEN'S SCHOLARSHIP EXAMINATION.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Dr. Macnamara, at the meeting of the London School Board on 29th April, to the effect that nine pupil teachers under the London Board, who passed the recent Queen's Scholarship Examination in the first class, have been unable to secure places in any of the training colleges; and that, while first-class scholars were refused admittance, room was found for second-class scholars; whether the Department will continue to pay the grants for the training of students of lower grade when those of a higher standing were desirous of entering the colleges; whether he is aware that the authorities of the Norwich and Chichester Colleges refused admission to at least one of these students because the applicant was not a member of the Church of England; and whether the Department will take into consideration the advisability of withholding the grant from these colleges until such religious tests are removed?
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council have no information as to Mr. Macnamara's statement. They have no power, under the existing Code, to interfere with the discretion of training colleges in the selection of students for admission. The Royal Commission of 1884 recommended, in effect, that no conscience clause should be imposed on existing training colleges, but that no new training colleges should be established without one. Upon this principle successive Governments have since acted down to the present time.

  TRANSFER OF COLONIAL STOCKS.
  CAPTAIN O. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  402
  State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the banks at which all or any Colonial stocks are inscribed refuse to transfer such stocks unless a stockbroker is employed, even in cases where no actual sale takes place, as on the appointment of a new trustee under a settlement; and whether any steps can be taken to simplify the transfer of Colonial securities in England?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): My attention had not been previously called to this matter. Under the provisions of the Colonial Inscribed Stock Act of 1877 it rests with the banks in whose books the stocks are inscribed to make such regulations in connection with transfers as they consider necessary for their protection as registrars of the stock. Satisfactory evidence of the identity of the transferor is indispensable, and this usually involves the employment of a stockbroker. As regards the latter part of the honourable Member's Question I understand that the regulations for the transfer of Colonial inscribed stocks are not more stringent than those under which Consols are transferred, but I have no power to interfere with the discretion of the registrars of Colonial stocks in these matters.

  INCOME TAX ASSESSORS AS MONEY-LENDERS.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. Herbert B. Röhss, of Anglesea Terrace, Bevois Hill, Southampton, who is an assessor of income tax, from the same address advertises as a money-lender in the Southampton papers, and trades sometimes as the Southampton Loan Advance Company; and whether he will represent to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the impropriety of permitting a professional money-lender to act as an assessor of income tax, and to have access to such sources of information as to the private means of possible clients as are available to him in that capacity?
  MR. HANBURY: Mr. Röhss is not an officer of the Board of Inland Revenue, and that Board have no knowledge of the facts stated by the honourable Member. Assessors of income tax are appointed by and are responsible to the local commissioners of income tax for the district in which they act. I cannot but agree with the honourable Member's view if the facts of the case are as alleged. The Board of Inland Revenue are calling the attention of the local commissioners to the statements in the Question.

  INDIAN CURRENCY COMMITTEE.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the words "internal trade," used in the letter of appointment of the Indian Currency Committee, are intended to exclude from the inquiry the export trade of that country, and whether he will consider the desirability of adding some further words to make it clear that the Committee should examine the effects the present and proposed currency regulations may have upon Indian exports; whether, in view of the importance of the industry, he is willing to add to the Committee one of the large London importers and growers of Indian and Ceylon tea; and whether any opportunity of discussing the reference will be given to the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The dispatch from the Government of India, which is the principal subject of reference to the Committee, deals with the measures necessary for securing "the stability of exchange," which necessitates an inquiry into their effect on the export trade. The reference to the internal trade was inserted to show that, in the opinion of the Government, the effect on that trade would also form an important part of the inquiry of the Committee. One of the members of the Committee is, I believe, interested in the Indian and Ceylon tea trade. The Committee is now finally constituted, and is making arrangements to begin its deliberations forthwith, under the letter of reference, which cannot now be modified. I do not propose to take any measures with the view of bringing the matter before the House in its present stage.
  MR. LOUGH: Does not the noble Lord think, as the words "internal trade" are used, and there is no reference to the export trade in the letter, some amendment is almost necessary?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: No. I think it is the other way; and that, unless reference had been made to internal trade, the Committee might not have given special attention to that.

  PLAGUE REGULATIONS AT CALCUTTA.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the speech of the Lieutenant Governor at the Legislative Council at Calcutta on the 30th ult., in reference to the regulations which would be adopted in that city by the Government in view of the outbreak of the plague; whether the Lieutenant Governor is correctly reported to have given an assurance that no wholesale quarantine would be imposed, as at Bombay; that in no case would wife and husband be separated; and that every respect would be paid to the Purdah system; and whether he can give any information as to the extent to which the inoculation treatment against plague by Professor Haffkine's method had been adopted at Calcutta?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have seen the newspaper account of the Lieutenant Governor's speech to which the honourable Member's Question refers. I have ascertained from the Viceroy that assurance has been given by the Bengal Government that wholesale quarantine against plague will not be enforced, but that arrangements will be made for inspecting travellers from infected localities, for segregating persons suspected of plague and for treating plague-stricken travellers. Members of families will not be separated when sent to segregation camps, and the Purdah system will be respected. Private plague hospitals and segregation camps are permitted. Inoculation is not enforced on anyone, but arrangements are made for inoculating, under Professor Haff-

  405
  kine's system, persons who desire to be thus protected, and special concessions have been made to encourage this form of inoculation.

  BOMBAY RIOTS.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the report of a meeting, held at Bombay, by some leading Mahomedan residents, on the 6th ult., for the purpose of contradicting certain telegraphic intelligence published in the English Press on the 11th March, to the effect that the riots which had just taken place in that city were instigated for other than plague reasons, and prompted by influential Mahomedans in other parts of the country; and whether the dispatch received from the Bombay Government, or any other official communication, contained any confirmation whatsoever of these statements; and, if not, whether he will make a statement upon the subject which might remove the general impression created by the telegram above referred to, that influential Mahomedan gentlemen residing in Bombay or other parts of India had previous knowledge of the disturbance and were responsible for the same?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have seen, with satisfaction, a report in the newspapers of the meeting to which my honourable Friend refers. My honourable Friend will not have failed to notice that the view of the Government of Bombay as to the origin of the riots, which I quoted in reply to a Question on Tuesday last, confirms the statement that no influential gentlemen, resident in Bombay, whether Mahomedans or others, were responsible for what occurred.
  MR. MACNEILL: Is not that an additional reason for the release of the brothers Natu?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of argument.

  MOUNTPOTTINGER (BELFAST) POST OFFICE.
  MR. EDWARD M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any communications have been received by the Post Office Department in respect of constituting the Mountpottinger (Belfast) receiving post and telegraph office an office for the delivery of telegrams; whether he is aware that this office is situated in one of the most populous and rapidly increasing business districts of Belfast, and that within its immediate vicinity are two banks, an extensive iron foundry, known as St. Ann's Iron Works, giving employment to upwards of 500 employees, an extensive distillery, factories, and numerous workshops of various kinds, all daily in receipt of numerous telegraphic communications; and whether, considering the growing commercial importance of the locality and its distance from a telegraph delivery office, he will consider the advisibility of conferring upon the commercial community of this district the advantages accruing from the speedy despatch of business by creating Mountpottinger post office an office for the delivery of telegraph messages?
  MR. HANBURY: No communications in respect of constituting the Mountpottinger (Belfast) telegraph office an office for the delivery of telegrams have been received since a Question on the subject was asked by the honourable Member for the Eastern Division of Belfast an the 12th of April last year. Careful inquiry was then made on the subject, with the result that it did not appear desirable to make any alteration in the arrangements for the delivery of telegrams in the district. Inquiry, however, shall again be made into the matter, and the result communicated to the honourable Member.

  PROMOTION IN THE NAVY.
  MR. J. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, although the Admiralty Instructions contemplate the

  407
  promotion of petty and warrant officers to Lieutenancies for gallant and meritorious services, only two men have been so promoted during the last 70 years; and whether it is desirable that meritorious service should be more fully recognised, and better opportunities given to non-commissioned officers and men in the Royal Navy to rise in their profession?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The noble Lord, the Member for York, asked me a Question on the subject some little time ago, and I fear I cannot add to what I said to him in reply.

  FREE LETTERS TO THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, under the existing postal regulations, the Clerk of the House of Commons is not entitled to receive correspondence on public business free of postage; whether letters addressed to the Speaker's Secretary and the Clerk of Parliaments, on public business, need not be stamped; whether the same privilege is extended to the Vote Office and the Sale Office of the House of Commons, and to all public Departments; and whether the regulations will be so altered as to enable Members and others to address letters to the Clerk of the House of Commons on public business without payment of postage?
  MR. HANBURY: There is no objection to altering the regulation, as suggested by the honourable Member.

  SUCK DRAINAGE AWARD.
  MR. KILBRIDE: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Roscommon, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists amongst occupiers of land in the River Suck drainage district, in consequence of the assessments levied on them for the drainage of that river; that a large number of them complain that the levy is greatly in excess
  408
  of the improvement effected; and that improvement was understood to be the sole basis of the tax on occupiers; whether he is aware that the grievance found expression in public meetings of those concerned, and that payments were made only in many instances after legal proceedings had been taken; and whether he would be prepared to have any individual case reconsidered with a view to a fresh assessment being made in such cases?
  MR. HANBURY: The Board of Works before making the final award held meetings, as prescribed by Statute, to hear objections by tenants to the value attributed to the improvements effected on their holdings by the drainage works. Evidence was given by the parties interested, and fully considered, before the increase of value resulting from the improvements (on which alone the charge is imposed) was determined. It is a fact that proceedings had to be taken in some cases for the recovery of instalments when payment had been refused; but I cannot regard that fact as demonstrating any injustice in the terms of award. The award is final; and there is no power, even if there were any justification, for making a fresh assessment.

  LORD GOSFORD v. IRISH LAND COMMISSIONERS.
  COLONEL MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what were the costs incurred by the Irish Land Commission in the case of the Queen at the prosecution of Lord Gosford v. the Irish Land Commission in the Queen's Bench Division and the Court of Appeal; whether these expenses were incurred through the Land Commission having refused to state a case for the Court of Appeal or for leave to appeal; is he aware that the judges were of opinion that the questions at issue were questions of law which arose in the case, and were questions which should have been submitted for the opinion and decision of the Court of Appeal; and whether directions can be given to the Land Commission to enable parties to have matters of law decided by the Court of Appeal without having to resort to the legal remedies

  409
  vested in the Common Law Division of the High Court of Justice?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must ask my honourable and gallant Friend to defer this question until Monday next, as it has been found necessary to communicate on the subject with the Judicial Commissioner who is absent from Dublin hearing appeals.

  REBELLION IN SIERRA LEONE
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a house tax, similar to the hut tax which has caused the present rebellion in Sierra Leone, was imposed for a short time in the previous history of the colony, but was discontinued by the late Sir John Pope Hennessy when appointed governor; whether the abolition of this obnoxious tax has been annually celebrated by the natives on the date thereof, called "Pope Hennessy's Day"; and whether, in view of the pacific results which followed from the previous abolition of the tax referred to, and the state of things now prevailing in the Colony as a consequence of the re-imposition of this hut tax, the Government can see its way to instruct the Governor to take immediate steps to inform the natives that the tax will be discontinued.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: A hut tax was levied in the settlement of Sierra Leone, but not in the Protectorate for more than 20 years. It was repealed in 1872 in connection with an increase of Customs duties which provided a larger revenue than the tax which was surrendered. I have no information as to the reported celebration of this change in the method of hut taxation. I have already stated that the question of the application of a hut tax to any portion of the Protectorate—and I may now add the whole question of the administration of the Protectorate—will be reconsidered; but I am not prepared, while the natives are still in arms and while my information as to the causes of the rising is necessarily incomplete, to announce a decision which might be represented as an encouragement to violence and a surrender to the promoters of outrage and disorder.
  MR. DAVITT: May I ask whether, inasmuch as the right honourable Gentleman has admitted that this rebellion was caused by this tax, these unfortunate people are now to be slaughtered in consequence of a blunder committed by the English Government?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Perhaps, Sir, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, I had better answer the question of the honourable Gentleman. It is an unfortunate result of supplemental questions that one has to give an answer without perhaps sufficient consideration, and on the last occasion when the honourable gentleman asked me whether these disturbances were not due to the hut tax, I said I supposed that they were. But I must now say that my information is not sufficiently complete to enable me to confirm that answer, at all events as to the whole of these disturbances. The original outbreak was no doubt due to irritation caused by the hut tax. Whether the recent outbreaks are due to the same cause I am at present unable to say, and I am very sorry to have to state that there have been recently murders of missionaries who were in no way connected with the raising of this tax, and I am afraid that that points rather to a general rising against white rule such as is common sometimes in the early history of the development of colonies in which there were many natives. It points rather to that than to the special cause of the hut tax.
  MR. DAVITT: May I ask whether the right honourable Gentleman does not consider that it would be a more humane and Christian way of stopping the rebellion to take off the tax?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  QUEEN'S COUNTY INFIRMARY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, has his attention been called to an advertisement for the

  411
  selection of a medical officer to Queen's County Infirmary on the 20th May, at a salary of £186 6s. 2d. a year; will the new appointment be subject to the provisions he proposes in the Local Government Bill as to compensation for such officers on dismissal; is he aware that the officer who proposes to resign is a gentleman in sound health, and that his son is a candidate for the vacancy; has he seen the published list of the Governors of Queen's County Asyum who have this election in their hands; is he aware that there are upon it 34 relatives of the officers in question, of which 14 bear his name; is the qualification for election the payment of a guinea a year; and will he provide against his proposals applying to elections after the Bill was introduced?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have seem the advertisement mentioned in the first paragraph. With regard to the second and last paragraphs, an officer appointed after the 1st March of this year is not an existing officer within the meaning of the term as used in the Bill, and will not be entitled to compensation under its provisions. I have no information as to the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs. The qualifications for Governor is an annual payment of £3 3s., and for a life Governor a donation of £21.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will send the right honourable Gentleman a list of the governors.

  COMPLAINT AGAINST A MONAGHAN POLICEMAN.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that a complaint was made to the Inspector General of Constabulary, in March last, to the effect that a man under the influence of drink, in the village of Drum, county Monaghan, had been supplied with a pint of whisky on the order of a policeman; did the Inspector General investigate the case; and what decision was arrived at?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The complaint mentioned in the Question was
  412
  carefully inquired into by the Inspector General, who satisfied himself that there were no grounds for the allegation made.

  IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' FEE GRANT ARREARS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state the cause of delay in paying the National Teachers of Ireland the arrears of fee grant under the Act of 1892; can he state when these arrears will be paid, and what amount is proposed to be paid per child on the average; and can he also state what amount the Commissioners of National Education have expended on their clerks in making out the necessary calculations for payment of the arrears?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As regards the first and second paragraphs, I must refer the honourable Member to the reply given by my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a similar inquiry addressed to him on the 31st March last, by the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin. With reference to the third paragraph, I am informed that a sum of £500 was expended by the Commissioners in extra payments to their staff.

  THE VICE-PRESIDENCY OF THE IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the name of the Vice-President of the Local Government Board, Ireland; whether, according to statute, it is necessary that two members of the Local Government Board, Ireland, should sign the minutes of meetings; and if he can give the names of the members of the Local Government Board who sign the minutes at present?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not yet in a position to give the information desired in the first paragraph. The official minute book recording the meet-

  413
  ings and proceedings of the Local Government Board is signed by the members present at each meeting, but there is no legal obligation on the board to keep or sign this record.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the announcement of the new appointment be made before the Local Government Bill is finished?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

  LONGFORD LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Chief Land Commission will sit at Longford for hearing of appeals; and will he give the names of the gentlemen who will adjudicate?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The date of the next sitting of the Commissioners for the hearing of fair-rent appeals from the County Longford has not yet been fixed, and I am informed that it is not at present possible to state the names of the Commissioners who will be members of the court at such sitting.

  IRISH LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the balance of money, if any, now in hand and unallocated out of the sum voted by Parliament for the extension of light railways in Ireland; and could any of the balance be applied towards the easing of the burdens on ratepayers in the case of lines guaranteed baronially, but which have not been paid?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With the exception of a small margin reserved for contingencies, the full amount of the grant has been hypothecated. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.

  SCOTTISH AGRICULTURE RATE RELIEF GRANT.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the last payment to account of the grant in relief of agricultural rates in Scotland was made on the 30th December, and that, in consequence, many of the parish councils are paying interest; and whether the balance will be paid them before the books close on the 15th inst?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: In reply to the honourable Member it is correct that the payment on account was made on the 30th December. It is expected that the small balance still outstanding will be paid before the 15th instant.

  REPORTED MURDER OF DR. SIRCAR.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received confirmation of the reported murder of Dr. Sircar, honorary magistrate and municipal commissioner of Barrackpore; and, if so, whether he will state the circumstances under which his death took place?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have seen a statement in the newspapers in regard to this matter, but I have received no official information from India on the subject.

  COST OF BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA.
  MR. A. D. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India by how much has the Indian Finance Minister estimated the additional charge incurred by the advanced rate of pay to British troops on service in India in excess of the 27 lakhs and 20 lakhs provided for in his current Estimates; whether he can say how long this additional charge is likely to press on the India finances; and whether the Imperial Treasury will pay the whole or any portion of the excess until the charge is adjusted to the Finance Minister's Estimate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The net permanent charge for the increased pay to British troops in India, that is, after allowing for the abolition of deferred pay, is estimated at 27 lakhs of rupees annually. For the current year the extra charge is now estimated at about 45 lakhs, and this amount will be diminished annually as the abolition of deferred pay has effect till it is reduced, about five years hence, to the above permanent charge of 27 lakhs. As I have already stated in reply to a Question in this House on the 3rd March last, the charge will be borne by Indian revenues.

