Sitting of 28 April 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  ABERYSTWYTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  As Amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  YORK UNITED GAS BILL.
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; to be read the third time.
  GAINSBOROUGH GAS BILL.
  Read first time; Referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  EDINBURGH AND LEITH CORPORATIONS GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
  WATERFORD CITY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
  KEW BRIDGE AND APPROACHES BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  For weekly payment, from Aylsham, Keynsham, and Barnstaple; to lie upon the Table.
  BOILERS INSPECTION AND REGISTRATION BILL.
  From Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  From Perth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION BILL.
  From Wolverhampton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  From Partick, against State Regulation; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour, from Scottish Temperance Association and Rosehearty; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  From Sandal Magna, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  From Dumbarton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  From Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  From Sowerby Bridge, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  In favour, from Cradley Park and Wakefield Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) BILL.
  From Montrose, against; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Dundee, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour, from Edinburgh, Forfarshire, and Montrose; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  In favour, from Oldbury, Maghera, Donacloney, and Drumlegagh; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL, AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Grimsby, Edinburgh, Whiteinch, Reeth, Llanidloes, Bolton, Birmingham, Mansfield, Dundee, Broughty Ferry, North Devon, and Bideford; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Oldbury, Great Grimsby, Waltham, Sale, Bideford, Evesham, Hednesford, Hythe, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Stowupland, Stockton-on-Tees, Bournemouth, and Darlington (4); to lie upon the Table.
  SMALLER DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Return showing the expenditure from the Grant for Public Education in Scotland in the year 1897 upon Annual Grants to Elementary Schools, the number of schools, and the results of Inspection and Examination during the year ended 30th September 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Evening Continuation Schools, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd March; Lord Charles Beresford]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (POSTMEN).
  Return ordered, "containing the Postmaster General's regulations as to the employment of Army Reservists as Postmen."—(Mr. Provand.)
  EAST INDIA (DISBURSEMENTS OF HOME TREASURY).
  Address for "Statement showing the Disbursements of the Home Treasury of the Government of India in each year from 1894–5 to 1897–8, inclusive, and the mode in which provision was made for these Disbursements (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 193, of Session 1895)."—(Sir William Houldsworth.)
QUESTIONS.

  POSTAGE ON PERIODICALS.
  MR. J. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is intended to introduce a short Bill admitting periodicals issued at intervals exceeding seven days, including reviews, magazines, and trade organs, to the privilege of postage at a halfpenny per copy as registered publications; whether he is aware that high class and useful literature of this kind is conveyed either gratis, or at specially reduced rates, by the American and Colonial Post Offices, with a view to encourage the diffusion of learning and useful information; and whether he will consult the Colonial Postmasters General as to the beneficial results to the public of such gratuitous or assisted circulation, especially in promoting religion and morality, in imparting technical knowledge, and also in enabling home manufacturers to meet foreign competition?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): There is no intention to introduce such a Bill. Periodical publications of all kinds are conveyed either gratis, or at specially reduced rates, by the American and some (so far as is known only two) Colonial Post Offices; but successive Postmasters General of the United States have drawn attention to the great loss arising from these low rates, and in the last Report issued by the United States Post Office the Postmaster General expressed his earnest hope that some Measure might be passed during the coming Session of Congress which would remedy this state of things. The Postmaster General of Canada is, it is understood, introducing a Bill at the present time with a similar object. Under these circumstances, the Postmaster General does not think it necessary to consult the Colonial Postmaster Generals as to the beneficial results of such gratuitous or assisted circulation of periodical publications.

  THEFTS FROM PILLAR BOXES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as
  1358
  representing the Postmaster General, whether, during the past ten years, numerous inventions and devices for preventing, by means of a mechanical check, the abstraction of letters from postal pillar boxes have been submitted to the Postmaster General, and whether he has now made his selection of the best and most effectual of them; whether one or more of the checks so submitted have long been in use on the Continent; whether, during the ten years referred to, the pillar boxes in the chief towns of this country have been systematically pillaged by thieves, young and old, no protection being afforded by the Department beyond the occasional employment of a detective, and the affixing to pillar boxes of a notice cautioning the public against entrusting valuable letters to them; and whether, in default of a perfect device, he will adopt that which approaches most nearly to perfection?
  MR. HANBURY: During the past ten years numerous devices for the purpose of preventing, by mechanical means, the abstraction of letters from postal pillar boxes have been suggested to the Post Office, but, so far, none of them have been found to be capable of effecting the object in view, and at the same time to be free from serious objections in other respects. It is understood that some apparatus of the kind is used in Germany. So far from pillar letter boxes being systematically pillaged, thefts from post office letter boxes are very rare, and there is no intention at present of adopting any of the devices in question.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that last year there were seven convictions for stealing letters from pillar boxes?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, but the number is not large in comparison with the enormous number of pillar boxes.

  VALUATION OF PRISON LABOUR.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table the new labour price list which has been used since 1st April, 1897, as the basis of valuation of prison labour?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): It would not be in the public interest to do this.

  PRISON LIBRARIES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Prison Commissioners have recently issued a standing order to the effect that the number of books in the library of each prison is in future to be restricted to a proportion of three books to every two prisoners in the class eligible to receive library books; whether it has been brought to his knowledge that those chaplains and schoolmasters who take most interest in their libraries object to this order as crippling their usefulness; and whether, inasmuch as the importance of a good library as a moralising agency is generally recognised, he will consider whether this order should be rescinded or modified?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The honourable Member is misinformed both as to the intention and as to the effect of the recent circular to which I imagine he alludes. A scale, of course, has had to be laid down, but the proportion is larger than he supposes, and is sufficient to supply prisoners with the books to which they are entitled. At the same time the libraries have been purged of a large number of old and unserviceable volumes; and the present provision for supplying literature to prisoners is greater than has ever been attempted before. Exception was taken to the circular by two chaplains apparently through a misunderstanding as to its intentions, which has now been removed.
  MR. M. DAVITT: Is it not the fact that the books in the library at Wormwood Scrubbs average only about two for each prisoner?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: There is a certain scale of books based on the prison population. There is a better supply now than there has been for some years.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Do I understand that the proportion indicated in my question is incorrect?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Yes, Sir.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: What is the proportion?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: At the present time in convict prisons it is two books for each convict, and that is a sufficient number for circulation. In local prisons it varies according to the prison population, and is in some more than two for each prisoner, and in some less.

  JEWISH SYNAGOGUE AT WORMWOOD SCRUBBS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is aware that a synagogue is being erected in Wormwood Scrubbs; (2) whether the number of Jews in that prison is sufficient to justify this expenditure; and (3) whether the average number of Jews in the prison population has largely increased in recent years?
  MR. B. L. COHEN: Is it usual to give public information respecting the number of prisoners belonging to separate religious denominations?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The building is being erected to supply a long-standing need and remedy what has long been felt to be a grievance by the Jewish community. I have no definite information on the point raised in the last paragraph, but the number on Monday last was 37. With reference to the Question of the honourable Member for Islington, it is obvious it would be inexpedient to give information about the religious persuasions of prisoners, and to state whether the number of any particular class of prisoners increases or decreases; but for the purposes of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green I think I have given him all the information he wants.

  HORSES FOR THE CAVALRY BRIGADES.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War (1) whether horses aged four years and under have been lately supplied to regiments in the 1st and 2nd Cavalry Brigades, these regiments being on the higher establishment, and so fit for service at a moment's notice; (2) whether volunteers (having four years' service) have been recently called for from the 6th Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers), a regiment in the 1st Cavalry Brigade, to supplement deficiencies in the 5th Lancers, a regiment abroad belonging to a corps different from that to which the former regiment belongs, and whether these trained soldiers will be replaced by recruits; (3) whether a draft has been, or is about to be, ordered of 150 men from the 10th Royal Hussars for service with the 20th Hussars; and (4) whether, if these steps are being taken, it may be assumed that it is not proposed to adhere to the system of cavalry organisation announced this year?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The answers to the first two Questions are in the affirmative. The 6th Dragoon Guards is being prepared for service in India, and the men who volunteered from it to the 5th Lancers would not have had sufficient service remaining to enable them to go to India. They will be replaced by men eligible for Indian service. A draft is about to be sent from the 10th Hussars to the 20th Hussars, but the number of men has not been determined. It will be made as small as possible. It is fully intended to carry out the policy which was announced to the House on the introduction of this year's Estimates, but it is not possible to give effect to it at once in its entirety.

  FLOWERS BY SAMPLE POST.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the question of conveying flowers by sample post from the South of France to England was one of the
  1362
  subjects brought by our representatives before the Postal Union Convention held at Washington last year; and why no notice was given of the instructions to our delegates, so as to enable the public to protest against being deprived of the privilege in question by the British postal authorities?
  MR. HANBURY: The question of conveying flowers by sample post was not brought before the Postal Union Congress by the representatives of this country, but by the representatives of a foreign State, which desired to get what had been an irregular practice made legal. The Congress refused to adopt the proposal, and the British delegates at once informed the French delegates that the British Post Office would be compelled to act on the decision of the Congress. The honourable Member appears to have forgotten that a protest has been made on behalf of flower-growers in this country against flowers from abroad being allowed to pass by sample post into England, and that he himself, on the 5th of June, 1896, objected to the advantages thus conceded to foreign growers, and asked that equal facilities might be given to our own people for the conveyance of flowers from favoured climates in England and Ireland to London, as are enjoyed by the French peasantry.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that during the past twelve or fifteen years small boxes of flowers have been transmitted by English people, temporarily sojourning in the South of France in the winter, to their friends in the United Kingdom by post at a cost of about 35 centimes each; what is the estimated number of these boxes of flowers sent last year; whether the British postal authorities are aware that the cost of conveying these boxes of flowers by post throughout France, for example from Mentone to Calais, did not and does not exceed fifteen centimes or three-halfpence each; on what grounds facilities for conveying small boxes of flowers at an equally low rate are not given to the small agriculturists of this Kingdom; whether any communication was made or notice given through the

  1363
  London and provincial papers that the privilege of sending small boxes of flowers at the cheap rate from the south of France to this country would be withdrawn on the 1st April of this year; and whether he is aware that in the altered circumstances, while the new regulation will not prevent flowers being sent from the south of France, it will throw the trade into the hands of middlemen?
  MR. HANBURY: During some years past small boxes of flowers have been transmitted from the south of France to this country by sample post, and the average postage on the boxes was about 35 centimes. It is estimated that about 15,000 packets were sent in this way from France to this country last year. If by the cost of conveying these packets, the weight of which he does not mention, within French territory, the honourable Member means the cost to the French Post Office, the Postmaster General has no information on the point. No notification as to the strict application of the rules of the International sample post to flowers on the 1st of April was given to the Press in this country, as the rules always had been strictly applied to flowers posted by the public in this country. But full notice was given to the French and other foreign post offices concerned. Since the Budget Reform of last year the public in the United Kingdom has enjoyed greater facilities than the French public enjoy as regards the inland transmission of these articles. Articles sent at the five centimes rate in France have to be open to inspection. Within the United Kingdom flowers can be sent at virtually the same rate—½d. for two ounces, with a minimum postage of 1d.—in closed boxes.

  FRENCH EXPEDITIONS IN WEST AFRICA.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any confirmation has been received from Colonel Pilcher of the visit of the French expedition to Argungu, east of the Niger and south of the Say-Barruwa line, since the 21st February, when information was given to the House;
  1364
  and whether any fresh communication bearing upon the matter has been made by the French Government since the Declaration of Lord Salisbury on the 22nd February that that Government did not believe the news to be true, and that the French Minister for the Colonies had assured M. Hanotaux that there were no French troops in the region?
  MR. G. LAMBERT: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received any further information relating to the telegram he read to the House on 21st February last from Lieutenant-Colonel Pilcher, that four French European officers and 100 men had arrived at Argungu, in West Africa?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): A written confirmation of the assurance given in Lord Salisbury's declaration of February 22nd, referred to in the Question, was handed to Sir Edmund Monson on February 23rd. In it M. Hanotaux stated that—
  "According to information obtained from the Minister for the Colonies, no French force has entered Sokoto, or the country of Argungu, and that no expedition has been sent into these regions."
  This assurance was repeated to Sir Edmund Monson verbally on the 25th of February, and again on March 6th, when M. Hanotaux reaffirmed that there were no French forces on the east of the Niger south of the Say-Barruwa line, and that the strictest orders had been given long ago that no movement was to be made across the Niger, and that France had no designs on the territory lying east of the river, to the south of the Say-Barruwa line. On the 19th of March Sir Edmund Monson reported that the Minister for the Colonies had that day received from Dahomey information that Captain Casamajou, in spite of the repeated and positive orders of the French Government, did pass through Argungu towards the north; but that he had no European companions, and only a very small following. In a note dated March 25th M. Hanotaux repeated that the expedition under Captain Casamajou was privately organised, and that it had been ordered to keep north of the

  1365
  Say-Barruwa line, but had apparently been forced to go to the neighbourhood of Illo in search of supplies, and to transfer its starting point to that district. This modification of the original itinerary was unauthorised, and the Minister for the Colonies, on receipt of information from British sources, telegraphed to Captain Casamajou, on February 24th, to move northward. I have now received a telegram from Colonel Lugard, from which it appears that a foreign force, presumably French, consisting of 40 troops and three Europeans, had been at Argungu, but had since gone away to the north. It appears from this that both sides were more or less misinformed, as our reports greatly exaggerated the numbers of the expedition—of the presence of which, in Argungu, the French Government were, in the first instance, entirely unaware.
  SIR C. DILKE: Does the right honourable Gentleman know whether this force with three officers, being the number originally named, is the same expedition as that referred to in the admission of the French Government with regard to one officer, because it was said to be privately organised?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I believe it was an expedition privately organised by Prince d'Aren-berg, and no doubt the reference is to the same force. I have no doubt that this force was reported to us through native sources, as consisting of a large number of men.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: The right honourable Gentleman says it was ordered to go north of the Say-Barruwa line. Has any agreement been come to with the French Government as to these lines?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I must ask for notice.

  HORSES FOR THE MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: On behalf of the honourable and gallant Member for South St. Pancras, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State
  1366
  for War whether it is proposed to send to the manœuvres any horses under the age of six years; and whether he could state what number of cavalry horses in the United Kingdom are under that age?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not proposed to send to the manœuvres any horses under the ago of six years. The number of cavalry horses in the United Kingdom under that ago will, it is anticipated, be, on the 1st May, 1,370.

  SERVICE WITH CAVALRY REGIMENTS.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: On behalf of the honourable and gallant Member for South St. Pancras, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when it is intended to issue orders with reference to the number of men permanently serving in cavalry regiments, in accordance with his recent announcement?
  MR. BRODRICK: Orders will shortly be issued to the effect that when a man wishes to serve in a particular regiment he will be allowed to do so if there is room in the regiment for him. Should the regiment he selects be in India, he will be posted to the regiment at home which will furnish the next draft, with a view to his being included in it. The instructions issued from time to time for the preparation of cavalry drafts will provide that the regiment furnishing the draft is not reduced below 350 men.

  CARLOW DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that at the last meeting of the Governors of the Carlow District Lunatic Asylum, at which 13 governors were present, on a motion to give Dr. FitzGerald, who is a Roman Catholic, permission to have his wife to reside with him in his quarters, the seven governors who voted against the motion were Protestants and the six voting for it Roman Catholics; (2) whether, out of the seven Protestant governors present, two had not attended a meeting of the Board since 1896; and

  1367
  (3) whether he will, when appointing the Board of Governors for next year, refuse to re-appoint gentlemen who do not attend to the ordinary duties of the Board?—At the same time I will ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that at the last meeting of the Board of Governors of the Carlow District Lunatic Asylum, the governors, by a majority of one, refused to allow the Assistant Medical Officer, Dr. FitzGerald, to have his wife to live with him in the quarters provided for him, although at no increased cost or expense to the Board; (2) whether he is aware that there has been a very marked improvement in the management of this institution ever since Dr. FitzGerald's appointment, who has been specially mentioned and thanked for his special services by both the Government Auditor and the Board of Governors; and (3) whether, as this is the only institution in Ireland where the assistant medical officer has not been allowed to have his wife to live with him in his quarters, he will request the Inspectors of Lunatics to take the matter into their hands, and authorise Dr. FitzGerald to bring his wife to reside with him in his quarters?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): In answer to these Questions, I am informed that the statements in the first two paragraphs of both Questions are in accordance with the fact. There are, I understand, only four asylums in Ireland in which quarters are provided for married assistant medical officers. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the decision arrived at by the Carlow Board of Governors in the present case, I may say that the matter is not one in which the Inspectors of Lunatics or the Government have any power to interfere. The Board of Governors for 1899 will not be constituted until the beginning of next year, and it is not possible now to state what gentlemen will or will not be appointed on the Board for that year.
  MR. ENGLEDEW: Will the right honourable Gentleman bear this in mind in connection with the constitution of the next Board of Governors?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

  CLOGHER VALLEY TRAMWAY COMPANY.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Clogher Valley Tramway Company employ a manager at a salary of £300 a year and a secretary at a salary of £250 a year for performing services of a very limited kind; whether the company, like other carrying companies, will publish quarterly or half-yearly returns of their traffic receipts and expenditure in the newspapers; whether the company still employ their men at raising ballast, for the purpose of selling same to the Great Northern Railway, instead of using them to keep their own line in a state of safety for the travelling public; and, will he recommend to the company a due limitation of salaries and a periodical publication of their accounts in the newspapers?
  MR. HANBURY: I am informed that the Clogher Valley Tramway Company employ a manager at a salary of £250 and a secretary at £225 a year. As to the reasonableness of these salaries in relation to the duties to be performed, I have no information on which to judge. The company are under no obligation to publish quarterly or half-yearly returns of their traffic receipts and expenditure in the newspapers, and there is nothing to be gained by doing so where the price of the shares depends not on the receipts but on the interest guaranteed. I understand that the men employed in raising ballast are not the company's permanent waymen, but men employed specially for the purpose.

  BELFAST SPINNING ROOMS.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if the inspector recently sent to Belfast to investigate the allegations made of the insanitary state of the spinning rooms in the factories of that city, and particularly the bad quality of the water used in the generating of steam, has made any report; and, if so, will it be printed for the information of Members of the House of Commons?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Yes, the

  1369
  inspector has made his report. He finds that impure water is not used for the purpose of steaming, and that the atmosphere of the spinning rooms has been remarkably improved by the additional ventilation introduced under the special rules. It is not usual to present to Parliament Departmental Reports of this character.

  PARCELS POSTAGE RECEIPTS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in the financial year 1897–8, it is estimated by the Government that out of a total sum of £1,324,000, receipts for postage of parcels, £630,000 will be the net sum retained by the British Post Office, while £694,000, or 55 per cent., is to be paid over to the railway companies; whether the money for this annual payment to railway companies is ever submitted to Parliament, or is it paid by the Post Office to the railway companies out of receipts for parcels; and whether he will submit the estimate of Parcel Post expenditure to Parliament in the Post Office Estimates, and afford the means whereby Parliament may be able to judge whether the Parcel Post is carried on at a loss or profit, under the present system of keeping accounts?
  MR. HANBURY: In the financial year 1897–8 the total receipts for postage on parcels was £1,425,293 not £1,324,000, the net receipt by the Post Office was £751,887 not £630,000, and the railway companies' share was £673,406 not £694,000. The annual payment to railway companies is submitted to Parliament in the Finance Accounts, and is paid out of the gross receipts in respect of parcels, in accordance with the provisions of 45 and 46 Vic, cap. 71, sec. 5. The Parcel Post expenditure cannot be shown separately in the Post Office Estimates, because the service is necessarily so closely interwoven with the other work of the Department.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Can the right honourable Gentleman point to any part of the Estimates from which we can gather the revenue of this branch?
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir; the only distinction drawn is between the postal and telegraph services.

  IRISH RURAL POSTMEN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the rural postmen in Ireland are to get the increase of pay recommended by the Tweedmouth Commission; what is the amount of the rise and when is it to be paid; and could he state to the House what is the maximum and minimum scale of pay for head office postmen and sub-office men respectively?
  MR. HANBURY: Speaking generally, the rural postmen in Ireland have already been granted the increase of pay recommended by the Tweedmouth Committee. The amount of the rise varies according to locality and duties, and it is payable (if not already paid) as from the 1st April, 1897. The scale of pay of rural postmen working from head offices and sub-offices varies with the scale of pay of the town postmen working from those offices, the maximum being in each case 2s. a week less than the maximum payable to town postmen. In Ireland the highest scale in force for rural postmen is for those working from Dublin 18s., rising by 1s. 6d. to 28s. a week; the lowest scale in force is 16s., rising by 1s. 6d. to 20s. a week.

  PARSONSTOWN AND PORTUMNA RAILWAY.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state if anything, and, if so, what, has been done towards the re-opening of the Parsonstown and Portumna line of railway?
  MR. HANBURY: The Treasury are concerned with this railway—of which, I believe, all the rails were stolen in 1883—only in connection with the Public Works Loan Commissioners. As I stated on the 22nd July last year, the question

  1371
  of reconstructing the line is one for the Irish Government, not for the Commissioners. The Commissioners received some weeks ago from a Mr. Baldwin an offer to purchase what is left of the line, and this offer included an undertaking to re-open it. But as negotiations have been going on between the inhabitants of the district and the Great Southern and Western Railway, the offer has not yet been accepted.

  TELEGRAPHISTS' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in December, 1897, Patrick Gillman, telegraph clerk in the Central Telegraph Office, London, visited the official medical attendant, who stated that he was suffering from cold; whether, after a fortnight's treatment, Gillman sought the advice of a private doctor, who immediately declared that the complaint was pneumonia, and ordered Gillman to bed immediately, and from whence he was afterwards removed to Guy's Hospital; whether, owing to the inattention on the part of the official doctor during the early stages of the illness, Gillman's health has completely broken down, it being doubtful if he will be able to resume duty; and whether he will investigate the whole of the circumstances connected with the case?
  MR. HANBURY: Mr. Edmund Gillman, the telegraphist referred to by the honourable Member, was seen on the 18th December last by the medical officer at the Post Office, who states that Mr. Gillman showed no symptoms of serious illness, but was suffering from "cold, cough, and loss of appetite." Mr. Gillman returned on the 21st December to have his medicine renewed, but did not then ask to see the medical officer, as he had a right to do. On the 5th of January Mr. Gillman's brother wrote from Guy's Hospital that his brother had consulted a private medical gentleman, who stated he was seriously ill, and had been suffering from pneumonia, and on the 10th January Mr. Gillman himself wrote
  1372
  from Guy's Hospital enclosing a medical certificate that he was suffering from "pulmonary disease." Mr. Gillman has been on sick leave since the 30th of December, and his private medical attendant in Ireland states that under favourable conditions he may be able to resume duty in about three months. The Postmaster General has already had before him all the circumstances of the case, and, while he sincerely sympathises with Mr. Gillman in his long and severe illness, he cannot but regret that Mr. Gillman should not have given the medical officer a further opportunity of examining his state of health when he applied for more medicine on the 21st December.

  RETIRING PENSIONS OF POOR LAW CLERKS.
  MR. W. H. MYERS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is competent for a board of guardians, in calculating the retiring pension of their clerk, to take into consideration the fees received by him for preparing fresh valuation lists for the purposes of the Agricultural Rating Act?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): The inquiry of the honourable Member is one to which I think I should not be justified in giving an answer. It raises a question which may have to be determined by the Local Government Board, on appeal, under Section 18 of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act. In that case it would be necessary to hear both the guardians and the officers, and I could not properly state what would be my decision beforehand.

  STANDARD WEIGHTS AND MEASURES IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR JOHN KINLOCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the withdrawal of the facilities which have been provided in Scotland for years for

  1373

  the verification of standard weights and measures will compel the local authorities to send their weights and measures to London, involving carriage and agent's fees, besides delay in getting them back; and whether he will see his way to continue to provide facilities for verification in Scotland, as formerly?
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the method of verifying the standard weights and measures hitherto followed in Scotland is to be altered, and a new plan inaugurated, under which local authorities will be required to send to London to have this effected; and whether he will reconsider this matter, and allow the same facilities in Scotland to remain as have been hitherto enjoyed there?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I will answer the Questions together. They do not convey an accurate representation of the facts, inasmuch as the practice has been to hold occasional verifications in one or two places in Scotland to suit the convenience of local authorities. As a rule, verifications are made in London. The Board of Trade are, however, merely desirous of adopting the most convenient and least expensive course of administration, and, in order to arrive at a fair determination the Department has invited Members of the Glasgow Corporation to attend in London and discuss the subject.

  ROSCREA AND BIRR MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can now state what is the substance of the correspondence, which he said had reached the Post Office authorities, with regard to the contemplated improvement in the mail service to the towns and neighbourhoods of Roscrea, Nenagh, and Birr; and whether any arrangement has as yet been come to with the railway company in question with regard to an earlier train service, or what steps, if any, have been taken in this matter?
  MR. HANBURY: The honourable Member is mistaken in supposing that I stated in my previous answer that any correspondence on the subject of the improvement of the mail service in the neighbourhood of Roscrea had reached the Post Office authorities. As a matter of fact, the negotiations with the railway company on the subject have, so far, been carried on verbally, and as the matter is still under consideration, the Postmaster General does not yet feel himself justified in stating the details of their proposal. Inquiries are, however, being made with the view of ascertaining that the arrangements for carrying out the proposal will be convenient to all the district affected.

  INCOME TAX ON FINES FOR RENEWAL OE LEASEHOLDS.
  MR. A. BILLSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the practice of the Commissioners in regard to the assessment of income tax on fines paid on the renewal of leases; and if he can give the number of owners who have been allowed exemption from income tax upon fines by satisfying the Commissioners, in accordance with Section 60 of the Income Tax Act,. 1842, that the fines have been applied as productive capital, and the amount of such exemptions during the last five years?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The practice in regard to the assessment of income tax on fines paid on the renewal of leases is in accordance with the Act 5 and 6 Vic, cap. 35, section 60, No. II., rule 5. It is there enacted that such fines are to be assessed on the amount received within the year, preceding, provided that if the party chargeable proves to the satisfaction of the District Commissioners that such fines, or any part of them, have been applied as productive capital, on which a profit has arisen, or will arise, otherwise chargeable under the Act for the year of assessment, the Commissioners may discharge from assessment the amount so applied. I have no figures to show the number of persons who obtained relief under this proviso, or the amount so discharged from assessment.

