Sitting of 21 May 1897

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Hants (Eastern or Petersfield Division), v. William Wickham, esquire, deceasid.—(Sir William Walrond.)
PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) BILL.
Committee deferred from Wednesday, 23rd June till Wednesday, 7th July.
QUESTIONS.

  VICTORIA CROSS (TROOPER BAXTER).
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the
  1022
  Secretary of State for War would reconsider his decision, as announced in a memorandum which appeared in The London Gazette of 7th May, with respect to Trooper Frank William Baxter, of the Buluwayo Field Force, in which it is stated that on account of the gallant conduct of this man in having, on 22nd April 1896, dismounted and given up his horse to a wounded comrade, Corporal Wiseman, who was being closely pursued by an overwhelming force of the enemy, he would have been recommended to Her Majesty for the Victoria Cross had he survived; and, in consideration of the self-sacrificing act of devotion to his wounded comrade which cost Trooper Baxter his life, would he recommend to Her Majesty that the Victoria Cross should be conferred on the late trooper on the date of his gallant action, and that the decoration so heroically earned should be forwarded to his nearest relative?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend of the full sympathy of the Secretary of State in his wish to commemorate the noble deed of Trooper Baxter; but the statutes of the Victoria Cross do not contain any provision under which a man who is already dead can be recommended for the distinction. Many cases have occurred in which the Cross would have been awarded had the soldier or sailor survived, but no exception to the rule I have stated has ever been made.

  ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE (DUBLIN).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the report of the inquiry to which the public were not admitted, recently held in Dublin by a Departmental Committee appointed by the Government, to report what accommodation is required for a Royal College of Science for Ireland and where it should be built, and whether new buildings were required, will be laid upon the Table of the House; and (2) whether it is the intention that the College shall continue under the control of the Science

  1023
  and Art Department in London or whether it will be incorporated in the scheme of technical education for Ireland and to be under Irish management?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): So far as I am aware, the Committee has not yet made its Report, and until it has been received and considered, I am not prepared to say whether it will be laid on the Table of the House. I cannot at present, make any statement in reference to the inquiries in the second paragraph of the Question.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether it the intention of the Government to introduce this Session a Bill dealing with technical education in Ireland; and (2) whether it is the intention that the Science and Art Department thereof shall continue under the control of South Kensington or whether it will be included under Irish management.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already answered the second paragraph of the Question. With regard to the first paragraph, I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the statement of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury.

  LOCAL LOAN FUND.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state where and when and by whom the Local Loans Funds Accounts are audited; and whether a great portion of this money, £40,000,000, was issued at three per cent premium; and, whether he can state how that item was dealt with.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The accounts of the Local Loans Fund are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General under section 16 of the Act 50 and 51 Vic. cap. 16, and are presented to Parliament. The total amount
  1024
  of Local Loans Stock created has been £40,953,767.14s. 5d., of which there was issued at par (1887) £36,526,056. 17s. 5d., the balance of £4,427,710.17s.0d. having been issued (in 1888 and 1889) at an average premium of £3. 10s. 9d. per cent. The premium is specially shown in the annual balance sheet (see House of Commons Paper 117 of 1897). It was (when received) employed in making advances for loans, reducing thereby the amount of stock required to be created and consequently the charge for interest.

  AGRICULTURAL RATING ACT (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon Member for Dublin, St. Patrick, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state where is the £74,000 accruing to Ireland under the Agricultural Rating Act, and if it is bearing any interest, or for what purpose it will be used?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A sum of £74,870 has been paid to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account under the Estate Duty Act of last year in respect of the period ended March 31, 1897. The question whether this money bears interest is one that should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury. With regard to the disposal of the money, I can at present only refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Clause 6 of the Poor Relief Bill recently introduced.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: asked whether the Secretary to the Treasury was prepared to answer that part of his question which the right hon. Gentleman was unable to answer
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. T. LOUGH: asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say where this Local Loan Fund was kept, whether in Ireland or in connexion with the Treasury?
  [No answer was given.]

  KERRY ESTATES (RECEIVERS).
  MR. M. J. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return showing the estates in the county of Kerry over which receivers

  1025
  are appointed, giving respectively the owner of the estate, name, and residence of receiver appointed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Question is practically a repetition of the Question put to me by the hon. Member on the 22nd March last. I am afraid I have nothing to add to the reply given by me on that occasion.

  FUGITIVE SLAVES (ZANZIBAR COAST).
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended that the present arrangements as to slavery, and as to fugitive slaves, should continue on the Zanzibar Coast under the control of Her Majesty's Government after the abolition of slavery in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): Under the existing arrangements on the mainland coast of the Protectorate any slaves can gain their freedom by crossing the ten-mile border into the interior. For this and for other reasons, which the limits of an answer do not provide an adequate opportunity for stating, it is not proposed to alter the arrangements on the coast.

  MARYBOROUGH GAOL (PRISONER THOMAS COLLINS.)
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with respect to the statement of evidence enclosed with the petition in favour of the release of Thomas Collins, a prisoner confined in Maryborough Prison, whether he is aware that Thomas Collins was convicted solely on an approver's evidence, and that Mr. Justice Holmes at the trial characterised the approver as a vile character; and, whether inquiries have been made to the mental and physical condition of Thomas Collins?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The prisoner named in the Question, together with four others, was tried at the Munster Winter Assizes of 1891 on the charge of conspiracy to murder. He was convicted and sentenced to ten years' penal servitude. It is not the fact that Collins was convicted solely on the evidence of
  1026
  an approver; on the contrary there was a considerable volume of independent evidence corroborating the details of the approver's testimony. I am not aware that the learned Judge spoke of him as a vile character, though it is no doubt possible that he did. The convict was recently examined by the Medical Member of the Prisons Board, who reports that mentally he may be described as simple and that physically his health is good.
  MR. FLAVIN: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware if he looks at the evidence—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  DOG LICENCE (GOVAN).
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the occupier of Broomloan Farm, Govan, who keeps on an average 29 cattle, has been fined for keeping a dog without a licence, although application had been made and refused for a statutory form claiming exemption; and, whether it is within the province of the Inland Revenue officer of the district to refuse to supply to an applicant the necessary form for making a declaration claiming exemption?
  MR. HANBURY: The form of declaration to which the hon. Member refers is prescribed to be used by the owner of a dog "kept and used solely for the purpose of tending sheep or cattle on a farm, or in the exercise of the calling or occupation of a shepherd." The Inland Revenue officer, in refusing to receive a declaration from the applicant in this case, was acting under the instructions of the Board of Inland Revenue, who, after carefully investigating the case, satisfied themselves that the applicant was not a farmer or a shepherd, and that the dog, which was kept on his premises at 177, Broomloan Road, Govan, could in no sense be said to be kept and used solely for the purpose of tending sheep or cattle on a farm.

  KERRY GRAND JURY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that members of the Kerry Grand Jury are

  1027
  contractors to that body; also that men occupying the position of agents to those contractors are also members of the Kerry Grand Jury; and, if so, whether this is legal?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Secretary of the Grand Jury, with whom I have communicated, is not aware that any member of the Grand Jury is contractor to that body; nor is he aware that agents of contractors to the Grand Jury are members of the Grand Jury.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several members of the Kerry Grand Jury are agents of the contractors and that the secretary himself is agent to his own brother?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply I have given is that which I have been furnished with after inquiry. If the hon. Gentleman will bring evidence before me as to the facts he states, I will make further inquiries.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to give the names of the contractors? [Cries of "Order."]
  [No answer was given.]

  EDUCATION OFFICE (DUBLIN).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that Civil servants employed in the Education Board, Dublin, as abstractors have to perform precisely the same duties as second division clerks but without prospects of advancement, which compels them to stand almost on the same footing as boy copyists, also that many of these officials have served long periods in their several positions; whether, in case the Treasury cannot immediately accede to the request contained in their recent petitions, he can hold out any hope of improved prospects for this class of public officials in the near future?
  MR. HANBURY: I am not aware of any case in the Civil Service in which abstractors are performing precisely the same duties as second division clerks. The abstractor class was expressly created for the performance of work of a higher order than copying, but not of sufficiently advanced or responsible character to be assigned to second division clerks, and it is for such work only that the Treasury
  1028
  has sanctioned the employment of abstractors in various departments. If in any department the line of demarcation drawn by the Treasury had been, subsequently abandoned and the work of the two classes amalgamated, as the hon. Member asserts, it is clear that the abstractors would be doing too high work and the second division too low, and the abstractors should bring the matter before the responsible head of the department as a question of internal administration. There is of course no comparison between temporary boy copyists, who cannot rise beyond 18s. a week, or be retained after reaching the age of 20, and abstractors who are permanent and pensionable officers and can rise to £150 a year. The abstractor class has only been in existence six years, so none of its members can have served long periods in that capacity. As regards their demand for improved prospects, I have nothing to add to the answers I have repeatedly given to similar proposals.

  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a series of resolutions from the North Dublin Union on the subject of his proposed Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill: and, can he state whether in Committee any of these resolutions would be given effect to by his assent to the changes they propose in the Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The resolutions referred to have been received. I am unable at present to make any statement regarding the Poor Relief Bill.

  ITALIAN ICE-CREAM VENDORS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. Alderman Knight in fining an Italian 10s. for selling ice-cream in the street, whilst a Scotchman who was selling fruit in the same vicinity was only fined 1s., the Alderman remarking that the Italian should be mulcted because all Italians were a nuisance; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): The Secretary of State his made inquiry and finds that the circumstances of the two cases, which are not quite correctly stated in the Question, were so different as in the opinion of the Alderman to justify the difference in treatment. The Secretary of State has no reason to think that the Alderman was wrong in the view he took. The Alderman denies that he used the expression which is attributed to him in the Question.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if orders will be given to clean the public statues in the line of the proposed route on Jubilee Day?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER, OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): Yes, Sir.
  MR. AIRD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra allowance or consideration will be given to the Metropolitan Police for their arduous duties on Jubilee Day?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: It was hardly necessary for my hon. Friend to remind the Secretary of State of what he is of course always anxious to do, namely, to acknowledge in a proper way, as has previously been done, the services of the Metropolitan Police on special occasions. It is premature, however, to make any statement on the subject now before those services have been rendered.
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the difficulty occupants of seats on the occasion of the Royal Jubilee procession will have in reaching them before nine in the morning, carriages may be allowed to proceed to places on the route between Westminster Bridge and Buckingham Palace up to Ten o'clock as fixed for the route on the south of the river?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The Commissioner is not yet in a position to say what regulations will be necessary, but the point raised by the hon. Member will not be lost sight of when they come to be made.
  MR. J. CUMMING MACDONA,: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will make arrangements so that the Royal Irish Constabulary take part in the proceedings at the coming Jubilee?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Arrangements have already been made for the participation of a mounted detachment of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the Jubilee procession on June22nd. [Cheers.]
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that on 23rd June, the day on which Her Majesty is to review some 10,000 school children on Constitution Hill, and a day for which in Nottingham and other great provincial towns Diamond Jubilee celebrations involving the presence of school children are appointed, the Science and Art Department are to hold examinations, as at present arranged, and whether, to avoid the obvious inconvenience, absence from examination, and consequent loss, he will postpone the examinations due on 23rd June until some more convenient date?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Science and Art Department have received no applications for the postponement of these examinations. No change could now be made without great inconvenience to the majority of schools.

  RATHKEALE UNION (ELECTION OF GUARDIAN).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the grounds upon which the Local Government Board refused to institute an Inquiry into a recent election of a Poor Law Guardian for the Mohernagh Division of the Rathkeale Union, in which the defeated candidate, Mr. William Harte, claimed a sworn Inquiry on the alleged grounds that 16 votes recorded against him were all in the same handwriting, the disallowance by the returning officer of six proxy votes, and other irregularities; and whether he will advise the Local Government Board to hold the Inquiry asked for by Mr. Harte?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board carefully considered the objections raised by the defeated candidate as well as the reasons for the decision arrived at by the returning officer, and came to the conclusion that there was no ground for ordering an Inquiry in this case. Objections to the return of persons as guardians are very numerous, and frequently consist of mere allegations, unsupported by evidence. No evidence was forwarded in the present case in support of the allegation made by the defeated candidate, nor was sufficient cause otherwise shown for holding an Inquiry. I see no reason, under the circumstances, for requesting the Board to reconsider their decision.

  MULLINGAR UNION.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board are aware that the medicine contract in Mullingar Union was cancelled last year as the result of a sworn Inquiry into grave irregularities which were found to exist, the accounts of the contractor not having been properly checked by the clerk of the Union, whose brother was in the employment of the contractor; and that the medicine contract has been voted this year by the friends of the clerk of the Union to the same contractor, whose tender was found to be the highest; and whether he can state what action the Local Government Board have taken in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The circumstances under which the medicine contract was terminated last year were referred to in my answer to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 26th January. I have no information regarding the occupation of the clerk's brother. The Guardians have this year given the contract to the same contractor; the tender was not shown to be the highest, and upon a comparison of the prices of the drugs most in use it would appear that three tenders were higher and five lower than the accepted tender. The Guardians are not bound to accept the lowest or any tender, and under the existing law the Local Government Board do not see their way to intervene in this matter. By Clause 39 of the Poor Relief Bill, now
  1032
  before the House, the Board will be empowered, however, to make regulations in respect of medicine contracts which, while continuing to the Guardians the power of selecting the contractor, will enable them to determine at a glance which tender is most favourable to the Union, a matter which they have great difficulty in deciding under the present system.

  LARCENY (ALLEGED), CO. TYRONE.
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that two brothers named Maguire, County Tyrone, are at present in prison for larceny, although substantial bail has been offered to the Crown on behalf of the Maguires to stand any further trial; and whether he can say if there are in Ireland any other prisoners besides the Maguires in prison, charged with larceny, who offered bail for their appearance?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): I am aware that the brothers Maguire are at present in custody charged with larceny. I am, further aware that an application made to the Judge presiding at the late trial of the accused to admit them to bail was refused by him. The prisoners have not since, so far as I know, made any applications to the Queen's Bench Division to be admitted to bail as they were entitled to do. I cannot answer the latter portion of the Question; besides there are circumstances in this case which distinguish it from any other of which I have any knowledge.

  PARCEL POST.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received complaints of the difficulty farmers and others encounter in sending parcels of merchandise 1 1b. in weight for the minimum price of 3d. because of the additional weight of the wrappers of paper, etc.; and whether if he cannot, see his way to reduce the cost of carriage of parcels to a minimum of 1d. per 1b., he will permit 1 1b. to go through the post for 2d. or 2 1b. for 3d.; if not, will he permit 1½ 1bs. to go for 3d. be as to allow for packing?
  MR. HANBURY: Applications have been received from various quarters that

  1033
  the parcel post rates should cover slightly more than the even pound or pounds in order to allow for the weight of wrappers. The changes in the scale of rates which have been announced will to some extent meet the wishes of the hon. Member by reducing the charge on a parcel between 1 1b. and 2 1b. from 4½d. to 4d., but it is not possible to make any further concession. The weight of the packing would, of course, vary greatly according to the nature of the articles sent, and it would be impracticable to fix a margin which would be fair to all alike.

  TELEGRAPH CHARGES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, as he has consented by special official notification to charge "sha'n't" as one word and "mother-in-law" as one word, he will so far relax the rule as to permit "Charing Cross" to go as one word in telegraphing and whether he is aware that "Kentish Town," a postal and telegraph office, is charged two words in a telegram, but "Woodford Green" is charged as one word?
  MR. HANBURY: The anomalies which the hon. Member so frequently points out are the result of concessions. One of the words he has quoted as anomalous— "mother-in-law"—was, I believe, first dealt with as one word at the urgent request of my hon. Friend himself. [Laughter.] I think that the rule which refers to the names of places is a reasonable one. It is that the names of all separate towns and villages are treated as one word. Of course, neither Kentish Town nor Charing Cross is the name of a town or village. If that rule were departed from, it is difficult to say what might not be treated as a local name and claim the privilege.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: May I ask why is "stepfather" charged as two words and "grandmother" one? [Laughter.]

  PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS ACT.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to
  1034
  the statement made by the Chairman of the London Sessions in charging the Grand Jury on Tuesday last, that out of a total of 204 convicted persons released ment, from 1894 down to last year, 12 only had since offended; and whether he will by circular or otherwise call the will by circular or otherwise call the attention of Justices throughout the country to the successful working of the Probation of First Offenders Act, with a view to its more frequent application?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The Secretary of State has seen the very satisfactory statement by the Chairman of the London Sessions to which the hon. Member alludes. There is nothing however, in the evidence before him as to the working of the Probation of First Offenders Act and similar enactments which would lead him to suppose that Courts of Summary Jurisdiction are unmindful of the powers which they possess under those Acts, or that any new circular from the Home Office is needed in regard to the manner in which they use them.