  ST. CLEARS MARKET PLACE.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Carmarthen Rural District Council and the Llanfihangel Abercowin Parish Council have asked for permission to borrow money to enable them to carry out an order of the Board of Agriculture for the improvement of the market place at St. Clears; whether such permission has been withheld on the ground that the Local Government Board has no power to sanction a loan in respect of improvements of market places which are not vested in district councils; whether this difficulty has arisen owing to the fact that neither the Public Health Acts nor the Sanitary Acts contemplated the exercise of powers in respect of market places by rural district councils; whether, having regard to the fact that the closing of the St. Clears and other markets in the county of Carmarthen would mean very serious injury to important agricultural interests, he will state in what way the local authorities can raise money for the purpose of complying with the said order of the Board of Agriculture; and, if there is no such way at present available, whether the Government will introduce a short Bill to give councils the necessary powers?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: No order, as I understand, has been made on either
  416
  of the local authorities referred to. With that exception, the facts as stated in the Question are, I believe, correct; but I am not aware of any means by which either a rural district council or a parish council can, under the existing law, raise money for the purpose of improving markets, which, as I understand in this case, are not their property. I am afraid I cannot hold out any expectation of my being able to introduce a Bill to enable them to do so.

  ALLOCATION OF VOLUNTARY SCHOOL GRANTS.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, after a scheme for the allocation of the aid grant had been submitted to the Education Department by the governing body of the Voluntary Schools Association for the Diocese of London, the financial secretary of the London Diocesan Board of Education applied to the Department for permission to amend the terms of allocation to certain schools in financial arrangement with the Board, so as to provide for the payment of debts incurred in anticipation of the aid grant; whether the question of using the aid grant for the liquidation of debts contracted before the passing of the Voluntary Schools Act was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, who decided that such payments would be illegal; and whether the practice of the Education Department has not always been consistent with such decision?
  SIR J. GORST: The answers to all three of my honourable Friend's Questions are in the affirmative.

  IRISH TOWNSHIP COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there are any towns in Ireland having town or township commissioners with a population under 1,500; and, if so, what towns they are?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: According to the census of 1891 there were six towns in Ireland having town, or township, commissioners, with a population of less than 1,500. They are as follows: Antrim, Aughnacloy, Ballyboy, Gilford, Keady, and Tanderagee.

  MAINTENANCE OF LUNATICS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the average amount per head per week which it costs as a rule to maintain the inmates of district lunatic asylums in Ireland; and whether he can give any information as to the reason which lead the Government to believe that lunatics transferred from workhouses to district asylums will only cost half as much as the other inmates?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The average amount per head, per week, which it costs to maintain the inmates of district lunatic asylums in Ireland during the year 1897 was 8s. 10¾d. The cost of chronic and harmless lunatics would undoubtedly be considerably less than this amount, and the suggestion that the grant in aid should be limited to 2s. in their case was adopted from the Report of 1879 of the Poor Law Union and Lunacy Inquiry Commission (Ireland).

  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT BOARDS OF WORK.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board has intimated that they are advised that district boards of work in the metropolis are not spending authorities within the meaning of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896 (59 and 60 Vic. c. 16), and that consequently no grant is payable to them under the Act, and whether, if so, the intimation would apply also to vestries in Schedule A of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855; and, in the event of both Questions being answered in the affirmative, whether the attention of the Board has been drawn to
  418
  section 96 of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855 (18 and 19 Vic. c. 120), which provides that every vestry and district board shall within their parish or district (exclusive of any other persons whatsoever) execute the office of and be surveyor of highways, and to the interpretation of spending authority contained in the schedule to the Agricultural Rates Act which includes inter alia a surveyor of highways?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The answer is in the affirmative, but I am advised that the vestries and district boards in the Metropolis are not spending authorities within the meaning of the Agricultural Rates Act.

  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 another member of the Social Democratic Federation, Mr. Leonard Cotton, has been sent to prison for a month by Oxford magistrates in connection with the disturbances arising out of attempts to address public meetings in that city; whether the disturbances out of which these prosecutions have arisen have been caused by the opposition of University students to the inculcation of socialist theories at such meetings; and whether, in view of the common right of all citizens in England to freedom of speech at public meetings, he can see his way to protect the members of the Social Democratic Federation in the exercise of these rights?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have no information about this case, but presume the conviction was, as in the former case, for obstruction of the highway. I will, however, make inquiry as to the facts.

  LIVERPOOL DEFENCES.
  MR. BILLSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to statements as to

  419
  the defenceless condition of the port of Liverpool; whether the forts at Perch Rock and Seaforth are armed with muzzle-loading guns, out of date for shore defence; and whether, seeing that the position of these forts is such that they form a prominent landmark from the sea and would be practically useless in case of attack, some steps will be taken for the better defence of this port?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The position of the batteries referred to has been approved by the naval and military advisers of Her Majesty's Government as the most suitable for the purpose. The defences are being materially strengthened by the mounting of quick-firing and breech-loading guns as an addition to the older armaments.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now state the personnel of, and the terms of reference to, the Royal Commission on the Disposal and Treatment of Sewage?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The Commissioners appointed are:—The Earl of Iddesleigh (Chairman), Sir Richard Thorne Thorne, K.C.B., Professor Michael Foster, Professor William Ramsay, Major-General Constantine Phipps Carey, Dr. James Burn Russell, Colonel Thomas Walter Harding, Mr. Thomas William Killick, and Mr. Charles Philip Cotton. The Commissioners are appointed to inquire and report, first, what method or methods of treating and disposing of sewage (including any liquid from any factory or manufacturing process) may properly be adopted, consistently with due regard for the requirements of the existing law, for the protection of public health, and for the economical and efficient discharge of the duties of local authorities; and, if more than one method may be so adopted, by what rules, in
  420
  relation to the nature or volume of sewage, or the population to be served, or other varying circumstances or requirements, should the particular method of treatment and disposal to be adopted be determined; secondly, to make any recommendations which may be deemed desirable with reference to the treatment and disposal of sewage.

  UNITED STATES TONNAGE DUES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have in or since the year 1886 been informed by the President of the United States of North America of the provisions of the Act of Congress of that year relating to tonnage dues on shipping; whether, as prescribed by that Act, Her Majesty's Government have been invited to co-operate with the Government of the United States in abolishing all lighthouse dues, tonnage taxes, or other equivalent tax or taxes on, and also all other fees for official service to, the vessels of the two nations employed in the trade between the ports of Great Britain and the United States; if so, what reply was given by Her Majesty's Government to that invitation; and whether the reply can be laid upon the Table of this House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Her Majesty's Government were informed in 1887 of the provisions of the Act of Congress, and the invitation then given to them in accordance with that Act was declined. The correspondence has already been published in "British and Foreign State Papers," Volume Ixxix. page 711.

  THE SUS COUNTRY.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the Sus country is recognised by the British Government as an integral portion of the dominions of the Sultan of Morocco, or

  421
  only as territory under his suzerainty or protectorate; (2) whether the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Sultan is acknowledged by the tribes of the Sus; and (3) whether the custom houses of the Sultan have been erected by the Sultan on a line dividing Morocco from the Sus?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The first two Questions were answered by the Under Secretary of State on the 10th February of the present year in reply to a Question from the honourable Member for King's Lynn. The exact position of the Moorish custom houses in the neighbourhood of the Sus district is not known, but there appears to be at least one custom house at Agadir on the coast.

TOURMALINE.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under British Treaties with Morocco, British subjects have a right to travel, reside, and trade within Morocco; whether the Foreign Office informed the Sultan that the crew of the Tourmaline went to the Sus at their own peril; and, if so, why; and whether the Sultan's troops attacked and made prisoners some of the crew upon land purchased by Major Spilsbury, a British subject, from the tribes in accordance with all the requirements of the local laws?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: British subjects have a right to travel, reside, and trade in Morocco subject to certain conditions, which are stated in the Treaties. The Globe Venture Syndicate having endeavoured ineffectually to obtain the consent of the Moorish Government to open trade with the Sus tribes, and having, in defiance of the Sultan's prohibition, persisted in the attempt to do so, the Moorish Government addressed a formal protest to the British Minister at Tangier on the subject. The syndicate were thereupon warned not to persist in the enterprise, and as they declined to give it up the Moorish Government were informed that
422
Her Majesty's Government did not in any way countenance or support them. Information having subsequently been received that the Tourmaline had nevertheless been despatched by the syndicate with a cargo comprising a large quantity of rifles and ammunition, warning was given to the Moorish Government of the fact. The Tourmaline proceeded to the Sus coast, and the rifles and ammunition were being sold there in defiance of the Moorish laws, when the Sultan's troops interfered and made prisoners of some of the party. We have no information that the land on which this took place had been purchased by the syndicate or their agent.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Beyerle is the only prisoner taken by the troops of the Sultan of Morocco from the Tourmaline who has been released and sent home without trial; whether Mr. Beyerle is a German, and has been so released at the instance of the German Government; and whether the remaining four prisoners are British subjects, and are, as to three of them, merely members of the crew of the Tourmaline, and as to the fourth, an Englishman travelling for pleasure?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: One of the prisoners taken by the Moorish authorities was a German subject, and was handed over by Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier to the German Minister on his surrender by the Moorish authorities. This was the legal and necessary course, as he was not subject to British jurisdiction. The question of his subsequent treatment was one for the German Government. The remaining prisoners are British subjects. It is understood that three of them were members of the crew of the Tourmaline, and the fourth was one of the party on board of her.
MR. HEDDERWICK: Has the attention of the right honourable Gentleman been called to a statement showing the nature of the treatment they had received—how they have been chained together by the neck, shackled, robbed, spat upon, and told to call upon the present Government for help?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Does the honourable Gentleman vouch for the accuracy of these statements?
MR. HEDDERWICK: No, Sir; I only wanted to know if the right honourable Gentleman's attention had been called to them.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir.

AMERICAN WAR REVENUE BILL.
SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the clause in the War Revenue Bill now before the American Senate, which imposes heavy tonnage dues on vessels arriving in the United States, has been definitely abandoned; and whether tonnage dues will continue to be levied as heretofore under the Act of Congress of 1886?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No further information has been received up to the present time with regard to the subject of my honourable Friend's Question.
MR. DAVITT: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman, arising out of this Question, whether these tonnage dues are not considered by the American people to be a necessary means of raising a revenue to meet the expenses of carrying on a war waged in a righteous cause, and whether this outcry against the dues is not inconsistent with the professed English sympathy with the United States?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is an argumentative Question, and, consequently, is not in order.

WEI-HAI-WEI.
MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House the date of the spontaneous communica-
424
tion sent by our Government to the German Government stating that it has no intention of laying down railway communications from Wei-hai-Wei into the interior, or of calling in question German political or commercial interests in the province of Shan-tung; whether any reply has been received from the German Government to that communication; and when he will lay the Papers before Parliament?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin was authorised as early as the 26th to make, under certain contingencies, communications to the German Government on the subject of Wei-hai-Wei. He was instructed to do so on the 2nd. It is not proposed to lay any more Papers on the Table.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.
MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can say when the Report of the Committee on Old Age Pensions will be presented to the House?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am informed that the Report will be presented shortly.
MR. T. BAYLEY: Will it be before Whitsuntide?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am told it will be in about a fortnight's time. I cannot say more.

SCOTCH PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE.
SIR WILLIAM ARROL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is his intention to move the appointment of the Select Committee on the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill; and if the Committee will commence its sittings on an early day?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: This Committee has been moved by my right honourable Friend the Lord Advocate on several occasions, but objec-

425
tion has hitherto always been taken by honourable Gentlemen opposite.
In reply to a further Question, the right honourable Gentleman said: I think it most desirable that this Committee should be appointed, and I cannot think the objection to it is likely to be enduring. I trust that, without interrupting the ordinary course of business, the House may be able to appoint the Committee.
MR. PIRIE: Can the right honourable Gentleman see his way to give time for a full and adequate discussion of the Amendment on the Paper by the appointment of the Select Committee?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I must ask for notice of that.

NEWFOUNDLAND.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it will be possible to take advantage of the presence in this country of the Prime Minister of Newfoundland to discuss with him the arrangements for bringing the fishing population of that Colony into the Royal Naval Reserve?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I will gladly discuss this question with the Premier of Newfoundland, but the difficulties which surround the subject are very serious.

LAND ALLOTMENTS IN THE NAVAN UNION.
MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Local Government Board in the matter of a petition presented to it relative to the refusal of the Navan Board of Guardians to provide additional half-acre allotments to certain cottages erected by that body under the Labourers Acts; whether the Local Government Board
426
have declined to hold an inquiry into the matters mentioned in that petition; and, if so, on what grounds has it so departed from the usual practice; and whether it is justified by law in declining to accede to the prayer of the petition?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The petition referred to was brought under the notice of the guardians, who stated they were of opinion that the half-acre plots are amply sufficient for the requirements of the occupants of the cottages. The extent of the plot to be allotted to each cottage, subject to a maximum of one statute acre, is left, by the Labourers Acts, to the discretion of the sanitary authority, and the Local Government Board did not depart from the usual practice in declining to hold an inquiry, or otherwise to interfere with the discretion of the guardians. I may add that the guardians have already built 270 cottages, with half-acre plots, and that they propose to provide 42 more.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN WEST AFRICA.
SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether invitations have been issued for a conference on the liquor traffic in West Africa to all the Powers of Europe, or only to those Powers having territorial influence there; and if the date of the meeting of the conference is yet known?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Her Majesty's Government have received and accepted an invitation from the Belgian Government to attend a conference on the subject of the liquor traffic in West Africa. No final determination appears to have been arrived at as to the composition of the conference or the date of its meeting.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.
MR. DUNCOMBE: In accordance with private notice, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the

427
discussion that arose last evening on the question "That this House do now adjourn," he can give the House any assurance that the present method of dealing with private Members' Bills will receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government with a view to a more satisfactory method being adopted?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think there can be no doubt that some dissatisfaction does exist with the present method of dealing with private Members' Bills after the close of business at 12 o'clock and at half-past 5 on Wednesdays. But, though I recognise the disease, I have not been able to think of a remedy which would not entail greater evils on the House than the evils which I admit we do at present suffer from. I do not think it would be possible to carry out any reform that would not interfere with the 12 o'clock rule, and if there is a thing on the maintenance of which the House has set its heart it is that 12 o'clock rule. I am, however, quite willing to receive and consider any suggestion from my honourable Friend, or any Member, which may help to solve the difficulty.
MR. DAVITT: Home Rule would be the remedy.
SIR T. ESMONDE: Will the right honourable Gentleman agree to the appointment of a small Committee to consider the matter?
MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware of the existence of great dissatisfaction with the treatment of private Members' Bills in the House of Lords?
[No Reply.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) FINANCIAL RESOLUTION.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary why the Government has set down the Committee on the financial resolution to authorise payment from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill as the first Order of the day; I understood that it would be taken when the
428
Committee are approaching the third part of the Bill; and, as important matters for discussion are likely to arise in relation to the Resolution, it surely would have been reasonable and courteous to have given a few days' notice of the intention to proceed with it.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I confess I hear with some surprise that the notice I gave yesterday is regarded by the honourable Member and his friends as too short. Of course, it was well known that the Resolution would have to come on either to-day or at a very early date, and I was not aware that there was to be a Debate upon it which could be described as of a very important character. As honourable Members are aware, the Government have promised opportunity for a Debate on the whole subject of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland; and I do not know that it would be in order to discuss that wider question on this Resolution. However that may be, I do not suppose there will be any desire to open the larger question in reference to this Bill, and I hoped we might have got through this parenthetical stage of the Bill without any long discussion.
MR. DILLON: We have no intention of raising the wider question of financial relations generally between Great Britain and Ireland, but there are two important points of finance as affected by the Bill Irish Members desired to discuss. There are, too, some very important figures we wish to have before us prior to entering on the discussion. It would surely be more convenient to give us at least two days' notice. It must be a matter of indifference to the Government.
MR. FLYNN: The implied understanding was that this Resolution would not be brought forward until Clause 34 was reached.
MR. BLAKE: May I remind the right honourable Gentleman that what was stated was that the financial Resolution should be taken at the time the third part of the Bill was reached?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: But honourable Members must remember we have also to get the Report stage of the Resolution.
MR. DILLON: I suggest that the Resolution be put down for Tuesday as the first Order. I think I can undertake that no fresh discussion would be raised on the Report stage.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: But we could not take that stage till this day week.
MR. DILLON: Yes; the Report stage might be taken on Wednesday, and after that we could proceed with the financial clauses of the Bill.
MR. LOUGH: I may remind the right honourable Gentleman that to-morrow and Monday is set apart for other business. Monday is allocated for the Budget Resolutions.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Will right honourable Members opposite take that view? I am quite willing to postpone the financial Resolution, but I hope there will be no unnecessary Debate on it.
MR. LAMBERT: Can the right honourable Gentleman say with certainty it will be taken on Tuesday? I have come all the way from Devonshire for this Debate.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As far as I can say, it will certainly be taken on Tuesday.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Is there any objection to some of us going to Devonshire on Tuesday?
[No Reply.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Question again proposed—
  "That Clause 12 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. JOHN DILLON: When the Debate was adjourned yesterday I was dealing with the two main grounds on which I object to this clause. First of all, it does not fit into the Bill, and it has no analogy in English legislation. Now, Sir, when I appealed to the right honourable Gentleman to give his reasons for introducing this clause, he had to admit that there was no particular motive present in his mind for reproducing it except to throw some portion of the expense on the counties in the west of Ireland. Well, Sir, that is a most extraordinary principle to wrap up in a Bill for the better local government of Ireland. The right honourable Gentleman, in the speech which he made in defence of this clause, did not attempt to give one single reason why, if there is to be a rate levied for distress, that rate should fall entirely upon those counties which are the poorest in the whole of Ireland. Are we entitled to plead or to hope that the Treasury will make this grant. What makes me dislike this clause most of all is, that the greater the distress the less likely is it that the county will put it into operation. Therefore I do think that this clause is foreign to the scope of the Bill, and is, in reality, an attempt to place a further burden on a part of the country most deserving of relief and sympathy.
  MR. JAMES H. M. CAMPBELL: I hope the Committee will excuse me if I, for a few moments, discuss on this particular section whether it will have the effect of substituting this local relief as the equivalent for Imperial assistance in cases of exceptional distress. We have in the first place, upon this point, the express declaration of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that that is not the intention of the law. But, more important still, while not in any way wishing to doubt the sincerity of that declaration, we have a much more important guarantee from the fact that the section itself fails to provide a complete relief, or anything in the nature of a complete scheme of relief, for exceptional distress. Anyone who reads the section must see this, that the object—and the primary object in the opinion of myself and honourable