  AUSTRALIAN MINTS.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he has received representations from the Australian Premiers requesting the privilege of coining silver in the Australian branches of the Royal Mint; and (2) whether he contemplates making the desired concession?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The answer to the first part is yes; and to the second, the matter has been referred to the Treasury, and is now under the consideration of their Lordships.

  FATALITY AT DUNMURRY STATION.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a woman was killed at Dunmurry Station, Great Northern Railway, Ireland, on a level crossing last week; and, if there is no foot bridge at Dunmurry Station for the use of passengers to cross the line, will he use his influence to have such a bridge made?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: It appears from the return of the accident that the deceased was not killed at a level crossing. She attempted to cross from the up to the down platform at Dunmurry Station, and was killed by a through train. She had no excuse for crossing the line as there is an underground passage from platform to platform, for the use of passengers.
  MR. MACALEESE: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the underground passage is in such a condition that it is not fit for any person to go through?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I know nothing about the condition of the passage, but if there is one passengers should not be allowed to cross the line.

  POSTMEN'S WALK.
  MR. W. LUCAS-SHADWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster
  1376
  General, at what rate per hour has a postman, making a collection of letters and parcels, to walk, and is the clearing of letter boxes and offices included in that time?
  MR. HANBURY: A postman making a collection of letters and parcels is, in ordinary circumstances, expected to walk at the rate of from 2¾ to 3 miles an hour, which should include the clearing of street letter boxes and post office boxes. But in London and the busy parts of large Provincial towns there is no rigid rule, each duty being tested, and arranged for according to circumstances.

  SAVINGS BANKS WITHDRAWAL BY TELEGRAPH.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the number of cases for the year 1897 in which the telegraph was used for the purpose of giving notice of the withdrawal of money from the Post Office Savings Bank, and the average cost to the depositor of each such telegraphic notice; and will he also state the number of cases in 1897 in which the depositor paid for telegraphic advice of payment as well as for telegraphic notice of withdrawal, and the average cost to the depositor in each such case of payment for two telegrams?
  MR. HANBURY: The number of cases in which the telegraph was used for the purpose of giving notice of withdrawal of money from the Post Office Savings Bank during 1897—the withdrawal being made the next day—was 9,389, and the average cost to the depositor in each such case was about 9d. The number of cases in 1897 in which the depositor paid for telegraphic advice of payment as well as for telegraphic notice of withdrawal was 117,507, and the average cost to the depositor in each such case was about 1s. 3d.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state in how many instances, during the year 1897, the

  1377
  Fishery Board for Scotland received complaints of trawlers working without lights, or on other occasions with their names and numbers concealed, and if he can state in how many cases prosecutions have been instituted, and in how many cases convictions have been obtained?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Fishery Board that 12 complaints were received of concealment of letters and numbers, three of fishing without lights, and two of both offences, but the evidence was sufficient only to warrant six prosecutions being instituted, in all of which convictions were obtained, the offenders electing to go to prison rather than pay the fine imposed in two instances.

  TIUMPAN HEAD LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state when the construction of the lighthouse on Tiumpan Head will be commenced?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that the contractors commenced operations for the construction of the lighthouse on Tiumpan Head in February last.

  SCOTCH FISHERY BOARD REPORT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state when the annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Board that the final proofs of the Board's Report are in the printer's hands, and will be presented to Parliament shortly.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right honourable Gentleman take care that this Report is in the hands of Members before the Fishery Board Vote is brought on?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: That rests with the First Lord of the Treasury, but I think I may almost promise the Vote will not be taken until after the Report has been presented.

  LAND APPEALS IN THE INNISHOWEN UNION.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the number of appeals pending for hearing before the Chief Land Commissioner in Innishowen Union; whether a great number of men have been served since April, 1897, and What is the cause of the delay; and whether, considering the great number of appeals pending from Innishowen, arrangements will be made for the Chief Commissioner to sit at Carndonagh, to hear those cases, which include a number of Malin Head land appeals listed for hearing, as there are many poor fishermen who cannot afford to travel 40 miles to Londonderry, where the Chief Commissioner usually sits?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are 65 appeals pending in the Union mentioned, nearly 30 of which have been lodged since the commencement of the present year. The Commissioners will arrange for the hearing of the appeals in question at as early a date as possible having regard to the claims of other districts, and in fixing the place at which the cases will be heard, they will have regard to the convenience of all the parties interested.

  EUSTON SQUARE POST OFFICE.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, as the post office at Euston Square is now closed, and has been since 31st January, 1898, as stated by public notice, for temporary repairs, it is a fact that those repairs have not been commenced; whether the residents, travellers, and others who have used this

  1379
  post office for a considerable number of years have only facilities in a temporary office in the railway station at Euston, to buy stamps up to the value of 2s. 6d., and have no facilities for any other business as usually conducted at post offices, other than posting letters or sending telegrams; and if he proposes within a short period to remedy this inconvenience to the inhabitants and others using the post office in that locality?
  MR. HANBURY: I regret that it is the case that the Euston Square Post Office has been closed since the 31st January, 1898, and that it has not been practicable to commence the alterations and improvements which are necessary, as there is a difference of opinion whether the Department, as tenant, or the Railway Company, as landlord, should bear the expense. It is hoped, however, that this matter will be settled shortly. In the meantime temporary arrangements have been made with the Railway Company for the sale of stamps and receipt of telegrams at their own telegraph office. And it is possible that, at this office, stamps of a higher value than 2s. 6d. are not kept for sale. The Postmaster General is sparing no effort to remedy the inconvenience.

  LEAD-POISONING IN THE POTTERIES.
  MR. R. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a petition from working potters in Burslem, Hanley, and the districts in which recent deaths, blindness, and other suffering have occurred from lead poisoning, asking that a female inspector be appointed for the potteries; and whether, in view of the large number of women and young persons employed, amongst whom the greatest sufferers from, lead poisoning are found, he will consider the desirability of appointing a female inspector to take charge of the district under the control of the chief inspector?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have received the petition to which the honourable
  1380
  Member refers, and have consented to receive a deputation from the district on the subject. In these circumstances I should prefer not to make any statement at present.

  PAYMENT OF ARMY PENSIONS.
  MR. J. COMPTON RICKETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he could alter the system of paying Army pensioners; whether he is aware that in many cases the money is spent in drink within a day or two, and that for the remainder of the quarter the men are destitute; and whether he would consider the question of paying the pensions weekly in future instead of quarterly?
  MR. BRODRICK: The reasons against such an alteration have been frequently explained in Parliament. In all cases in which it can be shown that pensioners make habitual use of the unions through spending their pension on drink, and application is made by the guardians to the War Office, the officer paying the pensioners is instructed to pay the men monthly.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1897.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will appoint Medical Referees in Scotland, as well as in England, under the Workmen's Compensation Act of last Session; and, if so, whether any special regulations will be made with regard to their qualifications and duties?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I propose to appoint medical referees in Scotland, and the regulations will be the same as in England, with such variations in details as may be made necessary by the differences between County Courts in England and Sheriff Courts in Scotland. On this latter point I am in communication with the Scottish Office.

  DISEASE IN THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the recently published statement of the Chairman of the Straits Settlements Association, purporting to disclose a deplorable and alarming increase of disease in the military and civil population of those possessions since, and consequent upon, the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Order; and whether he will inquire into the truth of the matter with a view to the adoption of such precautionary or remedial measures as may be necessary should the facts alleged prove to be well founded?
  CAPTAIN D. V. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government are taking any action as to the state of matters disclosed by the investigations of it local committee of the Straits Settlements Association, and contained in a letter of 8th November, 1897, from the chairman of that association; and, if the statements of that letter are accurate, have the Government decided on the course to pursue?
  MR. J. STUART: Will the right honourable Gentleman lay on the Table the correspondence on this subject between the authorities of the Straits Settlements and the Colonial Office, and also the correspondence between the Colonial Office and other Colonies, on the same subject, in continuance of Papers laid on the Table from time to time?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I informed the Straits Settlements Association, in reply to their letter of 8th November last, that I am not prepared to sanction the re-enactment of the Contagious Diseases Ordinance in the Straits Settlements, but that I was conferring with the Governor as to whether other measures can be taken to check the spread of venereal diseases in that Colony. The correspondence with the Governor on the subject is not yet completed.

  WAGADUGU, WEST AFRICA.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether Wagadugu, in the Mossi district of West Africa, is within the British sphere recognised or claimed; (2) whether it is now occupied by a French post; and (3) whether there is any foundation for a recent report to the effect that the French have been fortifying it, or have strengthened their forces there by an addition of infantry, cavalry, and guns?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The answer to the first two Questions is in the affirmative. I have received no information in the sense of the third.

  KILDARE SUB-COMMISSION.
  MR. M. J. MINCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. L. Doyle, B.L., Legal Sub-Commissioner, has been recently appointed Chairman of the County Kildare Sub-Commission; if he will state for what reason he was removed from another county to Kildare, and if his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Doyle was one of the Sub-Commission who fixed the first judicial rents which he is now engaged in revising for the second statutory term; and if he will suggest to the Land Commission the reconsideration of Mr. Doyle's appointment to county Kildare?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No change has recently taken place in the district in which, the Sub-Commission presided over by Mr. Doyle, as legal Assistant Commissioner, is empowered to work under a delegation order of the Land Commission, the county Kildare having, for a considerable time past, formed part of his district. It is a fact that Mr. Doyle was engaged in the earlier years of the Commission in fixing judicial rents for a first statutory term in the county Kildare, but the Commissioners state they see no reason why he should not now take part in the hearing of applications which may be made in any of those cases, for the purpose of fixing a fair rent for a further statutory term.
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: Is it not a fact that in county Down a gentleman who recently acted as a Sub-Commissioner—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

  GARRISONS IN SCOTLAND.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, owing to the number of troops at present quartered in Scotland being very small and out of proportion to the garrisons maintained in the other countries of the United Kingdom, the Government propose to augment the Scottish garrison, more especially in view of the sanctioned increase of the Army; and, if so, to what extent; and also if he could inform the House of the actual number of troops quartered in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively?
  MR. BRODRICK: With a view to efficiency, it is considered desirable to station troops, as far as possible, at places where they can be trained in large bodies and are most available for mobilisation. As Scotland does not provide special facilities for these requirements, it is not proposed to increase the number of units there. The distribution of the troops in the various commands is published monthly.

  TELEGRAPHISTS' PAY.
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the result of the inquiry, promised by the Postmaster General in 1895, into the rate of pay of the younger telegraphists after five years' service; and why, though an increased rate was strongly supported by the Departmental witnesses before Lord Tweed-mouth's Committee, no allusion is made to this matter either in the Committee's Report or by the Postmaster General in his recent circular?
  MR. HANBURY: This subject was not dealt with in the circular of 15th March last because it had been already dealt with in the previous circular of 10th August last. In consequence of the further concessions then made by the Postmaster General and myself, a telegraphist may, on attaining his 21st year and completing five years' established service, obtain three increments on his scale of pay—viz., (a) the ordinary increment allowed on a certificate of general good conduct and efficiency; (b) an additional increment on passing a qualifying examination in sorting as well as telegraphy, and being ready to place his services, as may be required, at the disposal of the authorities on either section of duty; (c) an additional increment on passing an examination in technical telegraphy. Thus a London telegraphist of five years' service may qualify in his sixth year of service for three increments of £6 each, or £18 in the aggregate, and a provincial telegraphist for three increments of 2s. a week, or about £16 in the aggregate.

  INSTRUCTIONS TO THE FACTORY DEPARTMENT.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House the general official instructions issued by the Secretary of State to the Factory Department, as is done in France, Austria, and Germany?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I do not know what are the French, Austrian, or German instructions to which the honourable Member alludes; but it must be remembered that in these countries many matters appear in administrative regulations which in this country are determined by Acts of Parliament. It is not the practice, and obviously inexpedient, to make public all Departmental instructions, but I shall be happy to consider whether it will be possible, on particular points, to furnish the honourable Member with the information he wishes.

  COUNTY SOLICITORS IN IRELAND.
  MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the words "comity solicitor" in Section 72 of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill means the Crown Solicitor for the county?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The expression "county solicitor" refers not to the Crown Solicitor, but to the solicitor of the grand jury.

  SIR THOMAS FINLAY'S ESTATE, COUNTY CAVAN.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it is seven years since the tenants on Sir Thomas Finlay's estate in the parish of Templeport, county Cavan, purchased their holdings, and that they have not yet received their vesting orders; and will inquiry be made as to the cause of the delay?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The agreements to purchase from the estates mentioned in this Question were received on various dates between July, 1894, and April, 1898. In 30 of these cases the holdings have been vested in the tenant purchasers; in four cases the applications were either withdrawn or dismissed; in 19 vesting orders have been prepared and will be executed immediately; and in the remaining cases the solicitor having carriage of the proceedings has been called upon to close the matter by an early date. There has been no delay on the part of the Land Commission.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any proposals have been received for the purchase by the tenants of the Finlay estate, in the town lands of Cirrlough and Brackley, in county Cavan?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to this Question is in the negative.

  APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he has received copies of resolutions adopted by all the Poor Law Boards of county Cavan asking for powers under the Local Government Bill to be given to the county councils to appoint a mining expert or engineer as one of the county officers; and (2) can he include such an office in the appointments to be made under the Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received copies of the resolutions referred to in the first paragraph. I do not see my way to accepting the suggestion in the last paragraph.

  FAIR RENT APPEALS IN BELFAST.
  MR. KILBRIDE: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what number of fair rent appeals were disposed of by the Chief Commission at its last sitting in Belfast; and in how many cases were the judicial rents reduced or increased respectively?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There were 95 cases on the list to be disposed of by the Commissioners at their last silting at Belfast. In 57 of these cases the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were affirmed, in 22 cases they were increased, and in two cases they were reduced. Of the remaining cases three were withdrawn, two were struck out, three were settled by mutual agreement between the parties, and one case stands adjourned.

  CUSTOMS DUTIES IN THE WEST INDIES.
  MR. A. D. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the negotiations now pending between the United States and the West India Islands, there is any suggested or contemplated preferential customs treatment of dutiable

  1387
  merchandise imported into the West Indies from the United States as compared with the same or similar merchandise imported from the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether he will give the names of the articles which it is suggested should receive such preferential treatment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I am unable at the present time to give any information as to the negotiations, of which I have no full report, and which are not completed. No such arrangement, however, has been proposed or contemplated by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. PROVAND: Has any such arrangement been proposed by the other side?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The honourable Gentleman, I think, had better restrain his curiosity until I am able to lay upon the Table the whole account of the negotiations.

  IRISH DISTRESS.
  MR. J. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has read the reports of the agent of the Manchester Committee on the condition of the school children in the distressed districts in the West of Ireland; and, if he has, whether the Irish Government have decided to take any steps to deal with the state of things disclosed in those reports?—At the same time I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been directed to the report of the last meeting of the Dublin Mansion House Committee reported in the Dublin newspapers of 26th April; (2) whether he is aware that the funds of the Committee were reported to be exhausted and the accounts overdrawn, and that the Committee were obliged to refuse all applications for relief; (3) whether a return was laid before the Committee of the cost of supplying the children attending school in 15 very distressed parishes with one pennyworth of bread daily, amounting to
  1388
  £965 13s., and whether the Committee were unable to do anything, and postponed the matter; and (4) what steps the Government propose to meet this emergency?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have seen the reports, which were of a confidential nature, of the agent of the Manchester Committee relative to the condition of the school children in distressed districts in the west of Ireland. In the early part of this month I instructed the Local Government Board to issue directions to their inspectors requesting them to call the special attention of relieving officers to the condition of children with a view to the exercise of their powers of affording provisional relief in food, blankets, medical attendance, etc., to children in all cases in which it appeared that they were in the condition alleged in the report of the Manchester Committee. In answer to the second Question, I have read a newspaper account of the proceedings at the meeting mentioned, at which statements are reported to have been made to the effect quoted in the second and third paragraphs of the second Question. As regards the last paragraph of that Question, I have nothing to add to the statements made by me in the House on Friday last or to my reply to the inquiries addressed to me on the subject on Tuesday by the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: Is the right, honourable Gentleman aware that the distress funds in Cork and Kerry are also exhausted?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no information before me to that effect.

  COUNTY COUNCIL MEETINGS.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that county councils in England and Wales have power to hold their meetings at such places, either within or without their counties, as they may from time to time direct, he will insert a similar provision in the Local Government (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Article 34 of the Order in Council adapting the English Enactments contains a provision to the effect mentioned in this Question.

  INDIAN FEUDATORY STATES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any objection to present to Parliament such of the official Minutes of the late Sir Henry Maine respecting the relations between the British Government and the Indian feudatory States as can now be published without detriment to the public service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): A selection of the Minutes of Sir Henry Maine on the subjects referred to in the honourable Member's Question were reproduced in the "Life and Speeches of Sir Henry Maine," published by Mr. John Murray in 1892. Those Minutes which, on account of their comparative unimportance, or of their confidential nature, were omitted from that collection should not, in my opinion, be published.

  NEWCASTLE (COUNTY DOWN) PIER AND HARBOUR.
  MR. KILBRIDE: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) with reference to the £5,000 granted by the Secretary to the Treasury towards the repair or reconstruction of the pier and harbour works at Newcastle, county Down, on condition that the grand jury of Down would present for the balance of £8,000 or £9,000 to complete the work, whether he is aware that the grand jury had no power to present for a new work which the approved plan of Mr. Vernon Harcourt, C.E., involved by reason of his suggested extension of the harbour works for the sake of safety; and (2) whether he will provide in the Local Government Bill to give power to the county councils to raise money for any such necessary new work, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The grand jury had no power to present for a new work at Newcastle, and the extension referred to comes within that description. The question raised by the second paragraph requires careful consideration, and I am not at present prepared to say whether provision will be made by the Bill in the direction suggested.

  FAIR RENTS IN COUNTY ARMAGH.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether a large number of applications to have fair rents fixed, made by small farmers in the county Armagh, are still unheard, though some of them date so far back as October, 1896; (2) whether an application was lodged by Mr. Wm. Conser, of Armagh, in January, 1898, to have a fair rent fixed and listed for hearing by the Land Commission for the 26th April instant; (3) why was such a preference given to Mr. Conser in this instance; and (4) will he prohibit this case from being taken out of its ordinary turn?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that a comparatively large number of applications from the county Armagh is still awaiting to be heard, but that there are no cases unlisted for hearing in which the applications were received by the Commissioners in 1896. In the case referred to in the second paragraph the application was received by the Commissioners in January last, and a special Order of the court in Dublin was obtained, directing that the case should be listed for hearing at an early date, owing to the existence of special circumstances. The Commissioners sea no reason for varying the Order made in this case.
  MR. MACALEESE: Has the right honourable Gentleman any objection to stating what are the special circumstances?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I really do not know myself what they are. This is a matter for the Commissioners, and I cannot interfere.

  LIVERPOOL TELEGRAPHISTS ILLNESS.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether on 5th December, 1897, a telegraph clerk at Liverpool named Hardingham sought the advice of the medical officer; whether after a week's absence Hardingham was instructed to resume duty; whether in consequence of his inability to do so Hardingham called in a private practitioner, who at once stated that he was suffering from typhoid fever, and ordered his immediate removal to the Corporation Infectious Disease Hospital; whether he is aware that Hardingham remained an inmate of the hospital for 11 weeks; and will the Postmaster General institute a special inquiry into the case, and direct that the expense incurred by Hardingham in obtaining medical advice be refunded, as post office employees are entitled to free medical attendance?
  MR. HANBURY: It was on the 7th and not on the 5th of December last that Mr. Hardingham saw the medical officer at Liverpool. The medical officer reported on that date that Mr. Hardingham was suffering from gastric catarrh, but was able to perform his official duty; Mr. Hardingham, however, as a matter of fact, did not resume duty, and was visited by the medical officer on the following day. The medical officer then reported that Mr. Hardingham would not be fit for duty till the 13th of December. He subsequently visited Mr. Hardingham on various days between the 10th and 20th of December, on each occasion extending his certificate by stating that the patient would not be fit for duty for a week. On the 14th of December, however, Mr. Hardingham consulted a private medical gentleman, who stated that he was suffering from "enteric fever," and ultimately ordered his removal to the hospital. He was in the hospital from the 21st of December till the 18th of February. The medical officer at Liverpool reports that Mr. Hardingham did not follow his directions either as to taking the medicine or observing the diet which he prescribed, and that he aggravated his illness by taking a pork chop in lieu of the milk and farinaceous food which had been ordered for him. The Postmaster General sees nothing in the
  1392
  case calling for special inquiry, and he is unable to pay Mr. Hardingham's private medical adviser's fees. Gratuitous medical advice and attendance were provided for Mr. Hardingham, but he preferred to have recourse to private medical advice. This he was quite at liberty to do, but the Department cannot undertake to pay the cost.

  PLAGUE IN INDIA.
  MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the secretary of Slate for India when the Papers concerning the Plague in India will be issued; and when he will lay upon the Table of the House the Acts recently passed in India dealing with the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Post Office?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Papers in question were laid on the Table on the 24th of March, and copies were issued to Members of the House nearly throe weeks ago. As regards the other Papers asked for, they will be presented so soon as the Acts referred to have been considered by the Secretary of State in Council.
  MR. J. H. ROBERTS: Can the noble Lord say about how long that will be?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I hope in the course of a few days.

  PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that considerable doubt has arisen respecting the reason why the words "or to some nearer destination" have been inserted in Rule 3 of his Letter addressed to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty; and will he be good enough to stale the effect of these words, and, in particular, whether they are intended to cover the case of the supply of coal in a British port to a ship of war of either belligerent when the

  1393
  destination of such ship, being nearer than the nearest port of her own country, is a point for hostile operations against the other belligerent?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The words to which the honourable Gentleman refers have been contained in all recent proclamations. Their meaning is clearly not that which the honourable Gentleman attributes to them. They are intended to limit, not to increase, the amount of coal which a belligerent may take in at one of our ports. The fundament al principle underlying these provisions is that neutral ports should not be made the basis of warlike operations.

  GOVERNMENT SERVANTS AND THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1897.
  MR. G. W. E. LODER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is in a position to state what action the Treasury propose to take under Section 8 (2) of the Compensation Act, 1897, with regard to framing a scheme enabling such Government servants as may desire to do so to contract out of the provisions of the Act?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir; a Treasury Warrant is in course of preparation enabling Government servants to contract themselves out of the provisions of the Act if they so desire. The Warrant will contain a scheme of compensation which will be submitted for the certificate of the Registrar of Friendly Societies as required by the 3rd Section.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT IN DUBLIN.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether it is intended that a grant of £150,000 shall be provided in this year's Estimates to build a Science and Art Department in Dublin; and (2) whether it is intended that the Department shall be in connect ion with the foundation of technical education in Ireland?
  MR. HANBURY: The Report of the Departmental Committee which inquired last year into the question of providing new buildings for the Royal College of Science in Dublin is still under the consideration of the Science and Art Department. It may be presumed that any building scheme which may be adopted will involve as a preliminary the acquisition of compulsory powers of purchase; and consequently there is no present necessity for any financial provision to be made. I understand that the Question referred to in the last paragraph is also receiving the attention of the Committee of Council.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the site of a Science and Art Department, in Dublin has been received, and, if so, will he state its purport; and whether the Department is to be placed under Irish control and in connection with technical education?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. E. GORST,): The Report relating to the Royal College of Science in Dublin has been received, and is under the consideration of the Committee of Council. I cannot yet state whether it will be laid before Parliament. The Committee of Council have no information as to any intended Departmental changes.
  MR. FIELD: Is the Department to be placed under Irish control?
  SIR J. GORST: I have said we have no information on that point, and it is not for us to suggest it.
  MR. FIELD: When will the Committee of Council have the information?
  [No Reply.]

  DUBLIN POLICE STATION ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Laird Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether certain recommendations have been made respecting the defective

  1395
  arrangements and accommodation for prisoners under arrest by the Dublin Metropolitan Police; (2) whether he is aware that a grant has been made to carry out the necessary reform, and to assimilate the system with that now existing in English cities; and (3) whether he can state if these improvements have been commenced, and when they will be perfected?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The first paragraph is a repetition of a Question put to me by the honourable Member on the 21st instant. I am, of course, aware of the fact stated in the second paragraph. On the 21st instant I informed the honourable Member that negotiations for a site for the proposed Central Bride-well were in progress.

  WAIMA.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before the 15th September, 1895, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris was informed by the French Foreign Minister that the French Government could not entertain a claim on behalf of the widows and children of the British officers slain at Waima; and whether, under those circumstances, the French Government have subsequently accepted negotiation on the subject?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am informed that there is no trace, either in the Foreign Office or in Her Majesty's Embassy at Paris, of any such communication as that alluded to in the Question; nor have Her Majesty's Government information that any such communication has been made.

  KIN-CHAU.
  MR. R. A. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the harbour of Kin-chau, on the Gulf of Liaotung, is included in the territory on the Liaotung peninsula leased to Russia; (2) whether the agreement which embodies the terms of the lease of Port
  1396
  Arthur and Talienwan to Russia states that the southern portion of Talienwan is to be an exclusive naval base not open to foreign ships of commerce; and (3) whether fortifications at Talienwan have been already begun?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The answer to the first Question is, I believe, in the affirmative we have not yet received the terms of the agreement referred to in the second Question, and, therefore, have no precise or authentic information as to its details Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin has reported to us having heard that a portion of Talienwan Bay is to be fortified, but we have no knowledge of any fortifications having been yet commenced.

