Commons Sitting of 24 May 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  SOUTHEND-ON-SEA GAR BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
  Queen's Consent signified; Read the third time, and passed.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW WORKS) BILL.
  Queen's Consent signified; Read the third time, and passed.
  NEATH, PONTARDAWE, AND BRYNA MAN RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  SOUTHAMPTON GAS BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  TURNCHAPEL WHARVES AND WARE HOUSES BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  STANDING ORDERS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 39, 129, and 230 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions and Memorials against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  GAINSBOROUGH GAS BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  DROGHEDA GAS BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table.
  CROMER GAS BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE P.AILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  BOMBAY, BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CRANBROOK AND PADDOCK WOOD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CROWHURST, SIDLEY AND BEXHILL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LISKEARD CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MATLOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAI ORDER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (HACCONBY FEN) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL. ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday, 10th June.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  EDINBURGH IMPROVEMENT PRO VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, under Part I. of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, relating to the City and Royal Burgh of Edinburgh," ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther.
  Presented accordingly, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill No. 233.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table; Bill to be read a third time upon Monday, 6th June.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders continued]; Report to lie upon the Table; Bill to be read the third time upon Monday, 6th June.
  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday, 6th June.
PETITIONS.
  COMPANIES ACT (1857) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  In favour: From London (5); to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS REGULATION RILL.
  Against: From Melton Mowbray (3), Bath, Hove, Brighton (2), and Worcester; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Rathmines, Norwood, and Tottenham; to he upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour: From St. Ninian's, Elgin, Kilbirnie, Ayr, and Irvine; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  For alteration: From the Association of Baronial High Constables in Ireland; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Edinburgh, Wick, Gourock, and Midlothian; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS OX SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Holyhead, Manchester and Southwell; to lie upon the Table.
  SALS: OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Compton Dundon, Glasgow, Lamport, Draughton, Walton, Chichester (G), Colchester, Catcott (2), Burtle, Aspull, Ashcott, Porthfield, Tiverton (2), Snodland, Copford, Toller Porcorum Portsmouth, Crowborough, Yardley, Urmston, Kempston, Maidstone, Manchester, Devonport, (7), Stonehouse (2) Preston, Brighton, Crown Hill Tavistock, St. Budeaux, Okehampton, Odlham (2) Nether Broughton, Plymouth (6), Batley (2), Little Lever, Herne Hill, Riddings, Appledore, Eldon, Northampton, New-bottle, Brook Green, Guestling, Dorking, Bishop Wearmouth, Hebburn-on-Tyne, Newmarket, Pelton, Hanford, Hastings, Gulval, St. Keverne, Madron, Isleham, Kerris, Tregavara, Hawick, Grantchester, Sunnybrow, Sunderland, Norton, West Sleekburn, Tor Point, and Wincanton; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Midlothian; to lie upon the Table.

  VACCINATION BILL.
  Against: From Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
  For alteration: From Rugby; to lie upon the Table.

  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE BILL.
  Against: From Mining Association of Great Britain; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS, WITH APPENDICES, FOR THE YEAR 1897.
  Return [presented 23rd May] to be printed. [No. 214.]
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  Return presented relative thereto [Address 29th April; Mr. Jesse Collings], to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
  Copy presented of Orders made by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, constituting Polling Districts and Polling Places within the Riding [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY AND ARMY (COST OF ADMINISTRATION).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address 18th February; Lord Charles Beresford]; to lie upon the Table.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 13) Hill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 216.]
  copy ordered "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting; Provisional Orders (NO. 11) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 217.]

  NAVY AND MARINES.
  Return ordered "of numbers of Commissioned Officers, Subordinate and Warrant Officers, Petty Officers, Men, and Boys of the Executive Branch, Engineer Branch, and other Branches of the Royal Navy, borne on the 1st of April, 1858, 1868, 1878, 1888, and 1898 respectively, excluding Pensioners and Reserves; and a similar Return of the numbers of the Commissioned, Warrant, and Non-Commissioned Officers and Men of the Royal Marine Force."—(Sir John Colomb.)
NEW BILLS.

  BANKRUPTCY ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Bankruptcy Act, 1883," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Carson, Mr. Greene, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Lawson Walton, Mr. Ascroft, and Mr. Lloyd George.
  Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd June, and to be printed. [Bill No. 234.]

  TRUCK ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Truck Acts," ordered to be brought in by Captain Norton, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Logan, and Mr. Woods.
  Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 6th June, and to be printed. [Bill No. 235.]

  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To prevent Vexatious Legal Proceedings in Scotland," ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Wilson (Govan), Mr. Haldane, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Renshaw, and Sir William Dunn.
  Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 20th June, and to be printed. [Bill No. 236.]

  PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To make further provision with respect to the relict of Pauper Children in Ireland; and for other purposes connected therewith"; ordered to be brought in by Sir John Colomb, Mr. Dillon, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. William Johnston, and Mr. John Redmond.
  Presented, and. read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 9th June, and to be primed, [Bill No. 237.]

  UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.
  "To amend The Union of' Benefices Act, 1860"; ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Balfour, and Mr. Solicitor General.
  Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 6th June, and to be printed. [Bill No. 238.]

QUESTIONS.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ASSOCIATIONS.
  MR. CHANNING: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Mansfield Division of Nottinghamshire. I. beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the interest attaching to the operation of the Voluntary Schools Act, he will grant a Return of the associations, with their areas and the number of representatives in each; the several schools which have objected to join an association and have been refused a grant, with the grounds of such objection; the purposes to which the grants are to be applied; and the subscriptions and total income of each school for the year 1897–98?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The Return of associations and of schools which have objected to join and been refused a grant can be given. The special
  530
  aid grant made to each school will be given in next year's Report, and the Committee of Council will consider what information as to the purposes to which the grants have been applied can be added. To give the subscriptions and total income of each school for 1897–98 is impracticable.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the right honourable Gentleman obtain the grounds of objection to joining associations?
  SIR J. GORST: I have said the Committee of Council will consider what information shall be given.

  PETROLEUM.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the largo number of deaths which annually occur in the United Kingdom in connection with the use of petroleum, and to the great weight of evidence given before the Petroleum Committee in favour of raising the minimum flash point for petroleum, he will invite the Committee to immediately present, an interim Report upon this portion of the inquiry, with a view to the introduction during the present Session of a short Bill, with the object of at once checking the deplorable loss of life which now occurs?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE HOME OFFICE (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): The Committee have finished taking evidence, and are engaged in drawing up their Report, which will be presented to Parliament at the earliest possible date.

  CUSTOMS WATCHERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, under General Order 2–1897, Customs watchers are authorised by the Board of Customs to charge overtime before and after the legal Customs hours when employed on certain

  531
  duties, the overtime in all such cases being paid for by the Dock Companies and wharfingers; whether he is aware that on some stations in the port of London watchers are allowed to charge overtime under this order, and en other stations are prevented from doing so by the Customs authorities, although the duties performed are identical; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made on the different stations with a view to equality of treatment throughout the port of London?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): I believe that the regulations of the Order referred to are observed at all the stations in the port of London, and that there is not any irregularity of treatment of the watchers employed.

  WEI-HAI-WEI.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the port of Wei-hai-Wei has been or is to be leased from the Government for military purposes alone, as stated in this House by the First Lord of the Treasury, or on the same terms as Russia has leased Port Arthur and Talienwan, as stated by the Marquess of Salisbury in No. 150 of the recently issued Chinese Correspondence; whether our Government has received any later assurances from Russia that Port Arthur and Talienwan would be open to Foreign trade like other Chinese ports, as stated in No. 120 of the Chinese Correspondence; and whether the dispatch from our Government spontaneously intimating to the German Government that we would not call in question their rights or interests in the province of Shantung, or lay down railway communication from Wei-hai-Wei to the interior, and the reply of the German Government thereto, are documents of such a confidential character that they are not to be laid before the House, or, if they are to be laid before the House, when this will be done?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): Both
  532
  statements are correct, and there does not appear to be any contradiction between them. The latest Russian assurances as regards Port Arthur and Talienwan are contained in inclosure 2 to No. 151, on page 64 of the Chinese Correspondence. The declaration made by Her Majesty's Government with regard to Wei-hai-Wei was published at Berlin, and has been reproduced in the press. The reply of the German Government was merely an acknowledgment of the same.

  ACHIL ISLAND RELIEF FUND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a large sum of money, nearly £1,000, being the balance of a fund collected for the relief of families belonging to a number of people who had resided in Achil Island, and who had been drowned some years since, and that this residue had been deposited with the Congested Districts Board for some permanent improvement of the inhabitants of that island; and whether, seeing that the committee of this fund who deposited this money with the board were desirous that this money should be applied to the erection of a pier at Dugort, and that the Congested Districts Board are willing, if their resources allowed, to make a grant of £500, he will recommend to the Treasury that the provisions of the Act 29 and 30 Vic, c. 45, passed for the encouragement of sea fisheries in Ireland, should be applied to the erection of a fishery pier at Dugort, and that the Treasury should sanction a grant for the sum required for this work, and the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland be authorised to undertake and commence it without delay?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR): The facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph. The amount in the hands of the Congested Districts Board for the purpose indicated is £926. The question of erecting a pier at Dugort has been engaging the attention of the Government, who are in communication on the subject with the Commissioners of Public Works.

  CYCLE COMPANIES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is a fact that the Dunlop Cycle Company, with a share capital of £5,000,000, is now reduced in value to £3,000,000; whether it is a fact that the Simpson Lever Chain Company, which was floated with a capital of £1,000,000, of which £900,000 was subscribed, is now valued, according to Stock Exchange quotations, at a figure under £6,000; whether his attention has been directed to the revelations in the recent Grappler Company case; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will grant a Board of Trade inquiry respecting the promotion and management of cycle companies?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I have no means of forming an estimate of the value placed by the Stock Exchange upon the shares of joint stock companies. I have seen in the newspapers an account of the proceedings in the law courts referred to, but I do not find anything in them that would warrant a departmental inquiry.

  PROMOTION OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will consider the advisability of bringing in a Measure to amend the law regulating limited liability companies, especially with regard to their promotion and management; and whether it can be arranged that information and publicity shall be given to investors respecting the amount of capital to be taken by the promoters?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I think the honourable Member cannot have had his attention directed to a Measure on this subject brought before Parliament by the Government and now under consideration in another place.

  DISTRESS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has read, the Report of the Mansion House Relief Committee, whose funds are exhausted; and whether the Local Government Board will increase the employment at Clifden Prior, Cahirciveen, and other places where the distress is exceptionally acute?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It was stated in newspaper reports of the 19th instant that the funds of the Mansion House Relief Committee were at that date exhausted. The employment of 554 heads of families, representing about 2,000 people, has been authorised in the Clifden Union, and the Local Government Board are prepared to consent to the guardians of this and other unions in which works have been opened placing on the works all persons who are ascertained to be properly eligible for relief from the rates. The Cahirciveen Guardians have so far declined to adopt a labour test as a condition on which relief is given to persons requiring it, and no employment has, therefore, been afforded by them in the locality. In the event of the guardians deciding to open suitable works, the Government will be prepared to give the guardians financial aid in carrying them out.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE CLAREMORRIS UNION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire from the Claremorris Union why the application made by the Ballyhaunis labourers for the erection of cottages has been adjourned four times, although Dr. Crean, of Ballyhaunis, reported in February last labourers are badly housed here as in most other places hereabouts; and whether he will order the Local Government Board to move in this matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board are in communication with the guardians in reference to this matter.

  TUNISIAN TARIFF.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government is aware that under date the 2nd instant a decree was published at Tunis by the French Resident General, levying increased duties upon all imported goods other than French goods, most of which are to be admitted free, and making such duties applicable to all stocks of an alcoholic nature, although imported prior to the decree and in ignorance thereof; and, if instructions will be given to the Queen's Consul General to support, by all means in his power, the appeal made against such retrospective action by the British subjects injured thereby, having regard to the terms of the Anglo-Tunisian Treaty of 19th July, 1875, which provides that imported goods on which the customs duty has been paid shall not be subjected to any other duty or tax?
  MR. CURZON: I have seen the Decree mentioned in the first paragraph of my honourable and gallant Friend's Question. I have not heard of the appeal by British subjects mentioned in the second paragraph, but I would remind my honourable Friend that the Treaty of 1875 expired from October 15th, 1897, when the new Convention was ratified and came into force. I will, however, inquire into the matter, and will communicate with Her Majesty's Consul General at Tunis with respect to it.

  BALLYCOTTON HARBOUR.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the absence of a light at the entrance of Ballycotton Harbour, county Cork, constitutes a serious danger to fishing and other vessels on dark nights, steps will be taken to establish a small light either on the pier or breakwater?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the light suggested by the honourable and gallant
  536
  Member would not be for the benefit of general navigation, which is sufficiently protected by the existing lighthouse. If a light on the pier or breakwater is required for fishing and other vessels using Ballycotton Harbour, it should be placed there at the expense of the locality, and would not be one which ought to be paid for out of the genera lighthouse fund.

  HOSPITAL OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW, NEAR OXFORD.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I beg to ask the honourable Member for Thirsk, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether they have received from Oriel College the accounts of the charity called the Hospital of St. Bartholomew, near Oxford, for the year 1897; and, if so, whether they will supply a copy to persons interested; and whether the Charity Commissioners, before recommending acceptance of the proposals now made by Oriel College with regard to this charity, will take the opinion of the standing Counsel of the Charity Commission with respect to the same?
  VISCOUNT VALENTIA: At the same time, may I ask the honourable Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether Oriel College, Oxford, is placing the current income arising from the lands and other property of the Hospital of St. Bartholomew, near Oxford, to a suspense account pending the settlement of the questions with regard to the charity which have been before the Charity Commissioners, or whether the college is carrying the said income to the corporate revenues of the college, and, if the latter, whether it is being done with the concurrence and assent of the Charity Commissioners?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): The Commissioners have not yet received the accounts. When they are rendered the Commissioners will be prepared to supply a copy to any person interested. The Commissioners will deal with this case, as they deal with all such eases, upon their own responsibility. The Commissioners Lave reason to believe that Oriel College is placing to a suspense account the stipends and allowances which tine college acknowledges to be payable in respect of the places now vacant among the brethren of the hospital. Pending the settlement of the claims of the charity upon the college the Commissioners have no power to require the college to carry the income derived from the former property of the hospital to any separate account.
  SIR W. FOSTER: Is the honourable Member aware that considerable doubt exists as to the legality of the proposed scheme, as these funds were left for pure charity, and ought net to be used for any other purpose?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I think the House will agree it would not be right for me, speaking on behalf of the Commissioners, to answer such a question. I must ask for notice.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN DOWN PATRICK UNION.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu tenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of labourers' cottages within the union of Downpatrick; whether he can state what wag the report of the Local Government Hoard inspector who held an inquiry on the subject in Downpatrick; and if some step will be taken with the view to provide sufficient and proper accommodation for the labourers living within the union?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No cottages have been provided in this union under the Labourers Acts. The inquiry mentioned in the second paragraph was held so far back as January, 1895. It
  538
  had reference to the question of erecting cottages in one electoral division only in the union, and the inspector felt himself unable to recommend that the guardians should be required to carry out an improvement scheme for this division. If the persons who signed the representations to the guardians apply to the Local Government Hoard for an inquiry, the propriety of acceding to the application will be considered. No steps can be taken in the direction of compelling the guardians to provide cottages except in pursuance of such an application and such an inquiry.

  PRACTICE OF MEDICINE IN INDIA.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that at present uneducated and unqualified persons have as much right to practise medicine in India as fully qualified practitioners; and whether, in view of the danger to which the Indian people are thereby exposed, he will consider the advisability of instituting a system of registration for medical practitioners similar to that which exists in. Great Britain and Ireland.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The answer to the first branch of the question is in the affirmative, and that to the second branch in the negative. It would be, in my judgment, impossible, in the present condition of India, to prevent the people of that country from resorting to native practitioners, even though they may be regarded by Europeans as not fully educated or qualified for the work they undertake.

  RHODESIA.
  MR. J. L. MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of Stale for the Colonies (1) whether, under the new constitution of Rhodesia, there will be any means by which holders of land or minerals by grant from native owners prior to grants to the Chartered Company will be able to establish or

  539
  enforce their rights in a Court of Law; (2) whether under the High Commissioner's Proclamation, having the force of law in Rhodesia, no such grant is receivable in evidence unless it has been previously approved by the Secretary of State; (3) whether any, and, if so, what concessions in Rhodesia to others than the Chartered Company have been approved by the Secretary of State; (4) whether there is any form of judicial inquiry by which the Secretary of State can be guided as to the questions of fact and Native Law which must be determined in order to ascertain whether any concession was validly granted; (5) whether he is aware that the African-Portuguese Syndicate, composed of Mr. Reuben Bemingfield and other colonists of position in Natal and Cape Colony, have for many years past been endeavouring to secure a legal determination of their alleged rights under grant from the Chief Umtassa, but have been unable to do so, although successive Secretaries of State have declared the matter to be one for judicial determination; and whether a proclamation will be issued by the High Commissioner enabling such a determination to be given?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): (1) No fresh provisions on this point are contemplated in the new Order in Council. (2) No such grant can be recognised by any Court of Law unless approved by the Secretary of State. (3) I am not aware of any. (4) There is no established machinery for this purpose. (5) The claims of the African-Portuguese Syndicate have been before the Secretary of State for some years past. I cannot find that my predecessors have declared the matter to be one subject to judicial determination. I myself, on the production by the Syndicate of some further evidence, made a suggestion with a view to bringing the matter before a Court of Law; but this suggestion has not been acted upon; and I am not prepared to state what further steps, if any, I shall take in the matter. The whole question has formed the subject of voluminous correspondence, and it is impossible to give full explanations in answer to a question in Parliament.

  HIGHLAND COUNTY COUNCILS AND PIER CONSTRUCTION.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that under the Highlands and Islands Works Act, 1891, certain powers devolved on county councils in regard to the construction and maintenance of piers, and that these powers do not now exist in conjunction with the newly created Congested Districts Board, will he state whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter; and, if so, what?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The question of the method in which, and the local authorities through which, the Congested Districts Board should exercise any power they possess in connection with the provision of piers in congested districts is at present under consideration of the Board. The provisions of the Act of 1891 are fully in view.

  RABIES IN KENT.
  Mr. BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any case of rabies has been reported in the neighbourhood of Tunbridge and Tunbridge Wells since the case of the mad dog which came from Croydon and was destroyed near Tunbridge last October; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Department shortly to take off the Muzzling Order?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): Since the occurrence of the case to which my honourable Friend refers the places nearest to Tunbridge from which rabies has been reported have been Croydon and Wychling, which are about twenty miles east and west of that town respectively. In view of the past history of the disease in Kent and of the local circumstances, it would be premature for me as yet to relax the Muzzling Orders now in force in that county, but the position has much improved, and I hope it may not be very long before I am in a position to give effect to the representations which I have received on the subject.

  BELLAGHY POOR LAW ELECTION.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have refused a re-count of the votes in the recent poor law election held in the Bellaghy Division of the Magherafelt Union; whether a statement has been laid before the Board by one of the defeated candidates alleging that several ratepayers entitled to vote received no papers, and that in consequence of this illegal proceeding he was defeated by one vote; and whether it is customary in such cases to grant a re-count or inquiry?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no knowledge of the matters alleged in this Question, but I have referred it for inquiry to the Local Government Board.

  PERFORMING BEARS IN PUBLIC STREETS.
  MR. JAMES ROCHE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the well-known and dangerous effect upon horses of the sight or smell of a live bear, and to the recent lamentable accident resulting in the death of a child in London on the 18th instant, which was caused by the bolting of a horse on meeting a performing bear in Marylebone Road, he will direct the police to prevent the exhibition in the thoroughfares of live bears in any part of the kingdom?
  The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper: —
  COLONEL DALBIAC:. I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the recent fatal accident in the Marylebone Road caused by the presence of a bear in the public street; and, if so, will he now take measures to absolutely forbid these performances?
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a fatal accident lately occurred in the streets in consequence of
  542
  a horse being startled by a performing bear; and whether he can now take steps to stop this performance in London, and so prevent the recurrence of such accidents?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Lanes.,)My attention has been called to this unfortunate accident, but there is no power for the general prohibition of these performances. The matter is one which can, to some extent, be dealt with by by-laws, and a reasonable by-law will always be favourably considered by the Home Office.

  FRY COMMISSION.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the cause of the delay in the publication of the evidence taken before the Fry Commission, and when we may expect it to be in the hands of Members?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I was recently informed by the printer that the circulation of the evidence only awaited the completion of the index, which was in the hands of the late Secretary to the Commission. I have no further information on the subject. The matter does not rest with the Irish. Government.

  TREASURY CLAIMS ON KILKENNY.
  MR. P. O'BRIENI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Corporation of Kilkenny has to pay to the Treasury an annual sum of £50 for a patent to hold fairs, £55 per year tent for the old gaol and the city grand jury premises, and also £22 per year as rent charges to the Irish Land Commission; whether, seeing that the premises for which the £55 rent is charged were originally the property of the ratepayers, and that when acquiring them the Government paid no compensation to the ratepayers, will he take

  543
  steps to relieve them of this rent; whether the Treasury bears any of the cost of the fairs in Kilkenny; and, if not, whether he is prepared to urge upon the Treasury the advisability of waiving its claim for this impost upon the Corporation, which has to expend large sums in making provision for those fairs; whether he can explain what this £22 rent charge is for; and, whether he proposes to insert in the Local Government (Ireland) Bill a provision to remit all or any of those charges?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not had time to look into this matter, but I think it is most improbable that it could be dealt with as suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I will repeat the Question on the 6th June.

  CONTRACT ADVERTISING.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury will consider the advisability of requiring the spending department in Ireland to advertise all contracts locally, with a view to economy?
  MR. HANBURY: It is certainly my desire that contracts under Departments connected with the Treasury should be advertised in such a way as to ensure the greatest efficacy as well as economy, and I am considering the matter.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is not the right honourable Gentleman aware that yesterday the Under Secretary of State for War admitted that an important contract had been given in Kilkenny to an outsider, and that it was not advertised?
  MR. HANBURY: That had nothing to do with the Treasury.

  IRISH FISHING INDUSTRY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from the Arklow Boatowners' and Fisher-
  544
  men's Association; and whether the Government will give favourable consideration to the various requirements set forth in that memorial so as to place the Irish fishing industry on an equality as to funds, brands, communication, and facilities as those enjoyed by English and Scotch fishermen?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I received the memorial yesterday; the representations which it contains will receive consideration.

  TITHE AND LOCAL RATES.
  CAPTAIN CHALONER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to put the official incomes of parochial incumbents which consist of tithe on the same footing as all other official stipends in respect of local rates; and whether, taking into consideration the great hardships which arise under the present system, he will endeavour to deal with this question at an early date?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Any Question as to a Bill dealing with the law of rating should be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board rather than to me; but, in speaking on this subject last Session, I pointed out the difficulty of dealing with it apart from other questions affecting local taxation, and I am afraid I am not in a position at present to add anything to what I then said.

  LIGHT DUES ON BALTIC SHIPPING.
  MR. DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he could state to the House what is the amount of light dues at present paid on one voyage by a steamer of 1,000 tons register trading from the port of Grimsby to the Baltic, and what will be the dues payable by a similar steamer on one voyage should the Mercantile Marine Bill become law in its present

  545
  form; and whether, if it should appear that the light dues then payable will be Largely increased, he will modify the scale of dues to be levied on vessels to the Baltic ports, so that British steamers and British merchants trading there should not be further handicapped by the burden of increased light dues?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The amount of dues at present paid on a steamer of 1,000 tons register trading from Grimsby to the Baltic is £1 1s. the outward voyage, and £1 8s. 4d. for the return voyage. These payments are levied for every voyage made during the year. Under the scale proposed in the Mercantile Marine Fund the amount will be £11 9s. 2d. for each voyage, but with exemption after six payments during the year. The question whether the new system will increase the charge depends, therefore, on the number of voyages undertaken during the year. Power is taken in the Bill for dealing with exceptional cases which may arise after the effect of the new scale has been ascertained.

  REMISSIONS OF DEATH DUTIES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been given to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, dated 5th May, 1867, that the remission of the death duties on property in this country to the value of £209,050, passing by the death of the late Emperor of Russia, was made against the law, and that the Treasury had in this case decided by executive act to dispense with a payment to the Exchequer which they had no power to remit, and to the consequent recommendation of the Committee that whenever a dispensing power is exercised by or with the sanction of the Treasury involving any important principle or substantial amount of money by abandonment of claim on account of revenue, a statement of the fact should be presented for the information of and, where necessary, for ratification by Parliament; whether, in consequence of this Report, a Treasury Minute was made on 31st
  546
  December, 1897, whereby the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were informed that the Treasury proposed to ask Parliament for a statutory power to remit duty in cases in which an abandonment of claim to revenue is founded on a fixed principle and applies to classes of taxpayers, and were instructed to consider what cases there are that may be said to fall under this category, and to have clauses prepared for consideration in connection with the introduction of the annual Finance Bill; whether such clauses have been prepared; why no such clauses have been embodied in the Finance Bill, 1898; and what steps he proposes to take in order to carry out the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Treasury Minute expressed mi opinion that remission of taxation founded on a fixed principle of general application affecting classes should, whenever possible, be made the subject of specific legislative enactment. Proposals for this object have been before me; but on full consideration it seemed inappropriate to insert them in the annual Finance Bill, as they have no special reference to the finance of the year. I propose to introduce a separate Bill dealing with this and other matters of the same kind.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right honourable Gentleman in the meantime see that the Treasury does not go against the law by making remissions which it has no power to mate?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, Sir; it is in the Question.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is a suggestion by the honourable Member as to certain action.

  ABBEY MANSIONS FATALITY.
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the block of buildings at Abbey Mansions, Victoria Street, at which the roof recently fell, was exempt from the

  547
  provisions of the London Building Act, 1894, by reason of any exemption or privilege attaching to the Crown or to the Commissioners of Works; whether the Commissioners of Works had through any officer or officers supervised or prescribed the structural construction or solidity of the building, or whether any responsibility in regard thereto was undertaken by the Commissioners or their officers; whether the County Council had ever brought to the attention of the Commissioners the question of exemption, or inquired whether any exemption was claimed; and whether the Commissioners caused the height of the building to be raised?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. A. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I am advised that no exemption whatever from the Building Act, and no privilege, can attach to the building by reason of any Government exemption or privilege. An agreement was entered into last November under which in certain eventualities the Commissioners of Works might have become lessees of the building when fully completed; but until then they had no present interest in it, and they have never been in occupation. My Department has exercised no supervision whatever, nor made any prescription in regard to the matter; and no responsibility in regard to the structural construction or solidity attached to the Department, or was undertaken by it. The County Council never brought the matter to the attention of the Department, and made no such inquiry. If they had, they would have been informed that no exemption existed so far as the Crown was affected. The Office of Works did not cause the height of the building to be raised.

  '98 CELEBRATION AT KILRUSH.
  MR. FLYNN: On behalf of the honourable and gallant Member for West Clare I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland: Is he aware that on Friday, 20th May, at Kilrush, Head Constable Thompson, Sergeant Wall, and Constable
  548
  M'Cullough, of the Police force, Kilrush, without authority and without invitation intruded into a meeting of Nationalists at the Assembly Rooms, Kilrush, held for the purpose of forming a branch of the '98 Club to celebrate the centenary of 1798, and only after considerable remonstrance these constables were induced to withdraw; and will he forbid police constables to intrude at meetings in Ireland called for constitutional and legitimate purposes?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg at the same time to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Head Constable, accompanied by two of his men, attended a meeting of the Kilrush '98 Club on the 20th instant, in spite of the protests of the Chairman of the Town Commissioners, Mr. L. O'Brien; and, if so, upon, whose authority the police acted?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am making inquiry into the statements contained in these Questions, which only appeared on the Paper this morning for the first time.

  INDIAN CURRENCY COMMITTEE.
  MR. T0MLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India which are the non-official members of the Indian Currency Committee who are gentlemen, of experience in connection with India?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I think my honourable Friend will find that all the non-official Members either are gentlemen of experience in connection with India or represent great financial and commercial interests closely connected with or affected by the Indian currency question.

  BENEFICES BILL.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Benefices Bill, which stands as first Order for Monday, 6th June, will be proceeded with that day; or, if not, when it is likely to come on?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Benefices Bill will not be taken on 6th June. But until public business is further advanced it will not be possible to fix a day for proceeding with the Bill.

  AMERICAN WAR REVENUE BILL.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information as to the proposed abandonment of the clause in the War Revenue Bill before the Congress of the United States, which imposes extra and heavy tonnage dues on vessels visiting American ports?
  MR. CURZON: We have heard that the clause in question has been struck out by the Committee of the Senate.

  IRISH DAILY MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the desirability of accelerating the Irish day mails between Euston and Dublin; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
  MR. HANBURY: The Committee was appointed on the 6th December last. The Reports were only signed on the 17th instant. The evidence extends over 200 pages of small print, and there are two conflicting Reports, each signed by two members. The opinion of the Post Office upon the Report has to be obtained before the Treasury can come to a final decision. The Reports are confidential, and I do not understand how they came to appear in full in the Irish Daily Independent of 18th May—the morning after they were signed.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right honourable Gentleman, certain that a copy of this Report appeared in a Dublin paper last Tuesday?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, I was very much surprised to see it. I think it must have been a breach of confidence, for it appeared on the very morning of the day after it was signed.

  IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin and the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast are desirous to have the Irish Lights Board reconstituted, and whether the Government will bring in a Bill for that purpose; also whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill to reform the existing Irish Lights Board, or whether it will assist any Private Member's Bill for such reform?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Chambers of Commerce of Dublin and Belfast have presented memorials to the Irish Government in favour of the reconstruction of the Irish Lights Board, but I am not prepared to bring in a Bill for that purpose, nor to promise support to a Bill which I have not seen.

