Lords Sitting of 7 July 1908

VISCOUNT BOYNE.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Monday last, that the right of the Viscount Boyne to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—Local Government Provisional Orders(No.10); Marriages Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.
Camborne Water Bill.—Reported without Amendment.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order Bill.—Reported, without Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cornwall, etc.) Bill [H.L.] (Swansea Orders No. 1 and No. 2).—Report from the Select Committee. That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the said Orders no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on 24th June last and the 1st instant respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select
1418
Committee in regard to the said Orders discharged.
Garw and Ogmore Gas Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
Swinton and Mexbrough Gas Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
Merthyr Tydvil Corporation Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
Stockport Corporation Bill; Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill; Southwell District Gas Bill; Louth and East Coast Railway (Transfer) Bill; Seaham Harbour Dock Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H.L.].—Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 563. Gibraltar (Report for 1907).

  TRADE REPORTS: MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 668. Japan (Report on the Hok Kaido).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PHARMACY (IRELAND) ACTS, 1875 AND 1890.
  Order in Council, dated 3rd July, 1908, approving of a regulation made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND),1877.
  Order in Council, dated 3rd July, 1908, giving effect to Rules of Court.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (CITY OF EXETER).
  Order made by the Council of the City of Exeter, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS (MASTERS) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this is really a Departmental Bill, of, I think I may say without exaggeration, an agreed character. Questions have arisen from time to time as to the power of the Board of Education to insert in schemes relating to endowed schools a provision for giving notice to the headmasters and assistant masters employed in the schools to which the schemes relate. The matter was much discussed in the case of Wright v. Zetland (Marquess of) [1908] 1 K.B. 63; and this Bill is really in consequence of the proceedings which took place on that occasion.
  The question is not a very material one in regard to headmasters, but the Bill deals more particularly with assistant masters. Your Lordships will see that by Clause 1 the employer is made the governing body. There was some question before that action as to whether the assistant masters were not in the employment of the headmaster, who had technically engaged them, but as headmasters are not generally men of much means, I think your Lordships will see that it would be rather unfair that the assistant masters should be in their employment rather than in that of the governing body of the school. The second subsection provides that—
  "Notwithstanding anything in Section 22 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, any pro-
  1420
  vision in any scheme, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, providing for notice being given to a master before he is dismissed from office, shall have full effect."
  This provision will prevent the Bill interfering with the particular circumstances of any special scheme. The third subsection provides that, subject to any other special provision, an assistant master shall have at least two months notice. That is agreed upon as being a reasonable period. Finally, subsection (4) allows an assistant master to be dismissed without notice for misconduct or other good and urgent cause, in spite of any thing contained in this Bill.
  The Bill in its present form represents the result of long negotiations which have taken place between the Board of Education and the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, and a similar Association of Assistant Masters, and it is understood to have the support of both these bodies and of other persons interested in the question. I think I ought to mention that the Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters have pressed upon the Board of Education a demand for the introduction of legislation that should confer on them absolute security of tenure, or, in the alternative, security of tenure subject to appeal to the Board. The Board have not seen their way to agree to such a proposal, because they think that no Department of State could usefully assume the position of arbitrator in such matters. The Association of Assistant Masters have been informed of this decision. They have expressed themselves as satisfied, and have foregone any further demands in this direction.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think there is any disposition on this side of the House to resist this Bill, certainly not the Second Reading of it. With regard to what has just been said by the noble Earl, we are disposed to agree with him that at any rate in the first instance, it would be far better not to proceed further than the provisions in the Bill. It will

  1421
  be time enough to judge, after the Act has been in operation some little time, whether sufficient security has been given to the masters under its provisions before any fresh legislation is introduced giving an appeal to the Board of Education such as was mentioned by the noble Earl. There are two matters to which I should like to refer. I presume the intention of the first subsection of Clause 1 is that if an assistant master has reason to complain of action taken against him he will sue the governing body rather than the headmaster.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have no doubt, speaking quite off-hand and without committing oneself too far, that that is a proper provision. As to the second subsection, I am surprised that the Government have not proposed to repeal Section 22 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869. That section absolutely prohibits a scheme from containing any other provision except that of dismissal at pleasure, so that as it stands upon the Statute-book Section 22 of that Act is absolutely in the teeth of the policy of this Bill. That being so, perhaps the best course would be to repeal the section before the Bill is finished with in your Lordships' House. I submit that suggestion for the consideration of the Government.
