HC Deb 31 July 1902 vol 112 cc354-82

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:—

(9.5.) MR. J.P. FARRELL (Longford, N.)

moved an Amendment of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for South Fermanagh to extend the operation of the clauses at present limited to two years.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word 'Board' to the word 'in' in line 16."— (Mr. Farrell.)

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover)

said he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

moved to amend the Clause by adding at the end, "This section shall apply to any debt, claim, or demand incurred or become payable at any time since the passing of the principal Act." The Clause provides that the time within which the payment of any debt mentioned in Section 51, Sub-section 7, of the principal Act may be made may be extended by the Local Government Board to two years from the date at which the debt was incurred, or became due, and the object of the Amendment was to make the action of the Clause retrospective. This statutory limitation was really a new one. People had become accustomed to the six years statutory limit, and it would take some time to get accustomed to anything else. He confessed that his principal object in moving the Amendment was to enable County Councils to recover debts which they could not do unless the Clause was retrospective, and he had particularly in mind a case in which the Monaghan County Council was unable to obtain payment of money admittedly due. The sum sought to be recovered was over £1,300, but under the statutory limitation contained in the 7th sub-section only £624 had been declared recoverable by the courts, and that, he submitted, was a great scandal.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 18, at end, to add the words 'This section shall apply to any debt, claim, or demand incurred or become payable at any time since the passing of the principal Act.'—

MR. WYNDHAM

said that in extending the time to two years the Government had doubled the present period of grace, and gone as far as they could without endangering the prospects of the Bill. Moreover, the Amendment was inconsistent with the drafting of the Bill.

MR. CLANCY

said he only wanted to make an exception to the general rule in order to meet particular cases of hardship. Surely it was a common thing to put in a proviso at the end of the Clause. It would only apply to two or three places in Ireland.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)

pointed out that in the original Act a period of twenty months was selected, but it was found to be inconvenient, and the time was extended. But the Government could not go on extending it indefinitely. The idea was to allow sufficient time to get all the Bills in.

MR. CLANCY

Might you not insert the words, "or at any time up to the present moment"?

MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)

pointed out that there was often difficulty in getting lawyers to send in their bills, which were sometimes spread over many years. They were allowed a long period, and why should not the same privilege be extended to ordinary traders?

MR. CLANCY

asked leave to amend his Amendment by adding the words, "After the 1st April, 1902."

MR. WYNDHAM

said he must adhere to his objection, which was mainly a drafting one. The addition of the words would make nonsense of the Clause. He would, however, promise that before the Report stage he would consider whether a case for exception had been made out, and if he came to an affirmative conclusion he would see how it could be met.

MR. CLANCY

said that under the circumstances he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:—

MR. WYNDHAM

moved an Amendment to provide that the salary paid to a substitute during the vacation of the medical officer of a workhouse should not establish any claim for superannuation. As a matter of fact, he did not think the section as it stood would give any claim to superannuation, but he proposed to add some words in order to make the meaning perfectly clear.

Amendment proposed— In Clause 3, page 1, line 20, after 'Act' insert 'and for no other purpose.'

MR. TULLY

said he was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the section as it stood would not include any possibility of superannuation for a temporary substitute, but he would like to see words included which would throw the cost of the substitute on the Local Taxation Account.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That point must be raised later on.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. TULLY

moved an Amendment with the object of securing that the Government contribution to the salary of the substitute should be paid, not only when the medical officer was absent on leave, but when he was absent through sickness or other circumstances beyond his control, such as being subpoenaed as a witness. Ratepayers were always anxious to keep down expenses, and were consequently sometimes tempted to pursue an unjust policy towards the medical officers, many of whom were very hardly treated; and he believed that if the Government agreed to pay half the cost of the substitute it would become the rule to allow these hard-worked gentlemen four weeks vacation annually. Some of them received salaries which were not even equal to the wages of an ordinary mechanic. Many of them were the sons of Irish traders and farmers who had spent large sums in giving them the necessary education; and certainly when once they qualified and obtained appointments they ought to be treated better than working men were treated. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 24, to leave out from the word 'dispensary' to the word 'under' in line 25."—

Question proposed, "That the words 'while he is absent' stand part of the Clause."

(9.30.) SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.)

thought the Government might agree to this Amendment. It was hardly worth while making two bites of a cherry. There was not a large sum of money involved, and if the Government would concede this he was quite certain it would be accepted as a graceful act by the medical profession in Ireland, who were a body deserving of the greatest praise for the way they performed their arduous duties.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

sympathised with the object of the Amendment. The doctors were not always paid according to the work they did. He hoped the Government would consider the proposal favourably.

MR. DOOGAN (Tyrone, E.)

said it seemed to him that if the doctors were paid for ordinary holidays and had a substitute provided to perform their duties it would only be right and proper that they should receive similar consideration when on sick leave.