  GOVERNMENT BRAND FOR IRISH CURED FISH.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is at present no Government brand for Irish cured fish; and whether, in view of the advantage which this privilege confers upon English and Scotch fishermen, steps will be taken to place Irish fishermen upon an equality in this respect?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe the fact is as stated in the first paragraph. Legislation would be necessary to provide for a branding fee, and the punishment of any infringement of a brand, and I cannot give any undertaking to introduce legislation in this direction without further inquiry.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right honourable Gentleman make further inquiry?
  R. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. FLYNN: If a Bill is brought in will the right honourable Gentleman support it?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot promise that without seeing it.

  IRISH FISHERMEN'S LOANS.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether loans could be made to Irish fishermen on more favourable terms than those now prevailing for the purchase and building of fishing boats, providing gear and curing establishments?
  MR. HANBURY: The loans made by the Board of Works for these purposes out of the balance of the seacoast and Fisheries Fund remaining in the hands of that Board are made at 2½ per cent, interest, and repayable in ten years. I do not think the rate of interest too high, and the period for repayment is as long as the purposes of the loans would justify.

  MR. GLADSTONE'S FUNERAL.
  SIR J. MACLURE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in addition to the privilege to be accorded to the Members of the House of Commons, one ticket will be granted for his wife or daughter to accompany him to the State Funeral on Saturday next, to show the national respect to the great statesman who has departed?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have communicated the suggestion contained in the Question of the honourable Baronet to the Earl Marshal for his consideration. All arrangements connected with the ceremonial are in his jurisdiction.

  RAILWAY CONCESSIONS IN CHINA.
  MR. J. WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Stats for Foreign. Affairs whether the French and Belgian Ministers, in conjunction with M. Pokotiloff, the Director of the Russo-Chinese Bank, are negotiating with the Tsung-li-Yamêen conjointly to provide money to build a Cheng-Ling-Kau-Kau trunk line uniting Pekin with the Yang-Tsye; whether the foreign control gives the same rights as in the case of the Trans-Manchurian Railway, and that there will be no Chinese Government Guarantee; and whether the scheme would be a violation of the Treaty of Tient-sin, and of the recently concluded agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government in regard to the provinces adjacent to the Yang-Tsye-Kiang river; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to prevent any such infringement of British rights?
  MR. CURZON: I have seen in the newspapers a statement to the effect of the honourable Member's Question, but we have not so far received any information concerning it. A concession for a Pekin-Hankau line was some time ago given to a Belgian syndicate. An inquiry has been addressed by telegraph to Sir Claude MacDonald.

  FRANCE AND WEST AFRICA.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when Her Majesty's Government expect to be able to make a statement with regard to the result of the negotiations with France as to West Africa?
  MR. CURZON: I am afraid we must wait until the negotiations have been concluded.

  AUSTRALIA AND NAVAL DEFENCE.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Defence Committee of the Cabinet have had under consideration

  553
  the fact that the United Kingdom devotes over 20 per cent, of its revenue to provide for the naval protection of the Empire, while the Australasian Colonies, with an aggregate annual revenue of over £28,000,000, spend nothing at all on the fleet available for the general service of the Empire, and do not spend even 0.05 per cent, of such aggregate revenue for the naval protection of their own trade in their own waters; and whether the statement of the Duke of Devonshire, President of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, on the 18th instant, that the Australian Colonies have made a very liberal contribution to the maintenance of the British Navy is to be regarded as an official pronouncement of that Committee?
  THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUER: I can make no statement as to the first paragraph of the Question. With regard to the second, my noble Friend was speaking of the agreement which has, for some years, been existing between the Australian Colonies and this country, the renewal of which is now under consideration. The lines of that agreement have always been known. I do not think I should have used the adjective if I had been referring to it—but perhaps I look at this matter, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, from a special point of view.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the fact that during the year 1897 no less than 126,996 depositors in the Post Office Savings Hunk, three-fourths of whom are assumed to consist of the working classes, telegraphed to the head office, London, in order to withdraw money rather than await correspondence by post, and in so doing expended nearly £8,000 in sums varying from 1s. 3d. to 9d. for each withdrawal, will he, with a view to relieve the working classes of this heavy tax on their resources when requiring their money speedily, consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will place at their disposal a
  554
  mode of withdrawal more speedy than withdrawal by post, and less costly than withdrawal by telegraph?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir, it is not the intention of the Government to introduce legislation for the purpose suggested. The reasons against such a course have been already stated in this House on February 21st, 1896, April 6th, 1897, and May 4th, 1897. There is no evidence that people who use the system of telegraphic withdrawal in cases of exceptional urgency feel the charges to be a hardship. Moreover, it must be remembered that the Post Office Savings Rank was established for the encouragement of thrift, and not for the purpose of performing the functions of an ordinary bank.

  ARRANGEMENTS FOR PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can name a day for the discussion of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland?
  MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what will be the business taken on the reassembling of the House on Monday, June 6th?
  MR. M'KENNA: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what day the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will be taken; and, whether the Government propose to take Supply on Monday, June 6th; and, if so, what Votes?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We propose to allot a day to the Financial Relations Debate as near as possible to the commencement of the Report stage of the Irish Local Government Bill. On Monday, June 6th, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will he taken; the Reserve Forces Rill will be the second order. The Government do not propose to take Supply on that day. I propose to place a Notice of Motion on

  555
  the Paper on behalf of my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House to take the time of the House, except the first two Wednesdays after the Recess, for Government business. My noble Friend the Secretary for India informs me that it will be necessary to introduce an Indian Loan Bill shortly in order to provide for the redemption of certain debentures now falling due, and also the ways and means for carrying out the extension of railway construction in India, and that he proposes to make his financial statement in moving the Resolution necessary to set up this Bill. We propose to take this on Tuesdays June 7th. Of course, the arrangements when proposed are subject to the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Irish Local Government Bill to-day. If that should not have concluded it will take precedence of everything after Whitsuntide until it is finished. But I hope it may be concluded to-day, as it would be very desirable for many reasons that a considerable, period should intervene between the Committee and Report stage of the Bill.
  MR. DILLON: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether the honourable Gentleman can say approximately when the Report stage of the Irish Local Government Bill will be taken; and also, consequentially, for what day the Debate on the Irish Financial Relations will be fixed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I can only answer the Question very approximately. The Financial Relations Debate will not be taken before June 20th, and the Report stage of the Irish Local Government Bill may then follow on June 21st, but possibly both may be deferred to a later date.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There is no probability of their being accelerated?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No.
  MR. NUSSEY: Has any day been fixed for the Criminal Evidence Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot fix any particular day.

  WEST INDIAN COLONIES.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he id aware that the West Indian planters engaged in cultivating sugar will require to commence their preparations for the new crop in July next: and whether it is probable that he will be able to announce his intentions with regard to the assistance proposed to be given to the West Indies in time to allow the cultivators to make their plans for the coming season?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The negotiations at Washington are not completed, and until the result is known it is impossible to make any statement, but I have no reason to believe that any proposals which Her Majesty's Government may be able to make for the advantage of the West Indies generally, will materially affect the preparations for the new sugar crop in July next.

  EQUIVALENT GRANT FOR SCOTLAND.
  MR. BUCHANAN: On behalf of the honourable and gallant Member for Forfar I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state the amount of the Equivalent Grant for Scotland alluded to in his Budget speech, and the purposes to which he will propose to apply it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I believe it will be necessary to deal with this matter by a Bill which will be introduced by the Lord Advocate, and that will be the proper time for announcing the amount of income to be devoted to this purpose and the objects to which it is to be applied.
  MR. BUCHANAN: When is the Bill likely to be introduced?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That I cannot say.

  WATER BILLS.
  MR. TOMLINSON: On behalf of the honourable baronet the Member for North-West Manchester I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the regulations relating to filtration and inspection of filtration works, which the Hoard has recommended to be inserted in all Water Bills, will be published, as a number of Bills affecting the water supply in various counties are now before the House?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I contemplate that the clauses which are proponed should be added to the Bills on consideration of those Bills as amended, and I propose to give notice to-day of the clauses which I intend to move.

  MEMBERS AND THEIR SEATS.
  COLONEL LONG: In asking, Sir, for your ruling upon the following point I may perhaps be permitted to say that I do not in any way wish to inconvenience anybody, but my sole desire is to have a Rule of the House either removed from the books or observed. Under the Rules, Orders, and Forms of Procedure which you, Sir, laid on the Table of this House in 1896, there is a Rule—No. 50—the last part of which provides that—
  "A Member who remains within the precincts of the House may, by placing his hat upon a seat, indicate his intention of acquiring a right to such seat by subsequent attendance at prayers."
  Mr. Speaker Peel in February 1895, in consequence of his attention being drawn to certain cases in which Members had caught cold while walking about the lobby without their hats, permitted the present system of cards to take the place of the old system. The result is that during the present Parliament a very strong opinion has grown up that a Member having placed his card on a sent can leave the House—that in fact this particular Rule has become obsolete. This is no doubt very convenient to those Members who live near the House. They place their cards on the seats in the morning, and then leave to attend to
  558
  their business, but not so advantageous to Members who live, at a distance, and who, coming down to the House, perhaps, about one or two o'clock, wishing to ask a question or speak, rind the seats appropriated by these cards, without even the satisfaction of finding their friends in the lobbies to talk to. I wish to know, therefore, whether, in your opinion, the system of cards has had the effect of rendering Rule 50 obsolete, or whether when a Member places his card on the seat he is not bound by an honourable understanding to remain within the precincts of the House. If, Sir, your decision is that this Rule applies to the placing of the cards, I will respectfully ask whether it will not be possible when the Rules are reprinted to embody your decision in the wording of Rule 50.
  MR. SPEAKER: Subject to what was said by my predecessor in 1895, this rule still represents accurately the rule of the House, and I do not understand that the decision of my predecessor did more than insert the words "or card" after the word "hat," leaving the rest of the rule in force. Therefore I take it that, as in the case of a hat so with a card left on the seat, the action of the honourable Member who places it there is inoperative unless he remains within the precincts of the House.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Would it not be desirable to have some such statement printed on the card?
  MR. SPEAKER: I hardly think that is necessary. I think honourable Members will now understand what the rule of the House is.

  INDIAN CURRENCY PROPOSALS.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether on June 7th he proposes to deal with the financial proposals of the Indian Government regarding the currency?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: No. The whole subject has been remitted to a Committee for consideration, and to take the course suggested by

  559
  the honourable Member would simply be to invite the House to what would be a futile discussion. I propose, in the course I am going to adopt, to follow the precedent of 1877. In moving the Motion setting up the resolution on which the Bill was founded, I will make the usual statement, which will give honourable Members interested in Indian finance the opportunity of discussing the finances of the year.
  MR. COHEN: Will the Indian financial statement be distributed before the statement as to the Indian Budget is made?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Yes; I believe the financial statement as to important details and a short statement by the Secretary of State is ready for distribution.

  ARGENTINA'S TRIBUTE TO MR. GLADSTONE.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that I have received two messages, one from the President of the Senate of the Argentine Republic, and the other from the President of the House of Representatives of that State. The one from the Senate is as follows:—
  "I have the honour to communicate to the Speaker, the Senate of the Argentine ration, over which I preside, rose to its feet in honour of the great memory of William Ewart Gladstone, the glory of humanity, whose loss the whole world at this moment deplores, and who merits the homage of all the Parliaments of all the free nations of the world."
  The message from the President of the Chamber of Deputies is as follows: —
  "The Chamber of Deputies of the Argentine nation shares in the feeling of profound and universal grief produced by the death of that eminent English citizen, William Gladstone."
  I think I may assume that the House would wish me in this case, as in the previous cases, to render a suitable acknowledgment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MR. GLADSTONE'S FUNERAL.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That this House will attend the funeral of the Right Honourable William Ewart Gladstone in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, on Saturday next, the 28th day of this instant May."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question put, Motion agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland,. Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 67.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 38, line 14, after 'jury,' insert 'and, the governors and directors of an asylum.'"— (Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The expressions "local authority" and "authority" respectively include a grand' jury, but, of course, the term is rather narrow, and I think it should include the governors and directors of asylums.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,refused, to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 39, line 6, after 'land,' insert 'or house and land.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Amendment agreed to without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 39, line 20, after 'means,' insert—
    "As respects any officer an officer holding office on the last day of March one thousand light hundred and ninety-eight, and also on the appointed day, and in any other case."— (Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right honourable Gentleman fix the appointed day?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not necessary to fix the appointed day.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think it would be possible for some officer to be dismissed in the meantime. Suppose annual election occurs after the passing of the Act before the appointed day. The result will be that they have no protection whatever.
    Amendment agreed to without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 39, line 32, at end, insert—
    "The expression 'local financial year' means the twelve months ending the thirty-first day if March."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Amendment agreed to without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 39, line 22, after 'accordingly, 'insert—
    "And shall extend to and include every surveyor, collector, borough treasurer, or other officer heretofore subject to annual re-election." —(Mr. Plunkett.)
    Amendment negatived without a Division.
    Question put—
    "That clause 67 as amended stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to without a Division.
    Clause 68 agreed to without discussion.

    CLAUSE 69.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 41, line 9, leave out sub-section (2)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It was originally intended that the county councillors elected at the first election should be a provisional council, and that they should enter upon their duties on a date to be fixed by the Local Government Board, but on further consideration the sub-section dealing with this point appeared to the Government to be un-necessary, and I therefore move its omission.
    Amendment agreed to without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 41, line, 13, at end, insert—
    "(3) The sheriff of each county shall be the returning officer for such first election, but if the sheriff desires to be a and date at such election the county quarter sessions on his application may appoint another person to be the returning officer, and the person so appointed shall for the purpose of such election have the powers and duties of the sheriff.
    "(4) The costs properly incurred by the returning officer in reference to the first election, and in reference to such first meeting of the provisional council, shall be defrayed as expenses of the county council, and may be taxed on an application made by or by direction of the provisional council."—(Mr. J. H. M. Campbell.)
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think it would be better to take those provisions straight out of the English Act.
    Amendment negatived without a Division.
    Question put—
    "That clause 69 as amended stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to without a Division.

    CLAUSE 70.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 41, line 17, after 'district' insert 'other than the county borough of Dublin.'"— (Mr. Clancy.)
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 41, line 21, at end, insert—
    "Provided that this section shall not apply to the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I would remind the right honourable Gentleman that there are other equally strong cases of county boroughs besides Londonderry and Belfast. Take the case of Dublin. There will first be a ballot as to who shall go out, and they will have to go out in the year following, and we may have three elections in three years. It does seem to me that Belfast and Londonderry might very well take their position with the others.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): As the elections for the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry will practically be upon the existing franchise we do not think it will be necessary to put these communities to the trouble and cost of a new election, which would be unfair to these boroughs.
    Amendment agreed to without a Division.
    Question put—
    "That clause 70, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to without a Division.
    Clause 71 agreed to without discussion.

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 42, leave out clause 72."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Clause 72 struck out without a Division.

    CLAUSE 73.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 45, line 9, after 'shall' insert 'without prejudice to any existing right.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Amendment agreed to without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 45, line 18, after 'heretofore,' insert—
    "And shall, if his duties are increased, receive such increase of salary in proportion to that increase of duties as the Local Government Board may determine."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Amendment agreed to without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 45, line 19, leave out sub-section (2)." —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Sub-section struck out without a Division.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think upon this clause the Government ought to inform us as to their system in regard to the more important officers.
    MR. JORDAN: The Chief Secretary proposes, in his Amendment to clause 73, line 18, that those officers whose duties are increased are to receive—
    "Such increase of salary in proportion to that increase of duties as the Local Government Board may determine."
    I should like to know from the right honourable Gentleman whether, in cases where the officers' duties are reduced, they will get the whole salary.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board will take all the circumstances into account.
    MR. PLUNKETT: I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman why the county boroughs are excluded from being provided for in his Amendment?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: They are provided for in the clause.
    MR. PLUNKETT: What I also want to know is why they were not given the same superannuation terms as other officers in the right honourable Gentleman's Amendment on page 39 of to-day's Paper. I had some Amendments on the Paper, but I was called into the Lobby for a moment, and they were unfortunately passed by, and I shall have to

    565
    put them down for the Report stage. Perhaps my right honourable Friend will explain why the words "other than misconduct or incapacity" are put in in the case, of town clerks, and are omitted in the case of ether officers. They are generally appointed at, the age of 35, or between the acres of 30 and 10, and therefore the ordinary rules of superannuation do not apply to these cases.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Line 5 reads—
    "If any existing town clerks if a borough or clerk to the commissioners of any town."
    MR. PLUNKETT: Then I am satisfied.
    Question put.
    "That clause 73 as amended stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to without a Division.

    CLAUSE 74.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 45, line 40, leave out sub-section (d)"—(Mr. Clancy)
    MR. CLANCY: This sub-section provides—
    "Where the occupier is not entitled to make any deduction from his rent in respect of poor rate, and the holding is agricultural Land, he shall be liable to pay annually to his landlord a sum equal to half the appropriate standard amount, and such sum shall be recoverable as, and be deemed for ail purposes to be. part of, his rent."
    I have heard of a particular case in the county of Limerick where the lease has been made, and there is a provision in the lease that the tenant is to pay the whole of the cess and the whole of the poor rate, or that, if the landlords pay the excess in the poor rate, there is so much to be added to his rent. I can understand all the other provisions of the Bill, because they adjust the rent to the new conditions; but the idea of having the landlord's rent increased in a case in which the tenant is paying already the whole of the poor rate and in whole of the county cess, and in which the landlord is not liable, is absurd. Although the landlord is not liable, and although he is not now paying
    566
    any poor rates, he is to get an additional rent. I really cannot understand the provision at all, and I beg leave to move the omission of this sub-section.
    MR. DILLON: This subsection is only carrying out clause 71— that is to say, in those cases where the landlord pays the amount of the poor rate in order to get the benefit of the agricultural grant in respect of the poor rate. I put down the same Amendment as the honourable Member for North Dublin, and I could not select a better opportunity of showing the iniquity of the whole-system. This is only part of an elaborate scheme in accord with the rest of the clause. You have no other way of doing it than where the landlord pays the poor rate at present, and if you are going to give him the benefit of the agricultural grant in respect of the poor rate, you can only do it by increasing his rent. Well, Sir, I do not want to rake up this old trouble, but I do not like to let this clause pass without one word. This is, no doubt, a singularly clear illustration, which will bring home to the minds of many people who have not hitherto appreciated what is being done under this Act the full effect of it. In a case which, was brought under my notice a tenant contracted by a lease 20 years ago to pay the whole of his poor rates, and now, under this clause, at any time his landlord is to get an increase of the rent he has to pay all that time. Sir, I do not desire to discuss this matter at any length now, nor do I advise my honourable Friends to go to a Division, but it certainly is a most clear and singular illustration of the evil of the whole transaction. The statement has been made that the difficulty the Government had to guard against in granting these new local institutions to Ireland was that they had to protect the landed class from the danger of being taxed out of existence. Well, Sir, this proposal has nothing to do with the danger of taxing them out of existence. It is in respect of taxes which now exist, and has nothing whatever to do with that. Under the cover of that danger of future increase—of an unreasonable increase—in taxation, they have lifted off the shoulders of the landlords the enormous burden of taxation to which they are subjected under

    567
    the present law. There is no doubt at all that the Government have taken advantage of this Act to hand over to the landlord; these enormous grants. Does any man imagine for a single moment that the Irish Unionist Benches would have remained so silent during these discussions had it not been for this clause? It certainly is a most marvellous thing. I have taken that view all along, although, having the example of last year before me, when the question of the safeguarding of the landlord was considered, I did not commit myself as to the financial proposals of the Bill. I have always recognised that those of us who speak for the Irish Members do agree with the Government policy, and that being so, we felt justified in abstaining from voting against any of these proposals.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A landlord will be relieved of the obligation of paying the poor rate, but it will be made good to the union out of the agricultural grant. I think it is hardly necessary for me to enter into any general defence of this sub-section, because the honourable Member for East Mayo admits that it is carrying out the general principle. Of course, it is not the case that the Lord Lieutenant will be entitled to make any reduction. The honourable Member for North Dublin will see that the tenant will not pay more than he does at present, because on account of this relief he has to pay a corresponding sum to his landlord.
    MR. CLANCY: I was under no misapprehension at all as to the effect of the clause. I am quite aware that the tenant will not pay more under this sub-section than he is paying at present, but of course he will pay the landlord an increased rent.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: But he will 'be relieved of the county cess.
    MR. CLANCY: Certainly. That is the whole object of the financial proposals of the Bill, to give relief to the landlords, who are liable to rates. If they are not liable for rates, why should they get relief? The case is now just as if the tenant had bought his holding; he would be liable for all rates, and the landlord
    568
    would not be liable for any more, and it is just the same as if the landlords were getting a grant out of the Exchequer. I really cannot understand, if the landlord were liable for the rates, or was paying the rates, how he could under his contract be made liable for the rates in the future. But hero is a case in which it is suggested he will take for granted that a landlord will not be liable for rates at all; and although not liable for rates, and cannot be taxed, we are proposing to make him a grant out of the Exchequer. I cannot really understand this.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am sorry that I have not made it clear to the honourable Member. If there is any special arrangement between landlord and tenant, that will be taken into consideration, and the reduced amount will be charged.
    MR. CLANCY: On the contrary, there are many cases where there is an increase. I know a case in Limerick in which the landlord provided that the tenants should pay all the poor rates and the county cess, and, if they did not, so much would be added to their rents, although I am not quite sure that that was an increase over the old rents. In that case the Government would actually be making that landlord a grant from the Exchequer, although he is not paying the rates at all.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That case is a perfect illustration of the proposal of the Government which provides for special arrangements between landlord and tenant.
    MR. CLANCY: The landlord not having helped himself to any additional value by his conduct, the Government come to his aid and provide him with another addition.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Only the occupier will get any benefit in respect of the poor rate and county cess.
    MR. DILLON: In the case where the landlord pays all the poor rate he gets all the benefit.
    Amendment negatived without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "page 47, lint; 20, at end, add—
    Nothing in thins section shall be deemed to affect a contract as to rates contained in the lease of any house in a city or town."— (Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Suppose a man wants a lease of a house in Dublin. This Bill does not give him any protection, and it prevents a contract from being made with regard to the rates and taxes. This is the strongest thing that has been done by any Government, for the tenant gets absolutely no benefit. It does seem to me strange that in regard to bind leased for 999 years in respect of rates the proposal is to leave that lease intact. The landlord. have not called out for this proposal. They have not been calling out, except as far as the country districts are concerned, fur the agricultural grant, and there has been no demand for this proposal in regard to towns. I hope the Government will say that as regards town leases they will leave them as they are.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will ask my honourable and learned Friend not to press this Amendment at present, and I will promise to consider the whole question in the Report stage. I have already undertaken to consider the matter, to see whether a change cannot be made.
    MR. T. M. HEALT: Under those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the question that clause 71 staid part of the Bill,
    MR. M. HEALY: I congratulate the draughtsman upon the skill with which this clause has been drawn. It deals with a very difficult subject, and it has dealt with it thoroughly without raising any unnecessary questions. I rise for 'die purpose of asking the Government if they have considered certain cases which I confess I have some difficulty in saying how to deal with. In a great many cases,
    570
    of course, when this Act passes into law, the tenant will owe his rent, and there will be arrears of rates which he will have the right to deduct, and it docs not appear to me that the clause has considered that particular branch of the matter. In examining this question I was really considering the appointed day, whether there really ought to be an appointed day and an appointed time at which this clause would operate in the case of a particular landlord and tenant. Obviously, of course, the clause ought not to operate at all except in respect of some case covered by the Act. Of course, Mr. Lowther, for six months, at any rate, after this Act passes into law there will be no agricultural grant, and when the agricultural grant is made it will only operate from March next. The clause as it stands is open to the argument that the moment the Act passes it will begin to operate on every landlord and tenant. But it is not clear how it will operate in the case of arrears of rent at the passing of the Act, and in the case of rates levied before the appointed day, but after the passing of the Act. A landlord owns, say. 10, 15, or 20 houses, and in return for his assuming liability to the rating authority for the rates the law enables the rating authority to give him a bonus, by reason of a discount on those rates. I allude to the compounding householders in Ireland, who, by virtue of a private Act of Parliament passed for Dublin and Belfast, can take advantage of the principle of compounding which is established there. It is a most beneficial principle, and its object is to' induce owners of property in Ireland to become responsible for the rates, and to encourage them to build houses for the working classes. The idea is that the ordinary investor of capital shall not be discouraged from going in for house property by the high rates. The Corporation of Dublin thought it very important to get that power in 1890, and since then the Corporation of Belfast have also done so. I do not think that anything in this Act ought to interfere with the special powers which these corporations have got. I am quite aware that it is only in the case of poor rate that it would in any way affect it, because in the matter of the other rates, although the occupier might, under

    571
    this clause, be compelled to pay, he would deduct the amount under this Act. But in the case of the poor rate that would not be so, and I would suggest that upon the Report stage the matter may be considered as to whether the corporations could not be excepted.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In answer to the honourable Member, he is quite accurate in saying that the Act should come into operation within the period covered by the agricultural grant. With regard to the other point we propose to accept the clause which stands in the name of the honourable Member for Belfast on page 50.
    MR. DILLON: The honourable Member for Cork has approached this question from the point of view of the skilled advocate. I now propose to consider it from the point of view of the ignorant outsider, the more general point of view I think, as do those for whom I act, throughout Ireland. Speaking from the point of view of the farmers and the ignorant outsiders, I want to know how the thing is going to work in cases of disputes arising. Nothing in this world can be more certain than the fact that innumerable disputes will arise, and what I desire is to have some explanation as to what machinery is to be employed, and some hone held out to us that this thing will not lead up to law suits.
    MR. M. HEALY: There cannot be any law suits.
    MR. DILLON: Well, that is a great comfort, at all events. The subject is one of numerous complexities, because the relief is applied only in connection with the relief given to the agricultural land, and all the buildings are to be left under the old law; for by sub-section 8 he is entitled—
    "to deduct from his rent the like proportion of any sum paid by him for poor rate on account of any railway, ha bour navigation, or public health charge, as he would hive been entitled to deduct from his rent on account of any cess or rate or charge."
    He would hare been able to do that. Then sub-section 9 provides—
    "that the secretary of the county council shall, on request by the landlord or occupies of any holding, give, a certificate of the rateable holding and of the standard value in the £ under
    572
    this Act for the union or district in which the holding is situate, and where the holding consists partly of building and partly of land shall distinguish the rateable value of that portion which consists of buildings and of the portion which consists of land. The said certificate shall be in such form and contain such particulars, and the secretary of the county council shall be entitled to such payment for each certificate as may be prescribed."
    I think all these will have to be given to everybody, but as it is the only means by which they will be able to ascertain what their rights are under this clause I think they ought to be given free. I do not think it right that a small farmer should have to pay to see what his rights are, and, although I am very glad to hear from the honourable Member for Cork that under no circumstances can law suits arise, still my own idea is that disputes can and will arise. I have seen most bitter disputes arise, engendering great ill-feeling and creating very bad blood, over a matter of 5s. Bad blood and frequently law suits and broken heads I have seen arise over sums so small that honourable Members of this House could not imagine for a moment that anything of the kind could be possible. I should like to have some assurance that everybody in Ireland will obtain free a statement from which he will be able to ascertain exactly what, his rights are under this clause as regards his ability and right to deduct from his rent the amount he pays.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Of course there will be a good deal of friction under this clause, but so far as we have been able we have done what we could to avoid it. As to the certificate which sub-section 9 provides shall be furnished to the secretaries of the county councils, we shall propose that merely a nominal sum shall be charged for that.
    MR. DILLON: I shall put in an Amendment upon this clause when the Bill comes up again.
    Clause 74 added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 75.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 47, line 22, leave out sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Dillon.)
    MR. DILLON: The reason why I propose to omit this sub-section is that in my opinion, of all the mean things that could be conceived, it is the worst. In the previous portion of the Bill I drew attention more than once to the shabby manner in which we are being treated as to the arrears of the agricultural rate. I consider we have been fleeced to the extent of £300,000 by your not giving us that grant. Now note what the Government is going to do. What this sub-section provides is that the expenses and remuneration of these officers shall be paid out of the Local Taxation Account. The whole of these expensed I do not suppose will amount to more than about £2,000 a year, and I do think there is something inconceivably mean in coming for this £2,000— cadging on our store of money. I trust there will be no difficulty in altering this sub-section so as to provide that the money required for putting up this machinery will he provided by the Treasury.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What makes this matter far worse is that the Irish taxpayers keep up the valuation office. £8,000 has to be found by the grand juries for the valuation office, the chief purpose of which is for collecting income tax, and for any benefit it gives on the valuation the Government reap £100,000 a year. First you make an Imperial office, and then, under the idea that it confers some benefit on us, you make us pay to keep it up. If anyone would turn to the Estimates he would find a credit for the valuation office in Dublin. You will find n, credit in favour of the Treasury, of which £8,000 a year you practically levy off us by this system of compulsory presentment which is perpetuated under this Act. Notwithstanding that this is a mere office for the collection of income tax, you now propose that any additional expense is to be taken out of this money. I do urge that as the valuation office is largely an Imperial office, the amount we have to pay is certainly too much.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In this sub-section we have merely followed the precedent of the English Act. The
    574
    money which represents the equivalent grant, which will amount to something like ,£,300,000, will not be drawn upon for this purpose unless the sum mentioned in sub-section 2 is insufficient. Ay to the valuation office, I think the honourable Member for Louth is under a misapprehension so far as the Treasury is concerned.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I say £8,000 is paid for the valuation office.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR.: But the rest is drawn out of the Treasury.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It should all be drawn out of the Treasury.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The expenses of the assessment committees are entirely borne by local authorities in England, whereas in Ireland, on the contrary, the expenditure in connection with the valuation office is £22,900, of which only £9,000 was borne by local authorities.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In England the income tax is levied not by State or Imperial Departments, but by one's neighbours; in Ireland it is not. I think that the powers conferred by this subsection may be exercised to fleece Ireland.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I certainly do think upon this occasion that the Government have been extremely mean. I may point out that I think Ireland has been treated very hardly in this matter. We certainly ought to have by this time £1,000,000 in that Treasury in respect of the agricultural grant which was given to us by this country, but which stopped on its way, and now to try to raise out of Ireland this amount is a shabby operation, and I do not think it comes well from the Government to press it.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I think that, at all events, the Irish Members should emphasise their protest against this very shabby section, and upon the action of the Government, by pressing this matter to a Division. I think it