  431
  Members from Ireland on this side of the House—is that it will enable the county in which this exceptional distress arises to apply relief at the time when it is most wanted—that is, at the outset of the distress, and it may very often happen that in a district where this distress arises, having the advantage of knowing it, and being there on the spot where the distress exists, they will be able to a greater or a less degree, by the immediate application of relief, to prevent that distress assuming an acute form.
  AN IRISH MEMBER: Where is the money to come from?
  MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: Therefore it is that this section contains a most important ingredient—namely, the power that is given to the county council, if they so desire, to apply immediately, and at the very outset of the distress, that relief which may render subsequent aid unnecessary. But, further, I believe that this section affords—and will afford if only roughly—the means of testing the reality of the distress. Now, the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said that in Ireland, when the opportunity arises to put your hand into the Imperial pocket, there is a strong desire on the part of Irishmen to plunge in as deeply as they can. Well, I do not think that they are singular in that respect. I think, perhaps, the same observation might apply to the inhabitants of this country and of Scotland; and certainly I think that if there is any indication of a desire on the part of Irishmen to indulge in that luxury more than the inhabitants of this country and of Scotland, to some extent the blame for that must lie upon the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government and her predecessors who, by permitting a system of land agitation, have placed a direct premium upon exaggeration in this country. But, apart from considerations of that sort, we upon this side of the House are in favour of the inclusion of this clause for the reason I have already mentioned, because we believe that it will be a very good test of the reality of the distress. I do not for a moment
  432
  intend to suggest by that, that distress does not arise at times in a very acute and severe form in these congested districts. At the present moment I am satisfied that there is in Ireland in many of these congested districts distress of a very intense and a very acute form. But, on the other hand, when the county council know that it is possible that they may be appealed to and asked to apply at the outset to distress of this character this exceptional relief, that will make them more careful to ascertain the exact facts as to the nature of the distress. And, above all, the clause provides what is most valuable and most wanted on the occasion when this distress arises, that is, it affords to those upon the spot, and who are, therefore, best acquainted with the distress, power to apply without delay a remedy which will check the distress, and which the Government is not in a position to supply so satisfactorily.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Why not?
  MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: I wish to say, in answer to that question, that we all know that a Government department must necessarily move with a certain amount of slowness. The Government in Dublin Castle must satisfy themselves by local inquiry by their own officials as to the nature and extent of the distress. But in the case of the county council within the county it will have upon it members some of whom must necessarily come from the very area of the distress, and they will have in their own power more facilities and more means of acquiring a rapid and accurate knowledge of the nature and extent of the distress. And now there is just one other matter with regard to the argument used as to the unfairness of taxing remote parts of the country for the purpose of relieving distress at the other end of the country, It must be borne in mind that that observation applies, perhaps not with the same force, but it certainly applies with some force in the case of the poor rate. It also applies in the case of all those county charges, because they are contributed to by the ratepayers of the entire county for general purposes, consequently this proposal is more likely to directly benefit the isolated portions of the country. There must be some area

  433
  that will be liable for the burdens within that area, and until we can find something better, I can see no better definition of the area than the area represented by the county council. I hope the Government will see their way to retain this clause, which, I believe, for the reasons I have mentioned, will be found to work well and satisfactorily.
  MR. W. S. ROBSON: It is claimed for this clause that it is designed to relieve distress in Ireland at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer. Now, Sir, if the clause had really that bent, and would produce that result without injustice to Ireland, I for one should be inclined to support it. But I confess that I am very doubtful indeed about the beneficial effects of this clause, and I am more doubtful still since I heard the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Now, I was struck with a contradiction in that speech. The right honourable Gentleman said that beyond doubt there exists in the west of Ireland a condition of things—a chronic condition of things—which was a subject proper for Imperial consideration, and which demanded an Imperial remedy. Now, that was an admission, but see what it amounted to. You have in Ireland a condition of things, and that condition of things is chronic. Now, I cannot see how anyone can agree with the Chief Secretary. If it be true that there exists in Ireland this dreadful condition of things, I do not think this House ought to shirk its duty. This condition of things is apart altogether from exceptional distress, and when that distress becomes exceptional we become excluded from blame. I do not think that any English Member on this side of the House, however anxious he may be to remedy this state of things, can possibly support this clause.
  MR. THOMAS LOUGH: The point raised by the honourable Member on the opposite side of the House seems to be this: he said, very truly, that the county members of the council would have more knowledge of the distress than this House would have. But, the relief of distress is not a question of knowledge, it is a question of the purse, and these Irish counties have not got such good means at their
  434
  disposal as this House might have for the relief of distress. In bad times the county will suffer as much as the particular union affected. I think you will want a larger purse than the county can find to give adequate relief, and I think that disposes of the argument of the honourable and learned Member opposite. There is one point satisfactory in the promise of the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary said with the greatest candour and explicitness that this clause was not intended to relieve the Imperial Parliament of its duty in Ireland in regard to exceptional distress. I think that is a most satisfactory statement, but it puts the Committee into this difficulty: we have now to proceed upon a promise while there is a clause put into the Bill which appears to some extent to break that promise. Therefore I think we cannot absolutely accept this statement, although I am quite sure the right honourable Gentleman was perfectly serious in what he said when he stated that Parliament would not be relieved of its duty in this respect. But even that would not justify him in including this clause in the Bill. My honourable Friend who has just sat down says the object of the clause is to relieve this House of responsibility. Although that was denied by the argument of the Chief Secretary, yet I am sure that he will admit that this clause is, to some extent, to relieve this House. The way the law stands at present is that when a union has satisfied the Local Government Board that there is exceptional distress, then this House intervenes. But, as the law will stand in the future, this House will have a second barrier, and will say that the county has not given sufficient evidence that exceptional distress exists. It will fall back on the union, and then on the county, and so another barrier will be erected I think this law casts a most invidious duty on the county council. There will be a union in the county making a strong claim for relief. The county council will naturally wish to protect the other areas of the county. But, on the other hand, it will have certain sympathies with the distressed area, and this clause will create a cause of strife between one of the districts

  435
  and the rest of the county. I think the clause is bad in principle. It is bad in principle on two grounds, which have already been stated, but which ought to be repeated; and I believe if honourable Members opposite would only consider them, they would see that much weight is attached to them. It is bad in principle, because the principle on which we are proceeding is that we should follow the precedent set by the English Act. Well, there is no precedent for this departure in English and Scotch legislation. Therefore, as it is not in the English Bill, you should not put it in the Irish Bill. It is wrong in principle for another reason, because you have two statutory bodies—one is the guardians for poor law relief, and the other is the county council for local government—and you should not mingle the duties of these two bodies. I say that it is most undesirable that you should make one body trespass upon the ground which the other body has been constituted to cover. This clause is wrong in principle, because it is against the principles of our ordinary legislation, and for those two reasons alone it ought to come out. But, Mr. Lowther, this question of Irish distress is one in which this House cannot fail to take a very great interest whenever it is brought up, especially when it is brought up, as it is to-day, on a question of legislation. I may say, without the slightest hesitation, that Irish distress is the centre of the Irish situation in this House. It is desirable for us, when we consider the point which I have laid down, to define the word "distress." Now, what do we mean by Irish distress? I find a good deal of fault with some of the speeches, and I do not think my honourable and learned Friend who sat down a moment ago was quite sufficiently accurate with regard to the use of this word "distress." As we meet with this word in the Bill, what does it mean? The Chief Secretary has once or twice used the word as if it meant chronic poverty in the west of Ireland, or the low condition that many of the inhabitants of Ireland have to live in.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I never said that.
  MR. THOMAS LOUGH: I hardly think the honourable Gentleman meant that, but he used words that might lead honourable Members to think that that was what he meant. It is not chronic poverty that we mean by Irish distress. What we mean by it is the situation that arises "where want outruns charity or local organization." Now let us bear that meaning in mind while I discuss it for a moment with the Committee. In this sense distress is not constant in Ireland, and it is not chronic. There was a period of 130 years, from 1690 to 1820, in which Parliament had never to interfere in Ireland in the way in which it has been constantly interfering during the last 80 years. The right honourable Gentleman smiles, but the Irish Parliament never did interfere during that period. I suppose he thinks it ought to have done so. During that period Ireland was prosperous and making progress, and she afforded the evidence then which every country gives of prosperity. Through the eighteenth century the Irish Parliament never had to relieve distress in Ireland as this Parliament has had to do, although it was not less humane than this Parliament.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The honourable Gentleman must confine himself to the subject.
  MR. THOMAS LOUGH: It was because the Chief Secretary shook his head that I went a little more into detail than I intended, and I do not think you will have to call me to order again, Mr. Lowther. During that time there was a long period in which there was no distress existing in Ireland. The distress has been caused there by this House. When Ireland had a good Government the distress did not appear, and it is because this House manages affairs in Ireland that distress is caused. Twenty years after the Act of Union, when this House took charge of the affairs of Ireland, distress began to appear. Since 1821, including the one with which we are dealing now, we have had 13 famines

  437
  in Ireland—that is, 13 times in which the English Parliament has had to give relief. I do not think that any Parliament could be more reluctant to relieve distress than this Parliament. Well, that is my opinion. Mark the reluctance of the Chief Secretary. How much has he given to relieve the present distress? Only about £30,000; therefore I say that no Parliament that ever met could be more reluctant to intervene in these emergencies than this Parliament. I say that if this Parliament, which is so reluctant to relieve distress, has had to do so 13 times, then it is a fair argument that there is something in the policy of this Parliament which causes the distress. I cannot help suggesting one reason that may go to the bottom of this question, and which I will not go into at any length. We cannot leave out of the question the burdens which this House puts upon these districts. Now, I had a little table put in my hand yesterday, which sets out in a graphic way what these obligations are. There is at the bottom of this paper a statement of the financial obligations which this House throws upon every person in Ireland. They are figures, and, therefore, I am very reluctant to give them to the Committee. But I can put them in a simple manner before the Committee. I take them from a leaflet dealing with Ireland during the Queen's reign. There are about half a dozen facts which show conclusively these two great changes—that is, how much the financial obligations were which this House threw upon Ireland in 1837 and how much they are to-day. By the figures given here each family had in 1837 to pay, under the obligations of this House, a total tax of £4 per family; now, in 1897, the total tax paid is £13 10s. per family. Therefore, during the 60 years of Her Majesty's reign £9 10s. per head has been added to the contribution which each family has to make to local and Imperial taxation in Ireland. This leaflet also shows that this increase did not take place during the first 20 years of this reign, but was entirely made within the last 40 years. Every family of five in Ireland has been made
  438
  to contribute £9 10s. per head more than it formerly contributed.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I really must call the honourable Member to order again.
  MR. THOMAS LOUGH: If you rule me out of order I must desist, but I wanted to show that the distress had been caused in Ireland by the obligations this House placed upon that country, and, therefore, this House cannot escape its responsibility. During the last few years we greatly increased those burdens, and, as we are increasing them, we ought not to withdraw from helping the localities affected. While the present Government has been in office that burden has increased £1 per family. I know that it will be said that we have given some relief through the Congested Districts Board, but that is only 6s. per family. Within the past 10 years we have increased the burdens of Ireland £2 per family, and within the last three years £1 per family; and we keep on increasing these burdens. Now, what is the use of these trifling forms or relief? My argument, Mr. Lowther, is this—and I am glad that the Committee are patient enough to allow, me to put it thus—that, as this House retains in its own hands the power of laying these obligations on Ireland which cause the distress, it is most unfair that, at the same time, you should withdraw, by the provisions of this Bill, from the responsibility of assisting this distress after you have created it. That is my argument. I say that the distress in Ireland can be traced to nothing so clearly as to the burdens which this House puts on Ireland, and, therefore, this House ought to be ready to relieve the situation when it arises. There is one other point, which is not connected with any of these figures, which I would like to say a word upon, because the right honourable Gentleman has alluded to it in the course of this Debate. The right honourable Gentleman said, in reply to, I think, the honourable Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, that he was still of opinion that in many of the districts of Ireland relief could only be had by diminution of

  439
  the population Well, now, on that point I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that during the last ten years the population has diminished 400,000, and during the last 40 or 50 years it has decreased 4,000,000. Now I put it to the Committee whether any relief can be found in the diminution of the population after what has already taken place. You do not get better as you diminish the population. You have greater poverty with the smaller population than you had when there was a larger population. The Report of the Royal Commissioners shows that since 1870 pauperism has increased by 46 per cent. in Ireland, while it has diminished by 26 per cent. in Great Britain. So that the more rapidly your population decreases your pauperism increases.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think these figures are accurate.
  MR. LOUGH: They are taken from the Report of the Royal Commission, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give me the opportunity to show him the statistics presently. The whole subject of Irish distress requires treatment on broader lines than have yet been tried by the House, but do not let us forestall that opportunity by putting these clauses in the present Bill.
  MR. E. BLAKE: I desire to protest against the retention of this clause in this Bill. I cannot but feel, Sir, that anything which will render less incumbent upon this House the consideration upon every occasion, until the permanent remedy is applied, of the condition of chronic distress which exists in the congested districts in Ireland is a misfortune for that country, and is a misfortune for this House and for this country too. Because for that chronic condition of distress, to which is due the periods of exceptional distress, it is admitted by the Government of the day frankly, whatever its causes, whoever may be responsible for its origin, they are responsible to-day in the sense that it is an Imperial matter, a matter for the House of Commons to master and to remedy. I care not whose fault it may have been, or upon whose shoulders the original responsibility is placed; the
  440
  state of things is one which, to the humiliation of this country has, in the opinion of the Government, justified the insertion of this clause in the Local Government Act of Ireland. And what is the condition this Act is designed to remedy? A state of "exceptional distress." They recognize a normal condition of distress; they recognize a chronic condition of distress as existing, and pass it by. But when the distress becomes so acute as to be failed exceptional, even for Ireland, then they proceed to provide not an Imperial, but a local remedy. Now, Sir, whatever you may account the causes—whether it be due in part to over taxation, as my honourable Friend said a moment ago, or whether it be due, as I think it mainly is, to the economic circumstances of the congested districts—that the population are herded too closely together upon unfertile soil, under circumstances in which it is impossible for them to live as in this civilized Christian country they should live—whatever, I say, the cause, we ought to see that the population are given the opportunity of living under conditions which afford them a reasonable opportunity to be provident and thrifty. For unless you give them the hope of saving you cannot expect that they will be otherwise than in the condition which has been described in those dull and dry blue books, which are yet among the most pathetic reading to be found. These show what the miserable lives are that these people live. The chronic circumstances are so low—the margin between these people and destitution and starvation is so slight—that the accident of a single less fertile harvest produces a state of exceptional distress. I say it is a shame and a blot, and a disgrace for the whole country for this great Empire, whose prosperity and wealth and general comfort were depicted the other day in the glowing language of the Budget speech, that the dreadful condition to which I have alluded should subsist and be acknowledged as chronic—that we should be told that the Imperial remedies must be slow, that we can only alleviate the condition of the people by degrees, and then that a condition of acute and intolerable distress—on one word, famine—or starvation, or next door to it, growing out of the normal state,