  BANKRUPTCY COURT (IRELAND).
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it the intention of the Government to fill the vacancy in the judicial staff of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland, occasioned by the death of the late Judge Miller; and, if not, what provision exists for the discharge of the business of the Court in the event of the unavoidable absence owing to illness or otherwise of the existing Judge?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The whole matter is under the consideration of the Government, and some definite decision will, I hope, soon be arrived at. The contingency mentioned in the last sentence has not arisen.

  BRUSSELS ACT.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that all the signatories to the Brussels Act are under obligation to give a certificate of freedom to all slaves entering their territories which come under that Agreement, instructions in accordance therewith have been given to Her Majesty's

  1035
  Agents in the British East African Protectorate?
  MR. CURZON: My hon. Friend is, I think, not quite correct in his interpretation of the Brussels Act. There is nothing in that Act compelling its signatories to give letters of freedom to all slaves entering their territories. The letters are to be given to all slaves liberated under the conditions laid down by the Act. Instructions to look to this Act for guidance have been given to Her Majesty's Agents in East Africa.
  SIR C. DILKE: Does the latter part of that reply extend to the fugitive slaves' provisions?
  MR. CURZON: Oh, yes, Sir; they cover everything touched by the Brussels Act.

  DEATH OF PAUPER (CITY OF LONDON).
  MR. D. CRILLY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can now inform the House as to the result of his inquiries respecting the death of the old woman, Margaret Ross, upon whose body an inquest was held in the Hackney Coroner's Court on 3rd May, when it appeared in evidence that the deceased had been an inmate of a City union workhouse, that her age was 77 years, and that she had been found dead on the previous Thursday beside the washing pail which she had been using in her work, and that the workhouse authorities had been in the habit of compelling this old woman to clean out a large ward containing twelve beds?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I have been in communication with the Guardians of the City of London on the subject, and I have also obtained copies of the depositions taken at the inquest in the case. It appeared from the medical evidence and a post-mortem examination that the death of the poor woman was instantaneous—from natural causes, and due neither to syncope nor weakness. It is not the case that the workhouse authorities compelled her to clean out a ward. She had, up to some nine days before her death, been employed in the needle-room, and it was at her own special request that she was allowed to undertake the duty of keeping a dormitory clean, as she
  1036
  preferred this to the more sedentary work, and said she was quite capable of undertaking it.

  TOKAT MASSACRE.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir Philip Currie has addressed a letter to Tewfik Pasha in reference to the recent massacre of Armenians at Tokat; whether he can state to the House the nature of this communication; and what action the representatives of the Great Powers propose to take in regard to the miscarriage of justice which has taken place?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has not yet reported to us upon the result of the investigation that has been conducted by the Turkish Commission at Tokat; nor do we know whether he has addresed a Note on the subject to the Porte. I have no doubt that we shall very shortly hear from him on the subject.
  MR. FLYNN: When shall I put a further Question?
  MR. CURZON: If the hon. Gentleman likes to put a Question down on Monday, I will try to answer it. I will let him know as soon as we hear.

  SCIENCE AND ART CLASSES (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the new rules of the South Kensington Science and Art Department prohibit the pupils of national schools in Ireland being enrolled in the science classes; whether the teachers who are thus deprived of the result fees for science subjects are allowed an equivalent; upon what grounds and by whom were the Irish national school pupils deprived of the advantages of these science classes; and whether he will consider the advisability of re-establishing the rule which allowed the pupils of sixth and higher classes of Irish national schools to be enrolled in science classes?
  SIR J. GORST: The new rule, which applies to Great Britain as well as Ireland, is intended to prevent the scholars in elementary schools from earning a double grant for a single attendance— one from the Education and the other

  1037
  from the Science and Art authorities. No compensation is to be paid to teachers because such an abuse of the grants is prevented. The Irish elementary pupils have as ample opportunities of learning science as those in other parts of the United Kingdom, as day scholars in the elementary schools, and as evening scholars under the Science and Art Department. No change in the rule is contemplated.

  PETTY SESSIONS (MAGISTERIAL JURISDICTION).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can stale upon what principle certain magistrates may adjudicate in all petty sessions districts in the county named in their commissions, while other magistrates in the same county are confined to certain districts only; how many magistrates in Fermanagh enjoy the privilege of sitting at all petty sessions in that county, and how many are confined to limited areas; and will any steps be taken to limit the jurisdiction in the one case, or to extend it in the other, so that the existing distinction may cease?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Question is based upon a supposition which is erroneous. I have already explained to the hon. Member that all magistrates are expected to confine their attendance at petty sessions to the districts specified on their appointment to the Commission. The Lord Chancellor does not sanction the attendance of a magistrate at all petty sessions throughout the county.

  ADMINISTRATION OF OATH (COURT OF JUSTICE).
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Attorney General if his attention has been called to the ordinary form of English oath as administered in courts of justice; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to alter the ordinary form of English oath, and to abolish the objectionable practice known as kissing the book in the administration of oaths of all descriptions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): My attention has been called to the question of the desirability of changing the form of oath, but I think that the fear of infection has been somewhat exaggerated. I would remind the hon. Member that under the provisions of the Oaths Act 1888, witnesses are now permitted to take oath in Scotch form under which it is unnecessary to kiss the book. I will, however, consider whether any further amendment of the law is required.

  JUDICIARY (IRELAND).
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in reference to the vacancy on the Irish Judicial Bench, caused by the death of the late Justice Hurry, whether the Government will adhere to the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject of the excessive cost of the legal and judicial establishments in Ireland, and the return to Ireland of the amount by which such excessive cost is reduced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Government in no way recede from the declaration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject; but I am not in a position at this moment to make any statement with regard to the vacancy caused by the death of Lord Justice Barry.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN:Is it not the fact that the Irish Judicial Bench is still considerably overmanned?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That is a general question on which many successive Governments have made declarations, and I am not sure that anything will be gained by giving a special answer.

  BENEFICES BILL.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it has been brought to his notice that the Benefices Bill stands the first Order for Wednesday 20th instant; and whether he can give an assurance that that day will not be taken for Government business?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to my noble Friend I

  1039
  have to say that it does seem certain that Wednesday the 26th instant, will be taken for Government business, the Committee stage of the Compensation to Workmen Bill. I, of course, greatly regret that my noble Friend should be deprived of that Wednesday for his Benefices Bill, especially when it happens that the Measure has my warm personal sympathy, as my noble Friend is aware. But, whatever is to be gained by the discussion of the Bill, there is little or no probability—I will put it more strongly, and say that there is no possibility—of a private Bill being passed into law at this time of the Session.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: May I ask whether, in view of the great importance attributed to many of the provisions of this Bill, my right hon. Friend can hold out any expectation that, in, lieu of this particular Wednesday, we may have some other opportunity of discussing the Bill in the course of the Session, or, failing that, whether the Government will consider the propriety of dealing with this subject themselves in the next Session of Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My noble Friend is a sufficiently experienced Member of the House to know that the Government can express no preference for or give advantage to any private Member's Bill. With regard to the second part of his Question, I am not in a position to give a complete answer to it at the present time, but I can assure him of the sympathy of myself and many of my colleagues on this question. ["Hear, hear!"]

  THE ARMISTICE.
  *MR. C. P. SCOTT: I wish to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether he can state what are the terms of the armistice concluded between the Greek and Turkish forces in Thessaly, and to what period of time it extends?
  MR. CURZON: In reply to the hon. Member, I regret to say that we have no official information as to the exact terms or duration of the armistice that has been concluded either in Thessaly or Epirus; but we have telegraphed to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople for the details.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND).

  MINISTERIAL PROPOSALS.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have deferred from day to day during the last fortnight the making of a statement in answer to certain Questions which have been addressed to me from the other side of the House. Some of those Questions relate to the Irish Agricultural Industries Bill and other Bills now on the Paper in the name of the Government having reference to Irish administration. Others are Questions relating to the policy of the Government in connection with a grant to Ireland, based on similar lines to those adopted in the Act of last year, which gave relief to the rates on agricultural land in England. These two questions may seem at first to be little connected with each other, but in the view of the Government they are really inextricably intertwined. There are two aspects of the same policy which cannot by any possibility be separately considered. The House is aware that the Government have declared that in their view Ireland possessed no claim in strict equity to the many hundreds of thousands of pounds which would be required if the rating question were to be treated on lines similar to those adopted in England. [Irish laughter.] I am stating a question of fact. The House is aware that that was, and I may add that it still is, the attitude taken up by the Government. I am conscious that I am not in agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am aware that their opinions on the subject are shared by other Irish representatives in this House and by the great mass of public opinion in Ireland. [Irish cheers.] I am not disputing the fact, and I am not arguing the question. I am merely stating that upon the question of abstract equity the Government have not changed their minds nor do they see any reason to depart from the attitude recently taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty. Even if we took a different view upon this question, I think hon. Members on all sides of the House would see that there would be the very greatest difficulty in giving any large subvention in relief of local rates in Ireland until the question of local government was settled. Hon. Members opposite have asked for

  1041
  a great deal of new wine, but they propose that it should be put into very old bottles. [Laughter.] That is a policy j which presents very great difficulties, and we are of opinion that it would not be in the power of this or any other Government to consider the question of large subventions to Irish rates apart from the question of a large modification of Irish local government. We are brought to the same result if we consider the kind of criticism levelled from more than one quarter of the House against many of the attempts at administrative reform in Ireland which have from time to time been attempted. The object of those reforms is often accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they criticise the details of the Bills in which they are embodied, and object to their passage because they say, with a certain amount of force, that the machinery now in existence is of so antiquated a character—["hear, hear !"]— that it is not possible or right to throw upon it the new duties that would necessarily be thrown upon it by the Measures in question. When I say the machinery is antiquated I am expressing no new opinion. We have, indeed, never denied that, so far as county administration is concerned, the work done by grand juries has been honest work, able and economical work. ["Hear, hear!" and "No !"] But, at the same time, we have invariably admitted that both the machinery for administering county government and poor relief in Ireland belong to a class of political machinery which we have rejected in England and Scotland, and which the great majority on this side of the House are pledged to reform in Ireland also. [Irish laughter and an HON. MEMBER: "1886 !"] I hear an hon. Member say "1886 !" I do not know what 1886 has to do with local government in Ireland, but I have in my mind a Bill introduced in 1892 which did not proceed very far —[1aughter]—which, indeed, apart from the special political difficulty of that year, might not under any circumstances have received the general assent of the House, but which was an honest attempt on my
  1042
  part to deal with the special difficulties of Irish administration as they then presented themselves to me. What was the objection taken to the Bill? It was this —that while it had no doubt put Irish local government upon a broad popular basis as far as the franchise was concerned, it was hedged round and, as it were, crowded with elaborate precautions which were not required, in our opinion, in England or Scotland, and which had not been introduced in the English or Scotch Bills, but which we did think were necessary if we were to give local government to Ireland under the circumstances then existing. Consider, then, the apparent dilemma into which we are forced by this line of argument. We cannot, it would seem, give anything to Irish rates without reforming Irish local government. We cannot, owing to the special circumstances of Ireland, reform its local government without encumbering the new system with elaborate and irritating precautions. At first sight, the difficulty seems insoluble. But, on more mature reflection, it would seem that we have now presented to us an opportunity, perhaps an absolutely unique opportunity, of meeting the difficulties we have always felt in the extension of local government to Ireland, and at the same time meeting the claims which have been put forward with so much energy and eloquence by all classes of Irish opinion in the last few weeks. We believe that a plan can be devised by which both these great objects can be attained and which will secure the friendly support of every class. I do not on the present occasion intend to go into details. I am only speaking by the leave of the House. Obviously the Bill embodying such a plan cannot be introduced until next Session, but, broadly, our scheme is this. We should propose to place both the Poor Law and county administration upon a broad and popular basis—[cheers]—but, as I have explained, that can only be done if at the same time the owners of agricultural land can be relieved of the apprehension which, rightly or wrongly, they entertain with regard to the possible extravagance, perhaps unintentional, and perhaps intentional, of the new public bodies which are to be called into existence. We hold further that to attain this object the landlords must be relieved from all rural rates in the future.

  1043
  I make no secret at all about it. That is a wide departure from the course which we have pursued in England or Scotland. [Irish cheers.] We think it a necessary departure. Roughly speaking, the landlords' liability for agricultural land at this moment consists of paying half the poor rates. We propose to pay that half out of the Imperial Exchequer for the future. ["Hear, hear !"] We propose also to pay half the county cess. The landlord would gain by the first and the tenant by the second of these subventions, while there is this double benefit for the two classes, it will be observed that we gain our great object, that, namely, of launching local government under circumstances which would make it palatable and safe for all classes. It may, perhaps, be objected that this gift is illusory. The tenants, on the one hand, may say, "If you give half the county cess, that is all very well as long as our judicial rents are running, but what is to happen at the end of the 15 years? Will the whole of this not be put by the action of the Sub-Commissioners into the pockets of the landlord? Will, therefore, the relief nominally intended for us not, as a matter of fact, go to the landlords?" The landlords on the other hand, may say, "What we have been afraid of in giving county government in Ireland is the extravagance, intentional or unintentional, of the popular bodies to be created. How are we protected from the extravagance if at the end of the 15 years any increase of the rates which may have occurred by the action of those bodies in the interval is to be thrown on us by the action of the Sub-Commissioners?" It will be seen, therefore, that each party contemplates, and possibly contemplates rightly, that the gift which under the plan I am now proposing would be given by the Imperial Exchequer might by the natural and legitimate action of the Land Courts be taken from them and given to the other class concerned in the cultivation of the land. And again, the tenants might say, "Though the landlords anticipate that this establishment of popular local government in Ireland will lead to extravagance, we, the tenants, take precisely the opposite view. We think that the existing system has produced an unnecessary expenditure of local funds in Ireland, and
  1044
  that the result of the change will not be to increase rates, but to diminish them." [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Hear, hear !"] Of course, I do not prophesy which result will occur, but while I think the landlords should be protected from the possible extravagance of the new bodies, I think they should not be allowed to reap the benefits of the possible economy of the new bodies, and therefore I think we ought to introduce into any Bill for local government in Ireland provisions by which we should secure, first, that the tenant should reap the whole benefit of that part of the county cess which is to be given to him by the Exchequer, and, secondly, that he should reap the whole benefit of any economy he may introduce in the administration, or of any public improvements, roads, and the like, which may be made out of the county cess, after the new county government has been established. On the other hand, I think that equal precautions should be taken to prevent the landlords suffering from the extravagance which some prophets anticipate from either the inexperience or the design of the new County Councils and the new Poor Law Guardians. I do not know whether I have made these broad elements of our policy clear.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: There is one point I should like to mention. What is proposed to be done in the cases where the landlord now pays all the poor rate?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That is the well-known case of where the rent is £4 and under. I rather avoided that as being a detail, but it is a detail of such importance that the hon. Gentleman is no doubt justified in asking me across the floor of the House a question relating to it. The present idea of the Government is in that case, as in the other, that half the poor rate should be paid by the State, and that the other half of the existing poor rate should be automatically subtracted from the rent now paid by the tenant to the landlord. Let it be noticed that if the poor rate remains as it is, no charge will be thrown upon the tenant under £4. Half the charge will be borne by the State and the other half borne by the landlord in the form of a fixed subtraction, not a varying subtraction, from his rent, depending, of course, upon the amount of the poor rate existing

  1045
  at the time that this reform was carried into effect. I hope I have made that fairly clear to the House, and that they will see that that very important point has not escaped the attention of the Government. Now I feel I have trespassed upon the House—[general cries of "No, no !"]—not so much indeed by the length of the statement, which I think has been as concise as the circumstances admit—["hear, hear !"]—but by asking the attention of the House to legislation which is not yet in being, and which cannot possibly be brought to their attention until we meet again in another Session—[An HON. MEMBER: "Next Session?"]—next Session. It is, of course, a most unusual proceeding, for which I think an apology is required, but the House will see my reason. The reason is that as we have adopted this policy, the two essential elements of which are relief of rates in Ireland—general relief of rates on agricultural land in Ireland—and the establishment of popular local government in Ireland under circumstances which would prevent any of the financial abuses which have caused such widespread alarm among important sections of the community, the House will see that the policy consisting of these essential elements had to be explained before I could justify to the House the further announcement which they will no doubt have anticipated—namely, that the Irish Bills of my right hon. Friend, the Agricultural Industries Bill and the Poor Law Bill, cannot be proceeded with in the course of the present Session. We have adopted an alternative policy —[Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Hear, hear !"]— inflicting, indeed, an incomparably larger charge upon the common Exchequer, but a charge which I am perfectly certain the country at large, and the' Unionist Party in particular, will not grudge if they can see their way to carrying out the reform to which we are all pledged, the making of that change in Irish county government which certainly cannot be longer delayed, although it may take place under circumstances far less favourable than those which exist at present. Sir, I think that, for these reasons, the landlord and the tenant, the reformer, the politician, the Englishman, the Irishman, every class of the community, whether specially connected with Ireland or not, will be disposed to regard
  1046
  with favour—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Hear, hear!"]—what I cannot but think will prove to be, all things considered, one of the greatest reforms carried out in the safest manner which have ever been suggested to the attention of this House. [cheers.] I am, of course, ready to answer, if Mr. Speaker permits it, any question so long as it is not a question of detail, but in the meanwhile I hope I have with sufficient lucidity explained the general lines of the Government policy with regard to Ireland, and I cannot help hoping with some confidence that on all sides of the House that policy will meet with approval. [cheers.]
  MR. EDWARD CARSONrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely,
  "the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury made this day with regard to the withdrawal by the Government of legislation proposed in reference to Ireland;"
  The pleasure of the House having been signified,
  MR. CARSONsaid that every person who had listened to his right hon. Friend's statement would admit that in its bearing upon Ireland and the relations of this country with Ireland, no more important statement had been made in recent times. He wished to deal with that generous and sympathetic statement in the manner in which his right hon. Friend had made it. He would not discuss now the right hon. Gentleman's remark that Ireland in strictness had no claim to the money that he had announced he was prepared under certain circumstances to give in relief of the rates; it was enough for him to know that Ins right hon. Friend was prepared to give the money. But he thought anybody who had followed the course of events in Ireland since the recent Division on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry, must have come to the conclusion that the Government had taken a wise course in reconsidering their position upon the question. That was a question upon which Irish Members of all sections were unanimous, and it was a question upon which public opinion in Ireland was also