MR. HASLETT (Belfast, N.)

said he desired to associate himself with the claim made on behalf of the doctors so far as sick leave was concerned. He did not think, however, that the Government should pay for a substitute when a doctor had, under subpoena, to give attendance at Court, because he received a fee for that. If, however, the Chief Secretary could see his way to allow the Government contribution in both cases, he would not object.

MR. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

said it seemed to him that the proposal in the Bill would not be a popular one in Ireland. If it were possible to exercise very strict supervision over applications for sick leave, of course local bodies would desire very much that half the expense should be defrayed out of the local rate; but it became quite another thing if the local body were to be charged for two doctors at the same time.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not assent to this Amendment. All the arguments used took the form of an appeal for sympathy. The Government felt that it was hard that if a doctor was unable to continue his duties from sickness the whole of the expense should fall on the locality. But if a Government contribution were paid, it would come out of the local taxation account, and would throw a fresh charge upon it. The Local Government account should be safeguarded in such a way that equal benefit would be given to all the different parts of Ireland; or, at any rate, the cases of greatest urgency were of the first importance. There could he no guarantee that the view taken by one Board of Guardians that a proper occasion for grant of sick leave had arisen would be at all the view taken by another Board of Guardians. If this Amendment were adopted, one Board might take a genial view of the matter, while another would be less disposed to follow that course. The great weight of the rates at the present moment, and the desirability of finding means of equalising the burden, made him take up the position that further inroads on the local taxation account should not be sanctioned without careful scrutiny.

MR. TULLY

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not suggest that doctor's, whose business is to cure sickness, will get sick on purpose.

MR. J. P. FARRELL

thought the Chief Secretary need not be afraid of the laxity of the Boards of Guardians in this matter throwing an unwarranted charge on the local taxation account. The Boards were subject to the control of the Local Government Board. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, he would do a good deal to popularise the Local Government Act.

SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)

said he greatly sympathised with the Amendment, but at the same time he recognised the reasonableness of what had been said by the Chief Secretary. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman's objection might be met by framing a regulation to provide that the Government contribution would be paid for a period limited to four weeks.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

did not think the Chief Secretary was disposed to be obstinate in this matter. He hoped that between now and the report stage he would look into the point and endeavour to concede the demand. He did not think the Unions would abuse the power, because the Local Government Board would be able to surcharge them if they did so. He could assure the Committee that the effect of surcharging a couple of Guardians for signing cheques was positively enormous.

MR. MACARTNEY

said that he supported the Amendment entirely, because he felt that the medical practitioners in Ireland were not at all adequately remunerated for their services.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

said he was not concerned to consider too closely the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. This was not an Amendment in relief of medical practitioners, for whom in any case a substitute would have to be paid. This Amendment would give relief to the rates of half the cost of the substitute. No one had more respect than himself for the members of the medical profession, but the Amendment did not concern them at all. What was proposed was a small extension of the Clause, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to agree to it. There was only one argument against it namely, that if this were provided for in the Bill it might lead to fraudulent cases. As the matter stood now, any doctor who sent in a certificate to the Guardians that he was ill and unable to attend to his duties got sick leave. He did not see how it would be the interest of doctors under the proposed provision to increase cases of sick leave at all. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would be able to see their way to accept the Amendment. If the Chief Secretary was not prepared to state that he would consider the proposal between now and the report stage, he thought they ought to have a division.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he was sorry to seem obdurate, but he would have to look very closely into the local taxation account in the autumn and see for what it could be allocated, and he would be sorry if, in the course of this Bill, he were, little by little, to place general charges on that account which would interfere with the allocation which he must decide upon.

MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.)

said he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should still resist the Amendment after hearing the opinions which had been expressed by Irish Members. It was an extraordinary thing that their opinions had so little weight with the Chief Secretary. The Boards of Guardians would take care that there was no malingering on the part of the doctors. Although millions were taken from Ireland in excess of her fair share of taxation, the Chief Secretary stood aghast at the idea of taking out of the local taxation account half the fees of the substitutes for medical officers on sick leave. He thought it would be reasonable to allow four weeks in the course of the year.

SIR JOHN COLOMB

said he would like to make his position clear as to why he could not vote for the Amendment. It seemed to him to cover a great deal more than he was inclined to agree to.

