Lords Sitting of 25 July 1898

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—
Societies Borrowing Powers; Canals Protection (London); Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners); Post Office Acts Amendment; Poor Law Unions Association; Solicitors (Ireland); Ex-Officio Justices of the Peace (Scotland); Statute Law Revision; Poor Law (Scotland); Pharmacy Acts Amendment; Greenwich Hospital; Union of Benefices; Land Drainage Provisional Order (Hacconby Fen); Metropolitan Police Provisional Order; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12); Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Barnes, etc.); Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1); Commons Regulation (Runcorn) Provisional Order; Edinburgh Improvement Provisional Order; Military Lands Provisional Orders; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3); Leith Burgh Provisional Order; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 14); Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1); Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas), Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2); Local Government Provisional Orders (Housing of Working Classes); Local Govern-
970
ment Provisional Orders (Poor Law); Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway); Aberdeen Corporation (Tramways); London and South Western Railway; Staines Reservoirs Joint Committee; Belfast Harbour; Blackpool Improvement; Sheringham Gas and Water; Carmarthen Improvement; Northam Urban District Water; North Warwickshire Water; London, Brighton and South Coast Railway; Gainsborough Gas; Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway; Southend Water; Southwark and Vauxhall Water; St. Thomas, Southwark, and St. Saviour, Southwark; Yeovil Corporation; Bideford and Clovelly Railway; Ilford Improvement; Great Eastern Railway Company and Midland and Great Northern Railways Joint. Committee; Great Eastern Railway (Pensions); Cranbrook District Water; Crawley and District Water; East Ham Improvement; Wishaw Water; Liskeard Corporation (Water); Norwich Electric Tramways; Cardiff Corporation; Dundee Corporation Tramways; Buenos Ayres Northern Railway; Colonial Bank; Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway; Cromer Gas; Drogheda Gas; Wigan Corporation; Dover Harbour; London Building Act (1894) Amendment; Crystal Palace Company); Plymouth Corporation; Turnchapel Wharves and Warehouses; Stirling Gas; Barry Railway; London County Council (Acton Sewage); Mumbles Railway and Pier; London, Chatham and Dover Railway; Halifax Corporation, Folkestone Water; Norwich City Water; Foreign Bondholders Corporation; Blackpool and Fleet-wood Tramroad (Tramway Extensions); Hamilton Water; Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock; Kettering Water; Clergy Mutual Assurance Society; Kew Bridge and Approaches; Bacup Corporation Water; Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water; Dublin Southern District Tramways; Glasgow and South Western Railway; Matlock Urban District Council; Tottenham and Edmonton Gas; Felixstowe and Walton Water; Midland Railway (West Riding Lines); Newtown Water; Great Northern Railway; Blackburn Corporation (Tramways, etc.); Bristol Tramways. (Electrical Power, etc.); Bristol Tramways (Extensions); Neath, Pontardawe and Brynaman Railway;

971
Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas; Newhaven Harbour; Walker's Estate.
Sitting suspended.
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the Clock.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Lord Farnham a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Earl of Caledon, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT).
The same was ordered to lie upon the Table.
CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
The order made on the 14th instant appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill discharged.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn this day at One o'clock, and not sit To-morrow until Twelve o'clock.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn this day at One o'clock, and not sit To-morrow until Twelve o'clock.

CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill, viz.:—

E. Haddington,

E. Leven and Melville (chairman),

L. O'Neill,

L. Shute (V. Barrington),

L. Cheylesmore;

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly; The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Two o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to-be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

USK VALLEY RAILWAY BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION BILL
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BURNLEY CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS. ETC.) BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments; further Amendments' made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lord Pirbright be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Rathmore, and that the Lord Pirbright be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Fifty-third Annual Report of the Commissioners.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Return of all British ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its officers, during the period from 1st July, 1897, to 30th June, 1897, to be provisionally detained as unsafe by reason of the defective condition of their hulls, equipments, or machinery, or by reason of overloading or improper loading, in pursuance of the provisions of section 459 of the Act, giving the names of the owners of those ships which, have been dismantled, broken up, or converted into hulks, etc.; also of all foreign ships ordered to be provisionally detained during the same period as unsafe by reason of overloading or improper loading, in pursuance of the provisions of section 462 of the same Act; together with summaries showing respectively the total number of ships ordered to be detained as unsafe, from 1st July, 1897, to 30th June, 1898, and since the 1st October, 1876, distinguishing between those cases in which the ships were found safe or unsafe (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [C.—8629.])
  CHINA (No. 2) (1898).
  Dispatch, from Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin, forwarding copies of the Notes exchanged with the Chinese Government respecting the non-alienation of the Yang-tsze region.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 10 (1898).
  Accession of the Republics of Honduras and Salvador to the Convention signed at Geneva, 22nd August, 1864, for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST.
  Report of the President, for the Session 1897–98.

  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Registrar-General, for the year 1897.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (ESSEX).
  Resolution of the County Council for Essex dividing the Tilbury polling district into two polling districts.
  PRIZE COURTS ACT, 1894.
  Order in Council, dated 18th July, 1898, approving rules of court touching the practice in prize proceedings to be observed in Vice-Admiralty Courts and Colonial Courts authorised to act as prize courts, with forms and table of fees.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1830.
  Orders in Council, dated 18th July, 1898, entitled respectively—

  (1) The Africa (Acquisition of Lands)
  Order in Council, 1898;

  (2) The East Africa (Acquisition of Lands) Order in Council, 1898.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Orders in Council, dated 18th July, 1898—

  (1) Fixing the engineering establishment of the Trinity House;

  (2) Approving pilotage by-laws made by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and the Berwick Harbour Commissioners, respectively.

  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
  Against; of Owners and Ratepayers of Cheltenham; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS ADVANCED.
  INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) BILL.
  To be read the second time on Friday next: (The Earl of Onslow).
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.

  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill which I think your Lordships will have no difficulty in agreeing to. It is the Scottish counterpart of a Bill which was passed by both Houses two years ago to prevent the bringing of vexatious actions by those who have proved themselves fond of causing annoyance in that particular way. The phraseology has been adapted to the particular requirements of Scotland, and I do not anticipate that any objections will be raised to it. The Bill has passed through the other House of Parliament with practical unanimity, and I ask your Lordship to give it a Second Reading.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time; and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

  TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  COMPANIES ACT (1867) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  BODIES CORPORATE (JOINT TENANCY) BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  LORD BELPER: This Bill has passed the other House, and the Home Office thinks it is very desirable that the power that is wished to be conferred by this Bill should be given to the police, and I beg therefore to move that it be read a second time.
  Motion made.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  Bill read a second time; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. [No. 180.]
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME(EAST SHEEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House to be in Committee on Thursday next.
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION(BORDER COUNTY COUNCILS) (No. 2) BILL.
  To be read the second time on Thursday next: (The Lord Balfour).
PUBLIC BILL BUSINESS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee, as ordered.

  Question put—
  "That clauses 1 and 2 stand part of tie Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 3, after 'shall' insert 'during the term of and.'"—(Lord Fermanagh.)
  LORD FERMANAGH: My Lords, the Amendment which I now propose merely carries out what I presume is the intention of the Bill.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, that is quite right. The Amendment of my noble Friend does carry out the intention of the Bill, and I accept it.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 37, after 'justice' insert 'provided that every such ex officio justice shall sit only in such petty sessions, district, or districts as the Lord Chancellor may approve.'"—(Lord Fermanagh.)
  LORD FERMANAGH: My Lords, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has put an end to a practice which was becoming in some parts a great annoyance. There was a certain class—a small class—of magistrates in Ireland who were what may be called peripatetic magistrates. They spent their time going from one session to another in districts with which they had no possible concern, and this sometimes gave rise to grave judicial scandals. My noble and learned Friend now requires magistrates to state in their application what petty sessions they intend to attend, and they are appointed subject to their attendance at these only, and I believe that if they neglect this rule they are very properly and very rightly pitched into. Now, my Lords, this Bill creates a new class of magistrates under special conditions, and their functions should in my opinion be strictly defined and limited in order to avoid the possibility of scandal's such as I have indicated arising. I will quote a precedent in support of my case. If your Lordships will turn to clause 114, page 87, of the Bill, you will see that it is there provided that—
  "Every existing justice of the county of the town of Qalway, or the county of the town of Carrickfergus, shall be a justice of the county of Galway or of Antrim, as the case requires, in like manner as if he were named a justice in the commission of the peace for such county."
  And the last three lines of that section say that—
  "Any such existing justice shall, except when at quarter or general sessions, act only within the petty sessional district of which such county of a town forms part."
  I ask, my Lords, that the provisions which are applicable in this Bill to the justices of Galway and Carrickfergus, may also be applied to the new class of justices whom the Bill proposes to create.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, my noble Friend who is Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant for an important county, is thoroughly acquainted with everything connected with the magistracy of Ireland. It is true that it would be inconvenient for magistrates to go out of their districts

  979
  habitually, but I do not think there is any prospect of anything like the abuse which has been referred to occurring. I will consider the matter, and if I make up my mind that it will be desirable to insert any words such as those proposed I will communicate with my noble Friend, who will, I hope, after this assurance, withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am not well acquainted with the practice in Ireland, but it will, I think, be a great innovation if the Lord Chancellor is to prescribe where the justice shall act. There may, however, be some difference in the practice in Ireland. If that is so, my observation does not apply.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: There is a difference in the practice in Ireland brought about by considerations of convenience. I will consider the matter between now and the Report.
  LORD FERMANAGH: I am quite satisfied, my Lords, to leave the matter in the hands of my noble and learned Friend, and to withdraw my Amendment on that understanding.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I wish to ask the Lord Chancellor of Ireland one question. When the chairman of a county council ceases to be chairman, will he also cease to be a justice of the peace?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Yes. I have agreed to accept an Amendment which will make that perfectly clear. The chairman will only be a justice during his term of office as chairman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That clause 3, as amended, be agreed to."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, after line 14, insert as a new subsection—
  "Any person paying poor rates in any county may traverse any presentment or order made or approved under this Act for the raising or payment of any money by any county or district council. Any such person intending to traverse any such presentment or order shall give notice of his intention in the prescribed form to the clerk of the council, by whom such presentment or order was made, within 14 days after it was made. Pending the hearing of such traverse, the presentment or order to which it relates shall be suspended, but every such traverse shall be heard and decided by the Local Government Board as soon as may be after the date of the service of the notice of traverse, and as nearly as may be in the manner provided by section one hundred and thirty-three of the Grand Juries Act, 1836."—(Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, it seems to me that it is very important that the right of traverse should be preserved in this Bill. Under the Grand Juries Act there is a right at present existing, and that right has always existed, to traverse any presentment and get the case heard before a judge of Assize. Under this Bill the right of traverse is proposed to be removed, and it seems to me that this is a mistake, because many decisions may be given, especially by the newly-constituted bodies, that might very fairly be questioned. It may be said that a difficulty would arise in this case on account of the length of time that might elapse before such traverse could be heard, and therefore I have in this Amendment altered the appeal, so that instead of going before the judge of assize it will go to the Local Government Board. The usual practice in Ireland, as I understand it, was that the traverse should be heard at the same assize where the question arose, and therefore there was no delay. Under this new Bill, if the right of traverse was to exist at all it might so happen that several months would elapse before it would be heard before the judge, and therefore, for that reason I have proposed in this Amendment, that it should go before the Local Government Board. The right of appeal exists already in two or three instances in this Bill. In

  981
  clause 9, section 7, there is a right of appeal to the Lord Lieutenant. In clause 10, sub-section 3c, there is also a right of appeal to the judge of assize. In clause 80, sub-section 2, there is also a right of appeal in questions of the maintenance of public roads, and it seems to me that it would only be right to keep the general law of traverse in existence under this new Bill. The last sub-section of clause 80 appears, however, to remove it altogether. I should like to know whether that is the case. In any case, it is undesirable, in my opinion, to abolish the right of traverse. In counties where you have large interests involved, and where there are light railways, for instance, the right of traverse has been exercised in several cases, and it has been found very convenient. In the county to which I belong there are many miles of light railways, and the question will undoubtedly occur before these new boards as to whether sums of money are to be spent for workshops or for extensions of lines, etc.; and in cases of dispute it would seem right that there should be some reference or appeal to the judge to settle those cases. Therefore, my Lords, I beg to move the clause which I have put before you. At the same time I wish it to be understood that if it is thought desirable that the right of traverse should still be to the judge of assize instead of the Local Government Board I am quite satisfied.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: Does my noble Friend, by his Amendment, enable the appeal to be heard speedier than in the old way, when it went before a judge? For my own part, I am very loath to take the right of appeal to the judge away. If I understand the Amendment rightly, my noble Friend wants to alter that appeal and make it an appeal to the Local Government Board and not the judge.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: My only reason in making this alteration was to prevent inconvenience, and to enable the appeal to be heard much quicker.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, the proposal made by my noble Friend is entirely inconsistent with the whole scope and struc-
  982
  ture and object of the Bill. Traverses were known to the old system of grand juries, and were appropriate, and worked well, having regard to that system. But when you are setting up popularly-elected county councils you cannot preserve this old mechanism, which was suited to an entirely different state of facts. No such right exists in the county councils of England and Scotland, and it would be entirely inappropriate to the new system introduced in this Bill. If you gave each ratepayer the power to step in and practically put a check on the working of the councils by this obsolete method of traverse, you might prevent the county councils doing any work at all. The proposal contained in the Amendment is an endeavour to graft one incident of the old system upon a perfectly new system with which it is absolutely inconsistent. The appeals referred to by my noble Friend in the other clauses of the Bill have no connection with the old right of traverse. The noble Lord said an appeal was given in section 7 of clause 9, but that refers to the management of lunatic asylums. It only enables the Lord Lieutenant, if there is a dispute between two bodies as to the constitution of a committee, to come in and say how the dispute is to be determined, and how the committee is to be selected. That is an entirely different thing. I hope my noble Friend will not press his Amendment.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: In the second instance I gave—clause 10—there is a direct appeal to the judge of assize.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: You object to the open court of assize. I should have thought that was the fairest thing you could have in the world. I know everything is going to be altered by this Bill; everything is going to be thrown into chaos.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: The noble Lord raised a question with regard to light railways. Who would an appeal in a case of that kind go before? I think that is very important.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I was unable to follow that part of the statement of my noble Friend.

  983
  I have to hear a good many of these cases before the Privy Council.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: I find there is usually at every assize an average of one traverse. There is also this to be said: any ratepayer traversing is liable to be mulcted in costs, and therefore this is not a thing that would be lightly undertaken by anybody.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question put—
  "That clause 4 be added to the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 19, after 'Act' insert 'and of those enactments, sections one hundred and thirty-five, and the following sections of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, so far as unrepealed, shall extend to the case of maliciously setting fire to, destroying, or injuring property of any description, whether real, or personal, in like manner as they apply to the setting fire to, injuring, or destroying the particular descriptions of property specified in the first-mentioned section.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I have put this Amendment down because the sections of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, are not quite wide enough or broad enough with regard to certain cases of malicious injury. My Amendment covers all kinds of malicious injury, such as maliciously setting fire to, destroying or injuring property of any description, whether real or personal. I instanced one case during the Second Reading Debate, in which, if a boat without cargo was drawn up on the shore and burned, it could not be considered a malicious injury; but if it had a sack of potatoes in it, it would be a malicious injury. I will give another instance to show the incompleteness of the present law. A cart standing in a yard may be burned, and it would not be a malicious injury, but if, the cart were in a shed and it were burned it would be a malicious injury. Your Lordships will, therefore, I think, see the necessity of this Amendment,
  984
  which I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept.
  THE DUKE OF ABEECORN: My Lords, this is a very necessary Amendment, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will be willing to accept it.
  LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment, the adoption of which will, in my judgment, make the Bill more valuable.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I have the following Amendment on the Paper, which is to the same effect as the Amendment of my noble Friend (the Earl of Mayo), namely—
  "Page 3, line 19, after 'Act,' insert 'provided, however, that compensation may be given for criminal injury to any kind of property, or to the person, or for loss of life.'"
  I propose not to move my Amendment, but to support the Amendment of the noble Earl. It is of the greatest importance that all classes of property should be protected. This is one of the instances in which the old Grand Juries Act requires amendment. But for this, the Grand Juries Act is one of the best Statutes we have; and I am exceedingly glad the Government have adopted so much of it in this Bill.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, there is no doubt whatever that the clause of the Grand Juries Act, to which attention has been drawn, is anomalous. It includes a good many classes of property, and leaves out a good many classes of property which one would imagine would be included. I think there is a good deal of sense in this Amendment, and I shall offer no opposition, to its being included in the Bill.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 22, after 'council,' insert 'and if the decree is made, shall have the power of a judge of assize under section one

  985
  hundred and forty of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, with respect to the apportionment of the compensation.' "—(Lord Ashhourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 3, line 41, after 'masters,' add 'provided, however, that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the amount of compensation awarded by the county court shall not exceed ten pounds.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  *LORD CLONBROCK: I think, in any case, where so small an amount of compensation is awarded, it is important that no appeal shall lie, owing to the great expense it would involve on both parties.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: If there was only one side to the question I would agree with, my noble Friend; but it might be that the person who is awarded the compensation may be seriously aggrieved at getting so little, and might think that if his case were heard on a wider area and with better evidence he would get a larger sum. I therefore think it would be better to leave the matter as it is.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question put—
  "That clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 6 AND 7.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I wish to ask the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland at what time of the year, and how often, will district councils and boards of guardians have to furnish their estimates to the county councils. I have had 22 years' exerience as chairman of a board of guardians, and we have found it exceedingly difficult to get the estimates prepared in the proper time. I think it would be of assist-
  986
  ance to us if the noble and learned Lord could give some idea as to what the prescribed rules will be.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The rules and regulations will be prescribed at once by the Local Government Board. I may say that the Local Government Board have been applying themselves with great vigour and energy to the preparation of these rules and regulations. I do not know the details, but so far as I am aware there will be two occasions in the year when the estimates will be sent in by the district councils and the boards of guardians, and they will be gone into in due course by the county council, who will therefore have an opportunity twice a year of considering the amount needed. Of course, these are matters not contained in detail in the Bill. It would have added enormously to the already very long Bill to have embodied these rules in clauses.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: Is there any reason why the dates should not be included in the Bill?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I am informed that it is intended that the estimates should be furnished twice by the district council and the board of guardians to the county council, and the county council will have an opportunity twice of considering the amount that is needed. This is not put in the Bill in mercy to your Lordships and the other House of Parliament. It would make the Bill a never-ending Bill. It already contains 120 clauses, and deals with topics that were dealt with by two bills for England and two Bills for Scotland. It was thought more convenient to leave to the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council the working out of certain matters, and to the Local Government Board the working out of regulations that convenience might suggest.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: The Local Government Board are to settle the divisions in the financial year?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Yes.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 6 and 7 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 5, line 10, after 'partly,' insert 'or wholly.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 5, line 15, after 'roads,' insert 'and any road not mentioned in such declaration shall cease to be a main road.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, after sub-section 12, insert as a new sub-section—
  "Subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, and in accordance with prescribed rules, the county council may impose a tax or licence duty on traction engines using main or other roads within the county, and all moneys collected thereby shall be applied towards the maintenance of the roads used by such engines."—(Lord Macnaghten.)
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: As your Lordships know, some traction engines carry no less than 30 tons and seriously injure the roads. I think it is only right that a tax or license-duty should be imposed on traction engines, and I hope my noble and learned Friend will accept this Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The Amendment of my noble Friend has only been circulated just now, but it strikes me with terrible suspicion that it is out of order. I am afraid that, inasmuch as it amounts to a proposal to impose taxation, it trenches on the sacred ground of privilege.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Perhaps my noble and learned Friend will consider the point?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Oh, certainly!
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That clause 8, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 9.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 9, line 13, after 'council,' insert 'which shall be styled the judicial committee.'"
  "Page 9, line 14, after 'who,' insert 'or a quorum of whom consisting of not less than three.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, I move these Amendments in order to give a designation to the committee, and to fix the number who should form a quorum.
  Question put
  Amendments agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to