  1047
  unanimous, and it would be received with much gratification to-morrow that at length the Government had agreed to give Ireland the same amount of relief in agricultural rates as they gave last year to England and Scotland. ["Hear, hear !"] He supported the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry upon the ground that he thought that as far as possible England ought to treat Ireland as one country with herself. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that if this money were given it could not be given with what he called the existing antiquated machinery. Speaking as a Unionist, he would like to see the same legislation apply to both countries as far as possible, but he should be very sorry if this antiquated machinery should be a reason for refusing this great relief to those engaged in agricultural pursuits in Ireland. The question of local government in Ireland was. one that had, no doubt, been looked upon with great apprehension by many Unionists in that country, but he thought his right hon. Friend was perfectly correct when he said that a great deal of the resistance to the proposal hitherto made was made because no solution had been come to by which those who would be unrepresented would not have to pay the greater portion of the taxation levied by the local bodies. He now understood that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to remove that apprehension by practically enacting that those who would be to a large extent, if not altogether, the representatives of the local bodies would be the persons who would have to bear the burden of the taxation. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be a narrow policy for Unionists to adopt to say they would offer any hostility whatever to the proposals for local government to Ireland. He agreed with his right hon. Friend that the present system of county government in Ireland had worked well and, he thought, economically, but he admitted it was out of date—["hear, hear !"]—and that sooner or later they must have local government in Ireland. In 1892, when his right hon. Friend proposed his Bill for the local self-government of Ireland, he spoke publicly in Ireland in favour of some such system, and he was glad his right hon. Friend had hit now upon some system by which they could, at
  1048
  least, look forward to having a Local Government Bill for Ireland which would not be cavilled at as putting any unnecessary safeguards upon it. He thought the time had come when they could look upon these proposals in a generous way. So far as he was concerned he should, in speaking of and discussing this question, do all he could to have an effective and proper Measure of local government in Ireland. ["Hear, hear !"] He hoped the announcement his right hon. Friend had made as to the withdrawal of the Agricultural Industries Bill for Ireland did not mean that they were not to have that Bill in some form in the future. ["Hear, hear!"] He would suggest to him that when he was framing his Local Government Bill, and when he was reconsidering the position as regarded the Agricultural Department and Industries Bill, he might find his local councils in Ireland of very great use in enabling him to establish a more satisfactory system. He could only say that, upon such consideration as he had been able to give to the proposals of his right hon. Friend, they seemed to him to be not only statesmanlike, but entirely in accordance with Unionist principles, and it was as a Unionist Member that he would gladly support them. [cheers.]
  MR. DILLONsaid it could not be expected that he should express any opinion on the proposals which had just been submitted to the House by the First Lord of the Treasury. He entirely agreed with the Member for Dublin University that the statement of the First Lord was one of the most important they had listened to from an Irish point of view for many a long day. [Cheers.] He refrained from expressing any opinion as to the important proposals submitted until he had had the opportunity of consulting with his colleagues and ascertaining their views. They were, as the First Lord had told them, to have until next Session to consider his very remarkable statement, and, therefore, there was no reason for being in a hurry to commit oneself for or against the proposals. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. He would like to know what he proposed to do with the money which had already been ear-marked for Ireland, and which was known as the equivalent grant. This was now suspended between heaven and earth, with-

  1049
  out, apparently, being allocated to any object. He would also like to know whether he proposed to apply the principle of an equal or really equivalent grant to Ireland in the present year, or whether he intended that Ireland should be content, so far as the present year went, with the sum of twice £75,000. With regard to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, he desired to point out that of course the landowners of Ireland would get what he thought might very fairly he described as the lion's share of the grant in relief of rates.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOB IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Less than one-half.
  MR. DILLONsaid he supposed it would have been considerably more, but he reserved his judgment on the point until a future occasion, lint he desired to say that he should be prepared to make a considerable financial sacrifice for the sake of arranging a really democratic and liberal system of local government, in Ireland. [General cheers] Until they knew what kind of local government they were going to get, however, it was absolutely impossible for any Nationalist to state what would be his attitude towards the proposals. His own position would be largely influenced by the nature of the local government which was going to be offered, and if, as the price of a really democratic system, and one such as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman pointed to, they were asked to make some sacrifice which appeared to them even an unfair arrangement, with regard to the landlords, he should be sorry to offer any opposition. ["Hear, hear!"]
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, the statement of his right hon. Friend was one of the gravest character and, as far as he could see, without pledging himself in any way, he thought he and his colleagues would view it with satisfaction. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought he could speak for some part of Ireland, and he felt that a scheme of county government such as had been adumbrated by his right hon. Friend would give very great satisfaction. [Cheers] The only regret he had was that his right hon. Friend did not promise, on the part of the Government, to bring in a Bill next year on the lines of the one brought in by the Chief Sec-
  1050
  retary for Ireland this Session. He thought a Bill of that kind would have a very considerable effect in promoting the material prosperity of their country, and he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would not think that because it would be necessary for the Government to bring in a Bill next year, perhaps of a complicated character, they would be forced to abandon the other Bill. ["Hear, hear !"] He expressed his thanks to the Government for their promised scheme, which he believed would give great satisfaction. [Cheers.]
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought the First Lord of the Treasury might congratulate himself both on his statement and on the character of its reception. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought everyone in the House would cordially endorse what the hon. Member for East Mayo had said — that, while the landlords would receive a substantial share of the bonus from the Government, there would be no opposition on that side of the Mouse to their getting it on the understanding that the English system of franchise was conferred upon the people of Ireland. He should like to make one suggestion to the landlord party while that frame of mind continued—whether they could not fairly inaugurate the new era which they had opened up by the manner of the reception of the First Lord's statement by showing, in regard to those evicted tenants, who had been such a difficulty in the country, a slightly different temper from what they had done in the past. ["Hear, hear !"] He would like to make one further remark to the landlord party. He was not grudging them the relief they would get. On the contrary, they helped them to get this relief, and he did not see why they should not share in the profits. [Laughter.] But he would impress on the Government that it would be well to drop this Inquiry into the Land Acts, seeing that the landlords were getting so large a sum as they wove, and practically were getting it with the free will of that side of the House. His further remark was that, having struck a solid vein of common sense— and, as it was said, having struck it rich—he would suggest that the powers conferred on these local bodies should not only be large and ample in the English sense, but that they should be powers

  1051
  especially applicable to the case of Ireland. He thought the form of county government to be set up would enable them to deal with questions such as would have otherwise arisen under the Agricultural Board Bill, and now that Bill had been dropped he thought a great change would be made in the character of their policy. ["Hear, hear!"] The only other remark he would like to make was this. He believed that large economies could be made in the management and administration of Irish affairs. There were 159 Poor Law houses in Ireland, and in his opinion the number could be well cut down to 30 or 40. In Scotland there were only about 60. He believed that enormous reforms could be made by an improvement in, the mode of collection all over the country, which was at present under a dual system; and he believed that the tenants would gain largely under the system proposed by the Government. He could only say that during his brief tenure of his seat in that House he had never known a Tory Government produce such a hopeful and auspicious statement of policy. [cheers.]
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid that though the important statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury primarily, of course, affected Irish Members, it also concerned England and Scotland. He congratulated his right hon. Friend on the manner in which his statement had been received by leaders of various Irish Parties, and he hoped it might not be out of place to say that he believed he would also have the support of Unionist Members representing English, and, he hoped, also Scotch constituencies. He should like to ask one question. He understood that the grant was fixed on the basis of' past expenditures, so that any increase would fall on those responsible for it. [Mr. BALFOUR assented.] He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman assent, because that, of course, was very important as a protection to the Imperial Exchequer. Of course, they could not now go into details, but he believed the proposals of the Leader of the House would receive the cordial and sympathetic support of Gentlemen representing English constituencies.
  MR. J. A. RENTOULdesired to say just a few words. When the Local Government Bill of 1892 was brought before the House, he was much interested in it. He travelled over nearly
  1052
  the whole of Ireland, and met Grand Jurors of every one of the chief counties, and he put before them the nature of the English Local Government Bill, and asked each one of them: —
  "Supposing this Bill were offered to you exactly as it stands, what would you suggest in the way of safeguards and changes?"
  He took down the answers of those Grand Jurors, and in every county he found that, with the exception of one single man, there was not a Grand Juror who would not have accepted the English Bill without a single safeguard of any sort, save in one particular, and that was in reference to the rates. They were afraid of that one thing. They found, for example, to take one Barony, which would probably be the area, of the Local Government elections, that in this Barony there would be 35,000 electors, while quite one-half of the rates would be paid by 26 people. That being so it was perfectly clear that it was of the utmost importance to large ratepayers that economy should be exercised in the County Council. The one fear of those Grand Jurors—who were all landlords, he need not say—had been removed by the statement of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. They would have taken the English Bill without a single safeguard if it had been safeguarded in that one particular, namely, that the new County Council should not be allowed to strike' a higher rate than the average rate say, of the preceding three or five years, or something of that sort. Now that fear, their sole fear, had been entirely taken away, as they themselves would not have to pay, as he understood, a single penny of the rates to be laid out by the County Councils. He hoped that when this Local Government Bill was brought in it would not contain a single safeguard that was not to be found in the Scotch or English Bill; that, in. point of fact, the people of Ireland would be given to see that the local bodies were to be largely in the hands of the tenants, who would be the ratepayers, and that the landlords would have nothing to fear as regarded their own pockets. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Armagh in hoping very earnestly, though he was not pure they had much ground for hoping, that the Bill which had been promised by Government—the Agricultural Industries Bill— would not be dropped, but that they might have that been also. He certainly

  1053
  would be glad for their own sakes if those who insisted on a Commission to try the Land Commissioners would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Louth and would drop their demand for that Commission. ["Hear, hear !"] It was in the landlords' own interest entirely that he made the suggestion, because he firmly believed that the new Commission would be only a pat on the back for the present Land Commissioners, and that the reductions of rent they made after the Commission had reported would be greater and heavier than at present. He hailed with delight the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, and he felt that, there was not a single agricultural constituency in Ireland, whether Conservative or Home Rule, that would not gladly welcome it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It will be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has made. It will be difficult, at the same time, to exaggerate the delicacy and the complicated character of the problem which the Government are going to attempt to deal with. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be gratified, and let me say that in all parts of the House there will be gratification, that there appears to be opened up an avenue to something like an agreement among the different sides of Irish politics upon the subject. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not say a total agreement, but still an agreement in aim and intention; and I hope the statement will be received—I am sure I am justified in saying for hon. Members on this side of the House that we shall treat the proposals of the Government, as shadowed by the right hon. Gentleman, in no carping or grudging spirit. [Cheers.] At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has done a thing which I imagine has never been accomplished before—he will probably acknowledge the fact himself, because he has made a great part of the Queen's Speech for next Session standing at that box in the month of May. [Laughter.] There is obviously one great advantage in thus forestalling the lapse of time. There is an admirable opportunity—and it will greatly assist, I believe, in the settlement of the matter—there is an admirable opportunity for the Government to place their proposals fully before the country
  1054
  before they come to be dealt with by Parliament. Of course, the success of the proposals of the right, hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo pointed out, depends largely, in fact almost entirely, upon the nature of the measure of local government to be granted to Ireland. We must all suspend our judgment upon the whole proposal until we know what is to be the character and the extent of the reform. ["Hear, hear!"] Now, would the Government be able before the end of the Session to produce a Bill for Irish Local Government—a Bill presenting their scheme, which with any modifications further experience might suggest would be the basis of their legislation next Session? There is an opportunity of doing it almost without example. The rest of this Session, as far as I understand it, will consist mostly of holiday. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will therefore be relieved from close attendance in this House. They can thus devote their powers to the elaboration of this Bill. It will then be produced before the end of the Session, and everyone will be free to criticise it during the Recess. [Laughter.] The Government being a wise Government—[Ministerial cheers]—which, of course, we assume— [laughter]—will benefit by these criticisms, and next year will be able to introduce a Measure that will pass with very little difficulty through the House. [laughter] I draw that picture for the delectation of the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he will be well advised, seriously, if he takes the earliest opportunity of putting in shape his proposals for Irish local government, as it is clear that if those proposals are kept in the background, kept in the dark, public opinion on his scheme will have to be suspended during the whole of that time. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYwished to thank the Government for having relieved him of some anxiety. He had repeatedly pledged himself to give Ireland practically the same form of local government as they had in England. That was the great battle-cry to which, since 1885, he had pledged himself over and over again; and he had always felt it to be a somewhat serious matter that they had not attempted to carry it out.