  441
  when a had harvest supervenes, should be dealt with in the manner proposed by this clause. Nay, Sir, let us not deal with the outcrop and fruit of the permanent and chronic condition of misery in this unjust and ineffective way, and let us rather leave it where it is as a reminder to this House and to this country, that they have not struck at the root of the evil, that they have not grappled with what is a shame and a disgrace to this Christian and wealthy country of ours. Sir, I cannot understand how those who take, and take in all sincerity, the Unionist view, and think that Ireland can only be governed well and wisely from this House, can propose this clause. It seems to me a recognition—supported as it is by the arguments of the Chief Secretary—of their inability to perform the task. I should like to see those who are responsible for the government of the United Kingdom grappling with this shame and disgrace. I say that the condition of the congested districts is one discreditable to any Christian and to any wealthy country; and for my part I protest against any clause in any Bill which shall render it easier to put aside that condition. Now, Sir, I have said that these conditions of exceptional distress grow out of the too-frequent misfortune of a bad harvest. There is no margin. The food that is lived upon is the coarsest and the cheapest; the conditions of life are the narrowest and the poorest. There is nothing to retrench upon. There is no lower state to which to descend. There is no accumulation by which to stave off the evil day of a bad harvest. That is the condition of those people. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary declared that it was not intended altogether to evade the duty of this Government, and of this Parliament, to take its part in case of exceptional distress. But he is going to make the county councils a buffer between the Government and their responsibility to the people in the distressed districts. Well, now, Sir, I object to the occasional outcries of acute distress being dulled or silenced in this sphere in which we can now make them heard when they occur. Again, Sir, does anyone suppose that the counties in which the congested districts are composed of two classes of
  442
  population, one of them of the very poorest, suffering utter misery, and the rest rich and well-to-do? Does anybody suppose that there is not a large margin in those counties, and, I am sorry to say, also, in counties which have not a single congested district, where the people are on the verge of utter poverty as well? Does anybody suppose that the poverty of Ireland is limited to the congested districts? It is not so; and when you propose, as you do in this case, to impose upon a county the duty of recognizing the existence of exceptional distress, in order to provide a fund which has to be contributed by the county at large, to the extent provided in the clause, you are practically proposing that a large number of those who in that very county are upon the verge of absolute distress, shall themselves out of their poverty contribute to those who are confessedly, permanently, in the humiliating condition already acknowledged in the congested districts. I say humiliating, because I do consider that it is a state of things which it is in the interests of this Legislature, and most of all of those who here maintain the Union, to remove. Now, Sir, what do you propose? You propose by this clause that it shall be the duty of the county council—you put the county council as the buffer between the Government and their responsibility—to determine that there is distress and provide for its relief. I hold that that proposition is a proposition unworthy of this Parliament. It is confessed that the state of the congested districts is one deserving of our attention, requiring a remedy, and a remedy which ought to be applied much more largely and by much more drastic and efficient methods than any which have up to this time been used. I hold that it requires very strong remedies indeed, but still remedies which would not tax enormously or to any very serious extent the resources of this Empire, and which have been partially applied with success in Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I feel that this clause is a clause which, as I have said, will act as a buffer between those who are responsible and the condition of things for which they are responsible. Because those who are responsible for the

  443
  permanent condition of the congested districts are responsible for the results of that condition which occasionally arise, accentuated by the too-frequent recurrence of bad harvests. Therefore it is, Sir, that I do appeal to the House not to put this clause into the Bill. It is not germane to the Bill. I congratulate English Members that there has been no occasion to introduce into the English Local Government Bill any such provision as this. Better leave things as they are until you find time to apply a permanent remedy. But until this national shame and disgrace is removed—for national shame and disgrace it is—you will, I hope, at any rate, take care to recognize your present responsibility that it shall not culminate in starvation.
  MR. T. H. ROBERTSON: The whole of this discussion appears to be based upon the assumption either that the whole of Ireland consists of one series of congested districts, or that this clause can only refer to those congested districts. I would venture to remind the Committee that only a fourth of Ireland contains those congested districts, and that the remaining three-fourths is just about as fertile and prosperous as most parts of England, and, I consider, in many cases far more so. Now, it appears to me that the clause may be of considerable utility. We have had several definitions of the words "exceptional distress," but I do not think that any of them are right. It appears to me that exceptional distress really means a state of greater distress than is usual in a particular neighborhood. But there is one great distinction in exceptional distress, although, of course, a hard line cannot be drawn—namely, that there is exceptional distress for which Parliament is liable, and these is exceptional distress for which nobody would think of coming to the Imperial Parliament. Now, I do not, of course, pretend that the Imperial Parliament has any special responsibilities to the west coast of Ireland more than it has to any other portion of the United Kingdom which is in great distress. Wherever distress exists it is perfectly clear that it is the duty of Parliament to relieve that distress, and it is a duty which they cannot get rid of. In the very nature of things, if you
  444
  get such distress that the locality cannot relieve itself, then it is certain that Parliament must relieve it. Now, Sir, in the particular part of Ireland where I mostly reside there is not the slightest probability of this exceptional distress occurring which is provided for by the Act. There is no more probability of it occurring in three-fourths of Ireland than there is of it occurring in the county of. Kent; indeed, I might say that there is less probability of it occurring there than in the county of Kent. But if exceptional distress did exist in my own immediate neighbourhood—and it is more likely to occur there than in the rest of the county—we might get a very considerable benefit under this clause by the provision which compels the whole county to come to the relief of any particular district. Now, there is hardly an honourable Member opposite who would not admit that if that was the sole object of the Bill—if it was simply for the purpose of relieving distress that was not so exceptional as to call for the intervention of Parliament—there cannot be a single Gentleman opposite who would oppose this clause. They oppose it because they say it will tend to take away from the Imperial Parliament that duty which it has in the case of exceptional distress, and which imperatively calls for the intervention of the Imperial Parliament. Well, as I have said, I have not the slightest fear of that arising, because, as I have said, I feel sure that Parliament cannot, even by direct legislation, free itself from that responsibility. We have, of course, heard the statement of what the views of the Government are in introducing this clause, but that, of course, is only the intention of the present Government. But I quite agree that we must see whether there will be any chance of Parliament being relieved in these particular cases of very great exceptional distress. I do not myself see how that is to be done. The clause refers not to specially acute exceptional distress, but merely to ordinary exceptional distress. I draw a distinction between exceptional distress calling for the attention of Parliament and exceptional distress in respect of which nobody would ever think of applying to this House; because, of course, there is undoubtedly exceptional distress

  445
  which nobody would ever dream of bringing before the notice of this House, though the distress in a particular locality may be greater than it usually is. There is no part of England in which there is not a certain amount of distress. That is undoubted. What we are dealing with is the distress which is over and above that. I may say, in reference to that, that I think the Chief Secretary has been a little misunderstood in one observation that he made. What I understood him to say was that there was occasionally a tendency to exaggerate "exceptional distress" into "exceptional distress" that ought to be relieved by this House. I am quite sure that there is no honourable Member of this House who wishes that distress to be exaggerated, and that being the case, I think the Chief Secretary has been misunderstood. What he meant by that observation was that it might possibly prevent applications to this House in cases where such applications ought not to be made; and that is a view which, I am sure, almost every honourable Gentleman opposite will accept. Well, Sir, I come to the question whether, inasmuch as this Bill will undoubtedly confer a benefit upon a considerable proportion of Ireland, that proportion ought to be deprived of the beneficial provisions of the Bill simply because some honourable Gentlemen in this House fear that it may lead to some evil result with regard to the flow of Parliamentary moneys into Ireland. I hold that it is impossible by this clause that the Imperial Parliament can be relieved from any responsibility which properly belongs to it; and I therefore trust the House will agree to the clause.
  MR. LOUGH: I should like to be permitted to justify a statement of mine which the Chief Secretary has contradicted as to the relative pauperism of Great Britain and Ireland. The statement I made was that while in Great Britain pauperism had decreased 26 per cent., in Ireland it had increased 46 per cent., since 1870. The right honourable Gentleman said that it was not true. I find by the final Report of the Commission on Financial Relations, pages 207–8, that the exact figures for Great Britain are: between 1870, the earliest year
  446
  available, and 1894, the latest year available, population 34 per cent. increase; pauperism, 24.5 per cent. decrease. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that I said 26 per cent., and, speaking as I did from memory, I think it might be accepted as accurate. Now, turning to Table 4, we find on the next page a comparison of the same character, with regard to Ireland—viz., between 1870 and 1894: population 15 per cent. decrease; pauperism, 42.9 per cent. increase. I said 46 per cent.; it is 43. But I think for all practical purposes I have been perfectly accurate.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am bound to say that, although the honourable Gentleman has quoted these figures, at the same time they are figures which, in my opinion, require very careful consideration. I do not know by what authority those figures are made.
  MR. LOUGH: By the very highest authority—by the Local Government Board and by the Board of Trade.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Of course, I am not prepared to go into this question at the present moment, but I think at the same time, if these statistics are properly dealt with and properly inquired into, they will not show the results which the honourable Gentleman attributes to them. I am not in a position to make good or bad his statement at the present time, but I believe those figures, if properly inquired into, would not show that result. It is not worth while discussing the question; and therefore, although I do not think those figures represent the true facts, I must for the moment allow them to pass.
  MR. J. MORLEYMay I draw the right honourable Gentleman's attention to this line in the Report?—
  "These tables have been prepared by the Board of Trade for the use of this Commission."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That may be so, but I think I should have attached a great deal more weight to them if they had been prepared by the Local Government Board. The Board of Trade has nothing to do with pauperism, and when you say pauperism has increased by so much you cannot attach very much

  447
  importance to the statement until you ascertain the true position of the facts. At the present time I can only say that, from my recollection of the inquiries which have been made into this subject, I am a little sceptical of the figures. Now, a distinction has been drawn in this Debate between chronic poverty and exceptional distress, and it is quite right that such a distinction should be drawn. It is a distinction vital and essential to the consideration of this subject. This clause does not profess to deal with chronic poverty. I will not follow the honourable Gentleman the Member for Islington in his statistical survey or in his account of the causes which have led to this state of chronic poverty in the west of Ireland. I will not follow him, I say, in those views, but at the same time I will say that he seems to be misled by some very obvious fallacies, while he has overlooked some very obvious facts. The honourable Gentleman pointed to the increase of population during the last century as a proof of the increase in the prosperity of Ireland. He forgot or ignored the fact that the population of Ireland very nearly doubled itself in the first half of this century. If the increase of population is a sign of prosperity in the one case, necessarily it must be equally so in the other. Therefore I may take it that the honourable Member's view is that Ireland has increased in prosperity from 1800 to 1847, but the honourable Member said that since that period there had been times of exceptional distress, in which it had been necessary for the Government to come to the assistance of the people in Ireland. That has been the case, but is it to be imagined for one moment that any honourable Member who professes to have studied this question seriously could have absolutely failed to remind the Committee that the reason Why these periods of exceptional distress and famine have occurred since 1847 is primarily due to the fact that the potato disease appeared in that year, and has more or less severely reappeared at other periods since that time? Since 1847 these periods of exceptional distress have been in every case associated with the failure of the potato crop. The honourable Member referred to a statement I made yesterday that there were spots in
  448
  Ireland where the population was denser than could be adequately supported in comfort upon the land which it occupies. I repeat that nobody who had studied the facts could deny that for one moment. The honourable Member met that statement by this argument: he said the population of Ireland had been diminishing for 40 or 50 years. Was it not clear, then, that every remedy which could be tried in the direction of the diminution of poverty has been tried and failed? Does not the honourable Member see that he drew his argument from the general population of Ireland? It is not a question of the general diminution of the population of Ireland; the only question here is whether there are not some spots in Ireland in which it would be more conducive to the general comfort of the people if the population were less dense than it is, that it would be more favorable to a permanent condition of comfort if these spots were more sparsely populated. I have not entered into the question of any remedy for that. There may be a variety of methods of dealing with it. There may be ways of supplying means of employment in those districts by establishing industries which do not now exist there. It may be possible to induce some of the people there to go away and take lands elsewhere in Ireland where they may live in greater comfort, or it may be that they may find that they can live in happier circumstances and under happier conditions in another country. Yes, in another country—in the United States, or in England, or in some other land. But it is not with chronic poverty, the remedy for which, as my right honourable Friend the Member for South Dublin has pointed out, must be very slow, and must take years to cope with, and must not be forced, that we have to deal with now. I will only add upon this subject that which seems to be always forgotten by honourable Members opposite; they constantly reproach this Government with being unable to remedy this chronic state of affairs. I venture to say a good deal has been done, and ft good deal is still being done in that direction, and more undoubtedly will be done by the Congested Districts Board That Board, I would point out, was not

  449
  established at the instigation of the gentlemen opposite. It was established by the Unionist Party, and when the proposal was first made, unless I am very much mistaken, it was met with great opposition from the opposite side of the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And I oppose it still.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Now I come to the question of the exceptional distress. What is exceptional distress? One or two attempts have been made to define it this afternoon. Exceptional distress I take to be distress which calls for exceptional remedies. Now, what are the exceptional measures which this clause specially contemplates? There are two. In the first place there is the relaxation of the ordinary conditions of outdoor relief in Ireland. The law in that country with regard to outdoor relief is stringent, and rightly so, but Parliament has found it necessary on a variety of occasions to relax this law. We found it necessary to do so last year, we found it necessary to do so this year, and we found it necessary to do so in 1894. Now we desire to place upon the local authorities which we are setting up—namely, the county councils—the duty of taking upon themselves to determine whether such a state of things has arisen or not. In doing so I am told that I am introducing a provision which is not germane to the Bill. To that statement I do not agree. This is one of the duties we propose to place upon the county councils of Ireland, and I am told there is no precedent for that in the English Act. That is quite true, because there is no precedent in England for such a condition of things as arise in Ireland, which this clause is intended to mitigate. That is one of the exceptional measures which we are taking, and one which is only to be used when exceptional distress exists. The other exceptional measure is a provision for financial aid to those to whose care the administration of the poor law is immediately intrusted—that is to say, the board of guardians. The honourable Member for South Shields attacked me for having been guilty of inconsistency in what I said
  450
  yesterday. The honourable Member said—
  "The Chief Secretary admits that the question of chronic poverty is one which should be dealt with as an imperial affair, and which should be relieved—to some extent, at all events—out of public funds."
  Then he said—
  "If that is the duty of the Imperial Parliament, and if the money required for that purpose is to be taken out of the Imperial funds, why is not the same rule to be applied in the cases of exceptional distress as well."
  To some extent that principle has been applied in the past, and will be again in the future. There is no inconsistency at all, unless you are to obliterate and ignore the distinction between chronic poverty and exceptional distress. Just let us consider for one moment what that argument would mean. It would mean, with regard to the west of Ireland, that the ordinary administration of the poor rate should be a charge upon the Imperial Exchequer. Inasmuch as the condition of things in the west and southwest of Ireland is one of chronic poverty, and chronic poverty being an Imperial concern, and the charges for chronic poverty in a normal year is greater there than elsewhere, the argument of the honourable Member goes to show that the whole responsibility for providing for that chronic poverty should be taken out of the hands of the boards of guardians and placed upon the Imperial Exchequer. Now I am convinced that the proper administration of the poor law could not be carried out unless you are prepared to throw some responsibility upon the boards of guardians, and instead of paying out of the Imperial Exchequer the whole of the sums required for relief works, I have insisted upon the board of guardians bearing some share of that charge. It is merely an extension of that principle which we now propose in the Measure before the Committee. This clause merely throws upon the local authorities the duty of determining whether such a state of things exists, and whether relief shall be taken or not. Now, let us leave that point and turn to an argument which appears to have some weight. The honourable Member for East Mayo says the clause will be inoperative where exceptional distress actually exists, because the county

  451
  councils will not venture to take upon themselves the responsibility of a charge which might prove ruinous, and, therefore, they would not act.
  MR. J. DILLON: No; what I said was that if the distress was exceptional they would not put this clause in operation, because they would know that, so long as they did, they would receive no assistance from the Government.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Gentleman thinks the county councils might act if the distress was normal and little in amount, but they would not act in the case of exceptional distress. Now, I have already explained that it is not the intention of the Government that the clause shall relieve the Treasury of any obligation that may properly fall upon it, and it is not the intention to throw upon the county councils or the boards of guardians a burden greater than they can bear. It is said of the present Government, "so far as you are concerned you are pledged to that view, but some other Chief Secretary in the future may repudiate it, and would point to the clause and to the fact that the county councils had not put it into operation, and would say that that was a proof that the distress did not exist." To meet that objection I am prepared to consider, when we reach the Report stage of the Bill, the advisability of placing some limit upon the contributions which the county council should be called upon to make under this clause. I am prepared to put in a provision that they should not be asked to pay more than such and such a rate in the £. It appears to me that if that were done that the sole object of the Government would then be accomplished. We shall by that means give a satisfactory proof that our object is not to save the Treasury, or to relieve ourselves of any responsibility, but simply to improve the administration of the poor law.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not think the right honourable Gentleman need trouble the House with any such provision on the Report stage of the Bill. I do not think there is any necessity for introducing a provision that the contribution of the county council should be limited to
  452
  a shilling, or to sixpence, or to a penny. I think it will be a national duty on the part of the county council on the very first day after their creation to unanimously, all over the country, make a Standing Order, refusing to put this clause into operation. It will be a national duty, and will be done, except, perhaps, in parts of Ulster where the Nationalists are in a minority, where they may make a Standing Order providing that a year's notice must be given before putting this clause in motion, and that would stand very much in the same position as the other Standing Order. I am rather surprised that the Ulster Members of this House have not seen the principle which is involved in this clause. When the Home Rule Bill was under discussion Belfast was greatly agitated, by reason of the fact that the Irish Parliament would be able to enforce certain Measures, and this clause was the very thing which Belfast was the most afraid of, and they passed resolutions again and again to prevent it. I take Belfast and Cork. This distressed end of Cork would be the end to which I myself belong, but it has no more connection practically for the purposes of provisioning the people with the eastern end than Belfast has with Donegal. It is not so far separated in point of mileage as Belfast and Donegal, and the distance is farther in point of convenience and travel. I venture to say it is harder to get from Berehaven to Ben Carrick, and would take a longer time than it would take to get from Belfast to Donegal. The danger of this clause is that you start by getting a county rate, and you get from a county rate to a provincial rate, and, naturally enough, from a provincial rate to a national rate. I can see no reason why you should not do just as you did in London when you made St. George's pay for St. Giles. When you made the West End pay for the East, a thing which was so strongly opposed in the House of Lords; just as you had that provision in London, so you will naturally have a demand that wealthy Belfast shall pay for, we will suppose, impoverished Gwedore. I see no answer for it, and therefore let the Ulster Members remember that that is the position they have