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  BOARD OF TRADE (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read..
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which requires a few words of explanation. Its object is to enable the Board of Trade to make rules as to procedure for obtaining and granting Provisional Orders. This power of granting Provisional Orders has been exercised by the Board of Trade for a number of years. The Board was first
  1422
  given power to make Provisional Orders in regard to piers and harbours in the year 1861, and with regard to tramways and to the supply of gas and water in 1870, and the latest powers were given under the Supply of Electricity Act in 1882.
  This Bill does not enlarge the powers with regard to the scope of these Provisional Orders; it merely enables the Board to make rules as to the procedure to be adopted. Its object is to remove certain difficulties which have arisen from the fact that the older Acts of Parliament lay down the exact procedure which is to be adopted. That is not the case in the newer Act—the Electric Lighting Act—as I will explain in a moment. This fact has caused a considerable amount of inconvenience. As an example of this inconvenience I may quote the case of the date on which the draft Provisional Orders have to be deposited. That is fixed at 23rd December. I believe that a similar date was originally fixed by the Standing Orders in the case of Private Bills before Parliament, but that date was found to be most inconvenient, and Parliament altered the Standing Order accordingly. The Board of Trade, however, have no power to alter a thing of that kind without coming to Parliament in each instance and it is with the object of conferring such a power that this Bill is introduced.
  Several other inconveniences arise, and I may quote one in the fact that under the Piers and Harbours Act a period of fourteen days must elapse after the deposit or advertisement of the Order before the confirming Bill can be introduced. In the case of gas, water, and tramways this period is only seven days. Of course, it is inconvenient that these periods should be different, and in the case of electric power and electric light Bills, no such interval is found to be necessary at all. I will give one more instance. Great expense is caused by a provision in regard to gas, water, and tramway Provisional Orders to the effect that the Provisional Order has to be published in extenso in the local newspaper, whereas with regard to other Orders, it has been found sufficient to insert a notice stating that

  1423
  the Order has been made and where copies of it may be obtained. The Board of Trade have had strong representations made to them that the cost of Provisional Orders has very often deterred the owners of non-statutory gas companies, for instance, from coming to Parliament and having their undertaking put upon a proper legal footing.
  The Electric Lighting Act of 1882 confers powers on the Board of Trade for making rules and regulations with regard to the application for Provisional Orders, to the payments to be made in respect of them, to the publication of notices and advertisements, and to the manner of making objections and holding local inquiries. It is proposed by this Bill to extend a similar power to the Board of Trade in respect of the other matters with regard to which they are empowered to make Provisional Orders. These rules will have to be laid before Parliament and will have statutory force, and, of course, they may be amended by a similar procedure—that is to say, by Amendments being laid before Parliament. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am sure that after the very clear statement made by the noble Lord there will be no desire in any part of the House to interpose any obstacles or delays. The only observation that occurs to me in reference to the matter is this, that it is obvious that this Bill makes the Board of Trade supreme with regard to the important matters referred to it by Act of Parliament. I do not at all say that the Board of Trade are thinking for a moment of abusing their powers, but it is a very serious thing to transfer from Parliament, with all its facilities for examination, revision and inquiry, these powers to one of the Government Departments. It is an important matter to hand over to the Board supreme power in consenting to the making of tramways, for we know that a railway company may be ruined through a tramway being run along near it so as to intercept and tap, and, it may be, destroy its traffic. I do not know whether that would be a matter which the Board
  1424
  of Trade would be taking power by this Bill to deal with. I am quite sure that they have not the slightest intention of doing anything that is not absolutely right and proper, and I merely mention it as an illustration of the powers that may be exercised under the Bill. I am sure that the objects of the measure are to simplify procedure and save expense, and I hope the noble Lord will allow a few days to elapse before taking the next stage, in order that those who are interested may have an opportunity of examining closely the changes the Bill proposes to effect.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I will certainly put the next stage of the Bill down for a few days hence, so as to allow the interval for which the noble and learned Lord has asked. I think, however, that he has exaggerated the possible effects of the measure. It deals with rules of procedure as to the lodging of notices, etc., and it has not the far-reaching scope which the noble and learned Lord seems to think.