  1055
  He was extremely glad, therefore, that Ireland was about to be given local government, and he hoped to see it done on the English system, for that, as Lord Randolph Churchill used to say, was the real beginning of a final solution of the difficulties between the two islands. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he thought the First Lord of the Treasury was to be congratulated on the reception his statement had met with, not only on the Front Opposition Bench, but it might be safely said that every section of opinion in the House had been heard in the same sense. Certainly his memory would not enable him to recall any statement that had been made, either by a Conservative Government or by any other Government, which had been received with so universal an expression of agreement and satisfaction. ["Hear, hear!"] He had only risen to associate himself with the comments made from the Irish Benches upon the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. That statement was, except in one particular, entirely satisfactory. So far as it included a certain amount of money to be given in relief of the landlords, he, for one, thought it would be exceedingly well spent if in return for that they got a free system of local government for the country, and they were bound to infer from the speech of the First Lord that the system of Government which was to be offered to Ireland would be a system of government of the fullest and freest kind, because he distinctly laid it down that the only reason which made it imperative upon him, according to his view, to insert safeguards in the Bill of 1892, would be entirely removed when the landlords had been relieved from the payment of these rates. ["Hear, hear !"] The only point he regretted in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was where he seemed to give the go-by altogether to the claim which was propounded in the Agriculture and Industries Bill of the Chief Secretary. The comments on that Bill in that House and in Ireland all went in the direction of adverse criticism of its financial provisions, and if those provisions were remedied, then he thought there would be a general feeling amongst Irishmen in favour of some such Measure being carried. ["Hear, hear !"] That
  1056
  was the view of the Recess Committee, which had been considering this matter, and upon which were representatives of every section of Irish political opinion, and he sincerely trusted the shelving of the Bill for the present did not mean its abandonment by the Government, but that in the near future they might see their way to introduce such a scheme again in an amended form that would secure for it general support. ["Hear, hear !"]
  SIR R. PENROSE-FITZGERALDobserved that the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs had asked that some Member representing an English constituency should get up and say he was prepared to recommend the scheme of the First Lord of the Treasury to his constituency. He would respond to that challenge, and say he was confident that the scheme would be received, not only in his own constituency, but by the vast majority of the constituencies in England, with approval. ["Hear, hoar !"] He said so for this reason— in the past, whether they had voted Unionist or Separatist, their main idea had been that full and free justice should be done to Ireland in all matters where it was possible. ["Hear, hear !"] He remembered going with a deputation from County Cork to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose when he was Chief Secretary, and pointing out to him that, although the deputation embraced men of all creeds and politics, there was absolute unanimity as to the object in view. The reply from the right hon. Gentleman was that he had remarked that when it was a question of money all Irishmen were absolutely united. [Laughter.] His reason for advocating this particular scheme was that this £700,000 a year was Irish money to which the country was entitled. The Grand Jury system was to be broken up, and although Grand Jurors in general had done their work with fairness, he recognised that the time had passed when they could have such a body as that, not elected by anybody, but nominated by the Sheriff. He did not look forward with any grave apprehension to the formation of these County Council Boards in Ireland and he believed that this would prove to be one of the best Measures Parliament had ever passed with regard to Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. VESEY KNOXwas anxious to hear what the Government proposed to do with the money which was due this year to Ireland. He would not be particular about the form, so long as Ireland got the money, but he hoped the Government would consider the suggestions made by the right hon. Member for Dublin University and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford. Whether the Government would be able to put forward their Local Government Bill this year or not, he hoped that they would consult Irish opinion during the Recess upon many important questions of machinery and procedure, as, for instance, the organisation of a better system in connection with local loans in Ireland. If the Government would spend the Recess in ascertaining the opinions of all sections of Irishmen on these questions, it would save much valuable time when they brought this Bill before the House. The landlords of Ireland, when placed in positions of trust to represent the people, had shown themselves faithful custodians of the money and interests of the ratepayers, and he ventured to think that in many of these administrative and economic matters the Government would not do wrong in taking the opinion of the Irish people, including the landlords, before finally introducing legislation. This slightly deferred financial been which it was proposed to give to Ireland was not a small one. So far as the tenant directly was concerned, it, meant half the cess, and half the cess was more than equivalent to a reduction of 1s. in the pound of his rent. It was a reduction to be gained by all the tenants without exception, and without legal costs or proceedings. Therefore he believed that the Government would find throughout Ireland that their proposals would be received on both sides with the greatest gratification.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsuggested that the Government might, by a Technical Instruction Bill, do much to assist the large industrial centres of Ireland. Notwithstanding the adverse criticism that had been passed upon the Agriculture and Industries Bill of the Chief Secretary, the general opinion of Ireland, he believed, was in favour of it. If it were possible to secure, even tentatively, until the other Boards and
  1058
  machinery could be set up, the money granted to Ireland, he thought it most desirable that the Government should not postpone everything until next year, but should do as much as possible in the interval. As specially representing one of the large constituencies of Ireland, he asked the Chief Secretary to consider whether he could not grant some remedial measure in connection with technical instruction, and especially in the erection of buildings. In the large centres they were confined to a rate of a penny in the pound, and that penny was not enough to pay the interest on the buildings and to equip the schools. ["Hear, hear!"] But if the Government would give some assistance for the buildings, then the rate and the voluntary subscriptions would be sufficient to carry on this most valuable means of improving the condition of the people. He did not think that the First Lord of the Treasury, who had Scotch blood in his veins, would fall into the trap of launching his Bill before the right time. He thought that the reception of the Government's proposals augured well for the future relations of the three countries.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid I that if the right hon. Gentleman were not yet convinced of the justice of the Irish claim, it was because he had not examined it sufficiently. Every reason which applied to England applied still more strongly to Ireland. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that "the antiquated system of local government" in Ireland would have to be swept away, not only in the counties, but at the centre. The control to be exercised at Dublin over the free popular bodies must be inspired more completely by Irish opinion if the bodies were to work well. He could not join other hon. Members in urging the Government to proceed with the Board of Agriculture Bill and the small Measures which they had conceived before they made up their minds to enter upon a policy of trusting the people. They should wait for the opinion of the people before setting up a Board of Agriculture in Ireland. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having grasped with boldness an excellent principle, and the right hon. Gentleman would have his best wishes in carrying his great programme to a successful issue.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, who was received with cheers: In a very few words I can deal with the questions which have been asked me. With regard to the money which is already allocated to Ireland, Ireland will not lose it. There is a Bill hanging up that money which still stands.
  MR. DILLON: Do you propose to apply it this Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No; it will not be applied this Session. As to the claim of the hon. Member that the money, which would have gone to Ireland if the Bill had been passed this Session, should still go to Ireland, I am afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not look with favour on a suggestion of that character. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made some, remark, and The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY turned to catch the interruption, amid general laughter and cries of "He does consent!"] I did not catch what my right hon. Friend said, but I see no sign of dissent on his part from the opinion which I have expressed. [Laughter.] There is one statement which I must make, in order that there may be no misconception, as to the nature of the relief of rating which is contemplated in the Measure, the outlines of which I have sketched to the House. We propose that the English analogy shall be followed in Ireland, and the rates dealt with will not be upon buildings, but upon agricultural land alone. [Mr. LOUGH: "Not on agricultural buildings?"] No; agricultural buildings are excluded from the English Bill; and there will be no difficulty in framing the Irish Bill to carry out all the objects which I have mentioned, and yet to confine the relief to agricultural land. Incidentally I may mention that the comparative value of Irish agricultural buildings is very much smaller than that of English agricultural buildings. ["Hear, hear !"] The right hon. Member for London University asked me whether the grant was to be a fixed grant. Yes, Sir, it is. That will save the Exchequer if the rates are to rise; and if the anticipations of the hon. and learned Member for Louth are fulfilled, and the result of this new administration is to produce economy, of course, the whole of the gain will go to the Irish occupier; and, in that event, the Ex-
  1060
  chequer will be paying more than half the rates, instead of the half which it will pay in the first instance. ["Hear, hear!"] I have further been asked what is to be the fate of the Agriculture and Industries Bill, and other Measures proposed by the Chief Secretary. I cannot help feeling a certain amount of surprise at the sudden affection which has been displayed for my right hon. Friend's proposals at the moment they have to be abandoned. [Laughter.] We never know how happy our lot is until it is changed; and we never value our gifts until we lose them. [Cheers and laughter.] I was a patient auditor of the Debate on the introduction of the Agriculture and Industries Bill, and I never could have conjectured that there was such enthusiasm pervading all ranks and sections of the House in favour of the Bill. [Laughter.] We still think that it is a Measure which would be very beneficial to Ireland; but now the funds for that Bill are to be allocated differently, and I can give no pledge as to the reintroduction of the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman opposite drew a rosy picture of the progress of Irish legislation next Session, if only it were given to an expectant country in the month of July this year. I do not know whether he is anxious to find a text for his autumn campaign, or whether he thinks a holiday is more agreeably spent in reading the clauses of a Local Government Bill than in—[cries of "Golf!"]—yes, than in playing golf. [Laughter.] But I can hold out no hopes that more material will be given for discussing the Irish policy of the Government than the ample fund of information which I have supplied this afternoon. The hon. Member for Londonderry expressed the hope that in the details of the Measure, especially those parts which were wholly uncontroversial, the Government would do their best to collect Irish opinion and to follow it. I can assure hon. Gentlemen on both sides that my right hon. Friend and myself will be delighted in the preparation of the Bill to receive any suggestions, from whatever quarter, which will tend to the perfection of the Measure. I think that covers the whole ground of the short and interesting Debate which we have had, and it only remains for me to thank hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House

  1061
  who have in so sympathetic a spirit received proposals which we have honestly put forward as being in our judgment for the interest of every class in Ireland. [cheers.]
  MR. CARSONasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [NINTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1897–8.

  CLASS II.
  1. £114,389, to complete the sum for Local Government Board, Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he regretted to hear of the impending retirement of Mr. Cotton, one of the inspectors of the Board, under the "65 Rule." Mr. Cotton was a most faithful, zealous, and experienced public servant; he was the author of several works on local government and engineering questions; and it would be a great misfortune to lose his services under the "65 Rule." He hoped that the Treasury would arrange for an extension of Mr. Cotton's period of service.
  CAPTAIN DONELANdesired again to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary to a matter which was of very considerable interest to a large number of ratepayers in Ireland, especially the ratepayers in the south of Ireland, namely, the unequal and inequitable manner in which the Exchequer grant in aid for the erection of labourers' cottages was allocated, by limiting its application to schemes carried out subsequent to 1891. He asked the Chief Secretary to reconsider his unfortunate decision, announced last Monday, that he would
  1062
  take no steps to remedy the injustice, for he ventured to say that in the annals of English administration in Ireland it would be difficult to discover a more palpable case of injustice than arose from. the present arrangement. One would imagine that the application of the grant had been deliberately designed with a view to punishing those unions which had promptly taken advantage of the Labourers' Dwellings Act for the purpose of building cottages. In the province of Minister, which had set such an excellent example in this respect, no less than 60,192 cottages were built previous to the year 1891, or nearly twice as many as in all the rest of Ireland, and yet the majority of the Unions in the province would receive no relief whatever, because they had put the Labourers' Act into operation long prior to 1891. Two unions in his own constituency, Middleton and Youghal, were amongst the first to take advantage of the Act for the purpose of providing decent cottages for the labourers; and between the years 1883 and 1897, 206 cottages were built in Youghal at a cost of £26,000, and 198 in Middleton at a cost of £25,000. And yet because those unions carried out their schemes before 1891 they would not receive an allowance of one penny from this Exchequer grant, while those unions which in those years left the labourers in hovels unfit for human habitation were to be handsomely rewarded by receiving substantial aid from the grant. He felt confident that the mere statement of these plain, unvarnished, and undeniable facts could not but convince the Chief Secretary of the absolute necessity for taking some steps to remedy this very serious grievance by making the Act retrospective.
  *MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he desired to support very strongly the appeal of his hon. and gallant Friend. He found from the Returns of the Local Government Hoard that in the whole of the north-east of Ulster there was not one single labourer's cottage erected, while in the south and south-western districts very large numbers of cottages had been erected. From Clones to Larne and from Omagh to Newry not a single cottage had been erected, while in the union of Tipperary 435 had been erected; in Cork, 348; in Limerick, 461; in Waterford, 435; in

  1063
  Kanturk, 336; in Cashel, 310; In Trim, 300; in Callan, 352; and in Navan, 305. It would be a great injustice, indeed, if the unions which had put the Labourers' Act into operation early should be deprived of the advantage of the grant-in-aid, and he appealed to the Chief Secretary to supply some retrospective provisions which would extend the relief to those unions that had erected cottages prior to 1891. He desired to discuss the general policy of the Local Government Board in Ireland. The announcement made that evening by the First Lord of the Treasury made it to some extent difficult for the Irish Members to discuss the matter at any great length, because they were promised changes in the system of Irish local government which would go a long way to remedy many of the things of which they had long complained. At present, Ireland was governed by three or four gentlemen who sat in the Custom House, Dublin, in different apartments, and who rarely, if ever, consulted the right hon. Gentleman who in virtue of his position as Chief Secretary was President of the Local Government Board. He had had occasion to approach the right hon. Gentleman on matters of Local Government Board administration; and he was astonished at the ignorance of the right hon. Gentleman in respect to things which were probably done in his name The right hon. Gentleman had no idea of the very serious orders, many of them sealed orders, issued by his subordinates in Dublin, if they were his subordinates, very vitally affecting many sacred interests in different parts of the country. Last week he had to complain to him of the compulsory closing of the Ardagh (Co. Longford) Cemetery against the wishes of the inhabitants, and of the Longford Board of Guardians; yet, when he came to question him about it, the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing of the matter. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it was impossible for him to fulfil the many duties which were cast upon him in his diverse capacities in that House, and accordingly he did not blame him in the matter. He was there as the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and also as the President of the Local Government Board, and he did not seem to be consulted by the other Members of that Board with regard to the onerous
  1064
  duties which he was supposed to perform in connection with it. He hoped one result of the promise which had been made to them that evening would be that the present centralised system of management would be radically altered, and that something in the nature of popular control in connection with the central management would be inaugurated. He hoped that instead of half-pay colonels, or retired officers and navy captains, men would be appointed in whose interest in regard to the Poor Law the public had some confidence. He complained of the class of inspectors who were appointed under the system of the Local Government Board. Men more eminently unsuited to the discharge of the duties they were supposed to perform it would be almost impossible to find, and sometimes they treated the guardians with whom they were brought in contact with very little courtesy. He did not wish to pillory anybody, but his idea, was that these gentlemen were simply wage earners, and did not care a straw about the grave duties they were called on to perform. He took the instance of the union of Belmullet, the people of which were recently brought face to face with starvation. The Local Government Board were wired to, written to, and memorialised on ever so many occasions to do something to relieve the distress, but it would scarcely be believed that the only sympathy they received from the central authority was that an inspector was sent down, who rode into the district on a bicycle one morning and left the next day. He took no pains to ascertain the actual condition of the people or to make a thorough inspection of their grievances, and made a report which was entirely opposed to the state of facts that existed in the locality. When the right hon. Gentleman was called upon to make a statement on the subject he said that the report was a confidential document. He thought it was a public scandal that in a matter of vital importance, where the lives of thousands of people were at stake, the right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to have the Inquiry which was called for openly and above board, and had to rely upon such a report as could be got in this haphazard way. If the inspector in that case had been a man

  1065
  who sympathised with the people there would have been no necessity for the Chief Secretary to have been ashamed of publishing the Report, and relief might have been brought where it was most sadly needed. He could mention other cases in which trouble had arisen, owing to the friction which had taken place from time to time between the guardians and the arrogant inspectors of the Local Government Board. He hoped in the promised reform some effort would he made to appoint these officers, not by political or Party favouritism, but according to their qualifications as proved by examination. With reference to the present workhouse system he cited the case of the county of Longford, in which there were three workhouses. These workhouses were built in 1837, the population of the county in 1841 being 126,000. The population to-day, however, was only 52,000, but there were still the same three workhouses, while the taxation had doubled or trebled since 1841. Nobody who had rend the statements in the Irish medical Press last year and the year before would say that the condition of the inmates of the workhouses was a happy one. He repudiated the statement that their condition was due to a desire on the part of the guardians to treat the inmates harshly for economical reasons. The average Irish Poor Law Guardian was not disposed to be inhumane, but he was compelled to administer certain rules framed for him by the Local Government Board, and if harm was done it was the system that was at fault. He complained of the system of dietary in the workhouses, which was in most cases entirely un-suited to the unfortunate inmates. For the most part the food consisted of coarse bread and milk and a kind of greasy water called by politeness soup. The average cost of this food was 2s. 6d. to 3s. per head. At the same cost a scale of nourishing food could be substituted which though smaller in quantity, would be more suitable and nutritious. Then the so-called infirmaries in average Irish workhouses were little better than death traps. He had visited them, so did not speak from hearsay. The rooms without light, the hard, coarse kind of plank beds which the paupers had to he on, and the want of proper ventilation and attendance, constituted a crave scandal. The
  1066
  Chief Secretary might say all this was the fault of the Poor Law Guardians. But when the guardians, from motives of humanity, tried to remedy it, the Local Government Board pounced upon them, disallowed the expense, and made them pay it out of their own pockets. According to the last report of the Irish Local Government Board in 1875, on a, valuation of £13,500,000, £975,000 was collected in poor rates, averaging 1s. 5¼d, of which 1s. 5¾d. was spent in relief. In 1885 the valuation had gone up to £13,878,000, and the rates collected to £1,260,000. In 1895 £1,44.5,000 was collected for poof rate purposes being an increase of nearly £500,000 in twenty years. While between 1875 and 1895 the population of Ireland had decreased by more than a million, the taxation of Ireland for poor law purposes had increased to the extent of £500,000. The Irish Local Government system was undermanned and overworked. Duties had been cast upon it which did not rationally or properly belong to it, and proper machinery had not been provided for the proper discharge of these duties. At the present time, under the existing Poor Law system, they had to look after the relief of the poor, the administration of the Labourers' Acts, the Public Health Act, the Registration of voters (franchise), Registration of births, deaths, and marriages, the Towns Improvement Act, the Housing of Working Classes Act, and many minor matters which required separate attention. He agreed that some things must necessarily be neglected where so many had to be attended to. But some of the matters entrusted to the Poor Law Guardians were of the greatest importance. Nothing could be of greater importance than the public health of the country. The Public Health Act was worked in Ireland principally by dispensary medical officers. He did not complain of them. In many cases they did their work with a desire to benefit the community. But the Act required considerable amendments. There were many cases which could not be brought within its scope, which should be attended to, while, I hardships were inflicted under it with which their hide-bound system of officialism did not know how to treat. Then the Franchise Act struck at the