  CLAUSES 10, 11, 12 AND 13.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 10, 11, 12, and 13 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 14.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 12, line 6, leave out 'shall cease to,' and insert 'need not.'"
  "Page 12, line 7, leave out 'abolition of,' and insert 'omission to issue.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, these are merely drafting Amendments.
  Question, put.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill"
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 15, 16, 17 AND 18.
  *LORD ARDILAUN: Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland received from some of the townships in connection with Dublin notice of a section which they suggest should be added in reference to hospitals?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have received such a mass of correspondence during the last few days that I do not like to say I have not received it; but I do not recollect having received it. Will the noble Lord tell me the nature of the section?
  *LORD ARDILAUN: Up to now several townships were able to contribute to hospitals in the city of Dublin, and it seems to be an objectionable thing that each district should be obliged, under this Bill, to build a hospital for itself, when there is probably a hospital quite close, and within the county. The section suggested would read as follows—
  "That an urban district council may annually, with the consent of the Local Government Board, contribute towards any infirmary or fever hospital in the county in which such urban district is situated such sum as they think fit."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: That Amendment is not on the Paper, and I have not had much opportunity of considering it; but it would appear to me to be rather open to the objection I made just now—that if it gives an urban authority power to contribute, it would also involve the power of raising the money by rates. Therefore it would require careful consideration.
  *LORD ARDILAUN: It would not involve the power of raising the money by rates any more than at present. The
  990
  urban authorities have not been prevented by the auditor from contributing to these hospitals.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: If my noble Friend will put the Amendment on the Paper it can be considered before Report.
  *LORD ARDILAUN: Very well; I will bring it up on Report.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 15, 16, 17, and 18 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 19.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 15, line 29, after 'remains,' insert 'to which the Ancient Monuments Protection (Ireland) Act, 1892, and the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, apply.'"—(The Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL (Lord KEKRY): My Lords, the powers of county councils in relation to monuments were left so vague in the Bill that I thought it was desirable that some definition should be placed upon them. I therefore move my Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, this is a matter my noble Friend spoke to me about the other day. I am sure we all desire to encourage the preservation and protection of ancient monuments. A good deal of attention has been given to the subject since my noble Friend the Earl of Dun-raven spoke to me, and my noble Friend. Lord Clonbrock has an Amendment on the Paper which goes somewhat into detail on the matter. But I have arrived at the conclusion that neither the Amendment of the noble Earl [the Earl of Dunraven] nor the Amendment of by noble Friend Lord Clonbrock as they stand can be made to carry out what is desired. I have an Amendment here which, if added to the clause of my noble Friend Lord Clonbrock, would possibly meet the requirements, and I think the wisest course would be for me to hand

  991
  this Amendment to my noble Friend Lord Clonbrock, and ask him to put it down and move it on Report.
  THE EARL or DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL: I withdraw my Amendment upon the understanding that an amended clause shall be substituted on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: I will accept the suggestion of my noble and learned Friend and withdraw the Amendment I had placed on the Paper, namely—
  "Leave out clause 19, and insert the following clause—
  "19.—(1.) A county council may prosecute for any penalty under section six of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882.
  "(2.) The owner of any ancient monument to which the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, applies may, by deed under his hand, constitute the county council for the county in which such monument is situate to be guardians of such monument, and thereupon the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, shall apply as if the county council were the commissioners of works, except that no money shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
  "(3) Any person may give, devise, bequeath, or sell his interest in any ancient monument to which the said Act applies to the county council of the county in which the game is situate, and the county council may, if they think it expedient to do so, accept or purchase the same."
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I think a further sub-section should be added on Report to enable county councils to divest themselves of these monuments and pass them on to the Board of Works or to the National Trust, which is now in existence, and of which the Duke of Westminster is, I think, the chairman.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I would suggest that the noble Viscount should speak to Lord Clonbrock upon that point before the amended clause is put down.
  Question put—
  "That clause 19 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 20.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: My Lords, this clause provides for the transfer to the county councils of the business of any drainage board. Clause 44 prescribes the area of the charge for all works under the county council. What I want to know is, what will be the area of the charge for these particular drainage works? At present they are restricted to the area which is benefited by them.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, there is no doubt thus is a matter of considerable importance. This clause provides that the Local Government Board may, with the consent of the board, or body affected, make a provisional order for transferring to a county council business arising in their county under any Act, and any drainage board, or other public body, corporate or incorporate, not being the district council or the Commissioners of a town, or a board of guardians. It is an empowering clause, and what is intended is to give the power of transferring the business of a drainage board, but it is not expected that there should be any variance of the incidence of the charge or the area affected. After the business has been transferred, the thing will work out readily.
  Question put—
  "That clause 20 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 21.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 16, line 15, after 'council,' insert 'and in the case of the borough of Galway the Galway Town Improvement Commissioners.'"—(Lord Morris.)
  *LORD MORRIS: My Lords, although a small matter, this is one of some importance. There are certain towns in Ireland which, following the analogy of the English Bill, have been made county boroughs. In England I think the number of county boroughs amounts to between 160 and 170, but the number of towns in Ireland selected as

  993
  county boroughs amounts to six. True it is that the urban population of England is, practically speaking, two-thirds of the population of the country, whereas in Ireland, I regret to say, the urban population is scarcely one-fifth; but that appears to me an additional reason why the few towns of importance in Ireland should be put in the Schedule. Six towns have been put in the Schedule—Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Londonderry, and Waterford—and I move to have the town of Galway added as a seventh. I believe the number of inhabitants which was selected as a rough sort of test as regards county boroughs in England was 50,000. To apply such a test in Ireland would be simply ridiculous, for there are only three towns in Ireland with 50,000 inhabitants. I believe there was some sort of rough test applied as regards Ireland, and that a line was drawn at towns of 20,000 inhabitants—I am not quite sure whether I am correct as to the number—which would include only six towns. But that was only a rough test, and could be only a rough test. In England other towns which did not amount to 50,000 inhabitants were added for special reasons. I hold in my hand a list of 10 of them, one being the city of Canterbury, of which the population is only 23,000, or not quite one half the minimum that was accepted. Why was Canterbury included? I suppose for historic reasons, and because it was a city of itself, or probably because applications were made for its inclusion by the inhabitants and persons interested. Therefore there was no hard and fast rule about it, and why should this hard and fast rule be applied in Ireland, contrary to the wishes and contrary to the sentiments of the people? The town for which I plead was the town that first introduced me into the other House, over three and thirty years ago, and the first time I ever held office under the Government. I was a colleague of the Prime Minister when he was Secretary of State for India in 1866. But personal considerations should have no weight in your Lordships' House. What is the history of Galway? I will give you, in a few words, a short summary of it, which I have not taken from any Irish book. Under the circumstances I thought it better to refer to a Scotch book, and
  994
  accordingly I referred to Black's Guide Book, published in Edinburgh, and I find it stated there that Galway was one of the earliest of the towns, if not the earliest town, after the Anglo-Norman invasion; that it was built in the 12th century and walled in by Anglo-Norman settlers, 13 in number, who derived the soubriquet of the "Tribes of Galway." I may say interlocatory, that I represent one of those 13 families. What was the position of Galway in the middle ages? Black's Scotch book tells us that it was remarkable for its great commercial prosperity, principally trading with Spain; and the writer of the book prognosticates the great advantages that are to be derived from Galway. The tourist traffic has been very much developed owing to the exertions of patriotic Irishmen, amongst whom I would include my noble Friend the Earl of Mayo in the front rank; and I fail to see why Galway, which is one of the oldest cities in Ireland, should be excluded from the list merely because it fails, to quite come up to the rough test of 20,000 population which has been applied by the Government as a qualification for a county borough. Galway has a population of over 17,000. The last census states the population to be 16,972; but Galway has made great progress since 1891. The Town Commissioners, who represent the municipal authority, and the expiring grand jury have memorialised the Chief Secretary to have Galway included in the list of county boroughs. It affects nobody but Galway itself. I can understand objecting to the sentiment of Home Ruler, because that was sentiment when sentiment clashes with important interests. I was myself called to order in a leading journal because the other night I happened to speak about sentiment in Ireland. I was told that in order to be consistent I ought to be a Home Ruler, because that was sentiment also. But many think that that sentiment would lead to disastrous result? whereas the sentiment I am advocating will lead to no result which can injure anyone or interfere in the slightest degree with the working of this Bill. I will ask my noble and learned Friend, therefore, to give some more definite answer than sic volo, sic jubeo. There are four

  995
  provinces in Ireland. You cannot abolish that geographical fact, and unless Galway is included in the Schedule there will be one province without a single county borough in it. Galway has always been a distinct county. Boroughs in England, with less than 50,000 population were included as county boroughs. Why? Because they had always been counties. Well, Galway has been a county always. It had a Charter in the reign of King John. It has a distinct lord lieutenant, a distinct grand jury, a distinct recorder, and it is in every respect as much a county as any of the other counties in Ireland. I await with great expectation the answer of my noble and learned Friend as to why Galway has not been included. People of prosaic mind may say this is purely a matter of sentiment. But is not the basis of two of the greatest motives in life—patriotism and loyalty—sentiment? Looking back to old times and to old memories, and not bad ones, we find that the position of Galway was great in the Middle Ages, and it now promises to be great again. It has a population verging upon the number that, as I understand, was to be the limit of the population which was necessary as a qualification for a county borough. I ask your Lordships—I ask the independent opinion of this House—as to whether my Amendment should not be adopted, if there is no reason given sufficient to satisfy your Lordships that there is no principle involved, or that there will be nobody who will have a reason to complain.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I beg to support the Amendment of my noble and learned Friend. It is perfectly true, as he has stated, that the town of Galway is an entirely distinct unit from the county of Galway. I have the honour to be Lord Lieutenant for both, but by two separate patents, which I remember for the perfectly good reason that I had to pay separate fees on the transaction, and I am disposed to think that if Her Majesty's Government are fusing the two communities together, and throwing the town into the county, the question arises whether I ought not to be reimbursed part of the fees I paid. I merely mention this matter to show
  996
  how entirely separate these two places are, and I think that what my noble and learned Friend has stated as to the county of Galway is quite true—I have every reason to believe that the people would thoroughly wish that the old divisions should be maintained, and that the county of Galway and the county of the town of Galway should be kept distinct. I think they would like it, because of old traditions and sentiment. Being, as it is, the capital of a county, they would think it an indignity if it was merged into the county. The county of Galway is very large as it is. It is pretty nearly 100 miles from end to end, and it is my opinion that the county council will have quite enough to do without having to look after the county and town of Galway, and they would undoubtedly prefer that the county of the town of Galway should continue to manage its own affairs, and they should manage theirs. I really think that in such a case as this the hard-and-fast rule ought not to be pressed too strictly. Some consideration ought to be paid to the sentiments and feelings of the people, and we all know that in Ireland people are deeply impressed with feelings of that kind.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is a matter that was mentioned more than once in the House of Commons. I think it was discussed in all its stages. Naturally, there was a good deal of feeling amongst the towns which are under the limit that was fixed for the size of county boroughs, and my noble and learned Friend who represents Galway, with all its traditions and associations, and the position which it occupies possibly next the population, limit, naturally feels strongly upon the subject There is no one entitled to speak with more strength and persuasiveness upon that question, connected, as he is, by property, by family, and by old ties and associations with this ancient town of Galway. But other towns with figures near to the limit mark also feel a considerable grievance upon this point, and my noble Friend the Marquess of Ormonde has a very strong view in reference to Kilkenny, with its ancient corporation, and memorials of history, which show that Parliaments have been held there. The noble Lord opposite

  997
  (Lord de Vesci) who represents the young community of Kingstown is anxious that it should be included, not upon any ground of history or of association, but on the ground of population and of progress. The question in the House of Commons was dealt with upon the broad ground that the line had to be regarded as drawn from the point of view of convenience—that it must be drawn somewhere, and whenever it was drawn the towns that were excluded, and particularly the town that came nearest to it, would naturally feel very strongly. Under all the circumstances of the case, as there must be a line drawn, the line was drawn at the places thought most convenient, where divisions of the population were very clearly marked. With no desire whatever to cast the slightest reflection upon the towns excluded—and I may mention that in the case of Galway, it retains its assizes and a great amount of its ordinary civic work—I think, under the circumstances, I have to ask your Lordships not to assent to the Amendment moved.
  *LORD MORRIS: I knew that the case did not admit of an answer. This case was not dealt with on its own merits in the House of Commons. There was a Motion affecting many towns in Ireland—some of them going down to a population of 8,000 or 10,000—and these were dealt with en bloc. The circumstances—the particular circumstances of the case of Galway—were never put forward by anybody. The Member for Galway does not attend, excepting under very special circumstances, and there was nobody to point out the historical associations of Galway, and the large population it possessed. My noble and learned Friend says, in an airy way—and there is nothing more dangerous than treating figures in an airy way—that these towns have all very much the same population, and he mentioned the case of Kilkenny. I have no objection to Kilkenny being also included. My noble and learned Friend has given no answer excepting that one which I mentioned the other night, sic volo sic jubeo. I shall certainly go to a Division, and assert the independence of the House of Lords.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE).: I am not quite sure whether the noble and learned Lord has sufficiently realised the great difficulty of dealing with this matter upon any basis excepting that of population. The moment you depart from the limit of population you drag in all sorts of more or less fanciful claims and considerations. The noble and learned Lord put in an eloquent claim on behalf of Galway, because of its; antiquity. There is another noble Lord, on the other side of the House, who is equally prepared to put in a plea for another city with which he is connected on the ground that it is a young and rising community. So you will have to take all of these cities on the ingenious pleas which are put forward, with the result that if you do you will create a great feeling of dissatisfaction and resentment in the minds of those-who are refused. In regard to Galway in particular, I am assured that when this Bill was under discussion in the House of Commons no claim was put in on behalf of it. The Members for that part of Ireland did not apparently think the case was a strong one, and the desire of the people of Galway was not sufficiently marked to justify them in urging the claim which has been so strongly urged by the noble and learned Lord. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will support the Bill as it stands, and not make an exception in favour of Galway.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I shall certainly support the noble Lord's Amendment. Your Lordships must bear in-mind two things—namely, that Galway is the chief town of the county, and if it is not put into the schedule the county of Galway will have no county borough, at all—and surely that, in itself, without any other reason, is almost sufficient a reason for making an exception, and not to be bound by absolutely hard and fast rule of population. I do not wish to go over the ground so ably traversed by my noble and learned Friend, but I trust that your Lordships will remember that, for many reasons which your Lordships will recognise without me going into them, Galway occupies a unique position amongst the towns of Ireland

  999
  The House divided:—Contents 67; Not-Contents 62.

  CONTENTS.

  Abercom, M. (D. Abercorn)

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

  Bristol, M.

  Harlech, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Hood of Avalon, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare)

  Carlisle, E.

  Dartrey, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl [Teller]

  de Montalt, E.

  Haddington, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Lingen, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Loch, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

  Massy, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck)

  Bangor, V.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

  Falmouth, V.

  Llandaff, V.

  Morris, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  O'Neill, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde)

  Aberdare, L.

  Plunket, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough)

  Ardilaun, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

  Rathmore, L.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Russell of Killowen, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

  Saltoun, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Clonbrock, L. [Teller]

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Connemara, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway)

  Crofton, L.

  de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Digby, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne)

  Templemore, L. Ventry, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

  Albemarle, E.

  Ancaster, E.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President)

  Clarendon, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

  Denbigh, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Kimberley, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Morley, E.

  Portland, D.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Bath, M.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Powis, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Selborne, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Abingdon, E.

  1000

  Addington, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Alington, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

  Bateman, L.

  Belper, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Braye, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Churchill, L. [Teller]

  Rothschild, L.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington)

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Thring, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Wantage, L.

  Fairer, L.

  Windsor, L.

  James, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clause 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 22.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clause 22, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  "Page 19, line 5, leave out 'one councillor,' and insert 'two councillors.'"—(Lord Counbrock.)
  *LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, the Motions which I have put down for Amendments are in a somewhat confused state, owing to the fact that I first put down an Amendment which concerned this clause alone, and then I was furnished by a Friend who was better versed than I am in the language of Acts of Parliament with a series of consequential Amendments. I put those down afterwards, and the consequence is that there is a certain amount of repetition, and that they overlap one another. But I think if the House will accept the principle of my Amendment there will be no difficulty in putting them into shape. My present Amendment is to the effect that in all electoral divisions, where at present one elected guardian is returned, there shall be two district councillors, and that in the cases of divisions in which there are now two elected guardians, three elected district councillors shall be re-

  1001
  turned. A hope has been universally expressed that the present class of ex-officio guardians will come forward for election, and will take part in the future government of the county under the new system. Well, my Lords, as stated by myself on the day of the Second Heading, and by many noble Lords who preceded me, we have all over Ireland a large number of the county gentlemen who are fully prepared to come forward. But it does not only depend upon their coming forward. The issue depends upon the electors. The country gentlemen are ready to do their duty if they get a chance, and the object of this Amendment is to give them that chance. In every electoral division there is at the present moment a sitting member—the elected guardian for that division. He must naturally possess the confidence of his constituents, or he would not be there, and it is not to be expected that his constituents will set him aside for the purpose of electing another man, even though he may be better qualified for the post. It is not reasonable to suppose that they would do so, and I do not think it would be fair if they did. But they may return another man who will be thoroughly qualified if you make the number two. I will take a case which is not so unusual in Ireland as might be supposed from the statements of those who are generally occupied in vilifying the class from which ex-officio guardians and grand jurors are drawn. Take the case of an ex-officio guardian in the habit of attending a board of guardians. The people all know him; they go to him on any matter connected with the Poor Law. He has been, although not elected, practically representing that division for a great number of years. People have evidently accorded him a fair amount of confidence, but if it comes to a question of electing one man, it is not to be supposed that they will set aside their present elected guardian, who has discharged his duties to their satisfaction, for the sake of appointing an ex-officio guardian; whereas, if they could return two they might be content to leave things as they are, and have the ex-officio guardian, sitting with his elected colleague, as heretofore. I know of a case, not in my own part of Ireland, but in another, where a man is very much in the position that I have described, with
  1002
  the exception that in his case there are two elected guardians in his division, as there is a small town in one part of the division. Of these two, one presented himself for election at his request. Neither of the two would give up his post without a contest, and his feeling is that he would not stand against either of them, whereas if there were three councillors to be elected, it is pretty sure that he would be returned. But if the Bill is left as it is, and this district is only given two members, it will be deprived of the services of one of the ablest men in Ireland. I will take another case, that of a man who, perhaps, is not so well known a the poor law guardian, but who may be better known as a grand juror. The electors might think that it would be an advantage to them, owing to the large measure of public work that will come before a district council, to have a man experienced in county work. But they would not set aside their elected guardian to do so. If they had two members they probably would elect the grand juror as one. I do not say they would do anything of the kind, because some great wave of public excitement might come over the country, or some command may be issued from some mysterious association, and the electors might go like a flock of sheep and elect nobody of the class I have mentioned, but they may do so, and this Amendment gives them a, chance to do it without showing any ingratitude to their sitting member. This proposition has been widely considered in Ireland. A large conference representing the whole of the grand juries in Ireland, with the exception of two, met in the spring, and this proposal was adopted with so few dissentient voices that it may be practically said to be unanimous feeling of the conference. At the same time, objections have been raised to it by some men of great ability. I will now proceed to consider the objections that I have heard. The first is that it will make the district council unwieldy. Now, with reference to that, the boards at present consist of an equal number of ex-officio guardians and elected guardians, so that doubling the number of elected guardians would make no difference. In answer to this, it is pointed out that the ex-officio guardians attend

  1003
  very irregularly. I regret to say that is the case, and it is really not so much to be wondered at when one considers what they have gone through. Some 10 or 15 years ago they were made the mark for every sort of insult and contumely if they attended, and the proceedings of boards such as those mentioned by my noble Friend the other evening were not such as to encourage anyone to attend. That is not my own experience, my Lords. I was certainly put out of the chair because I did not see my way to put political motions; but I went on attending, and I never had a rough word said to me by anybody present. But my experience in this respect is, I know, very different from that of others. As to unwieldiness, I remember the time before these troublous times, when ex-officio guardians did attend very regularly, and I never remember to have heard of any inconvenience arising from the great size of the boards. My experience is that the error ran rather in the other direction. There is no such urgent wish and desire among people to attend boards of this kind regularly where the proceedings must be of a somewhat monotonous, humdrum character. It is a great tax upon a man to have to drive eight or ten miles to attend a board regularly on business of this kind. I will venture to go so far as to say that if the boards are confined to one member to each division, there will very often be a considerable difficulty in finding a sufficient number. If it be large at first it will very soon slacken off. Moreover, owing to the unfortunate introduction of union rating by the Government, the stimulus to attendance which now exists will disappear. At present every guardian is disposed to attend for fear of some undue charge being put upon his division. I believe if there were to be only one guardian to each division that the attendance would be small, and confined to a few people residing immediately around the workhouse, and that I consider would be an extremely undesirable state of things. Another objection I have heard is that the present ex-officio guardians are so few in number in sparsely inhabited districts that they would be utterly swamped by the increased number of elected guardians. My answer to that is that if the election is confined to one member they would not be elected at all, and that would be considerably worse.
  1004
  It would be far better to have a large board with a few guardians of the present ex-officio class on it than a small board with none at all. It is also said that we had better wait and let the electors find out their mistake, and that then they will come round and elect a more competent class of men. Experience of that kind may be very dearly bought, and a great deal of mischief may be done in three years. Apart from that, bad habits in a public body are very much like bad habits in individuals—very easily acquired and very difficult to eradicate. I am further of opinion that if the ex-officio class guardians are not elected now it is very doubtful whether they will ever be elected afterwards; The affairs of the district would have to be indeed very badly conducted before the electors would make such a change as to reject their old guardian merely on account of supposed inefficiency. The feeling in Ireland is very strongly in favour of keeping a man on in his own place. I am convinced that this House is anxious that men of experience and education should be elected to these councils. The district councils are the most important body under this new system, as they initiate the greater part of the expenditure, and the county council will think twice before they disapprove of any step that has been taken by an elected body. As I said the other day, it is not only extravagance that I am afraid of; I am just as much afraid of niggardliness under many heads of expenditure. I really do not like to contemplate the position of the sick and suffering poor if their destinies are to be entirely controlled by men of the class of the present elected guardians—men who, not so much from want of feeling as from want of knowledge, are not sensible of the proper requirements of a hospital, and who, while very properly anxious not to raise the standard of living in a workhouse so as to make it too attractive to people outside, cannot be brought to see that the sick inmates of the workhouse come under quite a different category. I very much fear there will be a disposition to stint them of the care and attention which their position so thoroughly demands. I therefore hope that the House will agree with, the Amendment which I move. I beg to move—
  "Page 19, line 5, leave out 'one councillor' and insert 'two councillors,'"