  On Question, Bill read 2a(according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  DISTURBED AREAS IN IRELAND.
  LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government the Questions standing in my name on the Paper—namely, by whose authority and on what principle are the districts selected which are charged with the expenses of extra forces of the Royal Irish Constabulary in proclaimed parts of Ireland; and whether accounts of such expenses can be transmitted to the secretaries of county councils at such times as will enable county councils to consider them in connection with their annual estimates; and to call attention especially to a demand for over £3,000 recently sent to the Galway County Council, and made chargeable on the county at large; and also to ask for a Return showing in the case of each proclaimed county in Ireland:(1) The number of officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary actually in each county at the end of March, 1905; (2) the number of officers and

  1425
  men wholly chargeable out of the Consolidated Fund for each county; (3) the number of officers and men extra of the establishment in each county and their expenses for each half-year from the end of March, 1905, to the end of March, 1908; (4) the sums demanded in these counties for the expense of conveying prisoners in each half-year from the end of March, 1905, to the end of March, 1908; (5) the amount of compensation for malicious injuries granted in these counties in each half-year from March, 1905, to March, 1908.
  In asking for this information and for this Return, I should like to make a few remarks, with the object of, if possible, drawing public attention, and especially public attention in Ireland, to what is occurring in connection with this matter. The most important part of my Questions refers to the subject of the large extra expenditure being incurred in certain parts of Ireland at the present moment, and, in connection with that, the heavy taxation which is being imposed. This extra expenditure is being incurred on account of the large bodies of additional police that are being drafted to certain districts. The extra taxation comes about also owing to the fact that there has been an increase in the number of cases of malicious injury and in the bill for the conveyance of prisoners. This large expenditure, and consequent heavy taxation, is, to my mind, a very serious matter, and it is about to become even more so in the future. It is due to the fact that in certain parts of Ireland, unfortunately, the districts are in a disturbed condition, and it is due, in a still larger degree, to the cumbrous, circuitous, expensive, unjust, and wholly ineffectual mode of dealing with these disturbances which has been adopted by His Majesty's Government.
  I say that the mode of dealing with this state of affairs adopted by His Majesty's Government is cumbrous and circuitous. What is the position? Cattle-driving and other forms of agrarian outrage are very prevalent in certain parts of Ireland, and instead of dealing directly, determinedly, and firmly with
  1426
  the matter, the Government, in spite of their oft-repeated declaration that they would carry on the government of Ireland by the ordinary law of the land, have reconciled that decision, by some interpretation that I cannot follow, with having recourse to the despotic and arbitrary clauses of an old Act of the reign of William IV. By Section 13 of that Act the Lord-Lieutenant can, by proclamation, declare that any county, county of a city, or county of a town in Ireland, or any barony or half-barony, or any district of less extent than a barony or half-barony are in a state of disturbance and require an additional establishment of police; and by other provisions of that Act the Lord-Lieutenant can draft police into those districts, and can direct that half the expense thereof is to be borne by the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and half by local taxation. Under Section 13 the Lord-Lieutenant has, of his own sweet will, proclaimed certain areas in Ireland; he has drafted immense numbers of police into those districts, and great extra expense has been incurred; and this in spite of the fact that the Government have declared that they would carry on the government of Ireland by the ordinary law. Does the noble Lord, who will answer me, consider that having recourse to the Act of William IV. is carrying on the government by the ordinary law of the land? Or is it not a farce and fiction to say that the government of Ireland is being carried on at the present moment under the ordinary law?
