Sitting of 12 July 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, ETC.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law, etc., have leave to sit this day during the Sitting of the House.—(Sir James Fergusson.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  DUNDEE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, to be considered upon Friday.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered, to be read the third time.

  KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  STIRLING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL. [H.L.]
  (By order), as amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Lords' Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  Against, from London (3), Hove (2), Brighton (2), Hastings, and Norwood; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation, from Bristol (3), Bath, Talgarth, and Widcombe; to lie upon the Table.
  GEOLOGICAL MUSEUM.
  From South London, against removal from Jermyn Street; to lie upon the Table.

  PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Against, from Dundee and Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
  From Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from St. Austell and Rotherham (2); to lie upon the Table.
  PORT ROYAL (DOCKYARD AND HOSPITAL).
  Return [presented 11th July] to be printed. [No. 293.]
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Copy presented of proposed Amendment of the Scheme relative to the efficiency of the Volunteers in force under Her Majesty's Orders in Council dated 31st July, 1880, 14th April, 1884, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) ACT, 1879 (RULES).
  Copy presented of Rules under section 11 of the Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Copy presented of Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 31st March, 1898, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 294.]

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee—

  1. "That, in the case of the Heywood Corporation Water Bill [H.L.], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  2. "That, in the case of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

  Resolutions agreed to.

  NEWCASTLE - UPON - TYNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Dr. Farquharson. )

  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 295.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 295.]
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 300.]

  TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES (SUSPENSION) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Monday next.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
  Sir AUGUSTUS GODSON reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill [Marylebone Order] had stated that the evidence of Alphonso Elkin Cumber-batch, Surgeon, of 80, Portland Place, W.; Robert Hammond, Consulting Engineer, of 64, Victoria Street, Westminster; and Walter Gordon, Hotel Manager, of the Langham Hotel, W., was essential to their case; and it having been proved that their attendance could

  653
  not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Alphonso Elkin Cumberbatch, Robert Hammond, and Walter Gordon do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Alphonso Elkin Cumberbatch, Robert Hammond, and Walter Gordon do attend the Committee on Group H of Private Bills To-morrow, at Eleven of the clock.

  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL
  with an Amendment.

  CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL,
  with Amendments.
  Consequential Amendment to Amendments to—

  ILFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Amendments to—
  BIDEFORD AND CLOVELLY RAILWAY BILL, [H.L.]
  without Amendment.
  GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the General Power Distributing Company."

  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  And also a Bill intituled "An Act to empower the Metropolitan Electric
  654
  Supply Company (Limited) to use lands at Acton Lane for the purpose of their Undertaking, and to lay certain cables or wires in streets and along the Grand Junction Canal; and for other purposes."

BILLS ADVANCED.
  GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
QUESTIONS.

  MAILS FOR THE SOUDAN.
  MR. AIRD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the Post Office can arrange for an additional postal service to and from Egypt during the military operations in the Soudan?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): Under present arrangements there are at least three regular despatches in the week to Egypt; in most weeks there are four or even five. There are four arrivals in the week from that country, and in some weeks five. The Postmaster General has received no representations indicating a need for more frequent communication. He is, moreover, not aware of any additional opportunities which he could advantageously use for exchanging mails with Egypt; and to establish a special mail service under contract would doubtless entail greater expense than the circumstances of the case would warrant.

  CROMWELL'S BUST.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has chosen a site for Bernini's bust of Oliver Cromwell, presented through the First Lord of the Treasury to the House of Commons by Mr. Charles Wertheimer?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): It is proposed to place the bust of Cromwell, generously presented by Mr. Wertheimer, on the eastern side of the lower waiting hall, near the foot of the grand staircase leading to the Committee Rooms.

  FEATHERSTONE RIOTS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, after the Featherstone riots, various recommendations were made in a Report issued to Parliament as to the use of troops in aid of the civil power; whether the recommendations of that report were under the consideration both of the Home Office and of the War Office, in the time of the late Government, for a prolonged period; whether fresh consideration has recently been given to the matter; and whether it is intended to lay before Parliament any circulars with regard to it which may have been recently issued?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): Two Reports were presented to Parliament—the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Featherstone disturbances and the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the question of the precautions and steps to be taken in case of riots or apprehended riots. The latter Committee included representatives of the Home Office and War Office, and their Report was immediately communicated to both military and civil authorities. No necessity has since arisen for reconsidering the general principles which that Report laid down and which appear to work well, and no circulars on the subject have been recently issued.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Then the statement in the papers that the subject has been reconsidered and a fresh circular issued is a mistake?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Yes.

  CLERKENWELL AND THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY.
  MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the powers given to the Metropolitan Railway Company in 1885 to construct a station in Clerkenwell have lapsed; and, if not, whether the sanction of the Board of Trade is required to the carrying out of such a work, and in that case whether the Metropolitan Railway Company has applied for such sanction at any time since their Bill was passed; whether he is aware that the vestry of Clerkenwell a year ago asked the Metropolitan Railway Company to provide a station in that parish near Rosebery Avenue and the Parcel Post Depât; and whether he has powers by which he can induce the directors to carry out the request of the vestry?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir, the powers have lapsed. I am aware that the vestry of Clerkenwell have asked the Metropolitan Railway Company to build a station at the site named, and the company inform me that the application is under the consideration of the directors, who have not come to a decision, as they are waiting for a report from their engineer. The Board of Trade have no powers of compulsion with regard to such a matter.

  BREACH OF HIRING AGREEMENT.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the case of a breach of hiring agreement, in which a labourer named James Fletcher had signed an

  657
  agreement with a farmer named Brock to work for a year, for the sum of 10s. a week, without reading it or understanding its contents, the county magistrates sitting at Caversham ordered the labourer to pay 15s. damages to the farmer for breach of this agreement, in addition to costs, and also made an order on the labourer to return to work; that on 18th June the labourer was again summoned before the magistrates for not having returned to work; and the magistrates on this occasion were advised by their clerk that they had power to imprison the labourer for contempt of court, for not obeying the order to return to work, and informed the farmer that he might take out a summons to obtain further damages from Fletcher; whether magistrates, in such cases as this, have power to make an order on labourers to return to work, and to imprison labourers who do not obey such order; and whether farmers, who have once obtained damages from a labourer for breach of contract, can continue to take legal proceedings against him to recover still further damages, should he not return to work?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have made inquiry about this case, and find that the facts are not quite correctly stated in the Question. An order was made on the labourer to pay 15s. as damages for breach of contract, and costs, and the order has now been complied with. The justices were satisfied from the evidence that the defendant's plea that he signed the contract without reading or understanding the contents was untrue. The plaintiff subsequently applied that the defendant might be committed for not having returned to work, but was informed by the justices that they had no power to make the order. The plaintiff thereupon asked whether he could claim further damages, and was told that the justices were of opinion that no further claim should be made, but that if he took out a summons they would fully consider the matter. No such summons has, in fact, been taken out. I am afraid I must decline to express an opinion on the points of law raised in the last two paragraphs of the Question
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: Is it not a fact that an order was made by the magistrates that this man should return to work; that on the second occasion of his appearance in the court the plaintiff asked the Bench to force the man to do so; did they not decline, not because they did not think they had the power, but because the only way of enforcing the order was by sending the man to prison?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is really arguing the case for the defendant.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am informed the facts are quite the reverse. No such order was made, as I have already stated.

  NAVAL ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, WOOLWICH.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he can state if it is the practice in the Naval Ordnance Department, Woolwich Arsenal, when a labourer desires one hour's leave to compel him to lose five hours, if the leave required be before 1 p.m.; and three hours and forty minutes if after 1 p.m.; and whether he will consider the advisability of altering this practice?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): In the Naval Ordnance department there are two classes of labourers, namely: (1) those who were transferred from the War Department in 1891; (2) those who entered since then. The facts stated in the Question refer to the former class, who are under the War Office regulations. They are entitled to seven days' annual leave, without deduction of pay, but such leave is not allowed to be taken in less quantities than half a day. This is the practice in the Army Ordnance Department, from which these men were transferred.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the honourable Gentleman consider the advisability of altering the practice?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it would be desirable to alter the practice in regard to these men, who enjoy a good many privileges which the others have not.

  ALLEGED IMPROPER ARRESTS OF BOYS AT WATERVILLE.
  MR. FLAVIN: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant M'Grath, of Waterville, county Kerry, arrested without a warrant, on the 20th of May last, two boys named John and Michael Healy, aged respectively 12 and 15 years, who were shortly afterwards released, there being no evidence against them; at whose charge, and by what authority, were these boys arrested; is he also aware that an action was brought against M'Grath for the false charge and arrest, which was tried before Judge Shaw and a jury at Cahirciveen Quarter Sessions, and that during the trial Judge Shaw informed the jury that they would have to sign the issue paper as he directed; that he would take the responsibility; and that the jury had nothing to do with it; and whether any steps will be taken to compensate the mother of these innocent boys, who is a very poor widow?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): I have received a report from the police in reference to the statements contained in this Question, but, as I observe that an appeal against the decision of the jury at quarter sessions will be heard at the Tralee Assizes, which opened yesterday, I must ask the honourable Member to defer the question until the appeal shall have been heard.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORS.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps
  660
  have been taken to make up the Local Government Supplement provided for under section 1, sub-section 2, Registration (Ireland) Act, and to notify duly qualified peers and women that they are entitled to be so registered as Local Government electors?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Article 7 of the Order in Council, dated 23rd May, 1898, and made under the Registration (Ireland) Act, 1898, provided that clerks of unions were to serve additional requisitions for the purpose mentioned in the Question. I presume this requirement has been complied with.

  ROYAL GUN FACTORIES.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office who is now the responsible acting head of the Royal Gun Factories?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The Royal Gun Factory is in temporary charge of Commander Chevallier, who is responsible to the Director-General of Ordnance Factories.

  PROMOTION AMONG DUBLIN POSTMEN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what steps were taken to ascertain the fitness of the postmen promoted in Dublin, of which question was made on the 30th ultimo, and whether one of the allowance holders promoted objected to take up the position on the ground of his unfitness, and has since returned to his former duty; whether it is intended that all postmen senior to the most junior of those promoted are to be debarred from all promotion, and will he state how many officers have been passed over by each of the men promoted to head postman, assistant head postmen, and assistant inspector of telegraph messengers respectively; whether in the case

  661
  of a second class assistant inspector of postmen, who has been promoted over the head of the first class assistant inspector to the position of inspector of postmen, the question of the fitness of the first class assistant inspector for this position could not arise, as he has always performed the relief duty of the head inspector, and was performing it up to the date of the appointment of his junior, who had never previously had experience of this duty; and on what grounds was this officer promoted over others who were higher classed?
  MR. HANBURY: These appointments are made not by seniority but by merit, and in every case the man considered to be most qualified was appointed.

  ROCKCORRY DISPENSARY MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Dr. R. B. Moore, of Rockcorry, county Monaghan, who at the age of 75 years, and after serving 44 years as dispensary medical officer, when obliged to retire through ill-health, was refused any superannuation; and whether, in view of such a case as this, and the possibility of other similar cases, he will consider the advisability of accepting some of the Amendments on the Paper to the Local Government (Ireland) Bill making it compulsory on the new local bodies to grant superannuation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the proposal to grant a retiring allowance to Dr. Moore has been twice before the guardians, but that it fell through on both occasions. I could not undertake in the Local Government Bill to deal with the general question of superannuation of officers.

  LOANS FOR DRAINAGE WORKS IN IRELAND.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would insert in the Local Government (Ireland) Bill
  662
  provisions to enable county councils to borrow from the Board of Works sums up to £1,000 or over for the purpose of draining lands?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The proposal in this Question would require very careful consideration. As at present advised, I should not be prepared to assent to it.

  BANTRY BAY.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is true that no ship of war has replaced the Collingwood in Bantry Bay; and whether it is intended that the Devastation or some other such vessel will be sent to remain permanently there?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. After the cruise of the Reserve Fleet, the Collingwood will return to Bantry as usual.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I hope it will remain permanently there.

  NEWBLISS POST OFFICE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, is it in contemplation to make any change in the staff of the Newbliss Post Office, county Monaghan; and, if so, will due notice of such change be given before carrying it into effect?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware that any change in the staff employed at Newbliss is in contemplation, but he will make inquiry.

  CASTLESHANE POST OFFICE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why there is so much delay in filling the vacancy existing for some considerable time in the Castleshane Post Office, county Monaghan; and can he state when an

  663
  appointment will be made to the vacant position?
  MR. HANBURY: The Report from the District Surveyor upon the candidates for the Castleshane Post Office has reached the Postmaster General to-day, and an appointment will be made without delay.

  SPRAYING MACHINE INSTRUCTIONS.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the instructions issued to the Mullingar Board of Guardians for the use of the spraying machines bought through the Local Government Board are printed in French; and whether he will consider the advisability of supplying printed copies of a translation of those instructions for the convenience of the poorer classes for whom they are intended?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board are not responsible for the issue of the instructions in French. It appears that some circulars in French were sent out by the makers of the spraying machines, who reside in France. Instructions in English have already been issued by the Local Government Board.

  DISORDER IN BELFAST.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that for some weeks Donegal Road and the surrounding streets in the city of Belfast have been frequently paraded by disorderly crowds, who inflict injury on property, and stone the police when interfered with; that, on the 29th of June, Constable Perrott, in the course of evidence given in court, stated that at present it was almost impossible for a policeman to do duty in that locality; and whether the Executive propose to take any steps to insist on the maintenance of order in this district of Belfast?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have called for a Police Report on the statements contained in this Question, which was only placed on the Paper this morning for the first time, and must ask the honourable Member to repeat it on Thursday.

  SPRAYERS FOR BALLINA AND KILLALA.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that much misunderstanding and confusion has arisen in some western unions in reference to the circulars issued by the Local Government Board with regard to the supplying of sprayers; and that, as a result, in some districts of the Ballina and Killala unions, the people are now endeavouring to spray their potatoes with brushes and other inefficient implements; and whether anything can be done to remedy this condition of things?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In a few of the western unions, including Killala and Ballina, the guardians appear to have at first misunderstood the Local Government Board's circular relative to spraying machines. The Board, however, pointed out the misapprehension as soon as they were made aware of it. The Killala guardians purchased and received 101 machines, and the Ballina guardians 80 machines. No complaint has been received from either union that the people were spraying with "brushes and other inefficient implements," but, on the contrary, the clerk of the Killala union now states that they want no machines, and they ask the Board to make arrangements to dispose of the 101 already supplied, as nearly all the persons that ordered the machines have been supplied otherwise. He also observes that the guardians would not let the machines out on hire.

  PROCEDURE ON REVISION (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Local Government

  665
  Board for Ireland to issue special instructions to local officers (town clerks, etc.), as was done on the passing of the Ballot Act, 1872, so that the provisions of the Registration Act, 1898, and those of the Local Government Bill now before Parliament, may be properly and legally enforced by the local officials?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Order in Council already issued, the Circular to clerks of the peace, and clerks of unions which is to be issued to-day on the subject, and the Order in Council to be issued respecting procedure on revision, will, it is considered, give local officials sufficient information as to the registration of local government electors.

  TREATIES WITH CHINA.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received from the Chinese Government any intimation of a demand for a revision of the treaties between China and Great Britain; if so, when was the demand made; does the demand for revision extend to Articles XXIV., LII, and LIV. of the Treaty of Tientsin of 26th June, 1858, which articles respectively stipulate that British subjects shall in no case be called upon to pay other or higher duties than are required of the subjects of any other foreign nation; that British ships of war shall be at liberty to visit all ports within the dominions of the Emperor of China; and that the British Government and its subjects shall have free and equal participation in all privileges, immunities, and advantages that may have been, or may hereafter be granted by the Emperor of China to the Government or subjects of any other nation; if not, to what articles of what treaties does the demand extend, and what would be the effect of the revision demanded; and does Her Majesty's Government propose to accede to this demand?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. CURZON,): The demand
  666
  of the Chinese Government is for a revision of the Customs tariff in accordance with Article XXVII. of the Treaty of Tientsin. Formal notice was given to Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin in April last. Any revised duties which may be agreed upon will, of course, be subject to our rights under the most-favourednation articles of the treaty.

  REBELLION IN KWANG-TUNG.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information regarding the rebellion stated to have broken out in the Chinese provinces of Kwang-oi and Kwang-tung; whether he is able to state the causes which have led to that rebellion, the objects thereof as professed by the rebel leaders, and the approximate number of the rebels now in arms; whether the rebels have captured Moning and Tienpak, and are now surrounding Wu-chuen-hsien in Kwangtung; whether there is any reason for apprehension as to Wu-chau; and whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been or will be taken by Her Majesty's Government in consequence of this outbreak?
  MR. CURZON: We have heard from Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin that an insurrection has broken out in three districts near Wu-chau, in the province of Kwang-oi, and that some Chinese officials have been killed. We have no further details. The Chinese Government state that the revolt is being quelled.

  NIU-CHWANG RAILWAY EXTENSION.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Russia has withdrawn her opposition to the ratification of the Hong-kong and Shanghai Bank loan for the extension of the Northern Railway to Niu-chwang on the condition that no mortgage upon the permanent way is given to the Bank, and

  667
  that the control of the line remains in the hands of the Chinese; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will insist that similar conditions shall be imposed in all cases where foreign capital other than English is employed in the construction of railways in China in conformity with the conditions of equality of treatment secured by the Treaty of Tientsin?
  MR. CURZON: We have no confirmation of the reports alluded to in the question.

  SUEZ CANAL CONVENTION.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the convention between Great Britain, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Russian, Spain, and Turkey, which was signed at Constantinople on 29th October, 1888, and the ratifications whereof were deposited at Constantinople on 22nd December, 1888, and whereof the first article declares that the Suez Canal shall always be free and open in time of war as in time of peace to every vessel of commerce or of war without distinction of flag is still in existence and in operation; and, if not, whether he can say when and under what circumstances that convention ceased to exist or to operate?
  MR. CURZON: The convention in question is certainly in existence, but, as I informed the honourable Member in reply to a question some days ago, has not been brought into practical operation. This is owing to the reserves made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government by the British delegates at the Suez Canal Commission in 1885, which were renewed by Lord Salisbury, and communicated to the Powers in 1887. They will be found at page 292 of the Parliamentary Paper, Egypt, No. 19, 1885.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do these reserves made in 1887 override the Treaty of 1888?
  MR. CURZON: I do not express any definite opinion as to the word "override," but they are no doubt responsible for the fact, as I have already twice stated, that the terms of the convention have not been brought into practical operation.

  WELLINGTON BARRACKS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether some time since the military authorities got possession of the Wellington Barracks, Dublin, which cost the citizens £100,000; whether in the year 1897 £165,000 was voted to be expended on the Island Bridge, Wellington, and Portobello Barracks, in Dublin; and whether it is intended to carry out the necessary alterations and repairs?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: In reply to the first paragraph of the question I must refer the honourable Member to Parliamentary Paper 14, Session 2, of 1892, giving the particulars as to the transfer of prison buildings from local authorities, which will give him the necessary information. In reply to paragraph 2, the sum of £165,000 was provided under the Barrack Loan of 1890 to replace the accommodation for cavalry lost by turning Island Bridge Barracks into Ordnance Stores. As regards paragraph 3, the works at Wellington and Portobello are progressing rapidly.