    575
    will end just like every other Division that we have had in this Debate, and will go one way; but I think we owe it to our constituencies not to let it be said or supposed that we allowed this clause to pass into the Bill in silence. Now, this section says—
    The Local Government Board and commissioner of valuation respectively may, with the consent of the Treasury as to number and remuneration, appoint and remove such officers and other persons as they or he may think necessary for the purpose of any adjustment under this part of this Act or otherwise for purpose if any work to be done for carrying this Act into effect if such adjustment is made or work is done within twelve months after the commencement thereof, and the remuneration and expenses of all officers and other persons so appointed shall be defrayed out of the money standing to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account under the Local Taxation (Ireland) Estate Duty Act of 1896."
    So far as I can see, we have no means of checking that expense, and in my opinion there ought to be a provision that all expenses of this nature should come out of the Treasury. This is a great Act which is instituting a revolution in the local government of Ireland, and I think all the expenses incidental to carrying it out and setting it afloat ought to be paid out of moneys given by Parliament. I do not think that we ought in any way to diminish the local taxation fund. I do not know any way of checking this; everything is done with the secrecy of red tape, and though protests may be made and notices may appear in the public press, the people will not be able to check the expenditure.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Upon purely national grounds I am forced to join my honourable Friends opposite. Whatever is done should in my opinion be done out of the Consolidated Fund. Whatever payment may have to be made under this Bill ought to be made out of the fund, or out of money supplied for that purpose by a fund provided by Parliament. This clause, as I read it, provides that the money shall be provided not by an interception of a certain tax, but by an interception of an interception, and I think such an interception should not be made in favour of this Bill, and if
    576
    the matter goes to a Division I shall for the first time this Session vote against Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: So far as I am aware, the only provision in the English Act for payment of expenses by local authority is in respect to local matters. I know of no other provision which throws upon any authority, except out of the moneys provided by Parliament, the heavy expenses of carrying a Bill into effect. The work of the local government bodies in England has enormously increased between 1890 and 1894. In this case a large number of officers were appointed, and there was even a departmental committee to inquire into that increased work of the Local Government Board, and it recommended that there should be increased expenditure, and that expenditure ought to be made out of a Parliamentary fund.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The salaries will not be paid by the Local Government Board. The extra work will create extra officials, and those will be paid by Irish funds. That was not all. After the English Act of 1888, every local authority in England sent out questions to the Local Government Board and demanded an answer. Additional officials had to be employed at once, and there was a great increase throughout England. The same thing, of course, would occur in Ireland; clerks of unions would consult the Local Government Board on questions that arose exactly as was done in England. Thin pressure of expenditure in Ireland would be exactly corresponding to the work done by the extra officials appointed in England, for which the Treasury paid; and, what was more, the work done by those gentlemen was a comparatively small part of the work. Though they worked hard and did excellent work, still the work they did was very much smaller than the work thrown upon the Local Government Board in connection with one Act for which the Treasury charged nothing at all. The Local Government Act of 1894 in England, referring to district councils and other authorities which had less local assistance than the county

    577
    councils, threw a still wider measure of work upon the Local Government Board. This Act in Ireland, of course, took the place of both Acts in England. In England there was no provision throwing any part of the administrative expense upon the local authorities. There was another part of another Act which might be looked upon as a parallel—the English Agricultural Hating Act. In the Act extra, work was thrown upon the Local Assessment Committee. That was done, of course, without payment. But in addition to that there was large extra work thrown upon the Local Government Board under the English Act—a very large amount of extra work—and he never heard that the local authorities had to pay for that extra work thrown upon the Local Government Board. Members of the Local Government Board had informed them of how the work of the Department had been enormously in creased by the English Agricultural Hating Act. So far as he was aware, that extra departmental work in England was paid for out of money provided by Parliament. If the only precedent on which the right honourable Gentleman relied was the provisions on the English Act of 1888, which threw upon local authorities the costs of the arbitrations between different local authorities, and lase the charges of the inspector who held the local inquiry, he ventured to think he had not proved his analogy. It was objectionable as a precedent; if these administrative expenses were to be paid out of Irish funds, Parliament lost control over them. There would be no means of questioning the salaries of those officials employed in tin work which ought to come under tin new Department. It was objectionable on Imperial principles, and it was doubly objectionable, on Irish principles. He ventured to think that though it we defended on an English analogy, it did not bear out that case. He should not object if the English analogy had been followed in the case of local inquiries,
    578
    and the sum charged for the official conduct of the inquiries; he would assent to that. But this was going very much further. There would be an enormous, number of extra officials employed in Dublin, such as clerks, and so forth. He believed that the honourable Member for East Mayo had greatly under-estimated the amount, of expense which would be thrown upon the Irish funds. To say that all these men who were employed in purely administrative work were to be paid directly out of the Irish funds was, he ventured to think, distinctly unjust.
    MR. DILLONsaid that in his opinion., the objections to this proposal on Irish grounds were exceedingly strong, and the general objections on the ground of principle, from the financial point of view, and from the House of Commons' point of view, were equally strong. The right honourable Gentleman has pointed to the provisions of another Act on which he relied, but it was not analogous at all. But, even in the case of the English analogy, what happened was this, that the sum taken from the local bodies was paid into the Exchequer, and then the expenses of administration must have been voted by Parliament. The principle recommended was a vexatious one, and, if the system were extensively resorted to, would be perfectly intolerable. He proposed that they divide.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that in the case of England there was no fund out of which this expense could be paid; it would be easy, however, to move for a return of the accounts under this section, so that the whole question of policy and expenditure could be raised on the Local Government Board Vote.
    Question put—
    "That sub-section (1) stand part of the clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 88.—(Division List No. 120.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Monk, Charles James

    Ascroft, Robert

    Folkestone, Viscount

    More, Robert Jasper

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Fry, Lewis

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Baird, John Geo. Alexander

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Garfit, William

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Purvis, Robert

    Beach, Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gourley, Sir Edward T.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx.)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Brassey, Albert

    Gretton, John

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Spencer, Ernest

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hardy, Laurence

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Carlile, William Walter

    Heath, James

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs., N.)

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs)

    Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUny)

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Jeffreyss, Arthur Frederick

    Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert M.

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Cox, Robert

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Kenyon, James

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Lafone, Alfred

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

    Wilson, J. W. (Wore, N.)

    Drucker, A.

    Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Maclure, Sir John William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane.)

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Mr. Austruther.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Meysey Thompson, Sir H. M.

    NOES.

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Daly, James

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Asher, Alexander

    Dane, Richard M.

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Dillon, John

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbysh.)

    Doughty, George

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Billson, Alfred

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Blake, Edward

    Field, William (Dublin)

    Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

    Brunner, Sir John T.

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Caldwell, James

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    Leng, Sir John

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Harwood, George

    Macalecse, Daniel

    Cawley, Frederick

    Hayden, John Patrick

    McDonnell, Dr.M. A. (Qn.'sCo.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    MacNeill, John G. Swift

    Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    McCalmont, Mj -Gn. (Ant'm, N.)

    collery, Bernard

    Healy, T. M. (Louth, W.)

    McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.)

    Colville, John

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    McCartan, Michael

    Crilly, Daniel

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Hogan, James Francis

    M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

    580

    581

    Maddison, Fred.

    Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    Murnaghan, George

    Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Shee, James John

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Sonttar, Robinson

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Sir Thomas Esmonde and

    O'Kelly, James

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Captain Donelan.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 47, line 33, leave out sub-section (2)."'—(Major Jameson.)
    MAJOR JAMESONsaid there were no such officers. They were mainly clerks of the Local Government Board; they were not officers at all, and they were to be foisted on to them. He hoped the Chief Secretary would reconsider the matter and allow the clause to be amended. It could do no possible good, but would do a great deal of harm.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR,in reply to a remark from Mr. M. HEALY, said they were not county officers.
    MR. FLYNNasked if they were now entitled to superannuation?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No.
    Mr. FLYNNsaid they had no objection to any of the officers receiving the remuneration they were in the habit of receiving, but it placed them in a more advantageous position at the expense of newly-elected bodies, which was a system against which they protested. He would like to see them get proper remuneration, but he did not agree with the idea of giving them a better position and then giving them superannuation. On the general subject of superannuation, they on his side would have something to say on the new clauses the right honourable Gentleman brought forward, but here was a kind of advance guard of that principle, and they certainly objected to it. He advised his friends very strongly against putting gentlemen, at the expense of the local ratepayers, in a better position than they stood at present. If they were really entitled to super-annuation, he for one would not object.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid they had a moral, if not a legal, right to super-annuation at the present time.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid either the clause was necessary, or it was not. Either it granted them superannuation which they had not got, or it was unnecessary. There was no escape from it. The Government had taken a stand, with which he largely agreed, in refusing to increase superannuation to any existing officer, or to create compulsory superannuation where it was not in existence at the time, of the passing of this Act. But here, in regard to some of their own officers in the Castle or the Customs House—some of their own. gang—they provided superannuation by this clause. The Government said that they would let the law of superannuation stand; the would not alter it. Existing officers either had the right or not. If they had the right, it was independent of the Act. If they were without the right, then there was no escape from the position that they were doing something for these officers which they had refused to do for the general body of officers.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that under the existing Act these men would be entitled to a pension; but this Bill changed their position, and the intention was to safeguard their rights to a pension.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsuggested that the Chief Secretary should ascertain whether under the existing law these officers came within the Superannuation Act of 1869. If that were so, it was reasonable that the clause should stand as it was. It. was a matter that could be ascertained by inquiry. There were a great many officers who did not

    583
    come under that head. Originally these accounts were audited by a Master in Chancery, and the work was done by clerks in the Master of Chancery's office. It would be well to ascertain whether they were now entitled, after a certain number of years, to come under the Act of 1869, and, if so, they were entitled to have the same advantage as before.
    MR. FIELDsaid that, notwithstanding the good case made out on the previous evening in regard to attendants in lunatic asylums, they were met by strong opposition on the ground that there was to be no chancre in the superannuation of officers. The right honourable Gentleman had not given any explanation in regard to those officers to whom he proposed to grant superannuation. If men engaged as lunatic asylum attendants would not receive superannuation, he could not understand why those privileged individuals who belonged to grand juries should receive superannuation. He thought Irish Members should vote against the proposal.
    MR. SHEEsubmitted the sub-section was unnecessary, as it left the law exactly as it was under the Act of 1869.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It alters their position and safeguards their rights.
    SIR W. FOSTER: As there is no new right of superannuation, it simply continues the right they had under the Act of 1869.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is a very complicated Measure. I am perfectly satisfied that these men have a moral right to superannuation, and it is necessary to safeguard them. I feel confident that it will not put them in a better position than they are now.
    MR. FIELD: Attendants in lunatic asylums have a stronger moral right, because their position demands on their part more care and attention.
    MR. JORDANagreed that no new rights should be created as to superannuation.
    SIR W. FOSTERthought that, having received an assurance from the Chief Secretary, they might well allow the matter to be reconsidered on Report. So far as he understood, there were no new rights of superannuation given by this, clause, and if any defects in it were discovered he had no doubt that the Chief Secretary would take steps to remedy them.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he was prepared to state clearly on the Report exactly what was intended by these provisions.
    Amendment negatived without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 48, line 6, at end, add—
    "(3) No future officer shall be appointed by the Local Government Board save after open, competitive examination, to be conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners."—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
    MR. VESEY KNOXdesired to protest against exceptional temporary appointments, and the constant tendency of the departments to make what he would not call jobs, but appointments which had not been gained by open competitive examinations. It. was a mystery, when appointments to the Civil Service were supposed to be only available after open competitive examinations, that such an enormous, number of Irish Civil Service officers, should be able to enter by the back, stairs of Dublin Castle. He had been unable to discover the real reason for it, but there is no doubt that the officials in Dublin Castle had been able to secure an exemption from the ordinary Civil Service rules of an enormous number of candidates for temporary posts in Irish administration, which only ceased to be regarded as temporary when it came to be a question of superannuation. He thought it was extremely objectionable; in a case like this, when a large number of men would be required, that they should be unable to obtain appointments except after an open competitive examination. He confessed that he should be glad to see that applicants for employment under the local authorities should be elected only after open

    585
    competitive examinations, and so far as the departments affected by this Bill were concerned, he failed to see why that should not be the case. Under the Census Commission, the clerks obtained their posts only by open competitive examinations, and he failed to see any reason why the same rule should not apply to clerks under this clause. Of course, they would not be first-class clerks, and they would be only temporary clerks at a small salary, but still he failed to see why these appointments should be obtainable by anyone who had private influence, and should not be filled up in the regular way of Civil Service examination.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURpointed out that, as these appointments would be only temporary, Civil Service examinations would be inapplicable.
    MR. VESEY KNOXsaid, of course, in regard to these appointments the Chief Secretary was beyond suspicion, but there were strong forces at work behind the officials in the endeavour to worm men into appointments without their passing an open competitive examination, such as was ordinarily required in the Civil Service. The favourite dodge was to get these favoured persons appointed to temporary posts, and when they once attained that position they advanced to permanent berths. The Census Commission was an illustration of his argument. There the clerks were employed for only about a year, and they were just, the same class of clerks as those who would be required in connection with this Act; and he failed to see why one rule should apply to appointments under the Census Commission and another rule to persons receiving appointments under the Local Government Board. Why should they have a right to appoint a large number of clerks all over the country as a job every year? The Chief Secretary said these appointments were only for one year, and the Civil Service examinations would not apply to them, but Civil Service examinations were constantly held, and the machinery was ready at any time, so that candidates could attend the examinations in Dublin without incurring any great expense, and there was no doubt that a large number of young men
    586
    and other deserving persons would compete in examinations who, if chosen to do this work, would be much better for the purpose than those who would try to get appointed by the round-about methods which it would be necessary to adopt under this Act. Therefore he asked the Chief Secretary how he was going to choose these officers. What rule or standard was he going to have, if it was not that of an open competitive examination? How was he to know whether a person who asks for this temporary job as a clerk was accurate in his arithmetic or not? He ventured to think, although no doubt this might appear to be a very small point, that his Amendment was a crucial test of the proposed method by which men were to gain entrance into the Irish Civil Service. He would like to know why any man should gain a post, whether temporary or permanent, or whether highly paid or lowly paid, except by the method of open competitive examination. In America, he believed, this test was considered to be a necessity of the principle of good government. By some the doctrine of the "spoils to the victor" was condemned. They saw that in English papers "Tammany" was denounced because it did not appoint officials by examination. They found that American officials were denounced in English papers for appointing officials for four years from amongst their own friends, and not from the Civil Service; but here they were going to appoint a whole host of officials, amounting to not less than a thousand officials, who would be required for the purposes of this section, and they were to be appointed without any test at all. The authorities would know nothing as to whether they could do a rule-of-three sum accurately, although their work would be mainly arithmetic; yet they would be appointed by the favour of officials at Dublin Castle. He protested most strongly against this proposal. It would lead to endless complaints of unfairness, if not of actual jobbery, and the Chief Secretary would be quite unable, by himself, to ascertain whether or not these who were recommended to him for appointments were fit for them. Members of Parliament would have a crowd of people applying to them to use their influence to get them appointed to these

    587
    posts. He ventured to think that, for the sake of his own. peace of mind, for a year or two the Chief Secretary should accept this Amendment, which he would press as being required by the principles of good government.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURpointed out that a qualifying examination would be necessary.
    MR. VESEY KNOXwas not sure that the remark of the Chief Secretary amounted to an assurance that nobody should be appointed to an office under this clause without passing even a qualifying examination. If he were assured that there would be no appointments made by mere favoritism, he should be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALYwished to remind the right honourable Gentleman of what had occurred in regard to the staffing of the Land Commission, which was wholly under the direction of the Treasury and the Government. They took over the officers of the Church Temporalities Commissioners, and he raised the point that it was unfair that the Land Commission should be staffed solely from a body of Scotchmen and by men of one religion and nationality. He got a distinct pledge from the Attorney General of the day, which would be found in "Hansard," that the office should be staffed fairly, but that promise was broken, and the Church Temporalities Commission's officers were placed in the office of the Land Commission, and there they were to this day. The result was that wherever Irishmen went in Dublin, if they turned the handle of an office door, they were met by an alien and an enemy who would like, if he could, to restore the pitch cap and the triangle, and repeal the Catholic Emancipation
    Act. Men with influence could put a nephew or a cousin, no matter how distant, into these posts without his passing a qualifying examination, and before they knew where they were he might imitate the boast of the Admiral, in "H.M.S. Pinafore"—
    "That pass-examination did so well for me That now I'm the ruler of the Queen's Navee."
    If a man were appointed in this way, without the regular Civil Service examination, when once he got his finger inside the office door, he might be gradually pushed up to the top of the Department. In the lists of the officers in these departments it would be found that the same family name was perpetuated for successive generations, for they always had a son or a relative ready for a job, and when once put in he blossomed, like the rest, and in three or four years' time lie would be hoisted over the head of some officer who was entitled, under the Civil Service system, to promotion. In that way the whole of Dublin Castle was absolutely handed over to people who were anti-Irish, anti-National, and anti-Catholic.
    SIR T. LEAdid not think it was possible, under present circumstances, that the Amendment could be accepted, but he would recommend the Chief Secretary to lay it down that there should be a qualifying examination, and provide that in no case should a man be considered fit for a Civil Service appointment if he had the recommendation of a Member of Parliament.
    Question put—
    "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided—Ayes 74; Noes 129.—(Division List No. l21.)

    AYES.

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Collery, Bernard

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Asher, Alexander

    Colville, John

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Crilly, Daniel

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Gourley, Sir Edward T.

    Billson, Alfred

    Daly, James

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    Caldwell, James

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Harwood, George

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Cawley, Frederick

    Doughty, George

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)

    Field, William (Dublin)

    Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.)

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    Maddison, Fred.

    Shee, James John

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Hogan, James Francis

    Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Souttar, Robinson

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Murnaghan, George

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Sullivan, T D. (Donegal, W.)

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Kitson, Sir James

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

    Weir, James Galloway

    Macaleese, Daniel

    O'Kelly, James

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    McDonnell, Dr. M. A.(Qn'sCo.)

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    MacNeill, John G. Swift

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    McCartan, Michael

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Mr. Knox and Mr. Maurice

    M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

    Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)

    Healy.

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Galloway, William Johnson

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

    Baird, John Geo. Alexander

    Garfit, William

    Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gedge, Sydney

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

    Barry, Rt HnAHSmit-(Hunts)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Purvis, Robert

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs)

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Gretton, John

    Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx.)

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Bowles. T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Brassey, Albert

    Hardy, Laurence

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Heath, James

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    Spencer, Ernest

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Howard, Joseph

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Johnson-Ferguson. Jabez E.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J. (Birm.)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf dUny)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kenyon, James

    Thorburn, Walter

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lafone, Alfred

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Cox, Robert

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Wilson, J. W. (Wore, N.)

    Dlbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    McCalmont, Mj-Gn. (Ant'm.N.)

    Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

    Dane, Richard M.

    McCalmont, Col. J.(Ant'm, E.)

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    McKillop. James

    Wylie, Alexander

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Drucker, A.

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Milbank, Powlett Charles J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn K.

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Sir William Walrond and

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir j. (Mane.)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Monk, Charles James

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause 76 was then added to the Bill.
    Clause 77 was agreed to
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 6, after clause 13, insert the following clause:—

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "' (1) A county council shall annually contribute towards any county infirmary or fever hospital which is situate in their county or to which, though situate elsewhere, they are by statute empowered to contribute, and to any officer thereof a sum not less than was so contributed out of the county cess in the standard year, or any less minimum which the Local Government Board sanction.
    "' (2) Every county infirmary shall be managed, and the admission of patients thereto controlled by a joint committee appointed triennially, consisting of such number of members of the corporation of the "governor or governesses of the infirmary" appointed by the corporation, and of such number of members of the county council appointed by the council as the Local Government Board from time to time fix in the case of each infirmary, having regard as well to the proportion of the contribution out of the county cess or the poor rate towards the building and maintenance of the infirmary as to all the other circumstances of the case; and all powers vested in the corporation in relation to the infirmary shall be exercised only by the said committee; and every member of the committee shall have the same power of recommendation as a governor.
    "' (3) Where the councils of two or more counties contribute to the same county infirmary, each of those councils shall be represented on the said committee.
    "' (4) The foregoing provisions with respect to the management of a county infirmary shall extend to every fever hospital which is vested in the corporation of the "president and assistants of the hospital."
    "' (5) Where the boundary of a county for which an infirmary or hospital has been provided is altered by or in pursuance of this Act, the contribution to be made to such infirmary or hospital shall be a subject of adjustment, and the Local Government Board in making such adjustment may provide for the representation of the council of any contributing county upon the said committee.
    "' (6) Nothing in this Act shall deprive any existing officer of any infirmary or hospital to which this section applies of my privileges enjoyed by him under any Act, and such officer shall not be removed from his office except with the consent of the Local Government Board, but, subject as aforesaid, every officer of the hospital or infirmary may be appointed and removed by the committee appointed under this section.
    "'(7) Any county councils may agree for the contribution by one council to the county infirmary or fever hospital of the other council
    592
    on such conditions as to the admission to the infirmary or hospital of patients from the county of the contributing council and the representation of that council on the committee for managing the infirmary or hospital as may be agreed upon.
    "' (8) The Charities (Ireland) Act, 1832, and section eighty-one of The Grand Jury Act, 1836, are hereby repealed.'"—(Mr. Gerald Belfour.)
    MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that there were several cases which would not be covered by this clause, and urged that there should be a better system of representation.
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval—
    MR. DALYsaid he wished to draw the attention of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the fact that in many counties the infirmary was kept up at the expense of the cesspayers, but was so situated as to be of very little benefit to a large number of cesspayers.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I recognise the hardship in the inconvenient situation of some of the county infirmaries to which the honourable Member calls attention, but it is a hardship which will, not be increased under this Bill. I cannot see how I can remedy it, and I do not see my way to make any alteration.
    MR. DANE: I wish to call attention to the fact that there is no provision in this clause which will enable a county council to rebuild, or restart, an infirmary which may have ceased to exist. All sections of the Irish representatives are at one in the opinion that these county infirmaries ought to be preserved and carried on, and that ample power should be given by the Bill to the county councils to put them into condition. I hope the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will consider this matter. I ask the right honourable Gentleman to give the county councils power to raise money for the purpose of repairing, rebuilding, and enlarging these infirmaries, and of restarting them in those counties where, by reason of the large cesspayers having

    593
    refused to pay they have ceased to exist.
    MR. FLYNN: Whatever is done, something must be left to private charity, and if the county councils contribute a sum towards the up-keep of these institutions that is as much as can reasonably be expected of them. I think the Government are working on the right lines in giving the county councils power to contribute to the up-keep of the county infirmaries.
    MR. TULLY: I would point out that county infirmaries and workhouse hospitals often exist in the same district. I do not wish to see those institutions abolished, but I would suggest that if the two are not wanted the county councils should be left with discretion to amalgamate them, or abolish one of them.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I hope the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will give careful consideration to the desirability of maintaining these county infirmaries in all their efficiency. The county Down infirmary is the one of which I know most, and it has been brought to a high state of efficiency. I hope the county infirmaries all through Ireland will be maintained in a state of thorough efficiency.
    MR. JORDAN: I think the Government are most wise in their policy towards the infirmaries, and this clause deserves the strongest support. The county infirmaries are a most valuable half-way house between the workhouse hospital and the private doctor. In order to encourage (he local subscriptions to these institutions, as many of the old governors as possible should be put upon the board as governors or members of the Committee.
    SIR R. P. FITZGERALD: The question narrows itself down to this: Are you going to give representation in the future to the private sub-scribers to these hospitals, or not? That is the real point that has come out in this discussion. I am not quite sure if the Amendment of the honourable
    594
    Member for Londonderry does not meet the case, but before we come to that I wish to put it to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the reason why batter attendance and greater conveniences are found in these institutions is that private subscriptions are given by people in the districts. Another reason why these hospitals should not be allowed to go to the wall, or be placed in a worse position in the future than at present, is that the local subscriber knows the individual cases of illness or accident in his own district, and personally has the power, in return for his subscription, of sending one, two, or three patients to be treated either in the hospital or as an outpatient. This is a matter of the greatest possible importance, because, in many cases, the patient is unwilling to go into the hospital, and it requires the pressure of those who know him to induce him to enter the institution. I am afraid that this clause will do something to take away the power of inspection and the power of sending patients to the hospitals, and, in consequence, will lessen the subscriptions voluntarily given by Irishmen.
    MR. DILLON: We are all in favour of the principle of this clause, and I suggest that we should leave the clause and proceed to the Amendment. We are only wasting time now.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 5, after 'sanction,' insert—
    "Where a county is divided by this Act into a county and a county borough, the county borough shall annually contribute a sum not less than was paid by the cesspayers of the county borough or out of any rate levied in lieu of cess towards such contribution in the standard year, or such sum as may bear the same proportion to any less minimum sanctioned by the Loral Government Board as the sum so paid bore to the sum paid by the cesspayers of the county outside the county borough, and the balance shall be paid by the county council; and the county and the county borough shall share the representation hereinafter provided for in proportion to their relative contributions."—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
    MR. VESEY KNOXsaid the Amendment related to cases which were not

    595
    met by the Government at all. Some provision would be necessary to enable these infirmaries to be continued. He did not suppose the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would overlook cases like those provided for in his Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the point raised in the Amendment of the honourable Member had already been dealt with by sub-section 5 of the new clause, which was as follows—
    "Where the boundary of a county for which an infirmary or hospital has been provided is altered by, or in pursuance of, this Act, the contribution to be made to such infirmary or hospital shall be a subject of adjustment, and the Local Government Board in making such adjustment may provide for the representation of the council of any contributing county upon the said committee."
    The Government, however, would be prepared to consider whether some alteration could not be made in the wording of sub-section 5 so as to meet the views of the honourable Member.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: If the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will look into the question I have no desire to press my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause read a second time.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 5, after 'sanction,' insert—
    "Where at the passing of this Act a county infirmary is in course of erection and the amount subscribed is insufficient to complete the work, it shall be the duty of the county council to provide for the amount outstanding, either by means of a loan from the Board of Works or in such way as the council may decide."—(Mr. Murnaghan.)
    MR. DANEdirected attention again to the cases of the maintenance, repair, and enlargement of existing hospitals, which, it was agreed on all sides, ought to be maintained.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It will be convenient if I state the object of the Government in moving this new clause. It was feared by many that, with the transference of the powers of grand
    596
    juries to county councils, county infirmaries would be very likely left out in the cold, and that the subscriptions hitherto made to these institutions by the grand juries would no longer be maintained by the new bodies, and that, consequently, these institutions would come to grief. We provided against that by what is in itself a somewhat strong provision—namely, that the county councils should be empowered to subscribe to these county infirmaries as much as the grand juries did in the past. The Government grant has been given in respect of the contribution hitherto made by the grand juries to these institutions, and the county councils will have the benefit of some portion of the grant contributed by the grand juries in the past. If it had not been for that, I should have felt some hesitation in putting upon these bodies an obligation to contribute the same sum its the grand juries, who were not compelled to contribute, but who contributed voluntarily. Now we are asked by this Amendment to go further, and to say that, in the case of an infirmary which is being built by means of private subscriptions, we should absolutely compel the county council to come to the assistance of these private subscribers, and complete the building for them. Of course, if we do so, it is obvious that the private subscribers will subscribe nothing further. That is not a proposition which the Government can receive. If the suggestion were to insert a provision that the county council might, if they please, contribute money towards the erection or maintenance of an infirmary that is being built by private subscription, and if that suggestion is agreeable to all sections of Irish representatives, I shall take care to insert a sub-section in the clause giving effect to it. But I should like an assurance that that would be generally agreeable to the Irish representatives.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I think the terms offered by the Chief Secretary are very reasonable. The clause as amended by the honourable Member for the Tyrone Division [Mr. MURNAGHAN] would only apply to a very few infirmaries. I believe it does apply to an infirmary in which I am immediately interested—the infirmary of Tyrone; but I do not at all