  Assuming that this is governing Ireland according to the ordinary law, the next question that arises is: Is this mode of dealing with the matter proving effectual? Are the extra police that are being poured into these districts doing much, or any, good? I regret to have to say that, in spite of this, outrages are continuing to take place, and are actually increasing. Outrages take place in close proximity to crowded police barracks, and it is usual to read at the end of reports of such occurrences that no arrest has been made. If arrests are made no conviction follows; and the evil doers in these parts of the country have come to the conclusion

  1427
  that, not with standing the increased number of police, they can safely anticipate that they will not be detected and arrested, and that, if they are arrested, they will not be punished. So much for whether this mode of dealing with the matter is proving effectual.
  The noble Lord who represents the Irish Office may say that although the method pursued by the Government is not directly effectual, it will prove indirectly effectual through the local taxation which these expenses will involve, and that the increased taxation will deter people from continuing in these evil courses, or will, at any rate, punish them. So far as it merely punishes them and is merely revengeful, I take no interest in the matter. I only take an interest in punishment if it deters people from following evil courses. Further, I may say that personally, and especially in reference to Ireland, I am no admirer of this way of punishing districts by taxation. Ireland is already over-taxed. These poor districts can badly afford any additional taxation, and I think it is deplorable, if there are any extra means that can be raised on the rates, or if there is any financial assistance to be given to these districts out of the Consolidated Fund, that the money should be spent in this wasteful and useless fashion and not retained for other beneficent objects to which it might be applied.
  Again, I think that this form of punishment by taxation acts very unfairly. It punishes the many innocent people in those districts just as much as the few guilty ones, and the latter do not feel that they are suffering any extra punishment over the innocent. The only, chance that that form of dealing with the difficulty would have of proving effectual would be if the taxation were confined to the districts in which the outrages had occurred, and into which the additional police had been drafted. But that is not so. I have not the statistics of all the counties in Ireland, but I have those of County Galway, and I can show that it is the policy of the Government not to confine this taxation to the districts affected but to spread it over large areas that have no connection whatever with the outrages and are wholly blameless in
  1428
  the matter. In County Galway—I am a member of the county council, and therefore familiar with all these matters—in the last three years, for example, over £13,000 has been called for in respect of extra police. It has been gradually growing. For the half-year ended 31st March last year the total extra expense was £889; for the half-year ended 30th September last the total extra expense had risen to £2,349. So much for whether the method pursued by the Government is effectual. The more police that are put into a district the more crime; and I find that in the half-year ended 31st March last the extra expense for police was £6,000. I am told that for the next half-year, half of which has already passed, it will be something like £8,000; so that £14,000 will have been spent in one year for extra police.
  With reference to the area of levy, when these demands were first sent to the county council they were allotted to certain district councils and even to certain town land where the expenses had been incurred. So far so good. Taxation so imposed might have had a punitive value. But recently the authorities in Dublin have ordered that the area of taxation shall be largely the county, and we were directed to levy the most recent demand—one for £3,000—over the county at large, thereby wholly depriving this taxation of its punitive value. I wish to point out how very unjust that is. Galway is a very large county, and on the side where I live there are none of these disturbances; the people are all small peasant farmers, who are wholly blameless in reference to these disturbances. No extra police are required in these districts, and not alone have we got no extra police but we are actually denuded of our own share in order that they may be drafted to other districts. I maintain that this is monstrously unjust and even tragic when you think of the various parts of Ireland which are composed of congested districts, and that at this very moment, in the county of Galway, which has put into operation a section of the Local Government Act, we are taxing ourselves for this purpose, although a certain part of the community are actually dying of starvation. I mean to say it is perfectly monstrous to include these

  1429
  districts where these outrages do not take place in the taxation, apart from the fact that it wholly deprives this Act of its punitive force.