  PORT ARTHUR.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether it is a fact that the Russian authorities have property in Port Arthur, and have ejected the Chinese residents; (2) whether the Russians have insisted on the dismissal of the British instructors in the Chinese naval schools and their replacement by Russian naval officers; and (3) whether Russian engineers have surveyed Port Adams, near New-chwang, with a view to establishing a railway terminus there?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We have no information as regards the first and third Questions. The answer to the second is in the negative.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the right honourable Gentleman be so good as to inquire for information on this subject?
  [No Reply.]

  TALIENWAN
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian

  1397
  Government is converting the southern half of the harbour of Talienwan into a fortified naval base, unopened to foreign ships of commerce?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have already answered that.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he will be so good as to make inquiry of Her Majesty's representative at Pekin as early as possible, so that, in view of the coming Debate, the House may have full information on these important questions, especially in regard to Talienwan?
  THE FTRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not know that our representative at Pekin has any means of obtaining information. We have no Consul at Talienwan. I can only say that there were actually in existence certain fortifications at Talienwan.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Are we to understand that there has been any change in the pledges of Russia with respect to Talienwan being an open port, because, of course, a fortified naval base is a very different thing from an open port?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The House has all the information with regard to the intentions of Russia that is in the possession of Her Majesty's Government. I certainly should not, without consideration, commit myself to the proposition that the fortification of any part of Talienwan prevents it being an open port.

  WEI-HAI-WEI.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the British Government spontaneously intimated to the German Government that it had no intention of calling in question the German rights or interests in the Province of Shantung; and that, in particular, it had no intention of laying down railway communication with the interior from Wei-hai-Wei. or from the territory which appertains to that port?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The declaration referred to was suggested by me to prevent misconception. It states the exact truth—that the occupation of Wei-hai-Wei. though it is in Shantung peninsula, was not directed against German rights in that province. As the House knows, the reasons for the occupation were strategical and political, and not commercial. They had nothing to do with Germany or Germans interests, and it seemed right to say so. The declaration neither recognises rights which do not exist, nor adds anything to those which do.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: The right honourable Gentleman omitted all reference to the last part of the Question, as to whether the British Government spontaneously intimated to the Gorman Government that it had no intention of laying down railway communication with the interior from Wei-hai-Wei.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir. I stated that the communication was what is called spontaneous—that is, that it was initiated by Her Majesty's Government. With regard to railway communication, I believe it to be impracticable, and that was staled in the course of the communication to the German Government.
  MR. PROVAND: Are we to understand that British subjects are not to have the same rights to carry on commercial business at Wei-hai-Wei that the Russians have intimated they will have at Talienwan?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Any British subject who is foolish enough to go to Wei-hai-Wei for commercial purposes will have every facility.

  PROPOSED INCREASE OF AMERICAN TONNAGE TAX ON SHIPPING.
  SIR GEORGE S. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that there is a Bill before the Congress of the United States to increase the Tonnage Tax to eight times its present amount;

  1399
  and whether this tax will be Applied to British vessels, but not to the vessels of all nations; if so, will Her Majesty's Government enter into negotiations with the United States, with a view to preventing so heavy a burden being laid on British shipping?
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury (1) whether he is aware that a Bill is now before Congress which proposes to increase the Tonnage Tax on shipping to eight times its present annual amount, namely, from 30 cents to 2 dollar 40 cents per annum, or per voyage from 6 cents to 30 cents; (2) whether he can state if it is proposed that the shipping of countries hitherto admitted into United States ports free from any Tonnage Tax shall continue to be free from the increased tax, while the full amount of the increased tax is to be exacted from British shipping; and (3) whether, if the above inquiries, or either of them, be answered in the affirmative, he will cause representations to be made to the United Stales Government as to the injurious effect which so burdensome an imposition is calculated to have upon trade between the United Kingdom and the States, and the exceptional severity with which it will press upon British shipping?
  SIR JOHN WILLOX: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that a Bill is now before the Congress of the United Stales of America winch proposes to increase the Tonnage Tax on ships entering United Slates ports to eight times its present amount, amounting in maximum to 2 dollars 40 cents per ten per annum; and whether, inasmuch, as the ships of some other countries are admitted into United States ports free from such Tonnage Tax, Her Majesty's Government will make representations to the Government of the United States in this sense?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Her Majesty's Government are aware that a Bill is new before the United States Congress for an increase in the Tonnage Tax on shipping, but no information has been received officially with regard to the exact provisions of the Bill. The question is engaging our attention.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: Will the right honourable Gentleman kindly answer the third paragraph of the Question of the honourable Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool, as this matter is very important to all engaged in the shipping interest?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think my answer really covered all three paragraphs. Her Majesty's Government are aware that there is a Bill before Congress—I do not pledge myself as to the precise accuracy of my honourable Friend's figures—but it is a Bill undoubtedly enormously augmenting the charges upon shipping. With regard to the second paragraph, no information has been received officially as to the exact provisions of the Bill, but I believe it is true that there is an exception in favour of those countries which do not exact light dues. As to the third paragraph, the question is engaging the attention of the Government, and we will do whatever we can to protect the interests of the British shipping trade.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: I do not think the right honourable Gentleman has realised the importance of the Bill, especially to the owners of steamers running from Liverpool to Atlantic ports—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is now really arguing upon the Question.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: May I ask the First Lord whether he has thoroughly realised the importance of this Bill? Will he consent to receive a deputation from those interested in the American trade?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think that if a deputation is to be of any great value it ought to be addressed to those who are not already fully seized with the views of the members of that deputation, and who are not already in thorough agreement with them. As I have already indicated, we do desire to protect the interests of British shipping in this matter. The persons who have control over this matter are not Her Majesty's Government, but Congress and the Government of the United States.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: I think the First Lord of the Treasury still does not realise the importance—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is not entitled to comment on the answer.
  SIR E. H. EVANS: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the action in Congress, he will consider if he cannot alter ins Light Dues Bill and remove that charge from shipping?
  [No Reply.]

  EVACUATION OF THESSALY.
  MR. T. W. LEGH: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question, of which I have given him private notice, (1) whether it is the case that the date for the announcement of the Greek Loan is May 2, and the date for the issue May 10; (2) whether the evacuation of Thessaly by the Turkish troops will, consequently, commence on May 2; and (3) whether it will be superintended by the International delegates?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is, I believe, understood that the publication of the Greek Indemnity Loan is fixed for May 2, and the issue for May 10. The evacuation of Thessaly will, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Peace, take place within vine month from the former date. The answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

  ALASKA BOUNDARY DISPUTE.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made with the negotiations for the settlement of the Alaskan frontier with the United States, a question which has been left unsettled by the Foreign Office for over 30 years?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The question is now under discussion with the United States Government. As I think my right honourable Friend the Secretary for the Colonies has stated, there is reason to believe a modus rivendi will be agreed upon pending a definite settlement.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask if the Foreign Office will endeavour to get this very important Question settled as promptly as possible?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Of course we are quite alive to the extreme importance of the Question, and are anxious to bring it to an end.

  DUTIES ON CURED HERRINGS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state the nature of the response which has been received to the representations which, in the 15th Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, are stated to have been made to the Governments of Russia, Austria, and the United States, with a view to a reduction of the high duties on cured herrings imported into those countries?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I gather that representations have been made to the Governments of Russia and Austria. In answer to various Questions put by the honourable Member last year it was stated that, in the opinion, of Her Majesty's Government, no useful purpose would be served by such a course. Representations were made by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington to the United States Government in January, 1897, and the duty on salted herrings in the United States remains at half of a cent. per pound, being the same rate as that previously in force.

  ARBITRATION TRFATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether negotiations have been reopened with the United States Government with a view to arranging an Arbitration Treaty?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No such negotiations are at present in progress.

  COLONIAL OFFICE VOTE.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS (Notts,): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Colonial Office Vote can be placed as first Order on Friday, 6th May?
  MR. DILLON: Will the right honourable Gentleman kindly bear in mind that there is something of an understanding that the Irish Estimates shall be taken while the Local Government (Ireland) Bill is in Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes; and I think that would be a very convenient course; but I believe that by general consent Friday week has been set apart for the discussion of the Colonial Vote.

  CRETE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is a fact that the Admirals at Canea have telegraphed to their Governments demanding the reinforcement of the European garrison and the withdrawal of half the Turkish forces from the island?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: A communication has been addressed by the Admirals to their Governments to the effect indicated in the Question.

  LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL.
  MR. C. A. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to take the Second Reading of the London University Commission Bill before Whitsuntide?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot give any definite promise, having regard to the condition of public business, but I certainly would not discourage the idea that we might have a chance of bringing this Measure on as early as some time before Whitsuntide.

  PETTIGO COURT HOUSE.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the fact that the Petty Session Courthouse at Pettigo is used for the meetings of the Orange Lodge; and whether, as the Court-house is paid for by the ratepayers of the county, the Irish Government will take any and, if so, what steps to prevent meetings of a party character being held in the Court-house.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the fact is as stated in the first paragraph. The magistrates' room is rented by the Grand Jury pursuant, to the provisions of Section 8 of the Petty Sessions Act, and I have no reason for believing that the occupation of the room for party purposes is with the sanction of the magistrates. On the contrary, I believe it has always been the practice of magistrates throughout the several Petty Sessions districts in Ireland not to permit their Court to be used for party purposes where the building is under their control. In the present instance that appears not to be the case, but I am making further inquiry into the matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the records of this Court are open to the inspection of the members of this Lodge?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should think that that is very improbable.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (CHILDREN WORKING FOR WAGES).
  Return ordered,
  "For England and Wales, giving (1) the number of Children attending Elementary Schools who are known to be working for wages or employed for profit, with their ages, standards, occupations, hours of work, and rates of pay; and (2) the different classes of employment into which the boys and girls attending Elementary Schools in England and Wales went on leaving school during some complete year."—(Mr. Albert Spicer.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CUAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE III.
    Amendment again proposed, in page 2, line 17, to leave out the word "rural."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    Question again proposed—
    "That the word 'rural' stand part of the clause."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. J. DALY: I do not propose to trouble the Committee with more than a few arguments. The right honourable Gentleman stated yesterday that rural district councils would have an opportunity of returning a member to the county council. There are little towns where the tenants have their holdings purchased under the Ashbourne Act, and the result will be that those tenants will have to pay the whole of the county cess and the whole of the rural cess. To my mind, if you take the small towns of this class they will have to be added to the rural area. I think it is only fair to the ratepayers in towns that the chairmen of town boards should be ex officio members of the county councils. I give this as my opinion, having had some experience in this matter, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment, because the number of members that will be added to the county council will be very insignificant. I think it will be placing every hardship on the ratepayers in towns, and the cess payers who pay the whole of the county cess and the whole of the poor rate, if they have to be put alongside of the rural districts in electing a member of the county council. There are certain towns whore the
    1406
    tenants are holders of their property in fee, and those people have to pay for the entire county cess and the entire poor rate, and to put those people along with tenants who get the land and get half of their poor rate paid by the Government is, to my mind, scarcely fair. I think it would not be fair treatment to the tenants in towns who hold their property in fee, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    DR. J. A. RENTOUL: If all the counties are situated as county Louth is, this Amendment might be accepted. As far as I understand, in county Louth you have three places in which the Amendment will apply. But in a certain other county there will be 15 urban councils represented, and the county council will be largely dominated by chairmen from all these different places. Therefore, seeing that the interests of the urban districts have not the same concerns as the rural districts, and seeing that there is not the same need for representation, owing to a close connection between urban district councils and county councils as there is between rural district councils and county councils, I think it is extremely unfair, in the interests of the farmer, that certain county towns should send in 15 men who would be far more likely to attend the council than the men who came from the country districts. It is quite possible that in county towns we might find chairmen from the urban district councils ruling on certain occasions in a majority of the entire councils. I feel certain that that consideration did not enter the mind of the honourable and learned Gentleman who proposed this Amendment. In the case of such a small number as county Louth would return, no one would object to give the chairman of the urban district council any added dignity by being on the county council. But it is a serious matter in some cases. I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment of my honourable and learned Friend. I make these remarks because of the statement made several times yesterday that the Chief Secretary had accepted this Amendment, seeing that he had the

    1407
    support of the entire Irish representation. It is true that one Irish Member spoke on behalf of it, but I understand that the Unionist representatives from Ireland are almost all against it.
    MR. J. JORDAN: I do not desire to retard the progress of this Bill by prolonging the Debate. I am proud to facilitate its progress; but, before we pass away from this clause, I rise to make an appeal to the Chief Secretary on behalf of the Chairman of the Town Commissioners of Enniskillen, of which I am a member. I am convinced that the right honourable Gentleman docs not intend that this Bill should be a disabled Measure, but if Clause 3 passes in its present form it will curtail the privileges and it will diminish the statutory rights of the Enniskillen Corporation. This Enniskillen Corporation for which I appear is a Unionist corporation; and, so far as I am concerned, I do not care whether it is Unionist or Nationalist. I only want to do what is right under all the circumstances; I am prepared to advocate the interests of a Unionist Corporation, as well as of a Nationalist Corporation. The Enniskillen Town Commissioners, I may state for the information of the right honourable Gentleman, if I can get his attention, are constituted under an Act of George IV., under the Town Improvement Act of 1854, and under a special Act of their own, passed in this House in the year 1870. The 25th and 26th Sections of this special Act provide for three things. They provide for the contribution of the town of Enniskillen to the general county expenses at large; secondly, for the mode of assessment; and, thirdly, for the representative rights of the Commissioners in the outlay of this contribution. If the House will not think it too long, I should like to read this 26th section—
    "The amount of the contribution of the borough towards the amount presented as aforesaid shall be proportioned to the valuation of property in the borough as compared with the valuation of property in the county, and the amount of such contribution shall be certified in detail under the hand of the treasurer of the county, such certificate to be delivered to the clerk of the Commissioners at the time when the warrants for collecting are delivered to the collectors of
    1408
    county cess and six weeks at least before the commencement of each assizes for the county. Provided always that the chairman of the Commissioners for the time being shall be entitled to sit and act as one of the associated cess payers at every county-at-large presentment sessions and to represent the borough at every such sessions."

    Now, Sir, under these two sections we pay from £250 to £500 a year, and as the valuation of the town increases our contribution will be more. As the result of this 26th. Section our chairman sits and acts and votes as an associated cess-payer. Under your Bill there will be no associated cess payers; so that the rights of the Commissioners, as such, under the 26th Section of this Act, will be abrogated without the gain of any equivalent rights. If we accept the Amendment, and constitute the chairman of the Commissioners a member of the county council, he will still sit and act in the outlay of the Commissioners' contribution to the county at large. I say now to the Chief Secretary that it would be most unfair to deprive us of our legal rights. It would be most unfair to deprive the Chairman of the Enniskillen Urban District Board of his statutory rights, and to confer these rights upon the chairman of a brand new body, which hitherto had no existence and no rights, and which was not so deserving. I noted the right honourable Gentleman yesterday made use of two arguments in favour of rural chairmen as against urban chairmen. First, he says the urban district will be represented on the county council. The second argument was that the chairman of the rural district council would be perfectly familiar with the wants of the district. But surely the right hon. Gentleman must see that these arguments apply with greater force in favour of the chairman of the urban council being ex officio a member of the county council than in favour of the chairman of the rural council; for all the area covered by the district council will be represented on the county council, and the chairman of the Commissioners will assuredly be more perfectly familiar with the affairs of the urban district council than the chairman of the rural district council can be familiar with the affairs of the rural district. I ask, in justice to the Chairman of the Enniskillen Commissioners, that he be not deprived of his legal rights, and that

    1409
    the Chief Secretary, in the interests of the town of Enniskillen, and other towns similarly situated, will see his way to accept the very modest Amendment proposed by the honourable Member for North Louth.
    MR. M. DAVITT: My honourable Friend is quite right to look after the interests of Enniskillen; but he must not overlook the fact that there are wider interests involved—namely, those of the tenant farmers of Ireland. They will have to look entirely to county councils for the complete representation of their interests. It would be unfair to give urban bodies an unfair representation on these county councils. As well as I understand it, this Bill—in this clause at any rate—proposes to hold the balance of power fairly in the county councils, the urban councils, and the rural councils. If this Amendment is carried, see how it will work. For instance, in the county of Dublin, which is a small county, I assume that the number of councillors will not be less than 16 or 18, and if this Amendment is carried, the chairmen of eight urban councils will be entitled to sit on the county council. I think I am safe in saying that urban interests will be more intelligently safeguarded by urban councils than the interests of the county will be under county councils. I sincerely trust that the right honourable Gentleman will look after the interests of the wider class of tenant farmers.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): I am sorry to again intervene in the Debate on this Amendment, but the speakers in favour of it do not in the smallest degree appreciate the considerations which led us, in regard to the Bill in its present form, to resist the Amendment. There is a practical difference between the rural district councils and the urban district councils. The latter are to a large extent independent of the county councils. They can raise their own rate, and have practical control over their own roads and public works. The rural district
    1410
    councils have not control over their Own roads and public works. They submit their proposals to the county councils and the county councils have got an abso-that ground that we have proposed this that ground that we have proposed this link between the county councils and the rural district councils. We want somebody who is absolutely acquainted with what is going on to represent their cast to the county councils when the business comes up for consideration. That is practically the main reason why we have sought to establish a difference between the rural district councils and the urban district councils. As to rural district council ex-officio representation, county officials will not necessarily be included. You might have a rural district council which, so far as representation of the area on the county council is concerned, would in no single instance be found on that council. It is otherwise with urban councils. A town sufficiently large will, as such, constitute a separate county electoral division, and its representatives will be strictly members of that district. On the other hand, an urban district may be so small as not to constitute a county division, but to form part of a county division. In that case the town will be so small that to give it additional representation will cause it to be grossly over represented on the county council. Suppose there are over 5,000 inhabitants—the number of a county electoral division—such towns would send representatives direct to the county council. But, supposing that the town has less than 5,000 inhabitants, if you were to give it additional representation, such a small town would have a much larger representation than it is entitled to. In some councils you would have the force of rural district councils, when they came before the councils, controlled not merely by representatives directly elected from the urban districts, but by ex-offico representatives. I say that, having regard to the interests of both, parties, it would not be fair for the Government to place the rural districts on such terms as those. I do not think that the county councils should be so largely reinforced with ex-offico members.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the right honourable Gentleman has made out a very good case for the

    1411
    Amendment. I go further, and say that it would be a distinct strengthening of the boards to have the chairmen of the district councils on them. Therefore, I feel inclined to go to a Division, unless the alternative suggestion be accepted. The right honourable Gentleman stated that town councils were practically separate entities, Home Rulers, and made their own roads. With great respect to him I submit that that is an entire delusion. Why should a man who has to maintain his own roads and light his own town have to pay half the charges which run through other districts? The tenant farmers along the road will have half of their own roads provided for them by the agricultural grant. The tenant farmers all along the roads will have half their rates provided for by the agricultural grant, but a man in Dundalk will not only have to find half the payment for these roads, but will have to provide his proportion of other county charges, including his proportion of the county surveyor's salary. In Drogheda the position is still worse. Whereas the country dwellers will have half their poor rate and county cess paid by the State, the people of Drogheda will not get a shilling from any source whatever, while the county charges will have to be borne by them. The city of Kilkenny is the same, the town of Galway is the same, and I think Carrickfergus would be under a similar obligation. I am, perhaps, more acquainted with dwellers in towns than dwellers in counties, but I want fair play for both. I do not care a dump what the effect in either direction may be, except in so far as it tends to the interests of justice. Under this Bill, however, all the county road charges and a similar number of other charges will have to be borne by the town dwellers, who have not got the special representation on the county council which the right honourable Gentleman has given to the rural districts. The Government have a clause dealing with adjustments as between counties and towns, and I would suggest that the clause be made retroactive, so that it may deal with past adjustments. Unless the Government give some assurance in regard to the unfair operation of the Bill on urban localities, I shall feel bound to go to a Division.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: We have heard a great deal of the analogy between the Irish Local Government Act and the English Act, and I would venture to urge upon the Chief Secretary that in this case the analogy of the English Act, which I shall try to point out, is in favour of the Amendment. We all know that in the county council there are aldermen, and they are elected from the whole county at large. Anybody who has a county qualification—whether he lives in a town or whether he lives in a country district—can be elected an alderman. Now, in this Bill there are no aldermen, but this particular clause is in reality a substitute, and, I venture to say, a very good substitute, for the provision in the English Act in regard to the election of aldermen by the county council itself, and I congratulate my right honourable Friend upon it. By this means he gets over a good deal of the difficulty which may arise in an English county council about the election of aldermen, because there is sometimes a suspicion that aldermen are unduly elected from one part of a county. There may be a populous district, or a district inhabited by influential people, concerning which there is a suspicion of over-representation. The provision of the Bill in this respect is exceedingly good, and it is an improvement on the English Bill, because it has, as it were, distributed the election of these aldermen over the whole of the county. With regard to the objections which have been made, that certain counties in the north of Ireland, where the urban element is strong, will have on the county councils an over-representation of the urban element, it seems to me that that argument answers itself, because if in any county the urban element is strong, not only in point of numbers, but in point of pecuniary contributions to the county charges, surely it is only fair in the matter of representation that the urban element shall have the same rights as rural districts. Where the urban element is weak, the representation will be weak; but where in counties in the north of Ireland the industrial element is strong, there the urban representation will be strong, as it ought to be. I cannot help saying that the added

    1413
    experience of gentlemen who have been chairmen of urban councils upon the county councils will, I believe, if they are of the same use that they have been in the English county councils, be very useful, especially in the case of gentlemen from the smaller towns, which are not independent counties of themselves, and the representatives of which have served the office of mayor in those boroughs. And why should it be otherwise in Ireland? Surely the line is not drawn so hard and sharp between the inhabitants of the comparatively small country towns and the country around as to justify the inference that the inhabitant of the town has an opposite interest to the farmer outside? We know that in many cases the farmers are closely connected by marriage and interests with the towns. Then, Sir, I cannot help thinking that the right honourable Gentleman has, to a certain extent, not quite adequately grasped what will be the future operation of the financial clauses of his own Bill. I am not saying for a moment that he has given an incorrect description, but I think he has, if I may say so, exaggerated to a perceptible extent in theory, but still more what would be the working in practice of the so-called independence of the urban councils. I cannot see that under the clauses of this Bill the urban council in Ireland stands in any very different position from the rural council, especially when a rural council has gained a little independence from experience. In regard to the county charges, the honourable Member for Louth has pointed out, and pointed out unanswerably, that the ratepayer in the urban district is exactly in the same position as the ratepayer in the rural district.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Not in regard to district roads and district public works.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I am coming to that. In regard to the roads which run through an urban council district, which are charged on the county at large, the urban ratepayer will, under this Bill, contribute exactly as the rural ratepayer does to county charges. He will pay out of one pocket, and he will receive into the other. I cannot see
    1414
    myself that any answer has been made to the argument on financial grounds, and so far as I can gather there is no reason for setting up this difference between town and country. I cannot help hoping that if not in Committee, at any rate on the report stage, we may arrive at some agreement in regard to this matter, and that in any case the objections of over-lapping areas may not be considered a fatal one. There is no necessity whatever when the counties are mapped out for electoral divisions, whether urban or rural, for them to overlap. I cannot therefore see why, either in regard to overlapping or financial control, any inequality should be introduced in Ireland.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I must take exception to the suggestion of my right honourable Friend that I did not understand my own Bill. I understand my own Bill a good deal better than he does. He seems to have absolutely forgotten the nature and extent of district charges, which I venture to say are of extreme importance, and he has actually passed them over altogether and told me that I do not understand the financial position of my own Bill, because, according to him, I had not taken into consideration the charges which are contributed to by urban district councils as well as by rural. Anybody who is acquainted with the system of local government in Ireland must know that these district charges are of extreme importance. They cannot be set aside in that way. Then, Sir, my noble friend goes on to establish, but only partially establish, an analogy between ex-officio members of county councils and aldermen in English county councils. Sir, the analogy exists only in the right honourable Gentleman's own mind. It, was never my intention, nor the intention of the framers of the Bill, that these should correspond. The reason for establishing the system of ex-officio members I have fully explained, and I venture to say that no Member of the House has met the argument. I have drawn of the broad distinction between the relations of the county council to urban districts and to rural districts. The honourable and learned Member for Louth has suggested

    1415
    that when we come to the adjustment of the clause the adjustment should be retrospective as well as applicable to existing charges. I must say at first blush that does appear to be a proposal which I am indisposed to accept, for it certainly opens the door to a large number of considerations which I would gladly exclude, and imposes a task on the Local Government Board almost impossible to fulfil.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I must say the right honourable Gentleman has not met my argument in favour of the Amendment. I am quite willing to admit that there is a great deal to be said on his side of the question, and he has put it very well and very concisely, and we fully appreciate the merits of the case. We have, however, put forward a counter proposition, and I hope I shall be doing no injustice in saying that he has not met any portion of the arguments which have been put forward on my side. Has he met my argument in regard to Kilkenny? Has he met my argument in regard to Galway? Has he met my argument in regard to Carrickfergus? Has he met my argument in regard to Drogheda? The right honourable Gentleman has put these arguments aside, and has ambled into the paddock where he had his own reserves of argument. There is something to be said for his argument, but I believe there is more to be said, on the whole, in favour of mine. May I make one suggestion to the right honourable Gentleman? He has twice apologised to the Committee for having risen. I hope he will never make an apology for rising again. We are always glad to hear him. I believe he understands his Bill better than anybody else in the House, and I include in that the Irish Members and all the assistance he has at his side—his draughtsman and his lawyer. He certainly could not be supported by a more able staff. But we are denied those advantages. We have to study these questions in our spare moments, and do as volunteers, what he has a very large and valued staff paid to assist him in doing. Under these circumstances, therefore, he need make no apology for giving us light and leading with regard to the evident intentions of certain clauses. In the present
    1416
    instance I venture to think the right honourable Gentleman has not met the arguments which we have put forward on behalf of the Amendment, and I therefore think that, though he has apologised to the House for rising twice, we should be very glad to hear him a third time.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I have only one observation to make upon this question. The town of Dundalk and other towns have been referred to. I wish to refer to the town of Sligo, which will be, under the new Bill, a district council. As I understand it, the Corporation of Sligo will be an urban district council, and the chairman of the urban district council will be the Mayor. What we claim under this Amendment is that the Mayor of the town of Sligo should have the right of sitting as an ex-officio member of the county council. We pay a portion of the county at large charges in the county of Sligo, as well as a portion of the salaries. But, while we have always had representation on the grand jury, which is, in my judgment, one of the most bigoted and intolerant bodies that ever sat in Europe. We are deprived, by the provisions of this Bill, so far as Sligo is concerned, of representation on the county council, and this privilege will be be a great disappointment to the inhabitants of that town.
    MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX: There is one point to which I desire to draw attention concerning the Amendment under consideration. There are in Ireland main roads which are, to all intents and purposes, the same as the main roads in England—that is to say, roads which have been kept up by the county at large. That provision is to be abolished, and instead of that we are to have a new arrangement, under which the county council, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, are empowered to declare what are to be main roads and what, are not. That is an obvious impossibility, inasmuch as almost every county council will consist of a large majority of rural members, and there will be a tendency to increase the extent of main roads beyond what has been known in the past. If the number of main roads