  1005
  so that the clause will then run—
  "Two councillors shall be elected for each district electoral division."
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I most cordially endorse the words which have fallen from the noble Lord. I laid great stress upon this point when I had the honour of addressing your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill, because I felt that it was utterly impossible to differentiate between the members that are to represent constituencies on the county councils and on the district councils, and for this reason: the county council at the present moment is not in existence in Ireland, consequently there is no question of any members of an ex-officio character; whereas the district councils which will, to a very great extent, take the place of the boards of guardians, have been represented by ex-officio as well as by elected guardians, and I was very glad indeed to hear the stress that my noble Friend laid on the fact that the ex-officio guardians, unless this Amendment is carried, are placed in a very awkward and invidious position. I think there are very few who will contradict me when I say that, taking Ireland right through, it has been found that the ex-officio guardians have discharged their duties in the most admirable manner, and in a great number of cases they have held the most important offices on the boards to which they belong, such as occupying the post of chairman or vice-chairman. Under these circumstances it seems to me that it will be running a very great risk to the good working of county government where men who have shown such ability and such energy in the discharge of their duties are not to have an opportunity of continuing their good work in the county. I laid great stress myself on the importance of the duties which will attach in the future to the district councils in Ireland. I say that their duties will be of a most responsible character, more responsible even than those of the county council, and consequently I am extremely anxious to see returned to these district councils men who have devoted their time and energy to carrying out the work which, in the minds of all impartial men, has been carried out so successfully in the past.
  1006
  My noble Friend has said that it is quite possible that unless this Amendment is carried the ex-officio guardian may find himself in antagonism—I hope only friendly—with one of the ordinary members of the board in the election which is to take place with regard to the representation on the board, to which, only one member is to be returned. There are cases in Ireland in which the landowner stands as ex-officio guardian, and at his own request his tenant has stood for, and been returned as, representative. My Lords, what will be the position of that landowner and the tenant if only one member is permitted to sit on the district council? He will find himself in the invidious position either of opposing his own tenant, who for years past he has asked to be elected representative of that area, or else he will have to stand on one side and not be permitted to take any part in the work of the district; and in order to maintain that kindly feeling which I am glad to think has existed on these boards of guardians where landowner and tenant have worked so long together, it is the duty of the Government to accept the Amendment of my noble Friend. I do not think, my Lords, as my noble Friend has put the case so very clearly before you, that it is necessary for me to trespass at any great length upon your time. In the interests of the good work of the district councils, in the interests of maintaining good feeling between the land-owing class who have hitherto acted as ex-officio guardians, and the tenant farmers who have acted as the elected representatives, it is the bounden duty of the Government to accept this Amendment, and I sincerely trust that they will do so.
  *THE EARL OF ERNE: I wish to add my voice to those of my two noble Friends in asking the Government to accept this Amendment. We—I mean the country gentry in Ireland—have been invited and pressed by the Government to offer our services for carrying out the provisions of this Bill, and I believe I am only expressing the sentiments of my friends when I say that we are determined to do so. But if we are to do so we must have facilities. Now, my Lords, I will give my own experience, not

  1007
  because it is my own experience, but because it is typical of a number of cases, certainly in Ulster. I have for some time been chairman of my board of guardians. I attend very regularly, and take a great deal of interest in poor law administration, and I am very anxious to continue my services if the electors choose to avail themselves of them. But by this Bill you can only stand for the district in which you have a vote; you cannot stand for an outside district. The poor law guardian of my electoral division is a tenant of mine, and he is a man with whom I have always been on good terms. How can I go to this man, and say to him, "Stand aside; give up the position you have held for the purpose of allowing me to step into your place?" I could not do it, and if I were to do so, I do not believe that he would accede to my request, and under those circumstances I could not enter into a contest with him. It is said that the machinery that will be brought into play to effect the election of one man will equally apply to the second. That may be so, or it may not be so; at any rate, what we say to the Government is, "Give us a chance." You wish us to serve, and we are anxious to respond to your wishes, but give us a chance of seeing whether the electors will avail themselves of our services or not.
  EARL SPENCER: I only wish, my Lords, to say a very few words upon a matter which I consider to be of very considerable importance. I do not wish to base my argument in any sense on a party basis. My impression is that my noble Friend who introduced this Amendment, and others who have spoken in favour of it, are not correct in the view which they take in this matter. I confess myself I should be extremely sorry if all those who have been engaged in public business hitherto in Ireland should be excluded from taking part in the new administration under this Act, and therefore I am not speaking in any sense against what they desire. But my impression strongly is that they would find themselves wrong in their anticipations of the result if you have two councillors for each electoral division. The noble Earl who just spoke, of course, does not agree with this view, because he has
  1008
  stated it as one of the arguments used in favour of the Government proposal. My belief is that if there is a strong feeling in any district the same machinery which is used to elect one member will be used for the purpose of electing two. Now, my Lords, I venture to say this: the general object the noble Lords have in view is to see that there is some minority representation. I, at different times of my life, have been strongly in favour of that. But I can recollect what took place in 1885, when the last Parliamentary Bill was introduced. As your Lordships know, at the last part of the negotiations for carrying that Measure, there was considerable communication with noble Lords who now are members of the Government. I believe I am correct in saying that the noble Marquess, at the head of the Government was strongly in favour of having single constituencies in most places in order to secure the representation of the minority—the old minority. The old Minority Clause was accepted, and was found not to be practical, and single constituencies in different districts were introduced with view to representing the minority.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of): Is the noble Earl speaking of this country?
  EARL SPENCER: Yes, I am speaking of this country. I do not, of course, attempt to compare Ireland in exactly the same manner with England. At the same time, I think there are analogies which can be brought forward, an I in this case I cannot help thinking myself that the soundest principle would be, except in a very few cases, to elect single members rather than to elect two—that ought to give a representation of the minorities better than any other system. Now, I would like to revert to what my noble Friend who introduced this Amendment said, with regard to a difficulty which district councillors and others will have in attending board meetings which are held at long distances from their homes. Whenever I have considered the question of Local Government in Ireland I have always felt what an immense difficulty this would create in working a Local Government Bill in that country. There may not be as

  1009
  much difficulty as regards district councils as there will be as regards county councils. We have difficulty in England with regard to this. It is a most extraordinary thing, considering those difficulties, how excellent the attendances have been on the county council, but the difficulty has shown itself, and a great many of those who first joined in the working of county government have had to give it up, owing to the great difficulty of going long distances to the meetings of the council. My belief is that in Ireland, where the great bulk of the people are poorer than they are in this country, where their means of communication are not so good as in this country, that this will be a very serious difficulty indeed. How will it work? It will work, no doubt, in favour of the old grand juries, because I can hardly agree with the statement which has been made that if they are not at first put on these new bodies they will not be put on them hereafter. My opinion is that, in the long run, it will be found that the difficulties of attendance among the elected of the poorer sort will be so great that those difficulties themselves will indirectly tend to this very class that my noble Friend wishes to be elected, being elected to these boards. I am not deprecating that in any way; I am only protesting against an alteration in this Bill of this character, because I am really afraid that the noble Lords opposite, who are now arguing in favour of two members for each division in their own interests, will find that the electors who can now send one man who will be in Opposition perhaps to the county gentry, will probably be able to send two, and therefore it is in their own interests that I say that I think it would be wiser to leave the number of members as it now is in the Bill.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The noble Earl has alluded to matters in which we were engaged some 13 years ago, and therefore I wish to interpose a word. I entirely take the noble Earl's view in favour of the single member system—not entirely, perhaps, for the reasons that he has advanced. My impression 13 years ago was that it was the most conservative plan that could be adopted,
  1010
  and was that partly arrived at from having watched the effects of the systems known as the scrutin de liste and the scrutin d'arrondissément in a neighbouring country, and I do not think, if we look back at what the state of politics was then and what it is now, that the Conservative Party have any ground for regretting that they supported the single member system. On the contrary, I believe it has had the effect of bringing into prominence the local influence of important men more than any other system would have done, and that, of course, must mainly be a conservative operation. The state of society in Ireland is very different, and I do not wish to dogmatise on a subject of which I know nothing, but speaking without reference to any peculiar circumstances, I should always say that the single member system is more likely to be stable and conservative than any double member system could possibly be.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: May I venture to make one remark, and that is that what has worked so exceedingly well for the Conservative Party in England may not work so well for the Unionist Party in Ireland. There is one thing to remember, that this is not a question of two people going into a constituency opposed to each other, but it is a question of one man opposing a sitting member. There is not the least chance of the present elected guardian being turned out. He will sit there. As the Government have made such appeals to us, the gentlemen of Ireland, to stand for these district councilsi—mind you, not the county council—surely they will give us the chance of standing, and all we ask them is that we shall have that chance, and that those who have been ex-officio guardians should have, so to speak, a run under this Bill for the constituency. The appeals made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland at the end of his speech in introducing this Bill were very strong; I suppose no stronger appeal could be made to any body of men, and by making that appeal it looks as if he thought that if the Unionists were not elected to these district councils that the Bill would not work. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland also made an appeal on the same subject, and therefore I trust that Her

  1011
  Majesty's Government will consider our position; we only ask to have a chance of being elected, and we ask that, although we know perfectly well that in a great many places in Ireland our chance is a very remote one.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I think we should in no way consider any matter connected with this Bill in relation to Party politics. As so many of us from Ireland have stated before, noble Lords in this House are most anxious to support this Bill when it becomes law and to make it work effectively. If the Bill stands as it is, and there is to be only one member for each division, it will be very hard indeed to turn out the present sitting guardian. There is also a feeling in Ireland which voices itself in this remark, "We like the old man," and they will stick to the old man. What we ask for by this Amendment is that we may be allowed to have another man who will, if possible, help the sitting member in the work of the district council, and we consider that if two are to be elected, the more is the probability of the superior class of man—superior from a social point of view—being enabled to take his share in the regulation of county affairs. The noble Lord opposite has stated that he very much doubts whether the attendance will be good. I rather agree with him; but surely if the attendance is bad where there is only one member it may be a little better where there are two. One guardian may be ill and unable to attend, but it is not probable that two guardians representing the same place would be ill at the same time. Therefore, I think, taking all things into consideration, it will be very desirable if this Amendment is accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: I should just like to say one word in support of my noble Friend. I should like to point out to the noble Earl opposite that there is no question of minority representation in this matter; we can never hope to get a majority on the boards. But this Amendment is for the purpose of enabling those who are best qualified and best acquainted with county business to offer their services for the public good.
  VISCODNT CLIFDEN: Let me put it in two sentences; I will give my personal opinion afterwards. What harm can it do to have two members? If there in a desire on the part of the gentry of Ireland to take an active share in this work, why not give them a chance? You have made this ad miseri cordiam appeal both in this House and the other one to the gentlemen of Ireland not to run away from their duties, although you have practically turned them out from the possibility of doing their duty. I cannot imagine what your objection to this Amendment is. My personal opinion is that most of the guardians elected or ex-officio will never be elected again. I believe you are going to a lower stratum—you are going to the scum of the country. That is my firm belief, and we shall soon see whether I am right or not. What are you asked to do now is to, if possible, guard against that in someway, but I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord is going to turn his back upon us altogether.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This matter was discussed several times in the House of Commons, and the Chief Secretary, although he stated his own views, which were in favour of the proposals in the Bill, said that the matter was one on which he could quite understand there were substantial differences of opinion, and therefore he-allowed the matter to stand over for further consideration. At a later stage my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury intimated that he would allow the matter to stand over in the House of Commons, and that he would be very much guided by the intimations of the opinions that were held by your Lordships. Up to this, noble Lords who have come from Ireland, have expressed an opinion in favour of two members as against one member for district councils, leaving county councils as they were; but there are many other noble Lords from Ireland, and it may be that they would like to express their views.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: My Lords, I entirely agree that this is not a question of politics. I wish to say how far my experience corroborates that of noble Lords who have spoken. Speaking from

  1013
  my experience of guardians, I believe they are excellent men of business, whom I should like to see elected to the new councils. I hope the Government will give way on this question.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has asked our opinion on this matter. I do not agree with my noble Friends around me in supporting the Amendment, and I think I am perfectly at liberty to express my reasons for not agreeing with them. One of my reasons—and I think it is a strong one—is this: that you are not legislating for the immediate future; you are legislating for all time. The boards will be unwieldy with double-member constituencies, and in the end the Government proposal will be more satisfactory. I am not speaking without experience, for I have been chairman of a board for 13 years, constantly attending, and I have always found that when I had a small attendance a great deal more business was got through. Just think what is going to happen if these two members are put in. Take a board like mine. I think there are 24 ex-officio and 24 elected guardians. You have got this large board, and I think it is exceedingly doubtful whether we shall be able to get any men in. We may succeed in getting in a few. Suppose we get six in, it will be six against 40, or thereabouts. It seems more satisfactory to have six against 20 than six against 40. Whatever the disproportion is, it will be enormous from the beginning, and we must face this great difficulty with this Bill. I am in favour of the Government proposal. I think in the end it will be more satisfactory. In the beginning, of course, there will be difficulties. I had considerable hesitation in getting up at all, because I do not like to feel that I am going counter to my Friends around me; but as the noble and learned Lord has challenged some of us to express our opinions I am bound to say what I feel on this point. In the event of a Division, however, I shall not vote.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, before we knew the intentions of the Government some of us had great hopes that there would be a sort of classification of the electors—that the larger cess
  1014
  payers would elect one man and the smaller cesspayers the other. I have spoken to farmers of very moderate valuation on this subject, and I have always had the same answer, that that would be fair enough. I do not believe there is a general feeling throughout the country against the election of any man because he is a large ratepayer. My point is, the electors cannot elect a man of that class without putting out their own sitting members. There would be a natural disposition on the part of the electors to keep their present member, but with double members there would be a possibility of some ex-officio members being elected, whose presence would give a higher tone to the proceedings of the boards and tend to check irregularities that might otherwise arise. Without the Amendment I do not think any of this class would be returned.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOTV WAR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who has charge of the Bill has told your Lordships that upon this point Her Majesty's Government are fully prepared to leave the decision to the judgment of this House; therefore, in the few words that I am about to address to your Lordships, I am not endeavouring to influence any section of the House, but I would rather justify, as briefly as I can, the vote which I am about to give. My Lords, I think we must all have felt the force of the observation that fell from, the noble Duke behind me, when he said that the object of all Members of this House was the same—namely, to secure for these district boards the services of the best and most experienced councillors. If there is a difference between us it is not as to the end in view, but as to the means by which that end can best be accomplished. Now, my Lords, it does strike me that there is some slight inconsistency in the attitude of noble Lords who support this Amendment. A great many of them have indulged in the most gloomy anticipations as to the manner in which the electors in these newly-constituted districts will exercise their franchise. The anticipation of many noble Lords is that the result of the elections will be to oust altogether the class of person who has hitherto served as an ex-officio guardian on the poor law

  1015
  boards. Now, my Lords, it strikes me as rather an extreme assumption that if that is the mental attitude of these electors they are likely to abandon it altogether so far as one-half of the members of the new district councils will be concerned. Is it likely that they will vote in the first place for a person of extreme views of a Radical character, and then transfer 50 per cent, of their affections to a candidate of a wholly different political complexion? This was put rather well the other day, when the question was asked whether it was likely that these voters would exhaust their patriotic and political proclivities in voting for one member, and then vote for another member on grounds of common sense and reason? Will it not occur to them that if they adopt that course they will disfranchise their constituency? Will it not occur to them that in so acting they will neutralise the effect of electing a representative of their own opinions? I hope the effect of the Measure will not be that which has been anticipated for it, and that as time goes on we shall find the electors ready to give a place to men who have had experience of local business as ex-officio guardians or in other similar capacities. I believe men elected in that way to single-member constituencies will go to those councils with much greater weight and authority than if, under the Amendment, they were returned ear-marked, so to speak, as representing unpopular opinions. I must also say one word in agreement with what fell from Lord Inchiquin as to the possible effect of increasing the size of these councils. I will not go the length of saying that the business aptitude of public bodies is in inverse proportion to their size, but I do think there is some danger that these district councils may become somewhat of the nature of debating clubs, with much irrelevant discussion. I think that tendency is likely to be diminished if we can succeed in keeping the size of the bodies within reasonable limits. For these reasons, although I have some hesitation in placing myself in opposition to the views of the noble Lords, who have so much practical acquaintance with local affairs in Ireland, I shall, so far as I am concerned, give my vote for the Bill as it stands, and not for the Amendment.
  LORD RATHMORE: My Lords, as it appears probable that this will go to a Division, might I be allowed to say a few words? What appears to be the state of the case is this: the Government have intimated their willingness to follow the views entertained by noble Lords in this House, who may be supposed to represent the opinions of the grand jurors in Ireland. Even before that declaration was made by the Government my noble Friends, who come from Ireland, and sit on this side of the House, had done their best to ascertain what was the opinion of their friends in Ireland. The grand jurors and others were most deeply interested in this question, and noble Lords have declared to your Lordships that, so far as they have been able to gather, the opinion of that class, it is in favour of the Amendment which is now before your Lordships' House. I should have thought that, after the almost unanimous declaration of the noble Lords from Ireland, who represent the grand jury element, the Government would have accepted the Amendment without going to a Division. What are the arguments which have been advanced in opposition to the Amendment? The argument of the noble Marquess who has just spoken against the Amendment presupposes that in every case the voter has determined to vote, in the first place, for the kind of candidate who is not of the class wham the majority of your Lordships would wish to see chosen. Then, by giving a second member, you will be affording the voter the opportunity of changing his mind. I do not say that he will change his mind. I do not think anyone could predict what an Irish voter would do in any given circumstances; but there is a certain love of variety and change in the national heart, after all, which may come in the aid of that which may seem to the Saxon intelligence an improbability. It was most extraordinary that on this point all parties in the House of Commons vied with one another, as far as I can judge by the Debates, in declaring their strong desire that representatives of the old ex-officio guardians, the grand juries, and that class of experienced country gentlemen should, if possible, be returned. Then why exclude the chance of this happening? It is a strange thing that your Lordships should be asked to take

  1017
  away the only prospect of giving effect to that which has been declared to be the unanimous desire of all parties in the House of Commons when this matter was debated there.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: My Lords, I should have said that the most simple and satisfactory way of ascertaining what a deliberative assembly think is to divide, but I gather that that is not satisfactory to my noble Friends from Ireland. As far as I can find out, the spirit of the pledge which was given in the other House was that what is called the grand jury element in this House should practically have the decision of the question. If that is the case, I am bound, further, to admit that, as far as we can see, there is a large majority of the grand jury element who take a view in favour of double representation. I think that they are short-sighted, and are thinking more of the near than of the distant future. Nevertheless, I should be sorry that anything in the nature of a pledge should not be acted up to, and I therefore shall not vote against the Amendment.
  THE EAEL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we are not, I think, quite so divided in opinion as appears to be the case, and certainly we should be very glad to gee the sense of the House taken on this question. It is one on which, there are undoubtedly arguments on both sides, but I have a very strong opinion indeed that in the long run it will be found to work much better to have single members for constituencies. I do not know Ireland sufficiently well to appreciate the difference that appears to exist between England and Ireland. It appears that even present member of a board of guardians is so enamoured of his position that he would not retire on any account. There is not that same eagerness to serve on these boards in England, and I do not think it is likely to continue for a long time in Ireland. What is really in the hearts of everyone who has spoken on this subject is a real desire that what is here called the grand jury element—the richer part of society—should have fair representation upon these boards, not from any political motive one way or the other, but because undoubtedly the
  1018
  presence of men of great experience of affairs on a large scale, and of a higher education, will tend to give a better tone to those bodies. At the same time I cannot help expressing my own opinion that the presence of any considerable element of that kind; will not depend upon the machinery of the Act. It would depend upon the amount, of good feeling which would exist among the different classes of the locality. If that good feeling does exist, there will be the representation that we desire. If, unfortunately, it does not exist, I am perfectly convinced that no machinery that you can devise in an Act of Parliament will ensure the representation of that element on the board. I should like to give one illustration of what takes place where there are two-member constituencies. There are, I think, alone in all England, two-member constituencies for the London County Council, and as far as I know—and I have inquired into the matter—in the majority of cases men of the same way of thinking are elected to both seats; and that I believe to be not from any fault on the part of the constituents, but from the natural tendency that men have, when they vote for one man who represents their opinions, to vote for the other man also. Therefore I honestly believe, although I admit the authority of Irish Peers, on this point, that in the long run it will be found much better if the plan of the Government is adhered to.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I should like to say one word before your Lordships go to a Division. I had hoped that this Amendment would have been carried unanimously. I think the difficulty has arisen because we are not quite sure whether the Minister for War spoke for the Government or only for himself as an Irish landowner. He stated very fairly his own views, and he entered at length into the point that an elector would not be likely to neutralise the effect of electing a representative of his own opinions by also electing a candidate of a wholly different political complexion. But I could allude to cases where political feeling does not run altogether one way. To avoid friction we are very anxious that there should be double-member constituencies. My right honour-