  There is only one other point I wish to mention—a small point but not without importance—with reference to the procedure of the county council. In former days, if any charges were incurred under this Act, the account was sent twice a year, because the Grand Jury met twice a year, and struck a rate twice a year, whereas now, although the county councils still meet half-yearly, they only strike a rate once a year, and it is impossible to meet these demands anyhow if they are sent after the Estimates are considered and the rates struck, when we have no floating balance out of which to meet this large item of £3,000 or £4,000. I would therefore ask the Government to say that they will send these demands early in the year—generally about February, when we strike, the rate—so that the matter can be considered, and above all I ask them to see that the area of applotment is justly and properly chosen.
  LORD DENMAN: The noble Lord (Lord Killanin) speaks, of course, with very considerable authority on this particular question. Being himself a member of the Galway County Council I have no doubt that he has a very intimate knowledge of these matters, and, naturally, any views which he puts forward will receive the careful attention of the Government. I am certainly not surprised that he views with some alarm the considerable charge of some £3,000 that is put upon the county council of Galway for the extra police which it has been found necessary to draft into the district, and though I have not the advantage of his local knowledge I shall certainly not be prepared to deny that this is rather a rough and ready method of enforcing justice. At the same time, my Lords, it is also impossible to deny that this is part of the ordinary law of the land which is on the Statute-book. Irish counties have been proclaimed by both Parties in the State several times in recent years, and therefore if he asked me across the floor of the House, I should say, of course, that this is part
  1430
  of the ordinary law of the land. The noble Lord complains of the despotic powers which are given under this Act. I can only repeat that this Act has been enforced very many times by both Parties in the State in recent years, and certainly His Majesty's Government do not contemplate any alteration in the law at the present time. The noble Lord asks in his Question by whose authority these districts are selected, but I gathered from his speech that that was rather a rhetorical form of question, because I think he himself supplied the answer—that it was upon the authority of the Statute of William IV.
  LORD KILLANIN: Upon what principle, I also asked.
  LORD DENMAN: I will come to that directly. And also under Statutes 9 and 10 Vict., c. 97, Section 5, and 11 and 12 Vict., c. 72, Section 6, one moiety of the cost of such additional police is chargeable to the county at large to which the police are appointed. As noble Lords from Ireland are well aware, last year it was found necessary to proclaim six of these counties, and this year—last month, I think—the counties of Sligo and Westmeath were also proclaimed, and in each of these cases the entire county, as has generally, I believe, been the practice, was declared by the proclamation to be in a state of disturbance. The noble Lord appeared to be under the impression that we could declare a smaller portion of the county in a state of disturbance, and that is so, but you must rate the whole county for the extra charge of police, even though you only declare a small area or a small portion of that county to be in a state of disturbance. The opinion of the law officers of the Crown—
  LORD KILLANIN: In many of the demands sent to us they, as a matter of fact, only directed us to levy the rate for certain portions of the county. If it is as the noble Lord now says, the procedure has only been quite recently changed, and things must have been done very irregularly during the last three years.
  LORD DENMAN: I am afraid I cannot explain that fact; I can only state that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown has recently been taken on this point, and they are quite clear that the law is as I have just told the House. Then the noble Lord has raised the particular question of the county of Galway. Last year both the East Riding and the West Riding of the County of Galway were in a state of disturbance.
  LORD KILLANIN: Not the West Riding.