  1067
  root of our representative system. It was according to the discharge of the duties under the Act that election to this House took place, and elections to Boards of Guardians and Town Commissioners. How were the ordinary duties peformed under the Act? He asserted on his responsibility as a Member of Parliament, that to his certain knowledge in two cases out of five no franchise forms were served at all, and if served and collected, so inefficient was the system of registration that in a great many cases men were on the list who had been dead and gone for the last five or six years. The Nationalist Members from Ireland were certainly deprived of some portion of their grievances by the statement made earlier in the evening by the Leader of the House. But the poor law system in Ireland was a very antiquated system. It did not perform effectually by any means the duties entrusted to it by Act of Parliament. The very poor of the community were not properly relieved; whilst by the way in which the system was worked officialism took more than its due share of the money, and great changes must therefore be made before the Local Government Board system in Ireland would commend itself to the Irish people. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JAMES DALYdrew attention to the action of the Local Government Board in Ireland. He said he considered it was a most out of date and unsympathetic body, and endeavoured in most cases to flout the wishes and desires of the Boards of Guardians throughout the country. For instance, the Board of Guardians of the Dundalk Union wanted to carry out a main drainage scheme. A large sum of money was necessarily required for the scheme, and the Board desired to carry it out as economically as possible. The Hibernian Bank offered to advance the money at 3 per cent., whereas the old bank at which they kept their account wanted 5 per cent, as well as a mortgage on the property of the Union, and also to charge interest on the overdraft. The Board thought they could do nothing better than take the money from the cheapest source and save the ratepayers 2 per cent, thereby. They accordingly informed the Local Government Board that they proposed to take the money from the Hibernian Bank and to transfer their
  1068
  account to that bank; but the Local Government Board said "No !" The result was that they could not borrow from the cheapest source. It was surprising to think that such a thing could occur in any country. Another matter of which he wished to complain was the unwillingness of the Local Government Board to allow pauper children to be nursed outside. His point was that by placing the children out to nurse with families, they gained a good idea of industry, and it would be found that in most cases in which servants, whereas the children who were turned to the workhouse. They became part and parcel as it were of the family with which they lived, and became good servants, whereas the children who were retained in the workhouses seldom or never came to any good, and were only fit for the gaol or some other such place. He would therefore urge the Chief Secretary to consider seriously whether the Boards of Guardians ought not to have the power to send children out to nurse. In the end it would be found that it was cheaper to do so than to keep the children in the workhouses. ["Hear, hear !"] He had a further complaint to make on the subject in the appointment of Local Government Board inspectors. The gentlemen who were now appointed knew nothing of the work they had to perform, and nearly always had to seek instruction in their duties from some workhouse officials. There was at the present time a competition amongst the inspectors as to who could send in the longest report, and the Boards of Guardians were invariably put to great trouble and pressure in connection with their reports. He would suggest to the Chief Secretary that if possible there should be promotion from amongst the ranks of Union officials. If that were done the work of the Unions would be carried out much better than it was under the present system of appointing half-pay officers, or men who, owing to political influence, were put in the position of Local Government Board inspectors. ["Hear, hear!"] The next point he wished to call attention to was the question of the erection of labourers' cottages. He came from Ulster, and, so far as this question was concerned, he was sorry to belong to that part of Ireland. In all the counties of Ulster only eight or nine cottages had been built

  1069
  under the Act, while in Munster as many as 6,000 had been erected, and in Con-naught 91. In Ulster the unfortunate labourers lived in hovels, in a state of dirt and misery. In answer to a question of his, the right hon. Gentleman said that there remained in the Treasury a sum of almost £12,000 that had not been used for the erection of cottages, and the greater portion of that sum should have been used in Ulster if the Boards of Guardians had done their duty. He would like to know why the Local Government Board did not compel the Boards of Guardians to do their duty in this respect? The right hon. Gentleman was responsible in that House for this state of things, and he hoped he would see that the Boards of Guardians in Ulster erected cottages when application was made to them. ["Hear, hear !"] If the right hon. Gentleman went through Ireland he could not fail to notice the vast difference between the condition of labourers who lived in cottages erected under the Act and those who did not. The difference that was to be noticed in the children of these two classes of people was extraordinary. The representatives of the tenant farmers in Ireland had been fighting in that House to obtain for them the possession of their own holdings, and while they did that it was also their duty to try and get for the labourers their own houses, as it enabled them to dispose of their labour to the best advantage. ["Hear, hear!"] There was another matter which very much affected the ratepayers of Ireland, and that was with regard to the deportation of paupers. He had for a long time past been questioning the light hon. Gentleman on this subject, but, he was sorry to say, with very little result. He could not help giving the Government credit for the reply—which he attributed to the hon. Member for South Tyrone— with regard to deportation. They were perfectly satisfied with that reply, which was that the Local Government Board would invite a conference on the subject with the Scotch and English Votes, so that they might arrange some way of preventing the deportation of Irish paupers. It was then found out, after long looking for, that it was owing to the Scotch Office, which declined to interfere in the matter. Anyone who heard the answer from the Scotch Office would
  1070
  think that it was the Concert of Europe that was proposed, instead of a conference of the three Local Government Boards. It was impossible that this matter could go on. It was so great a grievance in 1843 that Englishmen and Scotchmen protested against there being one law for them and another law for Irishmen. Lord Londonderry, of the time, and no one would doubt his politics, opposed heart and soul that paupers who had spent the best of their days in England and Scotland, should be deported back to Ireland to districts which had never profited by a farthing from them. But it was the same thing now with regard to financial grievances—the Irish Members were voted down. In 1843 a remarkable thing happened. It was the Liberals who passed the law which allowed Irish paupers to be sent back to Ireland, and in 1897 it was a Tory Government which would not give the relief due to Ireland on the financial relations question. Whether the Government was Liberal or Tory, it was prepared to defraud Ireland. He hoped they were going to have a brighter future for Ireland, and that after the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury he hoped this would be the last time that Irishmen would have to complain of a grievance which had been going on for 45 years. They were 45 years behind England and Scotland. Surely, as they paid an equal share of the taxes for Imperial purposes, they ought to have an equal share in the grants. If they went to a Division, he should, if necessary, move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000. This was no Party question. Besides affecting English ratepayers, it was an insult and a stigma on Ireland. He would mention ! another matter on this question. If a pauper removed from one part of Ireland to another, not a farthing of money could the Guardians spend to remove him back to his own union. If an Englishman or Scotchman became chargeable on any union in Ireland, not one penny of the ratepayers money could be used to send him back; but from Great Britain the rates could be used to send a man back to Ireland. Now this was an injustice.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid the hon. Member could not discuss English and Scotch matters on this Vote. That was not the proper time to discuss this grievance.
  MR. DALYsaid the Local Government Board had taken action in this matter, and he thought there was no other occasion when this matter could be brought forward.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBcalled attention to the subject of dispensary doctors, who were not now of a character on which the remote districts could be congratulated. He did not insinuate that the right hon. Gentleman or his Department were in any way responsible for the present state of things, because everybody knew that the appointments of dispensary doctors were vested in the Dispensary Committees of Boards of Guardians. Often local and family prejudices prevailed and good men had little chance of appointment. He hoped that in any scheme of local government for Ireland the question of the appointment of dispensary doctors would not be overlooked, and that it would be placed in the hands of the County Councils or some larger bodies than the present Dispensary Committees of Boards of Guardians. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the tramp question was as difficult a one in Ireland as in England. He could not help thinking, however, that some, at least, of the difficulty would disappear in Ireland if the Guardians enforced the rules more stringently.
  MR. P. J. POWERthought it would be found that in the appointment of dispensary doctors in Ireland much the same condition of things prevailed as in England. In opening the discussion his hon. and gallant Friend drew attention to the way in which the money allocated to Irish purposes was given to the different Boards of Guardians. The reply the Chief Secretary gave the other day on this point did not commend itself to any man of justice. The Labourers' Cottages Act was passed in the early eighties, and many Boards of Guardians undertook to erect cottages under the Act. A grunt was now being given to Boards of Guardians according to the number of cottages being erected. No heed, however, was paid to the cottages erected prior to 1891. That was manifestly unfair, indeed it amounted to the putting of a premium upon Boards doing little or nothing. The machinery of the Act was complicated and cumbersome,
  1072
  and it was only just that those Boards who undertook to put it in operation, should have some benefit from their enterprise and that the ratepayers of the localities should not be fined on account of the Act being administered. As to the working of the Act he noticed from the Estimates that there were a certain number of inspectors employed by the Local Government Board, and also a certain number of engineering inspectors. When money was advanced, on loan to the Boards of Guardians, the Local Government Board insisted that their inspectors should visit the cottages and see that the money had been fairly laid out. At present there were only two engineering inspectors, and the number of cottages erected, particularly in Munster and Leinster, was very great, with the result that the different Boards of Guardians were asking month after month that inspectors should be sent down to see the cottages, but were being informed by the Local Government Board that they had not sufficient staff. He was not anxious to increase the staff of the Board, but means should be found by which the cottages erected could be officially inspected. There was another point connected with labourers' cottages which he desired to mention. Several Boards of Guardians, especially in Munster, had been anxious to be empowered to give-small prizes with a view to encouraging labourers to keep their cottages and garden plots in order. For some reason or other the Local Government Board had always set their faces against the idea. He did not mean to say that the cottages were badly kept now, but the offering of such prizes would, he was sure, do good. In Connaught many of the ratepayers were as poor as the labourers, and, therefore, he thought the Treasury might do something to lessen the rate of interest on the money lent. In connection with the Vote there was another matter he wished to call attention to. One of the duties of the Poor Law Commissioners was to prepare the Parliamentary and other registers. The present system of preparing the Parliamentary register in counties was absurd. In towns and cities the register was prepared by sheets, and alphabetically by sheets the system I worked well. He had already brought in a Bill providing for the preparation of: the Parliamentary register by townlands.

  1073
  No question of Party was involved, but the change proposed would relieve the clerks of unions of a, great deal of trouble, simplify the preparation of the register, and make the register more exact. The hon. Member for South Leitrim had tried his best to get the Bill through, but it was always blocked, and he believed that the Attorney General for Ireland was opposed to the Bill. What the right hon. Gentleman's reasons were for opposing it he did not know, and he trusted they would be stated.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing an alleged grievance that could only be remedied by legislation, and, as I have repeatedly reminded the Committee, subjects for legislation cannot be discussed in Supply.
  MR. P. J. POWERsaid that there was no more dismal reading than the statistics published by the Local Government Board, because they showed that the population of Ireland was decreasing, while taxation was increasing. In England there was, on the contrary, an increasing population and decreasing taxation. Allusion had been made to the question of the boarding out of children. He had some experience in Poor Law administration, having been chairman of large Board of Guardians for some 15 years, and he could corroborate what had been said by the hon. Member on that subject. The system prevailed to a large extent in his union, and he could hardly call to mind a single case of a child's returning to the union after it had been sent out to nurse. Of course, supervision was necessary, and the people to whom children were sent must be respectable. He believed that in 99 cases out of 100 the child was regarded as a member of the family to which it was sent, and in many cases it was given the family name The system had worked well in Waterford Union, and he hoped to see it extended. The administration of the Poor Law in Ireland compared favourably in many respects with its administration in this country. He had often heard it said that Nationalist and Catholic Board of Guardians in Ireland behaved with intolerance towards the Protestant minority, but he did not believe that the allegation could be substantiated. In the Waterford Union there were only some 12 non-Catholic inmates.
  1074
  They had a ward and matron to themselves, and a respectable salary was paid to a clergyman of the Church of England who administered to their spiritual wants. A room had been specially prepared at a cost of about £100 for the Protestant services. An example of that kind might, he thought, be imitated with advantage in English unions in which there were Catholics. In conclusion, he asked the Chief Secretary to do what he could to facilitate the working of the Labourers' Act, and urged that it was desirable to appoint more inspectors to superintend the erection of cottages and to see that the money devoted to the purpose was properly expended.
  MR. JASPER TULLYsaid that they had all welcomed the announcement made that day by the First Lord of the Treasury, to the effect that a new system of local government was to be established in Ireland. The antiquated machinery, as it had been called, that now existed had been the means of debasing public life in parts of Ireland. In consequence of the system of proxy voting, and of ex-officio members, the local boards in Ireland were not under the control of the majority of the people in a district. They were in the hands of cliques, and were ruled by the officials of the Departments. He knew some Boards in which the Clerk to the Union was paramount. In these Boards if any independent member tried to remedy abuses the Clerk managed to get rid of him by playing upon the prejudices and partisan proclivities of the landlords and others. That was possible, because under the proxy system one landlord had more than 30 votes, while the ordinary ratepayer had only one. They wanted a system through which the fresh air of public opinion could blow. The hon. Member for Yarmouth seemed to think that there ought to be further restraints upon public control, and that in remote districts the people, through the Dispensary Committees, ought not to be allowed to select their own medical officers; but when, matters had been taken out of the hands of the people's representatives and transferred to the Local Government Board, the change had always been for the worse. The administration of the Franchise Acts in Ireland illustrated his objection to the retrogade proposals of the hon. Member

  1075
  for Yarmouth. By these Acts it was provided that once every year forms should be issued to every ratepayer, so that a return might be supplied of everyone entitled to be put upon the register. The officials were formerly paid according to the number of notices they issued and the number of names appearing upon the lists. In places where the people were all of the same way of thinking politically, there was really no necessity for sending out these forms, and the Guardians did not insist that the notices should be served. The Local Government Board, however, influenced by the representations of their officials, who wanted to make more money and who thought it a hardship that they should have to go to the Guardians for payment under the Franchise Acts, and that the Guardians should be entitled to refuse payment when no work had been done, instituted a new system, under which these officials were paid very highly. What was the result? In districts in Westmeath, Longford, Roscommon, and Sligo the officials, knowing that their salaries were fixed, issued no new notices at all, and allowed the registers to remain neglected. The Guardians and ratepayers were, therefore, now paying for work that was not done. He urged upon the Chief Secretary to inquire into this matter, in the interests of the ratepayers of Ireland and of the British Treasury. There was another matter to which he wished to call attention. The gentlemen, who were appointed as Poor Law Inspectors varied their policy under different Governments. When a Liberal Government was in power they were as mild as sucking doves, but when a Tory Government was in office they acted like autocratic pro-Consuls determined to wipe out from existence Boards of Guardians that were not very civil and humble. The Athlone Union, for example, was dissolved because the Nationalist chairman of the Board was not sufficiently respectful to the Poor Law Inspector, but in the adjacent Union of Mullingar the Inspector was treated deferentially, and the consequence was that things were done in that union which would not be permitted elsewhere. He had put a Question to the Chief Secretary that day with regard to affairs in that Union, and he was sure the right hon.
  1076
  Gentleman would admit that his reply was a practical admission of the grave charges he embodied in that Question, and demanded some sort of inquiry or action on his part. Take the medicine contract. The Clerk of the Union issued two classes of advertisements, one in the local papers and another in the Dublin papers. In the advertisement published in the local papers it was made a condition that the firms tendering should send in a letter saying they were tendering. There was no such absurd condition mentioned in the Dublin papers, and, consequently, when the tenders from Dublin or Cork, or Sligo came in, the clerk held that they wore informal because they had not complied with this condition, and they were never opened. The contract was given to the local contractor, in whose employment was the brother of the Clerk of the Union. The attention of the Local Government Board Inspector was called to the matter, and a sworn Inquiry was held. It was then found that, while the local contractor had charged £71 1s. for some of the items, the price given by Messrs. Leslie in their tender for the same items was only, £40 10s. 11d. The result was that practically £300 or £400 was simply given away to the local contractor. What else happened? "Extras" had to be charged according to the ordinary Dublin wholesale houses' list. There was no wholesale list in this case, and the local contractor made up a wholesale list of his own and charged accordingly; and this clerk passed it. The Local Government Board, in their Report, found that the local contractor had been paid large sums for "extras" which he was not entitled to and they decided that he was unfit to have the contract. Advertisements were again issued last year, and again Dublin, Cork, and Sligo houses tendered, as well as this local contractor, and again, through the friends of this clerk, the contract was voted to the same person, in spite of the finding of the Local Government Board that he was unfit to hold a, contract in that Union. In their Report last year the Local Government Board said that—
  "After a careful consideration of all the facts of the case, and having regard to the gross system of overcharging practised, they have come to the conclusion that the local contractor should not be entrusted with the supply

  1077
  of the medicines, and the Board must accordingly request that the Guardians will forthwith give notice to cancel the contract."
  In face of these facts the right hon. Gentleman said the Local Government Board had no power to dissolve the contract.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly not.
  MR. TULLYsaid that he understood it so. Then with regard to the administration of outdoor relief in the same Union. An independent Committee, which inquired into the matter, found that—
  "about £1,000 a year is distributed by the relieving officer in the electoral division of Mullingar, which has put 1s. 8d. in the pound on that division, and that a considerable amount of this outdoor relief is spent in the public houses."
  The Union was paying 2s. a head for outdoor relief, whereas in Belfast it was done at 1⅞d. per head, and in North Dublin at 4½d. per head. In the adjoining Union of Athlone, with almost the same population as Mullingar, the outdoor relief was only 8½d. per head of the population. The list of those who received outdoor relief showed that in many cases it was given to persons who had absolutely no claim to it. This Committee found that the list of persons who received relief should be printed quarterly and distributed among the ratepayers and posted all over the districts, but that this had not been done for a considerable time past. This was through the default of the Clerk of the Union. He thought these things were sufficient cause for personal inquiry by the Chief Secretary, for he was sure he would not tolerate any such scandal in any Union. Then with regard to the administration of the Sanitary Acts in Ireland, he thought that in any future legislation greater power should be given to the local authorities which might be set up under the machinery promised by the First Lord of the Treasury. At present the Sanitary Acts in very large parts of Ireland were practically a dead letter, owing to the limited powers of the magistrates and the guardians. He welcomed the announcement of the Leader of the House that the antiquated machinery which had produced some of the evils he had put before the House was about to be abolished, and that they were going to
  1078
  get something in the shape of local government as it existed in England and Scotland, which would let a little fresh air and public opinion into the affairs of Ireland.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the discussion had travelled over a large and varying area, and he would do his best to reply to the points raised. Complaint had been made that the Exchequer contribution applied retrospectively only to the year 1891. The law as it stood did not allow the application of this money to the case of cottages sanctioned before 1891,and this year had been chosen, for the application of the money because it was the first year when the money was granted by Parliament as being available. He was aware that almost all the schemes carried out by the guardians in the south of Ireland had been carried out prior to 1891. But the purpose of Parliament was to encourage the building of cottages, and if the application of the money had been made retrospective to all the cottages built since the Labourers' Acts began it was clear that there would have been a far less sum of money available to encourage building cottages in other parts of Ireland. Next, complaint had been made of the administration of the Local Government Board, and particularly that the Local Government Board acted in practical independence of the Parliamentary authority of the Chief Secretary. No doubt there were a considerable number of instances in which the Local Government Board considered that it was entitled to act without consulting the Chief Secretary. It must be obvious that if the Chief Secretary was to be consulted by the Local Government Board on every question which arose, however minute and controversial, it would be a very great waste of time of the Chief Secretary. If cases arose where the Local Government Board appeared to have acted without due discretion, and those cases were brought to the attention of the Chief Secretary, they would be immediately inquired into. He did not think that it could be shown that there were many cases, even any, in which the Local Government Board had acted on its own responsibility without consulting the Chief Secretary in a matter of controversial character. As to the Armagh cemetery, he believed that the actual issue of the Order was suspended for a time, but the decision was come to