  453
  come to. Why have they come to it? I could never understand why, in our general attitude, in our dealings with the Government with reference to this Act, there should be any difference between the Conservative Irish Members and ourselves. Is it to the interest of Orangeism or Protestantism or Unionism that you should have distress in Ireland neglected by a Chief Secretary, who can only give us the most callous phrases that have ever been used in reference to it? I do not think, in the annals of this House, more callous words have ever been used in reference to the distress prevailing in our country than have been used by the right honourable Gentleman the present Chief Secretary.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: What words?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the right honourable Gentleman forgotten them? If he has forgotten them we have not: words which, I venture to say, caused a thrill and a pang to pass through the heart of every man of the Irish race at home and abroad. I refer to the right honourable Gentleman's words when he was being pressed by the picture of the emaciated condition of the little girls and boys in the west and south-west of Ireland, and when his reply to us was, That, of course he could not send them to the south of France and feed them on champagne."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have been violently attacked for the words I used on that occasion, but I venture to say the words I have used have been grossly misrepresented. I am glad of this opportunity of stating what I said, and of explaining it. I was using a perfectly general argument; I did not speak of giving champagne to the people of the west of Ireland, or of sending them to the south of France; I was merely illustrating a perfectly general argument that the command of luxuries would enable the sick to resist the ravages of disease. I said if you could give sick people champagne, or send them to the South of France, you might possibly save lives that would be otherwise lost. I had no intention of saying anything callous. I had no intention of
  454
  uttering a gibe or a scoff, and, I venture to say, that no one was more surprised than I at the extraordinary interpretation put upon my words, and the extraordinary manner in which they have been twisted in order to raise a prejudice against me.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Nobody would desire less than myself to misrepresent the right honourable Gentleman, or to say anything to his prejudice considering his action upon two Bills in this House, but that makes me stronger in saying, having read his words in the newspapers, not being in the House myself at the time, no words more ill-chosen or unfortunate could have been used; and if the right honourable Gentleman has been misunderstood by his own newspapers, by his own suporters in the Press, is it any wonder that words like those should have brought desolation and dismay to the hearts of the people in Ireland who were expecting succour at his hands? It is the business of the right honourable Gentleman, as the Chief Administrator of Ireland, not to be misunderstood, and not to use language that will be misunderstood; and, I must say, when you are dealing with a starving population, when you are dealing with a question of fever and of famine, I do think some other illustration, some better and more favourable illustration than that selected by the right honourable Gentleman might have been used in this House. If, at the time, we will suppose, of the Lancashire famine the Home Secretary of the day, when he was appealed to, had said, "We cannot feed the Lancashire operatives upon champagne, or emigrate them to the south of France," I wonder how long the Home Secretary would have remained a Member of this House? It is amazing to me that against the wish of the Nationalist Party of Ireland, the right honourable Gentleman has sought to introduce a clause of this kind, and I can only see one object for so doing and that is to afford an excuse to his successors when famines of this kind arise in Ireland. But, if I was the Chief Secretary of the present Government, I would let my successors invent lies for themselves. The British Government has never been at a loss to invent excuses in their dealings with Ireland, and to suppose that, by this system of trying

  455
  to feed a dog on a bit of his own tail, you are doing something to relieve these peasants is the greatest fatuity that has ever been perpetrated by any Government. This clause has one redeeming attribute—it has a touch of humour. I do think this final provision virtually contains a feast for the famishing people of Ireland. The sub-section says that the guardians may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, obtain for the purposes of this section temporary advances of such amount and for such period and repayable in such manner as that Board may sanction, and may mortgage their property and funds to secure such advances. That is, that they may mortgage the property of the poor people who are starving. What are they to mortgage? Stone-breaking shops or the Fever Hospital? Can they mortgage the poorhouse? Is there in the history of British finance anything like a provision of this kind? There was a Committee on Money-lending sitting here, and the honourable Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone was chairman of that Money-lending Committee. I should like to ask him how much would be lent on a poorhouse. Are there honourable Gentlemen who suppose that the Irish poorhouses have some enormous real property like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in England, and that they can raise almost an Egyptian Loan? I have said in the Second Reading of this Bill that it is a good Bill, and I have incurred odium for so doing; but this provision is only another proof that the best intentions of English Ministers are utterly unfitted for relieving the distress of their so-called fellow-countrymen.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think the Committee will see from these tables that there was between 1870 and 1894 a diminution in pauperism of 24.5 in England, whilst in Ireland during the same period there was an increase in pauperism of 42.9 per cent. Taking the figures from 1880 to 1894, it becomes apparent that the whole of that increase took place during the first ten years; because from 1880 to 1894, a period of 14 years, the diminution in Great Britain was only 1.5 per cent., and in Ireland, instead of there being an in-
  456
  crease in pauperism, there was a decrease of 13.8 per cent.
  MR. DILLON: I venture to say that that will not hold water for a single moment. The right honourable Gentleman has selected the year 1880, a year of the most exceptional distress—the most widespread since the great famine. I rise to propose to the Committee a modification of the proposal which the right honourable Gentleman has put into his clause. It must be beginning to dawn upon the Government that a more unfortunate and ill-judged act than to introduce into the middle of their Bill a clause which raises the whole contentious subject of the relief of Irish distress could not possibly be imagined. The Government have entirely to thank themselves for this unfortunate state of affairs. The right honourable Gentleman sees now that the clause will not hold water. I shall suspend my final judgment until I see the Amendment, but I shall be very much surprised if he does not make the clause worse than before. What has been the chief difficulty about this clause? I conceive it possible that in the case of slightly exceptional distress the county council might possibly put this clause into operation; though I entirely agree that most county councils would hesitate to put into operation a clause so unpopular. The difficulty that presents itself is that under certain circumstances a county council would undoubtedly refuse to put the clause into operation. There might be raised a contest of endurance between the county council and the Chief Secretary on a large scale, and between the two these unfortunate people might be left in a state of starvation. What does he propose as a remedy for this objection? He proposes to insert into the Bill the limit beyond which the county council should not be called upon to contribute. The effect would be that unless the county council contributed to the extent of their limit it would be expected, as a matter of course, that the Government would give no relief whatever. What is the condition in these western districts? You have not got to deal with one class in a state of starvation and with another class in a state of wealth; but you have

  457
  got to deal with a population the great majority of which are on the verge of starvation. This clause should never have been introduced into the Bill; it introduces such a contentious subject. Up to now the Bill has proceeded with moderate smoothness, but I go so far as to say that if the Government is wise this mischievous and objectionable clause ought to be abandoned. The honourable Gentleman, who is fond of informing us that he has a residence in Ireland, says that it will apply to three-fourths of Ireland where there is no exceptional distress. Does not any honourable Member of the Committee know that the Government had in their mind in drafting the clause only those districts in the west where exceptional distress occurs periodically? The Chief Secretary throughout the whole of this Debate has not attempted to give a single reason, except one—that it might save the British Treasury some of the expense they might be called upon to incur. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has said that when there is distress in Ireland there is a tendency to exaggerate. But if your sympathies are aroused in any subject, does it not create a tendency to exaggerate? I think there is far more evil on the part of Governments in minimizing distress than in Members exaggerating it. Of the two I prefer to be among the exaggerators than with those who sneer and use cold language in dealing with troubles of this kind. I feel that tendency to exaggerate myself, especially when I read descriptions in the Press of the condition of those districts. I read in the Freeman's Journal yesterday of a scene in which during the last fortnight several children fainted from hunger. That statement may or may not be true, but yet we must recognize these statements when they are made on the authority of public men, who have no reason to doubt it. There never was a kind of oppression in regard to which you did not have a great deal of exaggeration. Very few men can sit down, after being witnesses of great human suffering, and examine in a cold and critical light the things they have seen. I say we have quite a strong case for accusing the right honour-
  458
  able Gentleman of minimizing the suffering that exists.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he promised the right honourable Gentleman not to deal with statistics, for he cared very little about statistics. The right honourable Gentleman said that statistics would have to be properly dealt with. Instead of dealing with statistics he was going to deal with practical things that he himself had witnessed. This clause was especially aimed at the congested districts in Ireland. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been accused by some of them with want of sympathy with the distress, but he [Mr. Swift MacNeill] did not think that that accusation could be justly made. It was true however that the right honourable Gentleman had not shown any exaggerated sympathy with those Irish peasants. In point of fact he had investigated the circumstances of that distress; but he had investigated it as an interesting, economical experiment—as interesting statistically. The right honourable Gentleman had shown his sympathy with the clause, but he had never shown his sympathy with the starving people of Ireland. That, he thought, was a pity. The right honourable Gentleman had defended the clause upon grounds which he put very candidly before the House. The right honourable Gentleman was very candid when he did not see the effect of his candour. His first point was that it would reduce the expenditure on Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer. He did not see that a saving to the Imperial Exchequer really meant misery and hunger to destitute people. He declared that this clause was a kind of charter of disgrace and condemnation of this Government, and he could not understand why the Government wavered, and why they went so absolutely against public opinion as to insert it. If the clause were struck out there need not be any single change or emendation in the Bill. A remarkable thing was that by this clause county councils had alone got the power over the administration of the relief of distress. I say that this clause is meant to put the people into such painful

  459
  circumstances that they will be forced out of their own country. This wholesale deportation of the people and the depopulation of the country the right honourable Gentleman seems to think is by no means a thing to be repelled, but that, if anything, it is a very useful thing. The right honourable Gentleman is not original in that view. It has been from first to last the steady policy of the English Government to procure the de-population of Ireland. There is no mistake about that; it can be proved. Mr. Lowther, in regard to the census of 1851, which was passed immediately after the Irish famine, and the then depopulation of the country, the Lord Lieutenant is congratulated upon it, in words which are almost exactly parallel with the speech made by the present Chief Secretary a few weeks ago, in which he said that the districts which are now so densely populated would be much better if the population were sparse. These are, as the facts show, not chance expressions, but the deliberate policy of the Government, which tikes the matter, in spite of the wishes of the country, into its own hands, and attempts to drive the people out of it. There are three lines to that effect, which the right honourable Gentleman would put into his speech without the slightest difficulty. In conclusion, the Commissioners of the Census of 1851, immediately after the famine, say, "We feel sure it will be gratifying to your Excellency that although the population has been diminished in so remarkable a degree by famine, disease, and emigration between 1841 and 1851, and has since decreased, the results on the Irish census of 1851 are, on the whole, satisfactory." In point of fact, Ireland was practically in the same state as was described a few weeks ago by the Chief Secretary in his celebrated Leeds speech, when he spoke of depopulation by emigration relieving the people from miserable pauperism. Now, there is one subject which has perhaps escaped observation in this Debate, and which is, I think, not unworthy of notice. Sub-clause or Sub-section 2 of this clause repeals Section 2 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1862, known as the pauperization section. The right honourable Gentleman spoke with great delight of the repeal of that legislation, but I sup-
  460
  pose no Member of this House, who is not an Irish Member, and I am perfectly certain the right honourable Gentleman himself will not deny it, knows what produced that clause or brought it upon the Statute Book. That section is most extraordinary in this respect: it provided that no man who had one quarter of an acre of land could obtain outdoor relief. That section was introduced and carried into law with the simple object that the men should be driven by starvation into the workhouse, that when once they were there the landlord had a free hand to burn or knock down their house and secure their land. That is part of the legislation for which we are expected to be so thankful. The section of this Bill I must call a legislative fraud. It is outside the jurisdiction and provision of this Bill which is supposed to confer benefits. There is no proper sequence in it, as I have said before, and I cannot understand why it should be introduced, save for this purpose—that the cries and complaints of the Irish people should not be heard by the English people. I do not place the slightest reliance on the saving or curing benefits of the emendations which the right honourable Gentleman will propose in the Report. Those emendations are due, not to our representations so much as to the fear of feeble support of his own Party in Ireland; and, although the right honourable Gentleman has some legislative ambition, I think he ought to let this clause slide. Let it go; let it be buried almost at its birth. It is a misconceived clause in almost every line. It is not only the clause of a single man, but it is not in accordance with the spirit of the Bill. Evidently some single person wishes to try his "prentice hand" on legislation for Ireland. Surely the right honourable Gentleman ought to be satisfied. He says be is the Government of Ireland, and he may let this clause alone for the sake of the success of his own Bill. I tell him it will create an enormous feeling in Ireland, and accentuate a feeling against him in Ireland which has never before been equaled with regard to any particular man. In all my (experience I have never heard of such a consensus of indignation as was immediately created throughout the length and breadth of

  461
  Ireland by the right honourable Gentleman's champagne speech. Mr. Lowther, I can assure you I am always, as you know, careful in my language, but if I were only to read the comments on the right honourable Gentleman's speech which appeared in the Daily Express, the leading Orange organ in Dublin, and the Evening Mail, and give them as my own and not as quotations, I think I should probably get a holiday for at least a week from attendance upon this House. I do not wish to say anything more upon that matter than I can help with regard to the right honourable Gentleman, and I never like to attack him except on principle, but he has acted wrongly in bringing in this section—I call it his own—and I say, let him make a graceful retreat from his champagne speech by taking out this section.
  MR. FLYNN: Sir, there is a certain amount of significance in regard to commentary upon this clause which we have been so long discussing, that within the last few days the very method which the right honourable Gentleman tells us is to be so beneficial has been exercised in Kerry by a coroner's jury, which found that the shameful condition of poverty there had culminated in a case of absolute starvation. Sir, there seems to run through all the arguments of the right honourable Gentleman a most extraordinary confusion, both of ideas and language, in regard to this clause. He talks of exceptional distress, whereas, I think, he ought to talk of exceptional districts. Then, I believe, that if we could quote the arguments of the honourable Member for the Southorn Division of Hackney with regard to Carlow, it would be found to refer to an odd district or an odd parish of the county of Carlow, and that Carlow was an exceptionally good district. There is no man in this House who does not know by this time that this clause is the legislative offspring of the right honourable Gentleman himself, of which he is very proud. It deals not only with exceptional districts, but with the exceptional distress that the country is passing through at the present time; and no matter how ingenious the gloss which may be sought to set upon the clause,
  462
  it will be found in the long run that this condition of things has been created in the west and the south-west of Ireland by the legislation advanced by this House, and introduced by Her Majesty's Government in the past. But now this clause seeks to relieve the Treasury of their responsibility, and to throw the duty and responsibility upon the shoulders of those who are in no way responsible whatever To that argument we have had no reply. This is supposed to be a United Kingdom. The Act of Union enacts as much, and, as to honourable Members opposite, this is supposed to be the strongest part of their political creed. This being supposed to be a United Kingdom, I ask, under what doctrine or what form of logical argument is a man in a comparatively poor part of the county of Kerry to be called upon to pay rates to support his poorer neighbour fifty miles away, when this burden is not cast upon the citizens of London, Edinburgh, or Glasgow? For no reason whatever, Sir, I cannot conceive any reason.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under the Equalization of Rates Bill the richer parts of London contribute their share to the poorer parts of London.
  MR. FLYNN: Irish Members are as well up in English legislation as Members opposite, and I can tell the right honourable Gentleman that the Bill to which he has referred was opposed by his Party as long as they decently could, so that it was only under the pressure of a Liberal Government and of strong feeling in the country that it was passed. Lord Salisbury opposed it, and spoke against it again and again, and there are Members here who can corroborate me.
  MR HAYES FISHER: That is untrue.
  MR. FLYNN: "Untrue," Mr. Lowther, is an un-parliamentary phrase.
  MR. HAYES FISHER: I merely intended to say that the honourable Gentleman is entirely incorrect.
  MR. FLYNN: I am sure that is what the honourable Gentleman means, but that was not an observation to throw