  LORD DENMAN: It is true parts of the West Riding, as I am informed, were certainly in a very much better condition than other parts of the county, and were possibly not in a state of disturbance at all. I will not argue that question, but I wish to point out that as long ago as August of last year monthly returns were sent to the county council in order to give them some idea of the expenditure they would have to meet. The county council estimates for the rest of the ensuing year are prepared compulsorily for that period, and the county council had full means, before striking their rates, of estimating the amount of the charge for which they would be liable for the half-year ending 30th September, 1908. I am informed that the monthly reports were sent to the county council. As a matter of fact, the secretaries of county councils are in possession by 31st January of each year of accounts for extra police covering a full year up to the end of the previous September. And then I have to meet the point which the noble Lord has raised—it has happened and I take it it will happen, that extra police may be drafted into a county after the rate has been struck, and it may so happen that the county council have not the current funds to meet that charge immediately. In that case the Government will be prepared to consider any reasonable demand for time for the county to pay the rate in question. The Government have no information—at any rate, no detailed information—with regard to the state of the finances of the county council of Galway and their ability or otherwise to meet this charge, but as I
  1432
  have endeavoured to show, the council had pretty good reason to anticipate the charge when their rates for the year were struck. But if the county council can advance any sufficient reason why there should be some delay in enforcing the charge, the Government will give the case careful consideration before deducting the amount of £3,000 odd, I think it is, which, as the noble Lord is aware, they are empowered to do by Act of Parliament from the Local Taxation Grant.
  Then the noble Lord asks for a Return of police in the case of each proclaimed county. This Return was asked for, I think, at the end of last week, and I had hoped that I should have been enabled to give it to the noble Lord to-day, but I trust that he will be content if I promise him that the Return for which he asks will be given to him at a very early date—I hope some day this week.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I suppose the answer that has just been given by the noble Lord (Lord Denman)is in accordance with the official information in the Irish Office, and that he could not add to it without inconvenience. But all these discussions and questions that come up in reference to Ireland raise very painful thoughts in the mind of anyone who is in the slightest degree interested in that country. One has only to think of the Questions that have been asked so quietly in this House, and just replied to, to enable one, with very slight effort, to realise the very grave state of things existing in Ireland at the present moment. It is extremely serious, and to anyone—it does not require that he should be an Irishman—to anyone interested in the welfare of any part of the United Kingdom it is most distressing knowledge. One has only to open The Times, or any other of the papers of the day, and read the charges of the Judges who are now going upon circuit, in order to see the painful and the singularly distressing state of several of the counties of Ireland—the lawlessness that is too rampant in many places, the outrages that are but too often unchecked, too often unpunished, and the perpetrators of

  1433
  which have not been found, imprisoned, or checked. It has been pointed out that this is not a thing of yesterday or today; it has been going on for a long time. There was a lull some months ago, but that lull has ceased, and again I have to remind your Lordships you have only to read each day in the paper the charges of the Judges who are now going on circuit to see what is the state of the facts. It was pointed out to the present Government—they did not need it to be pointed out, for they knew it—that there was a statute, not of Edward III. or William IV., but a statute of twenty-one years ago which they always call the Coercion Act, but which is really called "An Act for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland." It is there to their hand. Clause after clause of that Act finds its counterpart in the laws of Scotland. But the Government will not apply it, although their attention has been drawn to it over and over again. The noble Earl opposite who is now the Leader of the House (the Earl of Crewe) indicated last year that he was conscious of it, but that he did not think the time had come to put it in force. Well, I do not know who does their thinking for them, but at all events there is the Act, and they will not apply the Act. They have the means of applying the remedy, and they will not apply it. The Chief Secretary hammered the box in the other House as if he was invoking the Twelve Apostles to witness his rectitude, and said: "I will not do it"—and he looked round for applause and got it. One would have thought he was asking some great Heavenly Power to witness that he was not going to break the Ten Commandments. Really he was asking for witness that he would not apply the laws which were ready to his hand for the obtaining of peace and quiet in Ireland.