    1417
    are increased the number of roads towards which the urban districts contribute will increase at the same time. In any case, there does seem to be a possibility of a larger expenditure falling upon the urban districts. In that, event, I understood the Chief Secretary to say that the urban districts, by the Amendment which he suggests, would be exempted from any additional charge in such a case. When we consider that the urban districts received no relief whatever from the agricultural grant, I do think it would not be a bad thing to give them even a little more representation than they are strictly entitled to by numbers, rather than a little less, as they get under this Bill. When we consider that, in almost every part of Ireland the urban districts will be in a small minority, and that a large majority may have some interest in increasing the charges, it might not be a bad thing if the Chief Secretary were to proceed in an opposite direction and give the urban districts a little more representation than the rural districts. Personally, I occupy an entirely impartial position in this matter, as I represent a county borough which is not affected either way. But it seems to me that there might be some advantage in the exchange which I have suggested. I admit that there is a certain number of urban districts to which it would be a mistake to give special, representation; but there is a considerable number of those large places where it would not harm anybody. The case of Enniskillen, to which attention has been directed in the course of the evening, is a very strong one. Under this Bill it will have a less representation, in proportion to its size, than any other part of the country. It seems to me that it is a case in which existing privileges ought to be taken into account. I suggest that the Chief Secretary might well consider whether the largest of these districts should not be given this special representation.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: The observations of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland apply more forcibly to the county boroughs than to the
    1418
    ordinary urban districts. I am not sure that the House understands what an urban district is. The attention of honourable Members has not been directed to it. The Bill itself defines what constitutes an urban district. The 18th Clause of the Bill is as follows—
    "All urban sanitary authorities shall be called urban district councils, and their districts shall be called urban districts, but nothing in this section shall alter the style or title of the Corporation or Council of a borough."
    The urban sanitary authorities referred to in this clause are the sanitary authorities defined under Section 3 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and are towns, the population of which, according to the last census, exceed 6,000 persons, so that, as this Bill stands now, no town in Ireland with a population less than 6,000 will be an urban district.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, no!
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: The right, honourable Gentleman says "No, no!" If he is correct, then I do not know the meaning of the phrases in this 18th clause. It distinctly says that—
    "All urban sanitary authorities shall be called urban district councils, and their districts shall be called urban districts, but nothing in this section shall alter the style or title of the corporation or council of a borough."
    The definition of an urban sanitary authority is to be found in the Public Health (Ireland) Act of 1878, and that definition makes it the more necessary that this Amendment should be carried. I rest my argument for this Amendment upon very narrow grounds. The county councils have now all the powers of the grand jury with regard to the main road and for the maintenance of bridges and court-houses, and for other purposes, all of which come under the head of county-at-large expenses. These expenses must be contributed to by the urban district councils. If we were only dealing with county boroughs, like Dublin or Cork, the case would be different. But does the right honourable Gentleman mean to say that towns like Sligo, Strabane, or Dundalk will not have to contribute to the county-at-large expenses? The county councils are to regulate the conditions of these expenses, and does it not follow, in common justice, that the urban

    1419
    districts should be represented on the taxing body if this Act is passed? Assuming that the section to which I have called attention gives power to constitute small towns into urban districts, the effect in each county will be almost inappreciable. There is another point to which I wish to call attention. Section 8, Sub-section 3, provides that the councils of each county may make a general declaration of the roads in the county that shall be main roads. There is absolute power given to the council to declare every street in a town a main road.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no such power.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: If the right honourable Gentleman will follow me, on page 4 he will see whether I am under a delusion. It is stated on page 4, line 7, that—
    "The council of each county may, upon the report of the county surveyor, make a general declaration declaring what roads in the county shall be main roads."
    What is the meaning of that? Surely all the ingenuity in the world cannot alter the meaning! The inference I draw—and I am speaking in the presence of many honourable Members who have been grand jurors in Ireland—is that, as the law stands at present, half the expense of the mail roads, running through every county town in Ireland, is paid by the town. These mail roads now cease, and' main roads are substituted for them, because in the same section it is provided that—
    "Every road, the maintenance of which, at the passing of this Act, is levied partly off the county at large, and partly off any barony shall be a main road until it ceases so to be as hereinafter provided, and the enactments respecting mail roads shall be repealed."
    If the members of this Committee are wrong about the law, as it is at present in Ireland, they will be happy to be put right by the honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. As the law exists at present, all those roads through which main roads run are taxed for the support of those main roads. These roads now cease to exist in name, but they remain in substance, and will have to be paid for by the inhabitants of the small towns through
    1420
    which they run. Why should' those towns have the right to go to a council and see whether one shilling or two shillings in the pound is the proper tax? Why should they not have a voice in this matter?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe they have.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: In what way? I am sure no party or political consideration can enter into the question. I exclude—and I am sure the House also will exclude—such considerations, but I maintain that the body that has the power to impose taxation should be represented, and that no preference should be given to the rural districts.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: No honourable Member will deny that, under this Bill, a town apparently can derive any advantage as regards its roads, from its alliance with the county, whereas the towns incur a certain liability as regards, roads in the county. If the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary can cut off the towns, so far as roads are concerned, altogether from the county, there would be some reason for the position which he takes up. Perhaps, the right honourable Gentleman will allow me to point out the very serious administrative difficulty which will arise as a result of that position. There will be two classes of main roads in the county. The classification between district roads, and main roads, we can understand, and it is intelligible; but now it is proposed to have two classes of main roads in the county, to one of which towns will have to contribute, and to the other to which the towns will not have to contribute. I submit that it will be a great administrative inconvenience, and I maintain that there should be one solid classification—main roads and district roads. Moreover, the question of the expenses of the roads carries with it also the consideration of other expenses. If the towns are to be excluded from the expenses of the roads, I think it follows that the towns ought to be excluded from any burden, as regards the salaries of the county surveyor and the district surveyor. The functions of these officials are almost altogether confined to roads, and if you cut

    1421
    off the towns, from the county for the purposes of roads, it will be wrong to saddle the towns with any proportion of these surveyors' salaries. I would also point, out that the larger urban areas have at present to provide for the office of borough surveyor, and it appears to me rather hard that such areas should be put to this expense, and at the same time be saddled with a contribution for a county surveyor. I would not be in favour of entirely cutting off these urban areas from the county, because there are cases in which such an alliance is necessary and desirable, but I think this matter of the roads is one in connection with which it might be well to keep the urban areas distinct from the county altogether.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I desire to support the Amendment of the honourable Member for Louth, and I wish to see it go to a Division. Kilkenny, the city which I have the honour
    to represent in this House, is not one of the cities raised to the rank of a county borough under this Bill, although, in the opinion of everyone I have consulted, it ought to be so raised. Kilkenny is a city of the first importance in Ireland, and was once the seat of a Parliament, but, like every other place in Ireland, it has declined as the result of the misgovernment of England. In the county of Kilkenny there are eleven towns, with populations varying from about 2,000 to 500, and only one of them will have direct representation upon the county council. But in all cases these towns form a portion of the electoral divisions, and they will be absolutely swamped by the rural vote. I hope the Government will be prepared to give Kilkenny its proper place amongst county boroughs.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 224; Noes 150.—(Division List No. 80.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Cayzer, Sir C. W.

    Foster, Colonel

    Aird, John

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Garfit, William

    Allsopp, Hon. George (Worc.)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Gedge, Sydney

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. J.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. H.

    Gilliat, John S.

    Bagot, Captain J. F.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Goldsworthy, Mj.-Gen. W. T.

    Baird, John George A.

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Gordon, Hon. John F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch.)

    Cohen, Benjamin L.

    Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's)

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Goulding, Edward A.

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

    Graham, Henry R.

    Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. Smith-

    Cox, Robert

    Green, Walford-Davis

    Barry, F. Tress (Windsor)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

    Gunter, Colonel

    Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Hall, Sir Charles

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Davitt, Michael (Mayo, S.)

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Bethell, Commander

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Hardy, Laurence

    Biddulph, Mich.

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

    Haslett, Sir James H.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Heath, James

    Boscawen, A. Griffith-

    Dorington, Sir John E.

    Helder, Augustus

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Doogan, P. C.

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    Bousfield, William R.

    Doxford, William T.

    Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

    Bowles, Maj. H. F. (Mid'sex.)

    Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Holland, Hon. L. R.

    Brassey, Albert

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Hornby, William H.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. J.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Howard, J.

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

    Howell, William T.

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Hubbard, Hon. F.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Hudson, George B.

    Butcher, John George

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Jeffreys, A. F.

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Carlile, William Walter

    Fison, F. W.

    Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

    Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs.)

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. G.

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Kenrick, William

    Muntz, P. A.

    Spencer, Ernest

    Kilbride, Denis

    Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Knowles, Lees

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Lafone, Alfred

    Myers, William Henry

    Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

    Laurie, Lieutenant-General

    Newdigate, Francis A.

    Stephens, H. C.

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Nicholson, W. G.

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M. T.

    Lawson, J. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

    Lea, Sir Thomas

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Strutt, Hon. C. H.

    Legh, Hon. T. Wodehouse

    Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Pender, James

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

    Loder, Gerald W. E.

    Penn, John

    Thorburn, W.

    Logan, John William

    Phillpotts, Captain A.

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edward M.

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Tritton, Charles E.

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Valentia, Viscount

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Verney, Hon. R. G.

    Lowles, J.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Pretyman, Captain E. G.

    Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent.)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Waring, Col. Thomas

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Pym, C. Guy

    Warkworth, Lord

    Macartney, W. G. E.

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Warr, A. F.

    Macdona, J.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Rentonl, James A.

    Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight.)

    McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

    McCalmont, Mj-Gn. (Ant'm, N.)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    McIver, Sir Lewis

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Malcolm, Ian

    Roche, John (Galway)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Manners, Lord E. W. J.

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Martin, R. B.

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm.

    Willoughby de Fresby, Lord

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Willox, Sir J. A.

    Midmay, Francis B.

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Milward, Colonel V.

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh.)

    Monk, Charles James

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

    Sharpe, William E. T.

    Wylie, Alexander

    More, R. Jasper

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Young, Samuel

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Skewes-Cox, T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Mount, William G.

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Smith, J. Parker (Lanark)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

    Crilly, Daniel

    Harrington, T.

    Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo)

    Hayden, John P.

    Ambrose, Robert (Mayo)

    Daly, James

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Scale-

    Asher, Alexander

    Dalziel, James H.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Austin, Sir J.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir C.

    Healy, Thos. J. (Wexford)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Dillon, John

    Hedderwick, T. C. H.

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Duckworth, James

    Hogan, James F.

    Billson, Alfred

    Dunn, Sir William

    Holburn, J. G.

    Birrell, Augustine

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Horniman, F. J.

    Blake, Edward

    Engledew, Charles J.

    Jacoby, James A.

    Bolton, Thomas D.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Brigg, John

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Brunner, Sir J. T.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. J.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Buchanan, T. R.

    Field, William (Dublin)

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

    Burt, Thomas

    FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Caldwell, James

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

    Kinloch, Sir J. G. S.

    Camenron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Labouchere, Henry

    Carew, J. L.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Lambert, George

    Carmichael Sir T. D. Gibson-

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Carvill, Patrick George H.

    Fowler Rt Hn Sir H. (Wolv'r)

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

    Channing, F. A.

    Fox, Dr. J. F.

    Leng, Sir John

    Clancy, John J.

    Gold, Charles

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Gourley, Sir Edward T.

    McDonnell, Dr. M. (Qn.'s Co.)

    Collery, Bernard

    Grey, Sir Edward

    MacNeill, John G. Swift

    Condon, Thomas J.

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    McDermott, Patrick

    Crean, Eugene

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

    McEwan, William

    1424

    1425

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Perks, R. W.

    Strachey, Edward

    M'Hugh, E. (Armagh)

    Philipps, J. Wynford

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

    Pirie, Captain Duncan

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal)

    McKenna, Reginald

    Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen)

    McLaren, C. B.

    Power, Patrick J.

    Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan)

    Maddison, Fred.

    Price, Robert John

    Tully, Jasper

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Minch, Matthew

    Reid, Sir Robert T.

    Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

    Molley, B. C.

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

    Wayman, T.

    Morris, Samuel

    Roberts, J. Compton

    Weir, James G.

    Murnaghan, George

    Roberts, J. B. (Carnarvonsh.)

    Whittaker, Thomas P.

    Nussey, Thomas W.

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighshire)

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Roche, Hon. James (Kerry)

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow)

    Saunderson, Col. E. J.

    Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    O'Kelly, James

    Shee, James John

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Souttar, Robinson

    Younger, W.

    O'Neill., Hon. R. T.

    Spicer, Albert

    Yoxall, James H.

    Parnell, J. Howard

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

    Steadman, W. C.

    Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr.

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Patrick O'Brien.

    Amendment proposed in page 2, line 20, to leave out the words "or is disqualified for election as a member."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I raise this point because it seems to me the Government are needlessly restricting the Bill. What I suggest is that it should be open to county councils, in making their selections, to choose persons who are disqualified from being voted for. For this reason: as the Bill new stands clergymen are disqualified from being elected by the voters. It may not be in order for me discuss now whether that clause is a sound one, but if we are prepared to go that length as regards clergymen and women the county councils should not be precluded from selecting distinguished persons of either sex. It would be a pure act of co-option. The Government must remember that they are allowing the grand juries, at least as regards the first period of election, to send a representative to the county councils. One of those grand jurors may be a clergyman. There was a clergyman a grand juror in the county of Monaghan within the last three years, and there was another in Cork, and another in Kilkenny. Practically, a grand, jury will have the right of selecting a clergyman as one of their number to sit on a county council, whereas the council would not be able to select the same gentleman, or a

    1426
    priest, or a lady. It appears to me it is only a reasonable option to offer to the county council, that if you persist in the exclusions later on to be discussed, you should not fetter the councils, if there be distinguished persons to whom they are desirous of paying the compliment of co-option, or of co-opting for business purposes. We have heard of able and qualified women being elected to boards all over the country. I do not say it may not be fair to exclude them from the general body by means of election, but that is no reason why they should be excluded from co-option. One extraordinary thing is that when you cross a caned in Dublin the disabilities of sex begin to prevail. There must be absurdities under any scheme of law, but it is a remarkable fact that in Rathmines, Kingstown, Blackrock, and Clontarf women can sit on the councils, but in the city of Dublin itself they are disqualified. Therefore when Dublin obtains an Act to extend its boundaries if will pass an Act disfranchising women as regards the corporation. Why keep up the disqualification proposed in the Bill? We are not only continuing the disqualification, but also preventing the councils from co-opting, for instance, a Presbyterian clergyman in the county of Down, a clergyman of the Established Church in Fermanagh, or a Catholic priest in Cork or Donegal. It may be that my Amendment, in one respect, goes too far. That is the invariable result of following the drafting of a Bill, and moving to omit

    1427
    words—not to insert them. I would suggest that the Bill, as now drawn, is, at any rate, too tight, and that a somewhat greater margin of elasticity should be allowed.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: These words, which the honourable and learned Member desires to omit, apply to cases where persons not disqualified for district councils are disqualified for county councils. One case is that of women. It has been decided that no change shall be made in the law in that respect as regards Ireland, and it is not desirable now to raise the question of sex. The other class who might, under the operation of these words, be excluded from county councils, although members of district councils are persons who, although they had no contracts with the district council, had contracts with the county council. I think the Committee will agree with me that it would not be possible to make an exception although the county council might be ready to co-operate.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed in page 2, line 20, after "election," insert "or declines to act as such additional member."—(Sir John T. Brunner.)
    SIR JOHN T. BRUNNER: The Amendment I have put on the Paper is specially designed to allow district councils to elect another member of their own body, in case the chairman found it inconvenient for any reason to become a member of the county council. I heard the right honourable Gentleman yesterday arguing in favour of a wide area of choice for the electors and by parity of reasoning. I hope to hear from him arguments in favour of the widening of choice for the members of district councils. It may be the members of a district council have among them a man whom they cordially approve of as chairman, but who may live a great distance from the place of meeting of the county council. In England I know it is very frequently a matter of great inconvenience, and it
    1428
    would be very much greater in Ireland than in England. I would, therefore, urge on the right honourable Gentleman to give the district councils facilities that if the chairman finds it would be inconvenient to hold the two offices they should be empowered to elect another member to represent them on the county council. I may ingratiate myself with the right honourable Gentleman by stating that this is a matter in which I take very great interest. In 1888 I got inserted in the Local Government Bill more Amendments than any other private Member of the House, almost without exception, and many of them were accepted by the Government without Debate. Seeing that I am only following the arguments of the right honourable Gentleman yesterday that the electors should have as wide a choice as possible, and that the only reason for the whole section is that there should be a connection between the two bodies, and that the connection by any member not necessarily the chairman would be just as good, I hope the right honourable Gentleman will be good enough to accept my Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid in this case I do not see my way to accept the Amendment. The chairman of a district council will be elected with a full knowledge of the duties attaching to his office, and I doubt if it would be desirable to encourage the chairman not to undertake such duties. It is desirable that the duties of the district and county councils would be attached, but the Amendment would weaken it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed in page 2, lines 25 and 26, leave out "and if they think fit a vice-chairman."—(Mr. T. Lough.)
    MR. T. LOUGH: Mr. Lowther, this is a small Amendment, but yet one of some importance. It is another of the innovations which I hope the right honourable Gentleman will be willing to redress. The sub-section

    1429
    provides that if a county council see fit they can elect a vice-chairman from outside the council. This provision does not exist in the English Act, and I have great objection to it, because it increases the number of persons on the council not elected by the electors. I do not think any reason has been given by the right honourable Gentleman why the English Act has been departed from. I believe that if the permission to choose a chairman from outside is exercised, as I believe it will be, it is all the more necessary that the vice-chairman should be selected from the elected members, as in England. The elected members might wish that one of these dignities should be reserved for themselves. The Amendment is a small but very important one. Unless some reason stronger than anything I have been able to devise for departing from the English Act is given, it would be much better to abide by the excellent precedent that Act sets.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This seems a small point, and I do not attach much importance to it. I did depart from the English precedent in order to give additional opportunities to the county councils, should they so desire to choose their officers from outside.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: The Amendment enables two outsiders to be brought into the council, but I think it would be a very strange thing if they were to be the chairman and vice-chairman. I submit it would be much better to enable two persons to be co-opted, and, if necessary, that the chairman should be one of them, and not that one should necessarily be chairman and the other vice-chairman.
    MR. JOHN DILLON: I have an excessively strong objection to either the chairman or the vice-chairman being brought in from outside. I object to the system of co-option altogether. This is a Bill founded, we are told, on a democratic basis, and I think every member of the council should run the gauntlet of the electors. The proposal of the Bill is that the elected representatives of the people are to be at liberty to invite as chairman
    1430
    and vice-chairman men who have not been elected, and who, er hypothesi, are unwilling, for some reason, to go before the electors. The law in England is only in regard to the chairman, and I think this is one of the particulars in which the right honourable Gentleman might improve on the English Act, by not only doing away with the principle as regards the vice-chairman, but the chairman also, in respect to which I have an Amendment on the Paper. I think the chairman of the council should be like our own chairman—a man who has seen red the suffrages and the confidence of the people. It would be just as reasonable to make it the practice, or to make it possible, to select a Chairman of Committees, or a Speaker, from outside this House, as it is to select outsiders for the chairmanship and vice-chairmanship of the councils. For that reason, I strongly support the Amendment.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: As this is simply permissive, I cannot understand why honourable Members are afraid to trust a county council going where they like to get their chairman.
    MR. LOUGH: That is not the Amendment I do not propose anything with regard to the chairman—only the vice-chairman.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: As regards the Amendment. I am rather inclined to agree with it. It is a very small point, to my mind, and I do not attach very much importance to it.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: As regards the choice of a chairman from outside, I quite understand that in some cases it may be acceptable to the county councils, but the position of vice-chairman should be in the hands of the elected members. The council should give this position of distinction to one of their own body, who has gone through the process of popular election, and the right honourable Gentleman might very well waive the right enabling them to co-opt a vice-chairman as well as a chairman. The office of vice-chairman is not of very great importance and should not be included in the power of going outside to fill.
    COLONEL E. J. SAUNDERSON: I entirely agree with the clause as drafted in the Bill. The county councils will be elected bodies, and they might have difficulty in carrying on the business, and it would be a wise thing for them to get somebody with a knowledge of county, affairs to preside over them. I think the Government acted wisely in putting the provision into the Bill. Personally I am quite indifferent in the matter, but it would be a wise thing. I think it would be common sense if, under certain circumstances, the county councils in Ireland got somebody to preside over them who is well acquainted with county affairs.
    MR. L. H. COURTNEYsaid that he had sympathy with neither of the objections that had been raised. The privilege of co-option was one which was very frequently exercised. If these bodies could add to the value of their knowledge by bringing in an outsider why should not they be allowed to do so? He was so little disposed to fall in with the objections, and he thought so lightly of the principle of co-option, that he would like to see it brought into operation with this House. He could not, however, see why it should be necessary that these added members should be chairman and vice-chairman, as proposed by the clause, and he hoped that his right honourable Friend would reconsider that matter. Why should not these public bodies be allowed to exercise a free choice? He urged that, though he was strongly in favour of facilities being granted for excluding this admirable system of co-option, he disliked the idea of these co-opted members being placed in a position which the electors themselves might not desire. The members who were the free choice of the electors should themselves say in what capacity the co-opted members should be utilised.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member for Cork and my right honourable Friend who has just spoken have made proposals which go beyond the proposals of the Bill. I am prepared
    1432
    to do this: instead of allowing the chairman and vice-chairman to be the members taken from the outside, to allow two additional members to be co-opted who need not necessarily be chairman and vice-chairman. Perhaps we had better put the matter off till we reach the report stage, when I will bring up an Amendment to that effect.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I am very glad to hear the announcement of the right honourable Gentleman. I entirely sympathise with his desire that some of the grand jury should be co-opted upon these councils. The mass of the Irish people have been excluded from county government for such a long period that they would not know how to week the administration of the county, and would be ignorant of their duties. I do not think it will be a valuable thing that one or two members of the grand jury class, who have been accustomed to county business, be brought in to give the new councils the benefit of their experience, and I cannot agree with the opinion that has been expressed that he presence of two members of the grand jury class on these county councils could in any way deteriorate its general quality. That, I think, is absurd, and I think it shows a great want of trust in these new councils to say that they cannot be trusted to-select two or three grand jurors to become members of their body without running the risk that in some way their nature will be debased. I believe it to be a valuable thing that this power should exist, and I hope, for my own part, that the district council will, exercise the power. I think there will be co-option in very few instances, but if it is left to the councils themselves to co-opt whom they like, and then for them to select any chairman or vice-chairman they think fit, then I think it will be a good thing.
    MR. DILLON: I cannot agree with the view of co-option, and I believe the power of co-option is a wrong thing to give in a, Bill of this sort. So far as this Bill is concerned, it will be a small evil, but I think that even to that extent its introduction is in itself an evil, because you

    1433
    are introducing a strange and foreign element, of non-elected members. One thing I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to is this: that what I objected to originally was that the chairman of the council should be one of these non-elected members. I hold very strongly that the chairman of the county council should be a man who has been elected by the people. The argument has been used by the right honourable Gentleman opposite that the freedom of choice should rest with these councillors who have been freely elected by the people; but yesterday, in this Committee, when I was agitating for the freedom of choice of the electors, the Government and the majority of this House, for certain reasons, decided that the electors should not be allowed to go out of the county, even if they thought they could find a man who would do the business better than anyone in the county. The argument as to the limit of choice of selection in regard to the chairman of the county council is infinitely stronger than anything that was said about leaving it to the choice of the electors themselves. The chairman and vice-chairman of these councils ought to be men who owe their seats to the confidence of the people. I have not had time to examine the Act, but I am informed that in the Act for Scotland—the Local Government for Scotland Act—it is necessary that the chairman should be a member of the county council. I am not aware as to whether there is any provision in the Scotch Act for co-option, but if there be any such provision, and if the chairman, as I gather, must be a councillor elected by the people, then I say that the Irish county councils ought to have the same treatment in this respect as the Scotch county councils have.
    SIR T. G. ESMONDE: I think it will be a desirable thing to leave the management of these things vested in the council. I understand that no power of co-option exists in the Scotch Act, but what I want to point out is this: the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite seemed to suggest that some of the members of these county councils would be utterly incapable of
    1434
    handling the affairs of the county, but provision is made for that, because you have three ex-grand jurors members of the first county council, so that they can give the benefit of their experience to the councillors.
    MR. LOUGH: I think the best plan is to accept the suggestion made by the right honourable Gentleman. As far as I understand the situation it is this: that at any rate if is not absolutely necessary that the second co-opted Member should be the vice-chairman. I think the right honourable Gentleman concedes that point, but he promised on the Report stage to bring up a clause which will enable the county council be co-opt two Members if they like without making them either chairman or vice-chairman. I think that is an improvement. The only difficulty that occurs to me is, supposing that a county council was returned with a small majority say 13 on one side and 12 on the other—perhaps even in that case it would be desirable that the 13 should be able to select two more to give them a working majority, as the administrative business of the county must be carried on. By accepting the right honourable Gentleman's Amendment, we are not precluded from considering the clause when ii is brought, up. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I will accept the suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman, and withdraw my Amendment.
    MR. DILLON: I think it would be generally advantageous to postpone this discussion, and as I understand the right, honourable Gentleman is going to bring up an alternative proposal I shall not waste the time of the Committee by discussing the matter now. I only desire to say, however, that, as far as I understand the suggestion which has been thrown out by the right honourable Gentleman, it does not at present meet my objection.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause (iii.) agreed to.