  PROMOTION OF PUBLIC COMPANIES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government intend to hold an inquiry respecting the promotion of companies; whether the Public Prosecutor has any duty in this matter; and whether he can state how many prosecutions have been instituted since January, 1897?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The answer to the first paragraph of the honourable Member's question is in the negative. The promotion of companies not being an offence, there have been no prosecutions since 1897. If the honourable Gentleman means frauds connected with the promotion of companies I will endeavour to obtain further information.

  CARRICKFERGUS HARBOUR JUNCTION RAILWAY.
  COLONEL MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what body will have the future control of the Carrickfergus Harbour Junction Railway Company, now the property of the grand jury of the county of the town of Carrickfergus; and will it be handed over in March next to the urban or the rural district council, or a joint committee of each?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the rail way is the property of the grand jury of the county of the town, it would appear that under clause 34 of the Bill, as amended in Committee, it would pass to the county council of the county of Antrim.

  DUBLIN SORTERS MEMORIAL.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has yet received from certain sorting clerks employed in the Dublin Post Office a petition handed in on 1st June last, asking that they shall receive a salary of £1 per week, to which they consider they are entitled, instead of their present one of 18s. per week; and will he kindly give them as early a reply as possible?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has received the memorial referred to. It is practically a repetition of a former memorial, to which a reply has already been given. A reply to this further memorial will be given as early its possible.

  LOSS OF THE KOWSHING.
  SIR M. STEWART: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government has consented to grant compensation for the loss of British lives occasioned by the sinking of the Kowshing; and will the Government, seeing so long a time has elapsed without
  670
  redress, insist that the case should be taken up without further delay by the Chinese Government and equitably settled?
  MR. CURZON: A further Note was addressed to the Chinese Minister a short time ago, inquiring whether he had yet received any reply from his Government to his request for instructions on the subject, and expressing the hope that he would shortly be in a position to deal with the question. The Minister's attention will again be called to the case.

  WEST INDIAN LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
  SIR M. STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to say when the proposed conference on the West African liquor traffic will take place, and what Governments have consented to be represented at it?
  MR. CURZON: The conference will probably take place some time in the autumn. All the Powers signatories of the Brussels Act will be asked by the Belgian Government to attend.

  PAWNBROKING IN IRELAND.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the practice extensively prevails amongst the pawnbrokers of Ireland of taking pawns without obtaining the name and place of abode of the persons pledging them, and of the owners thereof, and also that the practice prevails of selling in their shops the articles pawned with them without serving the notices provided for by the Pawnbrokers Act, and in some cases of sending the articles out of the country for sale; and whether he will take steps to see that the provisions of the Act of Parliament are carried out?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that in some instances the practice prevails, though not extensively, amongst pawnbrokers in Ireland, of

  671
  taking pawns without taking the addresses of persons who pledge goods, and of the names and addresses of the owners of such goods. I have no information that pawned goods are sold without serving the notices provided by the Pawnbrokers Act, and, so far as the police are able to ascertain, there is no reason to believe that pledged goods are sent out of the country for sale. The attention of pawnbrokers in Dublin was recently directed by the Chief Commissioner of Police to the requirements of the Pawnbrokers Act, and I will make further inquiry whether similar instructions should not be issued to pawnbrokers in other parts of Ireland.

  SUBSTITUTE ALLOWANCES IN THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the paragraph in Official Circular No. 1251, of 15th March last, which provides that when the substitute is acting for an officer of the same class receiving allowance for a superior duty they have decided that he shall receive a like allowance, provided that it does not exceed £20 a year, applies to one postman relieving another who acts as inspector of telegraph messengers, or to one postman relieving another who acts as head postman?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir, a postman acting for another postman, in receipt of an allowance, continuously for nine months, is entitled after the nine months have expired, and during the continuance of such employment, to receive the same allowance, provided that it does not exceed £20 a year.

  COST OF NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it is stated in the 63rd Annual Report of the Commissioners of National Education
  672
  that the average expenditure in Irish national schools is £2 2s. 10¾d., including model schools, where the expenditure is £4 3s. 3½d. per pupil, while the expenditure in English board schools is £2 11s. 11¾d. per pupil, in Scotland £2 8s. 4½d. per pupil, and in Argyll £3 3s. 2d. per pupil; whether the Report of the Commissioners of National Education is correct; and whether any reason can be given why the salary of the Irish assistant teacher is only £63 as compared with the English assistant who receives £97, and the Scotch assistant £103 per annum?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The figures quoted in the first paragraph, so far as they represent the average expenditure per pupil in Irish National schools, are based upon grants from Imperial sources exclusively, whilst the figures quoted as representing the average expenditure in English and Scotch schools take also into account the aid to such schools from local sources. Thus, in the case of English schools the aid from local sources; averaged £1 2s. 0½d. and from Government grants £1 9s. 11¼d. per pupil, as compared with 2s. 8d. and £2 2s. 10¾d, from the same sources respectively in the case of Irish schools. Similarly, as regards the Scotch schools the rate of income per pupil from local sources amounted to 14s. 5¾d., and from Government grants £1 14s. 0½d. There is no reason to question the accuracy of the calculations made in the Report of the Commissioners. As regards the third paragraph, I must refer the honourable Member to the reply to the similar inquiry addressed by him on May 12th last to my right honourable Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. No proper comparison can be drawn between the incomes of teachers in the three countries, having regard, amongst other reasons, to the proportion borne by contributions from local sources to State grants in each country.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is it correct to say that the average annual expenditure per pupil is £2 4s. 1d. in Ireland, £1 18s. 7d. in Scotland, and £1 15s. in England?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. FLAVIN: I was simply quoting from a reply given me by the right honourable Gentleman to a former question on the same subject.

  INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state if Indian Staff Corps officers are frequently promoted to higher rank without having passed the prescribed examination, whereas in the Case of officers serving in British regiments this rarely takes place; and whether he will consider the advisability of placing both classes of officers upon an equality in this respect?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The system of examination in the Indian Staff Corps differs materially from that which prevails in the British Army, inasmuch as there are in the Staff Corps no examinations for promotion from rank to rank, but only for the various regimental, staff, and departmental appointments. The comparison, therefore, which is implied in the honourable and gallant Member's Question cannot properly be made.

  RICHMOND PRISON, DUBLIN.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is he aware that Richmond Prison, built by the Dublin Corporation at a cost of over £120,000, was taken over under the late Conservative Government by the military authorities as a barracks without any compensation to the city, which was obliged to pension the staff; while the War Department insisted on receiving £60,000 for the Pigeon House Fort from the Corporation, the site of which that body originally granted free to the Government; is he aware that the Dublin Corporation are now engaged on the work of main drainage, which will cost when completed nearly £500,000, without any contribution from the outlying townships; and that this work was
  674
  originally insisted on by Government about 1870, in the interest of the health of the troops, under an intimation that steps would be taken to compel the work of sanitation in respect of the river Liffey; will he explain why it is that, while Belfast only contributes £15,000 to the police with a larger and more disturbed population and greater resources, Dublin has to pay a rate of 8d. in the £ on the metropolitan area, averaging £35,000, while in addition the hackney car duty goes to the police along with a special pawnbrokers' licence, averaging together nearly £10,000 more; and why are these arrangements not insisted on for Belfast, or why is Dublin not released from them; and, in view of the present heavy charges on Dublin and the recent profitable arrangements made by the Crown with its Corporation, will he consider the question of accepting the police rate alone as the Dublin police contribution?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. H. BEACH,): (1) Richmond Prison appears from a Parliamentary Return to have cost the local authority £96,000 from 1813 to 1877, when its maintenance was undertaken by Government. When no longer required as a prison it was transferred to the War Office to be converted into barracks. Any pensions to its former staff would be divided between rates and votes. (2) The "Pigeon House Fort," and other War Department property at the mouth of the Liffey, which cost the Government £157,000, were surrendered for the drainage scheme in consideration of £65,000, the cost of replacing part only of the works surrendered. (3) I am aware that within the last 10 years a drainage scheme has been promoted by the Corporation. Government will contribute its share of the cost in the shape of contributions in lieu of rates on its property in the city, valued at over £40,000 a year. (4) The contributions of the Dublin police district (which is much larger than the city) and of Belfast towards the cost of their police are fixed by Statute. That of the former is about 35 per cent. of the cost, that of the latter something like 15 per cent. Considering that in Great Britain over 50 per cent. of the cost of the police

  675
  is provided from rates, the comparisons suggest rather an increase in the contribution from Belfast than a decrease in that from Dublin. I will make inquiries as to the pawnbroker's licence; but, as at present advised, I see no reason for reducing the total charge on Dublin. As regards the hackney car duty, special services are rendered by the police in respect of it, as in London, where a similar system exists.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right honourable Gentleman say what, if Belfast paid on the same basis as Dublin, would be the amount of her contribution?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot give the exact figure. Belfast only pays 15 per cent. as against Dublin's 35.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, having regard to the definition of a non-textile factory, as contained in section 93 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, farm servants engaged in thrashing corn in a barn by means of a machine worked by steam power come within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. E. WEBSTER,): In my opinion farm servants engaged in thrashing corn by means of a machine worked by steam power, whether in a barn or not, do not come within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897.
  MR. TENNANT: But is not the thrashing of corn preparing an article for sale? On what does the honourable and learned Gentleman base his opinion?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: On the words of the section.

  PROGRESS OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is intended to proceed with the Poisonous Substances Bill
  676
  this Session, having regard to the widespread objection to that Measure by chemists and druggists throughout the country?
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if a Bill will be brought in this Session to provide for the superannuation of teachers in public elementary schools.
  MR. MCKENNA: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will include in his statement as to the course of public business a reference to his proposals on the subject of the superannuation of teachers.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury to say, in indicating the intentions of the Government as to the disposal of the time of the House, when it is intended to take the discussion of the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Resolution, the Attendance of Children at School (Scotland) Bill, and the Parish Churches (Scotland) Bill; and when an opportunity will be given for the discussion of the Scottish Education Vote.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I may, perhaps, be allowed to make these four Questions the occasion for giving the statement which I have promised to the House in regard both to Supply and the remaining business which lies before us during the course of the present Session. The last Question, however—that of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs—I may answer independently, as it is rather outside the scope of the statement I have to make. The right honourable Gentleman asks when particular Bills are going to be taken. I am afraid I cannot at present state when the Measures to which the right honourable Gentleman refers will be brought before the House, but, of course, we shall bring them on at the earliest possible date. Now I turn to the question of Supply, and as regards Supply I think that, looking back on the course of the Session, we must

  677
  admit that the Supply Rule has most effectively carried out the main object for which it was framed—namely, that of giving to the House at a convenient period of the Session—at a time when the House is not fatigued or exhausted, as it would be in the middle of August, but during the earlier and fresher days of our labour—an opportunity of discussing and deciding upon the administrative action of the Government. I hope that the particular days selected have met the convenience of honourable Gentlemen, as they were certainly designed to do by those responsible for the conduct of the business in this House. But while I think that the Rule has proved entirely satisfactory with regard to its most important function, the actual amount of money which has been voted, and the actual number of Votes disposed of, do not compare favourably with the results reached at the same period of the year in the last Session of Parliament. We have had 15 days of Supply. In the first 15 days of Supply in 1897 99 Votes were passed. This year, during the 15 days which have been already allotted to Supply, 36 Votes alone have been finally disposed of; and the pecuniary results of the Votes correspond with the general estimate of their number. But I may interpolate this observation—that I do not think anybody in this House estimates the importance of the Vote by the amount of money with which it deals. There are Votes dealing with millions of the taxpayers' money which may properly pass without a word of discussion, while Votes which nominally appear on the Estimates deserve, and have often received, Debates lasting for one night or more. One reason for the comparatively unsatisfactory condition of Supply at the present time is to be found in the fact that there were no less than five days of discussion without a single Vote being obtained.
  SIR H. FOWLER: Six days.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I thought it was five; it may have been six. Some of those days were spent in discussion upon most important questions of foreign affairs. Others—one other, at any rate—were, perhaps, less well spent upon an elaborate discussion
  678
  of the officers of this House and of another place. But, without going into the question of how the time has been used by the House, the broad fact remains that, while there has been ample discussion on matters of the gravest public interest, we do not stand as far advanced with Supply as I think we should be at this time of the year, and so far our labours in this department of our work are somewhat disappointing. There remain six more complete days for the discussion of Supply, provided that the three extra days permitted by the Rule are given; and I need hardly say that under the existing circumstances I shall certainly get them, and everybody would desire and anticipate that they would be given. Besides the six days there are, of course, parts of the two final days—that is to say, the hours which intervene between the end of Questions and 10 o'clock on the last day of Supply and the day when Report is taken; in other words, we have six whole days and the major part of two others. In my view, though I think it would be most unwise now to make an allocation of those six days, yet the subjects which require most attention and discussion by the House—the matters which are most important and most deserve our attention—are the Irish Votes and the Navy Votes, to which next Friday and Friday week are already allotted, the Home Office Votes, the Post Office Votes, the Local Government Board Votes, the Board of Trade Votes, Class 5, and some Votes for the Army. There will be some difficulty, no doubt, in arranging the time to the best advantage among those various topics, but I am sure that the Government will have the assistance of the House in making the best arrangement possible, and if the right honourable Gentleman opposite, or those for whom he speaks, think that I have made any error in my list of important Votes still to come, I shall, of course, be glad to correct that error and meet the views of the right honourable Gentleman as far as I can with regard to the allocation of the time still remaining to us. Many of these Votes require discussion, but let me add that there are Votes with large pecuniary products which do not require prolonged discussion, and which, under the circumstances, I hope the House will enable us to get

  679
  with all possible facility. Before I leave the topic of Supply there is another point which I must bring under the attention of the House. My right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies proposes to bring forward a supplementary Estimate, dealing with the West Indies. That is of so exceptional and unusual a character, it lies so much outside any Vote which we have passed in the course of the present Session, that I confess I do not think it would be desirable—though it would be possible—to bring it within the operation of the Supply Rule. I think I shall be able so to arrange matters that by far the greater part of the time occupied in the discussion of this novel Vote can be allotted without trespassing on the six cays which still remain, under the strict interpretation of the Rule. With this short account of the condition of Supply, and the course which I hope the House will adopt with regard to it, I now pass to the position of our legislative business. This is, perhaps, in some respects rather an early day to make a statement—early in this sense, that it cannot, from the nature of the case, be made absolutely complete. That it cannot be made complete is evident from the fact that I have to begin my statement by reminding the House that there are no less than four Bills which have not been yet introduced, and which I yet think ought to pass. And there is a fifth Bill—namely, the Food and Drugs Bill of my right honourable Friend the President of the Local Government Board—to which I shall make no further reference now, for although it is to be introduced, we have always said that it would be quite impossible to pass it in the course of the present Session. The four Measures which are not yet introduced, but which ought to be passed, are, first, one which will probably receive the general assent of the House—the Teachers' Superannuation Bill; next, the Seed Potatoes Bill, of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the Poor Relief Bill, which is practically a Bill of indemnity for guardians going beyond their powers in dealing with the condition of things in the west of Ireland; and there is, in addition, the Colonial Loans Bill, which will be introduced, and the object of which is to institute a Colonial Loans Fund, on
  680
  the model of the Local Loans Fund, out of which, from time to time, loans may be made to the Crown Colonies under Parliamentary authority.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is that Bill independent of the Supplementary Estimate?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, it is quite independent of the Supplementary Estimate, to which I have referred. I pass now to the Bills which the House has already had before it for a considerable time, and which, though they are of varying degrees of importance, cannot be described either as Departmental or local Bills. There is, in the first place, the Local Government Bill for Ireland, then there is the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill, the Vaccination Bill, the Prisons Bill, the London University Bill, the Habitual Inebriates Bill, the Local Taxation (Scotland) Bill, and the Mercantile Marine Fund Bill. All these Bills are either at the Report stage, or, as in the case of the London University Bill, on the verge of the Report stage, excepting the Local Taxation (Scotland) Bill. I do not understand that that Bill, now that it has been before honourable Gentlemen representing Scotch constituencies, is likely to lead to much opposition or to very prolonged debate. All these Measures, therefore, I hope may pass. In the second class I put Bills which are either departmental Bills or which have a local application. Of these there are the Telegraphs Money Bill, the Isle of Man Customs Bill, the Metropolitan Police Courts Bill, the Vagrancy Act Amendment Bill, the Parish Fire Engines Bill, the Metropolitan Poor Fund Bill, the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and the Statute Law Revision Bill; the Charitable Loans Bill and the Lodgers' Declaration Bill, relating to Ireland; and the Circuit Clerks Justiciary Bill, the Attendance of Children at School Bill, and the Parish Churches Bill, these three relating to Scotland. There is also the Universities and College Estates Bill, which has passed through its Report stage, and is only awaiting Third Reading. I have no ground for believing that any of those Bills are likely to excite opposition. The general wish on both sides of the House is that they should pass; and, as far as I

  681
  know, none of them have any party application, or are likely to lead to disputes dividing the two sides of the House. There remain two Bills which await Second Reading, and as to which I cannot say at present whether they are likely to meet with general favour or not—the Land Charges Bill and the Lunacy Bill. With respect to these, I shall make no statement about them until I have seen some further indication as to the reception with which they are likely to meet. It only remains for me to give the list—in this case it is a small list—of the Bills which we have abandoned any hope of passing into law. The list is small, for reasons with which the House is acquainted; and I do not think that much time will have been wasted in the course of the present Session on Measures which ultimately it will be found impossible to place on the Statute Book. These Bills are the Land Tax Commissioners Bill, the Dogs Regulation Bill, the Factory and Workshops Bill, the Poisons Bill, and the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill. The only one in that list of five which calls for any public comment is the last. The House will remember that that Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and the Select Committee, I believe, have seen labouring and working with great energy at the Measure. Although there is every probability that a very useful Report will be before us for our future guidance before the end of the Session, I do not think it is in any way possible that we should find time this Session to deal with a Measure which not only must, but I think ought to, receive some consideration on the floor of this House. It is with great reluctance, but probably not altogether in contradiction of expectations formed either here or in Scotland, that I say the Bill will have to stand over until next Session of Parliament. I have now, as far as in my power, given to the House a general view of our programme. It is, of course, not without the bounds of possibility that some public necessity may require the introduction of a Measure to meet that public necessity, but I do not anticipate it, and as far as what I may call the general legislative programme of the Government is concerned I have made a statement that I believe covers the whole ground. I trust the House will not think that I am putting too heavy a
  682
  burden on their shoulders by asking honourable Members to pass the Measures, for the most part uncontroversial, which I have enumerated, and I think that if we set ourselves resolutely to work there ought to be no ground for doubting that we shall be able to separate about the time we separated last Session.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: With reference to the remarks with which the right honourable Gentleman commenced his statement, I desire—and I think I state the sentiments of gentlemen on this side—to acknowledge the consideration and courtesy with which he has dealt with Supply upon days which he has been requested to place at the disposal of the House for the purpose of discussing matters of importance. With respect to that, I entirely concur with him that the Rule has operated advantageously in giving to the House the means of discussing matters of pressing importance in the early part of the Session. I also agree with him that the present state of Supply, with regard to the number of Votes to be obtained, is not satisfactory. That shows, I think, the wisdom of the course which the Government have taken in making the Rule upon this matter to obtain only for a year, in order that the subject may at the commencement of each Session be reconsidered. Admitting that the operation of the Rule in one respect has been entirely satisfactory, I still would venture to submit to the right honourable Gentleman that he might consider before next Session whether it might not be a good thing to place in his power a larger number of extra days than he already possesses, so as to give a certain elasticity to the number of days to be devoted to Supply. Everybody is aware that in the present Session there have been a number of questions affecting foreign and Colonial matters which have pressed for discussion. Those questions have certainly put out of gear the ordinary discussions upon what may be called domestic Supply. The right honourable Gentleman has in hand at present three days which he can appropriate to those discussions and no more. If he had a larger number of days he would be able, where there was a pressure upon other Votes, to give additional days to Supply. I throw that out for the