    597
    rely upon the interest which I may have in that institution. I think it would he quite reasonable and fair to leave it to the discretion of the different county councils whether they will or will not contribute to complete the structure of a particular infirmary. For my part I think we ought to be satisfied with what has been said by the Chief Secretary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 5, after 'sanction,' insert—
    '"As regards the county of Cork, the county council, in addition to any contribution made by them towards the South Charitable Infirmary and County Hospital, situate in the city of Cork, may, if they think fit, contribute annually towards the North Infirmary and City of Cork General Hospital, situate in the said city, a sum not exceeding seven hundred pounds per annnum, and the said county council may also from time to time make such other grants as it may deem expedient to any other public hospital in the said city; provided always that the total amount of the contributions made by the said county council towards hospitals and infirmaries shall not exceed the sum of two thousand pounds per annum."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALY: The effect of this clause is to put the county of Cork, the largest in Ireland, on exactly the same footing as the smallest county in Ireland. Nobody, however, can doubt that so far from there being a general uniformity of circumstances with regard to these infirmaries, there is, on the contrary, a great diversity. I will illustrate my point by mentioning the case of Dublin. How would it be to put hospitals in Dublin on the same level as the hospitals in the smaller towns, and to limit the contributions in the same way as you would limit them under this Bill? Take another aspect of the matter. Infirmaries in such a place as Dublin do good not merely by alleviating human suffering, but they do good by enabling important medical schools to be continued, and that is pre-eminently the case in Cork. In Cork we have the most important medical school in Ireland, and if it were not for the existence of the two important infirmaries in the city of Cork it would be absolutely impossible for the medical school which exists there, and which has sent out distinguished medical
    598
    men, to be continued. Now, the position in Cork is somewhat exceptional. It comprises two county areas—the county at large and the county of the city. The grant by the city grand jury to these two infirmaries—the north infirmary and the south infirmary—has been equally divided between them. In the county, on the other hand, you have one infirmary situate not actually in the city of Cork, but at Mallow, and it is to that infirmary alone that the county of Cork can contribute. Some years ago the infirmary for the county of Cork was transferred to the city of Cork and amalgamated with one of the city infirmaries which, exist there. Accordingly you nave at present in the city of Cork, first the north infirmary, and secondly the south infirmary, which, in addition to being the city infirmary, is also the infirmary to the county at large. Well, Sir, as regards the grant, the condition of things is most anomalous. The Corporation of the city of Cork, which has a population of only 75,000 people, contributes £2,100 to the hospitals of the city, £700 to the north infirmary, £700 to the south infirmary, and £700 to the fever hospital. On the other hand, the great county of Cork, which shares in the benefits of these institutions, only contributes £700 a year, and contributes that to one of those institutions alone. Therefore you will have this state of things as regards the south infirmary, that the city will be compelled to contribute, while that infirmary takes, on the other hand, the contributions from the county of Cork; and on the other hand you have the north infirmary taking grants only from the city. The grand jury of the county of Cork, when they took this matter into consideration, especially asked that the county of Cork should have the power to contribute to those city hospitals, besides the south infirmary, and that is what I propose to do by the Amendment on the Paper. I do not ask that the grant to the Cork infirmary should be made compulsory on the county council, but I ask that it shall be in the power of the county council to contribute to the north infirmary, and to any of the other city hospitals in Cork which they may think fit There are a very large number of deserving institutions in the city doing great good, and doing that good to the

    599
    county as well as to the city, and I think the right honourable Gentleman will see that it is not fair to treat the hospitals in the county of Cork exactly as you would treat the case of an ordinary Irish county. As I have said, Cork is the largest county of Ireland, the city of Cork is the most favourably situated in the way of railway accommodation to serve the whole county in the matter of infirmary accommodation, and local bodies very much desire to have the power which the Amendment would give them.
    MR. SMITH BARRY: I do not wish to unnecessarily take up the time of the Committee beyond expressing the opinion that I think the Amendment is an exceedingly proper proposal, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it. I, for my part, most heartily support it.
    MR. FLYNN: I trust the right honourable Gentleman will accept the Amendment. The city of Cork is strongly in favour of the proposal brought forward by the honourable Member, and I hope the Government will trust the Cork council with that power.
    MR. ATKINSON: However desirable it may be that these institutions shall have this support, the proposal is outside the scope of the clause. As there are apprehensions that county infirmaries may be starved by reason of the negligence of the new councils to continue the grants hitherto made by grand juries, provision is made to compel a continuance of the contributions, and to seeure representation on the governing bodies; but the present proposal goes far beyond that, and embodies provisions more appropriate to a private Bill. It may be very desirable that councils should be empowered to make such contributions, and in other localities there may be institutions in connection with which special circumstances may justify such assistance; but the matter is, in a sense, sprung upon the Government, and I would ask the honourable Member to postpone the Amendment to the Report stage, allowing the opportunity to consider the circumstances as
    600
    affecting Cork and other localities, should there be such, and to frame a general clause to meet all cases.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I understand that there is a very considerable feeling in the city and the county of Cork with regard to the proposal, and I do not think a single voice will be raised by any class of the community against enabling at power of this kind to be given.
    SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I think there are peculiar circumstances connected with the city and county of Cork which justify the acceptance of the honourable Member's Amendment.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I merely desire to corroborate what has been said by the honourable Member for the City of Cork and the honourable Member for North Louth as to the general feeling in the county of Cork in favour of the Amendment.
    MR. M. HEALY: I must thank the right honourable Gentleman for the assurance he has given me. On the strength of that assurance I withdraw the Amendment
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. M. HEALYhad also given notice of the following Amendment—
    "The council of the county borough of Cork, in addition to the two sums of seven hundred pounds per annum which it is, at the date of the passing of this Act, authorised to contribute towards the South Charitable Infirmary and County Hospital and the North Infirmary and City of Cork General Hospital respectively, and the sum which it is at the said date authorised to contribute to the Cork Fever Hospital may, if it thinks fit, contribute a further sum not exceeding in the whole five hundred pounds per annum to such public hospital or hospitals in the city of Cork as it may think fit, on such conditions as to the admission to the infirmary or hospital of patients from the county borough and the representation of the council on the committee for managing the infirmary or hospital as may be agreed upon."
    MR. M. HEALY: Having regard to what the right honourable Gentleman has said, I will not move the second Amendment, but I hope he will consider it at the same time.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 10, leave out 'members of the county council,' and insert 'persons.'''—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I do not think it is desirable to restrict the representation of the county councils upon these infirmaries to members of the county councils. There are many cases in which clergymen, for instance, who are not eligible to become members of the county councils would be most desirable representatives if they could be placed on the board of governors. It would be very difficult, I think, in many cases to get members of the county council to give constant attention to matters of this kind, whereas clergymen who minister at the infirmary can attend to the work without my very great interference with existing duties. I venture to think it is desirable where, as in some cases, it is difficult to get members of the county council to undertake the duties, to appoint other persons.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had no objection to the principle of the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 18, after 'governor,' insert—
    "In the case of the South Charitable Infirmary and County Hospital, situate in the city of Cork, such joint committee as aforesaid shall be appointed by the corporation of trustees therefor, the county council of the county of Cork, and the town council of the county borough of Cork, in such proportion as the Local Government Board from time to time fix in manner aforesaid; and in the casa of the North Infirmary and City of Cork General Hospital, such joint committee as aforesaid shall be appointed by the corporation of trustees therefor, the town council of the county borough of Cork, and (if and so long as the county council of the county of Cork shall make an annual contribution towards it) the said county council, in such proportion as the Local Government Board from time to time fix in manner aforesaid."—(Mr. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALY: I shall be quite willing to reserve the Amendment to a later stage if the Government ask me to do so, but I should just like to say a few words to explain its object. Under the General Infirmary
    602
    Act of 1889, the governing body of an infirmary is the governor or governors. In Cork, however, the circumstances are different. The South Charitable Infirmary and County Hospital, instead of having a board of governors, have a board of trustees. The right honourable Gentleman will see, therefore, that this clause does not cover the case of Cork at all. The reference to the "governor or governors" of an infirmary would be meaningless in the case of a body which is governed by trustees. All my Amendment does is to provide that the board of trustees, in the case of Cork, shall stand in the same place as board of governors elsewhere in regard to the appointment of a joint committee. The Amendment does not touch the principle of the clause; it simply modifies it so as to meet the case of Cork.
    MR. ATKINSON: I would suggest that the Amendment should stand over.
    MR. M. HEALY: I have no objection to that.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 33, after 'privileges,' insert 'salaries and allowances.'"—(Sir W. Foster.)
    SIR W. FOSTER: The object of the Amendment is to give the surgeons of infirmaries the same privileges in the future that they have had up to the present time. At the present time the surgeons connected with the infirmaries are voted a certain sum by the grand jury. In addition to that they have other sources of income, a further sum being devoted to their allowances from the voluntary contributions Which are received. It is feared by many people that when this Bill passes the contributions to these infirmaries from outside sources will fall off, and that the officials in question will consequently suffer. I think it would be an injustice to these officials if by the passing of this Act any such accident as that should overtake them. I do not, however, think any such accident as that will overtake hem. I think the risk is exceedingly slight. I do not think the subscribers are likely to fall off. As far as I amble to form, an opinion, I believe the whole of the local life of Ireland will

    603
    be revivified and renewed by the passing of this Measure. Men will have greater opportunities of taking an interest in local affairs than they have enjoyed under the existing law, and I do not, therefore, see why we should regard it as likely that there should be any falling off of public interest in the maintenance of these infirmaries. I think the risk of the imposition of any extra charge on the ratepayers in consequence of this Amendment is exceedingly slight. But even if such a thing did occur, I think it might very well be said that all the work done by these infirmaries is work which contributes to the common good, and in the end will lessen the charges on the ratepayers. To my mind, while the Amendment aims simply at keeping the medical officials in the same position which they have occupied hitherto, it is not likely to make any extra charge upon the ratepayers, and on that ground, therefore, I hope the right honourable Gentleman opposite will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived without a Division, Mr. GERALD BALFOUR promising to let the question stand over for further inquiry.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 41, after 'upon,' insert—
    "No ecclesiastical person shall, in right of his dignity or office, be entitled to be a governor or trustee of such infirmary or fever hospital as aforesaid."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps the honourable Member will explain what he means.
    MR. M. HEALY: By an old Irish Act, the Secretary and some of the governors of the North Cork infirmary have votes simply because they are ecclesiastics—that is preposterous. In the case of the general law the privilege is taken away by Statute, but in the case of Cork it has not been provided for, with the result that the Archbishop of Cashel and the Archbishop of Tuam are governors.
    MR. ATKINSONwas understood to dissent.
    MR. M. HEALY: I can tell the right honourable Gentleman that they are—I am a governor myself. I know there are a number of Protestant dignitaries on the board, and I consider it preposterous to make ex-officio members of these gentlemen.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I may mention that there are a number of other cases of infirmary boards in Ireland under the same disadvantage, and I hope they will also be considered.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 46, at end, add—
    "(8) This section shall not apply to the Waterford City and County Infirmary."—(Mr. J. Redmond.)
    MR. J. REDMOND: This Amendment is designed to exempt Waterford Infirmary from the operation of the clause. I do not think it is necessary to say more than a word or two on the Amendment. The City of Waterford Infirmary stands in a peculiar position. In the year 1896 an agreement was come to with reference to the appointment of governors, and as a matter of fact it is only getting into working order. There was an old Act passed in the reign of King John under which an old leper hospital was acquired, but it was practically useless until a number of benevolent people came together and subscribed £5,000 or £6,000, making an arrangement by which the building and endowment were taken over. These benevolent people then came to Parliament at considerable expense, and got a private Bill passed empowering the grand juries to contribute in order to help on the hospital. The object is to protect infirmaries from being starved. Every provision in this clause is changing the constitution of the governing body. I do not think it is applicable to Waterford Infirmary at all. It was settled by what was, practically, a compromise of the widest possible character. On the board at present there are representatives of the old leper hospital, also of the Protestant and Catholic clergy, the City and Company High Sheriffs, the

    605
    Mayor, the Members of Parliament for the time being, as well as a number of other gentlemen. In addition, there are a certain number who are elected for a year by the donors and subscribers to the hospital. I speak here on the part of the hospital, who consider that it would be a great pity to interfere with the constitution of the board, as this clause would, especially as under the constitution of the board at present the donors have got representation as well as other public representatives in the city. I do think the Government should exempt Water-ford Infirmary from the operation of this clause.
    MR. POWER: There was a certain amount of opposition to this Bill when it was being passed through Parliament, but I think it would have been very much stronger if it had not been generally explained that this county infirmary would be subject to the laws as every other infirmary was. I think that was the general impression in my constituency of West Waterford. It was only the other day that I got a copy of a resolution from the Corporation of Waterford asking that the provisions of the Government Bill should apply to the County Waterford infirmary.
    MR. J. REDMONDwas understood to say that the Mayor of Waterford was in favour of his proposal.
    MR. POWER: Under ail the circumstances I can say, as far as my personal knowledge goes, that they were under the impression that Waterford County Infirmary would be governed by laws that apply to other counties.
    MR. SHEE: I rise, Sir, to say that I am opposed to the views of the honourable and learned Member for Waterford City on this question. There is no reason why special exception should be given to Waterford. When the Bill referred to by the honourable and learned Member was brought Forward it was clearly understood that the Government would introduce the Local Government Bill, and that very matter was referred to by the honourable Member for the City of Waterford.
    MR. J. REDMOND: No.
    MR. SHEE: The honourable Member in his speech on the Second Reading referred to the principle that would soon be introduced, and that, of course, the county infirmary would come into it. For that reason my colleague and myself, representing the County Divisions of Waterford, did not oppose the concession by which the grand jury could vote £800 a year. This section, as proposed by the Government, provides for the safeguarding of the rights of all interests. The Local Government Board will have the right to decide, having regard to the words of the section, what representation will be given to the donors and to the county council.
    MR. ATKINSONwas understood to say that the clause enabled the county council to contribute such sum as was contributed by the grand jury. As he understood the Member for Waterford, no sum was contributed, and therefore there was no compulsion.
    MR. SHEE: Will not the provisions of the County Infirmary Act remain in force?
    MR. ATKINSON: The point is what the grand jury contribute under this Act, and the second sub-section only deals with the representation of the county councils upon the governing bodies of the institutions to which the county councils contributed in 1896.
    MR. SHEE: Sub-section 2 will apply to the case of Waterford County Infirmary. The County Waterford grand jury vote £400, and according to the present clause every county infirmary shall be managed by a board appointed triennially. The Local Government Board may, under clause 1, diminish the grant, or they may allow a similar grant to be made by the county council in the subsequent three years. And having allowed that change, the Local Government Board would thus have to revise the proportion of the governors nominated by the corporation of the infirmary and the county council.
    MR. ATKINSON: The first sub-section provides that the county council will make a contribution.
    MR. SHEE: If that is the case the County Waterford Infirmary does not come under the section. This grant from the county council being voluntary, it would come under the same terms as the county of Cork in connection with the Amendment which was moved by the honourable Member for the City of Cork. If the right honourable Gentleman's interpretation of sub-clause 2 is correct, the Amendment of the honourable Member for the City of Waterford is unnecessary, and therefore I think this question ought to be reserved for consideration. I therefore ask the right honourable Gentleman to allow this question to stand over until he has an opportunity of further considering it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 46, at end, add—
    "(8) Nothing in this Act contained shall affect the mode of election of the physicians and surgeons of the Meath Hospital and County Dublin Infirmary who attend and serve the same without fee, salary, or reward."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
    SIR W. FOSTERasked what was the mode of election at the Meath Hospital which the Amendment sought to preserve.
    MR. ATKINSON: Under an old Act of George III. the medical staff undertook to forego their right to a sum about to be applied to the general maintenance of the hospital. It was afterwards recognised that the medical staff co-opted a new member on every occasion when a vacancy arose, and this clause preserves to them the right of co-option.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government are quite willing to accept any Amendment to restrict their Bill, but any Amendment to enlarge it they refuse to accept.
    MR. DILLON: I would be rather in favour of leaving the medical staff to elect their colleagues, but to state deliberately that they attend "without fee, salary, or reward," is simply ridiculous, because I know from experience that they do.
    MR. M. HEALYwas understood to ask —What about the house surgeon?
    MR. DILLON: It is monstrous to put on the Statute Book that they serve without "fee, salary, or reward." It is ridiculous to put into an Act of Parliament what everybody knows to be false. If you want to keep within the line, you should say "without salary," and leave out the words "fee, or reward."
    SIR W. FOSTER: I also think the words "without fee or reward" are too strong. There is always a reward, even if you look at it from the point of view of curing a patient. With regard to students' fees, I believe there is an explanation that all such fees are given up for the maintenance of the hospital. But even then I do not like such a system as that of co-option, and I would suggest that the last words be left out.
    MR. ATKINSON: It is only in the private Act that there is a clause which prohibits the acceptance of "fee, salary, or reward."
    MR. CLANCYsaid he was rather surprised the Government would not consent to the suggestion thrown out. He should not be surprised, because the Amendment was meant to preserve the Meath Hospital, which had been a tax on the people of Dublin for the last 50 years. Although it got £1,000 a year from the county of Dublin, where the large majority of the ratepayers were Catholics, and got £300 a year from the city—this even to the present year—out of 21 governors, only three were Catholics. The council would be ready for the future, and he hoped they would make a more tolerant use of their powers than the present governors. He was referring to this matter for the purpose of pointing to the policy pursued there. He thought it was really too much to say that when they were making the grant compulsory upon the Nationalists of Dublin, they should keep this hospital

    609
    a distinctly Protestant institution to the end of time. These honorary officers elected nobody but themselves. They were all Protestants, and, in fact, the whole thing, which ought to be managed on strictly Liberal principles, considering that Protestants and Catholics paid the money which supported it, was actually turned, so far as it possibly could be turned, into a distinctly sectarian institution. It was beyond reason to suggest that when they were changing the whole system of local government in Ireland, they should continue this offensive little body of Orange ascendency. He was surprised that the Member for South Dublin, his colleague in the representation, found himself bound, by apparent ties of allegiance to his party, to father such an Amendment as this. He knew that in private life the honourable Member was a liberal-minded man, and he believed he would not attempt to frame a clause of this character if it were not suggested to him by persons of a more bigoted frame of mind. He acquitted the honourable Member of a charge of bigotry, but he invited him and others to say whether, at the end of the 19th century, they ought to cling to such an idea. It simply meant the keeping up of Protestantism to the end of time. They knew that when popular influence became exerted in this hospital these gentlemen would find it advisable to drop their privileges, and he suggested to the honourable Member for South Dublin that the best thing he could do for the promotion of peace would be to withdraw this insulting Amendment.
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELLsaid that, so far an he know—and he knew something of the medical staff of this hospital—not a single one of the honorary medical officers was connected with the Orange institution. What was sought in this Amendment was that there should be ratified a bargain made in this institution nearly 100 years ago. First of all, it ought to be understood that there were two staffs in this infirmary—a paid and an unpaid staff. The former were not affected by the Amendment in any shape or form, and would be appointed by the newly created body. There were certain medical and surgical officers who were paid, but, as he had said, this
    610
    Amendment did not touch them directly or indirectly. On the other hand there were some physicians and surgeons connected with the institution who, so far back as 1814, in consideration of surrendering a Government grant of £100 a year, which, up to that time went into their pockets, and that being devoted and applied to the maintenance of the institution and the wants of the inmates, obtained this privilege of co-option among themselves.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: They are dead.
    MR. CLANCY: The honourable Member, with that astuteness which characterised a member of his profession, said "They are dead," but he would have thought that in the case of a corporation the rights would continue. He was convinced that the honourable Member had never read the Act of Parliament.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It is repealed.
    MR. CLANCY: He had been made aware of the fact that it was not repealed; at least, the managers of the institution had informed him to that effect. He had no reason to believe that it was repealed.
    MR. M. HEALY: The general Act under which £100 a year is given is repealed.
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELLsaid that, at, any rate, on the faith of the arrangement, which had been stereotyped in an Act of Parliament, this £100 a year, instead of going to these gentlemen, was applied to the maintenance and support of this institution, and he could see no reason why this bargain should now be sought to be broken. He said nothing now as to the religion or polities of the staff; he knew nothing; he could not tell the Committee at this moment what the religion of any of the medical and surgical staff was. He was putting the matter upon a different principle—that if there was an arrangement founded upon an Act of Parliament, that arrangement ought not to be broken or lightly put aside. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, which they had intimated their intention of doing,

    611
    for it simply provided that what Parliament had already agreed to should remain the law, so far as it applied to the honorary physicians and surgeons of the hospital. From the moment that any one of these gentlemen turned his position from an honorary one into one to which salary was attached, he ceased to be one of those who had a right to co-opt, which proceeding was strictly confined to those physicians and surgeons who continued to act without fee or emolument.
    MR. PLUNKETTsaid he could assure the Committee that he had not the slightest idea of what the religion of the doctors or surgeons or attendants or anybody else connected with this hospital was. When the Amendment was submitted to him by one of the doctors in charge it seemed to him to be a very reasonable one. The doctors had given their services gratuitously for a century and a quarter, and desired that that arrangement should be continued. However, it was extremely inconvenient that a controversy should arise at this period upon this clause, and that the Debate should be prolonged. He therefore asked his right honourable Friend to look further into the matter, and if he should see no reason for not accepting it, it might be brought up again on the Report stage.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I had no idea at all that any sectarian question is involved in this matter. It might, perhaps, be well, therefore, that I should have some time to look into the question and to consider both sides of it, and then it is possible some compromise may be arrived at.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 7, after clause 15, insert the following clause—

    "(1) The council of any county may, if they think fit, agree with the Congested Districts Board for Ireland to take over from that board any marine work in the county which has been constructed or acquired by
    612
    such board, and upon any such agreement the work shall become the public property of the county, subject nevertheless to the payment of compensation to any person other than the Congested Districts Board in like manner as if the same had been taken by the county council under the authority of a provisional order duly confirmed in pursuance of this Act.

    "(2) Where any marine work becomes vested in a county council under this section, or is or becomes public property under section sixty-eight of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, the provisions of the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1846, and the Grand Jury (Ireland) Act, 1853, relative to maintenance and repair, and as to tolls and rates, and as to by-laws, rates, orders, and regulations and otherwise, shall apply to such work as if it had been constructed by the Board of Works under the said Act of 1846, and become the public property of the county under the said Act of 1853.

    "(3) The provisions of the said Acts and of this section respecting maintenance and repair shall extend to reconstruction.

    "(4) For the purposes of this section, 'marine work' means any harbour, dock, pier, quay, wharf, beacon, light, or other similar work, and includes the approaches to any marine work as above defined, and all land and property used in connection therewith."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

    Question proposed—
    "That the clause be read a second time."
    MR. M. HEALYsaid he could not understand why the Board of Works should have power given them to fix tolls and make by-laws. He suggested that not only in the ease of these works, but of all works Landed over to the grand juries, the county council should Lave the powers of making by-laws. That was expressly recommended by the Cork grand jury, and he hoped that the Government would consider the matter.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he thought it was desirable to guard against the exaction of preferential rates.
    MR. M. HEALYsaid he thought the local body would naturally take more interest in a public work if they had really some power of management over it, together with the obligation of spending money upon it.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he hoped that no county would put the clause in operation. When a pier had to be built the usual practice at present was for the Congested Districts Board to send a

    613
    person down to the locality. One section of the community urged that the pier should be built at one spot, and another section was equally insistent on having the pier at a different spot. The result generally was that, in order to please both parties, the pier was built midway between the two rival spots selected, and at a point where no boat could enter.
    MR. PLUNKETTsaid he did not think the aspersions which had been made upon the Congested Districts Board were justified.
    Clause read a second time.
    MR. VESEY KNOXsaid the word "construction" seemed to him to be an unfortunate word. In almost, all cases where a pier was blown down it was not owing to the sea, but the way in which the pier had been built. As he understood the clause, the county council would be in a difficulty—they would be forced either to reconstruct the pier according to the old plans, or to leave it alone, for they could not go upon a more modern plan. He moved an Amendment to provide that the reconstruction of marine works should be "according to the original or any new plan."
    MR. FIELDsaid that in the case of the harbours along the south coast of Ireland the Board of Works had managed to do the wrong thing. He held that the newly-created local authorities ought to do what, was best for their localities, and not accept the schemes of engineers sent down to force their plans against the opinions of those who knew better.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would be prepared to accept the words subject to consideration.
    Amendment, agreed to and inserted.
    Clause as amended added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 10, after clause 21, insert the following clause—

    "'(1) Where an urban or rural county district in any county contains a population, according to the last published census for the time being.
    614
    exceeding 5,000, the chairman of the council for the district shall, unless a woman or personally disqualified by any Act, be by virtue of his office a justice of the peace for the county, but, except when sitting in quarter or general sessions, shall act only within the petty sessional division or divisions comprising the district, or any part of the district.

    "'(2) The chairman of the council of any urban county district who is not a justice of the peace under the foregoing provisions of this section shall, if not a woman or personally disqualified by any Act, be a justice of the peace in like manner as if he had been, appointed by the Lord Chancellor under section 29 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854.

    "'(3) A chairman, before acting as justice under this suction, shall, if he has not already done so, take the oaths required by law to be taken by a justice of the peace.

    "'(4) The power of the Lord Chancellor, under section 29 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, to select a commissioner to act as justice of the peace shall cease.

    "' (5) Nothing in this section shall apply to a borough.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he thanked the Government for this useful clause, but thought it ought not to be restricted. If inserted at all it ought also to be made to apply to boroughs. In the case of Dublin they were governed not by magistrates, but by special metropolitan magistrates, and he believed the position was similar in Belfast. It might be useful to exclude Dublin, but why exclude Cork, Limerick, or Kilkenny? He urged the Government to reconsider this matter upon the Report stage.
    Clause read a second time.
    Amendment, proposed—
    "Line 5, leave out from 'but' to end of line 8."—(Mr. Dillon.)
    MR. DILLONsaid it appeared to him that the county magistrates in the counties of Ireland were divided into two classes, the privileged class and the circumscribed. He knew that some time ago there were magistrates who ranged at large over the whole country, and who sat where they liked. Words which restricted the action of the magistrate to his own particular petty sessional district were not in the English Act. Supposing even that it were true that new rules were introduced affecting all the magistrates, and preventing them sitting

    615
    where they liked in a county, he thought that was a bad principle. These words would place popularly elected magistrates in an inferior position to the other magistrates, whereas they ought to have the right to sit anywhere in a county.
    MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid his eldest son was a magistrate, and when appointed by the present Government it was distinctly intimated to him that he should only act in a certain petty sessional division.
    MR. FLYNNsaid he could not understand why magistrates who were popularly elected should be restricted. They had the confidence of their fellow citizens, and ought to have the right to sit in any petty sessional division.
    MR. ATKINSON: I do not think the mover of the Amendment quite realises the gross abuses which used to arise when it was the custom for magistrates to sit outside their own petty sessional divisions, perhaps for some private or personal advantage. So great had the evil grown that during recent years it has been customary for the Lord Chancellor, when a man is appointed to the Bench, to inform him that he is expected to confine himself to his own petty sessional district; and afterwards, if the magistrate does go beyond his own petty sessional district, one of the matters he is asked to explain is what induced him to do so. But the ex-officio justices which this Bill creates would be entirely independent of the Lord Chancellor in this respect, and the object of this clause is to put such ex-officio justices as far as possible in the same position as ordinary magistrates, and to make each one confine himself as far as possible to his own petty sessional district. In other respects there would be no difference, but in this particular respect the ex-officio magistrate would, but for this clause, have far wider powers than the magistrate appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the effect of the introduction of these words may be very curious in certain cases, though I am not saying that under the circumstances the provision of the Government is not an unreasonable one.
    616
    At the same time I am inclined to think that the common law would operate if a man chanced to misconduct himself by going out of his own division, and thus carried on abuses which have properly been put down. Would it not, therefore, be better, instead of confining a man in this way by Statute, to leave the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction as it is at present, and not to give an opportunity for the difficulties which would arise if the clause were allowed to stand as it is drawn? I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will also apply his mind to the case of boroughs. Take, for instance, the borough, of Wexford. The mayoralty of Wexford has been in existence for hundreds of years, and the Mayor is entitled within the borough to precedence even over the Recorder; and surely it is unfair to do anything which would make the holder of such an office inferior in point of dignity to chairmen of local boards?
    MR. DILLON: My chief objection to this new system is that it ought to apply to all the magistrates, and that you should not set up in a county privileged magistrates who could go to a district other than their own, and others who are confined within certain limits; and a thing to which I strongly object—though I do not intend to divide the House on it—is this: that in the Bill creating these new popular magistrates there should be contained words which certainly seem to put upon them a certain stigma as of inferiority as compared with other magistrates already created. The Statute almost puts it, indeed, as if these newly-elected magistrates were likely to be men of dangerous character, who must be cribbed, cabined, and confined within their own districts. The honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said that undoubtedly, according to law, men appointed for the county have a right to act over any portion of it, and that such right was only modified by the action of the Lord Chancellor in calling on a magistrate who had acted outside his own district to give his reasons for doing so, but that the whole custom and practice of the law was that a magistrate appointed to the county bench was really a magistrate for the whole county. As I have said, my strong objection to this clause is that it appears to place these popular magistrates in an inferior

    617
    class, as it were, to the ordinary county magistrates.
    MR. ATKINSON: I would point out a matter which seems to have escaped the attention of certain honourable Gentlemen with regard to certain borough magistrates. Take the case of the Mayor of Sligo, for instance. The Mayor of Sligo, though he is a county magistrate, can only act as a magistrate in the borough of Sligo.
    MR. M. HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman has referred to Sligo. That borough is only part of the petty sessional district, and accordingly, when the mayor sits on the bench he has to consider whether a case has arisen within the borough or within that portion of the petty sessional district which lies outside the borough, and in the latter event he is not justified in acting. But what of the chairman of commissioners of Dundalk? He would, under this Bill, be made a justice of the peace not only for the urban district of Dundalk, but for any district which comprises any part of the council area. Let me take, for instance, the case of Drogheda. That and Dundalk are two towns in the county. One is at a higher status than the other by having a mayor and corporation, but the right honourable Gentleman will now give the chairman of Commissioners of Dundalk a higher position magisterially than the Mayor of Drogheda has, because the Mayor of Drogheda is reserved to his existing jurisdiction, which will be limited to the township of Drogheda, whereas the chairman of commissioners, being chairman of the urban district council, will have jurisdiction not only in Dundalk, but in every part which is comprised within the urban district. Thus the right honourable Gentleman gives the chairman of commissioners full power to sit upon any case in a court where the mayor in sometimes a justice and sometimes not. I am strongly of opinion that there should be done for the mayor, in a case of this sort, what the Bill proposes to do for the chairman of town commissioners.
    MR. JORDAN: I hope the Government will adhere to the principle they have laid down in the Bill. I believe it was at our request that they
    618
    put in the clause, and, as far as my experience goes, the chairman of a district council would, under this clause, be in the same position as recently-made magistrates who proceed from the Lord Chancellor just in the same position. We have been restricted to certain petty sessional districts as a matter of agreement between the Lord Chancellor and those who were made magistrates. I suppose the present Lord Chancellor is carrying out the same arrangement as his predecessor, and therefore I say that these men will only be in the same position as are those who have recently been appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I urge the Government not to recede from their position.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 8, after 'district' insert 'and such chairman of an urban district shall be styled and known as the 'mayor.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to move on behalf of my honourable and learned Friend.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think this is an Amendment which ought to be pressed. At present the title of mayor is a distinction, the value of which would undoubtedly be lessened if it were held by a large number of persons.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: This is a concession which would cost the Government nothing; and may I ask the Government to read the schedule in the Act of 1842, and note the enormous number of mayors who were then struck away? I think if they do they will be somewhat surprised. The right honourable Gentleman suggests that the proposal would, if carried, cheapen the distinction. In America, in every little town you go into, not only are there captains and colonels and generals, but there is a mayor in every one, and in England I should say that there are at least 150 towns whose chief officers bear the title. If this Amendment were agreed to it would be restoring to these towns an honourr which in many cases they bore up to 1842. In other cases the chief officers were called portreeves, and titles of