  1019
  able Friend the Leader of the House of Commons showed his astuteness in leaving this to your Lordships' House to decide. Directly my noble Friend who leads the Unionist Party in Ireland heard that this was the intention he took every means to find out what were the views of the noble Lords in this House. He found that we are almost unanimous on this point in favour of double-member constituencies. I am not sanguine that the ex-officio guardians will be returned in many parts of Ireland, but I think there are some places where ex-officio guardians would be returned if the opportunity were given to the electors. I think it is hard on the ex-officio guardians, who are prepared to give their services, if, after having been asked by the Government to come forward, they are deserted by the Government and refused a chance of giving those services.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I venture to ask the noble Marquess the Prime Minister whether the Government will support the Amendment or not.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: My Lords, the Government do not propose to treat this as a Party question. I am bound by a pledge that was given in the other House, and therefore, I shall go behind the bar.
  The House divided:—Contents 15; Non-Contents 78.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 6, after 'division,' insert 'which now returns one elected poor law guardian and three councillors for each such division which now returns two elected poor law guardians.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 7, leave out 'one councillor,' and insert 'two councillors.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 12, leave out from beginning-of line to the second 'one' in line 14."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 23, leave out from 'district' to the end of the clause."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: I have put down this Amendment because it is not quite clear to me what this clause means, and I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether these people who have been in a place 12 months can be elected if they have not paid their rates?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRE LAND: Yes.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: Therefore a person who is elected, who is called upon to spend money is to be allowed to do so without even having contributed any money of his own. Is that the case?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Yes.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: I do not understand that, and that is why I move the Amendment, because it seems to me that unless a person has contributed to the rates, surely he ought not to be allowed to spend the money of other people.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRE LAND: This is the very same qualification as is contained in the English Bill. It is the only way by which a lady, or an eldest son, would have a chance of being elected, and it gives an opportunity to a person who has resided in a neighbourhood for the substantial period of 12 months to be a candidate. He may not be elected, but if the people know all about it, and the electors desire that such a person should be returned, it is reasonable that he should have a chance.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: There is another point with regard to this. A person who occupies a Land League hut may become eligible for election. In a great many localities the evicted tenants' question often assumes an acute phase, and it is very possible that a proposal may be made to elect the whole of these persons evicted from their holdings, and living in Land League huts as district councillors.
  1022
  Surely a difficulty would arise in that case?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think if the clause worked in that way it would not work at all. This clause was put in the English Act for the; reasons I have stated, and it was not thought unreasonable that the classes of persons I have referred to—ladies and eldest sons—should have their claims considered.
  *THE EARL OF ERNE: No doubt it is proper that elder sons and women should have an opportunity, but I do not think it is a fair thing to violate the principle-of representation going with taxation. I think there is a great deal in what has been said about the occupants of Land League huts.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: I want clearly to understand whether a person lining in a Land League hut, or whether a whole-number of evicted tenants living amongst their friends and neighbours, are eligible for election on the district councils. I should like that to be made perfectly clear.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It is perfectly clear in the words; which have been in the English Act for nearly 10 years, and which are perfectly clear here—
  "A person shall not be qualified to be elected or to be a councillor of the council of a county district unless he is a local government elector for the district, or has, during the whole of the 12 months preceding the election, resided, and continues to reside, in the district."
  The object for which that was put in was to give women a chance of being elected should the electors think it reasonable. It also would enable others, such as elder sons, who do not happen to be on the register, to be elected; but it is all in the hands of the electors.
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: This is much more important than the noble Lord seems to think. This question of residence, while it is allowed in the case of England, in the Scotch Act it was purposely kept out, and the reason is that it formerly happened that a person who is a local government elector, and whose whole interests would lie in his

  1023
  own district, will, for purposes of his own, go and live in an adjoining district, and be a source of very great trouble. Now, my Lords, I will put a case which I daresay may happen in Ireland. What is to prevent these evicted tenants from being elected? These cases have occurred before, and when the noble Earl spoke it occurred to me at once that there were characters of the same sort as these evicted tenants in Scotland, and it was to guard against them that this residential qualification was left out, and the necessity for a man being a local government elector was insisted upon.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 23, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 24.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 29, leave out 'councillor,' and insert 'councillors.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 30, leave out 'guardian,' and insert 'guardians.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 31, leave out 'guardian,' and Insert 'guardians.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 34, leave out 'a district councillor,' and insert 'district councillors.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 36, leave out 'councillor,' and Insert 'councillors.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 37, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 39.";—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 40, after 'elector,' insert 'for a district electoral division.'"—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clause 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 25.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 25 stand part of the Bill."
  *THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Upon this clause I should like to call the attention of the Committee to sub-section (a). Your Lordships have just decided that there ought to be two district councillors elected for each constituency. Well, now, it is proposed further to enact that the district council itself may choose from qualified persons not more than three, who shall be additional councillors. It is to create a sort of inferior kind of alderman, as I understand it; and after the very full representation, which your Lordships have given to each electoral district, this sub-section becomes unnecessary.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I shall consider carefully before Report whether the decision which your Lordships have arrived at, to give two members to each constituency, would make any change desirable here.
  Agreed to.

  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 26 stand part of the Bill.
  "Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 27.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, line 17 and 18, leave out 'roads proposed by tie council of any rural district,' and insert 'any matter or thing, or for any purpose.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment which I propose to submit to your Lordships is, perhaps, the most important Amendment standing upon the Paper. It is one, to my mind, upon which, to a great extent, the whole future working of every county council or district council rests. I dwelt, my Lords, at considerable length, on Thursday last, upon this point—namely, the limit which should be permitted to district councils to expend money, and therefore I do not propose to again go through those details at any length. I dwelt at such great length upon them because I trusted that my noble and learned Friend, on hearing what my arguments were, would, between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, give consideration to the argument which, in all probability, he thought I should again produce. I pointed out, by a large number of examples, that, where a board of guardians had had the power in certain parts of Ireland, there had been unlimited jobbery, and maladministration, and extra expense. I quoted a large number of instances, most of which I should think were known to my noble and learned Friend, and therefore I need not quote them again. I hope they are fresh in his memory, but if he would like any instances again I could give them. It is to avoid any such cases in the future by these district councils—which will occupy in the future the places of those who were boards of guardians—and in order to put a check upon what would otherwise be an almost unlimited expenditure, that I ask your Lordships to carefully consider and support the Amendment which I am now introducing to your notice. The noble Earl opposite, both today and on Thursday, drew attention to the fact that there were many points in which Ireland differed from England. I know myself—and I think there is hardly anyone connected with county
  1026
  councils in England who does not know it also—that since the formation of county councils, no matter how well the business has been done, the expenditure has sensibly increased, and consequently, if the expenditure in England on the county-councils has increased, how much, more will it increase in Ireland, especially when we have had instances, of the extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure to which I alluded on Thursday last, and which, in all probability, will again be repeated. The Amendment that I move is to eliminate the word "roads" to which the extra expenditure was confined, and substitute the words—
  "any matter or thing, or for any purpose,"
  by which I meant that the total extra expenditure which shall be permitted to the district councils shall, for expenditure of all kinds—whether it be roads, or otherwise—be limited to 25 per cent, more than the average expenditure has been for the last three years. The reason I do so, my Lords, is because, as I have told you, the jobbery and expenditure on outdoor relief, unless it is controlled by such an Amendment as I am submitting, will be absolutely ruinous to the large ratepayers in the various counties. I quoted to you the other day a speech of Mr. Chamberlain's in 1892. In one or two brief expressions he showed the dangers to which the ratepayers would be exposed far more ably than I could do if I addressed your Lordships on the subject, and his words are so important that I trust you will allow me to use them again, even though I only quoted them as late as last Thursday. He said—
  "Speaking generally, all over Ireland, five per cent, of the ratepayers pay fifty percent of the cess."
  And then he went on to say—
  "In one case two per cent, of the cess payers pay fifty per cent, of the cess."
  It is absolutely immaterial to the small cesspayer to what extent the rates are raised, provided, that out of them they can obtain employment for themselves at the expense of a small minority. Naturally, in the interests of the large ratepayers, there should be some limit to the expenditure. Mr. Chamberlain himself foresaw the danger Mr. Balfour in

  1027
  one of his speeches declared that they would be acting criminally towards the minority if they did not extend protection against what is nothing more or less than robbery by means of the rates. I know full well that the Government have given, this matter full consideration, and so have we who have been studying the details of this Bill. We have carefully considered whether a Standing Joint Committee, such as Scotland possesses, would be an advantage. We have also carefully considered whether rating qualification would safeguard the minority of large ratepayers. We have also considered the question of minority representation, but upon the whole we have come to the conclusion that the principle of the safeguard introduced by Her Majesty's Government was of the 'safest and best character, but that it was not wide enough, and that it should mot be confined to the roads. I should tie very diffident in raising this question if it involved an entirely new principle, but it involves no principle whatever. 'The principle is laid down that any extra expenditure on roads and the 25 per cent, limit should only be granted by application to, and with the permission of, the local Government Board; and consequently the authority of the Local Government Board is brought in with regard to the roads. All we ask is that the 25 per cent, should cover the limit of expenditure both of the roads and of every other head of expenditure, unless it is considered desirable by the Local 'Government Board to grant leave to the particular district to expend a large sum of money beyond that provided for by the Act. I think that is very fair. If the expenditure is fair and necessary it would not be a great trouble to a district council to apply to the Local Government Board, and if that expenditure is right and necessary it will be the duty of the Local Government Board to grant permission to exceed that limit exactly as they have the power now to do should they, in their opinion, consider that the limit should be expended for the benefit of the roads. I dwelt, my Lords, at such length upon this question last Thursday that it is really not necessary for me to dilate upon it at any length tonight, but I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that history
  1028
  has taught us that the right to grant outdoor relief has been exercised in the most flagrant manner in the past, and that it may be exercised in the most flagrant manner in the future; and if the Government really wish to safeguard the interests of the large ratepayers—and, my Lords, the large ratepayers do not only consist of landowners but also of large tenant farmers—I think it is but just that they should consider my proposal and limit the total expenditure to 25 per cent., excepting when the Local Government Board in Dublin thinks it is necessary to allow more to be spent.
  *THB LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I do not think that my noble Friend who has moved this Amendment has rightly grasped the position and the circumstances of the various authorities who are named in the Bill, or the powers that are given in the Bill, and the powers that exist independently of the Bill entirely. If a great change like that which is contemplated in this Bill is to be made, it must be done to a certain extent on the principle of confidence and of trust, and if you call into existence a popularly elected county council, as in England and in Scotland, so now in Ireland you must assume that they will be animated to a certain extent with a sense of the responsibility cast upon them and with, a sense of duty. The safeguards provided all through the scheme that has been stated to your Lordships are of a broad character, and they are not small or vexatious ones. A large grant is made by the State, which is to effect a very great change, and the change that is to be accomplished is that the occupier is to be made the person who is to be liable to pay the rates. That is a great change and a great safeguard, because it places upon the occupier the disadvantage of any extravagance; it gives him the advantage of being economical. That is a great and general safeguard, and it is one which pervades the entire structure of this Bill. But now let us go to those particular clauses which my noble Friend has shortly described as the 25 per cent, clause, and, in so doing, I have to direct his attention to this that it is worthy of note that this proposal, during the whole of the time that the Bill was before the House of Commons, was received upon all sides as the most potent

  1029
  check that could be devised against extravagance on the part of the district council. It never was suggested from beginning to end on the part of any landowner or any Unionist that the clause was susceptible of advance or improvement; and it was attacked all through only by those who take another view of the question. Gentlemen sitting upon the Nationalist Benches described it as being an undue restraint and an improper check upon the methods of expenditure that might be adopted in reference to this matter. I have directed my Friend's attention to what may be a confusion in reference to the way in which this matter is viewed. There are district councils and there are boards of guardians. It is true that the same people constitute these boards, speaking roughly—that is to say, that the district councillors make the district council, and also in their character as guardians, they make the board of guardians. But the matter must be looked at from an entirely independent point of view. They are kept separate; they are not amalgamated, because different considerations and different codes and different checks prevail in reference to each of them. The staple argument of my noble Friend, and in his Second Reading speech, which he has just given, is, that there may be abuses as to outdoor relief. The Bill does not touch outdoor relief. Every check that was in existence for outdoor relief is in as potent and efficacious application now as before the Bill was thought of. The Local Government Board preserved every check and every single power that is in existence now and will be in existence after the passing of this Bill. Every check upon outdoor relief forbidding it to be given to able-bodied people—forbidding it to be given to those who have a quarter of an acre of land—enabling the auditor to overhaul the guardians if it is given extravagantly, enabling the Local Government Board to dissolve boards of guardians; all these are preserved, and there is not a single syllable in this Bill that interferes with, or changes, or mutilates, or embarrasses the efficacy of the existing control of the outdoor relief, or of any other part of poor law administration. If that is so, I apprehend that is a complete answer to the suggestion of my noble Friend, that we should
  1030
  apply the 25 per cent limit to everything. This Bill is without the slightest reference or regard whatever to poor law relief, or to any other limit of poor law relief. How can you tell guardians that they are not to spend money beyond so much, in the time of poverty and distress it may be, and under circumstances that everyone recognises as reasonable? How can you tell them that they must not spend more than 25 per cent? It would be impossible. Their first and primary duty is to provide for the poor. We do not seek to change a single enactment in reference to that, and it is, I venture to think, a confusion of ideas to suggest that there is anything whatever in common between this 25 per cent, limit introduced in reference to roads, which might be made by the district council in their character as district council, and the question of what might be a perfectly reasonable expenditure of the boards of guardians on outdoor relief or anything else connected with the administration of the poor law. That only leaves me one, other matter to deal with which has been referred to. It may be said that that deals completely with the question of the poor law guardian, but what do you say about the expenditure of the district council—why must the expenditure of the district council be at all limited? It has been represented over and over again—in the press, in pamphlets, and everywhere else—that the reason for that is that there may be some extravagance in making roads within their own district. That is the main danger. That is a danger that requires looking after, and it is conceded that that danger is met in the clearest, the fullest, and the most satisfactory way by the limit that is put in here, requiring the assent of the Local Government Board to any expenditure beyond 25 per cent, in a certain standard number of years that are named. What else remains? Absolutely nothing. It is impossible to name any other limit of expenditure that the district council can go to where they are not met face to face with existing safeguards in the existing statutes, and which prevent them from running riot with any expenditure. In the first place, the district council have to ask the sanction of the county council for this expenditure on roads which are of a new kind. It has to do the same in reference to ordinary

  1031
  public works. Take now the only other works of any substantial character—sanitary expenditure and public health expenditure. In those cases they are fact to face with this restriction—that they can only carry out works of that nature by means of loans approved of by the-Local Government Board. There they are met with the existing facts of the law. They cannot, under the Sanitary Acts and the Public Health Acts, proceed to borrow without the sanction of the Local Government Board, as to the fixing of the area charge, and as to everything else connected with it. It may be said that in the case of the Labourers Acts they might run into excess. But there again they are face to face with a statute limit; they cannot go to more than one shilling in the £ If you look at this with a technical knowledge, which, of course, is not found on the surface of the Bill, it is obvious that whether you take the guardians, who are subject to all existing checks, or whether you take the district councils with their new duties and new obligations, there is an ample check on the power of spending money. Twenty-five percent is named here in reference to the roads, and there are existing statutable checks in reference to everything else. There is no such check as this, as suggested by my noble Friend, in the English and Scotch Acts. If you call into existence an Irish county council and Irish machinery of local government, you must have some regard' to the way in which it has been worked in England—the way it has been legislated for in England, and the way it has worked. I myself think it will be found that the view that was taken of this by those who looked into it very closely, and came to the conclusion that this is a very carefully framed provision, going as far as can be reasonably expected in the direction of safeguarding every possible likelihood of extravagance, is a very correct view, and I hope that your Lordships will be satisfied with this explanation that the matter has been very fully considered, and that you will not accept the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I will only detain your Lordships for a moment in replying. The Bill has very thoroughly and very wisely safe-
  1032
  guarded undue expenditure on the roads, so that it is hardly possible that any jobbery can be perpetrated with reference to them; but nothing is done to prevent jobbery in regard to outdoor relief or to provide a safeguard with reference to undue expenditure in that direction. If you do one, I do not sea why you should not do the other.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: You do not mention guardians at all from beginning to end.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: "Any matter or thing."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRE-LAND: That is the district council. If my noble Friend passed this Amendment it would not touch outdoor relief.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I cannot agree with my noble and learned Friend if the county council has any power of vetoing the expenditure of the district council.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: But roads are public works.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I want to have some safeguard to prevent this very reckless expenditure which I have mentioned before, and I think my Amendment will give us some safeguard.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE). I think my noble Friend has hardly studied this question sufficiently. He based almost the whole of his argument upon the liability to extravagance in the poor law expenditure; but if his Amendment was carried it would have no effect whatever upon the poor law; it would not impose any check upon poor law expenditure. The clause of the Bill provides that—
  "A county council shall not, without the consent of the Local Government Board, approve of any expenditure on roads proposed by the council of any rural district, which will cause the expenditure on the roads of the district to exceed by one-fourth the amount certified by that Board to have been the average expenditure thereon during the three years next before the passing of this Act, and the Board may, as respects each council, consent either for a particular road or a particular

  1033
  year, or generally, and in the latter case may fix a new limit under this section.
  "An urban district council shall transact the business transferred to them by this section in the manner prescribed by general rules of the Local Government Board."
  A district council, as a district council, has nothing whatever to do with poor law expenditure, and the poor law expenditure never comes in any shape or form before the county council. In their capacity as guardians it conies before the district council, but it never comes before the county council at all; so that, as regards poor law expenditure, my noble Friend's Amendment would be absolutely and entirely without effect. The expenditure on sanitary works which may be incurred by district councils is already controlled and checked by the Local Government Board, because sanitary work cannot be carried on out of current income; sanitary works can only be carried on by means of loans, and no loan can be raised without the sanction of the Local Government Board, and where the Local Government Board has satisfied itself that the work is a necessary one, and that the manner in which it is going to be carried out is economical. Therefore, the Local Government Board possesses already a control over the proceedings of the district council, excepting that control over the expenditure on roads which the clause gives them. As to the poor law expenditure, the county council has nothing whatever to say to that.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: The district council is the board of guardians, and the men on them fill a dual position. What I am sure is in the noble Marquess's mind is that the 25 per cent, can be spent upon the roads, and that then those same district councillors, filling their dual position as guardians, can administer the outdoor relief—
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: The district council cannot.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: But they are guardians as well.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL: It is a different body.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: They can spend money on outdoor relief, and the Sanitary Acts, and the Labourers' Acts, and the other Acts mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. Our contention is that 25 per cent, goes on the roads, and that another 25 per cent, may go> upon all these other charges, so that the half of the poor rate is wiped out entirely. That, I imagine, is what my noble Friend means by his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL: As I understand it, the same individuals act as boards of guardians and district councillors. As boards of guardians, they have to deal with outdoor relief. As far as that is concerned all the checks and safeguards in existence in Ireland will continue to be in existence after the passage of the Bill, and why on earth the noble Marquess wants to put in more safeguards I cannot understand.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, after line 26, insert as a new sub-section—
  "A district or urban council shall have the power of making by-laws for the purpose of removing or preventing the erection of manifestly disfiguring open - air advertisements within their several jurisdictions; provided, always, that if an objection is raised to any decision under such by-laws, there shall be an appeal to the Local Government Board."—(Viscount de Vesci.)
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: The Amendment which stands in my name is not a very, difficult one, but I have been asked to move it on behalf of the society formed for the purpose of preventing the erection of disfiguring open-air advertisements. The difficulty of the matter is this, that there is no clause, I believe,

  1035
  of the same kind in the English or Scotch Acts, but, as your Lordships are aware, it is this practice of disfiguring advertisements in country districts which is felt to be a great nuisance, and there is, I know, a very strong feeling about it. I do not stand by the language of the sub-section that I am proposing, but I will ask the Government if they will accept the principle of it, and then I can bring forward fresh words on the Report stage. I ought to state, as a matted of fact, that this practice of putting up these disfiguring advertisements is very prevalent in Ireland, especially in the south-west and those portions much frequented by tourists.
  *LORD CLONBBOCK: I hope that the Government will accept this new clause of my noble Friend, because I can assure your Lordships that it is occasionally very much wanted in Ireland. I remember that about 20 years ago a seller of artificial manures had his place of business near a most historical ruin in Ireland, and on that ruin he had painted in huge letters, about 10 feet long, the names of his manures, and he was perfectly surprised when remonstrances were addressed to him on the subject; he appeared to think that his advertisement rather added to the beauties of the place than otherwise. I must say he did his best to eradicate the letters, although I am not sure that they cannot be seen up to the present day. No doubt the more picturesque a place is the more likely it is to be disfigured by these kinds of advertisements. I trust that this Government will see its way to accept the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. It is what may be called a sentimental Amendment. Ireland is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. A large number of English tourists go over there, and they want to see the beauties of the country undisfigured by
  1036
  any of these monstrous advertisements, which now are so prevalent in the south of England, and in other places. If the county councils have not the means of preventing these erections, no doubt, in the course of time, as the country is developed, they will be placed much more freely in the more frequented districts. I think it is a very good Amendment; it is not a very important one; it would no doubt give a great deal of trouble to the county council, but at the same time it may hereafter be the means of doing a certain amount of good.
  *THE LORD CHANGELLOR OF IRELAND: There will be a most frightful jealousy between the two countries if this Amendment is accepted. By the common law of this country the most hideous advertisements that are conceivable can be put up with impunity in every direction. I am always greatly struck by an Amendment of this kind, which appeals, so much to human sentiment, and to a desire to look upon beautiful things and a horror of seeing ugly things, but this, is a question which has agitated public opinion for a considerable time, and I really do not think it ought to have a place in this Bill. I have a great deal of sympathy with the object in view, but I am afraid it touches the fringe of a branch of the law that is not at all peculiar to Ireland. For my own part, I really believe that we have fewer uglier advertisements in Ireland than certainly in any part of England, and why the society for the prevention of the exhibition of disfiguring open-air advertisements should begin with this I really do not know. There are some specialities, we have in Ireland, but this is not one of them, and I think the matter might be left to be dealt with by some general law which shall make some general reform in this matter. At any rate, it is hardly appropriate here. While, as said, I have every sympathy with the-noble Lord, I do not think such an Amendment should form part of a Bill

  1037
  of this; character, but that it should be dealt with aa a whole by a Bill which should make a general change dealing with the whole of the country.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I only ask the noble and learned Lord as a matter of patriotism to let Ireland lead the way.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I yield to nobody in patriotism, but I am afraid that my patriotism will not induce me to accept an Amendment which, I have said, ought not to find a place in a Bill of this character.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: Could not the county councils make by-laws?
  Sub-section, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSES 27 TO 31.
  Motion made, and question put—
  "That clauses 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I beg to move that Lord Balfour of Bur-leigh takes the Chair.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHtook the Chair.
  "Insert as a new clause—
  "There shall be transferred to every urban and rural district council the business of the board of guardians under section one hundred and fifty of the Public Health Act, 1878 (which relates to the execution of the regulations made when Ireland appears to be threatened by any formidable epidemic, endemic, or infectious disease), or under any enactment amending or extending that section, and section three of the Epidemic and other Diseases Prevention Act, 1883, shall be repealed."—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is a new clause, and it is consequential to that part of the Bill which transfers sanitary powers to the district council, and other powers of a
  1038
  kindred character, which should have been included in the Bill.
  Question put.
  Clause agreed to.