    CLAUSE IV.
    Amendment proposed, on page 2, line 37, after "sessions," insert—
    "including—

    "(a) the making, assessing, and levying of county and all rates, and the application and expenditure thereof, and the making of orders for the payment of sums payable out of any such rate, or out of the county stock or county fund, and the preparation and revision of the basis or standard for the county rate;

    "(b) the borrowing of money;

    "(c) the passing of the accounts and the discharge of the county treasurer;

    "(d) county halls, assize courts, judges' lodgings, court houses, justices' rooms, and county buildings, works, and property, subject as to the use of buildings by the quarter sessions and the justices to the provisions of this Act;

    "(e) the licensing under any general Act of houses and other places for music or for dancing;

    "(f) the tables of fees to be taken by, and the costs to be allowed to any inspector, analyst, or person holding any office in the county other than the Clerk of the Peace and the clerks of the justices;

    "(g) the division of the county into polling districts for the purpose of Parliamentary elections, the appointment of places of election, the places of holding courts for the revision of the lists of voters, and the costs of, and other matters to be done for the registration of Parliamentary voters;

    "(h) the execution as local authority of the Acts relating to contagious disease of animals, to destructive insects, to fish conservancy, to wild birds, to weights and measures, and to gas meters, and of The Local Stamp Act, 1869;

    "(i) the registration of rules of scientific societies, the registration of charitable gifts, the certifying and recording of places of religious worship, the confirmation and record of the rules of loan societies, and any other business transferred by this Act."—(Mr. T. Lough.)

    MR. LOUGH: This is an Amendment which I do not intend to enter into at any length. It occurred to me that the business of these county councils had not been sufficiently defined in the Bill. I believe there "is some definition, but I am sure the Government have some reason for leaving out a full and ample definition—such a definition as occurs in the English County Councils' Act. The clauses which I have set out in my Amendment are not my own clauses—I should like the Committee to understand
    1436
    that. They are simply taken out of the English Act, leaving only those points which I understand the Government to object to introduce into Ireland. I have included nothing about the police, nor about any disputed subject so far as I can make out. The question raised by the Amendment is whether it is desirable to define more fully the powers which these Irish counties will possess. I think myself it is very desirable that it should. The Bill is short almost to a fault, and there is a great absence of proper definition as to what the council will really have to do. The first three paragraphs of the Amendment deal with the financial business of the councils simply, and I think it is admitted that that business will fall upon the county councils. Then the question of county property is dealt with. I cannot find a clause in the Bill which transfers the county property to the county councils. I am told that the point is fully covered in the Bill. If so, I did not notice it.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: What the honourable Member has done is simply to take into his Amendment the definition of duties comprised in the English Act, but I will call his attention to the terms of this Section—
    "Subject to the provisions of this Act there shall be transferred to the council of each county all the business of the grand jury not excepted by this section."
    The reason why it was necessary in the English Act, to enumerate the duties which are transferred from Quarter Sessions to county councils was this: that the Quarter Sessions was a court in which there were a great many things done, and that enumeration of the duties of the county council was necessary under those circumstances; but here, in this Bill, we simply transfer the whole of the duties of the grand jury to the county councils with a few exceptions.
    MR. LOUGH: There is just one other point. As I understand the property of the county is not vested in the grand jury, it is vested in trustees on behalf of the grand jury. Will the county property under this Bill be properly vested in the county council?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 38, leave out from 'shall' to 'have,' in line 39."—(Colonel Waring.)
    COLONEL T. WARINGSir, it has been contended by previous speakers that, whatever may have been the defects of grand juries with regard to constitution, their work was well and efficiently done. It appears to me that, if it was necessary to obtain a power to protect the public from any mistake made by the grand jury, or any action if theirs, it is no less necessary that that power should be retained. These new bodies will be untried, and it is necessary to make sure that they will be equally just and fair in the way in which they administer the affairs of the county. I cannot conceive any reason why this power should not be renewed, and I think it would be very simple to make such arrangements as will give a proper court in some other manner. I beg, therefore, to move.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): It is quite obvious that the acceptance of this Amendment would have the result of practically paralysing the action of the county councils. It would restrain them in a great many directions. In the first place it would establish a check on their proceedings, and in the next place the county councils would have to satisfy the requirements of the Local Government Board. A far more efficient control could be exercised either by way of mandamus to compel them to do what they ought to do, or by way of injunction to restrain them from doing what they ought not to do. I therefore think that to adopt the Amendment of my honourable and gallant Friend would simply be to create an unnecessary control which would paralyse the action of the county council.
    COLONEL WARING: I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 5, after the second 'any,' insert 'such.'"—(Mr. J. J. Clancy.)
    MR. J. J. CLANCY: I have merely put this Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of asking the meaning of the phrase.
    MR. ATKINSON: The grand jury is the grand inquest of the county, and this has been put in the Bill for more abounding caution, that it should preserve to the grand jury any business which they have to do of a criminal character, whether given by common law or by statute law.
    MR. CLANCY: Then the right honourable Gentleman has no objection to my Amendment?
    MR. ATKINSON: Oh yes! Because the business of the grand jury is any business connected with indictment, and that covers every possible contingency that may arise.
    MR. CLANCY: I may be very stupid, but I do not think it has that meaning at all.
    MR. ATKINSON: "Any business relating to bills of indictment, or any business of the grand jury."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I suggest that some qualifying word should be added? I apprehend that all business of the grand jury at common law must be business relating to criminal matters. I understand that originally the grand jury exercised a jurisdiction which they still exercise, to undertake an inquest into the commission of any criminal act; in fact, doing very much what the police do now. That work is wholly done by the police in this country, and that work will continue to be done by the grand juries in Ireland, and it is one of the businesses of the grand jury at common law. The words in the Bill are not very clear. Would the right honourable Gentleman have any objection to this Amendment: "Any criminal business or any business relating to criminal cases or matters," or something of that kind?
    MR. ATKINSON: Not the slightest.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: As my honourable Friend has an Amendment before the House, I cannot move that.
    MR. CLANCY: Of course, I have no objection to withdrawing my Amendment. My object in putting it on the Paper was to ascertain the meaning of the words. If the common law business of the grand jury is that which only relates to criminal business, of course, any formal words that will carry out the intention will satisfy me.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, leave out line 7."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think it is quite clear that these words must come out. There are three occasions on which it is absolutely essential that the county council shall be at liberty to administer the oath. One would be under the Tramways Act. Supposing a proposal came before them to acquire a tramway, it would be necessary that they should have power to take a statement upon oath. Under the Bill as it stands they could not swear sureties for contracts. So that, while you are going to be very firm about contracts, when a man is going to provide surety for £5 or £5,000,000, you do not give the power to swear the surety. Then there is a third argument which, I think, goes still further. There are a number of cases in which notices must be given, in order to show whether a contract has been passed, and surely a man should be able to prove service, and you must swear the process-server, to show that these notices have been served, and yet this Bill as it now stands would leave the county council without the smallest one of these protections, which the grand jury possesses every time it sits. Really it is carrying your suspicion of your own children to a very remarkable extent.
    MR. ATKINSON: It is not required by corporations, and it is not required by the county councils, in the conducting of their business. Under the Grand Jurors Act, the only sections
    1440
    dealing with questions, as apart from criminal duties, is that which refers to the surveyor, where it is provided that he must prove to the satisfaction of the council that he is indisposed, in order that he may appoint a substitute; and that section is unique. The 76th Section really provides for the verification by affidavit of the accounts. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than having their sureties sworn, as their solvency, and that would be the most unsatisfactory of all. Rules will be drawn up enabling contractors to give security, either by insurance or indemnity, or through some indemnity insurance fund; but it is most undesirable to place in the hands of the county council any power to administer an oath. It is entirely unnecessary, and had better be dispensed with.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I submit to the right honourable Gentleman that this Bill does not change it, for it leaves it absolutely intact; at least, that is what I submit, at any rate. If the existing county system is left intact, as this Bill leaves it, then the power is indispensable. The right honourable Gentleman has said it is undesirable that grand jurors should have this power, and this Bill only takes away that power from the grand juror. But, Mr. Lowther, the grand jury is only one body, and we also have to deal with the presentment sessions, and these bodies have power to administer an oath. Now the business of the presentment sessions is transferred to the district councils, and in transferring that the right honourable Gentleman has not taken this into account. As it stands, the district council, to which the powers of the presentment sessions are transferred, have all the former powers of these presentment sessions, including the power to administer an oath. But when the right honourable Gentleman comes to distinguish between the grand jury and the county council, he takes away from the county council the power of administering an oath, but he leaves it to the district council. Well, now, Mr. Lowther, that is only one reason. The Bill as it stands leaves the Irish county contracting system absolutely intact. Now the right honourable and

    1441
    learned Gentleman has referred to the Orders in Council. Now, I have read those Orders, and all they do is to change the contract system so that it allows the boundary of a county to be taken. When the contractor follows the ordinary form followed at present, of bringing up two sureties, the business must be done under the Order as it stands, exactly as it is done at present. What is done at present is this: the presentment sessions sits on two days the original sitting and the adjourned sitting. At the original sitting it decides whether the work shall be undertaken. If the work is to be undertaken, contracts are to be invited. It is provided that the contract should be advertised, and tenders invited for the work. At the adjourned sitting these tenders are considered, and it is absolutely necessary, if the contractor is to succeed in getting his tender accepted, that he must appear at the adjourned sessions, and that he must appear with two sureties. It is a portion of the business of the adjourned session, at present, to hear these sureties, to hear the contractor, and examine into their insolvency. One of the commonest tricks of road contractors is to send in two tenders—one in the name of the contractor and the other in the name of a friend. Now, that is possible under the existing system, and that is done at present. But suppose you put the parties on their oath. You ask a contractor, "Is this contract for yourself?" I do not know whether the obligation of an oath is always a very perfect protection. Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. At any rate, it is only by these investigations on oath that at present you can arrive at the truth of the matter, and ascertain whether it is a bonâ fide tender or not. And, similarly, when you examine whether the sureties are solvent, the way you proceed to do it is to examine them on their oath, and that is the only way which the present law provides. I say this: that unless the Government is prepared to do what they have not done up to the present—namely, to accompany the present contract system in Irish counties, with the power of administering an oath, the system will fall, for it is absolutely necessary that both presentment sessions and grand juries shall have the power of examining both contractors and their sureties on
    1442
    oath. Well, there is another point, Mr. Lowther. In addition to presentments for works there are presentments for payment. At these presentments for payment it is the business of the sessions and the business of the grand jury to investigate whether the work has been adequately done; whether, in the case of a maintenance contract, the road has been kept, in repair; and in the case of new works, whether they have been efficiently done. The way which the Grand Juries Act prescribes to have that matter investigated is to have it tried in a court of law, and for that purpose both presentment sessions and grand juries are constituted courts of law. Then proceedings are conducted like courts of law; they hear advocates on both sides and examine witnesses. It may not be considered desirable, but I am in favour of having county works done by a county staff. But the counties in Ireland, if they observe this law, cannot have a county staff. Now, what I submit to the committee is this: if you wish to preserve the existing contract system, the only way in which you can preserve it is by giving to the new bodies the same power which you gave to the old—that is, power to examine contractors and their sureties on oath.
    MR. ATKINSON: By an Order in Council, Clause lxii., page 23, Subsection 3, this work will be carried out under rules and regulations to be drawn up.
    SIR T. G. ESMONDE: Then, why should this provision, taking away the power to administer an oath, be inserted at all?
    MR. ATKINSON: It is thought necessary to take that power away.
    Sin T. G. ESMONDE: There is one matter which my honourable Friend has not alluded to, and that is in reference to disputed contracts. How are you going to decide the question of disputed contracts if you have no power to put the parties on oath? You cannot do it.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I apologise for again trespassing on the time of the Committee, but the Order in Council which the right honourable Gentleman refers to, instead of making matters any

    1443
    clearer, makes confusion worse confounded. The Bill proceeds to abolish the power of taking an oath, and the Order in Council simply leaves it in doubt whether you can administer an oath or not. It provides that—
    "Where any powers, duties, and liabilities are to be exercised or discharged in say presentment sessions by taking an oath or affidavit at any particular sessions or meeting, or subject to any other conditions, the county or district council or guardians may exercise and discharge such powers, duties, and liabilities when in presentment sessions after taking a statutory declaration," etc.
    Now, what is the meaning of that? In pursuance of this Act we have all these Orders in Council. Why, you have taken away the power of administering an oath in older to confer upon the Council by this Order the power of giving an oath. Surely, the meaning of this Order in Council is that in certain cases you may confer either on the board of guardians or on the district council the power of administering an oath. I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether that is so or not. Does this Order in Council give the power to make rules which will give the council power to administer an oath?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: Well, then, what is the meaning of "such oath or affidavit as may be prescribed?"
    MR. ATKINSON: This will all be done according to rule laid down by the Order in Council.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: That is to say, it may be done without an oath.
    MR. ATKINSON: Certainly. The Bill says it may be done without an oath.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I do not desire to argue the point, but it does not follow that that Order in Council will affect the question. The councils in Ireland are not required to adopt every order put before them by the Government. They exercise a certain amount of independence, and the Committee cannot here assume that any Order in Council will ever be made. We have not got the Order in Council before us, and we have not had any opportunity of amending the Order in Council here.
    1444
    We do not know even what form or shape that Order may ultimately assume. That being so, I shall deal with the Section as it is, and I respectfully submit, that these words should not be introduced, and that the Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for Louth should be adopted by the Committee. Recollect that all the business of the presentment sessions, and all the business of the grand juries are being transferred to the county council. Now we know, as a matter of fact, and as a matter of experience, that both at the presentment sessions and at the grand juries witnesses are frequently examined on oath, and how can the county councils discharge the same duties and the same functions if they have not the same power? I therefore think that it would be most dangerous to leave this Sub-section B in as it is here; besides, which, assuming that the Order in Council is adopted, it is allowed that the Order does give the power to administer an oath, and, therefore, it has been truly-observed, that it leaves the matter exactly where it is. I would respectfully suggest to my right honourable Friend that the words be left out, and the matter left as it is, because the question might arise possibly whether, in transferring the business and general works that are contained in the earlier part of the section of the grand juries and presentment sessions, you are not also transferring the power of administering an oath. You cannot administer an oath unless there is a statute of authority, and if these words were left out, then it may be possible, by the Order in Council, to make the matter clear, and to say yea or nay when there is an opportunity of considering whether that oath will be administered or not. I wish to say now, what will probably have to be said frequently during the discussion of these Amendments, that I object altogether to arguing on the consideration of this Bill by reference to Orders in Council, and by assuming that these Orders in Council will ever obtain sanction. In the first place, they must be approved of by the Privy Council of Ireland, presided over by the Lord Lieutenant. After being passed by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, they must be

    1445

    approved of in this House. We must deal with this Bill as it stands, and one of the inconveniences of this mode of drafting Bills is that the Committee are more or less groping hi the dark, because, without having a conclusive Order here before them, they cannot determine what the precise operation of the Measure will be when it becomes law.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I do not know what condition the mind of the Committee is in, but I think it will see that when a county council in Ireland has disposed of its ordinary business and they come to ask whether they may administer an oath or not, the opinions expressed on both sides of the House will show the confusion of their minds, and it will be, as has been stated, worse confounded. Now, Sir, I have had considerable experience as foreman of a grand jury of my country, and I consider that it is a very valuable thing that the grand jury has power to administer an oath, and I think for the future of the county councils, it will be equally valuable. Some honourable Members disapprove of administering oaths, but I know that in dealing with cases which come before the grand juries administering an oath is the only available way of arriving at the truth. From my own knowledge of business in Ireland, I entirely agree with the Amendment of the honourable and learned Gentleman. With regard to the Order in Council, I do not see how it will operate, or how it will throw any light upon the subject. I earnestly appeal to my right honourable Friend, having known county government in Ireland for some time, and knowing the value of administering an oath, to accede to the Amendment of the honourable and learned Gentleman.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There are a variety of matters in connection with the administration of an oath. What we proposed in reference to this question was to substitute, by means of Orders in Council or rules, some other method of procedure, and in doing that we are following the example of the English Act, in which the power of administering an oath is not given
    1446
    to the county councils. With regard to the Order in Council, I equally admit the justice of the honourable Gentleman's remarks, and, as it seems to be generally considered necessary that in Ireland local administrative bodies should have this power of administering an oath, I will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 8, leave out Sub-section (c).—(Mr. J. Dillon.)
    MR. JOHN DILLON: As far as I know, the only analogous legislation in this country is the Damage by Riot Act, which was passed in the year 1880, and which altered the law in regard to damage done by riots, and its powers were transferred to the county council. Now, Sir, the First Lord of the Treasury last night and the Chief Secretary himself said that in this Act they desired to follow as far as could possibly be done the provisions of the English law. If these Acts and all the legislation affecting Ireland is really intended, as we have often heard, that it certainly is intended for the welfare of the law-abiding citizens of the country, then I want to know why the administration of that law cannot be entrusted in the hands of the freely-elected representatives of the people on the councils. Therefore, I think that the onus lies with the Chief Secretary of making out some justification for the difference in the law, which he proposes in this Bill, compared with the English Measure. My own view is that a law for compensation for malicious injury ought in reality to be assimilated in Ireland to what it is in Great Britain. I think this law in Ireland is very oppressive, unjust, and unreasonable, and if it is to be allowed to stand, I ask the Chief Secretary upon what grounds he intends to allow it to be administered in the similar or analogous law in Great Britain. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I admit that some arguments may be adduced in favour of doing away with the law in respect of malicious injuries altogether, but I cannot conceive of any argument in favour of handing over the powers of the grand juries in regard to malicious injuries to the new councils. I think if that were done it would, in many cases, affect the fair adjudication of claims for malicious injuries, and the law would be reduced to a farce. It will be far better to allow the judges and the grand juries to administer the law, and I believe by this change we are substituting a procedure very much superior to that at present in existence.
    MR. DILLON: The right honourable Gentleman has not yet explained why a similar law in England is administered by the county council. If the county council can administer it in the English law, as I believe it exists in England for dealing with damage, in respect of riot, why cannot the Irish county councils deal with it as well? The right honourable Gentleman has given the "go by" to the argument I used. I think in this important respect—to my mind a very important respect—he is going back upon his pledge, to place the same trust in these popularly elected assemblies in Ireland as has been entrusted to them in England. The right honourable Gentleman's observations were perfectly general. He said that this class of legislation should be administered by the courts, but why was that not done in the English County Council Act? Well, it has not been done, and the administration of the whole business of the Damage by Riot Act, when a Unionist Government carried that Act, was specifically transferred to the English county councils. Now. I ask the right honourable Gentleman to explain upon what grounds he refuses to-day the same right to the Irish county councils.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reason is that, so far as England is concerned, the power was confined to cases of riot, but in Ireland malicious injuries were mostly of an agrarian character.
    Amendment negatived, without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 10, leave out Sub-section (d)."—(Mr. J. Dillon.)
    MR. DILLON: This is an Amendment which I trust the Government will accept. I cannot imagine any possible reason why they will not accept it. It is an Amendment to leave with the county council the power of appointing the visiting committees to visit the Irish prisons. That is a power which has already been transferred to the county councils of England, and in view of the fact that the attention of this House is at the present time turned to the question of prison reform and the more humane treatment of prisoners generally in this country in the shape of the Prisons Bill, I cannot imagine what inducement there can be on the part of the Government to include in those powers which are to be refused to the county councils of Ireland this power of appointing the visiting committees for the prisons. I trust the Government will accept this Amendment, and therefore I will not further occupy the time of the House, but will abstain from putting forward any arguments upon the Amendment until I hear from the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary what the Government is prepared to do.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The Amendment is to omit Sub-section (d) of Clause 4., "any power to appoint a visiting committee for a prison."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. It is a very small matter, and not at all likely to be exercised to any great extent. The Government must remember that the prisons of Ireland were built by the grand juries and kept up by them, and are, to a great extent, county property, and it is only reasonable that the successors of the grand juries, whose property they were, shall have the power of seeing how their property is getting on, and how the inmates of their prisons are being treated. There is no place in

    1449
    the world where there is more prejudice against criminals than in Ireland. The persons who are incarcerated in the prisons are justly there; they are there with the consent of the entire community, and they have no protection whatever against the authority of the prison officials, who are, no doubt, apt to act somewhat harshly. So far as the Irish prison officials go, I thoroughly believe they are humane men, and that, so far as they can consistently with their duties under the present state of the law, they carry out the system in a humane manner. Therefore, I can see no reason myself why the Government should not consent to this very moderate proposal, which has been put forward in so very moderate a manner, that this system of inspection should be transferred to the county councils. Let the Government remember this. Do the Government propose that the grand juries, as at present constituted, should live, and the system of inspection should be retained that this Bill reserves to the grand jury? If this Bill reserves that power to the grand jury it is an unnecessary power, because a member of the grand jury is a magistrate, and as a magistrate has authority to visit the prisons to whatever extent he pleases. Upon the ground of humanity, upon the ground that these Boards, as the successors of the grand juries, ought to have their powers vested in them, and upon the ground that the prison officials should not have the control so entirely to themselves, to that extent, I think, the county councils ought to have this power given to them.
    MR. DAVITT: I trust that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will listen to the appeal which has been made to him of conferring upon the county councils of Ireland the power of appointing the visiting committees to the prisons. The right honourable Gentleman is aware that the power of inspecting the prisons of England is being very much enlarged, and I do hope and trust he will not deprive the new bodies which are to come into existence under this Bill of the right and power to inspect the prisons of Ireland. If he consents to accept this Amendment I can assure him, notwithstanding what was said a few
    1450
    evenings ago in this House by the honourable Member for North Louth, that there need be no fear on the right honourable Gentleman's part that the prisoners will be treated to "quails on toast."
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Amendment in supported upon the ground that the county councils, as the natural successors of the grand juries, are entitled to their powers; but that is only so far as it relates to matters of local administration. Now, I am not prepared to admit that this is a matter of local administration. Honourable Members will also remember that in England, when this power was transferred, it was entrusted to the justices. It was not transferred from the justices to the county councils; therefore I decline to accept this Amendment.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Permit me to point out that there is this difference between the grand juries and the future county councils which will come into force under this Act. The grand juries are ephemeral bodies. They are sworn in, and their powers only last for three days, and terminate when the grand juries are discharged. Their functions end when they are dismissed by the judges at the end of three days. The county councils are going to last three years, and this power, if granted, will last for that period.
    LORD E. FITZMAURICE: It is perfectly true, as the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary said, that the power of appointing visiting justices to the prisons was not transferred to the English county councils, but what I am going to suggest to the Chief Secretary is this; whether, not only with regard to Ireland, but England also, it might not be a very desirable thing indeed if some power was given to the county councils of appointing part at least of the visiting committees. It would not be desirable that the justices should be entirely excluded from visiting the prisons also, as the honourable Member for North Louth has pointed out; apart from the justice being