  463
  across the House. However, I should not be in order in going into that; but this I take the responsibility of saying, that the bulk of Conservative feeling, up to a certain point, was against that very equalization of rates to which the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has alluded. At any rats, there is no analogy whatever. London is a city in which, from time to time, there is great poverty, but it is nothing similar to that which exists in large portions of the west of Ireland at the present moment. London is the richest city in the whole wide world—the richest city, probably, that the world has ever seen; and the rich West End is only, say, half an hour's drive from the poorest part. I think the right honourable Gentleman will recognize that there is no analogy between the two cases. The position is this, Sir that I cannot conceive how anybody can get out of the argument. It is this: that the very poorest districts in Ireland—places where the normal level of existence is very low, where the people are wretchedly fed, clothed, and housed, and where you have people constantly living on the verge of poverty, if not in poverty itself—will be called upon to contribute towards the support of those who are suffering from poverty and destitution elsewhere at a distance.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Perhaps I may interpose, for the purpose of saying that the Act for the equalization of rates in London was passed in August, 1894.
  MR. FLYNN: The interposition of the right honourable Gentleman is not inappropriate, as it shows that the Act was passed when a Liberal Government was in power, and that my memory, and the memory of other Irish Members on the matter, is correct.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must ask the honourable Member to address himself to the clause under discussion. His present observations are quite beside the mark.
  MR. FLYNN: The point to which I am alluding was originated by the Chief Secretary, who spoke about the equalization of rates in London.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! I must ask the honourable Member to speak to the clause, and not to refer to other matters.
  MR. FLYNN: Well, Sir, with regard to this particular clause, the honourable Member for the Scotland Ward Division brought up the case of county Cork, which is divided into West Riding and East Riding, and pointed out how unjustly and unfairly this clause would operate as between the two divisions, west and east. Under this Bill the more prosperous part of Cork will not be called upon to contribute one shilling, while the western parts of the county, in which there are congested districts—
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The honourable Member is only repeating arguments which have been advanced two or three times already. It is disorderly to go on repeating the same arguments, and I must ask the honourable Member to bring forward some fresh arguments before the Committee.
  MR. FLYNN: Well, of course, Sir, I shall at once bow to your ruling, and proceed to other points in the discussion. I was only speaking in answer to something which had been said on the opposite side. The honourable Member for South Hackney brought forward an argument which showed that the average Conservative in this country does not give close attention to this matter. He said that the clause would only apply to those parts of Ireland where the misery is conspicuous. But, Sir, the ordinary law can deal with that without any clause of this kind. The ordinary law would grapple with that and apply a remedy.
  MR. TULLY: Mr. Lowther, the Chief Secretary has referred to the equalization of rates in London, and his argument may be used hereafter to enable the East Enders to quarter themselves on the West End. That is, in effect, what this clause will do in Ireland, for it will quarter districts which are poor on districts which are much poorer. The right honourable Gentleman believes that this clause will be put into operation, and

  465
  can be successfully used; but I wish to refer him to a precedent. In recent Irish legislation there was a clause almost similar to this, but dealing with a different question, where it was introduced by the Government of the day, and was practically inoperative. It occurred in regard to the education question in Ireland in the time of Lord Beaconsfield's Government. Debates on Irish education were regarded as occurring too frequently, and I suppose the Unionist Members opposite thought they were as great a nuisance as they think debates upon Irish distress are now. They introduced a clause dealing with primary education, and the remuneration of Irish teachers, and they provided that, instead of coming before Parliament, they should be referred to local bodies in Ireland, giving power to the unions to tax themselves up to a certain limit, the unions to become contributory up to certain limits to the salaries of and the payments to the teachers in Ireland. Well, Sir, this is exactly what you are doing by this clause. You are referring to the people of Ireland the making of local rates to pay for what is practically Imperial work. What happened in regard to the teachers' question? The local rates were to be made to pay. It was considered a good means of getting rid of discussion in this House about Irish education, and honourable Gentlemen supposed that the local people would not contribute, and that, when the local people would not contribute their share, there would be nothing more heard about the matter. What happened in Ireland was that when the unions were asked by the teachers to pay their salaries, and to pay for the Imperial work of education, they very properly refused to do so In less than half a dozen cases they became contributory, but the rest of Ireland almost universally refused to become contributory to the Imperial work of education; and I say, Sir, that the same thing will happen in regard to this clause. The counties which are affected will refuse to become contributors, and the clause will be practically inoperative; and, although it may be clumsily devised to get rid of Debates on Irish distress, I do not think it will have that effect, but I believe that, as in the education question, it will
  466
  completely break down, and Parliament will have to do the work. I think that in the case of Irish distress, when it does occur, they will not get out of it by this device, and that Parliament will have to pay this expense. What are these exceptional districts? I happen to be a west of Ireland man. I come from a district where distress is not of an exceptional character. But what will happen? We who live in districts where there has been no exceptional distress will be taxed for the districts with which we have no connection whatever. The people who are driven into those places where exceptional distress exists are the harvestmen who come over here every summer to help the English farmers in saving their crops. They go back in the autumn and use the small patches of land at their winter residences, or winter quarters, to maintain them during the winter. Sir, why should we, who have nothing to do with those districts, who get no benefit from their earnings in England or their expenditure in Ireland, be taxed for any exceptional distress in those districts, while the people here—the people of Cheshire, Lancashire, and elsewhere in England—who get the benefit of the labor of these people, who keep them to save their crops, will escape any tax or charge for this exceptional poverty? These people are driven into the poorest parts. Under your legislation for Ireland they are to be concentrated, just as we hear that in Cuba there are reconcentrados who have been driven into certain districts for the purposes of military government. Now, I think this clause will certainly not be operative. It is a, blemish and wart on a Bill which is otherwise a good Measure that we should welcome. And, further, Sir, to show you how this Bill affecting the people of Ireland will not be operative, I will give an instance that occurred within the last few weeks. The Local Government Board sent down a circular to the unions which will be affected by this Bill. They asked certain unions in Mayo and Galway, adjoining Roscommon, to express their wish either to remain within their present boundaries or to be included in Roscommon. This Bill would have made them liable for distress, with which they have no connection,

  467
  and the people in the adjoining counties of Mayo and Galway have, in nearly every case, opted to go over to Roscommon. I think, Sir, that is as good an instance as could be given to honourable Gentlemen opposite to show that, so far from this clause being one which will be put into operation, it will be only used by the Government to save them from Debates in this House on distress in Ireland. The clause is conceived in a petty effeminate spirit, and it will never save the Government from these Debates. As I have said, the clause will never be used in Ireland, end I think it is a wart and a blemish on a Bill which otherwise would be welcomed.
  MR. FLAVIN: I have not taken much part in the Debate up to the present time, but I wish to say a few words in support of the objection to this clause, because I believe it will have a very serious and injurious effect on the county, one of the constituencies of which I represent. I should like to place before the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary what will be the condition of the county of Kerry and the poor law unions in the county of Kerry under this Bill if this clause comes into effect. Take, for instance, the union of Cahirciveen. Under this clause that union will be compelled to provide for any of the distress which will prevail after this Bill becomes law. But the present condition of that union, Mr. Lowther, is that it is practically bankrupt. It is £100 in debt, and the average poor rate and county cess is about 10s. in the £. They have practically levied little or no extra rate to meet the distress prevailing in that particular union, for the simple reason that sympathetic friends throughout Great Britain and in several portions of Ireland have contributed money for clothing and food and the support of these people. If this clause is adopted, not alone in this particular union, which is not exceptional in Kerry—because the average rate this year, and I will go so far as to say that the average rate for the past six or seven or eight years throughout the whole county of Kerry, has been from 7s. to 10s. in the £, so that there has been little or no special levy for the distress prevailing in those districts—what will the rate become under this Bill? This clause is practically use-
  468
  less. I go so far as to say to the Chief Secretary that he will give no benefits whatsoever under this Bill. The counties in the west and south-west of Ireland which are regarded as congested districts come under the financial portions of this Bill, but what they are to receive in the shape of £1 or £2 or £5 from the Government will be practically taken away two, or three, or four-fold, if they have to provide for the distress which it is the duty of the Government to meet, but which the Government have so far refused to meet. Therefore I have felt it my duty, as one of the Members for Kerry, to say these few words in support of the proposal for the rejection of this clause, which I believe is most objectionable, and will cause serious injury to more than one county in the south and southwest of Ireland.
  On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval—
  MR. COLLERY: Mr. Lowther, I very seldom address the House, but I do so on this occasion because I very much dislike this clause of the Bill. This clause will, in my opinion, create many difficulties. I hope we shall not always have distress in Ireland, but I am very much afraid that in periods of distress this clause in the Bill will cause a good deal of friction between the two bodies about to be created if the clause is retained. I have been for a great many years—I am almost ashamed to say how many—connected with the Poor Law Boards, and I have always been in favour of giving outdoor relief instead of bringing people into the workhouse. I should have been pleased had I seen that the Chief Secretary, or the framers of the Bill, had introduced a more extended system of outdoor relief. I think it would be better if the restrictions on outdoor relief were somewhat relaxed. The habit of nearly all poor people is to take advantage of every privilege they can extract from the powers that be, and I fear the tendency of this clause will be to make one district force upon their representatives at the Poor Law Boards the necessity of making a representation that that district is a distressed district, or a distressed area. The result will be you will find constant friction between the two bodies. I think

  469
  myself that the Bill otherwise is well drafted, and I believe it will confer considerable benefit upon the people. At all events, it will get rid of the grand juries, of which I have been a member myself for many years. I am not at all sorry to abolish myself, so to speak. At the same time, I am not going to say that the grand juries—at least, I speak of the one of which I was a member—are quite as bad as has been stated. I think it is a great pity that this clause should be allowed to remain in this Bill, which removes a vast amount of disabilities otherwise. I do not see what good the clause can do. The Chief Secretary says it is not intended as a buffer between the State and chronic poverty in the country. If that is the case, what is the object of the clause? I cannot see any reason for it, and I hope the Chief Secretary will see his way to delete it. The fact of the matter is, this clause provides the way of giving more outdoor relief; but why not give outdoor relief, or allow it to be given, under the present system? This clause of the Bill is, in my opinion, obnoxious from beginning to end, and I simply rose to protest against its being retained in a Bill which I otherwise like very much. I believe the Chief Secretary is desirous of doing what is fair and reasonable, and of bringing in a Bill which will be of use to the country. I believe that it is from a mistaken notion of how it will operate and work in the country that he clings to this clause. I will not go so far as to say that he clings to the clause for the purpose of preventing Irish Members from coming before this House to raise a question of distress. I very seldom trouble the House with any observation; it is because I so much dislike this clause of the Bill that I rise, almost for the first time, to protest against it.
  MR. M'GHEE: Mr. Lowther, this is the first occasion on which I have ventured to address the House, although I have been a Member of it for two years I only desire to do so now for the purpose of protesting against this clause. The right honourable Gentleman, when speaking a short time ago, stated that this clause was not to be found in the English Bill, because the conditions that obtain in Ireland do not
  470
  exist in England. But why was it not put into the Scotch Bill? In Scotland similar conditions do exist and have existed, and exceptional distress is found there Why should the right honourable Gentleman insist upon putting a clause in this Bill which is not in either the English or the Scotch Bill? I think I know the reason. I think the right honourable Gentleman has put this clause in for the same reason that this Government two years ago passed the Agricultural Rating Act. He has done it for the purpose of relieving the landlords of their responsibility. The right honourable Gentleman smiles at that I will try and show him that I am stating accurately what will be the situation if this clause is passed I think what I say will explain why we have not heard anything from the landlord party on the other side of the House. They have sat during the discussion of this clause, afraid to support it because they know their constituents would not support them in their action, and they have not spoken against the clause because they know that it will bring grist to their mill. What is the situation? At present, in the distressed districts rates are always high. Because they are poor districts, necessarily the rate must be high. It is only in the wealthy districts that the rates are low; but in these very districts where the rates are now high you are providing for a still higher rate when the distress becomes still greater. What does that mean? Surely it means that you are legislating to widen the area of distress in Ireland, and to bring within the number of distressed persons those who are now outside. Rates will be higher, and, consequently, poverty must be greater. The rates will fail, not, of course, upon those who are suffering from the exceptional distress, but they will fall to so great an extent upon those who are not suffering that many of them will be brought within the class of distressed persons. This clause will impose this increased rate exclusively upon occupiers, for you are providing another clause in this Bill to relieve the landlords. The right honourable Gentleman may say you are making a grant from the Imperial fund to meet that. You are not. You are: making a grant from the Imperial fund to relieve

  471
  a portion of the normal standard of rating. I ask the right honourable Gentleman, is that not a fair statement of the clause? Is it not in entire harmony with the policy of this Government in handing over Imperial funds to the landlords for their relief, and does it not explain why the landlord party on the other side of the House have sat so quiet during the discussion? Sir, it is not my intention, as I said at the outset, to occupy the time of the House very long upon this question. I am satisfied, first, that the clause is alien to the principle of the Bill. I am satisfied that the clause is a distinct blow to the poor districts of Ireland, that it is imposing upon those poor districts a penalty that cannot possibly fall upon other than poor districts, and that it is legislating for the rich at the expense of the poor. I protest against the clause because it is not in harmony with the principle of the Bill, and I protest against it still more because it makes the poor poorer and the rich richer in the distressed districts of Ireland.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Mr. Lowther, I am sorry that into a Bill otherwise so good the Government should introduce a legislative torpedo which this clause really amounts to. It is a clause which can work nothing in Ireland but harm. It is calculated, if not intended, to disrupt, to pauperise, and to depopulate the poorer districts of the country. I have not the slightest doubt, Mr. Lowther, that such will be its operation. It will tend to impoverish places that are already poor, and it will not hurt—it will scarcely touch—the better-conditioned parts of the country in which exceptional distress rarely or never makes its appearance. These poor and congested districts of Ireland need treatment. They need wise treatment and humane treatment. They need the application of statesmanlike remedies. There is no remedy for their condition in this proposal, which will really have the effect of reducing people who are now on the
  472
  borders of misery and starvation, and of working harm and injury all round. Now, Sir, the second section of this clause proposes the repeal of what is known in Ireland as the Quarter Acre Clause. This clause prevented persons in occupation of more than a quarter of an acre of land receiving relief otherwise than in the workhouse. That was a most cruel law. It was denounced, hated and detested throughout Ireland. It was, in fact, regarded as an instrument of murder. I have no objection to its being repealed. I am glad the Government propose to repeal it; but when is it that they propose to repeal it? This Quarter Acre Clause was kept up so long as the landlords had to pay a large share of the poor rate. When, however, the landlords are to be exempted the bowels of compassion of the Government are stirred, and they now propose to repeal this clause. This will widen the area of outdoor relief; it will inevitably bring increased charges, and the time selected for so doing is when the whole weight of these increased charges will fall no longer upon the Irish landlords, but upon people who are poor enough already, and who need assistance, help, and sympathy, rather than treatment of this sort. I regard this clause as having been smuggled into the Bill. I wonder, did the Government suppose that the Irish Members would not see the trick? If they imagined anything of the sort, by this time they have discovered that they were greatly mistaken. I would suggest to them not to calculate in future, in any of their Measures, upon any dulness of vision, or lack of appreciation, on the part of Irish Members in regard to matters relating, at all events, to their own people and to their own country. My view and my feelings in this matter accord with those of my colleagues. I should not like to go to a Division without having said these few words in denunciation of this provision, and in support of the Motion to leave this clause out of a Bill which is otherwise so acceptable to the Irish Members.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Mr. Lowther, I must say that I cannot understand the hostility to this clause, because it must be valuable and useful that men drawn from all parts of a county should have some voice in determining the action of a small portion of the county in dealing with exceptional distress. I cannot myself think that it is anything more than just that this clause should remain part of the Bill. In the extreme western portion of Kerry there are economic conditions and circumstances that, until they are removed, must necessarily produce temporary exceptional distress. You cannot grapple with this question of distress in these congested districts by a clause in this Bill or in any other Bill. It is an economic problem. This clause is merely to deal with cases where, from temporary causes and temporary circumstances, it is necessary to relax to some degree the restrictions which Parliament, in its wisdom, has thought proper to put upon the administration of outdoor relief. It is certainly not intended to deal with any great visitation of Providence. This clause deals with temporary visitations of distress. In West Kerry, where the holdings are small and—
  MR. DILLON: And the rents are high.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I think it is a great pity that the honourable Member should introduce the question of rents. I do not think it advances the interests of the country which he represents. The real question is whether or not the county ought to share the burden of the smaller districts in the event of distress. The honourable Member knows perfectly well how very varied is the prosperity of different baronies in the same county. There are baronies in Kerry which are rich, and there are some which are extremely poor. Why should not the poor get some assistance from the rich? On the whole, I must say that in the
  474
  interests of Ireland, and in the interests of what is just, fair, and reasonable, this clause is a desirable one. In dealing with such a clause the question of rents should not be raised, because landlords, as well as tenants, will be responsible according to their valuation.
  Several IRISH MEMBERS: Not the landlords.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I do not think honourable Members opposite fully grasp the situation. They had so acted to the landlord—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We have got him on our books.
  SIR J. COLOMB: That may be so, but you must remember that the landlords who have land in their own hands will no longer have very much voice, at all events for the present, in the administration of the cess. And, after all, they will have to bear their share. I do not wish to enter into any question of that sort, but when you remember that you are dealing with a Measure that is to ignore any difference of class, you are dealing with it from a pure and simple point of view of cesspayers, and as cesspayers the landlords will have to bear their share according to their valuation. I think, when the whole situation is calmly looked into, this clause ought to stand. I speak with a full knowledge of the country I come from; my best hopes and wishes are for that county. I see steady progress and improvement going on there, and one of the worst things for that county is to raise up hopes that can never be fulfilled, and this clause, to my mind, is the only check.
  MR. O'MALLEY: Mr. Lowther, there may be some differences of opinion on these Benches as to how far to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary is due the beneficent clauses of this Bill, but we are all agreed that this particular clause is the pet