  CLAUSES 32 TO 40.
  Motion made, and question, put—
  "That clauses 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 41.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 27, line 38, after 'district,' insert 'or for adding an urban sanitary district to a rural sanitary district, or for enlarging the boundaries of an urban county district.'"—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is a small change introduced to make the clause more perfect. It is really a drafted Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and question put—
  "That clause 41, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  Motion made, and question put—
  "That clause 42 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 43.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord a Question of which I have given private notice. The sanitary expenses in rural districts are spread entirely over the whole district. I want to know whether that affects the question of the Labourers' Cottage Act. I would point out that the Labourers' Cottage Act has been controlled by the boards of guardians, and I should like to know whether the charge

  1039
  now is to be to the electoral division or to the whole union. I believe in a very few instances the expenses of the Labourers' Cottage Act have been put upon the whole union at large, and I believe that it has proved very unsatisfactory, and that a great many abuses have arisen under it. My experience of the working of the Labourers' Cottage Act is that, when the expense is placed upon the electoral division, the work of the Act is much more narrowly watched. There are several divisions in most of the unions where labourers' cottages are built, event when ample accommodation exists. The object of the Act was to build in small and unsupplied districts, and to give allotments of land where there were no facilities before. I would remind the noble and learned Lord that this is not a question of union rating or of outdoor relief. Any expense incurred in outdoor relief can have its effects removed during the next financial year, but a cottage once built remains there forever. I press this point upon the consideration of the noble and learned Lord from the point of view that it is not cottages that are wanted in Ireland so much as land. The people of Ireland are not so anxious to obtain cottages as to get allotments of land, and I am sure that the power now possessed may be open to abuse, especially at the expense of the larger ratepayers. I have very seriously considered whether I ought not to put down an Amendment on this subject; at any rate, I should like the opinion of the noble and learned Lord.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: In a long Bill of this kind it is impossible to take a particular clause without collating it with other clauses in the Bill, and if the noble Lord will look at the last paragraph of clause 56 he will find a reference which I shall be glad to speak to him about, which clears the matter up. He will find that the charge for the Labourers' Cottage Act comes out of the union charges, and that if it were not so it would be a loss, because we could not get any benefit out of the
  1040
  agricultural grant This is part of a large question, and I shall be happy to go into the matter more in detail if the noble Lord so wishes.
  Motion made, and question put—
  "That clause 43 stand part of the BiLL"
  Agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That clauses 44 and 45 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 46.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 29, after 'county,' insert 'or other.'"—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is merely a small drafting Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 30, leave out 'borough fund,' and insert 'funds or accounts in respect of which such rates or any of them were levied.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I move this Amendment in the interests of the city of Belfast, which has several funds—the police fund, the gas fund, the borough fund, and so on—and they wish to carry them to the credit of one fund, otherwise there will be confusion. I think there is no objection to that.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think my noble Friend is perfectly right in principle, but it is intended to deal with that by the Order in Council to provide that the funds will be kept separately in all accounts, so I shall ask my noble Friend to leave the borough fund in, and when we come to

  1041
  make the Order in Council we will take oare that the matter is put right.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 36, leave out 'or clerk,' and insert 'clerk or officer.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The city of Belfast owns gasworks, and amounts are paid to the cashier in respect of those gasworks, and they think that his receipt ought to be a valid discharge to the party paying it. I think my noble Friend has no objection to that.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This question of the receipt of money, and of giving receipts, is an extremely important point, and it is considered to be absolutely essential that we should keep something like a close precision as to those who are entitled to give receipts, and therefore I trust my noble Friend will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 43, after 'Act,' insert 'or in the case of money derived from trust funds, then by the specific trust affecting those funds.'"—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That clause 46, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 47.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 1, leave out from 'canal' to the end of the clause."—(Viscount Temple-town.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: I beg, my Lords, to move this Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I do not like in the least to check my noble Friend, especially as I believe that this is the only Amendment he has put down, but I am afraid this is an endeavour to make an enormous increase in the agricultural grant, and that would be a substantial interference with the privileges of the House of Commons.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: The noble and learned Lord has anticipated what might have been said by most people, but it was not my intention to produce the effect with which he has credited me. I merely intended to draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the very great damage done to land which is outside the borough boundary, and therefore derives no benefit from being in proximity to a large town. If this clause stands as it is now in the Bill, it is very clear that land which can derive no possible benefit from being in proximity to the town on one hand will be handicapped as against the land immediately outside it by not receiving the agricultural grant, an amount which might make a difference in increasing the agricultural grant in a way that has not been contemplated. But could not Her Majesty's Government see their way to put in a definition into this clause which would permit land to receive the benefit of an agricultural grant if it could be shown clearly that it derived no benefit from being in the borough boundary. The task of differentiating would not be very difficult, and if the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill would try and meet the Amendment in some form by saying that the agricultural grant, for instance, might be given where land was mountain land, or something which cannot be compensated for. I am not particularly anxious to exclude the whole of the words mentioned, I only seek to qualify the clause to such an extent, so as to allow the grant to be given to land which cannot get any benefit by being in the borough boundaries.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: There was nothing discussed in

  1043
  the House of Commons more keenly than all these matters of lands which are to be taken into account, and some of the land had, of course, to be disregarded. The line had to be drawn somewhere, and it was drawn in the way indicated in the clause—
  "The provisions of this Act with respect to agricultural land shall extend to every here-ditament entered as land in the valuation list within the meaning of the Valuation Acts, which is not part of a railway or canal, but shall not extend to any here-ditament situate within the boundary of any borough or of any town which is (for the time being) an urban sanitary district."
  It was quite recognised that it did work out, to a certain extent, in an arbitrary way, and that there would be some cases of hardship. But it had to be done on the lines indicated, so as to exclude the urban sanitary districts, and the grant was calculated on that basis, and we cannot enter into it now.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Under the circumstances, I will not press my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSES 48 TO 51.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That clause 47 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 48 TO 51.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That clauses 48, 49, 50, and 51 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 52.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 36, line 24, after 'shall,' insert 'except where under the terms of his contract he is not entitled to make any deduction from his rent in respect of rates.'"—(The Lord Chancellor of Ireland.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I move the insertion of those words which should have been included.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  1044
  Page 36, at end of line 29, add—
  "Provided, however, that the occupier shall not be entitled to make any deduction from his rent in respect of buildings, except so far as same are liable to rent."—(The Earl of Arran.)
  *THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I have brought up this Amendment, because in many hundreds of cases where judicial rents have been fixed it has been officially noted in the pink schedule that the buildings belong wholly or partly to the tenant, and in fixing the fair rent no rent is fixed upon the buildings at all, and therefore they would be excluded from the provisions of the Act, and are to be treated as a separate holding, and it is understood consequently that there will have to be some separate assessment upon the land and upon the buildings. What I want to guard against is this, that the tenant should not be entitled to deduct from the rental any part of the poor rate or county cess which would be applicable to the buildings which do not pay rent.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have looked into this, question, and I think it does not in the slightest degree affect the amount of the deduction, and that is all that my noble Friend is interested in. Whether you transfer from one part of the farm to another, the liability to rent would not affect the amount of deduction; it leaves it absolutely untouched. The matter is one that I can make abundantly plain to my noble Friend if I go into it in detail, but I know the matter has been looked into very closely, and I believe it is perfectly plain that it does not in the slightest degree affect the amount of the deduction, whether you dissociate the buildings from the land or the land from the buildings; the amount of deduction is exactly the same.
  *THE EARL OF ARRAN: I do not quite understand, as the rates at present paid are levied upon the two—upon the buildings and upon the land. I will not insist upon it now, but, of course, if I cannot understand the noble and learned Lord's explanation, I shall have to bring it up on Report.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 37, line 1, leave out sub-section (8)."—(Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, my Amendment is to omit the following sub-section altogether—
  "Any difference which may arise as to the Amount to be deducted or paid by occupiers under existing tenancies in pursuance of this section, shall be referred to the Commissioner of Valuation, whose decision shall be final."
  It appears to me that the Commissioner of Valuation is not quite the proper person to refer these matters to, because questions of law and of fact will be likely to arise under this section. It is quite clear that questions of law will arise as to the position of certain tenancies, and my object in moving to leave out this sub-section is that the parties should be able to take their proper remedy at law, as they can now, before the proper authority.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, it is not anticipated that anything like substantial difference will arise, and in any question of figures the reference to the Commissioner of Valuation—a man of considerable intelligence and cuteness—offers a simple, expeditious, and cheap means of decision. I do not think it is desirable to tell people that if they have a small difference their best way to settle it is to rush into a lawsuit. I do not advise my friends to adopt that course.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: It is not that I doubt the capabilities of the commissioner at all. What I say is that questions will arise which at present constantly occupy the Superior Courts, and it seems to me that these questions are not questions which the Commissioner of Valuation should be asked to decide, however excellent and able a person he may be.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The questions that will arise must be largely questions of figures, and not of law, because new tenancies are not created. You make some difference in the taxes, and in the incidence of the taxes, and it is comparatively easy to determine the amount of adjustment. I think it is
  1046
  prudent, in the interests of landlord and tenant, to leave that to the Commissioner of Valuation, who is a master of figures.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: Could my noble and learned Friend see his way to leave out the words "whose decision shall be final"?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRE-LAND: No; that would be very unsatisfactory.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That clause 52, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

  CLAUSE 53.
  *THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move an Amendment which is not on the Paper, providing—
  "That in every order fixing a fair rent, after the appointed date, the Land Commissioner shall insert the amount so credited to the landlord and the tenant respectively."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I will accept that Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 53, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 54.
  "Page 38, line 32, after 'exemptions,' insert 'provided that where in any borough the council can under any existing general or local Act make such rate upon the landlord or immediate lessor and not upon the occupier, this section shall not apply unless the council of such borough by a majority of two-thirds of the members present at a meeting specially summoned, resolve to adopt the provisions of this section instead of the provisions of the existing Act.'"—(Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I beg to withdraw this Amendment, and to substitute the following—
  "Provided that the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to a rate under a local act in any county borough, if the council of that borough, by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present, and at a meeting specially summoned for the purpose, so resolve."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I accept that Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 54, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 55 TO 65.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 66.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 49, line 21, leave out 'or,' and insert 'whether in making an order or in confirming an order made by a county council, and in the exercise of.'"—(Lord Asnbourne.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is merely a drafting Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 49, lines 25 and 26, leave out 'so far as conveniently may be,' and insert 'except in any case where the preservation thereof would cause serious inconvenience.'"—(Lord Macnaghten.)
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make it plain that the boundaries and
  1048
  counties are not to be changed without good reason.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: If your Lordships will refer to clause 100 you will see that an Appeal Commission has been constituted to deal with cases of this kind.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Yes, but I think the Appeal Commission ought to-have some light to guide them.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The sub-section reads—
  "The boundaries of counties at large and unions as existing at the date of the order shall be preserved, so far as conveniently may be."
  Surely that is clear enough.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: What is the meaning of those words?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: They are as plain as the words of my noble Friend. He proposes to leave out, "so far as conveniently may be," and to insert, "except in any case where the preservation thereof would cause serious inconvenience." It is really only a question of phraseology. The Appeal Commission will know that they are not to interfere lightly with boundaries, but to have regard to the general convenience, and to the preserving of existing boundaries, "so far as conveniently may be."
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Will the noble and learned Lord accept the Amendment if I substitute, "substantial inconvenience" instead of "serious inconvenience"?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: These clauses were examined very minutely in the other House, and the Appeal Commission was called into existence to meet the case to which the noble Lord has called attention.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I do not think there is any difference between my noble and learned Friend and myself.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: There is not. I have no reason to think boundaries will be lightly interfered with. If we strike out the

  1049
  words in the clause, and insert others, it will be said that something revolutionary was intended.
  *LORD MORRIS: My Lords, I think the words my noble Friend [Lord Macnagh-ten] suggests would be better. I do not know what might not be "conveniently" done. It is a vague phrase. Lord Macnaghten puts the onus upon the parties who move of showing that the alteration must be made, because otherwise it will be substantially inconvenient.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I will accept the Amendment with the word "substantial."
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Then the subsection will now read—
  "The boundaries of counties at large and unions as existing at the date of the order shall be preserved, except in any case where the preservation thereof would cause substantial inconvenience."
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 50, line 29, at end of clause add as a fresh sub-section—
  "Such changes in the ordnance map as appear to the Lord Lieutenant in Council to be rendered necessary by this Act, or any Order in Council made there under, shall be made through the Commissioner of Valuation in manner directed by the Lord Lieutenant in Council."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 66, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 67 TO 69.
  Question put—
  "That clause 67, 68, and 69 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 70.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 54, line 15, after 'justice,' insert 'of the discharge of his or their duties.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 70, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 71 TO 75.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 71, 72, 73, 74, and 75 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 76.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 56, line 11, after 'shall,' insert 'without prejudice to the reasonable use thereof for any purpose connected with navigation.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 76, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  Question put—
  "That clause 77 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 78.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 1, after 'this,' insert 'or any ether.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is only a drafting Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 78, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  Question put—
  "That clauses 79 and 80 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 81.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 26, after 'surveyor,' insert 'who shall be the surveyor to the rural district councils comprised within the area of the county.' "—(Viscount de Vesci.)
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: My Lords, I put this Amendment down because of the difficulty which has been experienced by boards of guardians in getting properly qualified surveyors, architects, and clerks of works to carry out the sanitary works under those boards. I do not wish to make any unnecessary accusation, but there is great risk in regard to the lower class of men, who are not so well trained and educated, of getting those who will not be independent of other considerations. Some have been known to be in collusion with contractors. My desire is that these important works should be carried out by competent and educated officials Of course, my Amendment will probably necessitate an increase being made in the salaries of the county surveyors, but if the salaries of these officials were increased to the maximum it would not be money thrown away.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the desire of the noble Lord to procure adequate supervision for all the public works in the country. This
  1052
  Amendment has been considered with every desire to meet it as far as could be, but it is not thought desirable to seek to put a county surveyor under a divided authority, and to give him a divided allegiance. This is a matter that will settle itself, as every county council will be anxious that the county surveyor should give the benefit of his experience to any works needed by the county. The assistant county surveyors will also be available. The head authority is the county council, and I think it is best to give them full supervision and control of their officers.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That clause 81 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 82 TO 85.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 82, 83, 84, and 85 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 86.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 16, after 'Dublin,' insert 'or of any urban district within the county of Dublin.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 86, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 87 TO 90.
  Question put—
  "That clauses 87, 88, 89, and 90 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSES 91 TO 98.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 63, line 27, leave out sub-section (1)."—(The Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
  THE EAHL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will agree to omit this subsection of the clause, and thereby relieve a certain class in Ireland from the disabilities under which this Bill at present places them. I am sure the whole House will agree with me that to place any disability of this kind upon any class is a most undesirable and a most objectionable thing to do, unless there are very strong cause and reason shown why it is absolutely necessary that it should be done. And, my Lords, I submit that in this case no reason whatever has as yet been shown. To deprive the ministers of religion of the privilege that all other members of the community in Ireland will possess, of sitting upon district and county councils, without sufficient and very great cause is surely to cast a great slur upon ministers of religion in Ireland. And, my Lords, in this case disability is not only objectionable, but it appears to me totally illogical. Ministers of religion are eligible to be members of the grand juries, and why, in the name of goodness, should they not be eligible to sit as members of the boards which take over the duties of grand juries? They are capable of voting, and I do not see why they should not be capable of sitting upon those bodies. They are eligible to sit on these bodies in Great Britain, and I can see no reason whatever for differentiating between Great Britain and Ireland in this respect. My Lords, the reasons that I have heard given up to the present appear to me to be entirely unsatisfactory. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House, said, as regards this point, that he did not believe that ministers of religion in Ireland would avail themselves of the privilege of sitting on county and district councils if they had it. Well, my Lords, that may be so, but because a man is not likely, or a body of men are not likely, to avail himself or themselves
  1054
  of a privilege, surely that is no reason why you should debar them, from using that privilege if they have a mind to. In speaking in another place the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that if ministers of religion were allowed to sit on these councils it would not tend to economy or to the smooth working of these new bodies; but the Chief Secretary gave no explanation why this should be so. I confess, my Lords, I have not the slightest notion why we should suppose that ministers of religion are more likely to be extravagant than anybody else, nor do I know why I am asked to suppose that their presence would be likely to deter from the smooth working of these bodies. I find, it very difficult to advance any argument against that proposal, because I cannot understand what earthly argument can be advanced in favour of it. It is very difficult to understand what is the object and the real meaning of the exclusion of ministers of religion in Ireland. It is perfectly obvious that as they are admitted in England there must be some very strong, though some exceedingly obscure, reason which has influenced Her Majesty's Government, and the only reason that I can imagine is that some dread is entertained lest' in Ireland the ministers of religion would, in the purely mundane affairs of a county council, exercise the influence which they possess in their spiritual capacity. Well, my Lords, I will not go into the question whether they are likely or unlikely to do so. I will assume that such is the case. I will assume that it is true that ministers of religion in Ireland would use what I may term "undue influence" in purely worldly affairs. If that be so, I hold that this is the strongest possible argument in favour of, at any rate, allowing them to sit upon these councils. My own impression is that very few ministers of religion would avail themselves of the opportunity and the privilege of sitting on these boards, which I should regret. I think that one of the best things that could possibly happen in Ireland would be that they should avail themselves of the opportunity very largely. If you assume that a Roman Catholic priest or a Presbyterian minister, or an Episcopalian

  1055
  clergyman is prepared and anxious to use his spiritual influence in mundane, worldly affairs, I say that in proportion as you believe he will exercise that influence you ought to desire that he will exercise it openly on the councils and not secretly. It has been asked: what chance would a layman have in contesting an election against his parish priest? I admit he may have a poor chance. My real reason for feeling so strongly on this point is twofold. I do not imagine for a moment that the ministers of religion will very largely avail themselves of the privileges which we wish to grant them, but if they are excluded from the Bill altogether it will be always to give them a grievance. The great point is never to give a man a grievance or a chance for a grievance if you can possibly help it, but under this Bill as it stands they will always have an opportunity of making a grievance out of their exclusion. In the first place, there are no doubt a great number of men who would do very good and useful work upon these county councils and district councils, and if they are capable of such work it appears to me to be a pity that they should be excluded. In the second place, I feel very strongly that if the reason which influences Her Majesty's Government in this matter, in placing this disability upon ministers of religion, is the fear that they will exercise an undue influence upon the members of the council, I hold it very strongly that if they are prepared to exercise that influence they had far better sit upon the council and exercise it in the sight of man, rather than exercise it, as they will do if they are excluded, in the background, and in an underhand manner.
  *LORD BUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: I desire to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. I belong to that class which looks with great hope to the good that this Bill may effect in Ireland. This is the first time in which, in any large Measure, power has been given to the Irish people to deal with their own affairs, and I think it would be a matter greatly to be regretted if a Bill, which I think has great potentialities for good, should start under a cloud of public disfavour. That this exclusion is directed against the Catholic priests in Ireland nobody can
  1056
  doubt. That is its avowed justification. I think, in the first instance, that that exclusion conveys an undeserved slur upon a large body of men who are just as thoroughly imbued, according to their beliefs and according to their honest opinions, with a desire to do what they regard to be in the interests of their country as any other class. They can have no motive which separates them from the interests of the great mass of the community—the great majority of the country. When, my Lords, you consider the subject-matters with which this Bill deals, purely local affairs, purely mundane, with no spiritual aspect about them at all, it does seem to me to be a most extraordinary proposal that you should do what you have not done in Scotland, that you should do what you have not done in England, exclude the whole body of clergy of all denominations from taking any part in local affairs. Why is this exclusion justified? There is but one precedent for it which is cognate to the subject, and that is that they were not eligible to be members of boards of guardians. I doubt very much whether if that poor law were put into enactment for the first time, that that exclusion would be allowed to continue, but if that precedent is to be cited in favour of their exclusion, it seems to me there is a much stronger precedent to be cited in favour of their inclusion. The Catholic priests of Ireland were, and are to-day, the law being as it is, eligible to be members of the body of grand jurors.
  *THE EARL OF ERNE: They never are.
  *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: That is not contravening anything that I have said. They are eligible to be members of grand juries in Ireland at this moment. The noble Lord who interrupted me says they never are. Why is that? Because that depends upon the mandate of the sheriff, and he does not choose to summon them upon his panel. But there is no exclusion based upon any exclusion of the law, and Episcopalian Protestant clergymen can be, and I have known more than one instance in which they were members of the grand jury; nor is that eligibility confined to the Protestant Episcopal Church. You start, therefore, with no precedent against