(9.55.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 86. (Division List No. 342.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, capt. Sir Alex F. Flower, Ernest Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond. Plummer, Walter R.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Purvis, Robert
Arrol, Sir William Goulding, Edward Alfred Handles, John S.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Balcarres, Lord Gretton, John Reid, James (Greenock)
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Renwick, George
Banbury, Frederick George Harris, Frederick Leverton Richards, Henry Charles
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Haslett, Sir James Horner Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Bignold, Arthur Heath, Arthur doward (Hanley Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Bigwood, James Henderson, Sir Alexander Ropner, Colonel Robert
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Round, Right Hon. James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Royds, Clement Molyneux
Brotherton, Edward Allen Houston, Robert Paterson Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Bull, William James Hudson, George Bickersteth Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Bullard, Sir Harry Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Seton-Karr, Henry
Butcher, John George Kimber, Henry Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Carlile, William Walter Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Spear, John Ward
Cautley, Henry Strother Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (worc'r Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stone, Sir Benjamin
Chapman, Edward Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Macdona, John Cumming Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Maclver, David (Liverpool) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Maconochie, A. W. Tritton, Charles Ernest
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Valentia, Viscount
Davenport, William Bromley Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire Walker, Col. William Hall
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire) Wills, Sir Frederick
Dickson, Charles Scott Morrell, George Herbet Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (York-)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Mount, William Artnur Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wright-on, Sir Thomas
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Nicol, Donald Ninian Wylie, Alexander
Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Finch, George H. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Sir William Walrond and
Fisher, William Hayes Pierpoint, Robert Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E. Causton, Richard Knight Dillon, John
Ambrose, Robert Channing, Francis Allston Doogan, P. C.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Clancy, John Joseph Duffy, William J.
Bell, Richard Cogan, Denis J. Duke, Henry Edward
Brigg, John Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Edwards, Frank
Broadhurst, Henry Craig, Robert Hunter Elibank, Master of
Burke, E. Haviland- Crean, Eugene Farrell, James Patrick
Burns, John Cremer, William Randal Ffrench, Peter
Caldwell, James Cullinan, J. Flavin, Michael Joseph
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Flynn, James Christopher
Carew, James Laurence Delany, William Gilhooly, James
Griffith, Ellis J. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Hammond, John Moss, Samuel Redmond, William (Clare)
Harrington, Timothy Murnaghan, George Rickett, J. Compton
Hayden, John Patrick Murphy, John Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Helme, Norval Watson Nannetti, Joseph P. Roche, John
Horniman, Frederick John Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Jameson, Major J. Eustace Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Norman, Henry Sullivan, Donal
Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Joyce, Michael O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Tully, Jasper
Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Weir, James Galloway
Leamy. Edmund O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Leigh, Sir Joseph O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Lousdale, John Brownlee O'Malley, William Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Hudderf'ds
Lough, Thomas O'Mara, James
Lundon, W. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—SIR
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Power, Patrick Joseph Thomas Esmonde and
Mooney, John J. Rea, Russell Captain Donelan.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR

said he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept his Amendment, which was — In page 1, line 25, after the word 'vacation; to insert the word 'leave.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had already stated that he was not prepared to accent words which would make a larger demand on the Local Taxation Account.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)

moved as an Amendment— In page 2, line 4, after the second word 'of,' to insert the words 'and any midwife or trained nurse employed under the Medical Charities (Ireland) Acts, and.' He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary ought to give his most favourable consideration to this matter.

MR. DILLON (Mayo)

earnestly pressed the Chief Secretary to accept the Amendment. In the western districts of Ireland, which were very thinly populated, and where the people were very poor, the need of trained nurses and midwives could not be mistaken, and it was utterly beyond the power of the medical officer of the union to give attention to these cases. He was glad that the Local Government Board had issued a sealed order compelling the Boards of Guardians to appoint trained midwives to attend to outdoor cases, but owing to the small salary the guardians were able to offer, the positions were, as a rule, unfilled.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he hoped that the Clause would be allowed to go through in its present form, and in the recess he would consider, with the assistance of the hon. Members for Ireland, the whole question of the charges which ought to be properly placed on the Local Taxation Fund.

MR. HAYDEN

said that after the favourable consideration which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had given to this question he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ageed to.

Clause 4:—

(10.25.) MR. J. P. FARRELL

said that on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Mid. Tipperary he begged to move— In page 2, line 21, after the word 'loan,' to insert the words 'or overdraft.'

MR. WYNDHAM

said the words proposed were absolutely unnecessary, because an overdraft was really a loan. The one covered the other.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:—

MR. COGAN (Wicklow, E.)

said in a recent case an Urban Council had to make a repayment to the authorities of the balance of a loao which they did not require, upon which they had to pay a penalty of £500. The Amendment he desired to move was to do away with the penalties.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 32, at end, to add the words, 'and the Treasury shall not require any such Urban Council to pay any penalty in respect of the redemption of any such loan as aforesaid.'" —(Mr. Cogan.)

MR. WYNDHAM

said he did not quite follow the Amendment. He thought the section itself would meet all hard cases. What the hon. Member meant by penalties he did not know: in fact, he was unable to comprehend the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."

