CLAUSES 99 AND 100. (Hansard, 25 July 1898)

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.

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.

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)