  1079
  in the time of his predecessor. The vague accusations which had been made against the inspectors were difficult to meet, but he could not say that he had many, or even any, complaints before the present as to the scant courtesy shown by the inspectors towards the Boards of Guardians. Nor was it correct to say that the inspectors did not take interest in their work. The Belmullet Union and the case of the inspector had been referred to, but the Report which he had received from Mr. Robinson could not be laid on the Table of the House because it was a confidential document. As to the workhouse system, he would be the last to say that he was satisfied with that system in Ireland. He had brought in a Bill the object of which was to make a thorough reform of that system in Ireland possible. It was impossible to pass that Measure this year, but he hoped sooner or later to see an amalgamation of unions which would be likely to form the best foundation for workhouse reform in other directions. The Local Government Board was continually trying to improve its administration, and he could not say that many complaints had come before him to show that the strictures of hon. Members as to dietary, ventilation, and so forth were justified. As to the desirability of adopting the system of boarding-out workhouse children, he thought its extension to Ireland would be of the greatest possible benefit, and he had included it in the Bill introduced by himself this year. ["Hear, hear !"] It was said the Boards of Guardians were overridden by the Local Government Board, and that the inspectors were engaged in rivalry as to who should suggest the most extensive and expensive works. It was absolutely inaccurate to say that there was any desire on the part of the Local Government Board to override the Boards of Guardians, nor could he admit that the inspectors were open to the charge of making recommendations intended to annoy the Boards of Guardians. It was an absolute travesty of facts. He was bound to put on record that he believed the inspectors did their duty,often difficult and delicate, in a most efficient manner. As to the suggestion that the inspectors should be appointed from, the same class as the Guardians, he held that it would be unsound in principle to select men for
  1080
  positions of authority from the class they were to control, and he did not think that the Poor Law system of Ireland or the public interest would gain, if the inspectors were drawn from, a class below in intelligence and education that from which they were drawn at present. He now came to the question of the deportation of paupers. He was sorry if he had given the hon. Member for Monaghan any occasion to complain of any answer he had given him. He trusted he had never been guilty of anything like intentional discourtesy. But it was just possible that he had got tired of answering questions which drove him to say the same thing over and over again, and if he had unintentionally fallen into any apparent want of courtesy he apologised. ["Hear, hear !"] But when the hon. Member said that in this matter of the deportation of paupers Ireland was 45 years behind England and Scotland, and blamed the Government for not bringing Ireland up to a, level with England and Scotland, he might remind him of what he said when the question was raised in the Debate on the Address—viz., that, in his (Mr. Balfour's) opinion, it was not a question of bringing Ireland up to a level with England, but rather the other way. It was rather the English, and still more the Scotch, system that cried out for alteration. If he received a universal expression of opinion from hon. Members for Ireland that in this matter of the deportation of paupers the law of Ireland should be changed so as to enable English and Scotch paupers to be deported from Ireland in the same way as Irish paupers were deported from England and Scotland—[cries of "No !"]—he should say that in his judgment they were making a mistake. Still, be would carefully consider such a suggestion. But he was helpless unless he had the co-operation of the Local Government Boards of Scotland and England.
  MR. DALY: Are they all under the same Government—English, Scotch, and Irish?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No doubt they were under the same Government. But, as hon. Members knew, the law was not actually the same in the three countries, and no Minister for one part of the kingdom could act as if he was perfectly independent of the Ministers for the others. This matter must rest, in the

  1081
  first instance, with the Local Government Boards. Unless the Scotch Local Government Board consented to an alteration of the law such as would satisfy Ireland, he was powerless. But negotiations were going on, and he did not despair of their being successful. But it was not the fault of the Irish Local Government Board that the desires of hon. Members opposite were not given I more speedy effect. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor of the' English?"] Nor of the English. ["Hear, hear !"] A complaint had been made of the deterioration of the dispensary doctors. The alleged deterioration had been denied by the hon. Member for East Waterford. He was not able of his own knowledge to offer any opinion on the matter, but hon. Members might be assured that it should have his consideration. It was impossible, however, to suggest that the appointment of the dispensary doctors should be taken out of the hands of the properly constituted authority. ["Hear, hear !"] The hon. Member for East Waterford made a suggestion on which he should like to say one word. He said that he thought it desirable that prizes should be offered by Boards of Guardians for the best kept labourers' cottages. Well, it might be a very good thing if prizes were offered for the best kept labourers' cottages. But it did not seem to him that that was an expenditure which should come out of the rates. It should be rather a matter for local effort. He thought it would be a very good thing indeed if private subscriptions were raised for such a purpose, as was done in many parts of England and Scotland, for it tended to give the labourers an interest in their cottages, and undoubtedly had the effect of raising their morale generally. ["Hear, hear !"] Coming to the speech of the hon. Member for South Leitrim, who made a series of charges against the Local Government Board, he thought it could hardly be expected that he should deal with them in detail. It was absolutely necessary to have warning beforehand of such matters as he had raised.
  MR. TULLY: I asked the right hon. Gentleman several questions.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes; and I answered those questions. It appeared to him most extraordinary that the hon.
  1082
  Member should have raised the question of the suspension of the Board of Guardians for Athlone. That matter was discussed amply when the Vote was before the House last year. The hon. Member ventured to say that the Athlone Board was wiped out because" it would not submit to the will of the inspector. I He did not know whether the hon. Member was present when that matter was: discussed last year. Had he been present, the did not think he would have made the charge he had now made. The details had to a certain extent escaped his memory; but he did remember this, that the Board of Guardians at Athlone was removed because of their persistent refusal to appoint trained nurses, a refusal which produced disastrous results. He made a most ample and explicit statement of the action of the Local Government Board in connection with this matter last year, and after that explanation he did not think a single Member on either side of the House ventured to rise in support of the Athlone Board of Guardians, and the Motion on the subject was withdrawn. He did not wish to use strong language, but he certainly thought that a great many of the charges which were made against the officials in Ireland, whether of the Local Government Board or other departments, should not be brought forward without more careful inquiry into the facts. Those gentlemen were not present to defend themselves; their case had to be left in his hands. It did not assist officials to discharge the onerous duties which were thrown upon them to know that in this House there were so many Members who came forward and made charges against them which, the moment they were investigated, hopelessly broke down.
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLexpressed disappointment that the Chief Secretary had held out no hope of any immediate remedy on the question of deportation. It was a crying grievance, and it was not sufficient to say that because one Department in the same Government threw some difficulty in the way of other Departments, there could be no legislation. The Government, if they came to the conclusion that the law required reform, could compel the Scottish Local Government Board to acquiesce in the general views of the Administration.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Why did not you do it when you wore in office?
  *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Why? He believed there was a Bill actually prepared, but owing to that unfortunate vote about cordite—[laughter]—there was not an opportunity of submitting that Bill to the House. But unquestionably it was a crying grievance and ought to be promptly remedied. The question of deportation stood by itself and was not involved in the general question of Poor Law administration. A repeal of certain sections of some Acts of Parliament would obviate the difficulty and deprive the guardians of Glasgow or any other large town in Scotland or England of the power of deporting Irish paupers simply because Ireland happened to be the place of their birth.
  MR. DAVID SHEEHYcondemned the reply of the Chief Secretary as very unsatisfactory. At present, some unions were suffering for the diligence with which they had put in force an Act passed by this House. Was that a way to encourage them to diligence? The unions that put the Act in force for the first seven or eight years were to be excluded for that period from all the advantages offered by the Act, and that was an injustice. The question of the deportation of Irish paupers from English and Scotch workhouses was also a crying grievance, and yet, although the grievance was brought forward year after year, nothing was done to redress it.
  MR. M. J. FLAVINreferred to the large number of labourers cottages which had been built by the guardians in the various unions of Minister, and said he did not think the Chief Secretary had gone sufficiently far in his promise to look into the matter, if he did not take into account the cottages erected prior to 1891, and give some remuneration to the unions which had provided them. In this connection he read a petition from the Trade Union, addressed to the Chief Secretary, stating that under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts, 1883 and 1885, petitioners erected 156 labourers' cottages, at an expenditure of £17,000, being one of the first unions to avail of the Acts, the district having been greatly benefited by the erection of the cottages. The ratepayers of the district had, at the same time, undertaken large liabilities and heavy yearly
  1084
  payments which exceptionally increased the rates on the already over-burdened ratepayers:
  "A great deal of public discontent has been caused throughout the entire Union by the announcement that other unions, in which some cottages have been built under the Labourers' Acts, subsequent to the year 1891, would now receive substantial relief by way of contribution from the Exchequer grant of £40,000 a year, towards the erection of labourers' cottages, while this union, where cottages had been more largely built in the preceding years, as well as the other unions—the large majority—that voluntarily availed of the original Acts before the year 1891, would get no relief whatever from this or any other source. Your petitioners believe that the mere statement of this fact, without any enlargement on the inequality of the distribution, or the hardship of the case, will sufficiently justify this memorial. Your petitioners therefore submit that they are justly entitled to relief in the proportion of their expenditure equally with any other union in Ireland, and claim that further legislation, if it be necessary, should be introduced to give effect to their just claims."
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: From that statement it appears that further legislation would be necessary, and, that being so, the matter cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.
  MR. FLAVIN: They do not say that further legislation is necessary, but that if it be necessary. It is a question of opinion.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: It is obvious that further legislation would be necessary.
  MR. FLAVINsaid he would merely remark on this head that many other unions had adopted similar petitions. The Chief Secretary had stated that England, Ireland and Scotland were the three branches of the one Government, but on the question of the deportation of paupers he did not for the life of him see why Ireland should be treated on a different basis to England and Scotland. He felt as an Irishman that it was a great injury to his countrymen that they were not allowed to send back to England or Scotland the Scotch or English pauper who was living in Irish workhouses at the expense of the Irish ratepayers, while English and Scotch officials were allowed to send back to Ireland a pauper who happened to be Irish born, so that he became a burden to the Irish workhouse.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That point has already been raised two or three times, and on every occasion I have called the hon. Member so raising it to order, pointing out that this can only be altered by legislation, and, therefore, cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.
  MR. FLAVINdid not intend to continue the discussion on that point, and he would proceed to a matter which had been brought to the attention of the Chief Secretary by a dozen and a half or two dozen resolutions, namely, the great distress which existed in the Listowel Union. The first resolution adopted by the Listowel Board of Guardians with reference to the distress was passed in the middle of November last. They then saw that, owing to the failure of the crops, distress must inevitably ensue. They summoned a special meeting to consider the matter, and after duo consideration of the facts they adjourned the meeting and asked for a complete report from the ex officio as well as from the elected members of the Board, from Catholic as well as Protestant clergymen, from Conservative, Liberal, and Nationalist alike. They furnished their report to the Clerk of the Union, who forwarded a, copy to the Chief Secretary for Ireland as President of the Local Government Board. After considering that report, the right hon. Gentleman was asked a question in the House of Commons on the 13th February as to whether, owing to the great distress, some relief works could not be started or assistance given to the Union. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman stated that careful inquiry had been made as to the condition of the poorer classes in the Listowel Union, and the conclusion had been arrived at that it would not be necessary to supplement the resources of the Poor Law by starting relief works. As far as he himself could see, the resources of the Poor Law Board were simply to increase the present rate of taxation, which was already sufficiently heavy, the rate in the Listowel Union, exclusive of a water rate for Listowel town, being 13s. 6d. in the pound. It was true that the inspector of the Local Government Board had reported that there was no practical distress, but this was entirely opposed to the report of all the Guardians, Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and
  1086
  Nationalist. Ex officio Guardians, like the late Mr. George Hewson, like Major Kidgell and Captain Leslie, reported that there was great distress. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to contradict the statements which he had read. How could the evidence of an official who had spent all his life in Dublin be set against the evidence of all these persons in the locality?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the statements read by the hon. Member consisted principally of expressions of opinion from those who would be benefited by the expenditure of the money.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that he had a personal knowledge of all these questions, or he would not bring them before the right hon. Gentleman. On the 28th January, the Listowel Board of Guardians sent a resolution to the right hon. Gentleman asking that relief works might be established owing to the great distress. On the 4th February and the 25th February they sent other resolutions, and on the 25th March they sent a final resolution urging that a loan of seed oats was of the greatest necessity.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he did not decline to make a loan, but pointed out that if such a loan was to be made, legislation would be required. He said that he was prepared to consider the necessity of legislation if there was a general desire for it among the Unions of the West of Ireland.
  MR. FLAVINasked what the unfortunate Listowel Union was to do in the meantime? The right hon. Gentleman had done nothing for the district or the county, and the Listowel Board believed that they had a right to have their case heard on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman had not an intimate personal knowledge of the country. When he visited it, he associated with the wealthier class, and however kind and sympathetic he might be, he could not know how the poor people, lived.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that he failed to see how this was relevant to the Vote for the Local Government Board.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that his contention was that distress existed in the Union, and ought to be met.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that the only way of meeting it suggested by the hon. Member was by a grant of money, which would require legislation, and could not, therefore, be discussed in Committee of Supply.
  MR. FLAVINsaid that his argument was that it was absolutely impossible for the local authority to meet this distress, for the rates were now 13s. 6d. in the pound. He hoped that the Chief Secretary would consider the case of those poor men who had seven or eight children to support, and who did not earn as much as 8s. a week all the year round.
  [After the usual interval, Mr. GRANT LAWSON took the Chair.]
  *R. J. PINKERTONappealed to the Chief Secretary that the Exchequer grant of £40,000 for the erection of cottages under the Labourers' Acts allocated to unions in the north of Ireland, where there was no desire evinced to put the Acts in operation, should be spent in unions in the south and west, whore labourers' cottages were being largely built and were much needed. In Ballymoney and Coleraine no applications had been made for cottages. Yet if it were proposed to the guardians of those unions that the money should be spent in the south and west they would strongly oppose it. This was a "dog in the manger" policy. With regard to the conduct of the Poor Law officials in Ireland, he considered that, on, the whole, they acted fairly and squarely in transactions between the guardians and the Government. He did not agree with the hon. Member for West Cavan that the lot of the inmates in workhouses had been made harder by the action of the Poor Law Inspectors. In Ballymoney the inspectors recommended that the paupers should have knives and forks, washstauds and wardrobes. These things would make the standard of comfort in the workhouse greater than it was outside. Many of the ratepayers did not possess knives and forks, washstands or wardrobes. Many of them had not even pegs on which to hang their clothes. As to the appointment of paid nurses, he was anxious that the paupers should be
  1088
  treated with the greatest kindness, and that everything should be done to improve the condition of the aged and infirm, but it pressed hardly on the ratepayers when three trained nurses were appointed to do the work of one, assisted by the inmates, and when rooms were built and furnished to accommodate the nurses. The ratepayers were poor people and while they were anxious to make the people as comfortable as possible they had no desire that a set of useless officials should be appointed to meet the demands of the medical inspectors. This agitation in favour of paupers did not start with the ordinary inspectors. The doctors throughout Ireland were the first to raise a howl of indignation that the paupers were not properly treated. For his part, he feared the pendulum would swing too far. Money not required for labourers' cottages in the northern unions should be spent in the south and west. But not a single guardian in Ballymoney or Coleraine would release his grasp on a single penny that might otherwise cross the Boyne. There were Poor Law divisions from which not a single inmate was in the workhouse. Yet the rates charged on those divisions fell little short of other divisions when there was a considerable number of inmates in the "house." Money had not been spent legitimately, but upon a system of fostering officials. He had no desire to increase the number of officials or the red tapeism of their Department. Instead of agitating for a system which would entail further expense on the ratepayers, he would prefer to see the system modified in such a way as would entail no suffering on the inmates of workhouses, and prevent the waste of public money. The conditions of life in the southern and western unions were entirely different from those of life in the northern unions. No one who had travelled through the south and west of Ireland could say that labourers' cottages were not required there. Yet the Government were putting a stumbling block in the path of progress as regarded the south and western unions in the interests of a part of the country which did not need a penny of the £40,000 reserved. He trusted the Chief Secretary would reconsider the matter and grant some concession to the southern and western unions.
  DR. E. AMBROSEsaid he would not follow the Chief Secretary in his praises of inspectors of workhouses in Ireland. He would refer to the distress that existed in certain parts of Ireland. No person, it had been said, was in receipt of relief in the Westport Union, But in February last there were 1,320 persons relieved, which, compared with 608 in February 1896, showed an increase of 712. Nothing had been done to relieve this distress. In Achill in February 1896, 46 persons were in the receipt of outdoor relief, whereas the number in February 1897, was 417; a difference of 371. It was not only in the Westport Union that the bunion was felt, but throughout the whole of County Mayo. In 1841 the population of the county was 388,887. In 1891 it was 219,034, a decrease, in the course of 50 years, of 169,853. Yet he found that the Poor Rate had almost doubled. In 1886 it was 9d.; in 1876, 11d.; in 1886, 1s. 3d.; in 1896, 1s. 1d.: and in 1897, 1s. 2d. In the Westport Union the rate was at present 2s. 2d., and in the Achill Island 4s. 6d. A remarkable speech was delivered in Paris the other day by the British Ambassador on the improvement of the condition of the masses, and the decline of pauperism; and he stated that he could give figures to show the decline of pauperism. But he left out Ireland altogether, though he could have shown that in recent years pauperism had doubled in Ireland. This condition of things was not confined to County Mayo. It was also to be found in County Galway. He had a letter in his pocket from a gentleman describing the state of things in that county, in which he said that 20 per cent, of the people for three or four months in the year—except a famine year, which was their best year, because it brought them relief work— lived on food that neither God nor man nor Nature ever meant as food for human beings. Let the Chief Secretary or his right hon. and learned and lackadaisical Friend the Attorney General for Ireland go down to the Clifden Union and see for themselves the condition of things. They would find that in that Union and outside its borders; estates had been bought up by land jobbers. He would not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the craving manner of some of his hon. Friends. He would demand in the
  1090
  name of justice that justice should be done in these localities. Let the right hon. Gentleman send down inspectors who would tell the truth. For his part, he protested against the action of the inspectors who had been sent into Mayo. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. DENIS KILBRIDEsaid he could not agree with the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway City. In his speech he dealt not only with Conservative Ulster, but also with Nationalist Ulster. His hon. Friend drew no line of demarcation between the two. He maintained that the two counties of Antrim and Monaghan had done what they could to redeem the character of Ulster in connection with the Labourers' Cottages Act. The reason given by one of his hon. Friends why cottages were not required in the north-east of Ulster was that the agricultural labourers in that part of the province entirely resided in the houses of the farmers. He did not pretend to be as intimately acquainted with the conditions of agricultural social life in that part as his hon. Friend, but he would like to know whether all the labourers in northeast Ulster were unmarried men, and whether married men were boarded in the houses of the farmers? ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. PINKERTONexplained that what he stated was that in North-east Ulster the labourers who required cottages got them from the farmers, and preferred to do so.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid that if that was so, they must differ very much in disposition from the labourers in other parts of Ireland; because he understood that the reason for introducing the Act at all was, not so much to better house the agricultural classes as to give them a feeling of independence of the farmer. While they had saved the farmers from being the slaves of the landlords, they were equally anxious to emancipate the labourers from their dependence on the farmers. Another statement made by his hon. Friend he took the strongest exception to, and that was that boards of guardians had largely increased their expenditure by substituting trained nurses for pauper nurses. He spoke with some knowledge on this subject and he unhesitatingly said that although this alteration might, in