MR. CLANCY

said he wished to move, the omission of Clause 6. The Local Government Act of 1898 provided that the police rate should be 8d. in the £ 5 per cent, of which should be deducted by the Corporation and the County Council of Dublin for the cost of collection and offices expenses. There was no difficulty as regarded the 5 per cent, as far as the Corporation was concerned, but a question had arisen between the County Council and the Urban District Councils, the latter claiming the 5 per cent, for the collection of the rate. It was not, however, the Urban District Councils which had to pay the rate, but the County Council; and the 5 per cent, deduction was a sort of insurance fund to safeguard the County Council against any default on the part of the Urban District Councils in paying over the money in time. Some of the Urban District Councils were not able or willling to pay the money when it was due, and consequently the County Council had to borrow the money and pay interest on it. It was not fair that the insurance fund should be diverted. The result would be that if 5 per cent. were given to the Urban District Councils they would be getting it twice over. The surrounding counties paid to the cost of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum in proportion to the number of lunatics they sent to it, whereas the various parts of the County of Dublin paid according to their valuation, with the result that the rural districts paid £2,000 a year more than they would have to pay on the number of lunatics sent to the Asylum. The same thing happened in the case of the industrial schools, and the general result was that there were a number of inequalities which ought to be redressed. What the Government now proposed was to pick out one inequality, which was supposed to injure the townships, and to leave all others absolutely untouched. The majority of the County Council of Dublin were in favour of the course he was taking, and, indeed, he was taking it at their instance. He did not, however, wish to lay stress on that, but he based his position on the merits of the case. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to view the matter on the merits, and not to take refuge behind mere technicalities. It was the most local of all local matters. It did not concern Ireland as a whole, but only one single; county, and he would ask English and Scottish Members not to take part in the division, but to leave the question to be decided by the Irish representatives. He begged, with some confidence, to move the omission of the Clause.

*MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.)

said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would resist the Motion of his hon. and learned friend. He was not sure that if he was in the same happy position as his hon. and learned friend he would not have taken up exactly the same position. Still, he thought it would be a most inequitable attitude, though from the point of view of the ratepayers of North Dublin one which could do no harm to them, and might result to their financial benefit. What were the facts? In the whole of the North Dublin district there was not a single urban district. In South County Dublin there were six, having a total valuation of over half the total value of the county. These urban districts had at present to collect the rates, and be at the whole expense incidental to such collection, and the Dublin County Council, not by a unanimous vote, but by a majority consisting entirely of the North Dublin Councillors, were now trying to retain in their hands this 5 per cent, which was provided by the original Act for the cost of collection. That is to say that South Dublin was to be at the expense of collecting these rates, and the County Council were to get an extra 5 per cent, for doing nothing. In other words, South County Dublin was to pay 5 per cent, more taxation on their valuation than North County Dublin. This was a glaring anomaly which he was sure was never contemplated by the original Act, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would resist the ingenious, though misleading, arguments of his hon. and learned friend, and retain the Clause in the Bill. The contention of the County Council was that the percentage was not to cover the cost of collection, but to be an insurance. It was, however, never intended to be contemplated in that way.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin made, as was to be expected, an extremely ingenious speech. The hon. and learned Member appealed to the supporters of the Government to trust to local opinion, and to allow the Irish Members to decide the matter. That appeal made a sensible impression on the supporters of the Government, and he feared they might desert him in the division lobby. What then was his relief when he heard the hon. Member for South Dublin urge, if not with equal ingenuity, still, he thought, with greater force, that the Clause should remain as it was. He thought the balance of argument was with the hon. Member for South Dublin. There was a wise maxim which said not to give any reason for a decision. He had studied the case very carefully, but would content himself with giving to the Committee two obiter dicta of persons who were more competent to deal with the case than he was. When the Kilmainhan case was being tried, Mr. Justice Gibson expressed the view

that the law as it stood inflicted a disability which amounted almost to an injustice on the urban districts, and in the same case the Lord Chief Baron said he would be glad if he had the power to decide that the Urban District Councils were entitled to benefit to the extent of 5 per cent., as they did the work of collection in their own areas. He admitted that during the somewhat chaotic period which followed the Act, which revolutionised local government in Ireland, some charge did fall on the County Council, but he understood that that could not recur.

MR. CLANCY

said he was perfectly convinced that the right hon. Gentleman would quote Mr. Justice Gibson and the Lord Chief Baron. So far as those learned judges knew the case, they were perfectly right in what they said. The right hon. Gentleman had shown no reason whatever why the Urban District Councils should have the 5 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman was selecting one inequality, and leaving a number of others untouched, to the prejudice of the County Council. He was perfectly satisfied that justice was with the County Council in the matter.