  683
  consideration of the right honourable Gentleman, and I think it would be a fitting subject for consideration when the Rule is brought forward again at the beginning of next Session. The right honourable Gentleman has said that there are six more days to be devoted to Supply. They will begin to operate, I take it, next Friday, the 15th July, and will take the whole of the next week. Then there must be a day for the Third Reading of the Irish Local Government Bill, so that all your Parliamentary time is allocated. The right honourable Gentleman has said that he expects Parliament will rise about the usual time. I do not know what he considers the usual time, but I presume it means about August 12th. That means that the time to be devoted to the business he has laid before us is not much more than a fortnight of Parliamentary time, and less than three weeks, taking, of course, five days a week. I confess I think the right honourable Gentleman is sanguine in his estimate when he talks of getting through the catalogue he has given us in little more than a fortnight of Parliamentary time. I was very glad to hear him announce that he intends to introduce a Teachers' Superannuation Bill. That is a Measure which, I imagine, will call largely on the resources of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But there is another Bill which has not yet been produced, and it has a rather formidable title—the Colonial Loans Bill. We do not know what the character of that Bill is, but it is quite obvious it is a great financial problem in our system, and it is one that will require to be very carefully examined. As regards the other Bills, if the right honourable Gentleman thinks that in the brief time appropriated he is going to get through such Bills—excellent as they may be, I am expressing no opinion adverse to them—as the Vaccination Bill, the Prisons Bill, and the London University Bill, he is indeed sanguine, because obviously they are Bills which will require discussion, and if perchance one or more of them should have to be abandoned, there are some in the House who will not greatly lament if such an unhappy fate befalls. It would be a great convenience if, at an early date, the right honourable Gentleman could tell us what is the order
  684
  in which he intends to take the remaining Votes in Supply. I understand the Irish Votes are to be taken on Friday and the Navy Votes on the next Friday. Has the right honourable Gentleman any difficulty in stating that the Home Office Vote shall be taken on the third Friday? That is a Vote in which many gentlemen who may be making arrangements for the future are greatly interested, and if her would fix that on the third Friday I think it would be convenient.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am quite ready to do that. I do not promise to put it down first, but I will put it down in a position where it will be thoroughly discussed. I am not sure whether there might not be some uncontroversial Votes which might be placed in advance of the Home Office Vote.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope the right honourable Gentleman will devote a full night to the discussion of that Vote, because many of the subjects are very important. Then come the Post Office, the Local Government, and the Diplomatic Votes. These would occupy the three other days. The West India Vote, the right honourable Gentleman suggests, may be taken out of the Rule. By what process a Vote in Supply can be taken out of the Rule it would be very interesting to us to know. If the Government have it in their power to take Votes in Supply on days beyond the allotted days, I think we ought to know the process by which that may be accomplished. No doubt, where it is not desired to take a Division on the Votes in Supply, as most Members of the House are aware, any Vote can be discussed upon the Appropriation Bill, on the Second Reading, or any stage of it. I only mention that as showing that the House is not absolutely precluded by the closing of the Committee of Supply from discussing the Votes that have been taken. I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the proposals of the right honourable Gentleman, though he must permit me to express a little scepticism as to his power of packing all the goods he has recited to-night within the space of time be contemplates to be at our disposal.
  MR. E. MORTON: Are we to take it that the Irish Estimates will be taken next Friday, and Navy Estimates the following Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That is so.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to ask whether, having regard to the very short discussion on the Navy, the right honourable Gentleman cannot give more than one day for the Navy Debate? Can he not, considering the lateness of the Session and the introduction of new Bills, abandon the hope he expressed to proceed with the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill and the Mercantile Marine Fund Bill?
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Can the right honourable Gentleman give any indication of the period when the Vaccination Bill will be brought on? Will it be next week?
  SIR C. CAMERON: When will the Scottish Bills referred to in the Question of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs be taken, and will an opportunity be given to discuss the Local Taxation (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman when the First Reading of the Colonial Loans Bill will be taken, and when the Colonial Supplementary Estimates will be in the hands of Members?
  MR. BUCHANAN: The right honourable Gentleman spoke of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Bill having made considerable progress, but seeing that it is only in its initial stages, will the right honourable Gentleman grant an early day next week to get through those stages of the Bill, so as to allow of its being printed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If I stated that this Bill was far advanced, I made a slip, but I do not think that I said so. It is not a Bill, however, which I understand is likely to meet with much opposition on the part of honourable Gentlemen representing Scottish constituencies, and I hope that
  686
  the forecast I have made was not too sanguine. I am afraid I cannot give any precise answers with regard to the days on which special business is to be taken, but I will endeavour to make a statement at an early period with regard to such Bills as I have mentioned. Necessarily the progress of one Bill must depend on the progress made with another Bill. I think it is probable that that Vaccination Bill will be taken early next week. As the Colonial Secretary is not in the House, I must ask the honourable Member for Northampton to put a Question on the Paper with reference to the Colonial Questions he has asked.

  LONDON UNIVERSITY BILL.
  MR T. M. HEALY: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the London University Bill now being proceeded with in Grand Committee contains a money clause which has not been santioned by Committee of the wholes House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that nothing irregular has been done. Before the Bill passes its final stages there will be an opportunity for the Committee to sanction the financial provisions of the Measure.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the Chairman of Ways and Means has expressed the opinion that the procedure adopted in this case was irregular?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Anything said by the Chairman of Ways and Means in the Committee cannot be discussed in the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As a point of order, may I ask whether any means exists of raising this question as one of privilege—namely, that a Grand Committee should not be allowed to proceed with a Bill in which money clauses are inserted, and which create a charge on the taxpayers, without the House having some cognisance of the matter in Committee of the whole House?
  MR. SPEAKER: A Bill, after passing through Committee, and before it becomes law, must pass through the Report stage, and if there is anything irregular the matter can then be taken notice of.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But if no Amendments are made in the Bill there would be no Report stage, only Third Reading.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Committee will report to the House as to what has been done, and it will be time to take notice of any irregularity then.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not necessary to get the Money Committee before the clause is put into the Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question. Notice must be given.

  TOWER OF LONDON.
  MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will take the necessary steps so as to allow the collection of arms and the regalia at the Tower of London to be open to the public on Sundays during the same hours as the other public museums are open, subject to the same regulations as are in force upon week days at present at the Tower of London?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In reply to my honourable Friend, I cannot at present say more than that inquiries are being made concerning the matter to which he calls my attention. I can make no definite statement or give any opinion as to the conclusions that may be based on these inquiries when they are completed.

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether those officers in the Indian Civil Service, whose allowance for exchange compensation was stopped in 1894, and who, under the new rules, have been admitted to the allowance from the
  688
  1st April, 1897, are now permitted to draw arrears for the period from 1894 to 1897, during which it was stopped pending the decision of the Secretary of State?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Orders have been given by the Government of India for the classification of the cases in which exchange compensation to civil officers was suspended in 1894 and is admissible under the new rules of 1897, with a view to a decision being passed in each case whether the arrears for the intervening three years may be granted. In a few cases where the claim has been considered to be clearly established such arrears have been paid.

  ADULTERATION OF FOOD PRODUCTS.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can now state on what day he will introduce the Bill dealing with the adulteration of food products?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): I am not in a position to state the exact date, but it will be shortly.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. FLOWER: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Camberwell I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the grounds upon which two abstractors in the Irish Land Commission have been exceptionally granted an annual increment of £5?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the clerks of the abstractor class attached, to the Land Commission receive increments in accordance with the regulations, and that none of these officials now serving in the Department have been exceptionally treated as regards increment.

  INDIAN FRONTIER POLICY.
  MR. BECKETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether full investigation has been made departmentally into the causes that led to the outbreak on the Indian frontier, and particularly into the relations which prevailed before the rising between the various frontier officers and officials and the tribes with which they were in contact; whether the India Office has carefully considered the recommendations and suggestions, with a view to an amended system of control, which have been made since the termination of the war by those who were engaged in it, or who by reason of special local experience of the tribes are best qualified to express an opinion; and whether the recommendation that the entire frontier should be placed under a distinct and separate administration will be carried into effect by the Indian Government, or do they propose to make any change in this direction?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: In paragraph 10 of my dispatch to the Government of India, dated the 28th of January last, I entered into a full consideration of the causes which led to the outbreak on the Indian frontier. I further enlarged upon the same subject in a speech which I addressed to this House, and I have nothing further to add. The matters referred to in the second and third paragraph of the honourable Member's Question are at present the subject of correspondence between the India Office and the Government of India, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement of my conclusions.

  LAGHEY NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works was advised on 9th June by the National Education Board of a grant for a school at Laghey, county Tyrone; whether the very reverend manager of the school has since requested an explanation of the failure of the Board of Works to proceed with their duty without receiving more than a printed acknowledgment; and is there any rule
  690
  preventing the Board of Works from dealing with any subject except after a delay of three months?
  MR. HANBURY: The Board of Works received the notification from the National Education Commissioners on the 9th ultimo, and they duly instructed their local surveyor to revise the plans and specification so as to adapt them to the site. The surveyor was prevented by pressure of other business from giving immediate attention to the matter; but the Board had no reason to doubt, when they received the manager's letter on the 4th instant, that they would be able to send him the plans and specification at once. Otherwise they would have explained to him the cause of the delay. The documents, however, only reached the Board a week later, and the necessary copies were then at once forwarded to the manager of the school.

  IRISH REVISION SESSIONS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, by the Revising Barristers (Ireland) Act, 1886, the clerk of the peace is empowered to nominate a substitute at revision sessions where he cannot attend to the second court himself, such person to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament; whether in Dublin the clerk of the peace's substitute was paid by the Treasury in the year after the passing of the Act; and will he explain why payment has since been refused, and the clerk of the peace in Dublin is compelled to provide the salary of the substitute out of his own pocket; whether he is aware that the clerk of the peace sought to test the legality of such refusal by a petition of right, but was denied sanction to an action; whether the Treasury claims not only to decide the law itself, but to prevent its decisions being legally tested; and whether he has sanctioned the refusal to pay the Dublin clerk of the peace?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: (1) The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, but the law officers advised that the power conferred

  691
  on the clerk of the peace only applies to the two new courts established by the Act. (2) The claim referred to in paragraph 2 was for a substitute at one of the courts existing before the passing of the Act, with regard to which the clerk of the peace was himself bound to provide a substitute, receiving, as I understand, an allowance for that purpose from the corporation. In the year after the passing of the Act the claim was inadvertently allowed; but as soon as the law officers' opinion was taken the payment could not, of course, be repeated. (3 and 4) I understand that the clerk of the peace sought to test the legality of the Treasury position by a petition of right, but was refused the necessary assent through the Secretary of State for the Home Department. No doubt the refusal was based on the law officers' opinion. (5) The decision not to pay the claim was arrived at by the Board of Treasury in 1887 on the advice of the law officers, and I see no reason to depart from it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right honourable Gentleman see any objection to having the point decided by a test case? Could not the Treasury get the opinion of a court of law?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The decision was arrived at by the Secretary of State for the Home Department without reference to the Treasury, and upon the opinion, I understand, of the law officers of the Crown.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What we want is the opinion of the judges.

  LISBURN WORKHOUSE.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Agnew, the experienced Local Government inspector, as to the quality of the food and the verminous state of the bedding in Lisburn Workhouse, the employment of male pauper lunatics in the laundry, and their want of classification; whether he can state the name of the official responsible for this state of affairs; and if steps will be taken, in the
  692
  interests of the inmates, to have some improvement made?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact that Mr. Agnew, after his recent inspection of the Lisburn Workhouse, made a Report in which he drew attention to the matters mentioned in the first paragraph. The board of guardians have called upon the master of the workhouse to furnish an explanation with reference to these matters, and the visiting committee have been summoned to consider and make recommendations for remedying the defects complained of by the inspector.

  MANCHESTER PRISON.
  MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of an insane prisoner named Edward Cox, confined in Manchester prison; and whether it is a fact that the prisoner had seven, and probably eight, of his ribs broken, that the medical inspector sent down to inquire into the case reported that only one of the man's ribs had been broken, while Mr. Dickinson, a London stipendiary magistrate, after a special inquiry, arrived at the conclusion that seven or eight of the prisoner's ribs were broken; and, if so, what action he has taken with regard to the medical inspector?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I answered a Question on this case in March last. The medical inspector had no opportunity of examining the prisoner until seven days after the injury. The prisoner was then still strapped up; and, as removal of the strapping was thought to be inexpedient, and the prisoner was unable to give any rational account of his injuries, it was impossible for the inspector to ascertain what the extent of the injury had been. His Report was that he was not convinced that more than one, or at most two, ribs were broken. In these circumstances, I do not consider that any blame attaches to him for failing to discover the full extent of the injury.

  PROPOSED FOG SIGNAL OFF LARNE.
  COLONEL J. MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any further steps have been taken by the Irish Board of Lights towards the erection of a fog signal on the Maiden Rocks, off Larne?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No application with respect to the erection of a fog signal on the Maiden Rocks, off Larne, has been received by the Board of Trade from the Commissioners of Irish Lights.

  INDIAN OFFICERS' PASSAGE MONEY.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government has come to any decision as regards refunding their passage money to those officers who were suddenly ordered out to India on the outbreak of hostilities last year; and whether it has been fully represented that these officers, many of whom had been only a few days in England, not only sacrificed their leave, but were put to great expense, which they could ill afford?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The honourable and gallant Member is no doubt aware that all officers who were ordered out to India on the outbreak of hostilities by the proper authorities received their passage money as a matter of course. His question, therefore, must relate to those officers who returned to India on that occasion, though not summoned by the Indian Government. As to these cases, I addressed the Viceroy in a dispatch dated the 21st of April, and I have ascertained that the matter is still under the consideration of his Government, and that a reply will be sent as soon as possible.

  DISEASE IN THE INDIAN ARMY.
  MR. J. STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a letter has been issued, under date 20th November, 1897, by the Government of India Mili-
  694
  tary Department, purporting to state explicitly the policy of the Government of India with respect to the future treatment of venereal disease in cantonments, stating that, among other things, medical officers may make arrangements to carry out from time to time the examination of women who voluntarily present themselves; and whether the statement of policy made in that letter has been sanctioned by him?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The instructions issued by the Government of India in the letter to which the honourable Member refers are based on my Dispatch No. 25, of 26th March, 1897, which has been presented to Parliament, and I see no reason to question their propriety.
  MR. STUART: Will the noble Lord lay the Paper on the Table?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDLA.: I will lay any regulation I have. I do not think I have the actual Paper, but I know the purport of it.
  MAJOR RASCH: Will the noble Lord consider the advisability of making this examination compulsory?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: That does not arise out of this Question.

  POONA PLAGUE EXPENDITURE.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the municipality of Poona has been assessed by the Accountant General with four lakhs of rupees as its share of the plague expenditure up to 1st June, 1898, and whether another lakh is added as the estimated further expenditure; whether he is aware that the Poona municipality has no cash balance with which to meet this apportionment, and that the collector of Poona is urging the municipality to raise a loan of five lakhs; whether he can state whether the punitive police force, placed upon Poona at the time of the murder of Messrs. Rand and Ayerst, is still there, and what has been the total cost of that force to

  695
  Poona from its imposition to the present time; and whether, in view of the financial difficulties of the municipality of Poona and that no evidence whatever was forthcoming at the trial of Damodar for the murders connecting the municipality with their inception, he will order the removal of the punitive force and remit the cost to the municipality?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have no information as to the share of the plague expenditure which has been assessed on the municipality of Poona, nor as to the cash balance at present available. With regard to the cost of the additional police, I have repeatedly stated its estimated amount; the actual amount is probably less, but I am not in a position to give particulars. At the recent trial the question whether there had been a conspiracy was not investigated; there was but one prisoner, and the only evidence adduced was directed to show that he had committed the murders. The absence of evidence implicating others does not, therefore, seem to be a sound ground for ordering the withdrawal of the additional force.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: Will the right honourable Gentleman make inquiry as to the actual financial position at present?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Probably the information will come home in the ordinary course. The honourable Member must recollect that Poona is not the only case of the kind.

  AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if a Bill will be brought in this Session to define the rights of agricultural tenants on the determination of their tenancies?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): I am afraid that it is not possible for me to add anything to what has already been said on this subject by my right honourable Friend.

  WAIMA AFFAIR.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that some five years have elapsed since the Waima incident occurred, the Government can come to an early decision upon the question of giving a grant to the families of the slain, which it has been stated, is now under their consideration?
  MR. CURZON: I have twice stated that the matter is under consideration, and that a decision will be arrived at as soon as possible.