  1057
  them. You start also, as seems to me, with, this: that the result of this exclusion is to cast a slur upon a large body of persons who command, to a large extent undoubtedly, the sympathy, as well as the support and respect, of the great bulk of the people amongst whom they live. But see what consequences follow from it. It cannot be denied that your object is to prevent the Catholic priests taking their part in local affairs. What is the consequence of that? You cannot single them alone out, and you do not single them out. You exclude also Episcopalian Protestant clergymen and Presbyterian ministers in the north of Ireland, than whom—I speak from personal knowledge and experience—there are no men more capable of usefully taking part in local affairs than they are. Surely, at this time of day, it is possible that clergymen of different denominations may sit side by side getting to know one another better, getting to dispel prejudices which interfere with their relations in life to one another, and where they may at all events work upon a common ground where no question of religion, and where no question of anything concerned with religion, in any way is involved or interferes to disturb their calm and dispassionate judgment of any subjects that may come before them upon the merits of those subjects. My own impression is that the noble Lord is quite right in saying that it is very doubtful whether, so far as regards the Catholic priests, any considerable number of them would even seek a place upon these local boards. But the objection is that you render it impossible for them, if any of them desire to do so, and thereby you cast upon them a slur which undoubtedly to some extent will rankle as recent pronouncements of Irish bishops show; they at any rate regard it as a slur upon their general body. Why do you exclude? It must be nothing but this: that their influence in these purely—I might almost say these trivial—mundane affairs, roads, sanitary arrangements, and the like, is so great amongst the Catholic people of Ireland that the Catholic people of Ireland will not have any will of their own, and will follow blindfold the teachings of their clergy upon such matters. The notion is, to my mind, ridiculous, and I should have thought that observation of events in Ireland from 1879 to the present time would
  1058
  have informed this House that while the Irish people may be largely influenced by their clergy even in these matters, apart from religion, yet that, where their views differ from those of the clergy in such matters, the clergy are not followed. In other words, when the clergy lead where the people desire to go, then they are followed; but since 1879, on more than one occasion, which will be easily recalled by noble Lords, the people have not followed the lead of their clergy. It seems to me that there is a stronger argument yet. Your exclusion of this body from being possible members of these local representative bodies does not deprive them of their influence. Does it prevent them, if they wish to use their influence for malign or wrong purposes? Does it deprive them of that power? Not in the least. And the result is that you leave them with their influence, and at the same time you deprive them of that sobering sense of responsibility that ought to go along with it. That is absolutely the result of this policy, which, I think, is short-sighted, and I hope that the Government, even at this late hour, will reconsider this matter and will allow this Bill to have fair play, and to work out what I believe it can honestly work out, and result in great good to the country. I hope, my Lords, that you are not going to start it upon its career with this cloud upon it.
  *THK EARL OF ERNE: I have never been able to see why a slur should be supposed to be cast upon the clergy by their exclusion from these county councils. Of course, the case of England it always cited, but in England things were entirely different. I understand that in the rural parts of England the magistracy is largely recruited from the clergy, and, as magistrates, they were entitled to sit at quarter sessions, and to take a part in the fiscal business of the county, and when you were bringing in a local government Bill for England, a slur would indeed have been cast upon the clergy if you had said that they were ineligible to sit on the councils; but it is entirely different in Ireland. I heard with great astonishment that the clergy were not disqualified from sitting on the grand juries, but, is a matter of fact they never do sit on them.
  *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: That is not so. Clergymen—Episcopalian clergymen—have again and again served as members of grand juries.
  *THB EARL OF ERNE: They have served because they were landlords—by virtue of that qualification. I think the noble and learned Lord will find that to be the case. They did not serve on the grand juries, they did not attend presentment sessions. They are disqualified from being members of boards of guardians, and, certainly, within the present generation at all events, successive Lords Chancellors, whether Liberal or Conservative, have refused, and I think very wisely refused, to place them upon the Commission of the Peace. I trust that I shall not be accused of disrespect for the clergy of my own-Church when I say that I do not consider that their previous training is at all a fitting preparation for the discharge of those duties which the noble Lord now seeks to place upon them. I think their present avocations would be seriously and injuriously interfered with if they are called to take part, in the business of their county, and I think (and this is probably one of the strongest objections) that they would be brought into relations—I might almost say into collision—with their parishioners on these councils, which would certainly not be dignified, and would perhaps be altogether undesirable. Of course, what applies to the clergy of my own Church also applies to the Roman Catholic priests and to Presbyterian ministers. I do not believe there is any desire, as far as I know, among the clergy of any die-nomination to serve on these councils, and a very influential body of Nationalist Members in the House of Commons oppose their inclusion, and I trust that your Lordships will adhere to the decision come to by the House of Commons.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: After the forcible argument brought forward in support of this Amendment, there is naturally very little for me to say; but, as I understand the argument in favour of the subsection as it stands, it is this: that as the clergy have hitherto been debarred from serving on public bodies, therefore it is desirable that that disability should now continue. Now, my Lords, this subsection has excited a great deal of feeling
  1060
  in Ireland. I am not able to quote many expressions of opinion against it, but I believe, that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church at Maynooth have expressed resentment at the presence of this sub-section in the Bill, and they have distinctly pointed out that their sole resource is to use their influence outside the councils, a course which everybody will deprecate. But the Roman Catholic clergy are not singular in this respect, for one of the most eminent prelates of the Episcopal Church in Ireland who approved of the exclusion of the clergy, said at a meeting of a diocesan synod lately—
  "There will be less temptation to introduce the religious element into the elections. But, on the other hand, there is much you can do to influence and mould men's minds in these matters."
  I think that is very much to be deprecated—that ministers of religion should be driven to use their influence, which should be devoted to sacred matters, on such purely secular matters as elections, and the other matters which will come before these local bodies. I cannot under-stand why one particular class should be excluded. If one particular class is to be excluded, I should prefer to exclude the medical profession. I should feel much more dread of the ultimate consequencss of a heated discussion with my medical adviser than one with my spiritual director on one of these boards. I think I ought to mention one thing to your Lordships. The clause, as it stands, says they are not eligible to serve on these new councils, and yet clergymen of all denominations are capable of sitting and acting as members of the present dispensary committees, and there are many of your Lordships who serve on boards of lunatic asylums who know that there are a very large proportion of clergy on those boards, and that they prove in the generality of cases most useful members. I will go further still. Speaking from my own experience and knowledge, I may say that I am acquainted with a board which does, a great deal of work in the west of Ireland—the Congested Districts Board. On that board there are two clergymen, and one of them is a prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. He is, I may say, a man who has taken a very large share in, and has very strong views upon, political matters, but I know no more

  1061
  fair-minded man, and no man more desirous of working to support the views and objects of that board. I hope that my noble Friend will go to a Division, and I hope that he will be supported with the majority of your Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I desire to say a very few words on this question, because it is evidently one in which I cannot agree with my noble Friend. I view myself with supreme satisfaction the clause in the Bill excluding the clergy of all denominations from taking part in the administration of the district or county councils. As far as I can gather from the speech of the noble Lord opposite, it is thought that 'this Bill, as it stands at present, casts a slur on the Roman Catholic Church. I deny that entirely.
  *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN. They are eligible in England, and are eligible in Scotland, and by this Bill they are made ineligible in Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble and learned Lord will not deny that there are other clergy in Ireland besides the Roman Catholics. They are all excluded. I allude to the subject with great diffidence because I am so closely connected with the north of Ire-land, where the religious views of the majority of the population are not the same as they are in the south of Ireland. But those other ministers have not objected. The Episcopal Senate recently met, but no allusion was made to this exclusion, and evidently did not consider this clause to be a slur. Why, therefore, should it be considered a slur on the Roman Catholic clergy, when other clergy do not think it a slur at all. I think that the expression of the noble Earl below me was absolutely correct. I think the clergy are much better at home looking after their flocks than dealing with the county business, or with business of any sort or kind other than that strictly belonging to the Church and to the parish. I think they have plenty to do, and I have seen, with considerable regret (and I wish to say nothing of a controversial character, because many of the Roman Catholic clergy are intimate friends of my own), that when I was responsible for the government of Ire-
  1062
  land, in many parts of the country our difficulties of administration were greatly-added to by the action of certain priests. That, I am sure, the noble and learned Lord will not deny. Taking the experience of the line, that can be taken by some of these reverend gentlemen, I do confess that I shall look forward with considerable regret avoid apprehension to the dealings of certain boards in Ireland if these reverend gentlemen were in a position to what I may call direct the business of the various district or county councils. I have seen, only within a very few days, an instance to which I may allude of clerical intervention, which took place in Ireland. Only within the last few moments I have had put into my hands a resolution which was passed by the Board of Guardians of Mullingar, at a meeting; held on Thursday last, and I believe a question is to be put to the Chief Secretary in another place in a few days. The Mullingar Board of Guardians passed the following resolution—
  "That on this day fortnight the Board take action in regard to the vile and anti-clerical speech made by Mr. John P. Hayden, M.P., last week in Parliament, with the view of having his paper deprived of the advertisements of the board in the future, and that his reporter be excluded from our meetings in future."
  You could not have a case of greater clerical intimidation than that. This resolution was passed denouncing and punishing Mr. Hayden because he supports the clause.
  *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: Are any of the clergy members of that body which passed that resolution?
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That I cannot tell you. It shows, however, the feeling that will exist if these-clerics are allowed to occupy a prominent place on the councils, and it will lead to the boycotting of men who do not do as they wish. I merely mention these facts because I do not think this clause casts any slur on the clergy, and I therefore trust that my noble Friend will adhere to the clause exactly as it stands.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: When this Bill first came before Parliament, I was strongly of opinion that the priests and

  1063
  ministers of religion should become members of the county councils and the district councils, and I maintained in an article I wrote the necessity for that being so; but after what I heard from the Leaders of the two Nationalist parties in the House of Commons I now think it would be better for the proper working of this Bill, and also for the harmonious proceedings of the county councils and the district councils, that ministers of religion should not be elected to these bodies. The people will elect these county councils and district councils, and the people elect their representatives that come to Westminster, and when those representatives do not agree upon this question I think it is better that the matter should remain as it is in the Bill, and that the ministers of religion should be excluded. If the representatives of the people did agree, that would be another matter altogether; but certainly the two sections of the Nationalists do not agree upon this question, and I think they are very good judges of the opinion of the country. That is my reason for saying these few words, and, having changed my opinion upon the subject, I shall not vote on the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL: As far as I am concerned I do not say, and I do not think, that this exclusion of ministers of religion casts any particular slur upon the Roman Catholic clergy more than it does upon the clergy of any other denomination. But your Lordships at the same time will admit that it is quite impossible not to believe that this special clause is, more or less, aimed tolerably directly against the Roman Catholic clergy, because when you find that in portions of the United Kingdom, where the Protestant clergy are in a great majority, the ministers of Religion are entitled to sit upon the county councils, and that in another portion of the United Kingdom, where the Roman Catholic clergy are in a great majority, ministers of religion are not so entitled, it is almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that this disability is aimed particularly at the ministers of the Roman Catholic Church. At present I have not heard any stronger
  1064
  argument in favour of retaining the clause than I have heard before. I have heard that the ministers of religion will not want to sit upon the county councils, and that if they did sit upon them they had much better not do so, but I have not heard a single good reason as yet why it should be anticipated that any harm could possibly be done to the smooth working of these new bodies by the presence upon them of ministers of religion than could be done equally as well, or perhaps a good deal better, by the same ministers of religion keeping behind the scenes and working there. Unless your Lordships hear from the noble and learned Lord [the Lord Chancellor of Ireland] a very much more cogent reason against the Amendment, I, with some confidence, hope your Lordships will agree to it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am rather disappointed in not hearing anything from the bench opposite, but I suppose the Bill is to be adhered to as it stands. If that be so, I deeply regret it. It seems to me a more unwise step could scarcely be taken than to exclude one of the most influential classes of the community from any participation in the administration of local affairs. The noble Earl who has just sat down has indicated what I should have been rather reluctant to assert, but for which I may conclude there is some foundation, that in reality, although this clause excludes all clergy, the object of it is to exclude the Roman Catholic clergy. If that be so—and I should be very glad to be convinced to the contrary—I think it is open to this most serious objection, that it tends distinctly to the promotion of that bitter feeling which, unfortunately, still exists "and has so long existed between the two most considerable sections of the Irish people. Could anything be more likely to produce and prolong such a feeling than the exclusion of the whole body of the Catholic priests in Ireland from these councils? As a matter of fact, whatever may be our opinions politically, we know that there is and has been no more influential body in Ireland than the Roman Catholic priests. Could anything be more unwise than not

  1065
  to make use of that influence when you can have the guidance of men who would exercise it upon these local councils? Could anything be more unwise than to leave them to work in the dark against you, which we know they can do to a considerable extent? Why not allow them to come into the light and exercise the influence which belongs to them, which they enjoy before their countrymen, in the administration of their local affairs? As to the argument that the clergy are better engaged in attending to their flocks, and so forth, we entertain a very different view in this country, and we are very glad indeed in our local affairs to have the assistance of many of the clergy, who have the advantage of being acquainted with the particular communities which they have to represent, and who exercise the most salutary influence in the management of local affairs. Why should you make in Ireland an excluded caste of men whom you profess to respect, but whom you exclude from one of their most natural avocations? It surpasses my understanding to comprehend it, unless, indeed, it be on account of the jealousy of one portion of the population to the influence that the Roman Catholic priests possess, and with the idea that by such an exclusion as this that influence can be diminished. Exclude them or not, their influence will remain the same, but if you do exclude them that influence will be exercised in a manner much less creditable than if it were exercised in the light of day.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think the proposal in the Bill is a fair and reasonable one. I am aware that there is a difference of opinion on the question. I said so before, but I think the preponderance of prudence and the balance of argument is in favour of what is contained in the Bill. Anyone would think from what the noble Earl has said that there is some startling innovation, some extraordinary change to be worked out and accomplished by the Bill. In what system of Irish public life are clergymen admitted? They are not on the municipal councils, they are not on boards of guardians; and I am not aware of any single representative body where the
  1066
  clergy sit or where it is suggested that it is desirable that they should sit.
  THE EARL or KIMBERLEY: They ought to be on those bodies.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The noble Earl spoke as if there were some startling change accomplished by this Bill. In the English Bill I am quite aware that there is no exclusion. That may be right; but still in England the clergy are not allowed to sit on municipal councils, and it is not suggested that there is anyone who desires to bring them into the House of Commons, and therefore we have to consider this question by the light of precedents, which all goes to support the continuance of the course which is adopted in the present case. Now there are a good many ways in which people can look at this question. How many people are there who would desire to see the clergy taking an active part in these councils? I venture to think not many—in my opinion there are very few. I have no doubt, from the speeches made and from what I have read, that a certain class would desire to see them not disqualified from sitting. I admit that, but I am of opinion that there is; a class far wider still who think it is more prudent and wise neither to have them sitting or authorised to sit on the county councils. They have ample duties to perform without sitting upon those bodies, or without taking this active part in these local affairs. They have great and important duties to perform, which everyone wishes them "God speed" in fulfilling and attending to. They can well take their part in charity, in philanthropy, in the teachings of religion. They can also give wise and prudent advice in the many matters that people in many spheres of life refer to them. But where is the point contained in the suggestion that while you leave to them their influence you deprive them at the means of exercising it in a proper manner? I cannot myself see the substantial force in that argument. If the clergyman would be likely to use extreme or extravagant influence to accomplish an election, I am not sure that the man who would so act would be likely to have his usefulness increased by putting

  1067
  him in a sphere where he could apply those methods in a more vigorous and open way. It is said that a slur is sought to be cast upon a particular class of the clergy in Ireland. I entirely repudiate that. A great effort has been made to suggest that a slur has been uttered and expressed, but I have not littered it, and I do not intend to. The Bill is perfectly open and fair and impartial, and there is not a word to suggest anything of intolerance, or bigotry, or unfairness, or want of charity or consideration. None of the clergy have at present any right of membership of these bodies, and I do not believe there is any very keen desire that they should take their places there. I do not believe there is any urgent desire on their part to do it, and I think it is prudent, and wise, and fair to leave the Bill as it is, which is, I venture to think, in accordance with the views of the great majority of people.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: I think the Government is wrong. I think the Saxon Lords ought to understand that this Bill is taking the government of Ireland out of the hands of those who have not only known how to do it, but who have done well by their country in that government, and handing it over in the ultimate result to the priests. As they have the power I think they ought to have the responsibility. I am all for their being on these councils, and if I know anything about them and my countrymen they will remain there a very short time. They are much too wise to remain there any length of time. I think it is unwise if they have the power that they should not exercise it openly, because you know perfectly well how these elections will be managed. The priests will control all the elections, and therefore they ought to have some responsibility. I do not understand the argument of the Government. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord say what he did say. The Leader of the Opposition—one of the best debaters in this House'—made use of a great many arguments which I think were entirely fallacious. He showed more ignorance of Ireland than he ought to. He has been Viceroy of Ireland before this, but I do not think he knows anything about the country; in fact, I do not know
  1068
  whether Members of the front benches on either side of the House do know anything about Ireland—they are all tarred with the same brush. The priests have got the power—I am talking about the south of Ireland, I know nothing about the north—and why should they not have the responsibility? I shall vote for their taking their proper part on the councils.
  The House divided:—Contents 62; Not-contents 26.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

  Addington, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President)

  Ardilaun, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

  Bagot, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Belper, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Bolton, L.

  Braye, L.

  Portland, D.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Canysfort)

  Abercorn M. (D. Abercorn)

  Castlemaine, L.

  Churchill, L. [Teller]

  Bath, M.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Crofton, L.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne)

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Harris, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  James, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Dartrey, E.

  de Montalt, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Massy, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck)

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

  Onslow, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  O'Neill, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde)

  Selborne, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

  Plunket, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Rathmore, L,

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)

  Hood, V.

  Saltoun, L.

  Templemore, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Aberdare, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  Crewe, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Morley, E.

  de Vesci. L. (V. de Vesci) [Teller]

  Spencer, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Digby, L.