MR. HARRINGTON

said it appeared to him that the County Council was not treated quite fairly. The demand for the police rate was made on the County Council, and not on the Urban District Councils; and if the Urban District Councils did not collect the full amount the County Council would undoubtedly have to make it up. As a matter of fact, the County Council had to pay the money before the Urban District Councils commenced to collect the rate. He did not think it was fair to hand over 5 per cent, to the Urban District Councils without any adjustment.

(10.51.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 185; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 343.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Bain, Colonel James Robert Bell, Richard
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Bentinck, Lord Henry C.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Banbury, Frederick George Bignold, Arthur
Arrol, Sir William Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Bigwood, James
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Blundell, Colonel Henry
Bond, Edward Goulding, Edward Alfred Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Brigg, John Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Brotherton, Edward Allen Gretton, John Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bull, William James Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G. (Middx Plummer, Walter R.
Bullard, Sir Harry Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry Pretyman, Ernest George
Burke, E. Haviland Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Butcher, John George Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Purvis, Robert
Caldwell, James Haslett, Sir James Horner Randles, John S.
Carlile, William Walter Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Rasch, Major Frederick Carne
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Helme, Norval Watson Reid, James (Greenock)
Causton, Richard Knight Henderson, Sir Alexander Renwick, George
Cautley, Henry Strother Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Richards, Henry Charles
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Rickett, J. Compton
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Houston, Robert Paterson Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex) Roche, John
Channing, Francis Allston Keswick, William Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Chapman, Edward Kimber, Henry Ropner, Colonel Robert
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Round, Rt. Hon. James
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Leigh, Sir Joseph Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Craig, Robert Hunter Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight
Cranborne, Viscount Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Seton-Karr, Henry
Crean, Eugene Llewellyn, Evan Henry Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Crossley, Sir Savile Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Davenport, W. Bromley- Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dewar, Sir T. R. (T'r H'mlets Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Dickson, Charles Scott Lough, Thomas Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Dillon, John Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Loyd, Archie Kirkman Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Donelan, Captain A. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Sullivan, Donal
Doogan, P. C. Lundon, W. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison Thornton, Percy M.
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Macdona, John Cumming Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Duke, Henry Edward MacIver, David (Liverpool) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Valentia, Viscount
Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Walker, Col. William Hall
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh. Webb, Colonel William George
Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r Molesworth, Sir Lewis Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Mooney, John J. Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Finch, George H. More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Morrell, George Herbert Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
Fisher, William Hayes Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford) Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Mount, William Arthur Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir Henry Murnaghan, George Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Flower, Ernest Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Furness, Sir Christopher Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wylie, Alexander
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond. Nicol, Donald Ninian Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick O'Mara, James
Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Sir William Walrond and
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham. William (Cork, N. E. Hammond, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Ambrose, Robert Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Broadhurst, Henry Horniman, Frederick John O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Carew, James Laurence Jones, William (Carnarvonsh're O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Cogan, Denis J. Joyce, Michael O'Malley, William
Cremer, William Randal Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cullinan, J. Leamy, Edmund Power, Patrick Joseph
Delany, William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Redmond, William (Clare)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Moss Samuel Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Duffy, William J. Murphy, John Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Edwards, Frank Nanetti, Joseph P. Tully, Jasper
Farrell, James Patrick Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Ffrench, Peter Nolan, Joseph, (Louth, South) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Flynn, James Christopher Norman, Henry TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Mr. Claney and Mr.
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'ary, Mid Harrington.

First Resolution agreed to.

Clause 7:—

MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN (Tipperary, Mid.)

said he begged to move the omission of Clause 7.

MR. J. P. FARRELL

said he desired to support the Motion, because the Clause would extend a very vicious principle, and would put an enormous burden on the ratepayers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give an explanation of the Clause.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the hon. Member had fallen into a not unnatural misapprehension. All the Clause did was to say that the schemes were valid no matter what decision might ultimately be arrived at in respect of the remuneration of poor rate collectors.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:—

MR. DELANY ( Queen's Co., Ossory)

said he wished to move the omission of Clause 8, which he thought was unnecessary.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could not accept the Motion, as the Clause simply proposed to put sanitary officers in rural and urban districts on the same footing in regard to superannuation.

MR. J. P. FARRELL

asked if it were not a fact that, in all cases, the, medical officer of health was also the dispensary doctor.

MR. TULLY

said the point was a comparatively small one, as the salary paid to the officers referred to only amounted to.£20 or,£30 a year. He had taken a very active interest in the question of superannuation, and was in favour of all schemes which were reasonable and financially sound. The proposal in the Clause was a reasonable scheme, and he would support it.

MR. MURNAGHAN (Tyrone, Mid.)

said that the dispensary doctor and the medical officer of health were one, and the same person. He thought if they passed the Clause they would only complicate matters and that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to postpone the question with a view to further inquiry.