  ADULTERATION OF FLOUR.
  MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any facts have come to the knowledge of his Department as to whether the maize flour, which is now being so largely manufactured, is also largely mixed with wheat flour (since the rise in the price of wheat), thereby constituting a fraud very prejudicial to the British farmer; and if no such facts have come to the knowledge of his Department, will he, in the interests of agriculture', cause some inquiries to be made by the Agricultural Department; and I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the mixture of maize flour with wheat flour, the whole being sold as flour (which the consuming public in England has always hitherto understood to be wheat flour), is punishable under the Food Adulteration Acts; and whether he will put the machinery of his Department to work to stop it?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: Representations have from time to time reached me on this subject, but no authenticated case of the adulteration of wheaten flour with maize flour has been brought under my notice, and I gather from the last annual report of the National Association of British and Irish Millers that the experience of the Association, which has decided to prosecute any offenders under this head, is the same as my own. I shall, of

  697
  course, keep the matter in view, and perhaps I may be allowed now to say, in reply to the Question addressed by my honourable Friend to my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that I do not doubt that either under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts or the Merchandise Marks Acts the law affords a sufficient means of punishing malpractices such as those referred to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  The House resumed the consideration of this Bill, as amended, in Committee.
  Amendment proposed [11th July]—
  "Page 8, line 29, to leave out clause 12."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words of clause 12, to the word 'large,' inclusive, in page 9, line 2, stand part of the Bill."
  Debate resumed—
  MR. FLYNN: It is much to be regretted that such a clause appears in the Bill at all. I want to know what relevancy there is, what connection, between the proposals of the Government with regard to any local distress in Ireland and a Bill proposing to establish city and district councils in Ireland. I fail to see the relevancy, and I think it is singularly irregular, to put it in no stronger language, to introduce a clause of this character into the Bill. This clause may be looked upon as an attempt to shift upon the bigger shoulders of a poor locality in Ireland the responsibilities of that locality. The people in that locality are not in any way responsive for the state of things which brings about this condition of chronic poverty and misery which exists in the south and west of Ireland. The poverty and misery and distress which exists in Ireland is a legacy
  698
  of the hateful policy of "Go to hell or Connaught," which the Government of this country established in Ireland a few centuries ago. We have protested against this clause upon the Committee stage of the Bill, and we protest now because the money with which the hunger of these unfortunate people is to be relieved is to come out of the pockets of people very little better off than themselves. What this clause proposes to do is that these unfortunate people, who are always upon the verge of starvation, who live in a state of almost unexampled misery, without knowing any of the comforts of civilisation, are to be relieved by persons whose condition is very little better than their own. So far as the right honourable Gentleman and the Irish Office are concerned, this clause is a clause of the "champagne and Riviera" declaration type. I do not see how it can recommend itself to anyone in this House who is in the slightest way in favour of the principle of local government. The rates in these districts are exceedingly heavy, both the poor rate and the cess. I have looked through the rates for the present year, and I find in Donegal the county cess and the poor rate together amount to 4s. 6d., in Galway to 4s. 1d., in Mayo to 4s., and in Kerry to 7s.; that is, taking the average of the electoral divisions; and that does not include any charge for extra acts which these districts may have to perform. It is these districts, already so heavily burdened, that you propose, by this clause, shall pay an additional rate. We resist this clause because we think it is most unstatesmanlike, and that it is most unjust. Seek some other remedy. Make it, if you desire to arrange it in this form, a county-at-large charge, or leave it where it is at present, a Treasury charge. What you do is to throw the whole responsibility upon the guardians to relieve these rates, which is very sorry comfort for the people, because the guardians are the trustees for the unfortunate occupiers. You ask the guardians to enter upon a course when distress occurs which they know only too well will only lead to their increasing the burden upon themselves and the districts which they represent. It is true that the rate is not to exceed 5d. in the £, but what does that

  699
  mean? To my mind, it means that no other money will be forthcoming, no matter how deep the distress may be—it may be as great as it was in 1847 and 1848 or 1879, the distress may be far worse than it was last spring; but the Government will not step in and give a grant from the Treasury until that 5d. in the £ has been levied upon these unfortunate districts. I think this is a most unworthy proposal on the part of the Government at a time like this, when we have proved to demonstration that Ireland is very greatly overtaxed. This is a proposal that the poverty-stricken districts of Ireland shall support the paupers. It is not the wealthy people and the wealthy districts which are to support the people, who are only just above starvation at the best of time, but the poor districts. Now, in the remarks which I made yesterday upon the equalisation of rates I pointed out that in London the rich parishes in the west are made to help and assist the poorer parishes in the east. If you made a proposal of that kind, though it might be unjust, it might be tolerable to Ireland; but in this particular case you try to equalise the rate by spreading it over the county. You do not go to the rich counties, but include all the poor ones. The tendency of this clause is to put an unfair amount of taxation upon people who are even now sinking under a burden of debt and taxation, which the miserable soil does not yield the wherewithal to meet. Let the Government find another remedy; let them not throw upon these unhappy people any further burden; let them extend the power of the Congested Districts Board; in some other way bring before this House some method of dealing with the cause of this state of chronic misery and poverty, and not deal with the effects, or attempt to deal with the effects, by any such clause as this. I will say this, that if the Irish people had been entrusted with the task of the local government of the country under some scheme of Home Rule 10 years ago, and the state of things existed now in the south and west of Ireland which does exist, then the Irish people would have lost all title and right to ever govern themselves.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL, S.): I have taken very little part in the
  700
  Debate upon this Bill, but this particular clause is of such an eminently atrocious character that I feel constrained to say a word or two upon it. It is a clause which is absolutely irrelevant to the Bill, and it is the clause of one man. This is the clause of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He felt that he must imprint his individuality upon this Bill, and he has tried to do so in this manner and at the expense of the Irish people. O'Connell used to compare inexperienced Chief Secretaries to barbers' apprentices, who used to learn their trade by being allowed to try their hands in shaving beggars, and I am free to say that I am reminded of O'Connell's comparison when I reflect that it was the Chief Secretary who framed this clause. In one word, this clause is an attempt to grind the poor because they are poor. I sometimes regret that Charles Dickens is no longer a reporter in the Gallery, because I think upon a clause like this he would have been able to have given us some very interesting and amusing descriptions of it. Feeding unhappy urchins upon brimstone and treacle can in no way compare with this principle of feeding paupers from poverty, which is the exact significance of this clause. Let us consider the historiacl appropriateness of this matter. The clause is to carry out the policy of semi-starvation of the right honourable Gentleman and other Chief Secretaries, which succeeded the policy of wholesale starvation of administrators like Cromwell. Now, I would not compare the right honourable Gentleman to Cromwell, I would not do him such an injustice. There are Cromwells and Cromwells, and the right honourable Gentleman is a Cromwell of more or less an afternoon tea character. Let us consider the appropriateness of this. We hear that there are two Bills in hand for the relief of the poor law. One is to indemnify poor law guardians, who exceed their powers in protecting their people from starvation. Under this clause no such Bill could be cast, because it would be the duty of the guardians themselves to support the people, no matter how poverty-stricken they might be. The right honourable Gentleman must know, and I challenge any of those who are friendly to local government in

  701
  Ireland to speak a word in favour of this clause. No person in Ireland approves of it. It has not the sanction of the people in the slightest degree. It has not the sanction of any section in Ireland. I appeal to my honourable Friend, who is not in the least degree ashamed of this clause, whether he would go down to his constituents and point out to them the beauties of this clause 12. I do not think he would. No matter what the sufferings of the district may be, not one farthing will be given to alleviate the distress of any particular district until it has been taxed to the very utmost extent. The right honourable Gentleman has developed a system and style of his own. There is no such master of antique propositions as he is. Why does he bring in such a passage as this into the Bill. Mr. Speaker is the most tolerant of Speakers, but I think, if I had put such an Instruction into a Bill going into Committee, he would have ruled me out of order, and I would have had to rest content. He might as well bring in some of the astronomical theories of the Ptolemaic system. This clause, is brought in because the Chief Secretary must say, "Alone. I did it." I want to be Complimentary to a doctrinaire and a theorist, and I would be delighted if the Chief Secretary's theories only occurred in an ordinary debating society, but when these theories come into practical effect, and when their success or failure involves the comfort of human beings, I must be rather severe, even to a doctrinaire. Let us see how this theory works. First of all, I will ask the House to recollect that such an idea was never broached, so long as poor law guardians were non-elective boards, and so long as the grand juries had control. This idea only comes in when some slight power is placed in the hands of the people. Supposing that a gentleman is elected to a county council, and supposing the poor law guardians apply to the county council for relief for exceptional distress in a certain locality. He knows that their complaint is well-founded. What else does he know? He knows that the people who return him are the persons to whom every halfpenny is a matter of importance. The Chief Secretary, of course, being a philosopher,
  702
  has never regarded money as the all essential thing. One shilling is to him of as much importance as £100 or £1,000. This elective member of the council is bound to consider the position of his own constituents; he is bound to consider whether, if this grant be endorsed, he is not, by endorsing it, reducing absolutely to pauperism some of the men who returned him; and he may possibly have to deny this poverty until the people are actually in the throes of starvation. I say this is an inhuman and shocking provision; it is an absolute and utter abrogation by this country of its responsibility—which is this, that, having robbed Ireland, you cannot permit the people to starve. When Irish representatives bring forward the case of their constituents, who are seeking for relief and endeavouring to wring something out of the British Exchequer, how easy it is for the British Exchequer to say, "It is reported to me that hitherto no application has been endorsed by the county council for the relief of distress." At the present moment no one ought to know better than the Chief Secretary that the poverty of Ireland is a disgrace to the country. By a clause of this kind you are dulling public conscience to that distress. I think this is a Chadband clause; in fact, I am complimenting it by calling it a Chadband clause. Why are we acting in this way? The right honourable Gentleman, will succeed—although we shall take good care that the clause will be a failure—in placing it on the Statute Book. He attempts to make the representatives of the starving constituents pay. In my own constituency even in the best of times we have to pay between 8s. and 9s. in the £, and how could the county council, in times of exceptional distress, possibly sanction any increase in the rates on the county at large. This is done for the purpose of making their homes, miserable as they are at present, still more intolerable to the Irish people. He says it will decrease the population in the congested districts. This is the first time I have ever heard it declared that the effect of a clause would be to decrease the population. It certainly will make the population extremely uncomfortable,

  703
  and make the conditions of life in the congested districts still more oppressive. There is one passage in this Bill—subsection 2—which, perhaps, intends to lighten that burden, but in reality it confers no benefit upon the people. I am ashamed to see such a section placed upon the Statute Book. It repeals the quarter-acre clause which is stated in the Bill to have been passed in 1861. That is an accurate statement, but it does not explain the position to the House. That clause was passed in 1846, and it was incorporated in another Bill in 1861. In 1846 the Irish peasantry were expelled from their homes owing to the famine. So great was this, that they were denied the relief of the workhouse—all who had over a quarter of an acre of holding. The people were forced into the workhouse in order that the Irish landlords should have a free hand to abolish their little holdings. There is, under this clause, a special provision which enables, under certain conditions, and with the sanction of the Local Government Board—who are not responsible at all—the poor to receive outdoor relief without the shame and degradation of going into the workhouse. It says that the Local Government Board can, of their own free will, refuse relief to any class among the poor. The meaning of that is that the Local Government Board can refuse relief to evicted tenants. I will not discuss that further; I only show how the clause works to the detriment of the poor. I challenge any honourable Gentleman from Ireland to get up manfully and say that he approves of this clause. Not one of them will do it. The right honourable Gentleman has not had a single letter, except, perhaps, from some resident magistrate, approving of this clause. Is it the right honourable Gentleman's ambition, he being placed in the accidental circumstances of being able to control the Irish administration, to attempt to vivisect the Irish people, and the poorest of them all?
  MR. PLUNKETT: The honourable and learned Member who has just sat down challenges any of us on this side of the House to express approval of this clause. As the clause originally stood, I did not approve of
  704
  it, but as it is proposed to be amended, I do distinctly approve of it, and I think it will be a valuable clause, for this reason. The question before the House appears to me to be an extremely simple one. The whole question is—in the event of these famines occurring, ought there to be local responsibility, not in dealing with the cause of these famines, but in dealing with the famines themselves?
  MR. DAVITT: Why not deal with the cause?
  MR. PLUNKETT: That is quite another matter. We are not dealing with the cause of the temporary conditions. Well, Sir, as I said, the whole question is—is the Government, either under the existing law, or under such a scheme as they might introduce for dealing with it, to act independently of the local authority, or are they to enforce the responsibility of the local authority? I do not see how it is possible to ignore the local authority, or to act independently of them. I cannot see any sense of making the local authority responsible, without making them contributory. Now, if that is once admitted, the whole question is: what is to be the area of local responsibility? The Chief Secretary considers that the area at present is too small, and I entirely agree with him. Honourable Members opposite say, "If you are going to extend the area it would be much fairer to extend the contribution to the whole of Ireland"; but it seems to me that if their objection is that the Irish contribution will have to be exhausted before this Parliament will contribute from Imperial funds, then there can be no reason, from their point of view, for enlarging the area of local contribution more than we can possibly help. The Chief Secretary is anxious to enlarge the area of local contribution, not for the sake of obtaining more moneys but for the sake of obtaining more assistance in dealing with this problem. He has told us that the limit of 5d., which the county pays, is to be strictly regarded not as a minimum, but as a maximum contribution. I can very well imagine that in the case of exceptional famine the county council

  705
  might represent to this House that the demands on the county were so large that it was not fair to ask them to deal with the distress in this area, and Parliament in such an instance would very likely not ask for a contribution at all. Honourable Members opposite prophecy that the county councils will refuse to contribute anything at all. I do not think that will be the case. I think, on the other hand, that the county councils will have a real desire to deal with the causes in a permanent way, and so far as temporary relief is concerned, will be very glad in many cases to co-operate with the Government to the extent of some contribution. I regret very much that the matter cannot be dealt with in a cool and businesslike manner. Honourable Members opposite who live in these districts know well, and have often stated in this House—and the honourable Member for South Mayo has expressed the same view, I think, in a letter to the Times this morning—that these recurring periods of distress and of a relief system are intolerably demoralising. Well, that undoubtedly is true, and I hold that the Government relief, administered with the very greatest care, is far more demoralising than any charitable relief. That, I believe, will be generally admitted. I think this clause as it is proposed to be amended will be a useful clause, and I do not think there is any fear that it will be abused.
  MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, there is one remark that has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman with which I am disposed to agree—namely, as to the demoralising effect of recurring relief upon the people of Ireland. I have some experience in these matters, and for my own part I am surprised that the people of Ireland in some districts are not more demoralised than they have been where relief has been given. I remember when there was great distress in my own district, and I was asked by a Protestant clergyman to distribute relief. I did it to the best of my ability, and I remember that a case came under my notice in which we offered relief and the people refused it, and referred us to other families in greater distress. In another case, where the goods of the people had all been pawned,
  706
  we went and offered relief, and their answer to us I shall never forget. It was, "Our forefathers have never received any relief from any person, and we will go to our graves without receiving relief now." I say, therefore, knowing the condition of the people of Ireland to some extent in the west and in the south, that I am surprised that they are not more demoralised in many cases. Now, the Chief Secretary complained last night that no fresh arguments had been adduced by the honourable Member for Mayo in support of the Motion he has made. Well, I think anyone who has followed the Debates which have taken place on this clause in Committee will acknowledge that the arguments put forward by my honourable Friend and by his friends have been left absolutely unanswered, and consequently the same arguments are put forward again. With regard to the replies which the right honourable Gentleman has given to those arguments, I think we may return the compliment and say that he has brought forward no fresh arguments whatsoever. He is as able as any of his predecessors to make black white on this point from his point of view, and if he failed to do so he would be absolutely unfit for the position he occupies. I remember that in the Debate we had last week several honourable Gentlemen who spoke upon that subject wished to show that as much acute distress existed in many parts of this country as in Ireland. Well, Sir, I do not intend to go into that question at present, but I think we might submit one standard and say, if acute distress prevails in many parts of England, will the people be prepared to work for 5s. a week as they are in the West of Ireland? It is notorious that, while many people deny that distress exists in the West of Ireland, the right honourable Gentleman is able to get at the present day and hour as many people as he cares to employ for from 3s. to 6s. a week, and these men, who are able-bodied men, are prepared to tramp long distances to their work and from their work. If that is not proof of acute distress in those parts of Ireland, I do not know what other test you could apply. Well, Mr. Speaker, I for my own part, and I think most of my colleagues, object in toto to this clause; and why? Because it enables the Imperial Parliament to shirk

  707
  its responsibility, and put on a people already ground down by taxation the onus of supporting the poor. This is a nice proof of the goodness of your rule. It is, in fact, a standing reproof to your rule, that now, after governing Ireland from this House for so many years, we cannot have a summer a little more wet than an ordinary summer without thousands and tens of thousands of the people on the western seaboard and in other parts of the West and South of Ireland being driven to the verge of starvation. It is a nice commentary on the action of this richest of countries and richest of Parliaments that at this day, after so many years of your misgovernment, the partial failure of one crop places our people not merely on the verge of starvation, but actually in starvation. Mr. Speaker, what is the remedy proposed? We are bound to have famine in Ireland under the existing state of things, and we have from time to time pointed out to you that, if you wish to stop this chronic state of poverty and famine, you will have to go to the root of this question, and place the people on plots of ground which will support them. You have refused to do that, and you say the present state of things must go on. Well, if the present state of things goes on we are bound to have these periodical famines and the necessity of giving relief to the people. At present we have some sort of argument for applying to the right honourable Gentleman for relief in cases of distress. This House may pretend to be responsible for the support of the people, but we can well foresee the plausible excuses that will be dished up. If famine occurs in Ireland in the future it will be said that the ratepayers of the locality have not come to the assistance of their fellow-countrymen, and there will be official reports to the effect that the distress has been exaggerated. Now what is the condition of affairs in the West of Ireland? A peasant with a holding valued under £4 nominally pays no poor rates. I say nominally, because anybody who knows anything about the condition of Ireland is aware that provision is always made for the poor rate in the amount of rent which has to be paid to the landlord. Those who are valued at £4 and upwards at present are liable to pay poor rates. What difference is there, I ask, between
  708
  a man valued at £3 10s. and a mar valued at £4 10s.? Little or no difference; but in the Amendment to the clause supported by the Government you ask men almost as poor as those who do not directly pay the poor rate at present to support equally poor people. I may be told that the Government has put in as a saving clause the 5d. limit, and that in extreme cases the generous Imperial Parliament will come to the assistance of the Irish ratepayers. Well, Sir, that is not my experience of the Imperial Parliament. We are told that it was the duty in former days of this Parliament to prevent people in Ireland from dying of starvation. It was their duty, but how did they fulfil it? In. 1848, 1849, and 1850 the people were dying in thousands and tens of thousands, while the coffers of this great Parliament overflowed and the granaries of the world overflowed, but still this Parliament did not do its duty, for it let the Irish peasants die in ditches like dogs. In my own locality, and in every locality, carts went round every morning to pick up the bodies of men, women, and children who had died of starvation in the ditches and lanes of the country, while this great Imperial Parliament, with its overflowing coffers, looked on with absolute indifference. I do not believe this 5d. limit will work in Ireland. We all know that, the Government is very tactful in finding loopholes and back doors to escape from their responsibilities. We have seen them when convicted of robbing Ireland cringing and complaining to the British public that their own tribunal to which they had referred their case was not fairly constituted, and had been unfair to this rich country. However we look upon it, I think we are bound to disapprove of this clause, which, as I said before, enables the Imperial Government to shirk their duty, and to put on the shoulders of the poor ratepayers much of the relief of the poverty which their own bad laws have produced in Ireland.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, having argued strongly against this clause when the Bill was in Committee, I should not have spoken in opposition to it at this stage were it not for the observations which were made by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for