    619
    ancient dignity of that class. I repeat that, as it would cost the Government nothing, I think they might well withdraw their objection to the Amendment.
    MR. JORDAN: I support this proposition. It would be some compensation for what the right honourable Gentleman has deprived the towns of in other parts of this Bill. We have really been deprived of things, just as the right honourable Gentleman himself is deprived by the Bill of certain rights and privileges.
    MR. FLYNN: The distinction of being mayor of a great corporation and a man of some standing in the country would unquestionably lose its significance if the towns which now have the honour were put into competition with these little boroughs. Even the Lord Mayors of Dublin and Cork would hardly be in such a distinguished position if the title of mayor was bestowed on chairmen of district councils.
    Amendment negatived without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 10, after 'section,' insert—
    "And also the chairman of any town or township commissioners under the Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act, 1828, or the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or under any local Act."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I could not accept the Amendment so far as the Lighting of Towns Act is concerned.
    MR. M. HEALY: Then I move it without the reference to that Act.
    Amendment, with the omission of the words "the Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act, 1828, or" agreed to.
    Clause as amended added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 11, after clause 23, insert the following clause:—
    "There shall be transferred to the council of every urban district excepted from section one hundred and sixty of the Public Health Act, 1878 (by reason of being a town or township having commissioners under a local Act) the business of the board of guardians as burial board, and the said council shall be the burial board for the district."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 11, after clause 24, insert the following clause:
    "The power conferred by section one hundred and four of the Public Health Act, 1878, upon an urban authority to purchase a market from a market company shall extend to authorise the purchase from any person of any franchise or right to hold a market or fair, whether under Act, letters patent, or otherwise, and the said section shall apply accordingly, with the necessary modifications."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    MR. W. REDMOND: This clause deals with very much the same matters as are dealt with in a clause put down later in the Bill by the honourable Member for Monaghan. As far as it goes, this clause is satisfactory, but in my opinion it should be made compulsory to a certain extent.
    "To authorise the purchase from any person of any franchise or right to bold a market or fair "
    is a very good provision, but I do not think it will be at all operative unless compulsory powers are given to urban district councils to take over those tolls and custom rights. With regard to the town of Ennis, which I represent, the tolls from fairs and markets are vested in and collected by Lord Leconfield for his sole benefit; but he gives no contribution whatever towards the expenses necessarily incurred in keeping the town in a sanitary condition, nor does he own any property in the town whatever; and it does seem in this age rather an extraordinary thing that under old letters patent, granted in the reign of James II., he should enjoy such a right as this. What I think the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary should do would be to give the district council's compulsory powers to purchase these rights for whatever they may be worth from gentlemen like Lord Leconfield, and to vest them in the representatives of the district councils. Money might be advanced on easy terms, and fair compensation given. I do not desire to delay the Committee, but this is a point on which great interest is felt in the town of Ennis, and at the suggestion of the Ennis Commissioners, I once put a question on this subject. The first clause undoubtedly goes some way towards meeting the suggestion of the Commissioners

    621
    of Ennis, and the wishes of other towns, but I do not think it will amount to much, unless some compulsory powers are given.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I desire to support the, suggestion of my honourable Friend the Member for Clare. There is a town in my own neighbourhood, the circumstances of which are very much the same as those of Ennis, and the town commissioners requested me to place on the Paper an Amendment dealing with this matter. This I did before Easter, but you, Sir, ruled it out of order at that stage, and therefore I put it down as a new clause. I myself think that the urban councils are the proper authorities to have the control and management of fairs and markets, but I fear that an arrangement could hardly be carried out unless these powers of compulsory purchase are granted to them—purchase, say, by arbitration at a fair and reasonable price. I would also suggest to the right honourable Gentleman the desirability of including town halls in this clause, if he can see his way to do it. In my clause I suggested that the council of any urban district should be entitled to acquire any existing town hall by arbitration; and I would suggest an Amendment to this clause to the effect that an urban authority shall be entitled to acquire any existing town hall on terms to be fixed by arbitration, or, if the right honourable Gentleman does not agree to that, any form of words to the same effect which he cares to accept. I might mention that there are towns in Ireland in which these town halls are private property. They are not the majority of cases—most of the towns own their halls; but there are cases in which the town halls are private property, and in which the town commissioners have really no power even to hold their meetings without permission. In my own constituency of East Cork, in the town of Middleton, the town hall belongs to a local landlord, and the town commissioners have not even the power to hold meetings there without the permission of that landlord. I venture to think that if the right honourable Gentleman could see his way to include town halls within the scope of this clause, it would relieve
    622
    a legitimate grievance, and would place all Irish towns on an equality in this particular respect. I sincerely hope the right honourable Gentleman will consider this.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government have carefully considered those points, and we do not think it is advisable in this clause to give compulsory powers for the purchase of markets and fair grounds. There is nothing to prevent a town from purchasing a town hall. Of course, they have not got compulsory powers to acquire land, but there ought to be no serious difficulty in the way of purchasing town halls if they desired to do so.
    MR. FIELD: Under the existing state of things the management of the live stock business is not at all satisfactory, and I think the result of this appeal will be to strengthen the hands of the right honourable Gentleman. Otherwise this change cannot be satisfactorily carried out.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I recognise what the Chief Secretary has said, and it is undoubtedly an attempt by the Government to meet the case put forward in the Amendment that stands in the name of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Monaghan. If the urban district councils do not gain possession of those rights over the markets and fairs, I hope that later on the Government will see the advisability of transferring those rights to the representative councils in whom they should be vested.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I desire to call the attention of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the matter which I brought before him in the form of a question to-day, and in this case, at all events, he ought to see his way to relieve the city of Kilkenny of that burden and give them the right to manage their own affairs. He can relieve us of those amounts, and he ought to allow the city of Kilkenny to hold what fairs they please and when they please, because the Treasury does nothing to assist those fairs.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: With regard to this question, it is one which, has been agitating the public mind for a considerable time, and it is at present very unsatisfactory. Already the commissioners have practically had all the powers which the Government could give them, and they have not met the requirements in the way that they should be met. The fact of the matter is that the monopolists get possession of these markets and fairs, and they make no improvements. They do nothing for the benefit of the market towns, with the result that the farm produce is diverted into other channels and the markets die. Wherever these old towns have not the facilities to take care of their own markets and their fairs, they, of course, are neglected, and they suffer accordingly. Now this question has been inquired into by three different Royal Commissions since 1853, and it has therefore been considered a matter of public interest. A Royal Commission has reported that where these matters are in the hands of private individuals and monopolists, invariably the interests of the market towns are sacrificed to the interests of private enterprise. Therefore I do think that the Government ought to reconsider this matter before they come to a final decision, because it is a very serious thing for some of the towns which are hampered in this way. We have pot the markets now in such a condition that it is impossible to get the business done there which ought to be done in any kind of way that is at all practical. For instance, there is no proper entrance. If the weather is wet they are exposed to the inclemency of the weather. I do think these are matters which ought to be in the hands of the local authorities and not in the hands of local monopolists, who desire nothing but to reap rich rewards and big profits. We feel that this is a state of things that ought not to be, considering that it has so long been a matter of consideration by various Royal Commissions, and invariably their reports have been that abuses, extortions, and illegalities have been practised in places where the fairs and markets were under the control of private individuals or monopolists. When the town authorities have had charge of these
    624
    matters they are managed more to the benefit of the towns than when private individuals control them, and I hope and trust that the Government will see their way to make some proposal by which these markets will be acquired by arbitration and settled.
    MR. JORDAN: I sympathise with honourable Members in their desire to endeavour to obtain control of the markets, but that would not be advisable unless they could obtain them at a fair price. I think this clause goes a considerable distance, but if you give compulsory powers to the towns to buy the markets mentioned they would be apt to pay too much for those markets, and instead of producing good it might be an evil. I know of one town where the commissioners got power to buy the gasworks, but the gas company wanted too much money, and the commissioners did not buy them. In the same town they got the offer of the markets, but they would not buy because they thought the price was ton much and they would, not derive a sufficient revenue for their money. I think, if you gave them power to buy the markets, in nine cases out of ten, if they were proper financiers, they would not buy.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 11, after clause 25, insert the following clause—

    "(1) The council of any county district comprising the whole or part of a fishery district under the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1848, may make towards the expenses of the board of conservators of such fishery district a contribution not exceeding in any one local financial year a sum equal to a rate of one halfpenny in the pound on the rateable value of the county district at the beginning of the year.

    "(2) A district council making such contribution may appoint annually such number of persons as the Lord Lieutenant may determine to act as conservators of fisheries for that fishery district, in addition to, and together with, the conservators under the said Act."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

    MR. VESEY KNOX: NO amount of representation could be reasonably pro-

    625
    posed to the county council to give them any real voice in the proceedings of most of these Fishery Boards, and power should be given to reduce their number. In most cases, the boards are absurdly large, and I venture to think the Government ought to have taken the same course as other governors had on the new governing boards of smaller size, where there was some proportionate representation of the county councils and other interests of the community. As the clause now stands I do not believe it will have any operation in this respect. If the county council find that they only get three or four representatives out of some 90 or 100, they will not make any contribution, and nothing will be done. And I venture to say that if power were given to reduce the number of these boards it would be a great improvement. I dare say the right honourable Gentleman will not have time to consider it now, but I would ask him to consider that point for the Report stage.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 11, after clause 25, insert the following clause—
    "The provisions of the Towns Improvement Act, 1854, as amended by the Local Government Hoard (Ireland) Act. 1872, respecting bylaws in relation to boats plying for hire, and the owners and boatmen thereof, shall apply to every rural district in like manner as if the council of the district were commissioners under the first-mentioned Act."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 12, after clause 27, insert the following clause—

    "(1) The Towns Improvement Act, 1854, and the enactments amending the same, shall, subject to the exceptions and with the amendments made by this Act, apply to the town forming the urban sanitary district of Carrickfergus, and to every town having commissioners under the Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act, 1828, which is at the
    626
    passing of this Act or afterwards becomes an urban sanitary district, and shall so apply in like manner as if it had been in whole adopted in the town, and the boundaries of each such town at the passing of this Act were the boundaries approved under the said Act.

    "(2) In each such town the number of councillors shall be the same as the existing number of commissioners. Provided that, if the Local Government Board think fit to divide the town into wards, the wards shall be determined and set out, and the commissioners apportioned among the wards in manner provided by section fifteen of the said Act, for a town where there are municipal commissioners, and the number of commissioners may be varied so as to be in accordance with section sixteen of the said Act.

    "(3) The urban district council of Carrick-fergus shall, as successors of the municipal commissioners of Carrickfergus, be the Carrickfergus harbour commissioners, and the enactments relating to the transfer of property from the said municipal commissioners to the urban district council shall be subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to such portion of the county of the town of Carrickfergus as forms part of the rural sanitary district."— (Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

    Clause read a second time.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 5, leave out from 'which' to 'district' in line 6."
    "Line 9, after 'said,' insert 'first-mentioned.'"
    "Line 10, after 'councillors,' insert 'or commissioners, as the case may be.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause as amended added to the Bill without it Division.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 32, after clause 59, insert the following clause—

    "(1) The secretary of every county council and the clerk of every urban district council shall within one month after making a poor rate, send to every board of guardians for a union wholly or partly situate within the county or district, a copy, certified by such, secretary to be a true copy, of so much of the rate book containing such poor rate as relates to the union.

    "(2) Every county council shall arrange by contract for all printing, whether of lists, forms, registers, or otherwise, required in connection with the Registration Acts, or with the Jurors (Ireland) Acts, 1871 to 1894,

    627
    whether such printing is required by the secretary of the council, or any clerk of the peace, clerk of a union, or town clerk, and the said printing shall be done in accordance with the contract so made, and not otherwise, unless in any exceptional case the county council for special reasons so permit.

    "(3) Every such contract shall be made, and the like tenders shall be obtained in like manner, so nearly as circumstances admit, as in the case of a public work, the expenses of which are leviable off the county at large."—(Mr. Gerald Belfour.)

    Clause read a second time.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 2, leave out 'one month,' and insert 'three months.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 6, after 'union,' insert—
    "Such copy shall be received as evidence of the contents of the rate book in any court, in like manner as if it was the original rate book; and a copy, or extract of such copy, or any part thereof, may be certified under the hand of the clerk of the union as being a true copy of the said rate book, or any part thereof, or of the valuation of any lands as appearing in the rate book, and shall be received in evidence in all respects as if the same were a copy or extract from the original rate book."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. ATKINSON: I object to the wording of this Amendment, and I think it had better follow the wording of the 9th section. The honourable Member will find that practically his Amendment is already provided for in clause 74, subsection 9.
    MR. M. HEALY: I am quite satisfied with that explanation, and I bog leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I think it will be a very great inconvenience for anyone who desires information to have to go and ask the clerk of the union for it, and some other facilities ought to be provided for.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause as amended added to the Bill without a Division.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 32, after clause 59, insert the following clause—
    "On and after the first day of October, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, or such other day, not more than six months earlier or later, as may be fixed by the Local Government Board, the following provisions shall apply with respect to the Dublin Collector General of Rates, and to the poor rate, police tax, bridge tax, and bridge rate:—

    "(1) The poor rate shall be levied in the city of Dublin in like manner as in the rest of Ireland, and all enactments with respect to making, levying, collecting, and recovering the poor rate shall apply accordingly;

    "(2) The Commissioner of Police of Dublin Metropolis, under the Dublin Metropolis Police Acts, shall, at the prescribed time before the beginning of every local financial year, estimate the amount of money which he finds necessary for the maintenance of the police force, and for the several purposes of the said Acts during that year, not exceeding the amount which the Commissioner is, under the said Acts, or any of them, entitled to raise by a rate thereunder;

    "(3) The Dublin Port and Docks Board shall, at the prescribed time before the beginning of every local financial year, estimate the amount of money which they require to be raised in that year for the purpose of the bridge tax (if any) and bridge rate respectively;

    "(4) The commissioner and board respectively shall apportion each amount so estimated between the city of Dublin and the rest of the police district of Dublin metropolis, or of the bridge area (as the case may be), which is outside the city of Dublin, and shall so apportion according to rateable value, and shall send to the council for the city of Dublin a demand for the amount apportioned to that city, and to the council of the county of Dublin a demand for the amount apportioned to the rest of the police district or bridge area; and each council shall pay by equal half-yearly payments the amount specified in such demand;

    "(5) The council of the city of Dublin shall raise, either by means of a separate rate, or by moans of the poor rate, but as a separate item thereof, a sum equal to the amounts specified in such demand, but the demand note shall specify approximately the amount in the pound required for each amount;

    "(6) A sum equal to each of the amounts specified in such demand on the county council of the county of Dublin shall be raised, either by a separate rate or in manner provided by this Act, with respect to a railway or harbour charge;

    "(7) A council levying a separate rate for the purpose of this section shall make, levy, and collect the same upon the same basis and in like manner as the poor rate, and all enactments relating to the poor rate shall apply

    629
    accordingly with the exception that a poison shall not be disqualified for being registered as a parliamentary or local government elector by reason of the non-payment of any such rate;

    "(8) Where any property would but for this suction be liable to be assessed for the purpose of raising any amount which under this section is to be raised by the poor rate, such property shall be liable fur the purpose of that amount to be assessed to the poor rate and to the and to the said separate, rate;

    "(9) in this section the expression 'bridge tax,' means the quay wall tax and bridge tax leviable under the Dublin Bridge Act, 1854, and the expulsion 'bridge rate,' means the rate leviable under the Dublin Port and Docks Board and bridges Act. 1876; and the expression 'bridge area.' has the same meaning as in the latter Act;

    "(10) The olives of the Collector General of Rates, under the Dublin Collection of Hates Art, 1849, and of his officers, shall be abolished, without prejudice to the provisions of the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890; and the persons who on the last day of March, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, held the said offices, and continue to hold them until abolition of their offices, shall be entitled to abolition superannuation allowance, in accordance with section 70 (A) of the said Act of 1890, and that section shall apply, with the necessary modifications, and in particular with the substitution of the Local Government Hoard for the Lord Lieutenant;

    "(11) The compensation granted in pursuance of this section to the Collector General, or any such officer, shall be apportioned in manner provided by subsection two of section seventy-one of the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890, as if it were the abolition compensation mentioned in that section;

    "(12) Any sum which on such is payable by the corporation of the city of Dublin, and such portions of any superannuation allowances, abolition superannuation allowances, or abolition compensation, as under the said section seventy-one, are payable by the said corporation, shall be paid by the council of the city of Dublin to the Local Government Board;

    "(13) Such portions of any compensation granted in pursuance of this section, or of any superannuation allowances, abolition superannuation allowances, or abolition compensation, under section seventy-one of the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890, as are payable otherwise than by the corporation of the city of Dublin (the total of which portions is in this Act referred to as the Collector General's annuity) shall be obtained by the Local Government Board from, and be payable by, the county councils of the county at large, and the city of Dublin, in the proportions ascertained, as hereinafter mentioned;

    "(14) The Local Government Hoard shall certify the amount raised during the twelve months ending the thirty-first day of December, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, by the Collector General of Rates in the police district of Dublin metropolis, in respect of
    630
    poor rate, police rate, bridge tax (if any), and bridge rate, distinguishing the total amount raised within, and the total amount raised without, the city of Dublin, and shall determine approximately, according to the proportions to each other of the said totals, the proportion of the Collector General's annuity, which should be borne by the city and county of Dublin respectively;

    "(15) The council of the city of Dublin and the council of the county of Dublin respectively shall pay the proportion of the Collector General's annuity, to be borne by the city or county, as the case may be, and that proportion shall be raised as an addition to the several amounts to be raised by the council of the said city or county under this section;

    "(16) Every sum to be paid to the Local Government Board in pursuance of this section shall be certified by the board, and be paid to that board by the council of the city or county of Dublin, as the case may be, and be a debt to the Crown from that Council, and shall be applied by the Local Government Board in paying the allowances or compensation for the time being payable thereout, and so far as not required for that purpose shall be repaid to the council paying the same;

    "(17) The lists of voters and jurors shall be made out in the city of Dublin in like manner an in the rest of Ireland, and the Registration Acts and the Jurors (Ireland) Acts, 1871 to 1894, shall apply accordingly;

    "(18) The Acts specified in Part IV. of the First Schedule to this Act are in this section referred to by the short and collective titles therein mentioned."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

    Clause road a second time, and added to the Bill without discussion.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 34, after clause 61, insert the following clause—

    "(1) Any act to be done or instrument to be executed, by or on behalf of the Local Government Board, may be done or executed in the name of that board, by the president or by the under secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, or by the vice-president, or by any person appointed by the president or vice-president to act on behalf of the vice-president.

    "(2) A rule, order, or regulation made by the Local Government Board shall be valid if it is made under the seal of the board, and signed by any of the above-mentioned persons.

    "(3) Every document purporting to be a rule, order, or regulation of the Local Government Board, and to be sealed and signed as above mentioned, shall be received in evidence, and be deemed to be a rule, order, or regulation duly made by the Board, unless the contrary is shown.

    "(4) the Local Government Board may distribute the business of the board among the

    631
    several members thereof in such manner as the board may think right.

    "(5) The President of the Local Government Board may appoint an inspector or auditor of the board, or other person, to be temporarily a commissioner of the board, for the purpose of aiding in the additional work of the board in bringing this Act into operation, and in carrying it into effect, and superintending the working thereof during a limited period. Such appointment shall be in the first instance for one year after the passing of this Act, but may, with the consent of the Treasury, be continued from year to year for a total term not exceeding five years after the passing of this Act.

    "(6) There shall be paid to the temporary commissioner, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such sum as the Treasury may sanction, not exceeding, together with any other remuneration received by him, the remuneration paid to a commissioner of the board."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill without discussion.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 35, leave out clause 62, and insert the following clause—

    "(1) There shall apply to Ireland so much as the Lord Lieutenant by Order in Council declares applicable of the English and Scotch enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act, and the enactments amending the same, being enactments relating to—(a) elections of county and district councils and guardians; (b) acceptance of office, fine, resignation, casual vacancy, etc.; (c) disqualifications of persons for being members of a county or district council, or board of guardians, and of members of any such council or board, and their partners, for appointment to an office; (d) incorporation of county and district councils; (e) transfer of property and expenses of county and district councils; (f) accounts, audit, and annual budget; (g) borrowing by county councils; (h) transfer of powers of Treasury in relation to borrowing, and to the acquisition and disposition of land by councils of boroughs; (i) alteration of boundaries and adjustments of property and liabilities; (j) the division of a borough into wards or alteration of wards; (k) local inquiries and provisional orders by the Local Government Board; (l) construction of enactments relating to business transferred by this Act; (m) proceedings and committees of county and district councils, and chairman and vice-chairman of these councils; and (n) powers of the Local Government Board for the purpose of remedying defects, and bringing the Act into full operation upon the commencement thereof, and transitional proceedings and savings.

    "(2) An Order in Council under this section may—(a) apply any of the said enactments to both county and district councils and guardians, or to any of them, notwithstanding
    632
    that they relate to county councils only, or to district councils only, or to guardians only; and (b) provide for the transfer to county councils of the lunatic asylums and all property and liabilities connected therewith, and for the exception of any debt incurred (whether before or after the passing of this Act) on account of lunatic asylums from being reckoned in the limitations of amount imposed by any of the said enactments upon the borrowing by county councils, and for the joint committee of the counties comprised in a lunatic asylum district, exercising jointly for the purpose of the lunatic asylum the powers of those councils relating to borrowing; and (c) make such adaptations of the said enactments as appear necessary or expedient for carrying into effect the application thereof to Ireland; and (d) make such adaptations of local Acts as appear required to bring them into conformity with any of the said enactments."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

    Clause read a second time.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I notice that the Government have not provided for the case of rights of way, and a number of other provisions of that kind, which are most useful in the Parish Councils Act—namely, sections 7, 8, 13, 26, and 73. It appears to me that the Government ought not to pick and choose in this matter. We are entitled to get every benefit from the Parish Councils Act, and I cannot understand for the life of me why the Government have put in a number of the restricted provisions, and have omitted a number of other provisions. Then, Sir, there is another matter; in fact, there are a number of other matters to be dealt with, but the evening is so late, and as I desire to get on, I restrain myself to simply commenting upon them. I do think, however, that whatever is in the Parish Councils Act relating to the protection of waste lands, commons, rights of ways, and water supply we ought to have inserted in this Bill.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will look into them. I think there may be one or two that may be added.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I had an Amendment down on the Paper upon this question, but it was struck out in consequence of a new clause, and it was thought that there should be added to the subjects which the Order in Council contained all matters appertaining to the

    633
    business of lunatic asylums find the management and acquisition of property and all powers and duties relating thereto. My object is to add to the schedule the English and the Scotch Lunacy Acts, because there are certain provisions in them which I understand might very usefully apply to Ireland. It is not necessary that the Order in Council should at present embrace those Acts, but it might give power hereafter, should it be thought advisable by the boards or by the county councils, to adopt certain provisions in them. For instance, there is one provision which will illustrate what I mean. In the Scotch Lunacy Code there is a power to board out imbecile lunatics, which sometimes prevents the necessity of enlarging asylums, and the object of this Amendment is to have something that will cover what is contained in the English and Scotch Lunacy Codes inserted in the schedule.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As to the general question which has been raised by the right honourable Gentleman opposite, I really must decline to undertake the task of embodying the English and Scotch lunacy laws.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I do not propose that the frame of the Order in Council should be altered, that would involve considerable delay, but I want the power to be reserved at some future period if they thought it advisable to adopt it. I wish simply to add in the schedule of the Bill a power which the Privy Council may or may not exercise, namely, that of adopting the Scotch and English Lunacy Codes.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I could certainly not put that provision in the Order in Council.
    MR. M. HEALY: The clause which the Government have inserted in this Order in Council is taken from the English Local Government Act of 1894, which provides that any ballot boxes provided by or belonging to any public authority, whether for Parliamentary, county council, or municipal elections, shall be lent to the returning officer under this Act free of charge. In Ireland there is not in any county anything in the nature of
    634
    the requisite fittings for a Parliamentary election, and it does appear to me that they ought to be provided by an enactment of this kind. That is to say, every county in Ireland should furnish itself with a regular outfit of the needful articles required for a Parliamentary election in the shape of ballot boxes and fittings, and it should be enacted that the boxes and fittings so provided for the Parliamentary election should be enabled to be used for all municipal elections. That is the law with regard to boroughs. In the Ballot Act, section 14, it is provided—
    "That where a Parliamentary borough or municipal borough come within the same area any ballot boxes or fittings for polling stations provided for such Parliamentary borough or such municipal borough may be used in any municipal election free of charge."
    You ought to have an analogous provision in this Act enabling such fittings to be used and provided for in Ireland. At every Parliamentary election for the county in Ireland the sheriff buys, or pretends to buy, a perfectly new and complete outfit of ballot boxes and fittings, and he makes each county pay for them as if their were bought absolutely new. What happens in my county is this. He pretends to sell the ballot boxes to somebody, who is always a friend, and when the new election takes place that friend kindly resells them to him. That sort of thing goes on at every election, and the candidate has to pay for the same ballot boxes ten times over. Now, is it not time that a farce of that kind should be put an end to in counties, the same as it has been put an end to in boroughs? In a borough there are municipal offices and appurtenances available for municipal elections, and also available for Parliamentary elections, and the same thing is wanted in counties. The clause as it stands in the Order in Council is an absolute nullity, because you have not in the county area any Parliamentary ballot boxes which can be used for municipal purposes. I hope the Government will give me some assurance that they will do something of the kind.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURthought that the question might be considered as to whether some of the provisions of the Ballot Act ought not to be made to apply to the counties which do not now apply.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 42, leave out clause 72, and insert the following clause—

    "(1) Where the business of any authority is transferred by or in pursuance of this Act to any county or district council, the existing officers of that authority employed in that business, and not in any other business of that authority, shall become the officers of the council of that county or district in like manner, subject to the provisions of this section, as if they had been appointed by that council; and for the purpose of this section any existing secretary of the grand jury, county treasurer, county surveyor, assistant surveyor, county solicitor, public analyst for a county, and a high constable and collector, or collector of a barony, and a deputy collector, duly appointed under section one hundred and forty-eight of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, and also any existing deputy of the county treasurer or secretary of the grand jury, appointed with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, who has devoted his whole time to his office, shall be deemed to be an existing officer of the grand jury, and the existing officers of every lunatic asylum shall be deemed to be existing officers of the governors and directors of that asylum; and every existing officer of the grand jury of a county shall be transferred to the council of the county, and not to the council of any urban district not a county borough.

    "(2) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to a county of a city or town; but if it does not become a county borough, any existing officer of the grand jury shall become the officer of the council of the county at large of which such county of a city or town will by virtue of this Act form part.

    "(3) For the purpose of the enactments relating to superannuation, the service of any existing officer of any authority before the transfer to a county or district council shall be reckoned as service under that council.

    "(4) Any existing secretary of the grand jury, unless he dies or resigns, or is removed with the concurrence of the Local Government Board, shall become and continue the secretary of the county council up to the last day of March, nineteen hundred, and may then, if he has given three months' previous notice in writing to the county council of his intention to retire, retire from office, and shall thereupon be entitled to receive an allowance under this Act of the same amount as if his office were abolished.

    "(5) The county council may, by notice given three months next before the said last day
    636
    of March, require such secretary to retire, and if they do so, without the concurrence of the Local Government Board, he shall be entitled to the same compensation under this Act as if his office were abolished.

    "(6) If at any time after the said last day of March such secretary retires voluntarily, he shall be entitled to receive from the county council a superannuation allowance on the scale provided by the Acts and rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service, and the amount of such allowance in case of dispute shall be determined by the Treasury.

    "(7) If at any time before the said last day of March such secretary satisfies the Local Government Board that he is unable, through age or infirmity, to discharge the duties of his office under this Act, he may retire from office, and shall thereupon be entitled to receive an allowance under this Act of the same amount as if his office wore abolished.

    "(8) The secretary of the grand jury of each of the counties of Cork and Tipperary shall become the secretary of the council of each riding of such county, and the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply as if he were separately the secretary of each such council, and the proportion of the remuneration to be paid by each riding shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the Local Government Board.

    "(9) An existing officer of the grand jury of any county of a city or town who by this Act becomes the officer of the council of the county at large of which such county of a city or town will form part, shall perform under the like officer of the council of that county at large the like duties as he has hitherto performed as respects the county of a city or county of a town, but in other respects the foregoing provisions of this section with respect to the like officer of a grand jury of a county at large shall apply to him.

    "(10) Every county council shall within one month after their first meeting submit to the Local Government Board a scheme setting forth their arrangements for the collection of the poor rate, and the officers they propose to employ for the purpose, and the names and descriptions of the existing officers transferred to the county council by this Act (whether high constables and collectors, or collectors of a barony, or deputy collectors, or poor rate collectors of the guardians) whom they propose to employ as officers under such scheme, and the scheme shall not authorise the employment of new officers if sufficient existing officers have expressed their willingness to serve.