MR. HARRINGTON

pointed out that the practice in the urban districts was not the same as in the rural districts.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that Section 7 of the Public Health Act of 1891 enabled the local authority when superannuating urban officers to take into account their services and salaries as sanitary officers. It was not necessary to go through all the statutory provisions, but the upshot of them was, that that which was true of an officer in a rural district, was not true of an officer in an urban district. That discrepancy arose merely from the fact that Amendments had been made in Acts dealing with rural districts, and not in Acts dealing with urban districts. He had, therefore, to ask the Committee to pass the Clause.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:—

MR. CLANCY

moved to omit the first subsection. He said that at present the law was that if an alteration in the wards of an urban district was desired, application was to be made in the first instance to the County Council. There was an appeal from that body to the Local Government Board, and any order made by the Local Government Board must be laid before Parliament for a certain time. The Bill proposed to take away a power from the County Council which it had possessed ever since the Act of 1898 was passed. He contended that the Local Government Board already had too much power over the County Councils, and this Clause, instead of curtailing that power, proposed to increase it. He declined to admit that the Local Government Board would be a better authority in these matters than the County Council, a the latter was on the spot and knew the local circumstances.

Amendment proposed In page 3, line 27, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Mr. Clancy.)

MR. WYNDHAM

said this Clause had been inserted in deference to the view urged by representative deputations of the Urban District Councils that the question of the alteration of boundaries could not be dispassionately dealt with by the County Council, as frequently the interests of the county and those of the urban district were antagonistic.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

thought the usual reason for an urban district desiring to extend its boundaries was that it might decrease its taxation, and the County Council ought certainly to have a voice in the matter.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the complaint was that the case of the urban district in many cases was not placed before the Local Government Board at all.

MR. J. P. FARRELL

said that to extend the boundaries of a town simply because in times past it had mismanaged its affairs or incurred a large debt, and thus to make the county pay for the town would be most unfair. Any such attempt would be most strongly resisted by the rural districts, and would lead to much friction and trouble.

MR. WYNDHAM

said the Clause was not vital to the Bill, and, as there had been no expression of opinion in favour of the contention of the urban districts, he was prepared to abandon the Clause altogether.

Amendment withdrawn.

Question, "That Clause, 10 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Clause 11—

SIR THOMAS ESMONDE

moved an Amendment making it compulsory on the Local Government Board to carry out the resolution of the County Council. If the County Council arrived at its decision by so large a majority as was proposed there was no reason why the Local Government Board should have a discretion.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 12, to leave out 'may if they think fit,' and insert 'shall.'"—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the Amendment, standing alone, was a very difficult one to decide upon. If the Clause was to remain in its present form he would adhere to the word "may." But if there was a general desire on the part of those interested to give the County Council the power to effect this economy, and the necessary safeguards were made very stringent, it would be absurd for the Local Government Board to exercise a discretion. If two-thirds of a County Council voted in favour of such an economy, no Local Government Board could vote against it.

SIR THOMAS ESMONDE

said there was an Amendment on the Paper which, perhaps, would meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. MACARTNEY

hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to, as it was a somewhat dangerous proposal. It was not wise at so early a period in the career of local government in Ireland to give county councillors the opportunity of being less earnest in the execution of their duties. As far as his experience went it would be quite impossible for County Councils effectively to carry out their duties by half-yearly meetings.

MR. WYNDHAM

thought that the majority of County Councils would adhere to quarterly meetings. But there might be cases in which the ideal form of local government was too expensive, and if the duly elected representatives preferred to have a cheaper form, it was for them and not the Local Government Board to decide. Care should be taken to ensure due deliberation and notice, but if those safeguards were provided, there could be no reason for opposing the Amendment. A further provision should be inserted by which the County Councils could revert to quarterly meetings if they subsequently felt they could afford to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

(11.35).) MR. MURNAGHAN

thought the District Councils ought to be consulted in this matter. He believed in efficiency before economy, and it was a waste of money not to get the best work. He thought it was too soon to begin to overhaul the Local Government Act in Ireland. Practically they were trying to put into a pint measure a quart of fluid. He begged leave to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 19, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'with the consent of the rural district council.'"—(Mr. Murnaghan.)

MR. WYNDHAM

said the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone was an authority upon these matters, and had done a large amount of earnest work. Nevertheless he could not accept this Amendment, which was contrary to the principle laid down in the Clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MURNAGHAN

said that only a year or two ago the Government insisted upon the local bodies increasing the salaries of their officers and under this Clause they were now being asked to compensate those officers for increasing their salaries. It seemed to him that in this proposal there was absolutely no regard for the interests of the ratepayers. He hoped the Chief Secretary would bear in mind that the burden of the local rate was a very serious thing in rural districts as well as in the urban districts. If there was one class in Ireland who were well off, it was the official class.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 31, after the word 'determine,' to leave out to end of sub-section."— (Mr. Murnagham.)