  What is the state of things in regard to the Question of my noble friend Lord Killanin? The Government will not apply an obvious remedy, but they search about for statutes in the Statute-book (one of them in the reign of Edward III.) which in many of their provisions are more arbitrary than the Act of 1887, and they have applied the provisions of the other Act referred to
  1434
  by my noble friend, declaring certain counties in Ireland disturbed, and have added the extra police. What does that mean? That they will not apply the statute framed for the very purpose of preserving law and order in Ireland, but that they have to go back centuries to find an Act to help them to do the same thing. Then they fall back on another statute, and they declare that there are seven or eight counties in Ireland in a disturbed state. That is serious enough, and it leads to great expense, because the declaration of its being in a disturbed state, as I gather, is a necessary preliminary to justify the Government in adding to the police in the district, and they have had to increase the police by a very considerable extent, at a cost of thousands upon thousands of pounds.
  Then my noble friend mentioned the element of malicious injuries—a very grave and serious element which exists in Ireland, and if it did not exist in Ireland, it would be more serious still—that in reference to these unfortunate people who have been subjected to the outrage of cattle-driving and other outrages, some much more grave, there is a provision which enables them to apply to get claims for malicious injuries from the County Court Judges. That enables them to be partially recouped the money loss which they have sustained, but it unfortunately entails upon the County Court Judge the disagreeable task that has arrested the attention of my noble friend Lord Killanin, of applotting upon districts the money for the payment of these malicious injuries. That is a very serious and grave state of things. I am aware that often the applotment of the payment of that money must fall upon innocent people, and that those who have committed the injuries and the outrages have to pay nothing. Very likely their fathers and uncles have to pay, but the particular perpetrators of the outrages I venture to say too often escape. My noble friend has drawn attention to that which is a serious matter—the applotment of the expenses of the police—but as I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Denman, who has spoken on behalf of the Irish Government, they are following the statutory requirements of the Acts of Parliament

  1435
  I assume that to be so from what he says, though Lord Killanin indicates that until recently the applotment was somewhat of a different character from what has been lately applied.
  My Lords, in all these discussions it is right to note the living present in which we live. It is painful to reflect that at this time of day, after so many discussions have taken place and so many questions have been asked in the House of Commons—which were resented very much at one time, but are not so much referred to now in terms of censure—that at this time of day, with all the resources which are at the disposal of the Irish Government and the Chief Secretary, matters should be in such a state as that. There are many counties in Ireland declared to be in a disturbed state, and the police force has to be largely Increased, thousands of pounds have to be paid for malicious injuries, and all the time the law is so administered that crime is rampant in many places, that outrages may be read of constantly in the papers, to be followed by the statement mentioned by my noble friend, that no arrests have been made. My Lords, it is a very painful and serious state of facts; it would be impossible to allow any question to be asked in reference to Ireland without drawing attention to some of the circumstances of the case, and that is why I have ventured to trouble your Lordships with these few words.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I quite agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) has said. The fact of the matter is that those who live in Ireland, like myself, have to put up at present with this state of affairs, because we have been told—and by the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack—that coercion—that is to say, the Coercion Act—will not be put in force. Given that state of affairs, I must deal with the question that Lord Killanin has put. The point that he made was that, instead of the districts being charged for the police that were put in the county, the county at large is charged. Now, my Lords, if the district is applotted by the Judge for the
  1436
  charges incurred by reason of malicious injuries, the people around there who, it is no secret to us, although the police do not know it, are well aware of what has taken place, if the people are charged they must pay, but in the case of police being put on the county at large, the districts where the cattle-driving takes place are not necessarily affected at all. As Lord Killanin very properly pointed out, the County Galway is divided by a large lake, and on one side there is a great deal of this bad business going on, while on the other side there is none, and why on earth, if you want to keep law and order in the country should not the common-sense principle be adopted which is adopted by the Judges in the case of malicious injuries—that the districts where the police find there is cattle-driving should have to pay for the expense of those police?