    "(11) The scheme shall provide for the existing officers employed under the scheme receiving remuneration substantially identical with that which they formerly received. Every officer who under such scheme when approved is not continued as an officer of the county council shall, if he holds an office in respect of which he would, if he had served a sufficient number of years, be qualified under the existing law for the grant of a superannuation allowance and has expressed his willingness to serve, be entitled to receive from the county council

    637
    the same compensation under this Act as if his office were abolished, but if he does not hold such an office, or if holding such an office, h has not expressed his willingness to serve, he shall be entitled to receive from the county council a gratuity according to the scale in Part I. of the Seventh Schedule to this Act: Provided that, until the expiration of not less than 12 months after receiving a gratuity under that schedule, an officer shall not be qualifier to be appointed to any office under the county council, unless he refunds to the county council the gratuity. Of such gratuity, one-half shall be repaid to the county council out of tin moneys standing to the Local Taxation (Ireland Account by virtue of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Estate Duty Act, 1896, and the half of any gratuity so refunded shall be repaid by the council to that account.

    "(12) For the purpose of the foregoing enactments a person appointed collector under the County Dublin Grand Jury Act, 1844, shall be deemed to hold an office in respect of which ha would, if he had served a sufficient number of years, be qualified for the grant of a superannuation allowance.

    "(13) The Local Government Board may approve any such scheme with or without modifications; and all officers employed in pursuance of the scheme shall be deemed to be poor rate collectors appointed by the county council within the meaning of this Act.

    "(14) If in the case of any officer the area in which his duties are required to be performed is, by reason of any alteration of any boundary, by or in pursuance of this Act, increased or diminished, the officer shall be bound to perform his duties in such altered area.

    "(15) If by reason of a change made within six months after the passing of this Act in the boundaries of a union, the office of any existing dispensary doctor becomes unnecessary, that office shall be deemed to be abolished within the meaning of the enactment applied by this Act; and any compensation payable to him shall be paid by the guardians of the unions which comprise his former district in such proportion as may be agreed upon, or in default of agreement be determined by the Local Government Board.

    "(16) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every existing officer transferred under this section shall hold his office by the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions a heretofore, and while performing the same or analogous duties shall receive not less remuneration than heretofore; and if, by reason of any alteration of boundary or other thing done by or in pursuance of this Act, his duties are increased or diminished, the officer shall be bound to perform those duties, and shall receive such increase or diminution of salary in proportion to the increase or diminution of his duties as the Local Government Board may sanction, subject, nevertheless, in case of diminution, to such compensation as is provided by this Act.

    "(17) Section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government Act, 1888, set out in
    638
    Part Two of the Seventh Schedule to this Act (which relates to compensation to existing officers), shall apply in the case of existing officers affected by this Act, who are remunerated out of the cess or rate raised in any county or district, whether officers above in this section mentioned or not, and references in the said section one hundred and twenty to the county council shall include references to a district council; and if any officer transferred by this Act to a council who can be removed without the concurrence of the Local Government Board or the Lord Lieutenant (and is not a banking company), is within five years from the date of the transfer removed from his office for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity, his office shall be deemed to have been abolished within the meaning of the said section.

    "(18) All expenses incurred by any council in pursuance of this section shall be paid as expenses of the execution of this Act, and in the case of a county council may, if the county council, with the consent of the Local Government Board, so direct, be defrayed as district charges.

    "(19) The provision of a gratuity by a council to any existing officer under this Act shall be a purpose for which such council may borrow, in accordance with the enactments relating to borrowing by such council."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 3, leave out—
    "And nut in any other business of that authority."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    MR. CLANCY: I am surprised at what must have been carelessness in drafting this new clause. Some officers of a board of guardians may also hold an executive office, such as a sanitary officer, and it seems to me that if these words are left in these officers will lose one appointment, and some will lose both, and the result will not tend to the efficiency of the council, because the council will have to elect new officers instead. I think the right honourable Gentleman must see that this is an important omission.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is a great difficulty in a question of this kind. I am afraid that some offices will be, and must inevitably be, lost by the operation of the Bill. It is not possible for the officer of a county council to be engaged in any other business.
    MR. CLANCY: This Amendment is entirely in the interests of the officers, who will not receive anything by this

    639
    Act. What is the objection to it? I do not see any at all.
    MR. ATKINSON: The objection is that a man cannot serve two masters. Take the case of a sanitary officer. The sanitary officer is now in the service of the guardians—he may also be clerk of the guardians—and I may say that, generally speaking, the clerk to the guardians is the executive sanitary officer. Very well, you transfer his sanitary work to the county council, and, if you do that, look at the conflicting work that he may be called upon to do. Take the Cattle Diseases Act. You transfer the Cattle Diseases Act to the county council. Is the officer of the board of guardians to go with it? If so, he may be serving at one time both the county council in the administration of the Cattle Diseases Act and in the administration of the poor law by the board of guardians. That would be a very insufferable state of things.
    MR. CLANCY: The example which the right honourable Gentleman first took is the example he ought to have taken. The clerk of the union is clearly commanded by this Act to serve two masters. He will be clerk to the board of guardians and clerk to the district council.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, but these are only the same body.
    MR. CLANCY: That is the very class of officer I had in my mind. Will the right honourable Gentleman have any objection to making the section applicable to officers now serving boards of guardians in both capacities, and who, if this Act is passed, will have their business transferred to the district council?
    MR. ATKINSON: In the ordinary course the board of guardians and the district council are the same thing looked at from different points of view. There is no transfer there, property speaking, at all. The clerk of the union becomes clerk of the district council, because he is clerk of the union. The other case to which the honourable Gentleman referred is altogether different. The clerk of a poor law board, which may be situated 20 miles away, will have to discharge certain poor law duties in that town and certain duties in the county.
    MR. CLANCY: I was not referring to these instances at all. The case I had in my mind was the case of a doctor who, if this Bill passes, will serve the board of guardians as medical officer. His sanitary business will be transferred to the district council and the district council will have to elect a new man, and compensate him at the same time.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    'Line 28, after 'council,' insert 'and the service of any existing secretary as assistant or deputy secretary in the same county shall be reckoned as part of his service.'"—(Mr. J. H. M. Campbell.)
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: This Amendment seems to deal with the case of two existing assistant secretaries and deputy secretaries of the grand juries. All that is asked to be done in the case of these two gentlemen is this: they have served for many years in the nominal position of assistant secretaries, and during all that time they have done the actual work of the secretaries, and now I ask that the period served by them as assistant secretaries should be taken into account, but unless an Amendment of this kind is introduced it will be impossible to do that. As assistant secretaries they were not officers of the county, because they were appointed by themselves, and technically, therefore, they would not be officers for the county while serving as assistants. The two gentlemen whose names are known to honourable Members on both sides of the House are thoroughly efficient, and have given great satisfaction to all parties, and I think that all members of different phases of politics are agreed in asking the Government to accept this Amendment.
    MR. M. HEALY: This will only apply in the county of Dublin and the county of Cork.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I shall be pleased to accept this Amendment.
    MR. DALY: Are there no other assistant secretaries in Ireland?
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 29, after 'grand juries' insert 'or county surveyors of twenty years' service.'"—(Mr. Sharpe.)
    MR. SHARPE: By this Amendment I want to have the benefit of sub-sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 extended to county surveyors of 20 years' service. It will be a very graceful concession to men who have been valuable officers, and I beg to urge the right honourable Gentleman to consider the propriety of accepting my Amendment.
    Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: We treated the secretaries of the grand juries in an exceptional manner, because they are in an exceptional position. We have done in their case what we have done in no other case, for the reason that the county councils have a certain date for getting rid of them, and they are to receive compensation, but we could not extend to county surveyors the same privileges.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 37, leave out sub-section 5."—(Mr. J. H. M. Campbell.)
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: There seems to me to be a discrepancy here. As I read the 55th clause of the Act It proves that no secretary of a county council is to be appointed or removed or his salary fixed or altered without the concurrence of the Local Government Board.
    MR. M. HEALY: Sub-clause 11.
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: I do not think that gets rid of the difficulty, because section 55 unquestionably applies to all officers who become officers of the new county council. Then sub-section 4 says that in the case of three of those who are specified—that is, the secretary, the county surveyor, and the assistant surveyor—they shall not be removed or appointed without the concurrence of the Local Government Board. Then that right is cut down—that is, with regard to the first secretaries of the county
    642
    council, because the effect of the 5th sub-section is to enable the county council to get rid of them without the concurrence of the Local Government Board. It occurs to me that there is a direct conflict between the 55th section and sub-section 5, because, as I pointed out, section 55 expressly provides that the first secretary of the county council and all future secretaries are not to be appointed nor removed, nor are their salaries to be interfered with, except with the concurrence of the Local Government Board, and sub-section 5 in this new clause proceeds to state that the county council in the case of the first secretaries may get rid of them any time before a certain date without the concurrence of the Local Government Board.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot see where there is a contradiction. If my honourable and learned Friend looks at sub-section 11 of section 55 he will see that "this section shall be without prejudice to the provisions of this Act respecting existing officers," and one of the provisions is that, at a certain date, it shall be competent for the county council to discharge their secretaries without reference to the Local Government Board.
    MR. DILLON: I hope the Government are not proposing to accept the Amendment. It seems to me that it will be a monstrous thing as regards the existing secretaries of the grand juries, who are treated by this Bill with great liberality, that the power of removing them should be taken away from the county councils. That would be a great injustice.
    Question put.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question put—
    "That sub-section 5 stand part of the clause."
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 72, after 'guardians,' insert—
    "'Or deputy collectors of such poor rate collectors where such deputy collectors devote their whole time to the work of such collection.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman has altered the clause as

    643
    it originally stood in the Bill, and he has altered it for the purpose of including in it the deputy cess collectors. The deputy cess collector is not an officer of the grand jury. He is simply employed by the collector to the grand jury, and he was appointed because the Act enabled the collector to appoint him. As a rule, in Ireland, poor rate collectors have had no deputy. So far as I am aware, in no other part of Ireland is there such a thing as a deputy rate collector excepting in the city of Cork, and there they have to devote all their time to the work. It occurs to me that the position of these men is rather hard. Their employment is taken away from them by this Bill, and the man who employs them is compensated only on his net income—that is to say, that allowance has been made for the salaries which he pays his deputies; consequently the fact that he pays his deputies is in no way a burden on the council. On the other hand, the work of collection, of attending revision courts, etc., is always thrown upon the deputies. The case of these deputies is on all fours with the deputy cess collectors, and on what ground the deputy cess collectors can be included without making some provision for these poor men, who are to be deprived of their sole means of livelihood, I cannot, for a moment see.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I had no reason to think that there were such cases, but if the honourable Member assures me that there are, I see no reason for not accepting the Amendment.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: Is this Amendment to apply to deputy collectors who only spend a month, or two in the year in the work, or is it to apply only to deputy cess collectors and officers Who give their whole time and service to the work? I should like that clearly understood, so that hereafter there may be no error.
    MR. M. HEALY: My Amendment does not apply to deputy cess collectors at all.
    Question put—
    "That the words proposed stand part of the sub-section."
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Lines 80 and 81, leave out 'if he is qualified under the existing law for the grant of a superannuation allowance,' and insert 'if his tenure of office is permanent in character.'"—(Mr. J. H. M. Campbell.)
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: The effect of leaving the clause as it stands would be that it would exclude a very large number of poor-rate collectors, who are devoting their entire time to the collection of the poor-rate, excepting in some very small outside particular with which they supplement their income. There are a great many poor-rate collectors of this kind in the county of Dublin, and there are others in many other counties in Ireland, and it would be a very great hardship if, by the mere incident of their trying to supplement their incomes, they should be deprived of the benefit of this clause. I hold in my hand "The Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act," which is applicable to England, and let me just read one section to show how differently poor-rate collectors are treated in England to what they are in Ireland. Section 4 of the Act of 1896 says—
    "The service by the officer or servant under any authority or authorities to whom this Act applies shall be reckoned for the purposes of this Act whether the service has been continuous or not, and whether his whole time has been devoted to the service or not."
    There is an express provision of the Statute of 1896, applicable to England, by which every poor-rate collector is entitled to superannuation, or compensation, as the case may be, although he may not have given his entire time to the particular employment of poor-rate collection. Take the case of these men in Ireland. I am aware of cases in the county of Dublin, and I am sure that honourable Members are aware of cases too, where these men were led to believe that their appointments were appointments for life, subject to their behaving themselves. Now this Act steps in, and, as a result, a great many of them will not be required. Some of them may be, and will be kept on, and all that this Amendment does is to put those who have acted as poor-rate collectors, whether they have given their whole

    645
    time or not, on the same footing as those who have devoted their whole time, and who have not supplemented their income. It will be, I think, an act of justice for the Government to accept this Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think there is hardly any superannuation Act where people have devoted their whole time to the duties of their offices, where it is not made a condition to superannuation. The English Act to which the honourable Member has referred has an exceptional condition, which is that the officer should himself contribute to the fund. With reference to the medical officers in Ireland, they would be entitled to receive superannuation.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 150, at end add—
    (19)"The provisions of section twenty-seven, sub-section one, of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877, shall apply to the additional duties imposed by section five of this Act on clerks of the peace appointed under the first year of George the Fourth, chapter twenty-seven."—(Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.)
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I rather think this Amendment has been provided for by the Amendment moved by the right honourable Gentleman yesterday, but if not, I would beg to move it; it is to add at the end the provisions of section 27, sub-section 1, of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act of 1877. There are seven or eight clerks of the peace still in existence who were appointed under this Act, and certain duties will now be cast upon them which hitherto they have not had to discharge. But I think there was an Amendment adopted by the Government yesterday which would probably cover this Amendment.
    MR. M. HEALY: I do not know whether the Government have considered the case of the clerk of the peace of the Borough of Belfast, He got a private Act of Parliament that passed with general consent to extend the area of the borough, and it is only fair when he did the work for the extended area that he should be considered. He will now have the additional duties thrown upon him
    646
    of preparing the local government register. I understand the Government now proposes to make some allowance, in the case of those clerks of the pence, for any additional work which they will have to do. If that is so, they ought to consider whether or not there should be an Amendment dealing with the matter, in common justice to these people.
    MR. DILLON: Before this clause is put I am bound to say, if it were not for the extraordinary circumstances under which we are now discussing it, I should object to several sub-sections of this clause, because the treatment of the secretaries to the grand juries is something awful. I only want to draw attention to an alteration made in this section, and ask the right honourable Gentleman to consider the matter before the Report stage. It stated originally that—
    "Every county council shall within six months after their first meeting submit to the Local Government Board a scheme setting forth their arrangements for the collection of poor rates."
    Now that period is to be reduced to one month, and I do not think you give the county council a fair opportunity of considering their scheme. Now what I am afraid of is that the result of the shortening the period to one month will be that the secretaries to the grand juries will do all the work, and it will be cut and dried before the county councils come into operation, and that it will be rushed through without any consideration at all. I merely desire to give notice that upon the Report stage I shall move an Amendment to extend the time to three months.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should like to consider the point. I think that six months was put down in the first place, because there was going to be a provisional council. Now there is not going to be a provisional council, but if one month is considered too short a time, I shall be prepared to accept three months.
    MR. FLYNN: I should like to point out to the Committee that there are some sub-sections in this new clause of a most objectionable character. Take the clause with regard to the existing secretary of the grand jury. Unless he dies or

    647
    resigns he is to continue as secretary to the county council until March, 1900—that is, for two years, or, on giving three months' notice, he has the option of retiring upon the fullest possible superannuation upon the scale provided for special service. Now, just see for a moment how that works. Here you have a man thoroughly acquainted with county council business, in the flower of his age, and yet he retires within two months of this date, although the local body is perhaps anxious to retain his services. Now it works out in two ways. In the first place these gentlemen are not entitled to superannuation under the Grand Juries Act. The grand juries might, if they chose, grant one to them; but there is no right on the part of these gentlemen to claim one. In many cases, no superannuation was granted, I think; some two years ago there was a Bill brought in for the granting of superannuation to these gentlemen, but it was opposed by a vast majority, and had to be withdrawn. Now, under this Bill they are to get superannuation upon the highest possible scale. It is an injustice. Then there is this to be said: men may retire in two years' time upon full pay, and the county councils will have to have a new official, and will have to pay two salaries, or one superannuation and one salary to the new officer. That is going very far beyond what is reasonable. Unfortunately it is a clause that now cannot be discussed at great length. The time has all been taken up in discussing minor matters at great length, and now clauses like this are rushed through in this hurried manner.
    Clause as amended added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 45, after clause 73, insert the following clause—
    "Nothing in this Act shall prevent any high constable and collector, or collector of a barony, from collecting, in like manner as if this Act had not passed, any county cess comprised in any warrant held by him on the appointed day: Provided that if such constabl or collector alleges that any portion of the said cess not recovered by him is irrecoverable, and that if this Act had not passed he would have been relieved by the grand jury from paying that portion, he may apply to the county council to relieve him from so
    648
    paying that portion, or if he has paid it to the county treasurer, to repay him the sum paid; and the county council, with the approval of the Local Government Board, if it seems, having regard to the diligence used by the high constable or collector, and to the poundage he received in respect of the collection, and to all the circumstances of the case, equitable to grant the application in whole or in part, may so grant the application and pay the necessary sum as part of their expenses in the execution of this Act."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 45, after clause 73, insert the following clause—

    "(1) Each of the following officers, namely, the existing clerk of the peace for the county of the city of Kilkenny, and the existing clerk of the Crown and peace for the county of the town of Galway, shall continue to hold his office and to perform the duties thereof for the like area, and while performing the same shall be entitled to receive the same emoluments as heretofore.

    "(2) The existing clerk of the Crown for the county of Antrim shall become the first clerk of the Crown of the county of the town of Belfast constituted by this Act.

    "(3) The existing clerk of the Crown and peace for the city and county of Londonderry shall become the first clerk of the Crown and peace for the county of the city of Londonderry constituted by this Act.

    "(4) The existing coroner of the county of the town of Galway, and the existing coroner of the county of the town of Carrick-fergus, shall respectively continue to be coroner in like manner as if the county of the town were a coroner's district of the county of Galway or of Antrim, as the case requires."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

    MR. M. HEALY: In this clause will the Government make it clear as to the power of appointment? It is not clear as to whether after the first appointment there will not be a new appointment. The Act only deals with the first appointment, and it appears to me it would be possible hero to appoint two officers. I think the offices of the county of Londonderry should be given to the officers of the guardians of the peace of the city of Londonderry. I do not think there should be two officials upon the now appointment. One good thing in this clause is that it does not apply to salary, so that

    649
    if two officers were appointed you would not get the salary. In 1877 there was a great endeavour to cut down these appointments. In Cork the Clerk of the Peace is also the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the city of Cork, and I am at a loss to know why Londonderry should be under a different statute. It is all very well to say that the Government does not find the salary, but in a year or two the Government will come and say we provided for an officer but did not provide for his salary, and now we come for that. I do hope that the Government will state now that they will not create a new office.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I think the reason why no representations were made by Londonderry upon this point is that the city of Londonderry objects to the thing altogether. Inasmuch as the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the city of Derry is not a very old man, the contingency has not arisen. I cannot see what advantage it could be to the locality to have the Crown appoint separate officials for the counties and cities. If the localities appointed them for themselves it might be a different thing; but as the appointment is made by the Crown, I do not see why the localities should object to the offices being combined. I should be glad to have an explanation as to what is to happen in Belfast. Do I understand that the Clerk of the Crown and Peace in county Down is still to draw the same salary as he did when he was doing the larger amount of work?
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 1, after 'existing,' insert 'coroner of any merged county of a city or town or.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I move this Amendment formally. Some of these Gentlemen are anxious to know what is to become of their jurisdiction when the city is merged into the county at large. I am far from saying that it is the most appropriate Amendment, but I move it formally.
    MR. ATKINSON: I do not quite gather to what the honourable and learned Gentleman particularly alludes.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The coroner of Galway is elected by the freeholders of Galway, and not by the corporation. You provide that the county and city of Galway shall be merged into the county at large, and you have provided for the Clerks of the Peace and Crown of Galway, and this gentleman is apprehensive that, though you provide for the other officers, who are exactly in the same position, he will be excluded. That is his view, and it does appear to me that this clause, if it is necessary for the two officers mentioned in it, ought to be necessary for all the other officers of the merged boroughs.
    MR. ATKINSON: The existing coroner is made perfectly safe. It is provided that he shall remain coroner in like manner in the coroner's district of the county of Galway. He is now appointed, and he holds his office and exercises his jurisdiction over the county and town as if it existed by the previous Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am sorry I put down my Amendment before I saw that the coroner was added by sub-section 4. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 45, after clause 73, insert the following clause:—
    "Every existing officer who is by this Act transferred to any county or district council, or is an officer of any board of guardians, and would, if he were to retire on the apppointed day, be qualified for a superannuation allowance, shall, when he resigns or ceases to hold his office for some cause other than misconduct, be entitled to receive a superannuation allowance on the scale and according to the rules relating to Her Majesty's civil service."(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 2, after 'guardians,' leave out to 'shall' in line 4."—(Mr. J. H. M. Campbell.)
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELLsaid that the general impression created n the minds of all the existing

    651
    officers affected, was that the clause was intended to accomplish that whoever was under the law at present qualified for superannuation he should hereafter, when handed over to these new bodies, be entitled to get the superannuation when the time arrived. Now, the clause had absolutely no such effect, and in its operation would be limited to the case of some half a dozen officers throughout Ireland. He understood from the right honourable Gentleman's explanation that the intended effect of the clause was to provide in the case of all existing officers who, on the appointed day, had reached the limit of age, or had become physically incapacitated from, further work, that if they remained on they ought to be entitled to a superannuation allowance. The result of that would be that a man who, on the day after the appointed day, reached the appointed time of life, or became permanently incapacitated, his pension and superannuation would be at the mercy of the new body, whereas a man who attained the age of 65 a day earlier could insist upon compensation. That was the intention and effect of the clause. He did not want to confer upon existing officers any greater right than they had at present, providing that no existing right was taken away. Let them look at what right was taken away. A number of these existing officers had served boards of guardians and grand juries and other bodies for a great many years. When the time came for them to ask for a pension, those bodies would know whether their case was a proper one or not. But these officers were to be transferred to the new bodies, who had no knowledge or experience of them, and within the next 12 months of the two years some of them would have reached the limit of age, or, from bodily infirmity, would be compelled to resign. The new bodies would know nothing about their past career; the men would approach them as complete strangers, and ask for their pensions. The effect the Amendment would have would be this: that in the case of all existing officers, who were now qualified under the law as it stood to receive a superannuation allowance, they should, if they
    652
    remained with the new bodies, be entitled to it unless they had misconducted themselves. That was the only purport of the Amendment. He would like to point out to honourable Members opposite, who thought and feared it would add a burden to the councils, that it would have no such effect. He did not propose to include in it a single officer who was not at present qualified to receive a pension. Ninety per cent, of those officers in all probability would get their pensions hereafter when the time came, but there were occasional eases where, from caprice or from some other motive, the county council or district council might say, "We admit you are qualified to receive the allowance under the law, we admit you are physically unfit, but we do not care to saddle the ratepayers with such a burden." The sole object of the Amendment was that, when the time came for the qualification for superannuation allowance, the man might go to the new bodies and ask his allowance, which the new bodies should be compelled to give.
    MR. JORDANfeared that the superannuation allowances proposed by the honourable Gentleman who had spoken would add enormously to the burden of the ratepayers. The Bill was saturated with superannuation, and permeated through and through, with superannuation clauses. They who represented the small farmers of the country dreaded that intolerable burden, and they thought, further, that when everything was taken into consideration the small farmer would derive very little advantage from the Bill, while the landlords would derive enormous advantages. They believed that with these superannuation allowances, and the increased expenditure which must necessarily follow, the tenants would not be relieved in any particular by the Hill, and that, probably, in a year or two, the tenants of the country would stand, as far as taxes were concerned, in the same position as they did to-day. They strenuously opposed the continuous repetition of these clauses for superannuation in Ireland. It was a most monstrous thing, this superannuation of all those parties—boundary constables, deputy-boundary superintendents,

    653
    and so on; it was simply intolerable. In the name of the small farmers he pro bested against this heaping up of superannuation allowances, not one penny of which would be received by the small farmers.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURcould not accept the Amendment. He said that in almost every case the superannuation allowance was optional; but what the honourable and learned Gentleman sought to do was to compulsorily secure to every existing officer transferred to the county or district council the superannuation allowance to which, when, he reached the proper age, he might become entitled if the authority under which he served was pleased to award it. In this clause the Government had gone even beyond the precedents set in the English and Scottish Acts for securing the rights of existing officers. What the honourable and learned Gentleman desired, however, was that in the case, say, of a county surveyor who had served only a single year on the appointed day, and continued to serve in that capacity for 30 or 40 years afterwards, he should at the end of that period be entitled to compulsory superannuation. That was asking more than it was possible for the Government to do, and more than it was reasonable to expect them to do.
    MR. SMITH BARRYsaid it seemed to him that his honourable and learned Friend had made out a very good case for the Amendment. It was said that the Bill was saturated with superannuation clauses. So it ought to be, because the Committee knew perfectly well that those Gentlemen who had served grand juries and existing bodies for a number of years were going to be handed over now to new masters, and to entirely different work very likely. The old bodies knew whether they worked well or not, and they judged whether they were entitled to superannuation or not; but the new bodies could not judge sat all. It was only fair justice that they should be safe-guarded in the manner proposed.
    MR. FLTNNsuggested that the landlords of Ireland who got some of the agricultural grant should put the money
    654
    aside so as to provide superannuation allowances.
    MR. PLUNKETTdid not think the Government was proposing any new burdens. Superannuation was practically given in nearly all cases under the present state of things, and he thought that the cases suggested by his right honourable Friend beside him ought to be protected. There was no distrust of the new bodies, or any suggestion that they were not likely to be as friendly to the officers as the existing bodies.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "After 'shall' insert 'without prejudice to existing rights.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    Agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 45, after clause 73, insert the following clause:—
    "The provisions of this Act with respect to officers transferred to a county council shall apply to all existing officers of any urban district council or town commissioners other than a town clerk or clerk to the commissioners, in like manner as if they were officers transferred by this Act to such council or commissioners."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Amendment proposed—
    "Line 5, at end, add, 'and an annual election shall not, in future, be necessary in the case of an existing office.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    Agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.
    "Page 45, after clause 73, insert the following clause:—
    "Every existing clerk of a union, shall, unless he otherwise agrees with the county council or urban district council, as the case may be, continue to perform the duties of the clerk of a union under the Registration Acts and the Jurors (Ireland) Acts, 1871 to 1884, and every collector of poor rate shall continue to give the same information and assistance as heretofore to that clerk in relation to the said duties."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Clause added to the Bill.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONasked whether the Government intended to finish the Bill that night.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURappealed to those honourable Members in whose names new clauses had been put upon the Paper to allow them to be postponed for discussion to the Report stage. If that was not done, he was afraid the discussion would be carried on to a late hour that night, and place the Committee in a position in which proper attention could not be given to those clauses. He need not say that the great object of the Government was to get the Bill through Committee that night, and if honourable Members would refrain from moving the new clauses standing in their names, that might be done, and, therefore, he hoped they would accept the suggestion ha had thrown out.
    MR. DILLONthought that if the Government would give an assurance that fair and reasonable time should be given for the consideration of those new clauses at the Report stage, there was no reason why the right honourable Gentleman's suggestion should not be acceded to.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had several new clauses to propose, and complained that they had not been put down on the Order Paper in the ordinary way. He should be glad if the Government would promise to consider those and other new clauses between this and the Report stage, for he could assure the Government that honourable Members who had prepared those new clauses had information at their disposal from which they might derive valuable suggestions. The Government ought not to be above learning from some of these new clauses. As this was an occasion when they were naturally anxious to get away, he would not press his new clauses now if the Government would promise to give special attention to them on the Report.
    MR. VESEY KNOXsaid he had a new clause relating to the Irish officers of the Treasury, and he hoped that if he did not move it now, in consideration of what seemed to be the general wish, an opportunity would be given to discuss the question adequately on the Report. The clause was one to which ha attached very
    656
    great importance. It was one which he thought would, both from the Treasury and the Government, require consideration before the Report. He hoped that if the right honourable Gentleman's suggestion were adopted, the various Departments concerned would take an opportunity of seeking for information in it meantime, so that they might have something more than a mere conversational discussion on the Report stage.
    MR. J. REDMONDsaid there were a number of important questions raised by some of the new clauses, and it was perfectly obvious that they must have serious discussion upon them. It would not be possible under present conditions that night, and therefore he thought the suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman was in the interest of the movers of the new clauses. Of course, it must be apparent to the right honourable Gentleman that when a number of important questions were postponed in this way, the Government would have to make up their minds to give ample time for discussion on the Report. Under these circumstances he agreed to the suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman, and he thought honourable Members around him would be wise to accept it, and to postpone the consideration of their new clauses to the Report stage.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. H. BEACH,)thought it was obvious that it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to deal with the new clauses that night in a manner which might not be either invidious or objectionable. He thought honourable Members would feel that it was for the general interest of all parts of the House to bring to an absolute conclusion the present stage of the Bill, and he was quite sure that the Members of the Government had to thank honourable Gentlemen opposite very much for the considerate way in which they had met the suggestion of his right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary. He did not believe that anyone would lose by postponing the consideration of the new clauses until the Report stags, because in the first place in must be obvious that there would then be a better opportunity for considering them, and,

    657
    secondly, the Government would have time to consider them all, and some, he hoped, favourably, before the Report stage was taken. The honourable and learned Member for Londonderry has referred to a particular new clause upon the paper dealing with an important matter. He would undertake to look carefully into it.
    SIR T. LEAhad an Amendment down which he was willing to put off to the Report stage, but he presumed that the Government would take these new clauses as they now stood upon the Paper without fresh notice being given.
    THE CHAIRMANthought it would be better that fresh notice should be given in regard to some of the clauses.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid there would be ample time for giving notice.
    Committee resumed after the usual interval.