  1069

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

  Russell of Killowen, L

  Harlech, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington)

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl) [Teller]

  Stanmore, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

  Windsor, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford)

  Methuen, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Motion made and question put—
  "That clauses 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 99 AND 100.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 70, line 3, leave out from 'thereof' to the end of the clause, and insert 'for a period of ten years.'"—(The Duke of Abercorn.)
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I have a small but important Amendment with reference to this clause, and that is that the period for which the new local inspector shall be appointed should be extended from five years to 10 years. Tour Lordships will all agree that it is moist necessary that the Local Government Board under the Bill shall be as strong as possible. For that purpose an additional inspector is about to be appointed by the Government, but the period of his office is very limited—it is only for five years. Those who know Ireland and the working of government boards consider that we shall be able to obtain a stronger man, and a higher class of ability, if the period of the appointment is extended from five to 10 years, and, therefore, I trust that the Government will be able to agree to this Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Of course it is very undesirable to call into existence any unnecessary officer, particularly an officer of this high position, who would get a substantial salary. This matter was considered very fully and very closely by those who are responsible for all these matters, and power has been taken to appoint this temporary member of the board for a period of five years, and that is thought to be an extremely fair and
  1070
  ample period; but I must say, in addition, that this is actually a money clause: the House of Commons has to set up a Committee, and move a Resolution of Supply, in order to carry this into effect; therefore, even if the proposals of the Government were not as I think them, the best, it is not competent to go into these matters in this House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment of my noble Friend, and I should like to hear from the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down that the Government and the Treasury prefer 10 years to five. The noble and learned Lord says, "Oh, this is a matter for the Treasury"; but I do not quite see, if 10 years is preferred, why the period should not be extended.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The House of Commons has to set up a Committee of Supply and pass a Finance Resolution to justify the appointment being for five years. That makes it a purely Treasury question, and we are not competent in your Lordship's House to deal with it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Notwithstanding that, it seems to me that my noble Friend is justified in endeavouring to get the period extended. To my mind, the whole of the responsibility of the working of this clause must rest in the future on the Local Government Board in Ireland. My noble and learned Friend knows as well as I do that the Local Government Board in Ireland has discharged its duties most admirably in the past, but he will not contradict me when I say that on that Local Government Board there is not a single man who has any practical experience whatever of what is known as the grand jury system, and the government of the various counties. We pressed upon the Government some time ago very strongly the necessity of recognising not only that the Local Government Board is going to have extra work imposed upon them, but that the members of the Local Government Board had no experience whatever, and therefore we requested that there should be put

  1071
  upon that Board some gentleman who had thorough and practical knowledge of the working of the grand jury system, and who would be able, in the interests of the grand jurors and of the large ratepayers, to discharge the duties of inspector in that capacity. I am not going to make any comments on the gentleman who was appointed to this post—he was an extremely able member of the Congested Districts Board. That I do know; but I also know that when I was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland he was removed from the district of which he was local inspector to another place in a different part of Ireland, because he took a somewhat too prominent part on an estate connected with, the Plan of the Campaign. That I also know for a fact, and I also know that till recently his views were certainly not those of a follower of the present Government. He may be the most ardent Unionist, but I believe no one will contradict me when I say that a very few years ago the convictions he held politically were very different to those he holds now, and consequently I think we are justified in thinking that if the Local Government Board is to be strengthened, that strengthening should be, at any rate, accomplished by a Unionist Government, by appointing gentlemen who have always held Unionist opinions, and not by a man who has only recently taken to holding those views. As I say, a good deal of extra work will be placed upon the Local Government Board, and naturally it should be strengthened, and I believe my noble and learned Friend wishes it to be strengthened, but I wish to look forward to the future to an even greater extent than I do to the present, and I cannot think that you will in the future get good men who have practical experience to give up their own professions, their own pursuits, and their own duties in the various counties, if they are to feel that at the end of five years they are liable to dismissal, or that their services will be dispensed with. I therefore support my noble Friend, because the Local Government Board, as I reminded your Lordships the other day, will now have to be responsible for no less than 326 presentment sessions, and over 33 grand jury sessions, which are held twice a year. This will
  1072
  give an enormous amount of work to the Local Government Board, and therefore it is necessary that they should be practical men and good men, and I think that if the term were extended to 10 years, the Government would be able to secure the services of really first-rate men, who would look after the interests of Ireland and who would be accustomed to the duties with which none of the other members of the Local Government Board were acquainted, and therefore they would be men who could be regarded with every confidence. I do not know whether my noble Friend will be justified in pushing this Amendment to a Division, but I trust we shall receive some assurance that, at any rate, his very moderate request shall receive consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's. Government.
  LORD RATHMORE: I should like to ask a question of my noble and learned Friend. This proposal has been resisted on two different grounds—one ground is; that it is impolitic, and the other is that it is an Amendment which, if carried, would be a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons, because, as my noble and learned Friend said, it was necessary to set up a Committee of Supply and to pass a Finance Resolution The case stands at present in this way. An office has been created which may be filled from year to year, or for five-years. Now, I want to ask this question, because we were about to commit a breach of privilege which is a very serious thing. I agree entirely with the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Duke who proposed this Amendment. Is it really a breach of privilege on the part of this House that, when an office has been already created and provision has been made to provide the funds necessary, in order to pay the occupant of it for five years, or from year to year, the period is extended from' five years to 10 years? I have not really considered the question, and therefore I do not want to dogmatise about it, but it seems to me to be pressing the question of privilege rather far to say that we may not extend the period of appointment. It would be a different thing if we were asking to create the office, but the funds have been provided by the

  1073
  House of Commons, and everything has been properly done. The question I would like to put is, would it be a breach of privilege on the part of this House to extend the period from five to 10 years?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I put my points with reasonable clearness. They were perfectly clear to my own mind, and I endeavoured to prove that this Amendment was wholly unnecessary. This matter was considered closely by those responsible for the general working of the Bill, and for the administration of the country. They considered it was desirable and expedient to appoint a temporary officer to the Board. They took power for making the appointment for one year, or that that one year should be prolonged to five years, being satisfied in their own minds that they were making the amplest and fullest provision that was possible for dealing with all cases of emergency that might arise after they were called into existence. That is practically and substantially the merits of the case. Everyone is liable to errors of judgment. It was the duty of the Government, who are responsible for the whole administration of this great Act, to see that they did not make a mistake in this respect, and accordingly they took the power, not tastily, or rashly, or carelessly, but proceeded with caution, and they were satisfied that five years was the amplest possible measure of stretching the appointment that could possibly be required. The House of Commons have only given their sanction to pay an officer for five years, and that was a matter to be borne in mind by your Lordships when you proceeded to act upon this matter. I have no right to presume upon being an authority upon points of privilege, but I mentioned that as a matter to be borne in mind.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: We have no authority upon this subject, but I think it is a matter which lies really in a nutshell. If money is voted which is to be spent during a period of five years, and that period is extended to 10, it is quite obvious that by so extending it you put an additional burden upon the finances of the country, and accord-
  1074
  ing to the usual view it is not held competent for this House to vote money. The consequence is that it would be clearly contrary to our practice to introduce such a clause as this. If I am wrong, I shall be most delighted to be corrected, because, as I said at first, there is no authority upon such matters.
  THE PREMIER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I am not speaking as to the general merits of the question, in which I should not differ from my noble Friend. The noble Lord has raised a question of privilege, and I rather wanted to indicate that I thought there was a difference between the position which he maintains and that which is the accurate position. We have no power of voting money five years hence, but we have the power of voting that a man shall occupy a post which up to that time is paid out of money already voted. What would happen at that time is, of course, a matter for the authorities to decide.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Marquess is perfectly correct.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I think, after the answer of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, I will certainly take a Division.
  The House divided:—Contents, 46, Not Contents 35.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

  Kimberley, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Devonshire, D. L. President)

  Morley, E.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

  Onslow, E.

  Powis, E.

  Selborne, E.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Grafton, D.

  Portland, D.

  Ampthill, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Bagot, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Balfour, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Belper, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Bolton, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Churchill, L. [Teller]

  Crawshaw, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Harris, L.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  James, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl)

  Coventry, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  1075

  Kinnaird, L.

  Russell of Killowen, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Saltoun, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn) [Teller]

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne)

  Bath, M.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Abingdon, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

  Dartrey, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Massy, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

  Monck, L. (V. Monck)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

  Templetown, V.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

  Morris, L.

  Plunket, L.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)

  Clonbroek, L. [Teller]

  Cloncurry, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

  de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci)

  Ventry, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford)

  Motion made and question put—
  "That clauses 99 and 100 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 101.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 72, line 7, at end of line, insert as a fresh paragraph '(a) The making of registers of electors according to street order.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 101, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 102 TO 105.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clauses 102, 103, 104, and 105 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 106
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 76, after line 28, insert, as a new paragraph—
  "The expression 'revising barrister' has the same meaning as in the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 106, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  Motion made and question put—
  "That clauses 107 and 108 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 109 AND 110.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, lines 34 and 35, leave out 'except in the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry.'"—(Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment, my Lords, deals with the cities of Belfast and Derry, and I am informed that both of those cities have a municipal franchise almost similar to that under the Bill. Belfast obtained that franchise in 1887 and Derry in 1897. The last municipal general election, on 25th November, was conceded by the Government, and they considered it unnecessary to have a new election for these cities. The councillors for Belfast and Derry retire one-third each year, and this 'mode of retirement is reserved in this Bill. The Bill as originally drafted preserved the day of election fixed by the Municipal Corporations Act—the 25th of November, but in some boroughs it was stated by the clerks that they could not have the burgess lists ready by then. That is entirely wrong, so far as Belfast and Derry are concerned, because the lists can be ready in good time without the slightest difficulty, and the date would be more convenient as preserving the existing state of matters; and should the date of the Bill—15th January—be adopted, there will have to be a lot of

  1077
  unnecessary changes made that would not be required if the existing date was adhered to. The fiscal arrangements are made on 1st January, and the whole machinery of the corporation is based on the November election, and the people of those two cities consider that great expense and inconvenience would be caused should the date of the election be made on 15th January. Under the circumstances, I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It is most desirable that there should be some uniformity and general rule laid down, and that is the reason that one day is fixed for the whole of these elections to take place. My noble Friend wishes, by his Amendment, to make an exception in the case of Belfast and Derry; but I do not think it will be desirable, or that it would lend itself to general convenience. I think that the clause as it stands, to have one day for all the elections, is by far the wisest course, and therefore I trust that my noble Friend will not press this Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: After what the noble Lord has said I will not press the Amendment, but will withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clauses 109 and 110 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 111.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 33, after 'matter,' insert 'other than one affecting qualification.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made and question put—
  "That clause 111, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 112.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 82, line 37, after 'service,' insert 'and the service of any existing county surveyor, whether in one or more counties, shall be reckoned as part of his service.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: County surveyors in Ireland are appointed after examination by the Lord; Lieutenant, and it has been the custom in Ireland, when a better surveyorship becomes vacant, to get a transfer into that county in which the vacancy occurs. If the clause remains as it is, and a county surveyor has services in two counties, his services only in his present county will be reckoned. Your Lordships, I think, will readily understand that a county surveyor, in his professional career, naturally wishes to better his position by removing into a better paid post in a larger county, and his appointment to that better paid and larger county practically proves that he is a good officer. I submit that it is unreasonable that these good officers should lose part of their service solely by reason of the fact that they have not served their entire time in the same county. In point of fact, the Amendment is in order to enable a county surveyor, who has served a certain portion of his time in one county and another portion in another, to have both services to count when it comes to a question of those services being remunerated by superannuation.
  LORD TEMPLETOWN: I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment, as it does seem to me hard that a man who has worked in two counties should lose the benefit of his services because he has not confined his work to one county. I do not propose to detain your Lordships in this matter, because it seems to me to be so eminently just a proposal. I only express my hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept it.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is the first of a number of Amendments which have been put down in consequence of the mass of correspondence that I have no doubt many of your Lordships in all parts of the House have received. This is a question of existing officers and people who desire to

  1079
  continue to be officers with pensions enlarged and conditions of service improved. Of course, everyone is anxious to make their friends the existing officers on as good terms as is possible and with the best rate of pay that is conceivable, and with the most generous system of pension that can be devised. But all this has been threshed out and discussed over and over again on every platform; everything was done that conceivably could be done in the way of considering this matter. I trust that your Lordships will consider that we are dealing now not with questions of sentiment or generosity, but we are dealing with the status of officers whose position has to be considered in these new public bodies from a purely business standpoint. The particular Amendment of my noble Friend, Lord Mayo, who has been supported by my noble Friend, Lord Temple town, is one which might have been very reasonable if the high contracting parties had expressed their minds at the outset. In the future it may be wise to say, "If you choose to take into your employment a man who has been a county surveyor of another county, remember that you are doing that cum onere; if you take him, you will have to reckon that you may only get four or five years of his service, and that he will be entitled to a pension calculated on the time he has served in another county. That would be very well if they knew the nature of the obligation they were incurring; but to go and make an ex posté facto case of this kind would not be reasonable or just, I venture to think, to a county council that takes over the obligations of the grand jury. I therefore much regret that it is not in my power to say a very easy "Yes," instead of a more difficult "No." I trust your Lordships will not assent to this Amendment.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord cannot accept the Amendment. I thought that under the Bill as drawn a county surveyor's service did reckon from another county. Up to the present time the Lord Lieutenant has had the power of transferring a county surveyor from one county to another. Take the case of my own county; the gentleman there who
  1080
  has been county surveyor has served in two counties of a lower class. If, instead of being transferred into the higher class, he had remained in the lower class, he would have been entitled to a higher superannuation. I do not think there would be any injustice done if my noble and learned Friend will accept the Amendment that I have put down. It is fair that his past services should be counted, but it is equally fair that the county which has had the advantage of those services should contribute to the superannuation allowance. If that is done under the supervision of the Local Government Board it will be perfectly fair.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have not got the Amendment of my learned Friend.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: It is on the Paper. But, first of all, I should like to ask what is the meaning of sub-section 3 to clause 112—
  "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, and the service of any existing secretary as assistant or deputy secretary in the same county shall be reckoned as part of his service."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Services before the Act are to be taken into account after the Act. If they have served before the passing of this Act, that service is to be placed to their credit.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: They may have served in the county. If my noble Friend will read the clause he will see that in the case of the secretary it is indicated that the service should be in the same county, but in the case of the surveyor it is not so indicated—
  "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, and the service of any existing secretary as assistant or deputy secretary in the same county shall be reckoned as part of his service."
  So that I do not conclude, when I read the Bill, that the services of the surveyors are to be taken into consideration.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: For the future that is to be so.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I do not understand what my noble Friend means by "the future."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Provisions, after the passing of the Act and when the councils know what they are doing, will apply; but to deal with the general question now of the services of the county surveyors in the past, when they have become existing officers—may be two or three years ago under another grand jury—that is another question.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: The Amendment that I am proposing later on is this—
  "When the service of a county surveyor (whether transferred or appointed under this Act), reckoned for the purpose of the Acts relating to superannuation, includes service in more than one county, the amount of his superannuation allowance shall be apportioned between the counties in which such service was performed, in such manner as the Local Government Board may think just, and shall be raised and paid as the Board may direct."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I will consider that before Report. I have only just seen it.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: Perhaps my noble Friend will consider the whole subject, because it is rather a hard case.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have only had an opportunity of seeing this Amendment just now, because it was not placed on the Paper that was distributed, but I will consider the whole matter that he has called attention to.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: After hearing what Lord Macnaghten's Amendment is, I will withdraw mine. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will favourably consider the matter on Report, because it covers all the ground.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 2, after 'them,' insert 'or at any time thereafter during the period of five
  1082
  years immediately following said last five days of March.'"—(Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If this Amendment were adopted, the clause would read as follows—
  "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, or at any time thereafter during the period of five years immediately following said last five days of March, 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."
  This Amendment does not deprive the county council of the right of dismissal, but to my mind it greatly increases the chances of the secretaries continuing with the new council—it will enable them to remain after the 31st March without losing the right of retiring on the abolition of office. The clause, as it now stands, compels almost every secretary to serve notice to retire on the date named. It is impossible for him or for the county council to form a satisfactory opinion as to whether his continuance in office would be mutually desirable. I have been given an instance of a secretary of a grand jury who can retire now on an allowance calculated at 38 years' service, but if he retires in 1901 he will only be allowed to retire on allowance calculated at 29 years' service. It seems to me to be somewhat of an injustice that those who have served faithfully and well should be so treated, and I therefore trust that my Amendment will be considered favourably.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I support this Amendment. A great many secretaries will retire under the operation of this Act next year, whereas the insertion of these words would secure their services for a further period, otherwise they will not be able to secure the full superannuation to which they would be entitled, unless they serve till 1910. I hope the noble and learned Lord will see his way to accept the Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I am very sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. These things are all

  1083
  considered on a very broad and fair point of view. We have to consider every aspect of the case. The secretary of a grand jury is an important officer—he performs great duties. It is most desirable that he should be encouraged to remain with the new body until they become familiar with their duties. It is also desirable that he should tell them all that he knows, and put them in privity with all county work according to his knowledge. But then the particular clause that my noble Friend is seeking to amend is the first that provides an alternative. It is sub-section 4 of clause 112, and it provides—
  "Any existing secretary of a 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 till the last day of March, 1900."
  It is thought that that would enable him—I am speaking now of his point of view—to consider how he likes the change and how he likes his employment, and whether he sees his way to go on with his duties. He is given that opportunity up to the last day of March, 1900, and then he may—
  "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."
  Those are generous terms to give, and he could stop if he pleases; but if he thinks, having regard to everything, that after the last day of March, 1899, he would sooner make a change—that he does not like the new employment as well as the old—then, under the circumstances, he is entitled to be treated with all the generosity that it is right to treat him with on his office being abolished. The Amendment suggests this: that instead of taking the date as the last day of March, 1900, he shall be given a further period of five years. I do not think that is reasonable; I think that a man, after he has had experience, should be able, if he is a sensible and intelligent man, to know whether he likes his new employment or not. I think that keeping him in a state of
  1084
  suspense for a period of five years would not be at all satisfactory or in the interests of efficiency. The next paragraph gives reciprocity to the county council, and it might be that from various reasons not reflecting on the honour or integrity of the man—it may be from age or infirmity, and not having the requisite gifts needed for the change, that he was not at all to the satisfaction of the county council as regards efficiency. Even that course is taken care of. Subsection 5 of the clause says—
  "The county council may, by notice given three months next before the said day 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."
  These have to be taken together. First, the wishes and opinions of the man who has performed the duties of secretary—his interests are considered—and then, the county council must be given their point of view as to whether they can see that they think he is a man with whom they can work. And in either case the option is given which will secure to the man the extremely good terms that are given in the case of abolition of office.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: My noble and learned Friend has said that the great thing was to secure the services of efficient men to start the working of the county council. Surely six months is not a sufficient time for anew county council to get into working order with their new officers. All we ask is an extension of a few years to enable either of them to make up their minds. As this clause stands now, a large number of efficient men who have passed the term will leave, with a rush.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have not wearied your Lordships by reading the entire clause, but if the secretary likes he gets a substantial period to come in and serve, and then his condition is provided for in the sixth sub-section, he will be entitled to go on and get his pension.
  "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

  1085
  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."
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: He will have to wait for 10 years.
  *LORD MORRIS: I think the Amendment suggested by my noble Friend appears to me to be a reasonable one. My noble and learned Friend says there is ample time for the parties to find out whether they like each other or not. I do not follow that there is ample time from now to the month of March, 1900. The Act is not to come into operation until September, 1899, so it does not appear to me that there is any time in which the parties would have an opportunity of seeing whether they suited each other as it is suggested. I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend that there is a reciprocity in subsection, 5, and, as far as I can see at present, it ought to be introduced into sub-section 4, as well as into sub-section 5. It does not seem to me that there would be any difference in doing that, and that the secretaries of grand juries who, to my knowledge, held appointments which were considered, not in point of law, but in point of fact, just as satisfactory as the appointment of judges on the bench, should get a reasonable time, which I should have thought five years was, but under the Bill it will not be five months.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It is quite a year. The elections to the first county councils are to take place in March.
  *LORD MORRIS: Do they come into this at once?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Yes.
  *LORD MORRIS: Why, there is a grand jury to be held in March next. I certainly do not understand how two suns can be shining in the same hemisphere together.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 10, after 'abolished,' insert 'provided, however, that such compensation shall not be less than one-half the emoluments payable to such secretary.'"—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN AND MOUNT-EARL: I move this because it seems to me that under this sub-section some practical injustice might be done to the secretaries. I quite agree that in the former sub-section injustice, I do not think, could be done. If a man dies I suppose he cannot help himself. If he resigns it is his own act, and if he is removed I presume that may be taken to mean that he is removed with sufficient cause. But under sub-section 5 he may be removed without sufficient cause; that is to say, the county council may remove him without cause, or without assigning any cause. I certainly think the county council ought to be empowered to discharge their secretary for any cause they like. They may discharge him because he has red hair, or any other reason; but in that case the man should receive proper compensation. He is compensated to the extent as if his office were abolished according to the Civil Service scale, but in the case of the Civil Service, civil servants generally enter the service young, and according to the provisions of the scale, they get a very substantial pension to a percentage of one-sixtieth if they serve 20 years or five years. But in the case of these grand jury secretaries, they very often eater into that business comparatively late in life, and their service is not generally very long, and the hardship is perhaps still greater in the case of a man who may have served as baronial constable, and he gives up all that in order to take up the position of secretary to the grand jury. I know a gentleman who gave up an office of that sort to accept a secretaryship to the grand jury, the emoluments being £800 per annum. According to this section he would have one year added to one-sixtieth—that is, according to the Civil Service scale—and his retiring pension would amount to about £40 per annum. I do not think that seems to be exactly just or fair, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I have put down one-half, but I am not

  1087
  particular as to the amount. If the Government like to make it more I should have no objection.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Nothing could be more conciliatory or frank than the speech of my noble Friend, which I am not surprised at, because people are very often frank and generous with the money of others. My task is monotonous, but still it is necessary. I am aware this is only the beginning of the question of these officers, because their name is legion, but the abolition terms, everybody knows, are extremely liberal, and to attempt to add to the abolition terms so that they would never be less than one-half of the emoluments, would make some very substantial and large and wholly unjustifiable addition to the burdens which the public already bear, having regard to what is due to them as taxpayers. It is a very disagreeable thing to have to always give reasons in the negative. I am very sorry that I am unable to assent to this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE MABQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I ask leave to withdraw the next Amendment standing in my name, and to substitute—
  "Provided that any county or district council may, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, make a special agreement with any of their existing officers as to the terms and conditions on which he may continue to hold his office, and remuneration he shall receive therefor."
  I beg to move that.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I see no objection to it.
  Question put.
  Amendment accepted.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 85, after line 28, insert as a new sub-section—
  "Any existing officer of a board of guardians transferred under this section, and who shall be employed as an officer by any county or district council, shall, in the event of his becoming qualified for a superannuation allow-
  1088
  ance by reason of length of service, old age, or infirmity, be entitled to receive such superannuation, on the scale and according to the Acts and Rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service, from the council to which he shall have been transferred, if the Local Government Board shall, on the application of such officer to them, declare him to be so entitled."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  *LORD CLONBROCK: The object of this is to provide for one class of public servants—the poor rate collectors, who, if transferred to the service of the county councils, fear that not having been originally appointed by the county councils, and not having worked before for them, they may not be treated with as great tenderness as they would be treated by boards of guardians. It merely secures to this class of people that, being entitled by length of service of 20 years, they should receive a superannuation. I hope that Her Majesty's Governmen will be disposed to accept this Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Without saying anything in the slightest disrespectful to my noble Friend who moved this Amendment, I should say that this is an Amendment which is very craftily drawn, because it does not at the first glance show that there is any distinction between itself and the clause in the Bill; but there is a substantial difference, and that is, it omits all reference to the fact that the person who has got those terms is to be now entitled to superannuation. I am very sorry, therefore, that I am not in a position to accept the Amendment.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: But in the event of his becoming qualified?
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: That refers to a future event.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 85, lines 40 and 41, leave out 'within five years from the date of the transfer,' and insert 'at any time.'"—(The Earl of Erne.)
  *THE EARL OF ERNE: This sub-section covers the case of the solicitors to the grand jury and the barony constables. I will state the case to your