    1451
    a Member of a visiting committee, he has the right, as an individual justice, to visit any prison and inquire into the working of it. In the event of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary accepting this Amendment, I might point out that we might then have the same privilege given to the county councils of England. I can quite see that there may be some difficulties in the way which might prevent him giving way entirely on this Amendment, but I will ask him whether between this and the report stage he will not consider the matter and see if he cannot give the right, half to the county councils and half to the justices, to visit the prisons, so that the visiting committees should be constituted much in the same manner as the joint committee, which consists, as we know, half of one body and half of the other.
    MR. T. HARRINGTON: If the right honourable Gentleman does not see his way to accede to the whole of this Amendment there is a compromise which I can suggest to him. Take the case of the Corporation of Dublin, which has the right to nominate a certain number of justices for the purpose of visiting the prisons. Those justices are not members of the Corporation. They can nominate any justice in the city, any person of position and respectability. If you do not give the county councillors, who are not justices, the right to visit the prisons, I think the right honourable Gentleman might at least give them the right of nominating the visiting justices. So far from the justices having any power to visit the prisons for the purpose of making alterations, or suggesting reforms, they have no power whatever. It is perfectly true they can visit the prisons whenever they please, but they can make no suggestion of reform as to the working of them, and they can be refused the right to see the prisoners. If they are on the visiting committee, they have a right to see the prisoners and make small remissions with regard to the punishments which have been inflicted upon them, and they can also review the government of the prison. This power, after all, is a very limited
    1452
    one, and I do suggest to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary that if he does not see his way to give the right to the county councils, as county councils, to appoint the justices of the visiting committee, he is depriving them of the right of having any visiting committee at all. I would suggest that he might concede to the new county councils the same right that is given to the various corporations of the different towns in Ireland, not of appointing their own members as a committee to visit the prisons of their county, but the right of appointing justices for the purpose of visiting these places. If he cannot accede to the whole of the Amendment, I would suggest to him this compromise.
    DR. RENTOUL: I think before any Amendment at all is considered, it is necessary to show some reason as to how Ireland differs from this country, and why the treatment should differ so far as she is concerned. With regard to the prisons here in England, the right of appointing the committees is not so transferred, and it would be, it seems to me, very unwise to give way on this particular point. We should rather follow the Imperial Statute with regard to that. If any honourable Member could show any single reason whatever why a distinction should be made with regard to Ireland in this matter, I should agree that this Amendment might be considered, but I fail to see that any reason at all can be put forward.
    SIR T. G. ESMONDE: I can give the honourable Member a reason, and that is, as it is one of the powers which were given to the grand juries, there is no reason why it should be taken away from the county councils which are about to be formed. I think they should have as much power in local administration as the grand juries have, which they will succeed. I cannot for the life of me understand what objection there can be on the part of the Government to allow the county councils to appoint visiting committees. They cannot take the prisoners out, and they cannot revolutionise the prisons, and I think the right honourable Gentleman might give to the county councils the powers which the Government gave to the grand juries.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think there is some misapprehension in the mind of the Committee as to this Amendment. This is not a proposal that the county councils shall be the visiting committee. It is that the county councils shall select members to form the committee. That is a very important distinction. The history of this matter is this, up to the Prisons Act of 1877 the Irish counties paid for and owned the prisons. The Government seem to have excluded the power of appointing visiting committees to the prisons from those powers which the county councils are to possess, being under the impression that the prisons are part of the criminal jurisdiction of the grand juries, instead of which their connection is purely a fiscal one, as my honourable Friend pointed out. In 1877 the Government took away from the counties at once the burden of maintaining these prisons and the right to govern them, and substituted for the connection with the prisons which the grand juries had hitherto the obligation of appointing a committee consisting of justices of the peace. The question now is whether the appointment of the visiting justices the visiting committees to the prisons shall be in the hands of the county councils as the successors of the grand juries. The anomaly which exists is that at the time this change was made in the management of the Irish prisons all Irish corporations being courts of justice were given the same power of appointment as the grand juries. Therefore, if this Bill is carried through and becomes law in its present absurd form, you will have this anomaly, that while the county of Cork will not have the right to appoint visiting justices to the criminal prisons, the city of Cork will have the right of exercising the power. In my opinion this is a case for a compromise. It may not be desirable, I do not say it is, that the whole selection of the visiting committees should be transferred to new popular bodies of such a democratic character as the county councils will be, or to leave it to the old grand juries; but let so many of the visiting justices be selected by the county councils, and
    1454
    so many by the grand juries, and so many by the town councils. When a man is made a justice of the peace, Mr. Lowther, you may fairly assume that he is not a very desperate character, and that he is not going to visit the prisons with any sinister purpose of any kind; and, inasmuch as the grand juries have a right to select justices of the peace, I think the county councils should also have that right.
    MR. DAVITT: I think it is quite as well that the Committee should remember, before it considers this Amendment, that with regard to English prison visiting committees there is a Bill at the present moment before this House for the purpose of widening the provisions of the Act governing the visiting committees. I should think, in view of what the law has done or is going to do with regard to England, the Chief Secretary will see his way to do the same for Ireland.
    MR. LOUGH: Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word upon this matter. The objection has been urged that we should not alter the law in regard to Ireland. The answer to that is that a change of view has taken place with regard to prisons, and that change is now about to be embodied in the law in this House. The right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary promised, upon the discussion of the Prisons Bill, the other night, to take into his valuable consideration the question as to whether the local authority should appoint some of the visiting justices. That has been promised to England by the Home Secretary, and, that being so, as the claim has been put forward for Ireland in this very moderate manner, I do think the same concession ought to be made. The only possible reason on the part of the Government for not granting this concession is that some fear must linger in their minds that these powers, if granted, will not be properly discharged by the county councils. I do not think it is right to stigmatise the county councils at a time then you are setting them up. I would rather believe they will be worthy of the high ideals whch are formed for them.
    MR. J. LLOYD WHARTON,): Previous to the year 1888 the quarter sessions of England appointed the visiting committees to the prisons, and they continue to do so now. By the Act of 1888 that power was exclusively reserved to quarter sessions. Now, I apprehend that the grand jury system in Ireland is analogous to the system of quarter sessions in England.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Antecedent to 1888, in 1887 a magistrate had the power of visiting the prisons. Through the centralisation of the prisons in England the duty was taken from them, and since then the quarter sessions have had the power of nominating the committees. But I venture to say that there is not a prison governor or a prisoner who does not regret the diminution of power those gentlemen had in 1887, and when we think of the authority these gentlemen had to go to the prisons and make suggestions and, within limits, to supervise the acts of the governor, we all regret that the visiting justices of 1877 have had their powers curtailed. Now, I think, it is necessary that by some means the centralised prison authorities should have their powers tempered by the visiting committees to some extent. The time has arrived when all county councils of England should have the power, not of nominating justices, but of sending their own members to inspect the prisons, and, therefore, I do not see why the privilege which England needs should not be given to Ireland when this opportunity arrives.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I trust the Government will adopt this Amendment. It appears to me that it is very difficult to resist it, seeing that every Member in this House who represents an Irish constituency, with one exception, has spoken in favour of it. The object of the Bill is to transfer to the county councils all the powers of the grand juries, with, certain exceptions, and it cannot be desirable to except from those powers the appointment of these visiting committees. It has been explained by the
    1456
    honourable Member for Kent that this power which is asked for is not a power which will enable the county councils to appoint their own members as a visiting committee. All it does is to give them the power which the grand juries have now of appointing certain justices. It does appear to me that the whole subsection might be eliminated, and I do trust that, unless the suggestion of the noble Lord who sits beside me is accepted, the honourable Member for East Mayo will press this Amendment to a Division, because their not acceding to it shows the determination of the Government not to accept any Amendment which has the unanimous support of the Irish Members in this House.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: This Amendment does not carry the unanimous wishes of the Irish Members.
    MR. DILLON: You are not an Irish Member.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: No, I know I am not, but I know the views of many of them.
    MR. DILLON: Let them get up; let us see them.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: The object of the visiting committee was to secure that supervision should be effected by the justices. The quarter sessions were given the power of appointing the visiting committees, and it was because the grand juries are almost all justices of the peace that the power was conferred upon them to select from among themselves a visiting committee. I hope the Government will resist this Amendment.
    MR. J. C. FLYNN: The Irish Member for Hackney points out that the English Bill should not be followed in this matter. On the last occasion it was proposed that it should be followed upon this side of the House. One would think there was something revolutionary in the proposal put forward in this Amendment. If the corporations of the Irish towns now have the power of appointing the visiting justices, why should not these local bodies, which are to be established

    1457
    on a broad democratic basis by this Bill, have the same power? We are told these powers have been exercised by the grand juries on all occasions, but now the Government are going to set up new bodies, and take from them every privilege and every power which was possessed by the grand juries. The grand juries are non-elected bodies, and they have the power of appointing visiting justices. The new bodies are to be elected, and they are not to have those powers. What is the Government afraid of? Are they afraid that there are abuses in connection with this new system which they are proposing which cannot stand the light of day; that this is to be open to criticism; that men of independent position, sanding forward these men, will lot the light of day in upon those abuses? On no ground of logic or common-sense is it possible for the Government to resist this Amendment. As it now stands. I think it would simplify the procedure of this Bill. If the Chief Secretary came down here and stated that upon no consideration whatever would he change by a word or a letter this Bill, we should know where we were, and we might shorten the discussion and take a well-earned holiday. I put this question: Suppose in the English Bill of 1888 the vast bilk of the English Members got up and proposed a reform of this kind, and pressed it upon the attention of the Committee, one speaker after another showing that there was an overwhelming opinion of the Members in favour of a reform of this kind being granted, does anyone suppose that the rigid honourable Gentlemen who were in charge of the Bill would have refused to consider it? No, Sir, to state that proposition is at once to demonstrate it. They would have done nothing of the kind. My opinion is that there is a political arrière pensée in the minds of the Government with regard to this very innocent Amendment. They are afraid, perhaps, that in the days which are to come, an agitation may arise against the ill-treatment of political prisoners, and that some dreadfully Radical—some dreadfully National—county council may appoint new justices of the peace to go in and see that these prisoners are not ill-treated, are not being
    1458
    starved, and are allowed, as ordinary prisoners are, to get exercise and decent treatment. If it is not on that ground I cannot conceive on what other ground the right honourable Gentleman or those in charge of the Bill resist an Amendment which is not modern, which is not original, which is not revolutionary, and which simply retains in the present Bill, and on behalf of these local bodies, the powers which the grand juries have exercised in the past. I trust the honourable Member who has moved this Amendment will, if necessary, press it to a Division, and I express my surprise and regret that a common-sense Amendment of this kind should be resisted for a moment by those in charge of the Bill.
    MR. J. G. BUTCHER: Mr. Lowther, I think the Committee would do well to adhere to the English precedent and refuse, in the first establishment of these county councils in Ireland, to give them the power of appointing visiting committees. It has been stated that the Home Secretary has announced his intention of giving this power to English county councils, and that is used as an argument for giving it to Irish county councils. In the first instance, at any rate, there will be a certain number of inexperienced persons upon the Irish county councils, but I trust that that want of experience will disappear. The English county councils have had an experience of ten years, and it may be wise now to give them a power which in the first instance it was not fit that they should be entrusted with. If at the end of 10 years, or even at the end of a shorter period, it is found that the Irish county councils are doing their work well in other respects, it will be for us then to consider whether this power ought not to be entrusted to them an the same way as it is proposed to entrust it to the English county councils. In the first instance, however, I hope the Government will adhere to the English precedent.
    SIR T. G. ESMONDE: I should like to ask, Mr. Lowther, whether the Government will agree to allow the Irish county councils to nominate one justice to the visiting committee, and let the Irish grand juries continue to nominate the other.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see no reason whatever for departing from the English precedent.
    MR. BURNSpointed out that his contention had been that the necessity for a visiting committee had now become apparent. It was evident that the Home Secretary would consider the advisability of appointing somebody to temper the centralised system.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In any case I object in the strongest possible way to speculating as to what Parliament may do.
    MR. LOUGH: Perhaps I might be allowed to quote the words of the Home Secretary on the matter of the visiting committees. During the discussion on the Prisons Bill the right honourable Gentleman said—
    "I gladly welcome the strengthening of our visiting committees; but with reference to our convict prisons what I am afraid of is that it will be difficult to get gentlemen to serve. It is not a very pleasant task, but I would like to secure the services of those gentlemen who are likely to give their time—representative men, properly qualified."
    Surely there can be no more representative men than members of the county councils! What I said was that in his reply the Home Secretary gave the House reason to believe that he would look favourably upon the strengthening of the visiting committees by the appointment of representative men. Let me give another quotation. The Home Secretary said—
    "I desire to extend by this Bill such authority of inspection as I think ought to be given to the Board of Visitors."
    The whole tendency of his remarks was that the Government would gladly welcome some infusion of this sort of representative authority into the visiting committees, and I think, in face of this, that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland might yield somewhat in this matter.
    MR. BURNS: The honourable Member for West Islington has quoted the Home Secretary. I should like to quote the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who, when speaking on the transfer of the
    1460
    prisons from the local justices to the centralised authority, said—
    "On the other hand, if there was merely nomination by the local authority and not election, there would not be local supervision."
    Now, Sir, it seems to me that that is an argument against the nominated person either by the quarter sessions or the county council. In 1877 the justices had control of our English prisons. In that year a centralised authority took the place of the local justices, and in consequence of the local justices being deprived of their power the quarter sessions had to supply the deficiency in 1888 caused by the centralised system, and they nominated some of their number. In 1890 the defective result of the local magistrate being kept out of the prison necessitated the Government appointing gentlemen from outside to be Prison Commissioners to take the place that was better exercised in 1877 by the local justices themselves. The grand juries have the power of appointing the visiting justices, and if the Irish county councils are to supersede the grand juries I see no reason why these new county councils should not possess the power which it is intended shall be given to every English county council.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I only wish to intervene for a moment, Mr. Lowther, to ask the honourable Member for East Mayo whether he will agree to an Amendment of his proposition to the effect that the county council should have the power to appoint a visiting committee, "providing that the members of such visiting committee have not themselves been in gaol."
    MR. DILLON: I cannot accept the suggestion, because the proviso would exclude all the Members for Mayo and even the honourable Member opposite himself. However, much as I may differ in opinion with the honourable Member, I should be very glad to see him on a visiting committee. What I complain of in the treatment which the Government has given to this Amendment is that they have not offered a single reason for refusing to accept it, except

    1461
    the precedent of the English law. It is only a question of an hour ago that I moved an Amendment which was strictly in accordance with the English law, and I did not get any support. If this precedent is good for the present Amendment, why was it not effective in the case of the last Amendment? If the Government were acting logically, they ought to have accepted my Amendment. Their argument is simply one of "Heads you lose, tails we win." There can be no rational objection to this Amendment, unless it be that the Government contemplate in the future another period when it may be their desire to carry on the proceedings in Irish gaols in the dark, and to take elaborate preparations to prevent those proceedings from being made known to the public. I cannot see
    any other reason for objecting to allow the county councils to appoint visiting committees, whose powers are so moderate that they cannot in any way interfere with the discipline of the gaol, but only make suggestions, and inform the people outside whether there is any truth in allegations of harsh, cruel, or unjust treatment of a certain class of prisoners. The Chief Secretary has made no attempt to give any ground or reason for his opposition to this Amendment, and, under those circumstances, I shall most decidedly press the matter to a division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided.—Ayes 143; Noes 101.

    AYES.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. J.

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.)

    Lea, Sir Thomas

    Balcarres, Lord

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch.)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Legh, Hon. T. Wodehouse

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

    Leigh-Bennett, H. Currie

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

    Barry, Et. Hon. A. H. Smith-

    Flower, Ernest

    Loder, Gerald W. E.

    Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Beach, Rt Hn Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

    Foster, Colonel

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Galloway, Wm. J.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Bigwood, James

    Garfit, William

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman.

    Bousfield, William R.

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Bowles, Cap. H. F. (Mid'sex)

    Godson, Augustus F.

    Macartney, W. G. E.

    Brassey, Albert

    Goldsworthy, Mj.-Gen. W. T.

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. J.

    Gordon, Hon. John E.

    McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    McCalmont, Mj-Gn. (Ant'm, N.)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Goschen, Rt Hn G. J. (St. Geo.'s)

    McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Goulding, Edward A.

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Graham, Henry E.

    More, R. Jasper

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

    Green, Walford Davis

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Gretton, John

    Mount, William G.

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Greville, Captain

    Muntz, P. A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hanbury, Et. Hon. R. W.

    Nicholson, W. G.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    O'Neill, Hon. R. T.

    Coghill, D. H.

    Heath, James

    Phillpotts, Captain A.

    Cohen, Benjamin L.

    Helder, Augustus

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

    Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    Pryce-Jones, E.

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Hornby, William H.

    Rasch, Major F. C.

    Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

    Howell, William T.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Jebb, R. Claverhouse

    Rentonl, James A.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Kemp, George

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Dorington, Sir John E.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Knowles, Lees

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Doxford, William T.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Saunderson, Col. E. J.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Laurie, Lieutenant-General

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Skewes-Cox, T.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

    Willox, Sir J. A.

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Waring, Col. Thomas

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Warkworth, Lord

    Wylie, Alexander

    Strutt, Hon. C. H.

    Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)

    Wyndham, George

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

    Thorburn, W.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edward M.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Tritton, Charles E.

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    NOES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow)

    Austin, Sir J.

    Harrington, T.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Hayden, John P.

    O'Kelly, James

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Billson, Alfred

    Healy, Thos. J. (Wexford)

    Parnell, J. Howard

    Birrell, Augustine

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Perks, R. W.

    Blake, Edward

    Hogan, James F.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Holburn, J. G.

    Power, Patrick J.

    Brunner, Sir J. T.

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Randell, David

    Burns, John

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Burt, Thomas

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Caldwell, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, J. B. (Eifion).

    Carew, James Laurence

    Kinloch, Sir J. G. S.

    Robson, William S.

    Carvill, Patrick George H.

    Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Clancy, John J.

    Lambert, George

    Shee, James John

    Collery, Bernard

    Leng, Sir John

    Spicer, Albert

    Condon, Thomas J.

    Logan, John William

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Crean, Eugene

    Lough, Thomas

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Crilly, Daniel

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

    McDonnell, Dr. M. (Qn.'s Co.)

    Tanner, Charles K.

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    MacNeill, John G. Swift

    Tully, Jasper

    Daly, James

    McDermott, Patrick

    Ure, Alexander

    Davitt, Michael (Mayo, S.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Dillon, John

    M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

    Weir, James G.

    Duckworth, James

    McLaren, C. B.

    Whittaker, Thomas P.

    Dunn, Sir William

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    Engledew, Charles J.

    Minch, Matthew

    Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Farrell, J. P. (Cavan, W.)

    Molloy, B. C.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

    Young, Samuel

    Ffrench, Peter

    Morris, Samuel

    Field, William (Dublin)

    Murnaghan, George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sir Thomas Esmonde and

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Captain Donelan.

    Amendment therefore rejected.
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, after the usual interval,
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to call your attention, Mr. Lowther, to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
    [Upon a count it was found that the necessary number were not present,
    1464
    and strangers were ordered to withdraw. Subsequently 40 Members attended.]
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 10, at end, add—'Save as hereinafter mentioned.'"
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I put the Amendment on the Paper with the object of securing a compromise on this question of the powers of the county councils in regard to appointing visiting committees to prisons, in case the

    1465
    Government refuse to give way on the larger issue. The Amendment of the honourable Member for Mayo [Mr. Dillon] proposed that the visiting justices should all be selected by the county council except in cases where the prison was under the jurisdiction of two counties. My Amendment is intended to raise the question that if the county council does not get the whole of this power of selection, at any rate they should have some representation on the body of visiting justices. The proposal which I would be inclined to make is that the county council should have the power to appoint half the members of the visiting committee, and that in the case where the prison was partly within the jurisdiction of the county borough, the county borough and the county council should have the power between them to appoint half the members of the visiting committee, the grand jury to have the appointment of the other half. I trust that the Government, will see their way to effect this. It is a matter I am reluctant to dwell upon at any great length, as it has been discussed on the previous Amendment.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I trust that the Government will see their way to meet the views of the honourable Gentleman. I do think that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary is not aware of the manner in which visiting committees in Ireland discharge their duties; I think he is not altogether aware of the fact that in a good many instances the visiting committees under the old system of grand juries never did their duties. I was for some time in a prison in Sligo, and I never saw the face of a visiting justice. As far as I was concerned, no such public official might be said to exist, and I think, as the honourable Member for Cork said, when we make a claim for some representation on these committees, it is not an unreasonable or unjust claim. We do not want to
    1466
    have any drastic change in the right honourable Gentleman's proposal, but before the right honourable Gentleman makes up his mind, and assumes a non possumus attitude on the question, he should be satisfied that the committees, whose existence he has so strenuously defended, are discharging the duties entrusted to them. I say that they are not discharging the duties entrusted to them; in fact, none of them are found visiting the prisons they are appointed to inspect. For that reason, amongst others, I trust the right honourable Gentleman will endeavour to give this Amendment more careful and serious consideration.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I never have had any complaint on this score. If there are any occasions on which visitors do not carry out their functions, or in which the grand juries fail to appoint them, the matter will be remedied. But I must decline again to dwell upon a point which was fully debated in the previous Amendment; and, as the Amendment raises the same question, I must decline to go into the matter.
    MR. P. A. M'Hugh: How does the right honourable Gentleman propose to appoint committees in future?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: By the grand juries.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: County boroughs have at present the appointment of visiting justices.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I do not see on what grounds the Chief Secretary proposes to place in the hands of grand juries the power of appointing visiting justices. At the present time they pay certain rates, but under this Act they will pay no rates, and still receive a large subsidy out of the Imperial Exchequer. Now, I happen to have been a visiting justice of a prison in Sligo, and for some time I was

    1467
    there as a prisoner. The honourable Member for West Cavan says he did not see the face of a visiting justice, but I can tell him he did not lose much by the absence of a visiting justice. I do not think that much importance has to be attached to the duties discharged by these men. They simply go and look round and write reports of the most insignificant character. To those reports I attach very little importance, but what I do attach importance to is this: that while grand juries in the future will not pay one penny towards the rates, and have no more right than an ordinary labourer or artisan in the country, to become visiting justices and exercise a certain supervision over Her Majesty's prisons, yet the county councils, representing the people of the district, are to be excluded from representation on these committees. We are supposed to be advancing by this Measure, but, instead of advancing, you refuse us representation upon the committees of these prisons just as you have refused the urban district councils the representation of the chairmen on the county councils. As far as I can see, this is an advance in the old style. I cannot understand on what principle the right honourable Gentleman proceeds when he says that we are to have no representation upon the visiting committee. Why, you have that in England!
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I may be mistaken; but I say that if there is any public body in connection with county administration that should have a voice in the management of these prisons, or that should at least be appointed to examine into their condition, that body should be the county council elected by the people of the counties in which the prisons are situated. So far as I am concerned, though I do not attach much importance to this matter, because all justices are entitled to enter these prisons and to inspect them. I consider that it is solely to the county councils you are going to establish that you should give these powers. To that
    1468
    body you refuse the powers and privileges that you give to the effete body you are going to extinguish for ever. I ask the right honourable Gentleman to reconsider the position he has taken up. If he is right in his contention that he is making an advance it will be necessary for him to give some representation at least to county councils on visiting committees.
    MR. M. DAVITT: What seems to be forgotten by the Chief Secretary and the Committee is that there are not only active visiting committees in connection with local prisons in England, but they have the power of adjudicating within the prisons upon prison offences; they are not only privileged under the law to go into these establishments and see that no abuses exist, but they are empowered to adjudicate upon breaches of prison discipline Now, in this Amendment a power equivalent to what exists in England has not been provided for Ireland. We simply want under this Bill the right of some public inspection of prisons in Ireland, and we claim that we are not asking anything like powers that exist to-day in England. I have visited several local prisons during the last three or four weeks in this country, and I find that in Bedford, Birmingham, Bristol, and elsewhere these bodies are active bodies; they pay periodical visits, they inquire into the whole administration of the prison, they sit and adjudicate upon prison offences, and they publish reports periodically showing what they have done and how these prisons are administered. Well now, we are not asking like powers for public bodies in Ireland, but we do insist upon this Amendment to secure some right for these public bodies in Ireland to send some of their members, or other persons qualified, into the local and other prisons, to see that no abuses are carried on.
    MR. DALY: The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary says that he will not allow any new member of the new body to have the liberty of visiting prisons. It seems that while we are going to have the management of our own affairs—in a small way it is true—we are not capable of electing some visiting justices to see the inside of the

    1469
    cells of a prison. To my mind it would be better for the prison discipline if visiting justices entered prisons and saw prisoners oftener than they do. In fact, prisoners might as well be in a vault and be buried, so far as the expectation of seeing a visiting justice is concerned. There was another matter. The right honourable Gentleman stated that if the attention of the Government were drawn to certain grievances they would be redressed; but if any unfortunate prisoner attempted to do anything of this sort he would be treated to bread and water.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Is there any evidence of that?
    MR. DALY: I think this is a very reasonable Amendment of my honourable Friend, and I would earnestly suggest that the right honourable Gentleman would see his way to give the county council the opportunity and privilege of nominating visiting justices, for I think he would smooth matters a great deal by yielding on this point, which is thought by all the Irish Members to be necessary and reasonable.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 4, as amended, was then agreed to without a Division.