  SCHEDULE I.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 49, line 9, leave out 'section one hundred and six.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
  MR. M. HEALY: At present, if a policeman in Cork got maimed in a drunken brawl with some soldiers, say, of a Lancashire or a Sussex regiment, he might get £1,000 as compensation, which would be levied upon the ratepayers of Cork. That has happened several times in the county of Cork within the last few years. A policeman is paid handsomely for keeping the peace of Ireland, and he also gets a pension. I cannot, however, get compensation, because I am not a police officer. The man who is paid well for his work, and whose duty it is to pre-
  "Page, 49, line 17, at end, Insert—

  3 and 4 Will., c. 37

  An Act to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of he Church in Irland—(Mr. Gerald Balfour)

  Section seventy-two."

  Agreed to without a Division.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: It appears to me that the Dublin Grand Jury Acts ought to have been included in the schedule of the Acts regulating malicious
  658
  serve the peace, gets a large pension if this legislation is passed. The Act for the creation of the Irish constabulary was quite a proper thing, for all police officers as they existed, and they should lave been protected in this way, because they were county officers, and there was no means by which they were paid or compensated. The notion that the police of to-day—who are handsomely paid and pensioned, and who are provided with the best of everything—for simply discharging their duty, if they are maimed or injured should be able to mulct the ratepayers, whilst the ordinary subject; of Her Majesty can get nothing if he is hurt in similar circumstances, does seem monstrous. I make this as a protest against keeping alive this ancient archaic piece of legislation passed at a time when Ireland was as different as could possibly be. I beg to move this Amendment.
  MR. ATKINSON: The constabulary are responsible for the preservation of the public peace, and it is most just and right that they should be protected, because nothing could be more fatal in Ireland than to make the maiming and wounding of policemen a popular amusement. It seems to me that you cannot discriminate in this matter, because when a man is injured in a particular place the fair conclusion is that the members of that community where he is injured should bear the cost of compensation. It is very hard, if a man is injured in the county of Cork, that some other county should be called upon to bear the cost of compensation.
  MR. M. HEALY: I do not think it will be any good to press the Amendment, and I beg, therefore, to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  injuries. I merely call attention to it, because it appears to me that they ought to be included in the schedule.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the right honourable Gentleman move anything?
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Yes. I move the Amendment standing in my name as follows:—
  "Schedule 1, page 49, line 35, add—
  "Richmond Lunatic Asylums Act, 1897."
  That is necessary, because under the 9th section the powers of the Lunatic Asylums Acts are transferred to the new-councils, and for the definition we have to look to the schedule. If this Act was not in the schedule it would not fall within the definition. Under the Lunatic Asylums Act of 1897 extensive borrowing powers were given to lunatic asylums, and special borrowing powers were given to the governors, and also to the Board of Control, and it is absolutely necessary for the conduct of those asylums that those
  "Page 50, line 13, at end, add—

  PART IV.—DUBLIN COLLECTION OF RATES ACTS.

  Session and Chapter.

  Title.

  Short Title.

  12 and 13 Vic, c. 91

  An Act to provide for the collection of rates in the City of Dublin

  The Dublin Collection of Rates Act, 1849.

  17 and 18 Vic, c. 32

  An Act to enable the Collector-General of Dublin to levy money to repay a certain outlay by the Corporation for preserving and improving the port of Dublin in and about repairing the quay wall of the River Liffey and for future repairs thereof, and for repairing and rebuilding bridges over the said river

  The Dublin Bridge Act, 1854.

  PART V.—DUBLIN METROPOLIS POLICE ACTS.

  Session and Chapter.

  Title or Short Title.

  6 and 7 Will, 4, c. 29

  …

  …

  The Dublin Police Act, 1836.

  7 Will. 4, and 1 Vic., c. 25

  …

  …

  The Dublin Police Act. 1837.

  2 and 3 Vic., c. 78

  …

  …

  The Dublin Police Act, 1839.

  5 and 6 Vic., c. 24

  …

  …

  The Dublin Police Act, 1842.

  12 and 13 Vic., c. 91

  …

  …

  An Act to provide for the collection of rates in the city of Dublin.

  22 and 23 Vic., c. 52

  …

  …

  The Dublin Police Act, 1859.

  31 and 32 Vic., c. 95

  …

  …

  The Dublin Police Act, 1867.

  37 and 38 Vic., c. 23

  …

  …

  The Resident Magistrates and Police Commissioners Salaries Act, 1874.

  46 and 47 Vic., c. 14

  …

  …

  The Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1888.

  660
  powers should continue. For that reason I would respectfully move this Amendment, and impress upon the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the Richmond Lunatic Asylums Act of 1897 should be included in the Acts.
  MR. M. HEALY: I think there was an earlier Lunatic Asylum Act than that. I thought that the Government Had deliberately excluded it for some reason.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think we must dispose of this Amendment first.
  Amendment agreed to without a Division.
  Amendment proposed—
  MR. M. HEALY: On this should not the Dublin Police Act of 1890, and a portion of the Dublin Collection of Rates Act be included? The original code in existence in Dublin is modified in a large way by the Dublin Private Act of 1890, and. I should have thought when you were applying the Collection of Rates Act it would be necessary to include as one of the Acts the Act of 1890.
  Schedule 1 agreed to without a Division.

  SCHEDULE 2.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 50, after line 21, add—
  "Clonmel, Kilkenny, Wexford, Sligo, Drogheda."—(Sir T. Esmonde.)
  SIR T. ESMONDE: Although the other places are of equal importance, I shall confine my energies to the boroughs mentioned in my Amendment. First, there is the borough of Clonmel. I think this borough ought to be in the schedule, because it has existed since 1641. Kilkenny, too, has every claim to be included. I now come to the case of Wexford. Wexford is one of the most ancient boroughs in Ireland. Wexford obtained its first Charter in 1316, when it was granted by Aylmer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke and Lord of Wexford. That Charter was confirmed by Henry VIII. in 1510, and again by Queen Elizabeth in 1587, and was afterwards confirmed by James I. in 1609. Subsequently the borough of Wexford was granted a Charter by James II. in 1688, and this was abrogated at the time of the union. Subsequently in 1846 the town of Wexford got a special Act of Parliament at a cost of £800, by which it obtained a special Charter. Therefore we Irishmen have a right to claim that the ancient and historic associations of our own towns should be respected. Inasmuch as this is a matter which is not by any means contentious, and inasmuch as it is a matter more or less of sentiment in Ireland, I would suggest that it is worthy of the consideration of the Chief Secretary. It has been stated in the course of this Debate in Committee on this Bill that these Irish towns would
  662
  lose by being made into county boroughs. Sir, as far as the borough of Wexford is concerned, this objection does not obtain, because I have been in communication with the Corporation of Wexford, and they have specially requested me to press the matter upon the attention of this Committee. Sir, perhaps I may be permitted to read a letter which I have received from the Corporation of the borough of Wexford with reference to this particular point. It is as follows:—
  "Town Clerk's Office,
  "Wexford,
  "14th May, 1898.
  "Dear Sir,—
  "The Corporation of Wexford have been engaged in studying the provisions of the Local Government Bill, and as a result of their labours have adopted a resolution, of which the following is a copy:—
  "'That the Irish Members be requested to have a clause inserted in the Local Government Bill to have this borough constituted a "county borough." Also that we wish to join in the effort being made with the object of having Kilkenny, Sligo, Drogheda, Newry, Clonmel, Galway, and Wexford placed in the same category. Also, that in the event of Members not succeeding in having Wexford made a "county borough," every effort be made to prevent it being placed in a worse position than it is at present; that is, that we have such full control of our finances as we have now.
  "The Corporation will feel indebted to you if you will assist them in accomplishing the object of the foregoing resolution, and have directed me to add by way of explanation that the Corporation by virtue of special legislation exercise grand jury powers over streets, roads, etc., within the borough boundary, and contribute a proportionate part of the county-at-large charges. The arrangements at present subsisting between the grand jury and the Corporation in respect of county-at-large charges operate to the disadvantage of the borough, and the provisions in the Local Government Bill as to post-roads will entail further loss to the borough. This being so, the Coroporation are anxious to see that provision would be made for having the fiscal relations between the two bodies put on an equitable and satisfactory basis, or, at least, that the loss which the town will sustain by the repeal of the Acts relating to post-roads will be made up for in some other way.
  "Yours obediently,
  "W. A. BBOWNE,
  "Town Clerk.
  "Sir T. H. G. Esmonde, Bart., M.P.
  "House of Commons,
  "London."
  Therefore the Corporation of Wexford are most anxious that the town of Wexford should be made a county borough. Well, Mr. Grant Lawson, I do not think, this Amendment will in any way impair the operation of the Bill in the particular counties I have specified, and I hope the Chief Secretary will accept it in order to protect the historic associations of these towns.
  MR. DILLON: I have an Amendment down in the case of Drogheda to be made a county borough. If the Chief Secretary had been pleased to receive the members of a deputation representing the claims of Drogheda, he would have been convinced as to the justice of them. There is no distinction between Unionists and Nationalists on this question, and I am anxious to know what are the difficulties which the right honourable Gentleman feels in not granting the desire of the whole population of these towns. The honourable Baronet has stated the claims of Wexford. Without in the least minimising the claims of Wexford, I would point out with regard to Drogheda and Kilkenny that they have especial claims. Both are extremely ancient cities, and have been practically counties in their own right from time immemorial and therefore they suffer a special grievance in this Act—being deprived of their ancient rights by being merged into the surrounding county. Sir, I know the right honourable Gentleman has already had a full statement of the claims of Drogheda, and I hope to hear what his objections are.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I want to say a few words on this matter before the right honourable Gentleman replies. I have two or three times made the statement that in regard to these special private Acts which govern some of these places I have a feeling that the Government have not given them sufficient consideration. Now, I have listened with some interest to the speeches that have been made in reference to these places being made into county boroughs, and, as far as I could gather, not one word has been said as to the supposed boundary that would arise through the making of these places into county boroughs. Now, I am in favour of some provision different
  664
  from what is in the Bill, but it is upon purely fiscal grounds. It is no good, I think, at this time of the day arguing with the English Government—which cares nothing for Irish sentiment—upon anything but the common-sense ground of the breeches pocket, and, accordingly, it is purely upon fiscal grounds that I address myself upon this question. I pointed out at an earlier stage the position with regard to these places. Wexford was never the county of a town; neither was Clonmel. But in the case of Wexford it obtained by the Public Health Act of 1871 a division of its roads and bridges in certain respects, and that I do not think this Act touches. Similarly, Clonmel and Sligo are not counties of cities at all, and I have arrived at this conclusion, that this Act does not do an injustice by reason of the clause which the Government were good enough to introduce at my suggestion, leaving intact the private Acts. But the story is different when you come to deal with the county of a city. Take three places: Galway, Drogheda, and Kilkenny. With regard to Carrickfergus, I do not understand it, and I do not believe that anybody else does. Take the case of Drogheda. This is a question of considerable interest from a legal point of view, because what the Bill does is this: it provides that any county of a city or town that does not become a county borough shall for the purposes of this Act be constituted and form part of the administrative county which is adjoining. I would ask the Government to remember, therefore, that there never was a severance by statute as between the county of a city and the county at large, with the result that if you transfer by the 27th section the powers and duties of the merged county board of the city to the county at large, the result will be that with regard to Kilkenny and Drogheda I think it will be open to serious question whether any repairs can be done in those towns except by the county council. Now, in regard to this new proposition, I am struck very much by a reference to the miserably drawn Act passed in 1896 for Drogheda. This Act took in certain portions of the county for fiscal and administrative purposes into the administrative county of the city of Drogheda. Now the meaning

  665
  of this section, with regard to roads and bridges, is this: that at the present moment there are three grand juries exercising these powers in the county town of Drogheda, By this Amendment you are transferring an area, which has already three jurisdictions, and you are transferring it, I presume, to the county at large. But what is the inference from that? It is this: that in respect of the non-added area the entire jurisdiction as to roads and bridges was in the county of the city. By the 27th section you provide that—
  "Any county of a city or town which does not become a, county borough shall, for the purposes of this Act, be situated and form part of the administrative county which it adjoins, or if it adjoins more than one such county, then such one of those counties as the Local Government Board order."
  Therefore on the morning when this Bill is passed the people of Drogheda will wake up and find that they have no jurisdiction over even one of their roads or bridges. As far as my opinion goes upon this point, I have not been entirely capsized by the argument from the learned Attorney General, and I hold firmly to the opinion that the jurisdiction of the roads and bridges of the county of the town of Drogheda has been transferred by this section to the county—I presume of Loath—because, probably, that would be the added county. I do not blame the Government for one minute in respect of any omission they have made in this Bill.
  They have dealt with a large and complicated subject, and they have produced a Bill which has been argued in a non-
  contentious spirit. Had it been argued otherwise, instead of occupying three or four weeks, a period of six months of the time of the British Parliament might have fairly been taken up without the smallest tinge of obstruction. I am not accusing the Government of want of care, but the whole system of private Acts, in my opinion, has not been adequately—I admit, to some extent considered in regard to this subject. I have taken the trouble to write to some of the officers of the grand juries, and I have
  666
  received a copy of the presentment from Louth and Meath, and from the county of the city of Drogheda. Here are a number of presentments, and it is perfectly clear that they are presentments for roads, and repairs of roads within the county of the town of Drogheda. My argument is this, that under this Bill that presentment and the power to make it goes over not to the city corporation of Drogheda, but will go over automatically to the Louth grand jury. Will any man tell me that the Louth grand jury is the proper authority to deal with the repairs of the roads in Drogheda? If it had not been a county of a city, separate and distinct, what would have happened under the Public Health Act of 1871? Why, that a Provisional Order would have been obtained in this House by which the incorporation of the town would have been obtained, as they did in Clonmel, Sligo, Wexford, and a number of other places, and they would have obtained separate powers to deal with their roads. Accordingly, I say that it is no discredit to the Government in the least, I respectfully submit that this Bill is to Drogheda a great hardship, and what I say of Drogheda I am sure—although I have not been able to go into the same minutiae—would apply in the case of Galway and Kilkenny. To my mind the transfer of administrative jurisdiction in the case of Galway is an undoubted hardship so far as the corporation is concerned, although I do not think that a fiscal injustice has been done. As to the extent, I am not an actuary, and I have very little to say about figures. In the case of Kilkenny it may be that a fiscal injustice has been done, but I am satisfied that in the case of Drogheda an injustice will be done, because I have gone into the figures. I find that Drogheda in the half-year ending with the Spring Assizes, 1898, presented £1,500. Practically in connection with the roads, prisons, and officials, it costs something like £3,000 a year. Now, what will they get in return? No doubt the county of Louth will have to support their coroner, boroughs surveyor, the sub-sheriff,

  667
  the judges, crier, the boat-house keeper, the secretary to the grand jury, cess collector, and the secretary to the local grand jury; but upon analysis I find that the total amount in respect of these charges will be a sum of not more than £200. So that they will only be relieved of the civic charges to the extent of £200, and they would have in return for that not merely the county-at-large charges, but also the charges in respect of roads, and officers in the case of Dundalk. Therefore I believe that Dundalk will suffer and Drogheda will suffer severely by reason of this change.
  MR. ATKINSON: I may say one word as to that; the county councils will, of course, get all the power. The next part of the Bill merges in the county boroughs of county towns those which are not county boroughs. The second sub-section of section 22 provides that the council of the county in which the town is merged should have the power of the county council—that is, all the powers the grand jury exercised over the county in which this town is merged. It may be that there are provisions where it is necessary that some special privileges should be introduced in order to carry out the effect of the Bill.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In answer to the speech which preceded that of the honourable and learned Attorney General, that of the honourable and learned Member for Louth, I would like to observe that a reform Bill like this, dealing with the position of towns and boroughs in Ireland, is certain to create some changes which are likely to be distasteful to the localities affected. If the desires of the counties concerned were to represent the total, it would be possible to provide some means to deal with it, but I think if it included as a matter of fact Clonmel, Sligo, Drogheda, and similar towns, we should also find that there is another class of towns below those which would also desire to become county boroughs. We must draw the line somewhere; we have drawn that line very much upon the line that was drawn in England. In England the line was drawn at a town with a population of 50,000. We have included in our list
  668
  of county boroughs all towns in Ireland which have a population of above 25,000, just half that of England. There is one thing further. Although Waterford upon the last census was found to be below 25,000, it has since enlarged its boundaries, and, no doubt, would contain at the present time over 25,000 inhabitants. Now, after that, there is a distinct drop in the number of the inhabitants of the towns—from 25,000 in the case of enlarged Waterford, down to 13,000 odd in the case of Galway. That is the next, and amongst those excluded Clonmel has 8,480 inhabitants, Kilkenny 11,048, Wexford 11,545, Sligo 10,294, and Drogheda 11,873; therefore, the Committee will see, taking the population as a basis for deciding which of these towns should or should not be county boroughs, we have drawn a line distinctly below Waterford. I am quite aware that you cannot pass a Bill of this description and establish a class of boroughs which shall be separate and independent entities without offending the susceptibilities of certain towns which would be willing to come in, and I am sorry that it is so, but I can only say it is not what the wish of those towns may be, but what is reasonable for local government in Ireland. It is not reasonable that places having 10,000, 11,000, 12 000 or 13,000 inhabitants should be treated as separate county boroughs and fiscal entities. I would like to remind the Committee that by clause 45 of this Bill we have provided that—
  "A place which, for the purpose of this Act is a part of an administrative county shall, subject as in this section mentioned, form part of that county for all other purposes, whether assize, sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices, general quarter or potty sessions, jurors, militia, coroner, clerk of the peace, or other county officers, or otherwise."
  In the case of county boroughs you must have all this paraphernalia, and if you are to require it for comparatively small places like Kilkenny, Clonmel, Sligo, Drogheda, and Galway, then we would rather decline.
  MR. DILLON: I have now heard what I was anxious to know, and that is the Government refusal for giving these privileges for certain towns in Ireland, and it really amounts to this, that where

  669
  in England the fair limit was 50,000, the fair limit in Ireland is supposed to be 25,000. It is absolutely preposterous. If you are to compare these matters, you must have some idea of the character of the country with which you are dealing, and to say that a limit of 50,000 people in Great Britain is a fair analogue to 25,000 in Ireland is ridiculous and not to be believed. The limit of 25,000 inhabitants in Ireland has only produced six towns large enough to be made county boroughs. I hold that the limit of 10,000 in Ireland would, in comparison, be higher than 50,000 here, and that would be perfectly clear to anybody who knows the two countries. I listened in vain for a single instance where the Government was willing to grant the wish of the population, that which is found to be the wish of the population. If they desire all the paraphernalia of officers, and if they are prepared to maintain them, then they ought to be allowed to do so. I say that 10,000 inhabitants would be a greater limit in Ireland than 50,000 in England, and I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to deal with these facts; in Great Britain you are dealing with the claims of cities of mushroom growth, many of them the growth of the century, but the towns that we are pleading for were important places before many of the English cities were known. Drogheda has been an important seaport for five centuries. As time went on the population in these towns went down, and I believe that Drogheda has a very much smaller population than it had 40 years ago. Here your have ancient boroughs with a great history behind them, and they come and demand with a unanimous voice, not that you will not take away the advantage of local government merely, but that you will not sweep away their historic identity at the same time that you place your English financial laws upon them. I understand that there is no difference of opinion on the subject. There is a strong unanimous desire that the ancient privileges and identity should not be interfered with. The only reason that the right honourable Gentleman gives us is that the limit of 25,000 is small enough. So far as the borough of Drogheda is
  670
  concerned, I shall raise the question again upon the Report stage, and I shall do so in the hope that the right honourable Gentleman will have considered this important matter in the interval.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: This is essentially a case where sympathetic treatment would have a very great effect, and it shows that the great misfortune is that Ireland is not governed by an Irishman. He would have had some regard for the ancient privileges and the historic associations of these old towns. The Chief Secretary has spoken about this population, and says that in England a limit of 50,000 was the qualification which was fixed. Would the right honourable Gentleman explain how he arrived at that figure with regard to the city of London, which has not a population of 50,000? If he had gone into this question of the population limit properly he would find that the population of Ireland is one-seventh of that of England; and if the right honourable Gentleman had followed out that principle in the Irish towns and cities and counties he would find that one-seventh of the population of England was the right limit to allow to Ireland, and that would bring the population of the Irish towns down to 7,000. I think it is not fair to take a population limit in connection with Ireland, because the population of Ireland is a decreasing one, while that of England is increasing. I think it would be only just on the part of the right honourable Gentleman if, seeing that the corresponding figure to 50,000 in England is 7,000, he had adopted a population limit of 10,000 for the Irish towns. The right honourable Gentleman said it was necessary to draw a line somewhere, and no doubt it is, but I would respectfully point out that the only cases we have brought before him are those of towns which have made specific requests, and, inasmuch, as the only towns we have pleaded for are those mentioned in the schedule, it is quite open for the right honourable Gentleman to place his population limit below that of those towns. I am afraid there, is an absolute lack of sympathy in the matter. It is not a contentious matter, it is purely a question of sentiment

  671
  with these Irish towns, and which have made this request to you on their merits; and, irrespective of their populations, you ought to have acceded to their request. If English, Scotch, or Welsh towns had made similar requests to this House, they would not have been refused.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: They did, and were refused.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: But not towns whose position corresponded with these Irish towns. I see no objection whatever to the inclusion of these Irish towns in county boroughs if the counties which are concerned in the matter do not object, and I think they should be allowed to retain their proper status.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I think for the fourth time since this Bill has been introduced I have had the honour to put forward the claim the town which I represent has to be made a county borough. The city of Kilkenny has a charter which dates back 700 years. It not only had one Parliament, but two. It had also two corporations. It has a corporation still, and it was your English interference which brought about the second, and now I am to be told that the question of population is to be taken into consideration when you are determining as to whether a city should become a county borough or not. I beg to remind the right honourable Gentleman that if the amount of people there do not come up to the standard or limit entitling them to be a county borough, it is owing to British misrule, which has decreased the population of Ireland, and swept it away from the country. You must remember what system of government it was that made it. What system was it that reduced the population of Ireland from eight millions to four millions but the blighting curse of the British rule? And now we are to he told that the position of these ancient cities is to be taken away. I have protested four times against this being done. This is not a question of politics. I am in a position to say that the consensus of all shades of political opinion is in favour of their being retained. Everyone makes this claim, and the person the most enthusiastic is the Marquess of Ormonde, one
  672
  of the supporters of Her Majesty's Government. What reason does the right honourable Gentleman give for denying this right to Kilkenny? I was told that Kilkenny would not lose anything by being made an urban council; it turns out that it will lose its sheriff. Is any provision going to be made that it shall have its sheriff? The Government has given no reason for refusing it.
  MR. CLANCY: May I say a word or two on behalf of other towns? I have not interfered unnecessarily in this Debate, but I now refer to the town of Newry. Although it has a considerable proportion of Unionists, it has a majority or Nationalists, but all Glasses of opinion in the town of Newry have signed a statement to which I should like to draw attention. It points out that it is a Parliamentary borough, and a large manufacturing town, that it is a military station, and is situated in two counties—Louth and Armagh. The two county towns which Newry must have connection, with if it is not made a county borough are situated at a very considerable distance, and are most inconvenient of access. It is the largest town between Dublin and Belfast. the present local government has been incorporated under several Acts of Parliament, and has been incorporated at considerable expense; it is invested with the control of water supply, gas supply, roads, and other matters, and exercises the powers formerly exercised by the grand juries, and, therefore, it should not suffer any diminution under the new Local Government Bill. This is a case which ought to obtain the attention of the Government. I have listened carefully to the speech of the Chief Secretary to ascertain what the reason is for objecting to the change, and I can really find none. Nobody would be injured at all, and everybody desires the change. The only answer the proposal has met was that of the Chief Secretary with regard to a population of 25,000 inhabitants, but the right honourable Gentleman must admit that a limit of 10,000, which included Newry, is not unreasonable. I would only add one word on behalf of my native town, Galway.
  THE CHAIRMANinterposed.
  MR. CLANCYsaid lie did not intend to make a speech. If necessary, he begged to move that Galway be included.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the honourable Member will conclude by moving the inclusion of Newry and Galway.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At end of proposed Amendment add the words, 'Galway, Newry.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
  MR. CLANCYsaid Galway was a very ancient town, and he hoped honourable Members would not sneer at the local memories. This might seem a slight and trivial matter, but Galway was a subject of pride to every one of its inhabitants. The proposal injured nobody, and he would suggest that if between this and the Report stage, the right honourable Gentleman himself should see any objection from the Imperial point of view, or from the point of view of Ireland, to include this list of towns among county boroughs, he should consult local feeling upon the subject, and take the best opinions he could. With these few remarks he begged to move that Newry and Galway be added to the list of county boroughs.
  Amendment to Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid he must urge the claims of the city of Kilkenny, which was full of the oldest and most historic traditions, and had always taken a most prominent part in the politics of the country. Parliament used to meet there in the time of the Plantagenets, and why should Kilkenny against its will be thrown into the county? The same observation applied to Louth. He knew nothing personally as regarded Drogheda, but he could speak with great assurance respecting Kilkenny. Clonmel and Newry, which had recently obtained an Act of Parliament, stood on a somewhat different footing. He hoped the Chief Secretary would reconsider the whole matter, that he would give way to the feelings expressed, and that he would not lay the foundations of discontent and a never ceasing grievance for centuries to come.
  Question put—
  "That the words, 'Clonmel, Kilkenny, Wexford, Sligo, Drogheda, Galway, Newry,' be there added."
  The Committee divided;—Ayes 65; Noes 118.—(Division List No. 122.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murnaghan, George

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Hazell, Walter

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbysh.)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

  Blake, Edward

  Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Caldwell, James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shee, James John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Spicer, Albert

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Leng, Sir John

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Clark, Dr. G. B.(Caithness-sh.)

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Collery, Bernard

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Colville, John

  Macaleese. Daniel

  Sullivan, T.D. (Donegal, W.)

  Crilly, Daniel

  McDonnell,Dr.M.A.(Qn.'sCo.)

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Daly, James

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Tully, Jasper

  Dillon, John

  McDermott, Patrick

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McHugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'ld)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Monk, Charles James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Moss, Samuel

  Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  NOES.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Garfit, William

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gedge, Sydney

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Balfour, Rt.Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur

  Barry,RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Beach,Rt.Hn.Sir M.H. Brist'l)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Purvis, Robert

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Billson, Alfred

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Brassey, Albert

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Robertson, T. H. (Hackney)

  Butcher, John George

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Hornby, William Henry

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

  Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs, N.)

  Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Kenyon, James

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Lowles, John

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Dane, Richard M.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Lucas-Shad well, William

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  McCalmont, Col. J.(Ant'm,E.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wortley, Rt, Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Milbank, Powlett Charles J.

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Fergusson,Rt.Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Schedule 2 agreed to.

  SCHEDULE 3.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 51, after line 16, insert 'dogs.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to offer to increase the Excise taxes of our country if we accepted that proposal, but we desire that the Excise taxes, which are captured by the Government, should be put to local purposes. There is the pawnbrokers' tax; that is a tax which goes directly to the Imperial Government. There is the hackney carriage tax, levied solely in Dublin, and the dog tax, which also go to the Impe-
  676
  rial Government. Now, it does seem to me that those three taxes which do not exist in England, or, if they do exist, go to the local authority and not to the Imperial Government, should in Ireland go towards local government.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: They already go in aid of the police in Dublin and the petty sessions clerks in Belfast and other matters.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What are the figures?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not got the figures at the moment; but a certain proportion of those taxes has to be paid in Dublin out of local taxation. They are either paid direct by the corporation, or, if the corporation did not

  677
  continue to collect them, they would have to be paid in some other way. There would be no gain to the local taxes or to the taxpayer in Ireland. The justices' clerks in Ireland, as in England, are paid out of Imperial sources. Part now of the dog tax goes towards local taxes; therefore, in reality, nothing would be gained by throwing these into the local taxes, it would merely be taking the money out of one pocket to put it in the other.
  MR. M. HEALY: Can the right honourable Gentleman tell me this: the dog tax is payable for the year ending 31st of March, and the tax which is paid on the 31st March does not reach the county councils until the May twelvemonth following. In other words, the tax which was paid in March last will not reach the county councils until next May. I want to know how that is. I believe it is a mere question of keeping the account.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has given me the same answer as he gave me on Wednesday. There is an area from Dublin to Bray in which 8d. in the £ is levied for the upkeep of the police, not a constable of which can we appoint. He said just now he has not the figures as to how much of these taxes go to local purposes. I do not blame him for saying so. We can never get them. Who pays the pawnbrokers' tax? It is squeezed out of the rags and misery of the poor. The hackney carriage tax has no parallel in England. The Dublin Metropolitan Police are a most excellent body, and a popular body, and their officers are drawn from the ranks, and I only wish the Royal Irish Constabulary were like them: there are no snobs amongst them. Their officers do not aim to sup at the tables of the landlords or anything like that. They do their duty in the streets, but there are more police in Dublin, having regard to the population, than in any city of the world. There are three times as many police in Dublin in ratio to the population as there are in London, though in London you will, per-
  678
  haps, see more property in one street than you can find in all Dublin put together, including the Castle. That being so, it is absurd that you should keep up this enormous force. You only do so because you are able to levy the amount from the pawnbrokers, the jarvies, and the dogs to keep it up. I believe half the charge of the metropolitan police of Dublin falls on the ratepayers, and with regard to the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer all we ask him to do is this: we do not want him to increase the Excise taxes, but to divert them into the proper channel. Whenever we ask for the amounts which are given out of these taxes for local matters, the right honourable Gentleman tells us he has not the figures. We once had a Vice-Chancellor in Ireland, 30 or 40 years ago, who looked after these matters, now we have an Irish official established at the Treasury, who, instead of sticking out against these Treasury brigands, simply re-echoes everything they say.
  Amendment negatived.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Schedule 4 (Election of County and District Councils and Guardians) and Schedule 5 (Irish Enactments subject to adaptation by Order in Council) were agreed to.