  709
  South Dublin. I confess that I was very sorry to hear him, as an Irish representative, giving the authority of his sanction to this most objectionable clause—objectionable in every sense of the word. My honourable and learned friend the Member for South Donegal has in a very severe and incisive manner criticised the clause, and in every word of that criticism I venture to say I altogether agree. How, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin can say that this is a good clause for Ireland, knowing as he does the wants, and necessities of the country, passes my understanding, and I do not know how the constituency which he has the honour to represent will receive his observations on this occasion. It is a most vicious clause, and it will not relieve distress, whether exceptional or otherwise, because it is altogether voluntary on the part of guardians as to whether they put this clause in motion or not. I have no hesitation in saying that there is no union in Ireland in which the guardians would ever venture to act upon that clause in the case of exceptional distress, because the meaning of it would be to call upon poor ratepayers in some of the poorest parts of Ireland to contribute to the starving inhabitants, who are wholly incapable of doing so. Whenever it is proposed to put the provision in force public opinion will be so strong in Ireland that no guardians could safely venture to take such a step, and people will consequently continue to starve just as before. Then the English Government will be able to point to the clause, and say, "Before you come to us for assistance you must put in force such and such a clause, whatever it may be called—Balfour's clause or Plunkett's clause; if that fails, and the people are starving, then it will be time enough to come to us."
  MR. PLUNKETT: I may point out to the right honourable Gentleman that I am not the parent of this clause, nor of any other part of the Bill.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: The right honourable Gentleman is the gossip or the sponsor of the clause, not the parent. My great objection to the clause is that it will be perfectly inoperative, so far as the relief of distress is con-
  710
  cerned, and it will afford an excuse to the Government for the time being to withhold assistance. Why should any particular portion of the country be made to pay for what is called exceptional distress? If there is a famine or a pestilence in any part of the Empire, is not that a misfortune and affliction that ought to be met out of Imperial sources, and not out of local sources? It is against all our ideas of government, it is against all our conceptions of the principles of taxation, that if a country is laid waste either by a plague or otherwise that that plague is only to be met locally, and the Empire at large is not to bear in any sense the burden of it. What is happening now is what happened in 1846 and 1847 by the visitation of Providence. We find that four millions were advanced, by the Government in 1846, and even that sum was condoned by Mr. Gladstone in 1853. It is suggested that under clause 3 some relief is given to what is otherwise so objectionable. But that is no relief. Clause 3 says that half the rate is to be levied on the county at large. Why should it be levied on the county at large? We know where these congested districts are, and we know where these famines prevail. They prevail in counties like Galway, in counties like Kerry, in counties like Mayo. Why should persons living in counties where starvation exists contribute more than persons living in any other part of the country? Then it is said that there is an Amendment which will somewhat cure the effect of this particular clause—namely, that the maximum rates levied on the county at large shall not exceed 5d.; but it does not say that the maximum rate levied on a particular union shall not exceed 5d. As I read the clause there is nothing to prevent a union going beyond the limits. If that is not the meaning of the clause, I must say it is very badly expressed in words. But I pass from that. If it were necessary, by way of a set-off against the £750,000, the amount of the agricultural grant, to say to some of the right honourable Gentleman's followers on the other side of the House, "In future you will not be called upon to relieve the starving Irishmen," then why not have a rate in aid over all Ireland? Such a rate in aid we had several years ago, as the

  711
  right honourable and learned Gentleman will remember, and at the present moment there is, I think, under one of the Public Health Acts, or the Contagious Diseases Act, power to levy a halfpenny rate all over the country for a local purpose. Under these circumstances, I could not be content to give a silent vote on this question. I feel it my duty to enter my protest, especially when I was reminded by the speech of the right honourable Member for South Dublin of what Swift once said—
  "That if you want to get an Irishman roasted, you must get another Irishman to turn the spit."
  MR. LECKY: I wish to associate myself emphatically with the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. In my opinion it was a most true and most courageous speech, and the attack upon it to which we have just listened from the right honourable Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone seems to me to reflect a good deal more discredit on the right honourable Gentleman himself than on the right honourable Gentleman who is sitting near me [Mr. Plunkett]. It seems to me that there is still a great deal to be done for the relief of constantly-recurring distress in the West of Ireland. But the first and most essential thing is that local opinion and the interests of local bodies should be in favour of removing people from the kind of land which cannot by any possibility support them. It is a simple fact that a large population in the West of Ireland are living on such land. Something has been done to alleviate the matter by the light railways, which have given them a new market. A little more may be done in the same direction, and by developing local industries, but as long as public feeling in the country is in favour of keeping them
  there there will be constantly recurring distress and constantly recurring demands for new doles. As long as local feeling is opposed to their removal there can be no radical cure. I think this clause will have a powerful effect in converting the local bodies in these districts, and that, limited as it is by the Amendment which the Government has introduced, it is likely to work well.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The speeches of the right honourable Gentlemen opposite, the Members for South Dublin and Dublin University, encourage the hope that an Amendment to divide the extra fivepence between owner and occupier will be adopted. I am sure the right honourable Gentlemen will not object to paying an extra 2½d. in the £ to meet exceptional distress. The effect of this clause will be that the Government will not admit the existence of exceptional distress. There are, however, other ways in which the distress might have been relieved. You might have given the Dublin taxes, which are enforced in that constituency from hackney carmen and others, to the relief of distress. The tendency, however, is to leave all the money which is now diverted out of Irish pockets into the Imperial Exchequer for the benefit of John Bull. But, Sir, if I were an Irish landlord, or an Irish Conservative, I would try to take an Irish line. You can take an Irish line and a Conservative line. But I do not think the Irish Conservatives have always seen what their own interest is. Certainly no Irish line would consent to a clause which would give the English minority excuse whenever money is demanded for distress in Ireland to be able to say, "You must first contribute to its alleviation yourselves by subscribing out of the rates."
  The House divided:—Ayes 217; Noes 129.—(Division List No. 199.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hunts)

  Aird, John

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Arnold, Alfred

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Ascroft, Robert

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

  Bethell, Commander

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Biddulph, Michael

  Bigwood, James

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

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

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Newark, Viscount

  Brassey, Albert

  Gretton, John

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Gunter, Colonel

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Butcher, John George

  Hall, Sir Charles

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Pender, Sir James

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Helder, Augustus

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

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

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Round, James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

  Rutherford, John

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cox, Robert

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lancs, S. W.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Kenrick, William

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kenyon, James

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Knowles, Lees

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lafone, Alfred

  Stewart, M. J. M'Taggart

  Drucker, A.

  Lawrence Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)

  Stock, James Henry

  Edwards, Gen. Sir James B.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

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

  Thorburn, Walter

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

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

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

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Finch, George H.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Lowe, Francis William

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowles, John

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.

  FitzWygram, Gen. Sir F.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Flannery, Fortescue

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Flower, Ernest

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'rsh., N.)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Fry, Lewis

  Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Garfit, William

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Milton, Viscount

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. (C. of L.)

  Monk, Charles James

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  More, Robert Jasper

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  NOES.

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Blake, Edward

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Brigg, John

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Billson, Alfred

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  714

  715

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Price, Robert John

  Burt, Thomas

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Holburn, J. G.

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Hutton, A. E. (Morley)

  Robertson, E. (Dundee)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Knox, Edmund Francis V.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Colville, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Crombie, John William

  Leng, Sir John

  Souttar, Robinson

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Logan, John William

  Spicer, Albert

  Daly, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n's C.)

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

  Davitt, Michael

  McCartan, Michael

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  McEwan, William

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  McKenna, Reginald

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Maddison, Fred.

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Maden, John Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Evershed, Sydney

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Wayman, Thomas

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Mappin, Sir F. Thorpe

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Wilson, Charles H. (Hull)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montr'se)

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morris, Samuel

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Murnaghan, George

  Woodall, William

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Woods, Samuel

  Gold, Charles

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dillon and Mr. MacNeill.

  Harwood, George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Pinkerton, John

  Hazell, Walter

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 9, line 2, after 'large,' insert 'so, however, that the total amount of such expenditure levied off the county at large in any one year shall not exceed a sum equal to fivepence in the pound on the rateable value of the county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member for East Mayo has indicated that this limitation of fivepence makes the clause worse, but this provision, I may point out, has been made in order to meet the objections which the honourable Member himself has made. I repeat that fivepence in the pound is not intended to be the measure of what is to be expended by the county council before the Treasury comes to the assistance of the local authorities in periods of distress, but it merely represents the maximum beyond which taxation under this clause should not go.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the word 'fivepence,' and insert 'one penny.'"—(Mr. Dillon. )
  MR. DILLON: We have been told that it is not intended to go up to the limit of fivepence. That is the only shadow of justification for this clause, which we might fairly describe in view of the present condition of the people as a semi-starvation clause intended to see how near you can bring the wretched people in the west of Ireland to starvation without actually causing a scandal. Now the only pretence of a reason which the right honourable Gentleman has given for this clause is that he finds it necessary in pursuance of his policy this year—a policy which has been condemned absolutely unanimously in Ireland, and which has, as far as I can judge, but scant support in this House—he thinks it necessary to do

  717
  what he describes as fixing a share of the responsibility upon them. Now, if that is all he desires he could do that by a penny rate just as well as a fivepenny rate. Now, Sir, is it not enough in years of exceptional distress to satisfy the right honourable Gentleman's doctrinaire hobby with which he is so enamoured, to absolve these districts of £5,000 a year in the county of Cork, and is it necessary that he must reserve the power to tax them to the extent of fivepence in the pound? It will be £6,000 a year in the county of Mayo, and £9,000 a year in the county of Cork. As the right honourable Gentleman said when we pointed it out before, if it is to be a rate in aid, it ought to be extended over the whole country. Now, I am no advocate of a rate in aid, for I think the principle is a vicious one; and once you admit that these are cases of exceptional distress, and no cases of ordinary distress, you establish an incontrovertible case for Imperial concern and Imperial interference. If you are going to have a rate made at all, I want to know upon what principle of common sense—about which we heard a great deal in the House last night—upon what principle of justice, are you going to fix a rate in aid? Upon what principle are you going to fine those districts which are most heavily struck by this distress? This proposal is positively grotesque, and if there is to be a rate in aid it should be a rate in aid all round. It has been said that if you extend the limit beyond the county that you dislocate the whole systme of the poor law. Are you not dislocating the whole system of the poor law by this proposal? I do not see, it at all. What is local responsibility? You may call Ireland local responsibility just as much as the county of Galway, or the county of Cork. The people a hundred miles away are more tied to the district. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was very generous with this matter because he knew perfectly well that this would never put a single penny on his constituents, who are well able to bear their burdens compared with the unfortunate people that we represent. In a matter of this kind we ought to be treated comparatively lightly. We speak for the people who
  718
  will have to bear these burdens, and who will feel the bitterness from experience of the burden that will be put upon them. The right honourable Gentleman had said that any further extension of the area of local responsibility would be inconsistent with the system of the poor law. Now that argument is absolutely destructive of the whole principle of the clause, and condemns in the strongest possible way the conduct of the Government in bringing this clause into the Bill at all. Here we have got a Bill dealing not at all with the poor law, and by the Amendment which the right honourable Gentleman is moving he is to introduce a totally novel and unknown system which was never heard of before in connection with the poor law administration—that is levying of a fivepenny rate in aid of exceptional distress to be administered through the poor law. This proposal is going altogether outside the scope of the Bill, and I really doubt whether, if this question had been raised at the proper time whether it would not have been ruled out of order. It is a clause enacting a change in the whole principle of the poor law in a Bill which does not profess to deal or interfere with the poor law at all. Therefore I think that the argument of the right honourable Gentleman is directed against his own clause, and is a very strong argument against the clause in its present shape. Sir, we heard just now a speech in favour of the Amendment from the honourable Member for Trinity College in which he was exceedingly generous at the expense of the unfortunate starving poor wretches who, in the best of years, have great difficulty in keeping their heads fairly above water; and I noticed, when the honourable and learned Member for Louth suggested that the owners of land might bear half of the cost, the enthusiasm of the honourable Member for Trinity College disappeared, and his countenance became rather solemn. The honourable Member said that there was no real remedy for this condition of things so long as there exists a body of men who desire these unfortunate people to live on land of such a character that it is impossible for them to get a living on it or to live on it without being reduced to starvation year after year. Well,

  719
  Sir, but this land, bad as it is, is heavily rented, and this very year these very occupiers have been dragged out of their miserable homes to pay considerable rents for this valueless land. And now the proposal of this intelligent Government is that in addition to leaving them there—because how can these people leave that land unless the Government produce some machinery by which they can be placed on better holdings—in this starving condition, paying high rents for the land which has been described as worthless by the honourable Member for Trinity College, they are going to throw upon this most wretched population in the United Kingdom the burden and responsibility of providing for extraordinary distress in order to carry out the policy which the right honourable Gentleman has been pursuing in connection with the present distress, a policy which has been condemned in every part of Ireland, as heartless and cruel in the extreme. We know perfectly well the Member for South Tyrone has properly and accurately described what will really be the operation of this clause. This clause is not indeed for the purpose of providing the right honourable Gentleman—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is not in order in discussing that at this stage.
  MR. DILLON: Then I will reserve my observations until the question is put that the clause be added to the Bill. I say if the right honourable Gentleman's object be—and it is the only object I have been able to extract from his speeches—to carry out this theory of his, then, I say, he can attain that object by levying a rate of one penny as well as by a fivepenny rate, and in order to test his bonâ fides, I shall move, as an Amendment to his Amendment, to leave out the word "fivepence," and insert "one penny."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member moves this Amendment in order to test my bonâ fides. It is obvious that the arguments used by him to reduce it from fivepence to a
  720
  penny might be used to reduce it from a penny to an eighth of a penny.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Or increase it from fivepence to five shillings.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It would be most unwise to place the amount so low as a penny, as in the case of the council exhausting the amount which under the clause it might raise it would be precluded from acting in a case of necessity during a later period of the year. Sir, that the amount at which the minimum is placed should be a substantial one I think is clear. However, I shall be prepared to reduce the minimum to something lower than fivepence, but a penny is too low—say, threepence.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Make it three-halfpence.
  MR. JORDAN: Make it twopence.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: This clause provides, in the first place, for a certain expenditure, which is to be incurred by the guardians, and to the amount of that expenditure there is no limit at all. It then goes on to provide that the limit shall be taken from the county at large, and then the right honourable Gentleman provides that the total amount to be levied in any one year shall not exceed 5d. in the £ on the rateable value of the county. The fourth sub-section then provides that the guardians may borrow—there are three interpretations that could be put on the sections—and it might be possible that this is to be taken as a limit of the expenditure, and that the guardians are not to spend under this section more than what would amount to 10d. in the £ on the rates of the county at large. I fail to see why the right honourable Gentleman puts in the words "shall be levied off the county at large." If I have the meaning of these words correctly they mean that no matter what the guardians spend, one-half must be levied off the county at large. Therefore, the meaning of these words is this—that there is no possibility of the Imperial contribution exceeding the amount levied off the county at large.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is nothing in the clause to prevent the

  721
  Government from coming to the assistance of those in need from the very beginning of the distress.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: The section provides for expenditure by the guardians, and that includes all the expenditure by the guardians.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly so.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: But so far as the work is done by the guardians, it is provided for by this section. The Government can use the police force to give out the relief, and I can hardly suppose that the Chief Secretary intended that there should be two administrative bodies carrying out relief at the same time.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no question of that.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: The expenditure is incurred by the guardians, in the first instance, and we have it provided that one-half of this expenditure shall be levied off the county at large. According to the construction of these words it might seem that one-half of all the expenditure of the guardians was to be levied off the county at large. Now, the Chief Secretary wished to introduce words which would provide that the expenditure to be levied off the county was not to exceed 5d. in the £. He suggests 3d. in the £ now—that is the total amount in any one year, and when we take that in connection with the borrowing powers, I do not see that there is anything to prevent the guardians borrowing a very considerable sum, and that sum being levied off the county at large. I do not know if the Chief Secretary means by these words that the expenditure in any one year which may be levied off the county at large is not to exceed 3d. in the £, but if he does he ought to say so. I venture to think that if the clause came to be construed by the Local Government Board, that it would present enormous difficulties, and that neither the board of guardians nor the ratepayers would in the least understand its provisions.
  MR. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know on what basis the Chief Secretary arrived at the fivepenny rate, or on what
  722
  basis he subsequently arrived at threepence. My honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo said he would be willing to accept a penny rate.
  MR. DILLON: No, I did not say so.
  MR. JORDAN: Well, you moved to substitute a penny for threepence, and actions speak louder than words; we have an axiom in our part of the country, when we are making a bargain, to split the difference. In this case I suggest that the Chief Secretary should split the difference with the honourable Member for East Mayo, and make it twopence, which, I think, would answer all the purposes.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: My honourable Friend who has just spoken is, I think, a little mistaken in his commentary on the Amendment of my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo. My honourable Friend, in proposing a penny, did not accept it as fair, but he thought a penny was the reducible minimum to which he could get the Chief Secretary to assent. I am very glad that the Chief Secretary came down to threepence, but I should be glad if he could come a little lower. My honourable Friend will go to a Division on this question, I hope, because we are bound to oppose this monstrous proposal. I really find a little difficulty in speaking calmly of a proposal which I dislike so much. The idea of trying to raise £6,000 from a county like Mayo, where the people are starving, is a monstrous proposal. Well, even the threepenny rate will mean £3,200. If anyone made that proposal with regard to a poor county in England, he would be laughed at. At this moment actually every tendency of legislation in England is in the opposite direction to that proposed for Ireland by the right honourable Gentleman; I might also say that Session after Session proposals are introduced and passed, the whole effect of which is to equalise the rates between the poor parts and the rich parts of London. In other words, why should not the district of St. George's pay a portion of the expenses of St. Giles': and in the same way why should not the district of St. George in England pay a proportion

  723
  of the expenses of the St. Giles' poor in Ireland?
  LORD E. FITZMAURICE: I should like to know exactly what is the proposal before the House.
  MR. FLAVIN: Before the question is put I take it that the meaning of the clause, if embodied as part of the Bill, will give the county council power to levy a special rate not exceeding 5d. in the £ to meet distress in any particular district of Ireland. I would like to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the position of Kerry is regard to the matter. On a valuation of Kerry of £294,496 a rate of 5d. would mean an extra levy of £6,000 on the ratepayers of the county of Kerry. If the House will take into consideration that, from the latest Government Returns, the present average rate in the county of Kerry is 7s. 5½d. in the £, I would like to know from the Chief Secretary how he is going to show that the ratepayers in that county can still contribute 5d. in the £ to meet exceptional or extraordinary distress. Some districts, like my own, have only a rate to pay of from 6s. to 7s. in the £. It is a monstrous thing, in my opinion, that any Government should expect a county like Kerry or Mayo, or any of the western counties of Ireland, to contribute the rate now asked. I might say that several unions I know in the county of Kerry are already in a bankrupt condition. It is utterly impossible, Mr. Speaker, from the knowledge which Irish Members possess, for them to vote for this proposal, seeing what a struggle it is for these poor people to even eke out an existence. With flour at 35s., 36s., and 37s. a sack—
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: No, no!
  MR. FLAVIN: It is the truth, and I know it, because I happen to be connected with the trade. I know the price and the lowest price, and it is owing to the refusal of the Government to interfere with the railway management.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. FLAVIN: I merely wished to illustrate my point, Sir, by showing the con-
  724
  dition of the poor people, and that, in such circumstances, with the price of flour at such a height, it is impossible for them to contribute this 5d. in the £, when it is as much as they can do to keep from starvation.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is proposed to leave out "fivepence," in order to insert "one penny."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Before the House decides this point, I think there should be an understanding come to first as to whether 3d. would be accepted or not.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: On the point of order, I should like to know, Sir, whether the right honourable Gentleman is going to insist on his Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question is that "fivepence" stand part of the clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely the right honourable Gentleman can tell us whether he is going to stick to 5d. or not?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As a modification, 3d. was proposed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Let us strike out the 5d. unanimously. There need be no Division as to that. Then we can discuss what the ultimate figure is to be.
  MR. PINKERTON: My honourable Friend seems to have been paying a tribute to the glorious and immortal memory of William III. I expect, in common fairness and in common decency, that every landlord from Ireland, unless he is prepared to contribute 3d., or, at any rate, 2½d., in the £ should refrain from voting.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I think, Sir, that the Chief Secretary owes it to himself and to the House that he should exhibit some business aptitude in these matters. Why does he lay such obstacles in the way of the passing of the Bill? If this Measure is to be passed the Chief Secretary should stick to a definite line of conduct. That is

  725
  why I say the Chief Secretary owes it to himself and to the House to take up the position of a statesman in regard to this matter.
  MR. MONKsupported the Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As there seems to be some confusion, Sir, I would like to say that the position now taken up is this: the original proposal of the honourable Member in opposition to this clause was that "a penny" should be substituted for "fivepence." Then, as a concession, I suggested that "threepence" should be the amount. Now, as I understand it, if "fivepence" is struck out, the question before the House will be that "threepence" stands part of the clause. If any honourable Member opposite will agree that 3d. should be the sum, and not 1d., I should be prepared
  to consider it. What I want is to obviate any discussion which will unnecessarily prolong the consideration of this part of the Bill.
  MR. DILLON: I could not consent to withdraw my opposition to even a 3d. rate; but if the right honourable Gentleman will abandon his 5d. rate and move 3d. instead, we can take a Division.
  Question put—
  "That 'fivepence' stand part of the clause,"
  and negatived without a Division.
  Question put—
  "That 'threepence' be inserted in the clause instead of 'fivepence.'"
  The House divided:—Ayes 222; Noes 126.—(Division List No. 200.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

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

  Garfit, William

  Aird, John

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Arnold, Alfred

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of L.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Ascroft, Robert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

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

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cox, Robert

  Gretton, John

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hunts)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, S. W.)