    CLAUSE V.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 16, leave out Sub-section (2) and insert—
    "(2) From and after the passing of this Act the provisions of the said enactments as to the mode of making applications for compensation for loss or damage resulting from malicious injury shall be repealed, and in all cases where any property of the nature described in the said enactments shall be maliciously destroyed or injured, the person or persons injured by any such offence, and intending to claim compensation for any loss or damage sustained thereby, shall, not later than three days from the day on which such offence shall have been committed, serve notice in writing of such injury at the police station nearest to the place where such offence was committed, stating the
    1470
    time and place where such injury was done, the particular property destroyed or injured, and whether such destruction or injury was complete or partial, the amount or value of the property so destroyed or injured, and (if known) the name or names of the person or persons by whom such offence was committed, or (if such person or persons be unknown) such particulars relating to the offender or offenders as may be known, and shall, within fourteen days from the date of such offence, serve on the council of the county, county borough, or district in which such offence shall have been committed, a civil bill for the sittings of the county court in the county court division in which such offence shall have been committed next ensuing after twenty-eight days from the day on which such offence was committed for the amount of the loss or damage sustained thereby, and such civil bill shall be served by posting a copy thereof by registered post, addressed to the secretary or clerk to such council, at his office, whether such office be in said division or not, and by publishing a copy thereof once in one newspaper circulating in the district in which such offence shall have been committed at least seven days before such sittings.
    "(3) Upon the hearing of such civil bill the county court judge or recorder, as the case may be, may dismiss the same or may make a decree against the said county or county borough or urban district council for the amount of the loss or damage occasioned by such offence, and may fix the area off which the amount of such decree, including costs and expenses, is to be levied, and costs shall follow every such decree or dismiss, and shall be double the amount of the costs of an ordinary decree or dismiss, and the person or persons or council obtaining any such decree or dismiss shall be entitled to the expenses of such publication and to expenses on the scale from time to time in force in the High Court of Justice in Ireland of all such witnesses as the judge at the hearing shall certify to be necessary witnessess.
    "(4) Every such decree or dismiss may be appealed from to the next going judge of assize in like manner as appeals are now made and subject to the like rules (but so that no appeal shall be taken from any dismiss, unless and until costs and expenses of such dismiss shall have been lodged in court), and upon the hearing of every such appeal, such judge of assize may confirm, vary, or reverse such decree or dismiss, and may assess, increase, or reduce the sum or sums of money ordered or denied to be paid thereby, and may alter the area thereby affected.
    "(5) Every such decree or affirmance shall have the same effect as if it were a presentment under the said enactments."
    MR. J. J. SHEE: The Committee has already practically decided that the county court shall have jurisdiction in connection with these applications, and, therefore, it is

    1471
    necessary that we should consider the procedure which ought to be adopted in connection with them. The procedure, as laid down under the Grand Jury Act, is a cumbersome and inefficient and very antiquated procedure. First of all, in reference to the notices which have to be posted under the Grand Jury Act, the law prescribes that the advertisement of the application shall take the form of posting a copy of the advertisement at, or adjacent to, the police stations in the parishes concerned. In view of the development of journalism, and of advertising in the Press, and of the inadequate and inefficient mode of advertising at the present time, I propose that the advertisements, instead of being posted at, or adjacent to, the doors of the police station in each parish, shall be published in one issue of one paper circulating in the parish in connection with which the application is to be made. Having regard to the antiquated nature of the present procedure, I venture to hope, as the Lord Lieutenant in Council will not have an opportunity of considering this matter, that the Chief Secretary will consider the Amendment effective for the purpose for which it is intended.
    MR. FLYNN: I need not recapitulate the arguments of my honourable Friend the Member for West Water-ford with regard to the disadvantages of the present system. It must be obvious to everybody in these days of newspaper circulation that much wider publicity will be given to the application for compensation by means of a newspaper advertisement than is possible under the existing system. If there is any one branch of grand jury business that is open to abuse more than another, it is in connection with the compensation for alleged malicious injuries. I am sure the honourable Member will corroborate me when I say that there have been scores of cases of abuse, and therefore it is essential, in the interests of justice, and in the interests of the country at large, to substitute a new course of procedure in regard to these alleged or real injuries. The Amendment of my honourable Friend is eminently reasonable, and I can
    1472
    see nothing in it that will give any offence. I trust the Government will not treat it with a non possumus, but will give it the consideration which it eminently deserves.
    MR. ATKINSON: There are several objections to this Amendment, and I think the honourable Member who moved it will see that his object is in a great way carried out by the Amendment in the name of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which we propose to move presently, and by which a different practice is sought to be established to that which at present exists, and one more suited to the new procedure and more suitable to the new tribunals. I think this Amendment will carry out the purpose which the honourable Member who moved it has in view, and I suggest that he should withdraw it and allow the question to be discussed on the Amendment of the Government.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: There is, perhaps, no section in the whole Bill more important than this. The burden of compensation that may from time to time be awarded for malicious injury will fall upon the tenants of Ireland; and, therefore, it is essential to see that that burden shall be fairly imposed. It is quite clear that Section 5 as it stands is a perfectly blind and bald section, and that the Bill should not become an Act without considerable amendment. In fact, as my honourable and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland has pointed out, the Chief Secretary for Ireland proposes an Amendment to the section which, in a great measure, is substantially the same as that of the honourable Member for West Waterford. But the Committee, especially the English Members, should bear in mind that in all these cases of malicious injury the foundation and gist of the whole case is that the injury should be malicious.
    An HONOURABLE MEMBER: Or wanton.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: It must not be accidental. I know many cases which have come before the judges, and the great point has been to establish that

    1473
    the injury was done wilfully or wantonly; it must not be accidental. That is a very difficult inquiry; it has occupied barristers, and juries, and judges at very great length. The application must be made, in the first instance, under the existing law, 6 and 7 Will. IV., cap 116; the injury must be malicious, and the Act of Parliament guards most jealously lest there should be any attempt at imposing upon the cess-payers, and requires that an oath should be taken within three days, the object being, I think, to test the bonâ fides of the applicant, and to ensure that the injury was recently committed, and not some time previously. The Amendment to which my honourable and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland has alluded does not provide for that preliminary notice, and I regard that as a fundamental point.
    MR. ATKINSON: There are the rules of the court.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: The rules of the court do not appear to me to cover the point. The application is an application to the county court, and not an application notice of which is to be posted upon the doors of the various police barracks. It does not matter in what language it may be couched, but it is essential that this Bill should provide that notice should be given, and a declaration made, as required by the Grand Jury Act. The notice attracts the attention of the cess-payers interested in it, because it is required to be placed at the police station nearest to which the offence was committed, and also to be advertised in the newspapers circulating in the district. The object is that it may be known to the cess-payers, who are the persons interested, because the whole of the expense—in the case of a house burned down it may amount to several hundreds of pounds—will be put, not on the county at large, but on a limited area. The effect will be most onerous on the occupying tenants in that particular place. It is a most serious thing to consider that, under this Bill, the landlords will not have to contribute to any county rates. The whole burden of any rate that may be imposed for malicious or other injuries, will fall upon
    1474
    the occupying tenants as this Bill is framed. I think the provision contained in this Amendment is absolutely necessary. Of course, if the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland undertakes, either on Report stage or at some other stage, to make this particular matter clear, I shall be satisfied. There is another matter to which I should like to refer. I had myself an Amendment down, but it will not be necessary to move it. The substance of it was, assuming the preliminary notice given, that then the case should be tried like an ordinary civil Bill in the county courts in Ireland. The effect of that would be that claimants for over £20 would have the right of appeal. At present the law is that anyone who claims over £20 may have the case tried before a county court judge by jury, and the defendant also, if the claim against him is for over £20. The point I wish to make is that damages for malicious injury should be determined by a jury before a county court judge. There is no such provision as that in the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I urge the Committee to see that it is provided for in the Bill. If there is any value in trial by jury—and I am one of the old-fashioned people who believe in it—and if there are any questions that ought to be tried by jury, this question of whether a certain occurrence was accidental or malicious is such a question. It is not a question for a judge coming from Dublin to decide; it is a question for a jury belonging to the neighbourhood and a jury who will see that the cess-payers of the neighbourhood are not unjustly mulcted under the colour of law.
    Mr. ATKINSON: Every single point mentioned by the honourable Member is raised in the Government Amendment, and all these questions must come up again, if this Amendment is withdrawn.
    MR. SHEE: The Amendment which I have moved does not in any way clash with the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right honourable Gentleman's Amendment will give the ratepayer the right

    1475
    to appear before a county judge, or a judge of Assize, to defend any claims made under this section; but what I wish to point out is, that this Amendment proposes that the procedure shall be regulated by the rules of the court. I presume these rules will be framed by the county court judge of Ireland. The Amendment of the Chief Secretary does not say; and the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman differs altogether from the proposal in the Bill, because, under Clause 64, Sub-section 2, that by Order in Council the Lord Lieutenant should transfer. It is now proposed that the transfer should be by rules of court, and this Committee has no means of knowing beforehand what the rules of court are likely to be, or what the advertisements shall be; and therefore it would be difficult for the Committee to determine whether these notices or advertisements, which ought to be given, are sufficient or not. The change of attitude in connection, with this matter takes it altogether out of the power of this Committee to determine whether the rules that shall be laid down to regulate the procedure will be sufficient. The original proposal was a better one than this, because the right honourable Gentleman did undertake that before the Report stage of this Bill was taken that the Lord Lieutenant would be in a position to make an Order in Council. In any case a draft Order in Council would come before this Committee, and the Committee could express an opinion upon it. The proposal made now does not enable the Committee to have anything to say as to the mode of procedure, and it is for that reason that I object.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I feel myself that the Government are at a disadvantage by the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman. Apart from the Amendment of my right honourable Friend, I have two or three myself. At the same time, what we want is to get on and not waste time. This is not a coercion Bill. It is one we all want, and although there are many things in it I should like to see improved and altered, we must try to work together and get the Bill through.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 16, after 'compensation,' insert 'which shall be served on the council of the district in which the alleged injury took place.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I should very much like to adhere to my proposal, because I think it is far superior to the proposals of the Government. Still, I think I had better withdraw it.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 19, leave out from first 'enactments,' to end of Clause, and insert—
    "(3) Any person claiming compensation in a county may apply to the county court, and the county council, and any person paying poor rate in that county may, as well as the applicant, appear and be heard by the County Court in relation to the application.
    "(4) Any person or council who appeared, or though not actually appearing was entitled to appear, before the county court, in relation to such application may, if aggrieved by the refusal or decree of the county court, appeal to the judge of assize, and subject to this Act and to rules of court, the County Courts (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, shall apply in like manner as in the case of any other appeal; and the judge may vary the decree in respect of the area off which compensation is to be levied, as well as in respect of other matters.
    "(5) The judge of assize upon any such appeal shall, in addition to any other power, have power, if he thinks fit, to empannel a jury to try any issue of fact arising on the appeal, and such jury shall, if any party to the proceedings so requires, be a special jury.
    "(6) The county court and judge of assize respectively may award costs to or against any party to a proceeding under this section.
    "(7) Rules of court may regulate the notice to be given of any application or opposition, and generally the practice and procedure under this section, and in particular such rules shall provide that non-compliance by the applicant with any of the rules shall not render any proceeding void unless the court or judge of assize so direct, but the proceedings may be set aside either wholly or in part, or be amended or otherwise dealt with in such manner and upon such terms as the court or judge may think just."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. ATKINSON: Had the Bill remained as it was, all the provisions of the Grand Jury Act would

    1477
    have applied to proceeding's before the New Tribunal, but owing to the nature of the New Tribunal, it was thought that the Grand Jury Act was unsuited, and it was, therefore, deemed desirable to repeal all the enactments, and to move this Amendment instead, of which notice has been given. Now, this Amendment provides that—
    "Any person claiming compensation in a county may apply to the county court, and the comity council and any person paying poor rate in that comity may, as well as the applicant, appear and be heard by the comity court in relation to the application."
    An Amendment has been put on the Paper by the honourable Member for Cork requiring that notice shall be served upon the district council as well. I may as well say that I have no objection to that. The county council is, of course, the defendant to the suit. It is against the county council that the claim will be made; but there is no objection to notice also being served upon the district council. The Amendment also provides that—
    "Any person or council who appeared, or though not actually appearing, was entitled to appear, before the County Court in relation to such application, may, it aggrieved by the refusal or decree of the County Court, appeal to the Judge of Assize, and subject to this Act and to the rules of Court, the County Courts (Ireland) Acts, 1851 to 1889, shall apply in like manner as in the case of any other appeals, and the Judge may vary the decree in respect of the area off which compensation is to be levied as well as in respect of other matters."
    For malicious injury at the present time there is no power to empannel a jury, but under the 135th Section of the Grand Jury Act there is power to empanel a jury if the judge thinks fit, so that, as far as the empannelling of a jury is concerned, we are left by this Amendment exactly in the same position as we are under the Grand Jury Act, and if either party desire, they can have a special jury instead of a common jury. The judge at Assize shall have power to award costs, and, of course, costs include expenses under the definition clause of the Bill. Rules of Court may be regulated with regard to all these proceedings, and there is a provision introduced into the
    1478
    end of the Amendment to obviate the difficulty and inconvenience and injustice which often arises under the existing practice—namely, where there was any irregularity in service, or any technical mistake, all proceedings fell to the ground. If a man did not serve a notice at the proper time, the proceedings were at once stayed. In order to put an end to that unjust state of things, I propose to introduce a provision that the judge shall have power to waive for good grounds any omission on the part of the applicant, or others interested in the action. Objection has been taken to the details of the practice—
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What are the details of the practice?
    MR. ATKINSON: Service of notice, notice of application, notice upon county council, notice upon district council, the mode in which that shall be done, the way in which appearance shall be entered; these things are details of the suit by which the proceedings are regulated from first to last. It is obviously more convenient that these should be regulated by rules of court than that they should be fixed in the Bill. Because if they are fixed in the Bill they become inelastic. Rules of procedure, when made a part of the provisions of a Bill, have a tendency to produce inconvenience, whereas rules of court are elastic, and can be altered from time to time. Rules of court, of course, mean under the interpretation clause that rules of the county court will be framed to deal with proceedings in the county court, and rules of the superior court will be framed to deal with those proceedings which take place in the superior court. Although I quite admit that the Amendment of the honourable Member for Cork seems to set up a fair and reasonable argument, still I think it will be found in this case that rules of the court are more elastic and can be made to read from time to time, should any emergency arise in, or defect be discovered in, the practice of them. There are two or three other Amendments in the name of the honourable Member for Cork, and the Government have no objection to accept Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of them, and with some

    1479
    alteration the Government will accept the last.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not object to any part of this Amendment excepting No. 7. The other proposals of the right honourable Gentleman are quite reasonable; but I have a strong objection to No. 7. I have known the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for many years as a fair man, and he acts upon the idea that the judges whom he appoints, or assists to appoint, will be fair also; but I say that these rules of court will be drawn entirely in the interests of one party; and I object altogether to the Amendment of the grand jury laws in the interests of one particular class. What will happen? At the present time claims on grand juries are largely confined to the land grabbing class. In the north of Ireland, as a rule, they take out an insurance policy, and in Belfast I believe there are more claims on insurance companies than in all the rest of Ireland put together. Now what will happen in the south of Ireland under this proposal? Undoubtedly it will be that for the first time Ireland will have a much larger influx of claims than ever arose before. Under the ancient procedure we should have protection against fraud. The judge of assize, or the county court judge, in the case of fraudulent claims, was able to say supposing notice had not been given in time, "This case cannot go on; you should have given it on Monday instead of Tuesday"; and the application would be thrown out upon a technical point. What does the right honourable Gentleman propose? He proposes that the judge at the trial shall have an elastic power to make rules as he likes in favour of a particular applicant, and in addition to that rules of court may be be made by an assemblage of county court judges, and afterwards by the High Court in Ireland regulating the procedure in this respect, so that the House of Commons which is engaged in discussing this subject will not have these rules before it in any way. This is not a Judicature Act—if it were the rules would be laid upon the Table, and we should have a chance of discussing them. My experience of rules of court
    1480
    is this: if they are intended for the advantage of the people no rules of court are ever made. There are Statutes that have existed for the last 10 or 12 years which prescribe rules of court, and the judges have never attempted to make rules under these Statutes, but the moment you say that rules shall be made in a hostile sense to the people, the judges will at once make them, and they will make them in the interests of a particular class of claimants, and will amend them every time there is a deficiency in the interests of those particular people. I have always in my mind the case of Mrs. Lucas. Mrs. Lucas was the wife of a landlord, and she made an enormous claim for damages. She was guarded by three or four policemen, her house was boycotted, so she said. Fortunately, one of the policemen who were protecting Mrs. Lucas had his eyes opened to an act of arson. He saw Mrs. Lucas one evening come downstairs with two or three cans of petroleum, which she poured over the drawing-room furniture and curtains, and then set it alight. Then her husband, who was a bankrupt and a beggar landlord, made an enormous claim at the next court of the grand jury, in order to obtain compensation for his own class. The grand jury did not believe her, and threw out the claim, and she was afterwards prosecuted.
    An HONOURABLE MEMBER: She went before them twice.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, she went before them a second time, and again the policeman with the wide-open eyes told his story, and again the grand jury rejected the claim. She was then put on her trial for arson, but being the wife of a landlord was not put in the dock. She was accommodated with a seat in the body of the court. The judge wept when an Irish jury, a harsh Irish jury, found her guilty. She got a sentence which, if she had been a poor woman charged with stealing turnips to relieve her hunger, would have been of a much more severe character. She was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. I say that this proposal of the Government will be availed of by people to an enormous extent for the purpose of

    1481
    levying money from people; and I believe that attempts will be made all over the country by persons of Mrs. Lucas's description, Remember what took place before. Then you had to go before the cess-payers; now you substitute a county court judge who does not even live in the district. Perhaps he will be a lodger in St. Stephen's Green, and the matter will be decided by a gentleman who will not lose a penny in consequence of his decision. I should like to propose that every time these county court judges, or High Court Judges, award an amount, a proportionate sum should come off their own salary. Under the old system, when the grand jury awarded compensation a part of the money came out of their own pockets. I see many grand jurors of Ireland opposite me; and they know that whenever they pass a presentment they have to pay a pretty considerable portion of it out of their own pockets. Take the case of the county court judge at West Cork at this moment. He never was in Cork in his life before his appointment, consequently he was appointed. He will have one half of the area of the county of Cork within his jurisdiction, and he will have to decide upon questions of this character. From his decision there will be an appeal to a perambulating judge of assize. These men will not know the habits of the people with whose affairs they are dealing. It will be possible that an Ulster judge will try the case of a Minister man, as a Munster judge will try the case of an Ulster man. These judges will not know the people with whom they are dealing—their character, their dodges, and it is essential that they should know of these things, because this largely comes to a personal equation. The existing law provided many safeguards. An applicant had to go before the cess-payers, the presentment sessions, and the grand jury, and for all of these you now propose to substitute county court judges, and the business is to come on at the ordinary sittings of those courts. Surely, if these cases are to go before a, county court judge, special sittings should be held for them. Take the case of a fire. How long does an insurance company take to pay after you have put in your claim? Why, if you only have a cowl burnt off your chimney
    1482
    in consequence of a fire, they will send down inspectors, who will go over the premises and make a report, and all kinds of inquiries will be made before they pay one shilling of the money of their shareholders, and if you are not strictly within the words of your policy every word will be considered and construed. And it is this sort of thing, this sort of inquiry, which was previously made by the grand jury, who were awarding their own money, that the right honourable Gentleman wishes to put an end to. Was not the law sufficiently wide? What was the reason of amending the laws? You are getting rid of the grand juries, and you are giving facilities to the claims of men, many of whom will make bogus claims. I had it, man come to me about a claim. I said, "Are you insured?" He said "Yes." I said, "Then why don't you go to the insurance company?" Why should not these people be content to be insured? Why is a county to take less precaution than is taken by a fire insurance company? This clause of the Grand Jury Act has been in existence for something like fifty years. The right honourable Gentleman has said that great injustice arose under it. I deny it, and I will tell you why. Who has to construe the injustice? The grand jury was the tribunal, and a favourable tribunal; but if you appealed you left it to the judge, from whom there was no appeal. The vice of this Amendment is this: that every time a point is gained the judge will turn round, and make rules of court to meet it. Why do not you do that with the Land Acts? How is it that all the points we have taken about the Land Act procedure, and the difficulties of tenants serving notices, etc., have not obtained rules of court? After a landlord dies the tenant is nine months before he can get his notices served, and probably it is another nine months before he can get a hearing, and then every difficulty that lies in the way of the adjudication, of the law—wherever there is an advantage to be gained by the people—every obstacle that legal ingenuity can put in the way, is made use of. You find no difficulty about your coercion Acts. You take the utmost care with your resident magistrates, and the action of the law under these Acts is

    1483
    so speedy that you are in prison within 24 hours of being charged. A summons has only to be issued, and you find a posse of constables at the doors of Westminster itself to take you into custody, and now you are suggesting rules of court which will only be used for the protection of the land-grabber. That is to get over the difficulty of mulcting the ratepayer. You are greatly afraid that the new county councils will be extravagant, and they will vote money to labourers and others for the purpose of subsidising them. But you are not a bit afraid of the county court judges that they will vote money to your landlords and your landgrabbers for the purpose of subsidising them. But I am. I venture to say this, and I have received in my brief experience at the Bar courtesy and kindness from every gentleman there, that the best tribunal you will get is a petty jury. You will get in a petty jury of the county council or a district council quite as honest and pure a body as you would have in the 13 or 14 judges on the Bench in the Law Courts. I would trust my fate upon any issues to the first dozen men that I could pick up by the wayside upon any road in Ireland as readily as I would to 12 of the greatest judges in the land. This power I would not grudge you if you showed the same desire and readiness to help the people as you do to hurt them. But when we come to the rules for grand juries and county councils as they will now be, you make a rule that they shall not spend more than one-fourth of the amount of any presentments more than they have made before. Will you provide, in the case of the judges in the county court, that they shall not make presentments for malicious injuries for more than one-fourth than they have made before? In the county courts you have no fear of extravagance in these matters. There is only a fear in the case of the men who are elected by the people. Now, what is a county court judge? We know them well enough, for we meet them in the flesh, and will any man tell me that when he gets on his wig and gown his judgment is any different from when he was walking about in the Law Courts? I say this, that this proposal to extend the existing
    1484
    iniquitous law by rules of court is a proposal to the advantage of a particular class. Once we pass this section we are handing over the administration to the class which we distrust. In every other case of this kind we have an opportunity of seeing what these rules were in the House of Commons; and remember, Mr. Lowther, this is not a question of sentiment, but it is a question of cash. It is a question of money, and I for my part decline to grant that in the case of malicious injuries the law shall be extended and made more elastic by the judges to a particular class, and you should administer justice between man and man with absolute impartiality.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move—

    "Line 2, after the second 'and,' insert 'the district council in which, or on the borders of which, the injury is alleged to have been committed, and also'"
    "Line 4, after 'application,' insert 'and also any district council upon whose district, or any portion thereof, the compensation awarded, or any portion thereof, is specially charged.'"
    "Line 9, after 'shall,' insert 'except in so far as they require security to be given.'"
    "Line 13, leave out 'shall,' and insert 'may.'"
    Agreed to without a Division.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move—
    "That the Judge of Assize on such appeal shall, in addition to any other power, have power, if he thinks fit, to empannel a jury, and to leave out all the words after."
    In moving that, I claim that we have something amounting to a Parliamentary pledge from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that this Amendment will be accepted. The right honourable Gentleman has given this pledge over and over again, and he has, in answer to questions, and also in Debate, asserted that the only change he wished to make in the law in relation to malicious injuries should not go further than the transferring of the jurisdiction of presentment sessions and grand juries to the county

    1485
    court. He has said over and over again that once that is done he desired to make no further change in the law, and that, was the original framing of the clause. Does this clause, when you go to the judge of assize, preserve the existing law? The promise made by the Chief Secretary amounted almost to a Parliamentary pledge that this element of the special jury shall not be brought into it. I have never in all my experience known any charge to be made as regards the action of common juries in the case of malicious injuries for presentment, but it is the commonest thing in experience to have the presentment made by a grand jury traversed, and it is an invariable practice of the judge when the presentment sessions differ, as they constantly do, to refer the issue of malice to a petty jury. I challenge honourable Members opposite to cite a single case in which it has ever been alleged that a petty jury so empannelled—and acting, as they do, always under the direction of the judge—has acted otherwise than in a proper manner. No charge has ever been attempted to be made against the action of petty juries in these assize courts. They are drawn from a very large area, for the area of disturbance to which the malicious injury relates is bound to be a very small area. Therefore the probability that you will have any member of the jury interested in the issue to be tried is very remote indeed. But, be that as it may, I do claim that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has given what practically amounts to a pledge that the procedure, once you get in the court of assize, shall not be changed, and certainly, Sir, no such changes should be made. The honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in introducing this Amendment, never dreamt of suggesting that there had been any improper action on the part of petty juries. He never even alleged that it had been a matter of complaint in the past that petty juries had acted improperly. Now, that being so, I do ask, before this unnecessary change is made in the existing law, that, at any rate, some case shall be made out for it. I appeal to the records of Parliament for the statement which the right honourable
    1486
    Gentleman has made to show that he has over and over again pledged himself to say that the clause of this Bill would not go further than the transferring of jurisdiction to the county court.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In reply to the honourable Member, I may say that under no circumstances could I accept any Amendment of my proposal in this Bill. It would be a very unusual course for a Minister to take to pledge himself not to bring forward any Amendment to a proposal of this kind, and I think it is scarcely possible that anything I can have said has given such a pledge. If it did, it was certainly not my intention. But, Sir, I may say that this Amendment was suggested to me by one of the honourable Member's own friends, the Member for Londonderry. If he will turn to the Amendment standing in the name of the honourable Member for Londonderry he will see that he desires that these issues may be tried by a special jury at the request of the county council. I think perhaps there may be a certain amount of reason in this, but all we have done in this Amendment is to secure for the applicant the privileges and the safety which the honourable Member for Londonderry himself so much desires for the county council.
    MR. HARRINGTON: Mr. Lowther, it strikes me that it would be well for the Irish Members to consider whether there is any advantage to be obtained from the Amendment. It seems to me that it would be actually for the advantage of the general body of the ratepayers that this provision should remain in the section. There is much more danger that the common jury would be likely to have sympathy with a man who has neglected to insure his property, and to strain the point as to whether the injury had been malicious or not in favour, than a special jury the members of which would have a large monetary interest in the question, and would themselves have to contribute a considerable portion of the compensation. The special juries

    1487
    would take the deepest interest in probing to the bottom every circumstance connected with those injuries. Certainly, if you deny to county councils the right to have a special jury to try this issue, I think you will be denying to the general ratepayers the tribunal which is most likely to examine the question closely, and to offer the greatest resistance to granting compensation for what was merely accidental under the head of malicious injury.
    MR. DILLON: While I confess that I agree with the honourable Member for Cork, I do not think it is worth while pressing it to a Division. I am entirely with the honourable Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin that we ought not to facilitate these claims for malicious injury. I regard the whole code, as applied to Ireland, as a most iniquitous law, but it is most iniquitous when it is used as an instrument of direct vengeance and oppression of some poor district, where the assessment for malicious injury is confined to a few. In one case the rates were increased 7s. or 8s. in the £ for the purpose of deliberate political persecution. These are the real cases in which we are interested. This code of law, when used in times of political excitement, and when used as a political weapon of persecution, can be made, and frequently has been made, one of the most frightful instruments of oppression imaginable. It appears to me that the special jury is an exceedingly bad tribunal to try these cases.
    MR. SHEE: Mr. Lowther, I do not think any honourable Member who has spoken with reference to this proposed omission from the clause has put the real issue before the Committee. The real question this Amendment raises is whether the Government can trust their judges of assize. The judges have absolute discretion as to whether there should be a common jury or any jury. That being so, surely the Government ought to be prepared to leave it to the intelligence or the judges as to whether in any particular case a jury ought to be empannelled or not. Therefore I think the section as framed by the right honourable
    1488
    Gentleman, the Attorney General for Ireland, to a certain extent casts a reflection on the intelligence and the discretion of the judges of assize.
    MR. M. HEALY: As I cannot make an impression on a point of principle, I will see if I can make an impression on a point of detail. I submit that, having regard to the provisions of the Special Juries Act of 1894, it would be practically impossible in a great many cases to give any effect to this section. Under this section a plaintiff would not know whether he was entitled to a special jury until he made application to the judge. Suppose the judge granted the application, and the sheriff had no special jury summoned, what is to happen? Presumably the case would have to be postponed till the next Assizes — possibly from July until the following March. The clause as it stands, will create a serious administrative difficulty, and practically repeal Mr. Justice Ross's Act.
    MR. ATKINSON: The clause is intended to provide, and does provide, that if any party desires to have a special jury he should serve notice within a certain time before the Assizes, so as to give the sheriff time to summon a special jury. I quite admit that if the judge decides to try the case without a special jury the special jurors will have been summoned in vain, but that is unavoidable.
    MR. DILLON: Could anything be more preposterous than that?
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. J. J. CLANCY: This Sub-section 5 as it stands gives absolute discretion to the Judge of Assize in all cases to refuse a jury. I submit that if that is carried as it stands it will make the law worse than it is at present. The provision in the existing law, as the right honourable Gentleman well knows, is stated in Brett's Book on the Grand Jury Law, page 56. It reports a statement of Mr. Justice O'Brien, and the statement which he made was revised