  The noble Lord, Lord Denman, said that the Government would give careful consideration to some minor points about the expenses of the county council—as to how they were to be sent in. I forget exactly what it was, but it was some quite minor point. I wish they would give careful consideration to the great point, because Lord Killanin very carefully stated that the authorities in Dublin now insist upon taxation being put on the whole county, although formerly the taxation was put upon the districts. I ask your Lordships, is any good likely to come of this form of dealing with this outrage—I will not use the word outrage, but call it cattle-driving. Is there any good likely to come of this form of dealing with cattle-driving if the district is not to be charged for it? We are not to have coercion—we are under a Government which will not have coercion, and I suppose we have got to sit under it and exist under it; but as for the whole county being charged for it when you have that county divided by a large inland sea, this seems to me perfectly ridiculous, and not common sense. Lord Killanin pointed out that in many cases, and in very poor districts, there were quite innocent people wholly unable to bear these charges. I only put to the Government the common sense point of view. Why should they not do what has been done before?

  1437
  Now as to the rate. Lord Killanin said it was formerly the custom to strike the rate twice a year in counties, but now it is the custom to strike the rate once a year only, and in consequence of that the county council are put to great difficulties because, as the noble Lord said, the police might be sent down at any moment after the rate is struck without any notice whatever. That the Irish Government have a perfect right to do. But after all, let us go on the principle of live and let live, and instead of the sort of answer that the Irish Office give—that they will give careful consideration to a minor point with regard to a small business of a parochial character—I wish they would give careful consideration to the point I have made with regard to the districts and the counties at large. The noble Lord said he could not give very much information upon that point. I shall have the pleasure, with your Lordships' leave, of raising the question again, or some noble friends of mine will do so, because, as I said before, we have got to live under this regime, and we want to live under it as quietly as possible under the circumstances.
  LORD KILLANIN: Might I, with your Lordship's permission, make a few remarks which may somewhat elucidate matters? I understand the noble Lord (Lord Denman) to say that although the Lord-Lieutenant can proclaim portions of counties, he cannot allot the taxation to portions of counties. Does he say that that is the legal position in the matter, and that, therefore, the authorities are bound to put it upon the county at large? If so, that does not fit in with the facts. I have the Returns here for the last three years. For the half-year ending 30th September, 1905, I have the number of districts in the County of Galway all enumerated, leaving out certain districts; for the half-year ending 31st March, 1906, it was the same; for the half-year ending 30th September, 1906, it was also off districts and even off townlands, there were certain small townlands mentioned, and for the first time a small portion of the taxation was put upon the county at large. The next half-year, to 31st March,
  1438
  1907, again it was put on townlands, and a portion off the county at large. Yet the noble Lord says they can be put upon the county at large. And for the half-year to the 30th September, 1907, again it was on various townlands, various districts, and a certain portion off the county at large. But for the half-year ending 31st March of this present year the total is put on the county at large for the first time. Therefore, for two and a half years they have been putting it on townlands and districts of which I highly approve, and what I object to is that they have not gone on doing that. I cannot see how the legal view he gives fits in with the facts, which facts have occurred under the administration of the present Law Officers. Have they suddenly grown wise, or what? With reference to the legal matter, might I refer the noble Lord to Section 8 of 2 and 3 Viet., c. 35, and 9 and 10 Viet. c. 97, because I think under those two sections the Law Officers have been acting, and under those it is perfectly within their power to applot the charge to the particular districts.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CEEWE): We have not the advantage in this House of having any lawyer from Ireland officially assisting us, although I see two noble and learned Lords opposite who must be well acquainted with the state of the law. What my noble friend behind me (Lord Denman) understood to be the case was that the Act of William IV.—I think the Act of 1836—is the Act by which the extra police are allocated to the different counties, but by the subsequent Act—I think of 1847 or 1848—the charge is obliged to be placed on the county as a whole, and not on the district. If that is so, how the facts occur to which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Killanin) has drawn attention I confess I do not understand, and it appears to me that it would be best if the noble Lord would put that Question down for another day, when my noble friend behind me will be supplied with the legal information.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.