MR. WYNDHAM

thought the hon. Member who moved this Amendment would defeat the purpose he had in view if he attempted to depart from the principle laid down in the Act. He could not, therefore, accept this Amendment.

MR. J. P. FAREELL

thought his hon. friend the Member for Mid Tyrone had good reason for being suspicious with reference to a proposal affecting the officials. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter with the view to protecting the ratepayers and making it beyond their power to still further mulct the ratepayers by retiring allowances and increases of salary it would make the passage of this Act through the House much more easy.

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

asked the Chief Secretary on what ground he was proposing to compensate the officials. In County Kerry, where the duties had been increased, the salaries had gone up from £70 to £130 per annum. Not only did the Government insist upon Kerry, paying for increased work, but they were now suggesting that these officers should have extra compensation. This was a very serious question for the ratepayers.

MR. WYNDHAM

said this seemed to him to be a very small point, and one which it was not worth affecting the principle of the Bill to gain. He would undertake to look into this matter to see what could be done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR THOMAS ESMONDE

said that he Amendment he had to move contained exactly the words of the Treasury regulation. He wanted to obviate legal difficulties upon the question of salaries, and if any loophole at all was left, it might lead to further litigation. His Amendment would make it perfectly clear what amount the compensation would be.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 32, after the word 'to,' to leave out to end of sub-section, and insert the words 'compensation, amounting to one-sixtieth for each complete year during which he shall have acted as such officer from the 1st day of April, 1899, of the amount of the diminution, together with one additional sixtieth of the said amount.'"—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)

MR. WYNDHAM

said that after the promise he had given in regard to the previous Amendment, it would hardly be consistent to accept this proposal, but he would undertake to look into the matter.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said there were two or three matters standing over for consideration between now and the report stage, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make arrangements in order that they might have some discussion upon them. The value of the compromise which had been arrived at would disappear if they could not have any discussion.

MR. WYNDHAM

thought there would be such an opportunity afforded, and he would do his best to communicate his decision to hon. Gentlemen opposite as soon as possible.

SIR THOMAS ESMONDE

said the Chief Secretary knew exactly how the situation stood, and he ought to leave no stone unturned in order to meet them on these points.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he could make-, a long speech upon this subject, for he had all the details with him, but he would undertake to look into the matter.

SIR THOMAS ESMONDE

said he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment, but if his point was not met, he should take no responsibility whatever for this Clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 13:—

(12.0.) MR. MURNAGHAN

moved an Amendment having for its object to prevent a County Council from appointing representatives to attend meetings of the Association of County Councils except with the approval of two-thirds of the whole Council. It seemed to him that the gentlemen attending the meetings should pay their own expenses. He did not think public funds should be used to give them these trips. The meetings of the Association which were held twice a year in Dublin did very little good, while inflicting a charge on the ratepayers. He had been sent up and had his expenses paid, but he did not think he ever did a particle of good by attending the meetings. The poor men in a County Council were not picked out to act as representatives of the Councils, and if the rich men were sent they ought to go at their own expense.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 6, after the word 'may' to insert the words 'if two-thirds of the Whole council approve.'"—(Mr. Murnaghan.)

SIR JOHN COLOMB

supported the Amendment. The Chief Secretary opposed a former Amendment on the ground of economy, and he ought to assent to the present one for the same reason. This was an entirely new thing in Ireland. This Association would fix its meeting for the Punchestown week or the horse show week, and the representatives of the County Councils would come to Dublin and have a good time at the expense, of the ratepayers.

MR. HARRINGTON

said he could not see why any body of ratepayers should complain of this small expense. When the representatives of County Councils met and exchanged views, suggestions might be made which would result in valuable improvements in matters of administration. The hon. Member for Mid Tyrone said that rich and not poor men would be appointed to represent the Councils. He thought intelligent men would be selected, whether rich or poor.

COLONEL NOLAN

opposed the Amendment. The expense of sending representatives might be £30 a year, but a great deal more than that might be saved to the county as the result of the deliberations of the meetings.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 13, 14, and 15 agreed to.

Clause 16: —

MR. MURNAGHAN

moved as an Amendment— In page 5, line 28, after the word 'auditor' to insert the words ' shall make the surcharge against the members proposing and seconding the payment notwithstanding anything in the principal Act to the contrary, and.' He hoped that the Chief Secretary would seriously consider this matter, as it was of the greatest importance.

COLONEL NOLAN

said he agreed with the hon. Member, because he thought the whole law in regard to the surcharges by auditors was in a very bad state, and the result should be submitted, on appeal, to a judge and a jury.

MR. HARRINGTON

said that, this question of surcharges was most important, because it had created a great deal of heart-burning.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that the object of the hon. Gentleman would not be carried out by the Amendment which he had proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18.