    1489
    by Mr. Justice O'Brien himself. Mr. Justice O'Brien, so lately as 1893, laid it down as the practice of the judges that in the case where a presentment for compensation for a malicious injury had been refused by the grand jury, as distinguished from a case where it was passed, if he gave leave to traverse the presentment at all, the matter could only be determined by the aid of a jury. I am aware that in many cases judges have adopted a different practice in this matter. Some have gone on with a jury—hesitating to try the cases themselves. Some judges, on the other hand, have refused a jury, and decided the cases themselves. But in this judgment of a recent date by Mr. Justice O'Brien, he states generally the practice adopted by the judges, and states that where a presentment had been returned by the presentment sessions and by the grand jury—
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must ask the honourable Member if he is going to move any Amendment.
    MR. CLANCY: I apologise, Sir, I beg to move, at the end of the Sub-section, the following, in order to carry out the existing law—
    "Where the application for compensation has been refused by the county court judge, the judge of assizes shall direct that a jury shall be empannelled to try any such issue."
    The law would then be that where a county court judge has refused an application for compensation the judge of assize would then decide the question, malice or no malice, with the aid of a jury.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSwas understood to point out that the Committee had already decided that question in substance.
    MR. CLANCY: Surely in Acts of Parliament nothing is more common than to put in a provision of such a kind. It is not in contradiction to what goes before. There is a general enactment saying that the judge will have complete discretion as to the jury, and then I, in accordance with practice,
    1490
    put in a provision limiting that enactment in a particular case, namely, where the application for compensation has been refused. I submit that is in order.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I am afraid I must rule against the honourable Member. What the Committee has adopted is that the judge of assize has complete discretion.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to move on Section 6 of the Amendment, which states that—
    "The county court and judge of assize respectively may award costs to, or against, any party to a proceeding under this section."
    I have put down an Amendment on the Paper "providing the costs of opposing every unsuccessful application shall be given against the applicant." The Government adopt this in this way, that the county court judge and judge of assize "may" wards costs. Let me point out the cruelty of this mode of resisting my Amendment. In the first place, if an applicant is successful he gets a cash award, which the judge will measure as full compensation to him, both for injury and the trouble of coming to the court. Well, but if he loses, if he is defeated, the judge "may" give costs—in other words, the successful applicant must get his costs, but if he loses, costs "may" be awarded. He will in any event have a limited sum. Observe the converse—that they "may" be given. It appears to me that the word "may" should be "shall," and the words "to or against any party to a proceeding" omitted. Now, Sir, let this be remembered—the county council or the district council will be an authority. Why should costs be given against them and not against the other side? How often have we brought tip the decisions of magistrates to the Queen's Bench in Dublin, and, having won, been told that no costs could be given against the justices! It must be a most infamous case of oppression, or our Sovereign Lady the Queen cannot have costs given against her. Why am I to be told that the county council or the district council, whichever it may be, in the discharge of a public duty must come before the

    1491
    court to defend the interests of the ratepayers at the peril of costs? If it is only a small matter the district council will toss up and say, "So much for instructions to a solicitor, so much for instructions to counsel, etc.—£10 will be our legal expenses; the applicant is only claiming £3, therefore we prefer that the decree should be given against the rates." That appears to me to be a complete answer to the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman. This Local Government Bill is not a Bill brought in for the purpose of assisting land-grabbers—it is not a right of damage Act. I had rather—much rather—trust to the Member for Cambridge than trust to the county court judges in Cork. And then the costs, forsooth! It appears to me that it is most unjust. If a mud cabin be burned down, they will claim as much as for a castle. It appears to me that this provision as to costs is unfair; why could not the costs be given before this Act? I wonder, has anyone in this House, who is not a grand juror, ever seen a successful applicant for compensation for the loss of a starved bullock issue forth from the grand jury room smiling? Why the whole thing is an atmosphere of perjury. And really, we should have some of the suspicions which distinguish insurance agents. The number of claims that are honest are few, the number that are bogus many. And then you would have the speculative attorney. Up to the present, a man can make his own bargain with his attorney, but now the speculative attorney will go about the country looking for damage to cattle and produce: he will say, "Well, we will probably get our costs, and I will take my chance of the risk." Under this new form of litigation you will have the attorneys descending on the country like a plague. I appeal to the right honourable Gentleman to leave the law as to costs as it was, or otherwise provide that the unsuccessful bogus applicant will have costs given against him.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The Motion before the Committee is, "That the words stand part of the Bill."
    MR. ATKINSON: The honourable and learned Member's Amendment would establish a rule which in practice would work very unjustly. He proposes that the unsuccessful applicant will not always be mulcted in costs; that is very well as far as it goes, but he says there should be no further provision as to costs. He says costs should always be added to the amount. The ratepayers must pay that amount, and if costs are to be added, the result would be that the county council and the ratepayers will have to pay these costs, although they may not uphold the application. If the judge is to add the applicant's costs to the claim, he will be mulcting the ratepayers. I say that would be a cruel and unjust rule to the county council and ratepayers. The Amendment as proposed adopts a rule that is particularly necessary in litigation such as this; because while this Amendment gives powers to all parties to come in—the county council, the district council, and any ratepayers may come in—it makes provision that the judge will have it in his discretion to award costs as he may think fit. The costs should not be awarded against the county council. I have no apprehension whatever that if this power be left in the hands of the court it will prevent men rushing in with bogus and harassing claims.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman says that the judge will give costs against the man who heaps up litigation from court to court, but what will happen? Everybody knows what will happen. The action will really be fought in the name of some man of straw; you will get some man whose assessment is £4, who has a mortgage on his farm, and who owes four years' rent, coming forward to oppose a claim for, say, £1,000, and much he cares for justice. That will be what will happen under the system which the right honourable Gentleman proposes to establish. But, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman has not really met, in any way, the objection which I put—namely, that this is not an Act to amend the compensation, section of the grand jury laws—Section

    1493
    136 I think ii is. That is the vice of the right honourable Gentleman's position. In proposing an Amendment to the grand jury laws, in transferring the grand jury powers, he invents a lot of new powers. This is an entire innovation. We suggest, that, in case of prisons, the power should be transferred to the county council, as it is in England. This is a Bill to conserve the powers of the land-grabbers, whose interests are so carefully looked after by the right honourable Gentleman. The amount he will get under the agricultural grant will be about £100,000 a year. I venture to say that the agricultural grant will, to an enormous extent, be swallowed up by the land-grabbers' claims and costs. I was thinking of proposing an Amendment to the effect that no compensation should be paid to a tenant who was not insured. I do not see why a man, because he lives in a county, and gets an agricultural grant, should be better off than I am in my house in Dublin, with no agricultural grant, and who could not pretend that my house was set fire to by moonlighters, or anything of that kind. Why should not these landlords have their houses insured, like any other class of the community? If this system is to be adopted the least thing that should be done is this: the county council ought to be allowed to insure themselves as against these bogus claims, and power ought to be given for the county council to insure against what I may call war risks. I venture to think that this Bill will enormously increase them: but, unhappily, the position in regard to the Bill is this: it is of very little use, apparently, proposing Amendments, and we have no object in taking up the time of the Committee. I therefore do not propose to divide the Committee, but will be content with this protest against the land-grabbers' protection and endowment clause.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    MR. MAURICE HEALT: The Amendment I now beg to move is one of those which the right honourable Gentleman said he would accept, namely—
    "In line 19, after the word 'given,' to insert the words 'and advertisements to be published.'"
    MR. ATKINSON: I hardly think this is necessary. If the rules of court "regulate the notice to be given," they would naturally regulate any notice given by way of advertisement. However, I have no objection to the Amendment, if the honourable Member presses it.
    MR. M. HEALY: I think there should be the fullest publicity.
    MR. ATKINSON: I accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I now beg to move the omission of the words, "or opposition." The only object of this Amendment is to simplify the procedure. The serving of notice of opposition will only render the proceedings more costly, and I cannot see what disadvantage an applicant will suffer if he gets no notice of opposition. In a claim for malicious injury the county council must know the nature of the case that is going to be made. It is the duty of the county council in all these cases to appear as a party to the proceedings, not necessarily to offer opposition, but to see that justice is done, and to protect the interests of the ratepayers. The applicants in all these cases ought to assume that the county council will be represented, to see that the case is properly proved. No one can be taken by surprise, and the only effect of the Amendment can be that the procedure will be cheapened.
    MR. ATKINSON: I think this Amendment would defeat the object the honourable Member has in view. It would necessitate every applicant always being prepared to litigate his case to the bitter end. When the county council get notice of any application of this kind, and they find the case is a good one, they would give notice to the applicant that they did not intend to oppose. In the same way it is only right and fair that any person intending to appear should give notice of opposition, so that the applicant may be fully prepared to establish his case. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I do hope that the right honourable Gentleman will reconsider this. Supposing the gentlemen who are to make these rules made a rule that the opposing party should assess the value of the field in question, I see nothing to prevent them making such a rule. The words of the section are—
    "Rules of Court may regulate the notice to be given of any application or opposition, and generally the practice and procedure under this section."
    I do not suppose it is probable that such a rule as I am thinking of would be made, but it seems to me to be quite possible under this section. There is another objection which I may suggest. The right honourable Gentleman has just stated that it will be the duty of the county council, if, upon investigation, they find that the case is a good one, to give notice that they will not oppose. Now, if that be so, it is opening the door for fraud, because what is to prevent a man putting up a job with the county council and saying, "You know I am not a bad fellow; do not oppose me!" There is certainly every possibility of the clause leading to fraud and collusion. I do not know what the exact meaning of the words is, and upon this Bill I feel it no shame to confess my ignorance.
    MR. ATKINSON: Any ratepayer can oppose an application.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Then what is to regulate the procedure? You say that 20 days are to be allowed for notice of claim, and 20 days for notice of opposition. If a man is a day late with his notice of claim the matter will be overlooked, but if your notice of opposition is a single day late the judge will rule against you. It must not be forgotten that in Ireland the whole machinery is in the hands of the enemies of the country, and, therefore, we are bound to be distrustful about the effect of this clause. To invent now, for the first time, a procedure for opposition which even Irish grand jurors have never thought of is imposing upon us a little too much. You have done enough for the land-grabber; you ought now to give the honest man a chance.
    MR. ATKINSON: I cannot accept this Amendment, for the reasons I have stated.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Let me point out the extraordinary result that will follow from this clause, as it stands. Suppose a large claim is made for compensation; the county council or district council will get notice of the claim, the claim will be lodged in regular form, and the applicant will have to bring up his witnesses just the same as if he had ten notices of opposition. Or are we to say that, unless notice of opposition is given, the applicant may simply walk into court and say, "No notice of opposition has been given; pay me out my £500 or £600."
    MR. ATKINSON: Not at all; he must prove his case.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Then, if the applicant is to be put upon proof in any case, what is the object of insisting on notice of opposition? He will not be damnified by this Amendment, because he must assume that there will be opposition.
    MR. ATKINSON: Where there is no notice of opposition the applicant would content himself with formal proof.
    MR. HARRINGTON: There is one point I should like to bring to the attention of the right honourable Gentleman. I think that in the drafting of these rules it will be absolutely necessary that the notice of a private ratepayer should be shorter than the notice given by the county council. Some time should be given after the time allowed to the county council—some interval in which the private ratepayer may find out that the county council will not do its duty, and that it is necessary for him to take the duty on himself.
    MR. DILLON: Let me ask what would happen supposing this case arose. Suppose the time has lapsed for giving notice of opposition, and after that time has lapsed, but before the case came up, facts came to the knowledge of some ratepayer showing that the claim was a

    1497
    bogus one, or grossly overstated. What would be the position then?
    MR. ATKINSON: That is exactly the point. The very part of the clause to which honourable Members opposite object would provide for such a case. It gives power to the county court judge in such a case, to waive any irregularity and dispense with the requirements as to notice or otherwise.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I trust the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment. As the law stands at present, no previous notice of opposition is necessary at all. A man makes an application for what is called a traverse, that is an objection to the presentment. One of the sub-sections proposed by the right honourable Gentleman himself shows the necessity for this Amendment. Sub-section 3 is—
    "Any person claiming compensation in a county may apply to the county court, and the county council, and any person paving poor rate in that county may, as well as the applicant, appear and be heard by the county court in relation to the application."
    Does the right honourable Gentleman say that, supposing the party does not appear before the county court judge, he is to be shut out altogether? If so, very serious consequences will result. There would be no object in the words—
    "The proceedings may be set aside … or otherwise dealt with."
    Speaking generally, with regard to this clause, I wish, to put it upon record that my opinion is that if the clause passes in its present shape we shall have no end of litigation. Under Sub-section 7 the rules of court would be ultra vires if they did anything more than provide for an appeal to the judge of Assize, and afterwards to the Court of Appeal. We have had experience of clauses of this character in connection with the Irish Land Acts, and I am sure that this section, in its present form, will not work satisfactorily.
    MR. SHEE: I think an applicant under this Act should be placed in the same position as that in which a plaintiff in a county court action at present is. The ordinary plaintiff has to go into court prepared with all his proofs whether there be opposition or no; he must prove his case to the satisfaction of the county court judge. In this case an applicant for compensation will get a facility or privilege that no ordinary suitor gets. I really cannot understand for what reason the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is so tender towards applicants for compensation that he proposes to place them in a better position than any other applicant in a county court.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not think we have had a satisfactory answer as to what will happen if there is no notice of opposition. The right honourable Gentleman says that if there is no notice of opposition, or if the notice is withdrawn, practically the claim will be decided in the applicant's favour. But suppose I enter opposition to a claim for, say, £1,000, and the applicant comes to me with a five-pound note, and says, "Look here, your own claim would not amount to more than £2 3s. 4d., but here is a five-pound note for you; now withdraw your opposition." What happens if I accept that, and withdraw my opposition after the time for giving notice has expired; are all the other ratepayers of the county to be damnified? We have heard in this House of what is known as the collusive block; I am not sure that I myself was not the inventor of it. A friend of the Bill "blocks" it, in order to deter opponents from the real opposition; then at the psychological moment the friendly block is withdrawn, and the Bill slips through in the absence of opposition. That is what is called a collusive block. Suppose you have a collusive opposition to a claim, how are the real opponents of the claim to be protected? The right honourable Gentleman says, in effect, that we may rely on the equity of Ireland to dispense with

    1499
    any formalities. I decline to rely on that at all. The sub-section says that—
    "In particular, such rules shall provide that non-compliance by the applicant with any of the rules shall not render any proceeding void unless the court or judge of assize so direct."
    I decline to rely on that equity; I prefer the good old common law of the country, which enables me to go into court and there enter my opposition. I want to know why the passing of a rule should deprive me of that right. I protest against the spirit shown by the right honourable Gentleman in dealing with this Amendment. No answer is given to our objection; he simply meets us with a non possumus. I must say it is very unusual for the Government to meet reasonable Amendments in this spirit. I believe that if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary were in his place he would have accepted this Amendment long ago. We are left with only two Irish officials in charge of the Bill, who are not Members of the Cabinet, so that we are addressing our arguments to gentlemen who have no power to meet us. I can only say that if some fair answer is not given us, when we ask why a right existing at common law and by statute is to be taken away from the Queen's subjects, I shall move to report Progress.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The question is that I report—
    MR. T. M. HEALY: No, Sir; I give them a little grace. I have not moved yet.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I have listened with great attention to the speeches of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. It appears to me that at the present moment the honourable and learned Member has no confidence in any body of men in Ireland, not even in any of the new bodies to be created by this Bill. Perhaps it would satisfy him if the claims for compensation for malicious injuries were left to the grand juries.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I can only say that if it were left to me I should prefer the grand juries. Before the grand juries you, at any rate, have to deal with men who have to pay some of the assessments for malicious injuries, and who have to live in the county. That, I think, is a very good equity to rely on. Now, Sir, I am glad to see the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord in his place. I want to ask why this sub-section, which takes away from the Queen's subjects a right which they enjoy under the common law and under statute, is pressed so unreasonably. I submit that the burden of proof in a claim for compensation for malicious injuries lies on the applicant. This Amendment can do no possible harm, and I really think we are entitled to expect the Government to meet us.
    MR. ATKINSON: It is difficult to appreciate the reason for the honourable and learned Member's dissatisfaction with this very harmless provision. It is the almost universal practice for a claimant to have notice when his claim is going to be contested.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Not in the county court, where these proceedings will take place.
    MR. ATKINSON: In the county court the defendant is obliged to enter his defence, and that is entered on the records of the court. In all litigation in superior courts of all kinds the moment the defence is entered notice must be given to the plaintiff that he is put to strict proof. I quite admit that in proceedings before the grand juries for malicious injury that is not required, but it is an anomaly which we do not wish to perpetuate in this Bill. Under this section precaution is taken that every person having an interest shall be served by the applicant with notice of his claim.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: We are not talking of the notice of claim, but of the notice of opposition.
    MR. ATKINSON: The county council and district council are to be served with notice of claim, and it is competent for any ratepayer in the county to oppose; but in justice to the applicant notice

    1501
    of opposition ought to be given to him. I cannot, see that any right is taken away from the Queen's subjects, as the honourable and learned Member puts it. All that is asked is that an applicant whose claim is intended to be opposed shall have notice given to him in time to enable him to meet the opposition. He will have, of course, to establish to the full satisfaction of the judge that he has sustained damage; but everybody acquainted with litigation knows that what is required to establish a claim to the satisfaction of a court when there is no opposition and what is required to overbear opposition are two entirely different things.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right honourable and learned Gentleman compares these proceedings with an ordinary suit, and he says that everybody has to give notice of his claim. Granted; but has everybody to give notice of his opposition? Take the illustration of the land courts; fair rent applications by the tenants can be opposed without any notice of opposition. When they are appealing for fair play as against the landgrabbers, the landgrabbers are not tied down to giving so many days' notice of opposition. Again, take the case of a licence. I may have a licence for which I gave £5,000, but when I apply for its renewal I may be opposed by any man who likes to start up in the court without any notice whatever; and that man need not even be a ratepayer. I ask what reason is there for suddenly making a change in the law which has existed now for over sixty years? What is the ground for the change? Was the law bad before; and, if so, have Her Majesty's Attorneys Generals during the whole of her reign, been fast asleep? When you are now, for the first time, transferring power from the grand juries and presentment sessions to the county court judge, what ground exists for giving this new privilege to an applicant for compensation? I must say that I think the effect of this clause has not even been appreciated by the right honourable Gentleman himself. A landlord is not required to give notice of opposition to an application by his tenant for the fixing of a
    1502
    fair rent; but when the position is reversed, when the landgrabbers are making these bogus claims for damages for malicious injury, they are to have notice of opposition. And remember, this is a clause devised by the Government, as an afterthought, after the landlords' convention had sat in Dublin. I must say that anything more unfair, unnatural, and needless than this provision I cannot imagine. Bad as the landlords are, they have never demanded this change. It is the mere sic volo, sic jubeo of the right honourable Gentleman, and he is unable to advance a single sound argument in its favour.
    MR. DILLON: The right honourable and learned Gentleman said that the grand jury system in Ireland was an anomaly. Sir, the whole code of laws regulating procedure in claims for damages for malicious injury is an anomaly, and a code of coercion against the people of Ireland. If not, why are those laws not imposed in this country? In the worst days of coercion that procedure which the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General now describes as an anomaly was left as, at any rate, some protection to the ratepayers. And now, when we have a Bill which is supposed to be, and is as regards some points, a Bill for conferring new rights on the people of Ireland, you propose to take away from the people rights winch they possessed in the worst days of coercion. I agree with the honourable and learned Member for North Louth that the procedure under this new clause proposed by the Government may be extremely dangerous and objectionable. Why is it that the Government attach so much importance to the procedure under this section? Because from time to time these Acts for levying damages for malicious injury are made the engine for the recovery of claims of a bogus and most outrageous character, and I cannot doubt that at times these Acts are administered in a most unfair and unjust spirit. The right honourable Gentleman talks about the present procedure being an anomaly and an exception. It cannot be more

    1503
    anomalous than the Acts themselves. The Committee may remember that famous decision that you can levy for malicious injury in the case of cattle which are killed and not taken away, but if cattle are stolen and eaten you can levy nothing at all. The whole of the Acts from beginning to end are conceived and drawn, not for the purpose of protecting the people, but for the purpose of carrying out the policy of the Government, which is hostile to the people, and in the case of levies over small areas most oppressive. It is for these reasons that we attach such importance to the methods of procedure to be provided by this Bill. I put it to the right honourable Gentleman, even if we are wrong and our fears are groundless, is he wise in carrying on a fight against this Amendment in face of the fact that the view taken by the Irish Members is that the clause as it stands is an infringement of the liberties of the people? What is their real reason for attaching so much importance to their exact wording of this clause?
    MR. J. TULLY: I fail to see why the Government should object to letting the law stand as it is in Ireland, instead of having a new code set up for the manufacture of bogus grievances and bogus claims. This clause is a blot on the Bill, and I think the Bill would be far more satisfactory to the people of Ireland if the entire clause were left out, rather than passed in the shape in which it now stands. It will lead to the multiplication of bogus claims and be a grievous tax on the ratepayers. This particular sub-section, as it is drafted, will involve that county councils or district councils must make regular legal opposition to every claim that is lodged. We are far better off in Ireland with the law as it stands at present, cumbrous and antiquated though it be, than we should be with the procedure set up by this clause. The present law, cumbrous as it is, has this great advantage. I have myself seen bogus claims put before grand juries, and seen them dismissed because the claimant has failed to comply with some legal provision or other; but under this new
    1504
    procedure the manufacture of bogus claims will be as easy as dropping a letter in the nearest post office. I object entirely to this clause; I think it is a blot on the Bill. I hope the Government will, between this and Monday, reconsider the matter and withdraw the entire clause and let the law stand as it is. Many of us would prefer to take our chance before the grand juries, rather than be at the mercy of hostile county court judges, who will have no hesitation in putting these fines on the people when perhaps it suits them for political purposes.
    It being Twelve of the Clock the Debate stood adjourned.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday.
    House resumed.

  POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I object.
  MR. M. DAVITT: This is really not a contentious Bill, and I would appeal to the honourable and learned Member to allow us to take the Second Reading now.
  MR. H. BROADHURST: I would also appeal to my honourable and learned friend to withdraw his objection. The Bill will relieve boards of guardians of most serious difficulties, and I do not think the principle of the Bill can be objected to by anyone.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I think the Bill is drawn with gross disregard of the rights of parents. I must persevere in my objection.
  Second Reading deferred.
  House adjourned at 12.10.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BUCKIE (CLUNY) HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with amendments.
  BLACKPOOL AND FLEETWOOD TRAMROAD (TRAMWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with amendments.
  HULL BARNSLEY AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with amendments.
  CROWHURST SIDLEY AND BEXHILL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with amendments.
  BLACKPOOL SEA WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with Bill; Read, and ordered to lie upon the Table.
  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with consideration of Bill, opposition thereto having been withdrawn; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table; Orders made on 8th and 31st March last discharged; Bill committed.
  EXETER TEIGN VALLEY AND CHAGFORD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with consideration of Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table; Orders made on 3rd March last and 1st instant discharged; Bill committed.
  HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  BOMBAY BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time; Passed, and sent to Commons.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Brought from Commons; Read first time; to be printed; and referred to Examiners.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from Commons; Read first time; to be printed; and referred to Examiners.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (BARNES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; Bill to be read third time.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 1898.
  Code of regulations for evening continuation schools, with explanatory memorandum, schedule, and appendices, by the Committee of the Privy Council on Education.
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  I.—Scotch code of regulations for evening continuation schools, 1898;
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  II.—Return showing—

  1. The expenditure from the grant for public education in Scotland in the year 1897 upon annual grants to elementary schools;

  2. The actual number of elementary schools on the Annual Grant List on 30th September, 1897, and the accommodation and number of scholars in those schools; and

  3. The results of the inspection and examination of elementary day schools and evening continuation schools during the year ended 30th September, 1897, the accommodation, number of scholars, teachers employed, particulars of grant earned, income and expenditure, etc.;

  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND).
  Annual Report, for the year 1897;
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES), 1896.
  Part II.—Civil Judicial Statistics: Statistics relating to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the House of Lords, the Supreme Court of Judicature, county courts, and other civil
  1352
  courts, for the year 1896; edited by John Macdonell, Esq., LL.D., Master of the Supreme Court;
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MINES AND QUARRIES (GENERAL REPORT AND STATISTICS FOR THE YEAR 1897).
  Part I.—District statistics of the persons employed, output, and accidents at mines and quarries in the United Kingdom, arranged according to the inspection districts;
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Against sale of, on Sundays; from the inhabitants of Gainsborough; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at 4.15.