  1091
  the first instance, entail some expenditure, it ultimately caused very great saving in the rates, besides offering other great advantages. It was a notorious fact that before the introduction of trained nurses the sick poor were grossly neglected. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. The Chief Secretary had over and over again said, in reply to questions, that no exceptional distress exists in any portion of the west of Ireland.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I never said that. I am quite aware that there are parts of the west of Ireland where there is distress. But it is not beyond the average, and I said there was no reason why it should not be met by the usual means.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman based his answers on the reports of the inspectors, and over and over again it had been pointed out to him that these inspectors who reported to him did not go to the best sources of information. He did not say by any means that the Chief Secretary would not be prepared by exceptional means to prevent deaths by starvation, or to prevent starvation in a modified form; but the right hon. Gentleman had no knowledge of these facts. He could only say that he had visited the districts once or twice, and on those occasions he was met with demonstrations of regard and respect. He thought from that that there was no distress in Westport, Belmullet, or Donegal. The reason he was met with demonstrations of welcome was that the people believed that he would be able to spend some English money which might stave off the evil days of starvation. When the right hon. Gentleman sent down an inspector he should direct him to go to the best sources from which he could find out the exact condition of the country. He would strongly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should insist upon these inspectors going to the ministers of religion, all the ministers of religion, to inquire as to the condition of the people, and personally visit the houses of the labourers and of the farmers where they said the distress prevailed. Let the inspectors make themselves acquainted with the Listowel Union and other kindred districts, and see the almost absolute starvation in which the people lived. These people
  1092
  had an absolute horror of the workhouse. These poor districts were never worse than they were now. The prospect of the season was never worse than it was now. The prospects of the potato crop on the moorlands and reclaimed bogs had not been so bad for many years, and unless they had an exceptionally favourable harvest there was no chance of an average potato crop this year. The potatoes put down in the month of March were rotted, and the soil was sodden until after the first week in May. He would say to the Chief Secretary better be wise in time. They had been told by his hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry that the local rates were 13s. 6d. in the pound. If such a state of things existed in England they would have more than words of sympathy. With regard to this £40,000 which, under the Act of 1891, was allocated for the labourers, he thought that it was unfair that they should prevent or debar those unions in the south and west of Ireland who put the Labourers' Act into operation, previous to 1891 from all benefit from the provisions of the Land Purchase Act of 1891. Those unions which had acted before that year were entitled to relief under the Act of 1891, but instead of that he found that this £40,000 was largely used for the purpose of stimulating unions in Ulster and some in the west of Ireland. He thought it was due to them that he should say one word in justice to the inspectors of the Local Government Board who conducted inquiries under the Labourers' Act. They acted fairly, justly, and sympathetically with the cause of the labourers, and endeavoured to facilitate the action of the Boards of Guardians, but he was sorry to say that when an appeal was taken by the local landlords, the Higher Court almost invariably overruled the inspectors. They claimed 43 cottages, and the Local Government Board passed 27. Appeals were taken against 24 of the cottages sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and the appeals were upheld. Thus, after long and expensive litigation, the Union had only three cottages passed. The Government gave no relief under their legislative proposals as they now stood to the Unions which had put the Act in operation, but they did give it to those Unions in the north of Ireland which had refused up to the present to apply the Act. Now no reply had been made to

  1093
  the point raised by the hon. Member for Leitrim in regard to the Mullingar Union. The medicine contract there was cancelled last year. The Local Government Board cancelled the contract on their own motion because the tender was the highest. This year tenders were again invited, and the tender of the gentleman whose tender turned out to be the highest was accepted by the Board of Guardians. [Mr. JOHNSTON: "He was a Nationalist !"] If he was a Nationalist he was not a fit person to be allowed by the Local Government Board to be the contractor this year. The fact that his tender was cancelled last year was primâ facie sufficient reason why he should not have the contract this year. He noticed under the heading "Travelling Expenses":—
  "Actual expenses of locomotion and £1 a night and 3s. 6d. per day of not less than seven hours, when absent from headquarters on duty, to each of three auditors."
  He also found: —
  "Travelling expenses, etc., of auditors of Poor Law Unions, etc. Allowance of £100 a year to each of seven auditors, to cover travelling and subsistence."
  He was, glad to find that the Local Government Board were not alone believers in an eight hours' day, but that they recognised a seven hours' day. What, however, he wanted to point out was that it was an extravagant waste of money to allow a, servant £1 each night he slept out. He had no doubt the seven men were eminently fitted for the posts they occupied, but £100 a year ought to be sufficient for their travelling expenses. He urged the Chief Secretary for Ireland to watch closely the state of things in the Union of Glenamaddy, in Galway. Apparently the number of indoor paupers did not increase very considerably in the year ending March 1, 1897, and there was no very large increase of outdoor relief. Nevertheless, the condition of the people was very precarious in consequence of the condition of the potato crop. The land in the Union was chiefly reclaimed bog land, and the people depended for their food upon the potatoes. That being the case, it was not reassuring to know that the next crop would probably be the worst since the year 1879, owing to conditions over
  1094
  which the people had no control. Up to May there had been an abnormal rainfall, and during the winter it was impossible to carry on the ordinary agricultural operations preparatory to the spring sowing. In the whole of the Union scarcely two acres of land could be cultivated during the winter, and it was not until the ordinary seed time that the people were able to get on with the preliminary preparation of the land. This had thrown the setting of the crop six months later than usual. Of course, the success of the potato crop in Ireland largely depended upon the time when the seed potatoes were put in, and if potatoes could not be planted until May 1, they would not mature and ripen before October 1. The effects of blight in such a year were greatly to be dreaded, and he hoped that the Chief Secretary would impress upon the Boards of Guardians the necessity of adopting measures to prevent the ruinous effect of blight upon the crop.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS resumed the Chair.]
  COLONEL WARINGsaid that he had heard of aboriginal tribes in South Australia who used to select champions to represent them. These champions alternately hit each other on the head, and subsequently a third party stepped in, and with a long spear stirred up both contending parties with perfect impartiality. He felt that he was intervening in this Debate in much the same spirit as that which influenced this third gentleman. With regard to the subject of labourers' cottages, to which reference had been made, he said that he admitted that in the greater part of the northeast of Ireland such cottages were by no means generally required. The reason was that in that part of the country a large portion of the population was employed in the linen industry, and now lived in the towns. The consequence was that there were sufficient cottages available at reasonable rents in the country, and it was therefore unnecessary to erect labourers' cottages at the expense of the Unions. He wished to support what had been said as to the importance of employing trained nurses in Unions. Many of the nurses employed in the past had been quite unsuited to the position.

  1095
  Much additional cost need not be thrown upon the Unions by the employment of a few trained nurses. In his part of the country the workhouses were not, in the ordinary sense, institutions for the poor. They were infirmaries, and therefore it was of the greatest importance that they should be carried on on proper hospital principles. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. DILLONthought that no one would deny that there was great room for improvement in the Irish workhouses, and that there were many workhouses in which the treatment of the sick poor especially, and of the able-bodied paupers, was not of a kind to commend itself to any humane man. When he heard the charges made against the Poor Law Boards in Ireland, he felt it was exceedingly unjust to cast any portion of the blame on the Irish people, for the simple reason that at the present time they had no responsibility whatever for the condition of the Irish workhouses. The Irish Poor Law had been administered by the preponderating power of two interests— the ex, officio guardians and the propertied class—and the Local Government Board. If the administration of the Poor Law left many things to be desired—and he admitted it did—those who were to blame were the Government, who, in the words of the remarkable speech of the First Lord of the Treasury that evening, had allowed, in spite of the protests of the Nationalist Members, an antiquated and outworn machinery to exist year after year. Without committing himself in any way to the details of the future policy of the Government, he rejoiced at the extraordinary and revolutionary change announced on behalf of the Government, who had frankly flung over two Bills which were based on a continuation and extension of the old, rotten, and utterly discredited system of governing Ireland by Castle Boards, and had declared that, for the first time so far as local government was concerned, they were practically going to trust the Irish people. [Cheers] If the pledges of the First Lord were truly carried out—and they had been so often deceived, and pledges given in that House had been so often broken or indefinitely postponed that he must excuse them if they waited before they became enthusiastic over the new programme— then it would be really time to test what
  1096
  would be the local administration under the control of the people, who, for the first time, would have got a chance in this respect. He believed that if the principles laid down by the First Lord were carried out and honestly put into force, they would carry him a great deal further than he expected. He believed that when they set up an honest, democratic, and untammeled form of local government in Ireland, it would be impossible to maintain the present control by irresponsible and unnatural Castle Boards. ["Hear, hear !"] The subject of the treatment of the sick poor in Irish workhouses had attracted a great deal of attention, and, while he gave the Chief Secretary full credit for humane desires, he believed the Government were well advised in dropping the Poor Law Relief Bill. It was a very complicated and, in some of its provisions, even a dangerous Bill, and there was an increasing amount of anxiey and alarm amongst some of the best-administered unions in Ireland in regard to its working. He believed the ultimate goal to be aimed at in local administration was to throw the greatest possible amount of responsibility on the people, and to give the greatest possible amount of liberty consistent with the maintenance of a central Government, to the localities. In proportion as they brought home responsibility to the people, he believed they would promote pure and economical administration. He believed the policy suggested in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury was the only proper and effective remedy for all those evils which had grown up in connection with Poor Law administration in Ireland. He showed that the Debate had been conducted free from party spirit, and, though some Irish Members upheld the action of inspectors of the Local Government Board and others condemned it, the explanation of the diversity was to be found in the fact that in some districts excellent inspectors were to be found, while in other districts the inspectors were unsympathetic. As to the administration of the Labourers' Acts, he thought that with but few exceptions the inspectors had given satisfaction. The complaints of some of his hon. Friends as to distress in the west of Ireland were, however, well founded. The inspectors of the Local Government Board were officials of

  1097
  a Department which was not subject to the influence of Irish public opinion; they were responsible to an irresponsible Minister in the matter of local details. The poverty of the people in the west of Ireland was chronic, though at present it might not be widespread or on the verge of starvation. But in the Swinford Union, for example, the condition of affairs was alarming; poverty was increasing, and there was a prospect of starvation at an early date. The rates of the union were now standing at an enormously high figure, and he hoped that the Chief Secretary would keep a watch on these unions in the west of Ireland and examine the rates. He had a few words to say as to the Labourers' Acts. They had heard about the contrast between the Ulster unions and the Southern unions. Roughly speaking, the unions where the popular element was strongest were the unions which had used the Labourers' Acts most. It was untrue that it was the Irish farmers who had objected to the use of these Acts. There might be exceptions; but the rule was this, that where the popular element was in the ascendant and the farmers had the power, there they would find an enormous number of labourers' cottages. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not in Ulster!"] Perhaps not—that was a Unionist country. But wherever the Nationalist fanners were in the ascendant, there they would find that the Labourers' Acts had been generally put into operation, and wherever the landlords were in the ascendant there the Acts had been obstructed. It would be monstrous and most unjust to penalise and discourage unions which, as some of the Southern unions had done, had generously saddled themselves with heavy costs for putting up labourers' cottages which were a pleasure to look at. These cottages, which had been graphically described by the hon. Member for South Monaghan, had introduced an amount of civilisation which had been the astonishment of everybody who beheld it. These poor men, who had previously been living in the midst of poverty, filth, and degradation which had excited the horror and wonder of travellers from all parts of Europe, had been taken out of their mud-huts and put into these cottages; and what was the result? One might go
  1098
  into one of these habitations and find them the perfection of neatness and order. The people had immediately taken advantage of the new situation created for them; and he asserted that they came into honourable competition with any labourers in England—showing what capacity there was in the Irish peasantry for civilisation and for rising in the social scale if they were only given a fair field. [Cheers.] It would be monstrous, therefore, to in any way penalise and discourage those unions which had done so much for the Irish labourers. There had been a good deal of talk about Ulster unions not being in favour of labourers' cottages. An hon. Member had mentioned to him the case of the union of Portumna, a considerable part of which had the singular honour of belonging to the Marquess of Clanricarde. In that union, owing to the property vote and the number of ex-officio guardians, the propertied and the enlightened classes predominated. The result was that the labourers of Portumna, although in the south of Ireland, were still living in hovels. They went to the guardians and asked for a scheme of labourers' cottages; but the ex-officios, who would come from the end of the world if it was a question of electing a nurse or a workhouse clerk, remained away and left the Board without a quorum; and he believed that to this hour the labourers of that unfortunate union, owing to the obstruction of these gentlemen, were left without any assistance under the Act. There was one other point to which he wished to allude, a case in the Union of Strabane, where a poor man had been refused a cottage under the Labourers' Acts. He had forgotten the man's name, but the right hon. Gentleman answered his question on the subject two or three days ago. Three years ago this man, who was a man of considerable intelligence, and was living in a miserable hovel, applied for a labourer's cottage. A Local Government Board inspector was brought down from Dublin