SIR JAMES HASLETT

thought that the provisions of the 18th Clause put a very arbitrary power into the hands of the Local Government Board, and that there should be some appeal against their decisions.

MR. MURNAGHAN

said he thought they ought to have an explanation from the Chief Secretary with regard to the Clause. The Local Government Board should not be given power to compel local authorities to provide additional staffs which were not necessary.

(12.30.) MR. HARRINGTON

said the Clause, if adopted, would upset the whole existing machinery for keeping accounts. The Local Government Board, through their auditors, had now ample power to make suggestions, but that was a very different matter to upsetting the entire existing machinery.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would ask the Committee to retain the Clause. The fact was that Ireland was suffering under great confusion, which did not exist in England, because the Local Government Board in England had the power which it was now proposed to confer on the Local Government Board in Ireland. If the Board made arbitrary use of the clause, their action could be scrutinised on the Estimates.

COLONEL NOLAN

said the Clause would prevent the County Councils from having recourse to the law; and if it were passed it would be another case of bringing hon. Members from the smoking-room and elsewhere to out-vote the Irish Members.

MR. CREAN (Cork Co., S.E.)

said that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Clause would be injurious if the Local Government Board acted in an unreasonable way; but that was exactly what they expected. He did not think that the proposed change would be an improvement, and he would support the omission of the Clause.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he hoped the Chief Secretary would agree to drop the Clause. At the present moment the Local Government Board had certain powers with reference to audit; but the Clause would deprive the local authorities of the right of appeal to the law courts with reference to any action which the Local Government Board might take on the question of audit. That right at present existed, and had been exercised in a way which overthrew the action of the Local Government Board. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman meant it as a joke when he said that if the Local Government Board acted unreasonably, their conduct could be scrutinised on the Estimates. He wondered how often during the last five years had a single hour been devoted to the Vote for the Irish Local Government Board. It went, like the majority of Irish Votes, under the guillotine at the end of the session. There was a very strong view held regarding the Clause, and he would advise the right hon. Gentleman to omit it. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Bill did not meet all the defects in the Local Government Act; and when he returned to the subject next session, he could submit a new Amendment on the question of audit, when there would be adequate time for its discussion. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the Bill, to withdraw the Clause.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he attached very considerable importance to the Clause, and he thought that his hon. and learned friend had exaggerated its effect. He was asked to sacrifice the Clause, but he wished to know whether hon. Members opposite intended to move all the new Clauses on the Paper.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said the discussion was of a most exemplary and business like character. The Irish Members had refrained from discussing several points about which they felt very strongly.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he would be prepared to abandon the Clause now, and move it another year, if the hon. and learned Member and his friends would not move the new Clauses. He could not consent to sacrifice the Clause in order to proceed to the discussion of the new Clauses.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he thought that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was, in substance, a fair one. He did not think it would be necessary for all the new Clauses to be moved, although some of them would have to be moved. There was one standing in his own name which he could not agree to waive. They were very uncertain as to what time they would have on the Report stage of the Bill, and were prepared to proceed with its consideration now.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)

said it was quite true that the hour was not late as Parliamentary hours went, but they should, remember that the House met at twelve o'clock next day. It was not unusual, in circumstances such as the present, to postpone new Clauses until the Report stage; and he thought the hon. and learned Member would not suffer by that arrangement.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he was anxious that the discussion should proceed in an amicable spirit. If the right hon. Gentleman could assure him that on the Report stage he would have a reasonable opportunity of moving his Clause, he would agree to the suggestion.

MR. WYNDHAM

said that if the hon. and leaned Member's Clause was to be discussed, the Bill would probably have to stand over until the Autumn. He could, however, give the hon. and learned Member an assurance that a reasonable opportunity for discussion would be given on the Report stage of selected Clauses from the new Clauses.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he would agree to postpone the new Clauses on the understanding that they got a fair opportunity for discussion before the Adjournment.

SIR JAMES HASLETT

said he would suggest that there should be a conference as to which of the new Clauses should be proceeded with.

*MR. RITCHIE

said he thought they had arrived at an understanding, but at the same time he did not wish that there should be any misunderstanding. He did not think that an undertaking could be given that time would be found for the discussion of the Bill before the adjournment, although, of course, they would endeavour to find time.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said he did not understand why they had been asked to discuss the Bill tonight if it were to be postponed until the Autumn.

MR. WYNDHAM

said he had understood that one evening sitting was set apart for the Bill. It would be better to take the Bill up again on Monday after midnight rather than continue the discussion now.

MR. HARRINGTON

said that if the Bill was to be put off until the Autumn it would be complete waste of time to continue to discuss it, as they would have an entirely new Bill.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said that after what had been said by the Chief Secretary, he really thought that an opportunity would be given for further discussion. He would, therefore, agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

Question, "That Clause 18 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 291.]