  Hall, Sir Charles

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Hardy, Laurence

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bethell, Commander

  Drucker, A.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Biddulph, Michael

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Bigwood, James

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Finch, George H.

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

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

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Brassey, Albert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Butcher, John George

  FitzWygram, Gen. Sir F.

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Kemp, George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Fry, Lewis

  Kenrick, William

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Kenyon, James

  Knowles, Lees

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Morrison, Walter

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

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

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Leighton, Stanley

  Myers, William Henry

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

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

  Newark, Viscount

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Stock, James Henry

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Thorburn, Walter

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lowles, John

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.

  McKenna, Reginald

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  McKillop, James

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Malcolm, Ian

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Mellor Colonel (Lancashire)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

  Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Round, James

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Milton, Viscount

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Monk, Charles James

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

  Rutherford, John

  More, Robert Jasper

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  NOES.

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Logan, John William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lough, Thomas

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Evershed, Sydney

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'n's C.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  McCartan, Michael

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Field, William (Dublin)

  McDermott, Patrick

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

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

  Billson, Alfred

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maddison, Fred.

  Blake, Edward

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Maden, John Henry

  Brigg, John

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Gold, Charles

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Burt, Thomas

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Morris, Samuel

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hammond, John (Earlow)

  Murnaghan, George

  Caldwell, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hazell, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hogan, James Francis

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Holburn, J. G.

  O'Kelly, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Malley, William

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Pinkerton, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crombie, John William

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Price, Robert John

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Daly, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Knox, Edmund Francis V.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

  Davitt, Michael

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leng, Sir John

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  728

  729

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Woodall, William

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Woods, Samuel

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Wayman, Thomas

  Strachey, Edward

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dillon and Mr.MacNeill.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

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

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

  Question put—
  "That those words be there inserted—
  "so, however, that the total amount of such expenditure levied off the county at large in any one year shall not exceed a sum equal to threepence in the pound on the rateable value of the county."
  Words, as amended, inserted.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 9, line 21, after 'Lord Lieutenant' insert 'and the secretary of the county council were the clerk of the peace.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 9, line 22, after 'justices' insert 'and the clerk of the peace.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 9, line 33, leave out sub-section (5) of clause 13.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy. )
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir, it seems to me that when once you have fixed the salary of a coroner there is no reason for excluding him from both county and district; councils. I would suggest to the Government that he might be elected, or that he might be co-opted. The prohibition is very strong, because he is not even to be allowed to be co-opted.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment is to leave out sub-section (5).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To save time, you may as well put my other Amendment too.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 9, line 34, leave out 'or district.'"
  MR. ATKINSON: Sir, I cannot accept the Amendment, because, if carried, it would have a most objectionable effect. The coroner for a county will be the servant of the county council, who will appoint and who will pay him. In those circumstances, it would be absurd that he should be a member of the body of which he is a servant. The same objection holds good in regard to his acting as a district councillor. The county council have to exercise control over the district council. They have to agree with, or reject, many of its proposals; they have to approve of its expenditure in some instances. To have a member of a district council opposing, or rather instigating a district council of which he is a member to be in conflict with a body whose servant he is would surely be a most improper thing.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will not press the matter, though I think it is rather hard. Can he be a member of a board of guardians?
  MR. ATKINSON: This clause does not disqualify him.
  Amendments withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 9, line 34, at end, add—
  "The salary of every coroner shall be in lieu of all sums which otherwise would be payable to him for fees, mileage, and allowances, and shall be fixed with the approval of the Local Government Board by the county or borough council by whom the salary is payable, or in default of the same being so fixed, then by the Local Government Board, and shall not be subject to increase or diminution during his tenure of office: provided that—(a) nothing in this section shall deprive the coroner of the right to be repaid expenses and disbursements lawfully made by him on the holding of any inquest; and (b) the salary of any existing coroner shall not be less than the average annual net receipts of such coroner from his office of coroner during the five years next before the passing of this Act.—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "Line 2, to leave out the word 'mileage.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
  MR. CLANCY: I move that the word "mileage" in the second line be omitted. I really think the Government ought not to attempt to insert the word "mileage" here. The salary should include mileage. Then you say that the salary of any existing coroner shall not be less than the average annual net receipts. The net receipts will be the receipts after the mileage is deducted, and, therefore, you would be actually keeping the salary down. If you cannot make the clause any better, do not make it any worse. I beg to propose to omit the word "mileage."
  MR. ATKINSON: The net receipts shall not be less than the average annual receipts of the coroner. It is the intention of the Bill that you should take all the receipts, and strike an average for the last five years.
  MR. CLANCY: The net receipts less mileage.
  MR. ATKINSON: No. If he were to receive anything he was not entitled to, then the receipts would not belong to him. The net receipts are what remain to himself from all that he receives, including mileage.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland if there is a fixed sum for mileage.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Gentleman withdrew his Amendment.
  MR. JORDAN: I simply want to know from the Attorney General for Ireland if the sum for mileage is fixed or variable, because I know public officers make a large sum out of mileage. I know a man who would go 30 miles round about when he could have reached the place by going five miles straight. That man
  732
  charged a large sum for mileage. In this case you might increase the salary of the coroner by increasing his mileage. What I want to know is, is the sum fixed or variable?
  MR. ATKINSON: The honourable Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The coroner gets mileage under the Grand Jury Act. Whatever he has got for mileage during the last five years, it is on that that the average will be struck. If a man goes 30 miles when he might go five, then it would be foolish to pay him.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 9, line 13, leave out 'five' and insert 'three.'"
  "Page 9, line 13, leave out 'the passing of this Act' and insert 'the first day of November, 1899.'"—(Col. Waring. )
  COLONEL WARINGsaid it might work hardly if they appointed men and fixed their salaries upon the rate paid to their predecessors for the last five years. In three years they could bring in more of their own work, and it would give a fairer average.
  MR. ATKINSON: I do not think this is a desirable Amendment. Three years is too short an average. I think I know the case to which the honourable and gallant Member refers—that in which a rather supine coroner was succeeded by a more active coroner. But I think that three years is much too short.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed.
  "Page 9, line 34, at end, add—
  "(6) Any existing coroner who may suffer any direct pecuniary loss by virtue of this Act shall be entitled to such compensation as is provided by this Act for existing officers who suffer loss of fees or salary by virtue of this Act or of anything done in pursuance or in consequence of this Act.
  "(7) A county council may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, grant to a coroner who has given his whole time to the duties of his office and who becomes incapable of discharging those duties from old age or by reason of confirmed ill health such superannuation allowance as such council, in concurrence with the Local Government Board, deems fit under all the circumstances of the case."—(Mr. Clancy. )
  MR. ATKINSON: I will call the honourable Member's attention to the fact that sub-section 6 is covered by clause 17.
  Sub-sections 6 and 7 ruled out of order.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 9, line 34, at end, add 'so much of any Act of Parliament that requires that a coroner for the borough of Dublin shall possess a property qualification shall be and the same is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Clancy. )
  MR. CLANCY: I presume I shall be in order in moving this Amendment. I think the Chief Secretary said yesterday that if I made it general he would accept it. It is not necessary to make it general, because the property qualification for coroners is abolished except in the city of Dublin.
  MR. ATKINSON: It should read—
  "So much of any Act of Parliament as requires that a coroner shall possess a property qualification shall be and the same is hereby repealed."
  MR. CLANCY: In clause 19 it says—
  "Nothing relating to coroners in any other part of the Act shall apply to county boroughs."
  Amendment agreed to, with the omission of the words "for the borough of Dublin."
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 10, line 21, at end, insert—
  "(5) Where a county infirmary or fever hospital is under the management of a governing body other than such corporation as above-mentioned, the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply, with the necessary modifications, in like manner as if the governing body were the said corporation.
  "(6) A county council may, if they think fit, contribute towards the rebuilding or enlargement or erection on a new site of any county infirmary, whether such rebuilding, enlargement, or erection takes place after the passing of this Act, or is in course of completion at that passing, or towards the reopening of a closed county infirmary, a sum not exceeding in the whole one-third of the sums actually received from private donations or subscriptions for such rebuilding, enlargement, erection, or re-opening, and the foregoing provisions with respect to the management of the infirmary shall apply accordingly."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 10, line 24, after 'Act' insert 'or where part of any such county is constituted a county borough.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 10, line 28, at end, insert—
  "A person shall be disqualified for being elected or chosen or being a member of the committee of management of a county infirmary or fever hospital if he holds any paid office or place of profit under or in the gift or disposal of such committee, or is concerned by himself or his partner in any bargain or contract entered into with the committee, or participate by himself or his partner in the profit of any such bargain or contract, or of any work done under the authority of the committee under circumstances which in the case of a county or district council would disqualify him from being elected or being a member of such council."—(Mr. T. M. Healy. )
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move. Surely there can be no objection to this Amendment.
  MR. ATKINSON: There is already in the Act a section which carries out the object of the honourable and learned Member's Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 10, line 41, after 'upon' insert 'no ecclesiastical person shall in right of his dignity or office be entitled to be a governor or trustee of any such infirmary or fever hospital as aforesaid."—(Mr. T. M. Healy. )
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There still exists a right with certain dignitaries of the Church, by reason of their ecclesiastical office, to hold the office of governor or trustee of an infirmary or fever hospital. Now the Queen's Bench in Ireland has decided that the Disestablishment Act disqualified these parsons, but three judges in the Court of Appeal have out-voted the other judges, and, by a majority of one vote, have decided that the Queen's Bench was wrong; that is, the six judges have decided that the men were disqualified, and three decided that they were not, and the three were able to out-vote the six.

  735
  Now, it does seem to me that men should not have the right to spend the ratepayers' money by virtue of their ecclesiastical positions. By this Bill you exclude priests from holding any office whatever under the county council, and you also exclude other parsons. Am I to be told that, while you are excluding priests from holding office under the county councils, and clergymen of all denominations, you are still in favour of keeping up an ancient privilege attaching to certain gentlemen who are attached to the so-called Church of Ireland, because they happen to have a right by dignity or office? The archbishop, the bishops, and a number of clergymen and rectors are entitled to come in and vote away the taxpayers' money simply because they happen to be clergymen of a particular denomination, and of that particular Church. Now, Sir, I think it is the 13th section of the Church Act which was passed with a view to destroying that special privilege, but the Court of Appeal in Ireland, by a majority of one, reversed the decision of the Queen's Bench upon that point. The Bill provides that no clergyman is to have any right to sit upon these boards at all. Am I to be told now, "It is true that we disqualify all clergymen and all priests, but certain Protestant parsons shall remain and vote my money away, although they pay none of it"? It appears to me that this Bill disqualifies priests, but allows certain people in ecclesiastical offices to sit on these boards. If a man, because he is a parson, is entitled to hold an office, then I do not see why priests are to be excluded. You have already excluded priests, although they are ratepayers, but these parsons are not ratepayers at all. Then there is the Protestant archbishop of Cashel.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: He was not an archbishop.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: He was a bishop then. But why should the Protestant Bishop of Cashel be allowed to come down and vote away this money? The Government seem to be taking the first opportunity of upholding the decision come to by the judges and restoring that decision, but this Amendment will put clergymen on the same level on which
  736
  you have already by this Bill put Catholic priests.
  SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I should like to say on this question that I believe that it is the case now that ministers, priests, and parsons of all denominations take their places upon the boards of hospitals. This is a perfectly different thing from clergymen being allowed to enter the arena of party politics by going on county councils or district councils. I think, however, that the right place of ministers outside their churches and chapels is in the hospitals, but I believe the Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth would exclude ecclesiastics from being on the board of any hospital.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No, no!
  SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD: Yes, it would, by virtue of their office. I think there are hospitals in Dublin in which the Roman Catholic archbishop and the bishops are on the board.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, but they are private institutions; not paid for out of the rates.
  SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD: Well, I would myself like to see ministers of all religions on the boards of hospitals, for they have a knowledge of the people and the patients who are sent to the hospitals, but I do not think our very much abused rectors and deans and bishops have ever been found any serious fault with for their conduct on these hospital boards. I do not think that this is a very wise Amendment, and I hope it will be withdrawn. I do not think it will affect the question very much, because it will be a great deal watered down when we come to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which deals with the number of people who are in future to constitute these boards, and how many may or may not be elected by the ordinary forms by which they have been elected in the past. In dealing with this question we shall probably have the board of management narrowed down very considerably, and in his Amendment the Chief Secretary will be able to deal with this question. If the Amendment is to remain in the form in which it is now, on the grounds I have

  737
  attempted to explain to the House I shall vote against it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government are certainly not aware that there are any such cases. If it be really the case that in consequence of some flaw in the Act it did not fully carry out the intention of those by whom the Act was passed, and if it is true that, owing to some particular wording of the Church Disestablishment Act, certain clergymen retain a privilege which it was not intended that they should hold, undoubtedly that right should be taken away. I do not see how we can, under the circumstances, resist the Amendment, and I would appeal to the honourable Member for Cambridge not to press his objection.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 11, line 2, after 'infirmary' insert 'as regulated by the Waterford Infirmary Act, 1896.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour. )
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 11, line 2, after 'infirmary' insert 'but if the corporation or county council, respectively, of the city and county of Waterford agree to contribute any sum towards said infirmary, they shall each be entitled to elect annually one governor for every sum of fifty pounds so contributed.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the Government will have no objection to this. It is simply to give the city of Waterford the same right of sitting upon the board of the infirmary as other people have. At present the proposal of the original Act is that, whilst an individual can obtain a vote by paying £50, the ratepayers of Waterford can only get a vote by contributing £100. I think it is only right that the county and city of Waterford should have the same right extended to them as is extended to individuals. I do not see why the ratepayers should be put in a different position to the ordinary individual, and I think it is also desirable to place them upon an equal footing, because by so doing you would give them a greater encouragement to contribute to these institutions. I think
  738
  they should have the same franchise as individuals.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government will agree to exclude Waterford from the operation of this section upon the ground that a private Act has been passed only recently, dealing, among other things, with the infirmaries and the city. The Amendment, proposed by the honourable Gentleman is practically an Amendment of that private Act. I think it would be undesirable, after having excluded Waterford, to go back to that Act by putting such an Amendment in this Bill.
  MR. POWER: The Amendment proposed by the honourable and learned Gentleman merely puts the county and city ratepayers upon a par with private individuals. They can have a member on the board for a contribution of £50. The county and city ratepayers can only get a vote on the board by a contribution of £100. I think it would be in the interest of the infirmary itself to accept this Amendment. I think the ratepayers should be put upon an equal footing with individual subscribers, and that if they were they would be more likely to be disposed to contribute than under the present circumstances.
  MR. J. REDMOND: This Amendment would not place the ratepayers on a par with the ordinary donors to the hospital. It would put them in a much better position, for the simple reason that the ratepayers have as ex-officio members of the board the mayors and sheriffs, and the Catholic and Protestant clergymen are also ex-officio members. I do not think myself that any further representation is required. Of course, a fair representation is to be desired, because if the representation was not fair the ratepayers would not make their contributions. But the representation is a fair one, and was agreed to in 1886, when the Act was passed. No objection was taken to it then, and none has been taken since. The board, as constituted, was the result of an agreement all round, and as I say, I have heard no objection taken to it, and I think it might be left as it is.
  Amendment negatived.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 11, line 24, after 'council,' insert 'unless with the consent of the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government undertook in Committee to consider the question of county councils having the right to promote Bills in Parliament, but I do not see any Amendment down to make any change in the clause. The right honourable Gentleman will remember I referred to the case of Dublin, which, by its right to oppose Bills in Parliament, was able to do a good deal of good. Now the suggestion I make here is that, subject to the consent of the Local Government Board, these powers should vest in the county councils, which would give a very valuable check, and would put a very valuable power into the hands of the county councils. You see the way in which the words run is this—
  "This section shall not empower any county council to promote any Bills in Parliament or to incur or raise any expenses in relation to such promotion."
  Now it seems to me, although I agree with the Government to a considerable extent in limiting this power if they are able to obtain the necessary consent of the authority, it would only be fair that those powers should vest in the county councils. I beg to move the clause which stands in my name, and I appeal to the Government to carry out the undertaking they gave us in Committee.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The undertaking to which the honourable Gentleman has referred was an undertaking to consider the case of county boroughs. It should not be lawful for the council of the county borough to oppose Bills in Parliament without the consent of the ratepayers. That question hardly comes up upon this clause. I shall, however, be prepared to meet the honourable Member part of the way in the Amendment, which has been put down in the name of the honourable Member for Cork. So far as county boroughs are concerned, I do not think it would be desirable in this
  740
  Bill to give the county councils the power to promote Bills, even with the consent of the Local Government Board; that may come later on. As regards boroughs the case is somewhat different. The Local Government Board of England are of opinion it might be desirable to give the county boroughs a power of opposing Bills, but there is not the same concensus of opinion with regard to the power of promoting them.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 11, line 30, after 'board' insert 'and agree with the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to take over any marine works constructed or acquired by those commissioners under the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Other Amendments proposed—
  "Page 12, line 15, after 'council' insert 'or the commissioners of a town.'"
  "Page 12, line 16, after 'guardians' insert 'and where it appears to the Local Government Board that there are no persons capable of acting as such board or body, the order may be made without the consent of the board or body.'"
  "Page 12, line 30, after 'Act' insert 'and the powers of baronial presentment sessions.'"
  "Page 12, line 40, after 'aforesaid' insert 'or as expressly provided by this Act.'"
  "Page 13, line 11, after 'of' insert 'a portion of the.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 13, line 13, after '1888' insert 'except sub-section of section 16.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not propose to move this Amendment, but the one that immediately follows, upon behalf of the honourable Member for Cork—
  "Page 13, line 14, after 'apply' insert '(c) no approval of voters shall be necessary to enable the council of a county borough to promote or oppose a Bill in Parliament pursuant to the provisions of the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888.'"
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: To enable the county councils to promote Bills without consulting the ratepayers. If the honourable Gentleman leaves out the words, "promote or," I have no objection to it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will move it in that form.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 13, line 29, at the end of clause 19, insert the words—
  "Provided that for all purposes of assize, general or quarter sessions, civil bill court, making of lists of jurors and jurors' books, and summoning and service of jurors, a borough which has not a separate commission or quarter sessions shall be part of the county in which, at the passing of this Act, it is situate for such purposes."—(Mr. Condon.)
  MR. CONDON: The object of moving this Amendment is to include the boroughs of Ireland, as mentioned in the Amendment, in the city boroughs.
  MR. ATKINSON: A borough is not necessarily a county borough, but a part of the county at large, and the wording of the Amendment would not carry what the honourable Gentleman desires at all. A borough is part of a county, and forms part of it for all purposes. This Amendment will not help the matter at all. It will only cease to make the borough a part of the county, and will not have the effect the honourable Gentleman desires.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What I think the honourable Gentleman desires to accomplish, and what the point he takes is, that he feels that you are refusing to make certain towns county boroughs because they have separate assizes. He says, abolish these separate assizes if you like, but leave the town its status. That is the intention. Whether the Government accept these words or not is another thing, but they might accept it. If you abolish the separate assizes you might leave the towns their status.
  MR. ATKINSON: That is not the Amendment here. The Amendment here is that for all purposes these
  742
  boroughs who have not accepted a commission for quarter sessions. It is to all a borough not to be wholly merged, but only partially merged, into a county.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments proposed—
  "Page 13, leave out from beginning of line 21 to the third 'and' in line 22."
  "Page 13, line 24, after 'judge,' insert 'of assize.'"
  "Page 13, line 25, leave out from 'compensation' to the end of clause."
  "Page 14, line 12, after 'whether a,' insert 'county or other.'"
  "Page 14, line 14, after 'not,' insert 'which is not a county borough.'"
  "Page 14, line 18, leave out from '1892' to 'shall,' in line 21."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 14, line 21, at end, add—
  "Where a town has a population exceeding three thousand, according to the census of the year One thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, but is not at the passing of this Act an urban sanitary district, the Local Government Board shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section seven of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, within twelve months after the passing of this Act, by order in the prescribed manner, constitute such town an urban sanitary district, and such order shall take effect without the authority of Parliament."—(Mr. Hayden.)
  MR. HAYDEN: The object of this Amendment is to convert the towns that are not at present urban sanitary districts into urban sanitary districts, and to convert town commismissioners into urban district councils. The object of this Amendment is to vest the administration of those towns in the local bodies instead of, as at present, in the hands of the boards of guardians and in the future the rural district councils, which embrace men coming from a very wide area, and men who have no interest in the town, and who know very little about it. Towns with a population of 3,000 or 4,000 are very much more important towns in Ireland than towns of the same size in England, and many of us think that such towns ought not to be compelled to adopt the roundabout methods of this Bill to become a district council,