  475
  child of the right honourable Gentleman. The character of this clause is quite in keeping with his method in dealing with the existing distress, and I am inclined to think that its main object and purpose is to set the different bodies in Ireland against each other. We shall have district councils and county councils opposed one to the other, and the Chief Secretary thereby flatters himself that the responsibility for future distress will be removed from that House to the bodies created under this Bill. It has been stated by the right honourable Gentleman in the course of this Debate that the cause of Irish distress is due to over-population, and I am surprised at this time of day, with all the experience we have had of Irish emigration, that such an argument should be used in this House. Why, Sir, I can state positively that in my own time, within the last 25 or 30 years, the population of Connemara has considerably diminished, and I can assert that the people along the so-called congested districts in Connemara were much happier and more prosperous then they are to-day. What is the cause, then, of this chronic distress? Speaking for Connemara—and I think the same state of things partains to Mayo, Kerry, and West Donegal—the people after they had reclaimed their mountain holdings were evicted by thousands from those holdings, and forced to squat upon the worst patches of stony, and almost useless, lands by the sea coast. For these small holdings they have to pay, on an average, some £5 to £6 per year, and, although this sum does not seem large, to these poor people it is a fortune. If the Government want to abolish this chronic poverty, instead of inserting this clause for the purpose of setting county council against district council, they should buy out these landlords, enlarge the holdings of the tenants, and exact a nominal rent; for, Mr. Lowther, except the lands in possession of the grazier, and from which the rightful owners were driven after the famine,
  476
  there is no land in those congested districts worth more than a mere nominal rent. Economic rent is absolutely out of the question. Why does not the Chief Secretary rise to the occasion and devote a couple of millions of money in buying out these landlords instead of pursuing a policy that makes his name detested in Ireland? This is the only clause, Sir, that the Irish Members unanimously oppose; on other clauses we are divided, and I would therefore appeal to the right honourable Gentleman not to persist in pressing this clause upon the Committee, and if he will withdraw it he will, at all events, be showing some deference to Irish opinion.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I would not trouble the Committee after this protracted Debate were it not that I consider that this clause is so objectionable as to mar very much the effect of what I had hoped would otherwise be a useful and beneficial Measure to Ireland. I would again appeal to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to reconsider this question, and to withdraw the clause altogether. It really, when you come to consider it, is nothing but an excrescence on the Bill—an excrescence which disfigures the whole substance of the Measure, and which could be righted without the slightest difficulty, or in the slightest degree marring the otherwise good effect of the Measure. Now, before I proceed to discuss the clause itself, I should like, as my right honourable Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland is not here, to read a passage from the Parliamentary Report of some of his observations on the first introduction of this Bill by the Chief Secretary. I wish to call attention to the circumstance that at that time the Bill was not in the hands of Members. The Bill, in fact, was not printed, and the observations of the late Chief Secretary, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose, when carefully considered and understood, had reference

  477
  to the general question which appears to be union rating in contra-distinction to electoral rating, that at present prevails; but when the Bill was printed what does the right honourable Gentleman say on the Second Reading, as reported in the Parliamentary Debates of the 21st March of this year. What does the right honourable Member for Mont-rose say? "Under Clause 12"—I am reading now from the Parliamentary Debates," page 504—
  "Under clause 12, wherever there is exceptional distress, as there is too frequently in a certain zone of Ireland, the guardians are to represent to the county council that they require aid or new conditions. The county council is then required to get the assent of the Local Government Board, and then the local authority is to be empowered, the conditions being satisfied, to grant outdoor relief for a period of two months."
  That is, so far, very approving, but let us see how the right honourable Gentleman criticises this proposal—
  "Let us see what will happen; the House has probably already seen what will happen. I will take, as an illustration, the district of Lord Clanricarde's property, where exceptional distress may occur. That distress will be met by a larger allowance of outdoor relief; that extra relief will be provided for entirely by a population, a large number of whom, by this hypothesis, are themselves swamped in distress."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Do you, on behalf of the late Chief Secretary, say that he objects to the clause?
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I don't understand that interruption; I protest against it. I am speaking here for myself. I would not presume to take the liberty of speaking on behalf of any of my right honourable Colleagues who sit beside me on this Bench. I was reading, when the right honourable Gentleman interrupted me, the passage which gives the very gist of the matter—
  "They will have to provide this extra rate, and Lord Clanricarde, living, as I understand, in London, never seeing his own property, will be absolutely absolved from any part of
  478
  the burdens which he now shares. I think I am justified in making that point, and I am curious to hear what the answer to it will be!"
  Now, here is the reported language of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose, and I say his name has been brought unnecessarily into the Debate, for the purpose of giving weight and authority to the clause which has been introduced. But now let me pass from that, and again, speaking only for myself, as a Member from Ireland, call the attention of the Committee to this section. I take it for granted that it was introduced because the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary thinks it a good section. I will not go into an inquiry as to what his motives are. I will not go into the question as to who is the father of the clause. I am quite sure that the Irish law officers, whom I know to be thoroughly sympathetic and humane men, are not responsible for this clause, and I do not at all mean to say that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary was himself the author of it. It is immaterial to this House who is the author of it, when it comes before the Committee with the imprimatur of Her Majesty's Government. No matter what views may be entertained as to the intention of the promoters of the Bill, we have to deal with the effect of it when it becomes law. And what will happen if this section becomes law? It is absurd to say it was not intended to meet the unfortunate state of things which so constantly crops up in Ireland. I can speak from the experience of many years, and I know that there has been recurrent famine and starvation from time to time in different parts of that country—famine and starvation which have been a disgrace to the British Empire; famine and starvation in the greatest and wealthiest Empire that the world's history has ever known. And that should be met by exceptional legislation according as the necessity arises. But under this clause what will happen? Assume

  479
  that a year or two hence there is another failure of the potato crop; assume that the wretched inhabitants on the west coast of Ireland are starving, as they have been Starving this year; and assume that there is an appeal to the British House of Commons to introduce some exceptional measure for their relief: this section will be pointed at; and what will be the argument of Her Majesty's Government? "In the year 1898 we brought in a remedial Measure to redress the grievances of Ireland; we brought in a Measure which was to satisfy the aspirations of the people for Home Rule; and in that Measure we granted a dole of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to relieve the rates in Ireland." That may not have been the intention of Her Majesty's Government in introducing the clause, but whether it was their intention or not, the argument will be unanswerable. To show that it is unanswerable, I will just put it to this one test: are they willing to strike out of this clause the word "exceptional"? If they are prepared to strike out the word "exceptional," then the argument of the honourable and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth would perhaps apply, because then it would simply amount to an enlargement of the powers of guardians and of county councils to extend out-door relief in cases where they could not be relieved at present. But as long as the word "exceptional" remains in this clause it will always be used as an argument for relieving the British Government of the responsibility of meeting by exceptional legislation this state of poverty. It is a matter of history that in the time of the famine a coroner's jury in Ireland brought in a verdict of manslaughter—I think it was murder—against a Minister of the Crown, because the Government of that day looked on and saw the people starving. I am speaking in the presence of those who can contradict me if I am wrong, and of those who know that my statements are borne out by the facts
  480
  of history. I therefore deprecate altogether this clause. What is the effect of it? Now it has been argued that when the population are very badly off in one part of the county the other part of the same county might very well be taxed for the purpose of their relief. Well, we will take the case of Kerry. It has been stated—and I assume it is correct—for it has not been contradicted—that the rates in the Cahirciveen Division at present, or recently, amounted to 10s. in the £. Now, 10s. in the £ is a very pretty sum to face, and what is the feeling of the inhabitants of the electoral divisions of the whole of the county of Kerry when they come to deal with such a problem as that? Now what is the meaning of this clause? It is not only badly framed, but it is badly worded. Let us tear away the mask, and let Ireland know what this legislation really is. Do not treat Ireland like a poor relation. With a rich man who has poor relations his great object is, when he is entertaining his noble and wealthy friends, to keep the poor relations in the background, so that they shall not be obtruded on the world. And so the object of this clause, I say, is to prevent, year after year, the grievances and the poverty and the starvation of Ireland from being ventilated in Parliament. Now, what is the effect of this clause? It provides that—
  "One-half of any expenditure incurred in pursuance of an order under this section shall be levied off the country at large."
  That is where the people are starving and you have to feed them. There you have to feed men, women, and children, and that will cost a pretty large sum. Now, half of that is to be levied on the county at large, but where is the other half to come from? Why, it must come from the affected district, for I do not find any provision that the other half is to come out of the Consolidated Fund. Were that so, I could very well appreciate this

  481
  clause, but the meaning of it is this: there is a certain district in Ireland where the inhabitants are paying rates at 10s. in the £, and half of the people there are starving. In this case you feed the starving half of the people at the expense of the other half, and that is what is called British generosity. There is still in force the Poor Relief Act of 1862, which prevents outdoor relief from being given where the applicant occupies more than a quarter of an acre of land. Now that check is removed, and the Local Government Board may sanction the administration of outdoor relief in the case of occupiers of 10, 12, or 15 acres, who may want it very much; and what a burden that will be upon an impoverished district council and the county at large! There, again, you see the effect of this clause. You see that the burdens created by this clause are almost without limit, and I regard with grave suspicion the confusion of circumstances which the able and learned men who are responsible for the framing of this clause have introduced. I regard it with great suspicion, when I recollect that every penny of that burden must be borne by the occupying tenant. This Bill is absolutely without precedent and without parallel in the history of British law. It is without parallel in the history of any community that I am aware of, because the effect of it is to relieve landlords, whether they are absentee landlords or whether they are resident landlords who have not the land in their own hands, but for whom the money is made by the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. This clause exonerates the landlords from any contribution to the expenses of the county for the maintenance of the roads, to the keeping up of bridges and court-houses, or the maintenance of the workhouses, but it throws the whole burden on to the occupying tenants, and thus may fasten such a millstone round the necks
  482
  of these tenants as may, perhaps, carry out the theory of the honourable and learned Member for Down, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, whose argument seems to be that the people who have to exist on the crags and shores of the Atlantic in the west of Ireland have no right to exist at all, and that there is nothing left for them to do but to throw themselves into the surging waves, or go to another and a more generous country.
  MR. EDWARD CARSON: I am sure, Sir, that the Committee, or any of them who have listened to the speech of the right honourable and learned Member who has just sat down, must have been deeply affected by the graphic description of Irish life which he has drawn. I should very much have liked to have followed him in the arguments he has brought forward, but I have only risen for the purpose of explaining the reasons for my vote upon this Amendment if it goes to a Division. I do not, however, agree with many of the arguments put forward by my right honourable Friend, or with the arguments of many honourable Members opposite. At the same time, from the view that I take of the section, and the probable effect of its working, I feel bound to vote in favour of the Amendment. Now, Sir, in the first place, everybody who knows anything of the different parts of Ireland, where exceptional distress dealt with under this section is so constantly occuring, knows that those are the very places which at the present moment are most heavily taxed. In some places the taxes are so high as to make it almost incredible that the people of Ireland can possibly pay them. Well, Sir, if these people are to be told that it is their duty whenever this exceptional distress arises to add further burdens to the rates, and that that is to be the only hope of the people, then, Sir, I can only say that you are telling them that they may be hopeless in the

  483
  future. Sir, I believe there are many places where it would be impossible, without terrible calamities, to increase the rates for these purposes. In these very districts, Sir, what is the reality of the situation? The reality of the situation is this: that the parties who pay the rates, or the greater portion of the rates, will be perhaps three, four or five, or up to 10 per cent. of the whole of the electors of the division, and the consequence will be that by giving this power to the county councils in many places you will be having on your register of electors the very men who are perpetually suffering from this recurring starvation. I am told that the Members who usually act with me, or with whom I usually act, differ from the view which I take upon this question. Well, Sir, let me ask them this: looking at the question from a practical point of view, what do they think is likely to be the result of the electorate being the men who want the very relief which the county council are to vote, and which is the only remedy for the distress which arises? It must be, from point of fact, that the men who are suffering from the distress will be practically voting relief to themselves. Well, Sir, but do honourable Members who sit here on this side of the House think that this will only operate on those in occupation? Sir, I know very well that every recurring distress in Ireland in any part must more or less militate against the landlords and the owners of the tenements from which these rents are to be paid. It is all nonsense to tell me that if a tenant is mulcted in the necessary rates which must arise under the system that you want to set up by this section—it is all nonsense to tell me that when those rates are raised to the extent that will be necessary to meet this distress the tenant will be in exactly the same position for the purpose of paying his rent to the landlord. In the long run I know what will happen, and that will be
  484
  that the very limitation or protection you are putting in now for the owners of the land as compared with the occupiers will become so burdensome in these distressed districts that you will have in a year or two the whole of the Party opposite agitating the country, and saying that it is intolerable that the rates should be borne only by the occupiers, and not be shared in by the owners or landlords at all. I will tell you, Sir, what will happen, and that is that, what ever Government is in power, when it comes to be a question of merely sacrificing the landlords, the Government will be perfectly ready to do it. Therefore, Sir, being bound to look ahead in these matters—and matters move rapidly in this House—I say that I am speaking in the interests of those with whom I usually act, and of those whom I deeply sympathise with in Ireland, when I say that this is one of the most mischievous sections in the whole of the Act. I have merely risen for the purpose of stating the reasons why I intend to vote for this Amendment, and if it goes to a Division I shall certainly support it.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That clause 12 as amended stand part of the Bill."
  Committee divided.—Ayes 179; Noes 104.—(Division List No. 88.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 13.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 7, line 10, after 'cease,' insert—
    "Provided always that any existing coroner who may be deprived of office, or who may suffer any loss of fees or allowances in consequence of such alterations of districts, shall be entitled to compensation in the manner provided by this Act.
    "Where by operation of this Act a borough becomes merged in a county, the existing coroner, if any, of such borough shall, if deprived of office, be entitled to compensation as provided by this Act.

    485
    "Should any existing coroner be, at the passing of this Act, coroner for a county, and also for a borough situate within the limits of said county, and should said borough be constituted by this Act a county borough, he shall be entitled to compensation, as provided by this Act, in case he is deprived of office in either such county or borough."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: My honourable Friend the Member for Dublin has a better clause than the one I propose lower down. I have not studied my Friend's clause, beyond knowing that it is a better one than mine.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The Government will be willing to accept the Amendment put down in the name of the honourable Member for North Dublin.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 7, line 10, after 'cease,' insert—
    "Provided always that any existing coroner who may be deprived of office, or who may suffer any loss of fees or allowances in consequence of such alterations of districts, shall be entitled to such compensation as is provided by this Act for existing officers who suffer loss of income or fees by virtue of this Act or of anything done in pursuance or in consequence of this Act."—(Mr. J. J. Clancy.)
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The Amendment to clause 13, line 10, is unnecessary, because it is: provided for in clause 22 of the Bill. The second part of the Amendment is also unnecessary.
    MR. J. J. CLANCY: I understand that the right honourable Gentleman will accept my Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 7, line 11, to leave out sub-section 3." (Mr. Clancy.)
    Question put—
    "That the words, 'the Lord Chancellor may,' stand part of the clause."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Take the case of a county. I understand that a county council can change the coroners' districts. Will that put them in this position, that the county council might consolidate two districts and compel the officer to do the work of those two districts? I may say that I have raised this question at the request of a body of coroners. That is their view of the clause.
    MR. ATKINSON: It is quite possible that the county council might amalgamate districts in that way. But under the Amendment proposed by the honourable Member for North Dublin the coroner would be entitled to compensation for any such amalgamation by reason of that amalgamation.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: But would that mean that he would do double work and get double pay?
    MR. ATKINSON: No.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The Amendment of the honourable Member for Londonderry raises the same question, and there is also an Amendment by the honourable Member for Louth which raises the same question in a better form.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to move that sub-section 3 be omitted, on the ground that the coroner is really a judicial officer, and that to give a judicial officer insecurity of tenure is really detrimental to the interests of justice. I understand that the law at present is that a coroner can only be removed by judicial force. A regular legal process must be instituted to have the matter brought before the court and inquired into. It is only after such a process that any coroner can be removed, if he can be removed at all. The coroner has duties to perform which are quite as important as those of

    487
    any judge in the land. Questions of very serious importance often arise, cases of murder or suspected murder, and the like, and it seems to me that an officer discharging such duties, and presiding over investigations of such a character, and having such subjects to inquire into, ought to be quite as independent as a county court judge or a judge of the High Court, though even at present he has not such absolute security. He cannot be removed, like a judge of the High Court, by an address to both Houses of Parliament; he can only be removed from his office by a motion before the Lord Chief Justice. Upon that motion the coroner can be heard, and it is only plain justice that if he is to be removed now, he ought to have the protection he at present enjoys—namely, the opportunity of defending himself before a judicial tribunal. If this subsection is carried, the Lord Lieutenant will have absolute power at his own discretion to remove the coroner. You will have one judge sitting in judgment on another judge, and having the power of depriving him of his office upon his own responsibility and upon his own motion. That state of things would be intolerable in the eyes of the public, and I do not think the public would have confidence in a coroner who was so subject to the will of any judge of the land. They would not have confidence in a coroner whom it would be possible to remove without his being heard in his own defence. In this case, under this clause, a judge can act upon his own motion, he need not have any evidence upon which to go. He may, as an executive officer, decline to give his reasons for removing him, and I can imagine some cases in which he might say, "I do not think it desirable in the public interest to mention my reasons." Imagine a coroner being placed in such an invidious position as that. It would be intolerable, perfectly intolerable, and no public man would continue to perform his functions if he were subjected to removal by
    488
    such means as that. I think the Government ought to have the power of removing the coroner which they have at present. At present, as I understand, it is not only in the power of the Government to set the law in motion, but it is in the power of any subject of the Crown to take action if he has a good ground for doing so, and the matter comes before competent tribunals, presided over by the highest judges in the land, and the proceedings would be reported by the public Press. The public would be entitled to go and hear the proceedings, and I think the Government ought to be satisfied, under the circumstances, to leave the law with regard to this subject where it stands now. I beg to move.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The question is, clause 13, page 7, line 11, that sub-section 3 be omitted.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am aware, Mr. Lowther, that this sub-section was taken out of the English Act—the English Coroners Act—and, of course, I acknowledge that so far as symmetry is concerned, it is apparent, but it is absurd to argue that the countries are in any sense alike. In this country you have a vigilant Parliament and a vigilant Press, and the interests of the whole people conserved by Parliament. In Ireland you have a hostile Lord Chancellor and an indifferent Parliament, and whatever is done against Ireland, you have the general body here agreeing that it is perfectly right. Under those circumstances, to take the words of the English Act and to say it was sufficient in the past here is not sufficient. You have no justification, so far as I know, for doing so. I never shall forget the case of the honourable Baronet the Member for West Kerry when he was Sheriff for the city of Waterford. He, my honourable Friend's father, held large estates in the county of Wexford and in the county of Waterford, and he had for 20