  SCHEDULE 7.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 56, line 4, at end, insert—
  "The compensation payable to any high constable or collector of a barony, or to his deputy, duly appointed under section two hundred and forty-eight of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, shall be according to the following scale:—(a) If his service has not exceeded two grand jury half-years, one year's net emoluments; (b) If his service has exceeded two grand jury half-years, one year's net emoluments, together with one quarter of one year's net emoluments for each grand jury half-year which he has served above the two first, but not exceeding in any case five years' net emoluments; (c) The net emoluments shall be ascertained according to the average for the six grand jury half-years next before the summer assizes. 1898, or if the officer has served for less

  679
  than that period, then for the period of his service; (d) The gross emoluments of a deputy shall not exceed the sum deducted in respect thereof in ascertaining the net emoluments of the high constable or collector whose deputy he was; (e) The expression 'grand jury half-year,' means the period between any assizes and the next assize."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment to Amendment proposed—
  "Line 7, leave out 'quarter,' and insert 'half.'"
  "Line 9, leave out 'five,' and insert 'ten.'"
  "And for the purposes of this schedule the net emoluments of a high constable or collector or of a collector of a district shall be deemed to be the gross average annual poundage received by him during the period aforesaid, after deducting therefrom the average annual salaries or poundage paid by him to his deputy or sub-collector during the same period."—(Mr. J. H. M. Campbell.)
  MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: This is the last opportunity which is offered to the Chief Secretary for showing a little generosity. I do not suggest that he has been illiberal in the matter of treating the officers, and I wish to compliment him on the manner in which he has dealt with the suggestions made to him. I think, as a reward for the progress we have achieved to-day, he might give me this small concession for which I ask for a very deserving body of people. I might point out that a large number of these collectors are absolutely dependent for their livelihood upon collecting this asset. Some of them have had 40 years' service, and now they are going to be turned adrift with five years' compensation. I think that is an extremely absurd compensation to be fixed as a maximum. I do not see why, if those who have served 40 years should only get one year's net emoluments, and those who serve less than five years are to get a year for every year they serve, those who have served 40 years should only receive five years' compensation. It is a matter which requires looking into. If it is a fair allowance for the man who has served five years to get a year's net emoluments for every year he has served, then it follows that it is grossly inadequate for a man who has served many years in excess of that period, and
  680
  it is unfair to turn a man of 40 years' service adrift with only five years' net emoluments. I know it is said, and not untruly, that these men hold their offices at the will of the grand jury, and that they were re-appointed every year, but honourable Members opposite know, in point of fact and practice, that they were never removed.
  DR. TANNER: Then they ought to have been.
  MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: There are great many officials who ought to have been removed, who still remain. They have just the same tenure of office, neither higher nor lower, than the secretary of the grand jury or the county surveyor. Those officers have been properly and carefully provided for under this Bill, but these cess collectors, some of whom have served 40 years and some 50 years, and who have no means of livelihood, are now to be turned adrift with five years' emoluments. I do not propose, at this time of night, to go into the other Amendments, as they are consequential on the first one. The last one contains something which is to compensate the deputy, I think some consideration might be given to this very deserving class, and therefore I move to leave out "quarter," and insert "half."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My honourable and learned Friend suggests that I might give way to generosity. I do not think my honourable and learned Friend is quite aware how generous the terms are which we propose in this schedule. In order to compare a gratuity with an annuity it is necessary to state how I made the assumption that the average age would be about 10 years, and that the average amount of the net emoluments of the barony cess collector would be about £100. Any factor would serve the purpose equally well, but I calculated it upon this assumption, that if the net emoluments were £100 a year under this schedule, the gratuity which he would receive would compare favourably to the

  681
  recipient with the amount which would be received by a Civil servant whose office was abolished. Now, my honourable and learned Friend suggests that we have done injustice to these gentlemen, who have received compensation under this schedule, in stopping short at five years. I believe, on the contrary, that it is on the whole a very generous provision. I believe it would be impossible to find in any other Act where compensation has been made that it has been made on such favourable terms. My honourable Friend must remember this: supposing it went to 20 years, what would be the effect? I might make my calculation on the basis of 30 years, and a gratuity calculated on the same basis would purchase an annuity very much larger than it would at an earlier age, and if you could not give this gratuity on the larger amount. If the honourable and learned Member's Amendments are accepted, and "half" is substituted for a "quarter," the result will be that in 10 years the person in receipt of a gratuity will be getting nearly twice as much as those who are compensated by means of an annuity; and if you insert 10 years instead of five, in my judgment it would give a lump sum in gratuity far beyond what would be reasonable for a person whose employment was promiscuous. You must remember that these persons axe not really entitled to any compensation at all strictly, and I do not think they have been treated unfavourably. They have been practically compensated in the same manner as persons who are permanently employed are compensated.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: The Chief Secretary said just before he sat down that in his judgment these officers were not entitled to any recompense at all, and I agree with him entirely upon that.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I did not say entitled, I said that strictly and legally compensation might be denied them, owing to the terms of their employment.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: Why are they not treated strictly in accordance with the terms of their employment? The right honourable Gentleman is charged with being ungenerous, but I venture to assert that the honourable and learned Gentleman who asked for this concession does not know the real facts of the case in connection with these barony constables of Ireland. Now, I have had an opportunity of knowing how these gentlemen conduct their business and how they are paid, and I can say this without contradiction that, so far as they are concerned, they do not deserve any consideration whatever. Most of them are the illegitimate sons of the grand jurors, who have been put into the position. [Cries of "Withdraw, withdraw!"] I certainly shall not withdraw. Most of them are the illegitimate sons of the grand jurors, who have been put into that position simply because they are related in this manner to the grand jurors, as I know to my personal knowledge. [Uproar.] shall finish my sentence when the Members of this House of Commons cease to interrupt me. As I know to my personal knowledge, most of these gentlemen are the hangers-on of the rent offices. We have a rent office in Sligo, which is administered by the Messrs. Robinson, and any man who wished to become a barony constable of that county had to go to that office, and had to get the support of the foreman of the grand jury. I say it is a gross scandal that we Nationalists of Sligo, consisting of 90 per cent, of the people of the county, and paying 90 per cent, of the county cess, can never get a man appointed as a constable unless he is a Protestant, As a matter of fact we have on several occasions put forward men of the finest integrity and education, and men who could give security as good as the Bank of England.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: May I interrupt the honourable Gentleman, and ask him if he did not say the other day that he himself was a grand juror?
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I did say I was a grand juror, but I was not selected by the sheriff, I was elected by the people. I was an ex-officio member, and I stood alone in my integrity, and when I tried to get a member of my own party, a Nationalist, selected to take the place of a deceased barony constable, although this gentleman was one in the very highest position, and able to give the best of security, and a gentleman of the highest respectability, his application was refused, although he offered to collect it for half the amount which the others collected it for. [Laughter.] It may be a laughing matter to honourable Gentlemen opposite. [No, no!] It is a laughing matter. It appears to me that you think it is better to continue the system which prevails, but if it is, we Catholics and Nationalists would never get a man appointed, and we put forward the best man, a man of the highest respectability. These men put forward, who had this connection with the grand jurors, and who wished to get a shilling in the £, these men for whom the honourable and learned Member now claims compensation and pensions, do not collect the cess, but farm it out to deputies, who collect it at twopence in the £, and they draw tenpence for doing nothing. I say, under these circumstances, these men deserve no compensation whatever.
  MR. FLYNN: I can corroborate what has been said on general lines; these men do nothing for the money which they draw. They get the collection of the county cess at a certain poundage, and they farm it out at 2d. or 3d. in the £, and do not do a stroke of honest work for what they receive. They do nothing to the advantage of the country, and, under the circumstances, I say it is scandalous and indefensible that they should receive any compensation at all. It is a kind of job that cannot be defended by anybody who is aware of the circumstances. There is no one who can say it is like a surveyor or grand juror, who does the work. This is a sop to the servants of the grand juries who are to be swept away, and it
  684
  will have to be put upon record that this is a portion of the robbery and blackmail which the Irish people are compelled to suffer for the sweeping away an obsolete system which was vicious in the extreme.
  MR. COLLERY (Sligo, N.): I entirely agree that these gentlemen have no claim whatever to compensation, though I cannot allow this discussion to terminate without expressing my dissent to the statements which have been made as to these gentlemen. I cannot agree that the barony collectors deserve the description which has been applied to them by the honourable Member. I think the barony cess collectors have no claim whatever to compensation because they are gentlemen who come in and got appointed through the influence of the grand jurors, one of whom I happen to be. They simply hold their office as an honorary appointment. Many of those appointed in my district are respectable farmers, and one of those fanners came to me and asked me to become a security for him to the man for whom he collected the cess, for whom, by the way, I was security to the grand jury. That is a case which actually happened to me. I may state this though, that there are gentlemen for whom I have a great respect as men of intellect, who are Catholics, who can never get appointed because these appointments are obtained through influence, and it is influence to which no Catholic need apply. I proposed myself two or three Catholics who were willing to do the work for 6d. in the £, as against the shilling which is being paid, and they were refused. We only got two votes—that of myself and my Friend sitting behind me—and what was the result? They appointed a gentleman who was a sub-agent in an office, who farmed it out, and drew his 9d. in the £, and he does not do single thing. So far as he has any claim on the ratepayers, he has none whatever. I speak now for the first time on almost any subject, and I do so now

  685
  because I am convinced of the justice of the contention that they have no claim upon the ratepayers for compensation for the discontinuation of the duties which they had to do. The office was purely an honorary one.
  DR. TANNERsaid it appeared to him the gentleman who took up the position of a barony constable was a person who had failed in even other line of life. When a man failed to pass for the Army, and it was too late to get him into the Navy, and it was absolutely useless to try and net him into the Civil Service, when he was absolutely unable to pass the necessary examination to become a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, then the relatives consulted with the grand jury, and they came to the natural conclusion that he was fit to become a barony constable for the county of Cork. He did sincerely hope that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary would not attempt to perpetuate a system which was so full of extreme jobbery. The whole of the county of Cork had been farmed out for years in that way. A personal friend of his own had obtained a permanent position through the action of the right honourable Gentleman, but that was no reason why the whole of his family should have appointments in the county. As a matter of fact, there were nine members of one family who had the absolute control of all this business in the county, and did it at too remunerative interest to please the ratepayers. He sincerely hoped that the right honourable Gentleman would take a firm stand upon the matter. He looked upon the Amendment of the honourable Member as a practical joke, and he did trust that he would not insist upon it.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Schedule 7 added to the Bill.

  NEW SCHEDULE.
  Upon a new schedule dealing with the Acts proposed to be repealed by the Bill,
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I already protested against the fact that this was not put down as an Amendment in the ordinary way. I think that the ordinary common, form ought to have been followed out. The right honourable Gentleman proposes, in regard to section 58, to repeal a number of sections having connection with roads. I cannot see any necessity for that proposal. Why should not the Bill remain as it is? It seems to me that some power should exist for the purpose.
  MR. ATKINSON: It is too late now to discuss the repeals.
  Schedule added to the Bill.
  Bill as amended ordered to be reported to the House.
  House resumed; when 21st June was fixed for Report stage of the Bill.

  QUESTIONS ON MOTION FOR ADURNMENT.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That this House do now adjourn until Monday, 6th June."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR C. DILKE: Without delaying the House more than a very few minutes, I want to put the present position as to our future discussion upon foreign affairs to the Government, because I do not think the matter stands in a favourable position on what was said last night. There was an announcement made to-day by the Government as to the business after the Recess, and although I believe in the course of the evening the Government have changed their minds as to the business to be taken, on the second day after the Recess, there

  687
  is no doubt that the first day is to be devoted to the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and on that Bill one portion of the matter we desire to discuss will be open to discussion. The recent alarming speeches made by the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government will be open to discussion, because we shall haw to point out how ridiculous and inconsistent their speeches are in the face of the proposal to reduce taxation, rather than to spend more money on shipbuilding. But there are some other matters raised by recent speeches which cannot be discussed on that occasion. There is the policy of alliance with Germany which has been proclaimed by the Leader of the House recently on two occasions, and there is the policy of an alliance with military Powers not named, which was the phrase of the Colonial Secretary. Those speeches we shall not have an opportunity of discussing on the Finance Bill. We cannot discuss this question of the alliances, although we may discuss others. Without discussing that policy on this occasion, let me just say this about it. It is the most momentous change in the Foreign affairs of this country which has taken place since the Treaty of Vienna. There have been many suggestions in books, and by the writers of the Press and others, that such alliances should be entered into by this country, but there has never been such a suggestion on the part of a statesman of this country since the time of the conclusion of the Treaty of Yienna. It is an enormous change, and is a matter which must be discussed by Parliament, though it has not been at the present time. How does this matter stand? We have been challenged repeatedly by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, outside and inside the House, to a discussion, and we have not shrunk from that discussion, and a great many Members of this House have expressed a desire to take part in it. We have accepted the challenge. When the Foreign Office Vote was first discussed in this House the Leader of the House appealed publicly
  688
  and privately to the Leader of the Opposition and to myself. He told us he could not go into the full discussion of the details of the past policy of the Government in the absence of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and although we upheld our right to discuss these matters, as a matter of courtesy we abstained from doing so, and we told the Government at the time, and they thanked us for making that statement in the absence of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. When he returned to the House we asked for a day, but from that time to this we have not had a definite promise of a day from the Government. Now, Sir, yesterday there was a discussion as to this matter, and I understood the right honourable Gentleman to say that if there was a general expression of the desire to take the first Friday after the Whitsuntide Recess for this discussion, that day was open, and we might have it. I wish to know if that was a definite promise, or if it was not. I do not know what means are open to us to show that general desire for this discussion; all I can say is that if there is some shrinking on the part of the honourable Members opposite from telling Her Majesty's Government that they have that desire, they do not shrink from telling us. We see in the Conservative Press as strong a desire as we have. We see Conservative Members resigning their seats upon this subject, and when this conduct has to be defended we find a right honourable Baronet coming forward and saying he shares the views of the honourable Member who resigned, but says he thinks it was a mistake that he resigned under the circumstances of the case. We say, therefore, that there is as strong a desire on the opposite side of the House for this discussion as there is on this. I am able to state that the Leader of the Opposition has stated, both publicly and privately, that he desired that this discussion should take place on the first Friday after Whitsuntide, and I believe that there is not a Member on this side of the House who does not also desire it. I now ask the Government to

  689
  give us a definite promise that we shall have this discussion upon the first Friday after the Whitsuntide Recess.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I do hope that we may be favoured with some information with regard to the form mat the Indian Debate will take. I was glad to hear that this Debate was to come on at an early time, and that a financial statement will be placed before the House. But there is now a change in the order proposed, and I think we should have some information to show that the few opportunities that are given to us for discussing Indian matters will not be lost to the House. The practice for a good many years past has been to have two opportunities of discussing Indian affairs. First, on a Motion "That the Speaker do leave the Chair." On such an occasion all subjects may be discussed and Amendments may be moved. The second opportunity is the one in Committee, when only questions of finance can be discussed. The proposal this morning was that the Debate should be only in Committee. I think that it would be a great loss to the people of India if there was not an opportunity given for discussing general grievances on the Motion "That the Speaker do leave the Chair." Affairs in India have been of a very exceptional kind, and the Government have had to take exceptional measures to deal with them, and I am sure the House will say that more opportunity should be given to review these measures; and, therefore, I sincerely trust that we shall have an assurance given to us that there shall be a full-dress Debate on the general question with the Speaker in the Chair.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I cannot but deny that it would be very inconvenient to commence a discussion upon foreign affairs or general Imperial questions at this late hour of the evening, but we have a right to say that there should be an early opportunity given for the discussion of these important questions. There are some of us who think a good deal of time has of late been
  690
  wasted over the Irish Local Government Bill, but apart from that I think the statement of the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean is deserving of consideration. There have been remarkable statements made of late by Ministers, some of which we are not fully acquainted with, which we have read in full, and which we have read with great surprise. The recent speech of the Colonial Secretary in Birmingham was one of the most astonishing utterances which have been made in this country for many years. I do not agree with the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who has just spoken, in his minatory reference to the understanding concluded "with Germany, and which has already borne such excellent fruit in the interests of this country in South Africa and elsewhere. Honourable Gentlemen may not have noticed what an admirable attitude the German official Press are taking with regard to the attitude of President Kruger, in consequence of the understanding between the two countries. We should like to have an early opportunity of knowing what the right honourable Gentleman meant by his utterances the other day. We should like to know whether he went for a Pan-Teutonic Alliance or an Anglo-Saxon Alliance. We should also like to know what progress has been made towards a good understanding with Japan, which is so exceedingly necessary to the interests of this country in the Far East; and we should like to know how far the Government have abandoned their unfortunate attitude towards the Ottoman Empire, and whether there is really any chance of restoring order and good government to the unfortunate people of Crete, and many other interests of that kind; and so, without troubling the House any further, I would venture to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I suppose, will reply to me on behalf of the Government, whether he cannot see his way to granting us an early day for this discussion.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: We are about to separate for the Whitsuntide holidays, and the right honourable

  691
  Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean has pointed out that the circumstances at the present time are of a most critical character. Now, I ask the House of Commons, if that is true, to look at the Front Opposition Bench. Now, I would point out to the House that when these circumstances are supposed to be so critical as they are the only leaders of the Opposition who are here to speak upon these affairs are the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and the honourable Member for Northampton, who, although he has not spoken yet, I should imagine from his attitude is going to speak on the very first opportunity. The right honourable Baronet accuses the Government of shirking and delaying this discussion on foreign affairs, but I hear from the Government Benches repeatedly offers being made that if a vote of want of confidence were proposed by the Leader of the Opposition the Government would at once afford a day for the discussion of foreign affairs. If foreign affairs are so critical, why do not the honourable Gentlemen opposite challenge the Government by means of a vote of censure? But nothing of the kind has taken place. The policy of the Government is challenged by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who criticises everything and suggests nothing, but from the Front Opposition Bench we hear no sound. The British people will be abrogating the common sense which they generally show if they believe for one moment that there is any truth in the statement made by the right honourable Baronet that the conduct of the Government has been averse to the welfare of this country. The only sign so far as I can make out of what the honourable Gentlemen opposite say, is the fact that one honourable Gentleman has resigned his seat. Well, this side of the House can afford even the loss of one honourable Member without falling into that condition of utter desolation which I see opposite. So far as I am concerned, I say that, considering the extreme difficulties of the situation with which the Government had to deal, they have not
  692
  come so badly out of it. [Laughter.] Honourable Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but we have avoided wax, and yet we have maintained the honour of the country. [Opposition, cries of "Oh!"] Yes, we have maintained the honour of the country. I think the honour of the country may be represented by Wei-hai-Wei in the near future. So far as Russia is concerned, she has got Port Arthur. Everybody knew she had got it, even my honourable Friend the Member for Sheffield. I say, if the British people were so dull as not to be able to see this, and if they thought that the British interests had been neglected, we should, have here at the present moment, instead of the empty Opposition Benches that we see, all the Leaders of the opposite Party in their places, and all the honourable Gentleman opposite would be spending their Whitsuntide holidays in stumping England, Scotland, and Wales, pointing out the mistakes of the Government and the betrayal of the national interests. The Front Opposition Bench is practically empty, and therefore I think we can tell the honourable Gentlemen opposite to spend their holidays abroad in peace. I defy them to go round the country in the hope of acquiring the sympathy, approval, and confidence of the people.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Why is there no deference shown to us, because we on this side of the House are anxious to consult the convenience of the right honourable Gentlemen opposite? We know perfectly well we could go on to discuss this question until to-morrow morning, but the Leader of the Government is not here, and we are anxious to suit his convenience, and as he is not well we do not press it. We knew perfectly well that the Debate might last out to just before the holidays, and a great national festival is going to take place to-morrow, and we are not anxious to prolong a sitting which commenced at Twelve o'clock to a later hour than at present. The honourable and gallant Gentleman who just preceded me called the attention of the House to the condi-

  693
  tion of the Front Opposition Bench. I see on the Front Opposition Bench a small but very intelligent contingent, and I know that honourable Gentlemen and right honourable Gentlemen who would be here in the ordinary course are not here, but it is not for honourable Gentlemen opposite to imply that there is anything wrong, or that those honourable Gentlemen and right honourable Gentlemen have the fullest confidence in the Government because they are not here. It was fully understood yesterday that we were not to take the foreign discussion this evening, and therefore what earthly object could there be in those Gentlemen coming down here for the purpose of hearing the Motion to adjourn? We simply ask for a clear understanding as to what the arrangements are as regards the business of the Recess. We want to have a discussion upon foreign affairs. We want to have one particularly, because we wish to understand what are the views of the Government on Eastern and other questions. Certain views have been put forward by the Colonial Secretary, which may be the expression of the right honourable Gentleman's personal opinion. If that is so it is not so important, but those views may be the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, and if they are it is most important. The honourable and gallant Gentleman says that the Government have done well, but they must not cry before they are out of the wood. They have not done so badly perhaps, under the circumstances. We have not had yet an opportunity of stating our case, and when we have perhaps the honourable and gallant Gentleman will say they have not done so well as they undertook to do. We want to know what the Government policy is before we propose a vote o want of confidence. I really do not know whether the policy of the Government is the unauthorised programme of the right honourable Gentleman the Colonist Secretary, or whether it is not, and until we know that we are not in position to point out anything or to propose a vote of want of confidence. I
  694
  hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us what was asked him by my right honourable Friend the Member for he Forest of Dean, that is when the desired opportunity will be afforded us.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The honourable Member who has just sat down was perfectly right in his statement that it was understood yesterday that there would be no discussion upon foreign affairs to-day, and that being so I really cannot imagine what the object of the conversation is which has just taken place, when I suppose that 99 out of every 100 of the Members who have been here to-day are anxious, after our prolonged sitting, to get home. Now, the honourable Baronet opposite (Sir W. Wedderburn) complained that he wanted to have a sufficient opportunity, which was not given him, to discuss Indian affairs. He is singularly fortunate this year in that respect. First, he will have an opportunity upon the resolution and the Bill of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, and later on he will have an opportunity upon the Indian Budget, therefore I think he has no cause of complaint. Now what is the cause of complaint of the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and the honourable Member for Northampton, and the honourable Member for Sheffield? We are all a little tired of these purposeless, objectless, and endless discussions in Committee of Supply. If honourable Members of this House question our policy on foreign affairs, let them question it by a Resolution put to the Vote of this House.
  SIR C. DILKE: The right honourable Gentleman says, "wherever they sit"; hitherto we have been told that a vote of censure must be moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore these are words as to which I should like some explanation. I gave notice of, and should have moved, a reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but for a personal appeal

  695
  to myself by the Leader of the House not to do so in the absence of the Under Secretary.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must refuse to take the right honourable Baronet at his own valuation. Who is the right honourable Baronet; what Party does he lead? What Party does he represent in this House but himself? Who is the honourable Member for Northampton? He is always telling us that he is the solitary vestige of the old Liberal Party in this House. And who is my honourable Friend the Member for Sheffield? My honourable Friend the Member for Sheffield takes an active and intelligent interest in Foreign affairs, and has peculiar opinions of his own, which very few other Members are able to share. I remember a certain triumvirate long years ago who rejoiced in the name of the three tailors of Tooley Street. I do not wish to speak a disrespectful word of the three great critics to whom I have just referred, but if we are to afford special opportunities for the discussion of Foreign affairs in this House beyond the time ordinarily devoted to the Foreign Office Vote, then I think we are entitled to claim something more expressive of a general desire on the part of the House than even the wishes and views of the three honourable Members to whom I have referred. It may be that the leaders of the two honourable Gentlemen opposite share their views with regard to an early discussion upon matters of Foreign policy. If that is so, it was perfectly open to them to be in their places yesterday, and it will be open to them to be in their places next Monday week. My right honourable Friend the Leader of the House will also be in his place, I hope, and will be able to afford the opportunity which they desire. I can add nothing more to what I have already said on his behalf, that if there be a
  696
  general desire on the part of the House that Friday, the 10th of June, shall be devoted to the Foreign Office Vote, that desire will be gratified; but, Sir, nothing that has passed to-night adds to the expression of the desire that has been given before, and I would venture to say that these carping criticisms, these Debates, on no more definite proposition than a reduction of £100 on the salary of the Secretary of State, may be necessary in their way, and serve a useful purpose to a certain extent, but they cannot be repeated Friday after Friday indefinitely without depriving us of time which might be more profitably used for useful and practical work. If there is any real desire on the part of the Opposition and on the part of the House to question our Foreign policy, they ought to produce their policy in the shape of a Resolution and take the vote of the House upon it.
  DR. TANNERsaid that the right honourable Baronet [Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett] had stated that a great deal of time had been wasted over the Irish Local Government Bill, but he had evidently taken little notice of what had been done. That Bill had been passed through its Committee stage, and had been reported to the House, and the Irish Members, did not consider, having regard to the magnitude of the Bill, that my time had been wasted.
  MR. ROBSON: The right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thrown out a challenge to this side of the House which has now become somewhat familiar, and I think we are entitled to know in that sense he means that, challenge.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Why do you not take it up?
  MR. ROBSON: The right honourable Gentleman has now strengthened the observation I was about to make by his interruption. The right honourable Gentleman may say in a sarcastic inquiry what he has said to more distinguished individuals, "Who are you?'" but if he did I should only bow a modest head in reply. But I would tell him I am one of a very large number on this side of the House—I believe the overwhelming majority—who desire nothing better than to take up the challenge that is thrown out to us. I wish to ask him what does he mean by that challenge? Does the right honourable Gentleman mean that the Government will only give us a day if it is asked for by the Leader of the Opposition? The challenge is not made to us, but to the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. I am not concerned to inquire what reasons the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth had for not accepting that challenge; they may be good or bad, but, at all events, it is a challenge, if it is of any substance at all, which should be directed to him alone. We are anxious to challenge the policy of the Government, as we are telling the right honourable Gentleman to-day. Will he tell us this: if there be evidence sufficiently clear for this purpose, any strong desire on the part of this side of the House to move a vote of censure, he will give us a day, whether it is asked for by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth or not? Until the right honourable Gentleman meets that challenge let him in future limit his own challenge to the one gentleman to whom he now directs it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I will take the honourable Gentleman who has just spoken at his own valuation. I take him, as he says, as represent-
  698
  ing a vast majority of the Party opposite. Then, Sir, he was Leader of the Party opposite, but his speech certainly points to a strong disorganisation of all that we have hitherto understood as regards the constitution of Parties. Hitherto we have understood that a great Party, upon whichever side it sits, is represented by a Leader selected, of course, in the usual way, by itself. It is only of those Leaders that we can inquire when we require to know the wishes and decisions of the Party as a whole. The honourable Member speaks of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth as a single individual. Is that the opinion of the vast majority of the Liberal Party? Has the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth no more authority in this House, and upon that side of the House, than the honourable Gentleman the Member for Northampton or the honourable Member who has just addressed us? He has less authority than the latter, because the honourable Gentleman has just explained that he represents the majority of his Party.
  MR. ROBSON: I hope I may be allowed to interrupt for one moment, and point out that there is a distinction, although the right honourable Gentleman may not observe it, between representing a majority and being one of a majority. May I ask the right honourable Gentleman, if he quotes my observation, to do so with at least some approach to accuracy?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I make allowances for the honourable Gentleman. He represents that he is one of a vast majority; he means that he represents their opinions, he expresses the opinions of the majority of those who think with him; but then, by the force of his argument, the right honourable Gentleman

  699
  the Member for West Monmouth does not share the opinions of the vast majority of the Party. Sir, the usual course in this House—at least ever since I have been a Member of it—has been, in regard to votes of censure, to accept as the opinion of the Opposition the opinion of the Leader of their Party. We are still prepared to do that. Might I suggest to honourable Members opposite that in the course of the Recess they should settle who the Leader of their Party is? When they have decided whether the Leader is the right honourable Member for West Monmouth, or the honourable Member opposite, we will give them an answer.
  MR. LOUGH: I think, Sir, that a great deal of unnecessary heat has been thrown into this discussion. The simple point at which we desire to arrive is, whether the Government are going to withdraw the promise that we should have the first Friday after the Whitsuntide Recess, which I understand was formally made for the purposes of this discussion. I believe that there is no question at all raised that the first Friday should be given up. That has not been touched upon hitherto. When the right honourable Gentleman was in his place yesterday he certainly said that, if there was a general expression of opinion upon the subject of the foreign policy of the Government, the discussion should be taken upon a convenient date, and we understood yesterday that it was formally settled that the first Friday after the Whitsuntide recess would be given for the discussion of this question. What I should like to ask the Government under the circumstances is, whether they mean to withdraw that promise. There seems to be a great reluctance upon the part of the Government to give the House an opportunity of discussing the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not wish to be misunderstood. I adhere to every word I uttered yesterday. I did not make any definite promise. Speaking, as I was obliged to speak, by the authority of my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House, I said that if there was an expression of a general desire that Friday, the 10th of June, should be devoted to the consideration and discussion of the Foreign Office Vote, my right honourable Friend would consider that desire favourably. I cannot go further than that, and I do not mean to go further.
  MR. LOUGH: When the right honourable Gentleman made that offer there was a universal cry of "hear, hear"; no one protested against it, and everybody in this House believed the matter was settled. I am sorry that the promise should now be withdrawn. I cannot help saying that when the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary rose we thought he was going to throw some light upon his speech. He did nothing of the kind, he goaded and taunted my honourable Friend here, with the tenor of whose remarks we are perfectly in accord. We do not wish to raise the question of the Leadership at all, but I may say this, that there are a great many honourable Members upon this side of the House, a great majority of the honourable Members upon this side, who would like to have an opportunity of discussing this question. But the Government, having yesterday promised us the opportunity, tell us to-day that they have withdrawn their promise. I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he will allow us to part to-night without giving us some intimation as to when we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at 12.25 until 6th June.