  1099
  to inspect this hovel, and, according to the answer of the Chief Secretary, he condemned it as unfit for human habitation. What happened? The unfortunate man, after fighting his battle for three years, was refused a cottage, on the ground that he was not an "agricultural labourer." He had assured him (the speaker) that he held his cottage on the terms of giving a certain amount of labour as an agricultural labourer every year. But he was refused because, being an industrious and exceptionally intelligent man, he had taken a contract under one of the road contractors. For that, he was condemned to go on living in a wretched place, where his life was in danger, and which the Local Government Board inspector had condemned. He certainly thought that was a very unjust straining of the definition, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would write the Local Government Board advising them to adopt a more liberal interpretation. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the hon. Member had referred to the case of a labourer who was refused a cottage on the ground that he was a road contractor. That was the information supplied to him. If he was a road contractor in so narrow and technical a sense as not properly to exclude him from the definition of an agricultural labourer, of course he regretted it, and he would do what he could to remedy it. He would call the attention of the Local Government Board to the case, and ask them for further particulars in regard to it. With regard to the question of distress in the west of Ireland, he had never at any time denied that distress, and even severe distress, had existed; only it did not appear to him that exceptional treatment, by which he meant relief works, was called for. Relief works in Ireland, as far as he knew, had never been adopted as a remedy except where the distress had been severe in special localities and also widespread; and although relief works had certain undeniable
  1100
  advantages, they had also very great disadvantages. They were tried on a considerable scale in 1890 and 1891, and although on those occasions they were successful in coping with the distress, yet they were so profitable to every class of the community where they were adopted, that in every year since then, where there was the smallest excuse, every class, whether landowners or shopkeepers or small farmers, had joined in representing to the Government that the actual state of things was much more serious than he believed it to have been. He had thought it necessary to set his face rigidly against the proposal for relief works. He believed if he had followed the example of the right hon. Member for Montrose in 1894, and had again applied to the Treasury for money for relief works, that the inhabitants of the poorer districts in the west of Ireland would have been gradually taught the lesson that they could not be expected to support themselves by their own efforts—a most disastrous lesson to teach them. While he did not deny that the rates in those districts were very heavy and that poverty was chronic in them, yet he thought it would have been on his part an unstatesmanlike act if he had done what would have been a ready and easy thing to do, namely, to go to the Treasury and say, "In order to keep these people alive, they require the assistance of public funds, and I am not prepared to be responsible for them unless that assistance is forthcoming." That was not the line which, in the interests of the districts concerned, he considered it was possible for him to adopt. As regarded heavy rates, after the announcement of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, he need not remind the Committee that considerable relief would in future years be given to those districts, but it would be most undesirable, except in cases of absolute necessity and wide-spread distress, that those districts should continually expect relief from the State. He appealed to

  1101
  the Committee now, after six hours' discussion, to allow the Vote to be taken.
  MR. D. CHILLYregretted exceedingly that the right hon. Gentleman had delivered the speech he had just made. It was only once a year that Irish Nationalist Members had the opportunity of discussing this Vote in the House of Commons, and he thought that when on behalf of the poverty-stricken districts they appealed at the bar of mercy, the House of Commons ought to listen to them. In the early part of the discussion on that Vote the hon. Member for West Cavan, who knew the west of Ireland better even than the Chief Secretary himself, or the First Lord of the Treasury, made the statement that in Belmullet and Killala the officials of the Local Government Board did not visit any of the houses. The Chief Secretary in reply said that statement was absolutely incorrect. On this point he would quote what was said by the Rev. Father Hewson. Speaking at a meeting at Belmullet on the 18th February, the reverend gentleman said: —
  "The Local Government thereupon sent their officer to investigate the condition of the people, with the view of reporting thereon. But how was this investigation made? He could speak only for his own parish, and he now asked publicly did those who were sent to make the investigation even visit a single homestead or farm within that parish? If passing along on an outside ear, or riding on a bicycle meant investigation, then, indeed, they had made their investigation, and when it was suggested the investigation had not been made, then the relieving officer here was compelled to supply the information that ought to have been obtained by the parties sent down to make their investigation."
  He had a letter from another gentleman whom the right hon. Gentleman knew, who wrote that he was surprised the inspector had reported that there was no distress, because such a report was in direct conflict with what the inspector had said in conversation. His correspondent added, "He saw the distress till he was sick of it."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have repeatedly stated that I never said there was no distress.
  MR. CRILLYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had done the stereotyped work of the Chief Secretary in defending the officials of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman and his officials had failed to take due note of the distress in Belmullet and Killarney; they should have shown greater sympathy in the application of the Poor Law; but until the Bill which the Leader of the House had foreshadowed was passed, it was useless for Irishmen to expect justice from the House of Commons. They would allow the Vote to pass under protest and with the consciousness that it was the last time that Irish Members would have to protest against the conduct of these alien boards in Ireland.
  DR. TANNERcomplained that the Estimate showed, not a substantial increase, but a substantial decrease in the salaries and expenses of the Irish dispensary doctors, a body of men whose devotion to duty, and whose service to suffering humanity, were beyond all praise. They had to travel long distances, and at night frequently, and yet their demand for horse money was persistently ignored by the Local Government Board. He noticed that year after year the same amount appeared in the Estimates for the supply of vaccine lymph to the dispensaries. He would like to know what became of the lymph. The doctors for whose use it was intended knew nothing about it, for they never used it. Why was it that every year they spent the same money? They were told that everything was quiet and tranquil, and still they found that they had an increase of £2,158 upon this expenditure in connection with the Local Government Board. Where did all this braying of trumpets come in? [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman was the master of this Board, and he ought to be master of the subject. [Laughter.] He hoped to obtain a satisfactory assurance from the Chief Secretary upon these points.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS III.
  Motion made and Question proposed: —
  "That a sum, not exceeding £40,229, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for criminal prosecutions and other law charges in Ireland."
  MR. DILLONwished to call attention to the trial of the brothers Maguire in the North of Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,)said the trial was pending, and the case could not be gone into without prejudice to the accused.
  MR. DILLONsaid he did not desire to go into the evidence, and would confine himself to the action of the Attorney General in reference to the case.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid it was unusual to discuss a case pending before the Courts. Still, he could not hold that it was out of order. On the other hand, as far as he had been able to discover, the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker on former occasions had always laid down that it was unusual and undesirable, in the interest of the prisoners, to discuss a case which was pending.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsuggested the desirability of postponing the Vote. The Attorney General could not defend his action in this case without going into the evidence.
  MR. DILLONsaid he proposed to confine himself to the grounds on which he brought up the case. These unfortunate men had been 14 months in gaol, having been tried three times on different charges and acquitted, and they were now in prison merely on a charge of larceny. Even if they were guilty, the punishment they had already undergone would be severe enough. Bail had been applied for, and hitherto refused.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid the hon. Member was singularly inaccurate in his facts. These
  1104
  men were arrested on March 6, 1896. They were then tried on the charge of murder, and the jury disagreed. They were tried again at the Assizes at Belfast and acquitted. They were then charged with robbery from the person of the man they were alleged to have murdered. The learned Judge who presided at the trial refused an application for bail. They had never made application for bail to the Court of Queen's Bench, which they were entitled to do, and it was impossible for him to give the reason which made it imperative upon him, if they made that application to the Court, to advise it without going into the evidence against them.
  MR. DILLONsaid these unfortunate men had been subjected to three trials by packed juries—[Nationalist cheers]— and acquitted by a Belfast jury of the charge of murder. They were taken to Belfast from their own homes, and put to enormous expense, and were still in gaol unconvicted, merely on a charge of larceny. They were now invited to go to the Queen's Bench and apply for bail, well knowing that the Attorney General would oppose the application, and it would be refused. There was no criminal matter which in his time had created so much interest in the North of Ireland as this case. He would agree to the postponement of the Vote, hoping that the Chief Secretary would look carefully into the case.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he desired now to give notice—lest he should be accused of giving short notice hereafter—that he should raise in as full a manner as possible the question of jury packing at the last Winter Assizes at Cork.
  *MR. R. M. DANEsaid that before the House agreed to the postponement of the Vote, he wished to say that he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would not allow anything that had taken place on the part of the hon. Member for East Mayo that night to lead him to allow these men to escape being tried again. The feeling in the case

  1105
  was not confined to one party. It was quite true that these men were tried for what looked very like murder.
  An HON. MEMBER: They were acquitted of that.
  *MR. DANE: And it was equally true that the case was made a party one— [Nationalist cheers]—by the friends of the hon. Member for East Mayo.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As we have withdrawn the Vote, it is hardly right that the discussion should go on.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLASS II.
  2. £1,243, to complete the sum for Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.—Agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,880, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, for the salaries and expenses of the Public Record Office in Ireland, and of the Keeper of State Papers in Dublin."
  MR. FLYNNsaid he wished to know whether any steps had been taken in latter years with regard to the publication of State papers and public documents? There had been an interruption in the issue of State papers which were of direct importance to Ireland. They had no papers dealing with Ireland for a long time, and it was natural that they should be very keen and on the-alert. They could not get hold of these State papers unless they watched.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid this was a matter which should be dealt with, on the Vote of the Historical Manuscripts Commission. They were responsible for the issue of documents.
  DR. TANNERsaid that that Commission dealt with England and Wales as well as Ireland, but somehow the documents were not allowed to circulate outside a certain set. Only high and dry particulars had been furnished to them, during the last Session of Parliament. He could make neither head nor tail of a return from the Record Office. He could only say now what he had heard his hon. Friend Mr. Sexton, who was then Member for West Belfast, say in connection with a similar return, that it was "bald, miserable, and discreditable." Could something not be done to make these returns interesting instead of bald returns? As to the Record Office in Ireland, that meant Dublin, for practically all the work was done in Dublin, and it was circulated for the benefit of certain persons. There was always in connection with certain officials an increase of "salaries, wages, and allowances." In connection with this small office they had an increase of £314, whereas in other years they had a falling off. It had increased since the Chief Secretary was there. The increase was not in connection with smaller affairs, but in connection with the greater men.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Vote. At present he is not doing so.
  DR. TANNERsaid if the increase in salaries was given to the poorer men, he should not object so much, but the increase was given to men who really did not want it, instead of to the poor men who did require it. For incidental expenses nothing could be said. [Laughter.] Instead of laughing, he hoped hon. Gentlemen would join him and others in keeping down expenditure. In any case, when expenditure was incurred he thought it should go rather to the poor than to the rich.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGHtrusted they would receive from the Chief Secretary, or some other responsible Minister, an explanation of the services

  1107
  on which this money was spent, otherwise it would be the duty of Irish Members to resist the Vote, or to move its reduction.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that hitherto the Vote had never been the subject of discussion, it had always been regarded as a matter of course. Details were given on page 193 of the Estimates. The greater part of the increased expenditure arose from the automatic increase in the salaries of eight clerks employed in the Department.
  MR. FLYNNhoped that it would be shown what value was received for the expenditure.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will give further details on Report.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid he found they were asked to vote the salaries of six workmen who were described as searchers. What the men had to do as searchers he was at a loss to understand. The men received £1 a week each. What could they have to do as searchers in a Record Office?
  And, it being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue.—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer)
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday 28th June.
RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 15th June.
LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday 31st May.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 16th June.
TRAWLERS' LICENSING BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
VEHICLES (LIGHTS) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
House Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock till Monday next.

LUNACY BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Lunacy Acts— Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; Head 1a; and to be printed.—[No. 93.]
APPEAL IN CERTAIN CIVIL MATTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
QUARTER SESSIONS JURORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments; passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1870, AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed and to be Read 2a on Tuesday next: (The, Lord President).—[No. 95.]
VOLUNTEERS BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a on Monday next.—[No. 96.]

SECONDARY EDUCATION.
*LORD NORTONasked the Lord President of the Council whether he hoped to be able to introduce a Bill on Secondary Education this Session, or, if not, early next year? He pointed out that two small stopgap Measures had passed this Session on the subject of education, but, so far from satisfying the requirements of the subject, they called aloud for a better adjustment of secondary education in our national system. Advanced secondary education had not been so much added to as confused
1018
with primary education, and this confusion had damaged both primary and secondary education. Primary education was overlaid with many wholly irrelevant subjects; there was no clue to the subjects of instruction which properly belonged to it. The Elementary Code was simply a heap of confusion, and by the system of annual addition it was becoming worse confounded every year. Secondary education was equally damaged by this confusion; it was treated simply as a department of elementary instruction, or, if not, it was confused with a great variety of perfectly disconnected institutions which had the result of preventing systematic action and continuity of education. A million annually shovelled out of the Treasury into the laps of County Councils to be spent as they pleased, was an unworthy national provision for secondary education. So large a sum spent anyhow honestly for education must do some good somewhere, but as a whole this causes mischief, besides waste, as preventing better things. The idea of national education as a public undertaking to teach everybody everything is entirely new, and a wandering from former and better ideas. There is now a State ambition to undertake the whole nation's education. Only aristocratic sensitiveness shrinks from accepting it in common. It has already absorbed many small private and endowed schools, and its programme in pretension outbids Eton and Harrow. But our public provision for secondary education is properly meant for the artisan classes. As our primary provision is for a general training from infancy so our secondary should carry that general culture onwards, with special apprenticeship to various industries. Our public purse should not discharge rich manufacturers from parental responsibilities, though it may provide, by free scholarships, for clever children of the poor. In point of administration, also, he urged that, so far as the education question was to be undertaken by the State, there must be a central department instead of the half-dozen departments which were now overlapping each other in their action and competing with each other, thereby hindering anything like systematic continuity. Local authorities, too, are wanted of wider area than School Boards for secondary

1019
local requirements. He had the most perfect confidence, however, in the sound sense and judgment of the noble Duke, and in the Vice President, who, he thought, showed in his attempt at legislation last year a sense of how large the scope of the subject was; and his plans, if they had been fairly treated by the House of Commons, though they were on a scale for which the country was hardly prepared, had the materials in them to meet the requirements of the country.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): I cannot agree with my noble Friend in the opinion that the large sum which was devoted a few years ago to the purposes of technical instruction, and which is being expended through the agency of the County Councils and the Borough Councils, is in any degree being wasted. On the contrary, I believe that, on the whole, the money is being very usefully applied. However, I may say that we are perfectly aware of the importance and urgency of the question to which my noble Friend has called the attention of the House, and we propose to ask Parliament to legislate upon it at the earliest possible opportunity. He has referred to the Measure which was introduced last year, and which was of much wider scope than that which was brought in this year, and I think he has referred in terms of some approval to the proposals contained in the Measure of last year, so far as they related to secondary education. Considering the time that has been devoted by Parliament already to educational questions this year, I do not entertain any hope that we shall be able to ask Parliament to deal seriously with the subject in the course of the present Session. However, I think it will probably be desirable that proposals which the Government are prepared to make on the subject of secondary education should be as long as possible before the country, and that they should receive full consideration and be discussed by those who are interested in the question. I hope, therefore, in the course of the present Session, either in this or the other House, that we shall be able to lay before Parliament in the shape of a Bill, the main proposals which were contained in the Bill of last year so far as they related to secondary education, with some
1020
amendments and additions, in order that the general views of the Government may be once more placed before the country, and that the country may be in a position to consider them during the vacation. ["Hear, hear!"]

INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 10,—

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES.
Any offence under this Act may be prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHmoved, after the word "prosecuted," to insert the words "and any forfeiture recoverable."
Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHmoved the following new clause to follow Clause 4:—
"Any person retaining or receiving an infant under the age of two years on consideration of a sum of money not exceeding £20 paid down, and without any agreement for further payment, as value for the care and bringing up of the said infant until it is reclaimed or of an age to provide for itself, shall within 48 hours from the time of receiving such infant give notice of the fact to the local authority. If he does not give the notice required by this section, he shall be liable to forfeit the amount of any sum received by him in respect of such infant, or such less sum as the Court having cognisance of the case shall deem just, and the Court shall give directions as to the manner in which the sum forfeited shall be applied for the benefit of the infant, and shall, if necessary, cause the infant to be removed to a workhouse or place of safety, and the master of such workhouse shall receive such infant, which shall be maintained in the workhouse or place of safety until it can be otherwise lawfully disposed of."
His Lordship explained that the clause attempted to deal with people who put out infants to nurse and paid down a lump sum for them. The clause was much desired by those interested in the question, on the ground that it might act as a deterrent in such cases. The cases the Bill really sought to deal with were those in which children were put out to nurse, and a comparatively small

1021
sum was paid down which could not possibly pay for their education and proper up-bringing. Those were cases where it might reasonably be concluded that the children were put out to nurse with the idea that they would never be heard of again. The limitation of £20 would, he believed, include the greater number of cases of baby-farming which were at the root of, so many of the evils connected with the trade, and would exclude the greater number of genuine cases in which well-to-do people who, being obliged to leave the country, pay down a certain sum for the care and up-bringing of the children whom they required to leave behind.
Clause read First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill; Bill to be Read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended.—[No. 94.]
House Adjourned at Five o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter before Eleven o'Clock.