    489
    years been Sheriff of the city of Water-ford. Well, he made a speech one day which was not favourably received by the Lord Chancellor. I think it will be admitted that my honourable Friend's father was not an extreme revolutionist. One day he received a letter by the penny post, asking him to explain his speech, and he ceased to be Sheriff from that time. That is not the principle in England. In England a prisoner is assumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. I should like to know what would happen, supposing we differed from the Lord Chancellor to-day, as it has always been the honour for me to do, without more protection than we have, so far as these functions are concerned, to which is attached a salary of £200 or £300 a year, upon which a man depends for his living, and for which he may have given up some other means of livelihood. He is suddenly to be removed by a sort of fluctuating official who goes out and comes in with the Ministry. What is the protection of the county council? In this country you have a great Parliament. You had the Miss Cass case, and the whole House was revolutionised because a woman was taken off the streets to prison; the whole country was shaken to its foundations; but you might have all the women and children in Ireland starving, and you would not shake this country in the slightest degree. I think there is no reason why, when getting the county councils into the country, they should be subjected to tyranny of this kind. Furthermore, there is in the law of this country an ancient device—I have never seen a writ myself for the removal of a coroner—but I have always understood that the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench is, by virtue of his position, Her Majesty's chief coroner over that particular part where he presides, and that he has some means in his power of depriving the coroner of his office. I do not know how that would Work, but, if it were necessary, I think
    490
    some means could be found in law to remove the coroner from his position. Accordingly, as I understand, there is that ancient process in the hands of the Chief Justice, and now you are going to give a power to the Lord Chancellor, so that when you may have been successful at the hands of the Chief Justice you may have to go with all the chances against you to the Lord Chancellor, and, therefore, I support the Amendment of my honourable Friend.
    MR. G. MURNAGHAN: I hope the Government will stand by this sub-section. I stand here in the interest of the ratepayers, and I have no feeling whatever against the coroners. I desire local government, and good local government. I desire to see the government of the country properly and efficiently carried out in a manner satisfactory to the people of Ireland. And I say advisedly that the Government would be ill-advised to withdraw this sub-section and allow the coroners to hold office independent of any authority. I do hope the Government will stand by this clause and insist upon giving Ireland men who will fulfil these functions in a proper manner, and with efficiency.
    MR. ATKINSON: Having regard to the duties which coroners discharge, it is obvious that there should be some power of removing them from office in case they are unable to discharge their duties. The coroner has to discharge duties of a judicial character, and at the present moment he can be removed by a judge or by the Lord Chancellor. It is obviously desirable that the power should be vested in somebody to remove in the case of persons who are unable to discharge the duties of their position. I think that power to dismiss the coroner for misconduct may be safely left in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: It is perfectly right that there should exist that power, but that power does

    491
    exist at present. It is expressly stated that nothing in this clause shall alter the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. There is a form for removing the coroner. This clause provides for his removal without trial. That is the difference between the procedure under this clause and the old procedure. Under the old common law before a man was dismissed from his office a charge was made against him, and he was tried by a judge, and, I apprehend, before a jury. The right honourable Gentleman does not want to give the Irish coroner any judge or jury. What he proposes is that the Lord Chancellor, without one word of explanation or of, defence, shall remove a coroner from his old office. His defence is that this provision is contained in the English Act. This provision, no doubt, is contained in the English Act. But what is the parallel between England and Ireland? We hear in Ireland of the danger of the abuse of power by public bodies. Well, this clause will provide us with the danger of the abuse of power by high functionaries. Every class in Ireland will be equally subjected to this abuse of power on the part of high functionaries in times of political excitement. I agree that the Lord Chancellor will not dream of putting a clause like this into operation unless there is some good excuse for it. But some day, under certain circumstances, whenever the action of this judicial officer becomes displeasing, the official executive, without one word of trial, might remove that officer. This is a valuable office. It is an office with a substantial sum attached to it; and is it tolerable that it should be in the power of any judicial functionary at one stroke of the pen to remove this person from his position? There is no justification for introducing this clause into the Bill.
    DR. J. A. RENTOUL: The honourable Member who has spoken seems to be an expert entirely in regard to the protection of coroners. But there
    492
    is another side to this question, and that is in regard to the protection of the public. The duties of coroners differ much from the ordinary duties of any other judge. Almost all the cases he tries—or, at least, a large proportion of the cases—are of people who are suddenly plunged into very great sorrow. However well the coroner may be able to perform the mere legal function of his office, there is something wanted more than that. I have myself known several instances of coroners in Ireland who if they were tried, as the honourable Member desires, before a judge, would have been convicted, the cause being simply that they deserved to be removed from their office. The honourable Member for Cork knows very well how extremely difficult it is to succeed in an action for negligence. It is very easy to bring an action of that sort. But how often, in cases of that sort, has the plaintiff succeeded? I suppose in actions for negligence it is not once in 50 times that the plaintiff succeeds. There are oases in which the Lord Chancellor might remove the man to the very great advantage of the public of that district. Anyone who has watched some of the cases heard before coroners, and who has listened to some of the feeble jokes and jests practised by them in circumstances under which a whole family has been bereaved, must have felt that these were cases in which a man who acted in that way ought to be removed from his office. I am speaking exclusively of Irish coroners. I have before my mind the cases of coroners in three counties, who not only acted in that manner once or twice, but who acted in that manner habitually. I know, in regard to several cases, that there have been objections to the conduct of their cases by several coroners who are in the habit of making speeches, which ought never to have been uttered. I think it is a wise policy to give the Lord Chancellor some discretion in regard to these people, instead of dragging the matter before a tribunal, which would

    493
    give pain to a great many persons. I think the Lord Chancellor might be trusted to exercise his discretion. It is very unwise to imagine that any person who has been placed in the position of Lord Chancellor would be actuated in turning any man out of his office purely for political reasons. I think that every protection that can possibly be given in this matter ought to be given. If there is any better method I should like to see that method used. But I cannot think of any system that would work with less pain to the relatives of the deceased persons than this clause that the Government has submitted. It is not in any sense whatever a political question. If there ever was one question on which Irish Members might agree I think it is on a question such as this. Any Member might be obliged to appear before a coroner and give evidence. This is a very important matter, and I trust the Government will stick firmly to this clause.
    MR. J. E. REDMOND: It is to be regretted that the honourable and learned Gentleman who has spoken should make these wholesale charges against the coroners. Anybody who is acquainted with Ireland, who has heard the speech, will agree that this is an erroneous impression. If such cases have occurred they are certainly most exceptional. What I desire to point out is that under the present state of the law cases of that kind can be dealt with. The point at issue is very simple indeed. It is—is the present law sufficient to deal with cases of improper conduct on the part of coroners? When the right honourable Gentleman says that the public ought to be protected, he utters a sentiment that everybody will agree with. I want to point out that under the existing state of the law, even on the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General himself, there is adequate protection for the public, and that there is a tribunal of
    494
    authority over the coroner; the Lord Chancellor has power to deal with coroners under the ancient writ. Under the ancient writ the Lord Chancellor proceeds by way of complaint after hearing what the coroner has to say in his defence. The fact that this is in the English Bill is no reason why it should be imported here. This is a constitutional change of a very grave character. A judicial functionary, such as the coroner, ought to be protected from the remotest possibility of capricious interference from any higher authority. As a judge is hedged round with all sorts of protection, so in a minor degree ought the coroner to be. It seems to me an unfortunate and unjust proposal to subject a coroner to the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. It is an injustice to any judicial functionary to place the power of removing him in the Lord Chancellor or any other official. It is a very grave constitutional change, and utterly out of place in a Local Government Bill of this kind. I maintain that the coroner ought to be protected from the capricious interference of even a high authority like the Lord Chancellor. For these reasons I am opposed to this clause, and I trust the Government will reconsider their position and will accept the Amendment.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I confess that I am altogether in sympathy with my honourable Friends who oppose this clause. I would remind the Committee that the office of coroner is a freehold office. A coroner has a right to hold his office during good behaviour, like a judge. This sub-section 3 strikes at the fundamental principle of the judicial tenure of office. It proposes to give the Lord Chancellor power to remove a coroner at his absolute discretion. I am one of those who think that discretion is a very dangerous thing. The discretion of a Chancellor, it has been said, is to be measured by the length of the Chancellor's foot. There is no ground

    495
    for contending that this change is necessary, because power already exists to remove a coroner for good cause. The law now governing the office of coroner in Ireland is the 9th and 10th Victoria, chapter 37. Under that Act a coroner can be removed if it be shown that he has lost qualification, or has been convicted by a jury of extortion, or wilful neglect of duty, or misdemeanour. The point is that he must have been convicted by a jury of one or other of these things. For that very reasonable provision, it is now proposed that a coroner may be removed from office at the mere discretion of the Lord Chancellor, "for inability or misbehaviour in the discharge of his duty." I hold it is most undesirable to put a coroner's position at the mercy of the Lord Chancellor, or any other functionary, however exalted, and whatever the probability that the power of removal would be conscientiously discharged. I do trust that so dangerous a precedent as this will not be established by the Committee, and that the Amendment will be adopted.
    MR. TULLY: I think this subsection is a very oppressive and tyrannical one. It is an attempt to increase the number of slaves under English rule in Ireland. Up to the present the coroners have been elected by the people; we have a tenderness for them on that ground alone. The object of this sub-section is to enable the Lord Chancellor to whip the coroners into line with the officials of Dublin Castle in all political matters; and, if it is passed, it will not be long before we see that result brought about. If a coroner, who has been elected by the people, goes to an amnesty meeting, or a '98 meeting, the Lord Chancellor will promptly come down on him and remove him from office. On these grounds I oppose the sub-section. On the general question of the appointment of coroners, I think that the county councils should have a certain discretion
    496
    as to whether a particular coroner should be appointed when a vacancy arises.
    MR. J. DALY: I view with great suspicion any provision that would leave a coroner in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. There are already quite sufficient removable officials in Ireland discharging judicial functions, and I do not want to see the coroner also made a removable fixture. If he is made removable at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, it stands to reason that a great deal of his independence will be gone. I hope that the honourable and learned Member for East Down was not serious when he spoke of coroners being jocular when conducting inquests. Such a thing I am certain must be of the very rarest occurrence in Ireland, and the Executive would, under the present law, have no difficulty in dealing with a coroner who took such a view of his duties. I hope the Government will not insist on this sub-section, and thereby practically deprive the people of Ireland of the right they at present have of electing their own coroners.
    MR. ATKINSON: The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has, in happy, if somewhat contradictory, language, exactly described what would be the position of a coroner under this sub-section; he will be a removable fixture; he will be nominally removable, but really a fixture, unless he is guilty of misconduct which would justify his removal. One of the objections raised to this sub-section by the honourable Member for Cork was that, whatever may be said for or against our proposal, it was out of place in a Local Government Bill But this Bill deals with the election of coroners, and, strange to say, a great many Amendments have been put down by honourable Members opposite dealing with the remuneration of coroners and other matters. It cannot be said that if those matters are germane to the Bill, a sub-section of this kind is alien to the Bill. The

    497
    honourable Member for South Leitrim suggested that this is a device of ours to "increase the number of slaves under English rule in Ireland," and that coroners would be liable to be deprived of their offices at the mere whim of the Lord Chancellor. Of course there would be no more chance of such a thing under this sub-section than there is under the present law. The right honourable and learned Gentleman opposite contended that there is already sufficient power of removal under the 9th and 10th Victoria, chapter 37. I would point out to him that that Act only gives power to remove a coroner on his conviction in a court of justice for certain offences. He may be guilty of gross misconduct, but unless that is brought home to him at a trial by jury he still retains his office. It is certainly desirable that the position of the Lord Chancellor, in regard to dealing with objectionable holders of these important offices, should be strengthened, and it is absurd to imagine that the power we propose to confer would be abused in the manner suggested by honourable Gentlemen opposite. Of course no Lord Chancellor would think of dismissing a coroner without calling on him for an explanation of any charge made against him. I think the fears of honourable Members are quite groundless, and for this reason I cannot accept the Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope that President Kruger will read the report of this Debate, and I regret that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies has not been in his place to listen to it. We have heard of some very vigorous dispatches written by the right honourable Gentleman to President Kruger, remonstrating against the arbitrary dismissal of Chief Justice Kotze. That gentleman, the Chief Justice of the Transvaal High Court, has been dismissed from office by President Kruger, after a series of dispatches which resemble in an extraordinary degree the speeches of the right honour-
    498
    able Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland It may or may not be that President Kruger is in the right and Chief Justice Kotze in the wrong; I merely mention the incident in support of my argument, that it is essential that judges and the ordinary officers of the State should have some protection against the Executive. The argument is a sufficiently strong one when we are dealing with officials concerned in the trial of civil cases; but what are the functions of our coroners? A coroner has to try cases upon which depend the absolute liberty and life of the subject, and especially in a country like Ireland it is essential that such an official should be absolutely independent and above the suspicion of dependence or partiality. Can anyone say that the fact that a coroner feels that he may be pulled up at any time by the Lord Chancellor is not likely to affect his actions? At present the coroner is elected by the people, and his office is practically a freehold. This is practically the last plank of free and impartial justice that exists in Ireland as a sort of bulwark for the people, and why the Government, in passing a Local Government Bill, should insist on a provision of this kind I cannot in the least understand. In the case of the land-grabber you destroyed our own ancient procedure as regards claims for malicious injuries, and provided for all sorts of new rules. When you came to deal with roads, you took away our grand jury laws and established an entirely new procedure. And now, when you come to the office of coroner, that ancient office is to be placed under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, and coroners are to be placed under all sorts of irritating restrictions for which there is no necessity. We know what you have done as regards the judges. We have seen on the Bench judges who were deaf, judges who were almost blind, and their infirmities have been overlooked so long as they belonged to the "loyal minority." But the moment any

    499
    legislation is proposed for the benefit of the people, and the smallest thing is suggested that you can lop off, that very moment the virtue of the British Pharisee is aroused, the discovery is made that there are possibilities of abuse in the existing state of things, and with virtuous indignation the British Government insist on guarding against the possibility of scandal, though in doing so they cut away an ancient and valued right of the Irish people.
    MR. H. H. ASQUITH: It is quite true that if the power proposed by this sub-section is conferred on the Lord Chancellor there is no likelihood that that power would ever be improperly exercised, but I must say that I doubt whether the Government are wise in pressing this sub-section. The fourth subsection of this clause preserves in their absolute integrity the powers which the law at present gives of removing a coroner who is incapable of discharging his duties. Those powers secure that a coroner shall not be removed without cause shown and after judicial inquiry. When we consider the state of public opinion in a country like Ireland, and the sort of inquiries which Irish coroners have to carry through, I confess that it appears to me to be in the last degree inexpedient and impolitic that a person in a judicial position should be subject to removal without cause shown, and without the opportunity of giving any reasons against his removal, at the mere will of the Executive of the day. I therefore do press on the Government that they may well allow the law to remain as it is—that is to say, to leave the coroner subject to removal if it is judicially proved that he is unfit for his office, rather than subject him to removal at the absolutely unfettered discretion of the Executive, however remote may be the probability that that discretion would ever be abused.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I desire to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether there is any corresponding provision in the English law in regard to English coroners?
    MR. ATKINSON: The relation is entirely identical in English and Scottish laws.
    MR. CLANCY: I can only say that if the Government persist in inserting this sub-section it will remain as a very great blot upon their Bill. I have listened to the speeches of the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General and the honourable Members opposite who supported him, but I have failed to appreciate any single argument in favour of this provision. The sole question is whether the existing law is sufficient or not to provide for the removal of coroners who have been guilty of misconduct or are in any way unfit to hold office. The right honourable Gentleman opposite, I understand, thinks that it is insufficient. Will the right honourable Gentleman point to a single case in which a coroner ought to have been removed, and it was found that there was no power to remove him? Sir, I regret that the Government seem to be impenetrable to all reason and all argument in this matter, and I regret that this is not the only case in which they have shown that spirit. They were not satisfied with the law relating to the summoning, of juries, and now, in this sub-section, they seek, for no reason whatever, to make the law worse than it is at present, to deprive us of the right of popular election of coroners, and, in effect, to make the coroners mere officials of Dublin Castle. I feel bound to press my Amendment to a Division.
    Committee divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 90.—(Division List No. 89.)
    Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday.
    House adjourned at 12.5.