  1089
  Lordships on behalf of the barony constables, because those are cases in which there is practically fixity of tenure. They are elected by the grand jury, and, of course, they can be dismissed by the grand jury; but they never are, excepting for misconduct. If they elect to retire or are compelled to retire now, or within five years after the passing of this Act, they are entitled to a gratuity not exceeding five years' pay. I think that is small enough in all conscience, considering the income they will be obliged to relinquish. If they continue to act after a period of five years, they will be liable to be dismissed without that gratuity, and without a reason given, no matter how exemplary their conduct may have been. I do not think it is right to leave these men at the mercy of these new county councils, who may possibly have a grudge against them, or who may want their places for their relatives and friends. It appears to me that this Amendment should be accepted. It involves no charge upon public funds, and I think it would be a slight compensation to a class of men who will be great sufferers through this legislation.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: With regard to the solicitors, these are a strong class of men, and have always been appointed from year to year. In the first instance, they are elected, and then they continue in the position from year to year. There has hardly ever been a case known of a man having been dismissed. Under the Act they will have the option of continuing in office for five years, and then they will be dismissed without any remuneration whatsoever. The solicitors of some of these grand juries have come into contact with a contractor who, very likely, under this Bill, will become a county councillor, and such a man would have an animus against the solicitors, and would cause their dismissal in five years. Under the Corporation Act of 1890, the full compensation to the solicitor is provided for, and under one of the sub-sections of this Bill the provisions of that Act with regard to compensation are taken, but the solicitor to the grand jury gets no compensation for loss of office, and therefore the noble
  1090
  and learned Lord will not think that what is omitted to be given to the one should not be given to the other, because they both belong to the same class of deserving officers. Therefore, I earnestly hope that your Lordships will take that into consideration, and that the solicitors should not be dismissed at the end of a period of five years.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The Amendment that has been proposed by my noble Friend Lord Erne is to leave out on page 85 the words "within five years from the date of the transfer," and to insert in the place of those words the words "at any time." It is obvious that that is a most wide and comprehensive and sweeping Amendment, and it has been presented with great moderation of tone and manner, and one would like to be able to yield to some of the Amendments which are so moved, but I am extremely sorry that I cannot. Everything has been done here to consider the matter from a most fair and reasonable point of view. It was considered with the minutest and closest attention, and the words that are sought to be amended are these—
  "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."
  Having regard to everything—to the tenure and experience—that is not an unreasonable clause. It seems to me that it is a fair and considerate one, and I am sorry I am unable to accept the Amendment.
  *LORD MORRIS: I am astonished at this Amendment not being conceded to as regards the solicitors to the grand juries. My noble and learned Friend says that it has been so well considered before that it is impossible to reconsider it; but he has made no statement as to why he cannot accept it, excepting that it has been considered somewhere else. If we are only to register everything that has been considered elsewhere, then let that be said. But as a Member of this

  1091
  House, when we are exercising our own judgment, I should like to hear reasons assigned, and one reason I should like to hear is a reason why a solicitor, who is dismissed without cause, is to get compensation; but if he is dismissed at the end of five years he gets no compensation. That is an extraordinary proposal. I quite understand his getting no compensation under any circumstances, but if he is dismissed without cause, or for misconduct, or without the approval of the Local Government Board, he is to get compensation, and because a greater wrong is done him, namely, that at the end of five and a half years' service he can be dismissed without any reason, he is to get no compensation whatever. I should like to hear some reason given for such a suggestion as that, because at present I have heard none.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The reason is perfectly obvious. You have to consider the circumstances and the tenure of each office. It has been stated that the tenure of office of a solicitor to the grand jury—a most highly respectable gentleman—is not a tenure entirely for a term of years, because the appointment is renewed every year, and the way it is measured in considering the question is this: you cannot say that a man shall hold such an office for life or for 20, 15, or 10 years, but he is given a tenure for five years, and then it is said if he is dismissed within a period of five years he shall be entitled to compensation. But why is it hard? It is a question of degree. You have to consider the circumstances of the case, and it is not a case in which you can give a tenure for life. It would Tae unreasonable to give it for 20 years, it may be unreasonable to give it for 15 or for 10 years, but it is thought, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of his present tenure, that it is not an unreasonable thing to say five years.
  *LORD MORRIS: That is not the first time that I have heard my noble and learned Friend say, "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is so and so, or that is so and so." I have heard no reason yet except "having regard to all the circumstances of the case." I ask this question: If it is a
  1092
  right thing to do to give these people compensation if dismissed within five years, why is it not a right thing to give them compensation if dismissed after five years and a day? I have asked that question before, and the only answer I can get is: "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case," and "This matter has been largely considered somewhere else."
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I did not say "Having regard to all the circumstances of the case"; I asked your Lordships to consider the circumstances of the tenure of his office, which was an office to which he was appointed from year to year. Some degree of measurement was necessary, and it was not thought unreasonable, as I have said before, having regard to the tenure of his office, that five years should be the measure of time. I may add that there was, I believe, no such measure for the English solicitors under the English Act.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: In a drastic Measure like the one which is now occupying your Lordships' attention, the. Government should, I think, deal liberally with the officers who will be affected by this Bill. There will be very great changes in their lives. They are a very worthy, hard-working body of men, and they will find their position, when the Bill comes into working order, far less satisfactory than it has hitherto been. But, as it seems useless to try to press any Amendments as regards compensation, I shall not press any future Amendment of that description.
  The House divided:—Contents 39; Not-contents 32.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

  Salisbury, M.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President)

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

  Abingdon, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Denbigh, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Portland, D.

  Kimberley, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Morley, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  1093

  Powis, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller]

  Selborne, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  De Mauley, L.

  Digby, L.

  Harris, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Aberdare, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Belper, L.

  Windsor, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne) [Teller]

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn)

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Hertford, M.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

  Harlech, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Massy, L.

  Mayo, E

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

  Rosse, E.

  Vane E. (M. Londonderry) [Teller]

  Monk, L. (V. Monck)

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Morris, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde)

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Plunket, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

  Rathmore, L,

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtowh)

  Castlemaine, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

  Clonbrock, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 113.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 86, line 17, after 'clerk,' in two places insert 'or of any other officer.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: The officers that are affected by this clause are the officers of the various local bodies in Ireland who have served for many years, and who would be appointed under section 1 of the Act of 1868, called The Local Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Act. What these officers are afraid of is, that owing to the extension of the franchise which
  1094
  permits of persons serving as aldermen, councillors, and township commissioners, though not ratepayers—for the service franchise permits of this—many of them will be dismissed for various reasons, in which event, if the dismissal takes place within five years, he will get compensation under clause 112, sub-clause 19, but, if he be dismissed at any time after the expiration of live years, he will not get one shilling compensation, no matter what, number of years he may have served, should the local body so decide. Therefore it is that officers like the treasurer of the City of Dublin, assistant town clerks, and other officials, wished to have the words "or other officers" inserted in clause 113, so that their rights may be protected after the expiration of five years from the passing of the Bill into law. They also want an appeal to the Local Government Board instead of to the Treasury, in the event of dispute as to the amount they should be fairly entitled to, as it is not the Treasury but the ratepayers who have to pay the salaries; and as clause 113 made the Local Government Board the judge of what is right as to increase of salary for increased duties, the officers submit that the question of the amount of superannuation or gratuity they should get should also be left to the arbitrament of the Local Government Board. To put the matter simply, the "other officers" say we ought not to be placed in a worse position than a town clerk to a borough or a clerk to township commissioners, many of whom have not the same responsibilities in the discharge of their duties nor length of service. To give one more instance, take the chief accountant and members of his staff of, say the Corporation of Dublin, Belfast, and the other boroughs scheduled in the Bill. I have put down on the Paper several Amendments with reference to clause 113, and I trust that the noble and learned Lord will allow them all to pass.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is a clause which deals with the case of the existing town clerks of the borough or clerks to the commissioners of the town, and the Amendments sought to be accomplished in that clause by my noble Friend are three in

  1095
  number. He seeks to extend the clause from the particular class for whom it was intended to a wide and general class whom he calls "any other officers." That, of course, is not reasonable to the principles of the Bill. There is a part of the Bill that deals with the general class that may be affected, and that are mentioned in the last schedule dealing with compensation, and I do not think it is reasonable to take a clause that is intended for a narrow class and seek to apply it to a great many others. Then my Friend's second objection is one that we have been hearing about in other cases—the getting rid of a five years' limit that is put into this clause. But, having regard to the tenure of these particular officers, and having regard to the reasons that I have already given, I am unable to assent to the arguments which he has advanced. As to the point by which he seeks to substitute the Local Government Board for the Treasury, that is a question more or less of a choice of tribunals, and my noble Friend does not seek in the least to avoid the reasonableness of having a perfectly competent and reliable body to be arbitrators in case of a difference of opinion. I think it is not unreasonable to use the Treasury for that purpose, and I do not think anything would be gained by the substitution of the Local Government Board. It may be seen almost all through the clause that the functions of both the Treasury and the Local Government Board are kept steadily in mind.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clause 113 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clause 114 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSES 115 TO 120.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 87, line 14, leave out 'if he were to retire on the appointed day,' and insert, 'when he shall hereafter retire.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: This Amendment has been suggested on behalf of the county surveyors. It also affects other local officers, all of whom under local Acts would be qualified, for superannuation on attaining 60 years of age, and having served 20 years (in the case of these officers) and 10 years (in the case of surveyors). There are 39 county surveyors to the 32 counties of Ireland. By clause 115, page 87, of the Bill as now printed, superannuation is secured to those who would be qualified for it on the "appointed day" only. This would benefit two or three only in this body, while the greater number would not be in a position to satisfy the necessary conditions which are prescribed by the "County Surveyors' Superannuation. Act (Ireland), 1875," which are that the surveyor seeking superannuation must be 60 years of age, or have become mentally or physically incapacitated from work, and in either case he must have served 10 years at least in the county from which he seeks superannuation. With two or three exceptions the ages of the existing surveyors vary from 60 down to 30 years, the average being about 45, and the length of service from 30 to 32 years, the average being about 20 years. It may be noted that as a county surveyor cannot be appointed if under 26 or over 40 years, he must serve from 20 to 34 years before he is entitled to a pension on the ground of old age. Again, many of the men who will probably be elected to the new boards have been contractors under the present county surveyors, who have, in the discharge of their duties, found it necessary to put in force the penal clause of the Grand Juries Act against many of them, while with others it may be in their attempts at jobbery they have been in frequent conflict. To such, an admirable opportunity would be afforded by the Bill as it stands to pay off old scores by refusing a county surveyor his superannuation when he comes to retire hereafter. It would therefore be a manifest injustice to leave the existing officers without that protection which a reasonable expectation of pension has hitherto conferred on them, and that protection, as well as their independence in administering the duties, which will devolve on them under the new boards, which it

  1097
  should be the vital interest of the ratepayers to see established, can be secured only by making their superannuation when they come to retire, mandatory on the county councils. This would be effected by the Amendment to clause 115, page 87, in line 14, leaving out "if he were to retire on the appointed day" and inserting "when he shall hereafter retire." This Amendment would also secure to other officers, who, under local Acts, are qualified for superannuation on attaining 60, and having put in 20 years' service, the certainty that they will get some superannuation in their old age. All these officers feel strongly that the authority who appointed them, and under whom they served the best years of their life, is now being changed, and to this new body the power should not be left to deprive the officer of any superannuation. Though by the Act of 1875 the granting of superannuation is optional with a grand jury, it has always been looked on as morally "certain on good behaviour," as since the passing of that Act in no case has superannuation been withheld, and in every case the full pension which could be sanctioned was allowed. It was in this belief those who took office after that date did so, many of them giving up good positions in other services, namely, the Public Works Department of India, or the Civil Branch of the Royal Engineers, or Admiralty, for the sake of the pension which was believed to attach to their office. It should be remembered, too, that the county surveyors are nearly all university men, and are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant after a very difficult examination by the Civil Service Commissioners. In this respect they differ from all other local officers, and are not recognised as civil servants only, because their salaries are paid out of local rates and not out of the consolidated fund. The Act of 1875 is not repealed by the Bill, and pensions are left at the discretion of the new boards; but the conditions of the office are radically changed, for it must be admitted that superannuation in the hands of men such as will compose the county council will be a very uncertain issue to a long service, and they feel that a breach of faith would be committed if they are
  1098
  transferred from the board under which they took service to another authority whose views, social and economic, are likely to be so widely different, without making their superannuation secure as it was in effect under the present grand juries.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: The acute point of this Amendment—the point on which it pivots—is to take out of clause 115 the qualification that is attached to this provision, that on the appointed day persons qualified for a superannuation allowance be qualified for that superannuation by reason of some status, and it is absolutely necessary to take a date in which that status can be ascertained. That is shown in the clause. The clause says if on the appointed day a man is entitled, then, he is qualified for a superannuation allowance; he shall them have certain rights which are fully and fairly recognised. By his Amendment, my noble Friend seeks to get rid of that governing date, and to leave out altogether the words "if he were to retire on the appointed day," and to leave him the rights whenever he shall retire—at any time and under any circumstances.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: Supposing he does not retire on the appointed day—March 1st, 1889; the county council may give him the option or they may not, just as they choose. It seems rather hard on these men, considering that the secretaries of the grand juries and the county auditor are protected.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: His status is measured by the possibility of his retiring at the appointed day. After that his rights may attach whenever he ceases to hold office, but his status on the appointed day cannot be forgotten.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 87, lines 22 and 23, leave out 'age, and length of service, and.'"—(The Duke of Aberrant.)
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: This Amendment is moved in the interests

  1099
  and on behalf of some of the officers of the Corporation of Belfast, and I venture to, suggest that the qualification for superannuation allowance shall be service only, and that the maximum shall be 20 years. Sixty years of age is the extreme age at which a pension can be given, so that it will also be necessary to remove the age disability. The effect of the clause gives superannuation to officers of 60 years of age with 20 years of service, while any officer who may have had 20 or 30 or 35 years of service, and has not reached the age of 60, cannot receive a superannuation. I think your Lordships will admit that that is rather hard, and if the extreme age of 60 years was done away with and service only was admitted, those difficulties would be overcome. As to the devotion of his whole time to the service, that refers, to the medical officers attached to public places, and these men, who are a high class of men, say if they are not allowed to devote their services to any other practice it will not be worth their while to take up public work. It is well known that medical officers of high ability have very often private practice which adds not only greatly to their income, but also to their knowledge of the profession they follow, and thus it seems rather hard that they should be debarred from following out this private practice, and it is on behalf of these men that I venture to move this Amendment.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is an Amendment dealing with the same clause to which I have already referred, and I have to remind your Lordships that I indicated that the governing date in the earlier part of the clause was that on the appointed day the officers that were to get the benefit of the provision were to be then qualified for a superannuation allowance. That must now be taken to be accepted. But this Amendment which is moved proposes to put a perfectly fresh and novel meaning upon the word superannuation, and if that method of interpretation were accepted we could never be quite sure of where we were. The Amendment that is sought to be made to this clause is this: superannuation at present is referred to three things—age, length of
  1100
  service, and devotion, of time to public service, and the proposal of the Amendment is to obliterate from the calculation for superannuation, two of the three essentials that are needed—that is, to get rid of the age and the length of service. This is not a pensions Bill, it is not brought in with a view to creating rights to pension that are not found already to exist in substance, and therefore I am unable to accept the Amendment for the reasons to which I have referred. Now, the position that has been referred to by my noble Friend with regard to the medical officers rests on a different footing. The medical officers in Ireland—the dispensary practitioners—are entitled to every sympathy and regard, and their position all through has been that of officers who do not devote their whole time to the public service; the salary would not permit it, although, of course, they must be always available to discharge the public service. That is a matter which is engaging the attention of the Government, and we will endeavour to deal with it on the Report stage of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That clauses 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 120 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I have an Amendment down, or I should say, a new clause, to move, after clause 120, but as the noble and learned Lord has promised to consider it on Report I do not propose to move it.

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the first schedule stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.
  *LORD MORRIS: I have an Amendment to that—
  "After Cork,' insert 'Galway.'"
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have intimated to my noble Friend that, of course, I shall not question to-night the Division of a few hours ago on this subject, and not now put the House to the trouble of another Division. I am, however, informed of a matter I should mention. The acceptation by this House of this Amendment may be regarded as the creation of a new rating authority. I do not presume to give any specific opinion as to that, but it is something that will have to be looked into more closely than I have had an opportunity of doing yet.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 93, line 19, after 'Cork,' insert 'Kilkenny.'"—(The Marquess of Ormonde.)
  THE MARQUESS OF ORMONDE: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name, namely, that the city of Kilkenny be inserted after that of Cork. My reason for doing so is the extreme antiquity of the corporation of that borough, although I am aware that the population of some 12,000 inhabitants is not so large as that of other cities named, but if your Lordships will allow me I will give you a few facts and figures to bear out my remark as to the antiquity of the corporation. The first charter was granted as long ago as the year 1190, and subsequent charters were granted by Richard II., Henry III., Henry IV., James I., Charles I., and James II. In the reign of James I. Kilkenny was created a city and the county of the city in 1609. Besides this there were no fewer than 20 Parliaments held there, the principal of which perhaps may be considered to be that held in 1310, before Richard, Earl of Ulster, and that which was held on the morrow of Ash Wednesday in 1367 by Lionel, Duke of Clarence, in both of which many new enactments were made. I merely give your Lordships those facts
  1102
  and figures in order to show that there is some excuse for moving this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: I am sorry to say a word against my noble Friend. I have no doubt the antiquity of Kilkenny is I absolutely true. A more beautiful town—from a distance—I do not know, than the city of Kilkenny, built on limestone, with the most perfect springs of water, which, however, are unfortunately all adulterated with sewage. I do not mean to suggest that the people do not adulterate the water also with something else afterwards, but of all the municipalities in the United Kingdom it is about the worst. They increase their debt year by year; they do no good to themselves, I aim afraid, or to anybody else. They have this lovely stream, running through it, and they turn it into a common sewer; and, upon my word, I do not see why any stretch, of this schedule should be made for the city of Kilkenny. My advice to the noble Marquess would be, leave it alone.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, the Amendment moved by my noble Friend, Lord Ormonde, on behalf of the city of Kilkenny, is a very natural Amendment. Everyone knows the close way with which he is bound to that ancient city, and how identified his family have been with its history for many centuries. But, my Lords, even though a Parliament was held there and passed these great Statutes, we cannot divest ourselves—looking at the actualities of the present day—of the fact that whether this population is 12,000—a little more or a little less—it is a good way off the limit of 17,000 that already has obtained a certain sanction from your Lordships. But, my Lords, must not the line be drawn somewhere? I am sorry that it should be drawn so that it will exclude Kilkenny and my noble Friend; but I am afraid I must ask your Lordships to do even that, and I venture to hope it may be that my noble Friend will be satisfied with the protest he has made on

  1103
  behalf of his ancient city and acquiesce in the hard and fast line which the Bill necessitated our drawing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the second schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.
  *VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I want to move an Amendment to this schedule. It is—
  "To omit the words 'Corporation of The city of Dublin,' in line 20, and insert 'the council and the borough or other urban districts in which the premises are situated in respect of which the duties are paid.'"
  The licensees' fees are £100 a year, and they have hitherto been paid to the commissioner of police. It is now proposed that they should be paid to the Corporation of Dublin, and it is contended, on behalf of the urban townships outside the city of Dublin, that they should not be paid to the corporation but should be paid to their councils instead. I think the noble and learned Lord will see the justice of the Amendment, and I hope he will be able to accept it.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think I shall be better pleased if this matter were put off to the Report stage. There is every desire to meet the wishes of my noble Friend, but the Amendment would have to be carefully drafted. The matter is being considered with a desire, if possible, to meet the views of the noble Lord has expressed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the third schedule stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 95, after line 6, insert '41 and 42 Viet., c. 26, the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, section 21.'"
  "After line 20, insert '51 and 52 Viet., e. 10, the County Electors Act, 1888, sub-section 3 of section 4.'"
  "Line 31, after 'seventy-four,' insert 'and.'"
  "Line 32, leave out 'and,' and insert 'subsection 2 of section 76, section.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendments accepted
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the fourth schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the fifth schedule stand part of the Bill,"
  Agreed to.

  Motion made and Question put—
  "That the sixth schedule stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
  Motion made, and Question put.
  "That the seventh schedule stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Bill passed through Committee and ordered to be reported to the House.
  House adjourned at 11.20.