  743
  and that they should be able to become in their own right urban districts, and elect their own councils. If the population is considered too small, I have no objection to its being made 5,000, but the principle of this Amendment is already upon the Statute Book—I think in the Public Health Act of 1878, where the population was put at 6,000 in rural urban sanitary districts—and it is really to extend the principle already on the Statute Book to these towns with a smaller population. I beg to move the Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Amendment cannot possibly be agreed to. The effect of it would be to make all towns with a population of 3,000, within 12 months after this Act comes into force, urban districts, whether those towns desire to become so or not. That is not a proposal which the Government would accept. I think the honourable Gentleman is wrong in saying that all towns with a population of over 6,000 inhabitants were necessarily constituted sanitary districts. They might become so, but they were not constituted sanitary districts ipso facto. But, apart from that fact, under this Bill every place which is a sanitary district is also, whether it likes it or not, a road authority; and a town which has only 3,000 inhabitants ought not to be compelled to not only become a sanitary district but also a rural authority whether they like it or not; but, further than that, the Government have an Amendment on the Paper that towns with a population of under 5,000 shall cease to be sanitary districts, and be merged into another district. If we accepted this Amendment we should be accepting an Amendment totally at variance with our own principle.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 15, line 3, leave out 'one councillor,' and insert 'two councillors.'"—(Mr. Arnold-Forster.)
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not wish to detain the House long after the discussion which took place last night upon this question, but I do
  744
  desire to separate the two questions of county councils and district councils.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is the honourable Gentleman going to move?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir. I beg to move that two members be elected to the district councils, and one of my reasons for doing so is this, that an opportunity should be afforded of electing women as district councillors. My point is this: that in Ireland there has been a steady increase in the election of women to assist in the administration of the poor law in the shape of women guardians. In the first year of the Act, 1897, the number of women elected guardians was 11, while this year there are 17. In England there are 917 women concerned in the administration of the poor law, and it seems to me a thousand pities that the attempt to reproduce this state of things in Ireland, a state of things which works so well, should be put a stop to. If you allow two persons to be elected, you will be able to perpetuate a system of women guardians, and there is this obvious fact—women have been elected all over Ireland, apart from all political opinions, all political parties recording their votes in favour of the women. I do wish to urge this upon the Chief Secretary, that, if these facilities be not given, it is almost certain that the women element will be eliminated from the poor law administration. There is a strong feeling in every part of Ireland upon this matter, and it will be considered that one man must be returned to the district council, and they will not be represented if they do not return one. There would be a disposition, if they returned two members, to return women to take part in the administration of the poor law. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary will accept this Amendment, or whether he will refer me to the same remedy as he gave me in the county councils.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This question was, in fact, discussed yesterday, for the same item relating to county council elections was considered by the House. I am afraid I have no encouragement to give to my honourable Friend, who moves such an Amendment as this. What

  745
  I stated yesterday with regard to county councils applies also to district councils. It is desirable, in the view of the Government, to have a single member elected instead of two members, but I will go this far with regard to district councils. If a difference is to be made as to the number of councillors elected for each district, it would be much better for the district council to have two members than the county council.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 15, line 4, after the first 'division,' insert 'except where the Local Government Board assign more than one councillor to a town or part of a town forming one district electoral division; and the councillors for each district electoral division shall be elected.'"
  "Page 15, line 6, after 'more,' insert 'or, in the case of a town or part of a town forming one district electoral division, and returning more than one councillor, one vote and no more for each of any number of persons not exceeding the number of councillors to be elected for the division.'"
  "Page 15, line 16, leave out sub-section (4)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 15, line 27, after 'councillor,' insert 'except that a person being in holy orders, or being a regular minister of any religious denomination, shall be eligible as a guardian."—(Sir charles Dilke.)
  SIR C. DILKE: The House will remember that when we were in Committee upon this Bill I moved an Amendment to get rid of all disqualification of ministers of religion and clerks in holy orders. I have not put down that Amendment again, but several Members who spoke and voted against it on that occasion said they thought the ground for the Amendment would be stronger with regard to district councils than it was in the case of county councils, and they expressed a strong desire to see in Ireland, as in England, ministers of religion eligible as guardians, and intimated that they would be more inclined to support me if my Amendment was moved with reference to boards of guardians only. Now, there is a difficulty in applying the absence of disqualifica-
  746
  tion to all guardians, because some are elected as district councillors also. If we wish to raise the latter case, we can only raise it on clause 67, but I thought it better to raise the question on urban guardians. It is sufficient for me to say that the most useful guardians that we have in England are our clergy and the Roman Catholic and Nonconformist ministers. Now comes the question as to whether the circumstances in Ireland are so different as to preclude the same system being adopted as in England. I listened to the arguments of this House on a former occasion put forward by honourable Gentlemen who took that view, and I am convinced that, as far as this is concerned, they made out no case; they said there might be some special reasons in Ireland for the exclusion of Irish priests. I do not care to believe that. I do not believe in the wisdom of that exclusion, but that is not the question here. The question is now confined to urban guardians, and I do press the Government to put an end to this exclusion, which they artificially introduced into their Bill, which prevents the clergy, who, above all others, I should have thought would have exercised the functions best, from being guardians. I beg leave to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do hope the Government will make this concession. At the present time clergymen have the right to sit, and are constantly elected. I can well understand the strong line which can be drawn between guardians and dispensary committees and the county councils. In the county councils they have to deal with roads and bridges, and things of that kind; but when you deal with these bodies, which have nothing to do except the management of the poor, I do think that the clergymen should have the right to sit. I think that clergymen are seen at their best when they are interested in and attending to the wants of the poor, sick, and insane. I do not desire that a clergyman should be ex-officio a member of a board because he is a clergyman. All that we ask is that clergymen should not be excluded because they are clergymen from taking any share in the management of the poor, sick, and insane.

  747
  You are reducing practically the position of the guardians to one of a very limited character. I trust the Government will give way on this clause. The fact is, you are now depriving these gentlemen of the position which they formerly held. They were not hitherto disqualified, and everybody must admit that they exercised very useful functions on the dispensary committees. It is most desirable that men of learning and education should have the right to be elected and sit upon these boards, because, for instance, they are far better qualified to judge of the qualifications, say, of doctors than the ordinary rural person, who might not know the difference between an M.D. or any other degree; they would be sure to know something of the qualifications of the doctors and surgeons who came before them. Why should these educated and learned men be excluded from these boards? I cannot make it out. No wish has been expressed on any side for this exclusion in Ireland. I could understand the arguments as to their exclusion from county councils, but I say there is nothing to be said for the exclusion of clergymen from boards of guardians. You are inflicting a disparity on gentlemen who have hitherto discharged their functions without blame.
  MR. DILLON: I want to be clear on the matter. I understand that this Amendment to clause 22 would not affect their eligibility and qualification as district councillors or county councillors—it would only affect the qualification as poor law guardians in urban districts. It, therefore, deals with the same matter as a sub-section in clause 67.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Amendment raises what is apparently the very simple question, as to whether, in the case of the very limited number of guardians who will be elected by the urban districts, there should or should not be disqualification—preventing a minister of religion from being elected. I may remind the House that in Ireland there is no board of guardians that is entirely confined to the towns; but if once you allow this disqualification, at present imposed by law in the case of guardians elected by the towns, to be removed, I think it would be very difficult not to remove it also in the case
  748
  of rural district councillors who also discharge the functions of guardians. I must also say that a good many of the objections which have been and are taken by many persons in Ireland against allowing a minister of religion to sit on these boards apply as much in the case of guardians elected in the towns as in any other cases. Until the Bill was brought in, I never heard the question raised as to whether it would be desirable to allow ministers of religion to sit upon boards of guardians. There seems to have been universal acquiescence in the law which forbade them to do so. It is only when changes are made in the local customs by this Bill that this question is raised at all.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: The right honourable Gentleman says there has never been a question before. The restriction was originally proposed in the Poor Law Act, and it was fought very powerfully by O'Connor and other Irish representatives at that time; and it is not a matter in which there have been constant protests raised ever since. That is no reason why, when the whole question of local government is raised and reconsidered, this matter should not be considered entirely afresh. The question seems to me to have taken an entirely new shape since this Bill was introduced. I quite understand the attitude of the Government when they framed their Bill. I can quite believe that they did not intend to pass any reflection in any way upon the Irish ministers of religion, of whatever denominations they belonged to. I am sure there is no feeling of that kind. But since the Bill has been introduced ministers of religion in Ireland have expressed strong views on this deprivation of their rights in being disallowed from taking part in the local government which is now to be conferred upon the electors of Ireland, a very small proportion of whom have hitherto been able to take part in the local government of their country. Hitherto the local government has been a matter from which the vast majority of the people of Ireland have been excluded. Now you are going to put it in a different category; you are going to allow practically all the people except ministers of religion to take part in local government. When the question comes

  749
  out in that phase, ministers in Ireland have expressed very strong views. It is not that many of them are desirous of serving, because they have other duties which take up the greater part of their time; yet they have a strong feeling against being excluded by law from the right to be elected. It is not fair to them; they do not think it fair to them to place upon them disqualification and exclusion which have not been placed upon ministers of religion in England and Scotland. I venture to think that the case raised by the honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean is a very strong case. So far as northern towns, at any rate, are concerned, there has been considerable difficulty in getting suitable people to act on urban boards of guardians. In small towns it is not so. In the larger towns the average professional men know very little about the condition of the poor; it is only the clergymen and the doctors who know really much about their condition. I think, now that this matter is being reconsidered, that the Chief Secretary ought to look beyond the question of the thin end of the wedge and so forth. I do not see why he should take that view. It does not matter very much that this has not been a subject of very violent agitation; but it is a matter in which those ministers have expressed very strong views. That being so, I fail to see why Parliament should place upon them what they themselves have announced they will regard as a stigma. I am sure such a stigma is the last thing the Chief Secretary would desire to place upon them. They having shown that this is the view that they themselves take, I cannot help hoping that the Chief Secretary will reconsider the whole question in the light of these declarations. I think that they are the people to be primarily considered in this matter.
  MR. FIELD: So far as I am concerned I never heard of such a feeling existing in any part of Ireland. Boards of guardians have existed for many years, but I never
  heard either in public or in private any agitation that ministers of different religious denominations should be asked to go on to these boards of guardians. I think it is rather an unfortunate thing that this matter should be introduced at this stage. I think the whole thing should be debated on a subsequent clause. It appears to me that this is only introducing the thin end of the wedge. If clergymen come into boards of guardians undoubtedly it will be used hereafter as a reason why they should be introduced into district councils. I think reverend gentlemen have quite sufficient duties to occupy all their time without these additional duties. In saying that, I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of any clergyman of any religious denomination. What I say applies equally to all clergymen; they have quite enough to do to mind their own business without interfering with other affairs, and I trust the Government will continue the attitude they have adopted. I oppose this Amendment.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I should live to point out that there has up to now been no question on this matter, because there has been no local government inquiry before now. You are casting a slur upon the ministers of religion in Ireland that you are not casting upon the clergymen of your own country. As for my own constituency, I can only say that I believe that the people who know most about the poor are the priests and the clergy. If people are ill or in distress, who know more about their sickness and distress than the clergy? They are not paid to do that work; they do it out of love and religious motives. I am sure the right honourable Gentleman cannot wish to perpetuate religious differences in Ireland, and I appeal to him to see that the ministers of religion in Ireland are put on the same footing as those in England.
  The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 123.—(Division List No. 201.)

  AYES.

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

  Caldwell, James

  Daly, James

  Billson, Alfred

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Dillon, John

  Blake, Edward

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Brigg, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Doogan, P. C.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  McDermott, Patrick

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maddison, Fred.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Maden, John Henry

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Gilhooly, James

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

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

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Morris, Samuel

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Murnaghan, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Hogan, James Francis

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Holburn, J. G.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Woodall, William

  Kenyon, James

  Parnell, John Howard

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Knox, Edmund Francis V.

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Pinkerton, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Charles Dilke and Major Jameson.

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q'n's C.)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  NOES.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

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

  Ascroft, Robert

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of L.)

  Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Gretton, John

  Pender, Sir James

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Howell, William Tudor

  Purvis, Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l).

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Kenrick, William

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Lafone, Alfred

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. W. E. H.

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

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

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stock, James Henry

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lowles, John

  Strauss, Arthur

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc, S. W.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thorburn, Walter

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

  Usborne, Thomas

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  McKillop, James

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset).

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Monk, Charles James

  Wodehouse, Ed. R. (Bath)

  Flower, Ernest

  More, Robert Jasper

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fry, Lewis

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrison, Walter

  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 15, line 29, leave out from the first 'or' to the end of the line and insert 'part thereof or part of a county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 15, line 39, leave out 'sub-section (a).'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 16, line 2, at end, insert 'and (b) may annually choose a chairman, and, if they think fit, a vice-chairman, from among the councillors; (2) the first business of the council after any triennial election shall be the consideration of the question of election of additional councillors.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 16, line 30, leave out 'nothing in.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 16, line 30, after 'borough' add 'not having a separate commission of the peace, with the substitution of mayor for chairman, but shall not apply to any other borough.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 16, line 37, after 'urban' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 17, line 15, leave out 'every urban district council' and insert 'the council of every urban county district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 17, line 24, after 'urban' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 17, line 33, after 'urban,' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 17, line 37, at end, insert—
  "Where an order of the Local Government Board, under the foregoing provision, deals
  754
  with an application to order any contribution or fixes the terms of an undertaking, and within three months after the order the Board receive a petition against it from either council affected, or from at least one-fourth of the local government electors of any district or county affected, the order shall be provisional only, and a certificate of the Local Government Board that no such petition has been received, and that the order has taken effect, shall be conclusive evidence of those facts."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 17, line 37, at end, insert—
  "(7) District councils shall be entitled to tax their corporate property or to levy a rate within their district, or both, for the purpose of construction and working of railways from the confines of their district to some neighbouring station, and that district councils shall be entitled to exercise the same powers as those now exercised by presentment sessions and grand juries of giving a guarantee for the payment of interest and capital proposed or intended to be invested for the construction of railways or light railways; provided always that the council for the county shall in such event contribute such sums as it may be proved before the county court judge they shall save in road making or otherwise by such line."—(Mr. Condon.)
  MR. SPEAKER: I rule this Amendment out of order.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 17, line 39, after 'shall,' insert 'save as respects the revision in this Act mentioned.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 17, line 43, leave out 'an urban,' and insert 'the.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 17, line 43, at end, add—
  "An urban district which is, or is comprised within, a Parliamentary borough, and which defrays the expenses of the registration of the electors of the said borough, shall not be liable to contribute to the expenses of the registration of the electors of the county or counties in which said borough is situate. And if the Parliamentary boundary of said borough exceed the boundary of the urban district, the latter shall be entitled to be recouped the expenses of the registration of the electors of the borough qualifying out of that portion

  755
  thereof situate outside the urban district in proportion to the number of such electors, and the ascertaining of the amount of such recoupment shall be a matter of adjustment.
  "An urban district, in which the district council is the road authority, shall not be liable to contribute to the salaries or expenses of the county surveyor or assistant county surveyors."—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the honourable Member is out of order. It cannot be taken on the Report stage.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 17, line 43, at end, add—
  "The contribution to be paid by the county council of the county of Dublin in respect of that portion of the barony of Rathdown not included in any township to the urban district council of Blackrock towards the maintenance of the Rock Road shall be on the valuation of the standard year or on such average valuation taken on a number of years as the Local Government Board for Ireland shall determine."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  MR. PLUNKETT: I beg to move the Amendment. It is a very small matter, and I hope the Government will accept it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This question in respect of the Blackrock contribution arose in 1890, and was the subject of a very close inquiry. When the Dublin Bill was before the Committee last year an attempt was made by Blackrock to escape from the contribution. The matter was fought out by counsel before a Select Committee upstairs of 10 or 11 members, and a great deal of evidence was taken. And now, Sir, as I understand the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, it will have the effect of upsetting the decision of that Committee. I think that would be very unfair. The Government have undertaken to bring in a clause dealing with all the questions of adjustments. There is, undoubtedly, a good case for the revision of urban contributions to county authorities, but these are questions which can only be settled after inquiry.
  MR. ATKINSONpromised that the matter should not be lost sight of.
  MR. PLUNKETT: I am quite satisfied with my right honourable Friend's
  756
  undertaking. I therefore withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 18, leave out clause 26."
  "Page 18, line 4, at end, add—
  "And the amount of such poor rate may, if such council think fit, be such an amount as in their judgment will be sufficient, after allowing for sums irrecoverable by reason of premises being empty or any other cause, to raise or discharge not only the sum in respect of which the rate is made, but also such a sum as will meet the expenses, or what is in their judgment a due proportion of the expenses incurred and to be incurred in and about making and recovering the rate."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The subject which the right honourable Member's Amendment raises is already covered by the Bill.
  MR. PLUNKETT: If that is so, then I am quite satisfied.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 18, line 36, after 'improvement,' insert 'Ireland.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, leave out clause 32."—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to move the Amendment. The clause is a very serious interference with the rights of private fisheries, and is entirely unnecessary. It proposes to give district councils power, upon making a small contribution, undefined in amount, to appoint a certain number of conservators, undefined in number, in Ireland. I will endeavour to show to the House that it is quite possible that members appointed by popular election, at the expense of the ratepayers, may in no way be competent for the duties of the position, which, briefly stated, are to carry out the fishery laws. The clause is absolutely unnecessary, because all classes of interests are now represented on the boards of conservators. I may remind the House that

  757
  boards of conservators consist of some eight to twelve members, half of whom are appointed by the salt water fishermen, and half by the fresh water fishermen. Now, Sir, I think the House will see that the ratepayers are not directly interested in the fisheries. They are indirectly interested, because it is in the interest of the districts concerned that the fisheries should be properly maintained and managed. Almost the only other persons interested are the persons who take out rod licences and the owners of land abutting on the river, and these are represented on the boards of conservators. Therefore the clause is absolutely unnecessary. The district council areas, moreover, are extremely inappropriate in reference to salmon fishing. A salmon river must be taken, as a whole, as a property; you must take it from the head of the river to the source, from the spawning ground to the sea. The river Foyle, for instance, runs through three counties, the Bann through seven, the Erne through six, and the Shannon through 15 counties, and if all the district councils along these rivers are to exercise power under the clause I submit, Sir, that there must inevitably be great confusion, and, what is more important still, a great deal of inefficiency and incompetency in carrying out the duties of boards of conservators, and in enforcing the fishery laws. I ask the House, what possible object can the district councils have in wishing to make a small contribution from the ratepayers' money to these boards of conservators in Ireland? I am acquainted with some of the largest fishery owners in Ireland, and I am in a position to state that none of them want these contributions. There are no other interested parties than those I have already mentioned, and therefore what possible object can these district councils have in making a contribution and appointing members to these boards? No doubt the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will have something to say about the public fisheries. I may say in passing that so far as the fresh water fisheries are concerned the only valuable fisheries are private property. If there is an open fresh water fishery in Ireland you may take it for certain that the river will not contain
  758
  very many fish. No doubt the right honourable Gentleman will say something about salt water fisheries. The Shannon has 30 miles of tideway, where drift-net fishing can be carried on upon payment of £3 for a licence. Well, Sir, the individuals who take out the £3 licence are already represented on the board of conservators, as also are all who own a fishery of over £100 in value. Then what other class is there that ought to be represented? Are the inhabitants of the particular districts interested? Under this clause a district council of limited area at the head of the Shannon could swamp the board by its members, and control a fishery which may possibly be situated 100 miles away. That is the construction which I put upon the clause, and which, I submit, it would perfectly well bear. I contend that if the House will consider the question they will see that the power given under this clause to district councils cannot produce the better management of fisheries. The private fisheries of Ireland are estimated to be worth in the gross £400,000, from which a large number of men get a living, and to interfere with them is a very socialistic proposal, and as unjustifiable an interfering with a private estate. What are the functions of these conservators? The functions are to enforce the fishery laws and appoint bailiffs and fishery police. I think I am right in saying that one of the principles of this Bill is that the district councils shall not have anything to do with the appointment and payment of police in Ireland. Yet you are going to give district councils power to appoint fishery police! I can see that there will be a great temptation to put men on these bodies who may be actuated by a desire to gain popularity. The whole value of fisheries in Ireland—and I know something about them—depends upon their being properly protected. It is one of the most important industries in Ireland. It brings many people into the country to spend their holidays, and it brings money into the country; and if you do anything to injure this industry you will be doing a great injury to the poorer part of the population, and at the same time inflict a very serious loss upon a very valuable occupation. I ask the House to consider whether the principle of this clause is

  759
  likely to conduce to the better preservation of Irish salmon fisheries. Sir, is there anything to be said against the way in which the present boards of conservators carry out their duties? I have made inquiries, but I have heard nothing against the way in which the present boards of conservators, as a whole, perform them. Why, in the name of common sense, therefore, interfere with the boards? Take, for instance, the funds at the disposal of these boards. They are derived from licences, from fines, and from 10 per cent. on the valuation of the fisheries. In most districts—certainly in all the most valuable ones—these fines and charges are always insufficient, and are supplemented voluntarily by the owners of the private fisheries. I know one owner of three large fisheries in the north of Ireland, and he tells me that he not only compulsorily pays £1,200 a year as his share to the Board of Conservators, but supplements it voluntarily by a further payment of £3,000 a year. I believe that is the case in almost every instance of the ownership of private fisheries in Ireland. The owners do not complain; they are willing to make these payments, but they do not want to be interfered with by district councils, and that takes away any excuse that district councils may have to contribute out of the money of the ratepayers. I submit, finally, that this clause, amended or unamended, is very bad precedent. It gives the district councils the right to interfere with private property. If any public authority is to be allowed to interfere with the salmon fisheries of Ireland, I submit it should be the Imperial Government. The Acts of Parliament relating to the salmon fisheries are complicated enough without being further complicated by the introduction of a new and much less authority—the authority of the district councils. It is a bad precedent, and I ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has consulted the Government fishery inspectors of Ireland on the subject of this new clause. These men know more, about the salmon fishing—I say so with great respect—than any Member in this House, including even the occupants of the Government Bench. I will assume
  760
  that the right honourable Gentleman has not consulted these men, and I ask why he has not done so, upon a question which concerns an important industry in Ireland, and concerns also the livelihood of large numbers of men. I am willing to let the case stand or fall by the advice of the Irish salmon fishery inspectors, and if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will consult these men I do not think this clause will remain in the Bill. A rather important point to which I desire to call attention is the desirability of investigating the habits of the salmon, in salt water. Such an investigation is necessary, but it is not a subject that can be dealt with by an authority like the district council. It has been made the subject of Government action in Norway, and other countries, and is of great importance. The habits of the salmon in salt water are a great mystery, for, after they go to the sea, no one knows what becomes of them. The Government might very well undertake an investigation, which might confer a great boon on Ireland, and lead to a knowledge of the habits of the salmon that might be useful in breeding the fish. The Government have practically accepted the Amendment I have put down on behalf of the salmon fisheries of Ireland, and I thank them most cordially; but, Amendment or no Amendment, the principle of this clause is most obnoxious, and I want to see it taken out of the Bill. The case against the principle of the clause is far stronger than the Government have appreciated. It has aroused very strong opposition on the part of the men concerned. To summarise the opposition to the clause, I say we object to it because it interferes with the ownership of private property; it is unnecessary, because all parties are represented on the present board; and it is mischievous, because it gives the district councils powers which might—I do not say they will—be misused, and inflict injury. I desire to make only one further observation. I was returned to this House by a Tory vote, and I want to support a Tory Government, but the principle of this clause is absolutely inconsistent with Tory policy, and I beg to move that it be omitted.
  MR. J. PINKERTON: I trust the Government will not give way on this question. It is a well-known fact that the Conservators in every district of Ireland have acted in a most tyrannical fashion, and have placed arbitrary prohibitions in the way of the salmon fishers. There are two sides to this question. In the first place there are the interests of the fishery owners, and in the second place there are also the interests of the great mill-owners, who are trying, against serious obstacles, to maintain a local industry in Ireland. These men are fighting against English competition, and honourable Members on the opposite side are anxious to oppose any extension of the popular rights of the people which will help these men. I trust the Government will not allow themselves to be browbeaten into surrendering this clause. It is a most valuable clause. I recognise to the fullest extent—and I say this from the Nationalist Benches—the spirit of fair play displayed by this Government in the introduction of this Local Government Bill, and their desire that all interests should be represented and safeguarded, whether they are the interests of fishery owners, of mill-owners, or of the people.
  MR. ATKINSON: The honourable Member for St. Helens says the conservators do not want money, but that is the first time I ever heard of it. The Amendment put down by the Government provides that the contribution from the district council shall be applied for by the Board of Conservators; but if they do not want the money they need not apply for it. The object of putting it in this clause was simply to provide funds to enable the conservators properly to preserve the rivers and increase the supply of salmon. The honourable Member for St. Helens seemed to argue that the fisheries of Ireland belonged entirely to the private owners. I could refer him to many Acts of Parliament to show that that contention is perfectly preposterous. As amended, the clause is a perfectly harmless one.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURformally moved the addition of words providing that the district council might make a contribution towards the expenses of the Board of Conservators, "at the request of conservators of such fishery district."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If the Government had accepted the Amendment I moved to provide fish hatcheries, of which there are two in Ireland already, it would have been a very important contribution towards the upkeep of these salmon fisheries. The present system is far from satisfactory to the people, and only sets them against the law, and makes them sympathise with poaching. It would be much better if the gentlemen on this Board of Conservators showed a little more discretion in their dealings with the people. The Irish people can be led, but they will not be driven, and, above all, they will not be driven by a number of gentlemen coming over for a few days' occasional fishing in Ireland and acting as if they owned the whole country. The real way to preserve fishing in Ireland would be to interest the people in it, and make them feel they have a voice on these boards, and to that extent it would have been better if the Government had allowed their clause to remain as it was originally, instead of now making it optional upon the conservators to request a contribution.
  MR. FLYNN: I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that in order to facilitate business and get on with the work, if we consent to the original clause, that honourable Members opposite will not persist in moving these Amendments one after the other, because I think that would be most unfair.
  MR. SETON-KARR: With regard to these fisheries, I have introduced year after year in this House a Bill—
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: And it has never passed.
  MR. SETON-KARR: No, because you always block it. I sat on the Committee which drafted that Bill, and it was the outcome of a compromise—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The terms of this Amendment do not entitle the honourable Member to go into that subject.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Line 2, after 'district' add 'made in pursuance of a resolution passed by such board at a meeting specially convened for the purpose of considering such resolution.'"—(Mr. H. Robertson.)
  Amended Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 3, after the first 'of' leave out to 'a" in line 4, and insert 'that board.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 7, at end, insert—
  "Any such contribution shall be an annual contribution for a period of not less than three years, but (unless renewed) of not more than five years, and shall be a debt to the board of conservators, and the clerk of such board may sue for the same on behalf of the board."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 8, leave out 'making' and insert 'upon paying in any year.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 9, leave out 'annually.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 10, after 'Act' insert 'for that year.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It seems to me that these rates are paid chiefly for the benefit of the gentlemen in the upper waters, and there is a great want of some provision to equalise the representation. The local subscribers only pay about £300, and the result will be that the county council will always pay the best share, and will be in a minority on the board. I do think that the amount of contribution to the cost should, to some
  764
  extent, decide the question of representation, and in this respect the proposal of the Government is most unfair. One man on the river Blackwater practically pays more subscriptions than the whole of the people in the upper waters. This is more intensified by the fact that the river requires watching most up in the direction of the spawning beds, and it is there really where the concentration of attention is necessary. It will be in the interests of the people in the county of Waterford to subscribe for the preservation of the fisheries in the county of Cork, but the county of Cork do not wish them to do it. It seems to me that this Amendment goes far in advance of anything that is actually required. The business of the fishermen in the lower waters depends entirely upon whether the spawning beds in the upper waters are preserved or not. They live in the county of Waterford, and the place where the watching of the river is required is in the county of Cork. Supposing they agree to pay £200 or £300 for the watching of the river, the men in the upper waters may not pay a penny, because the owners are in a majority, and they may do as they like. I think we have already provided adequate protection for the gentlemen in the upper waters, and I would respectfully submit that the honourable Gentleman the Member for St. Helens would have been well advised if he had accepted the Government clause as it stood. It was a reasonable compromise, and I feel quite sure that the Chief Secretary did not put this on the Paper without having a consultation with the gentlemen concerned. You are now taking away with one hand what yow gave with the other, and this brings in the principle of taxation without representation, or, at any rate, taxation with insufficient representation, which is almost worse.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right honourable Gentleman offer some explanation with regard to the river Lee, county Cork. On that river the noble Earl of Bandon pays a certain sum of about £16 a year, and he makes out of the fishing something like about £60 a year, and he never pays one penny towards the conservators of the river. He is a specimen of those

  765
  gentlemen whom you are now trying to uphold. I am, however, not going to say very much upon these points. You cannot get any money out of the proprietors, and you try to get it all out of the anglers, and the anglers' association, and you try to get all the money out of the men who happen to be the true fishermen, the poor fishermen in the lower waters. That is the way they try to work it. I sincerely hope that this matter will obtain the serious consideration of all true gentlemen in this House of Commons.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 35, at end, add 'the appointing body may revoke in whole or in part any appointment or authority made or given under this section.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 7, after 'council' insert 'and their urban district shall be a county district of the said county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 11, leave out 'heretofore.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 13, at end, insert 'provided that the coroner for the borough of Galway shall be elected by the district council of the said borough.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to point out that this is most unfair to Galway. The position of Galway, I think, deserves some sympathy at the hands of the Government. It has been shockingly treated by this House and by the House of Lords. Now, Sir, if Galway had remained under the schedule, but for the House of Lords, under this Bill, it would have retained its power of appointing a coroner. What the Government do is this: they abolish Galway as a county of a city and transfer its power to make roads over to the county councils.
  766
  But with regard to the appointment of coroner, towns like Carrickfergus, and one or two other places, they retain the right to appoint their coroner, whereas Galway, because it is not in the schedule of 3rd and 4th Vic., will lose that right, and it will go to the county council. I ask simply that Galway should be put on the same footing as Kilkenny. It is a far larger town than Galway; in fact, it is almost twice its population, but the House of Lords, in 1840, struck Galway for a malicious purpose out of the list in the schedule, allowing to remain in Kilkenny, Drogheda, and a number of other towns of that description, with the result that Kilkenny will still retain its right to appoint its coroner, whereas in the town of Galway that right will lapse after the appointment of the existing coroner, and will go to the county of Galway at large. Now, anyone who takes up the map of Galway will see the absolute unfairness of this proposal. It returns four Members to this House. The men in the far distant places of the county have no concern whatever for the borough of Galway, and yet, forsooth, they are to have the right to appoint the coroner for the borough of Galway, which many of them have never visited. The Arran Islands are in Galway Bay, and the people there hardly ever visit the mainland, and they will have a right to return members to the Galway county council and elect a coroner for the county town of Galway. This perversity is so extraordinary, to insist upon thrusting this British ramrod into our affairs without any necessity whatever to interfere. I move a reasonable proposal, that the town council of Galway shall continue to elect its own coroner, as other town councils do. Drogheda has elected a coroner, and will continue to do so; and Carrickfergus will continue to elect its coroner, and all the merged counties and cities will continue to elect their coroners. Then, why make a scapegoat of Galway? I think the Government owe Galway 50 years of reparation, and now you are proposing to turn the place upside down without any regard to local tradition or local feeling. I do appeal to the Government to do to Galway this one little act of justice and give it back its mayor and corporation. It had a

  767
  mayor for hundreds of years before that power was taken away by the House of Lords.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the honourable Member that the question is about the coroner.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: My point is that if Galway had a mayor it would have a right to elect a coroner. That is the absurdity of the position taken up by the Government. Therefore, I do hope that the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to make some restitution to this ancient town, and if he will not give it its mayor, I hope he will leave us the right to appoint the coroner.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable and learned Member for Louth says that some 50 years ago Galway was prevented from being constituted a borough by the action of the House of Lords, and that, in consequence of that a hardship has been inflicted upon Galway which we ought to take into consideration. If, however, we once begin making exceptions, where are we to end? So long as you are acting in a general way, it is impossible to make exceptions.
  MR. PINKERTON: Galway suffers very severely under this section. I think in this particular case, as my honourable and learned Friend the Member for North Louth has pointed out, it is rather hard that Galway should be forced into this very singular position. If the Members of the Government study the map they would see the utter inconsistency of allowing this to continue, and of depriving Galway of the right to elect a coroner. If the right honourable Gentleman could only see his way to accept the Amendment it would simplify matters very much. I am prepared to go a long way towards accepting the new arrangement, and, so far as Galway is concerned, I think it should be allowed to retain this little privilege of electing its own coroner.
  Amendment negatived.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 24, at end, add—
  "(5) Notwithstanding anything in this section the sheriff of county Kilkenny shall not act as returning officer of the borough of Kilkenny, but the mayor of said borough shall be
  768
  the returning officer thereof, and all writs for the return of a Member to serve in Parliament for said borough shall be directed to the Mayor of Kilkenny, and the law applicable to returning officers shall apply to him accordingly."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 25, after 'improvement' insert 'Ireland.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 39, after 'Act' insert 'of 1854.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, line 10, leave out from 'the,' to 'but,' in line 11, and insert 'last published census for the time being.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, line 15, after 'against it,' insert 'if the petition is before the first election of rural district councils.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, line 17, leave out 'or after the appointed day from the' and insert 'comprising the town or any part thereof, or if the petition is after such first election, then from at least one-fourth of the local government electors within the town, or from the guardians of the union.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, line 21, at end, insert—
  "An order of the Local Government Board, under section seven of the Public Health Act, 1878, for adding any town having a population according to the last census of less than five thousand, and being an urban sanitary district to a rural sanitary district, if made before the end of six months after the passing of this Act, and if the powers of the grand jury in respect of roads have not been previously transferred to the sanitary authority of the district, shall, unless within three months after the

  769
  order is published the board receive a petition against it from at least one-fourth of the parliamentary electors registered in respect of qualifications within the town, or from the guardians of the union comprising the town or any part thereof, take effect without the authority of Parliament; and a certificate of the board that no such petition has been received, and that the order has taken effect, shall be conclusive evidence of those facts: provided that until the expiration of ten years from the said year, an order shall not be made constituting such town an urban sanitary district."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, line 26, at end, add—
  "(3) If two or more urban district councils determine, by resolution passed by a majority of three-fourths of each council, to amalgamate and to combine their respective districts into one united district, the Local Government Board for Ireland shall make an order for such amalgamation and union on such conditions and subject to such provision as the Board may deem just and the councils may approve.

  "(a) Provided that in calculating the amount of the county-at-large charges for the purpose of apportioning the amount to be paid by any urban district council, there shall be deducted from the amount of such county-at-large charges, the sums paid or payable by the county council for the salaries of the county surveyor, the county secretary, the county solicitor, and the sums paid for legal and office expenditure in relation to the business of the county council, and any portion of any county-at-large charge for which no provision is otherwise made by law.

  "(b) Any urban district council may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, and with the consent of the council, by a three-fourths majority of the district proposed to be annexed, extend their boundaries by annexing any adjoining district not included within the jurisdiction of any urban district council, subject to such conditions as the board, with the approval of said council, may deem just."—(Mr. Plunkett.)

  MR. PLUNKETT: The Amendment which stands in my name is a very comprehensive one, and it is quite open to the Government, if they think fit, to accept a portion of it if they cannot accept the whole of it. The object of it is that in cases where all the urban districts concerned wish to amalgamate and are anxious to save expense of a Provisional Order they may proceed through the Local Government Board. The second part of the Amendment allows the council of such invited district, if of
  770
  sufficient size, to become a county borough; and the third portion allows any district council to annex any other district, provided that that district agrees. The object of the Amendment is simply to avoid the expense and delay of going to Parliament when there is really no opposition from any of the parties concerned.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the right honourable Gentleman propose to move them all together, or one by one?
  MR. PLUNKETT: I will move them separately. I move the first portion.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question may be a very proper one for the consideration of the House, but it would come under the consideration of the House by means of a private Bill.
  MR. PLUNKETTwithdrew the first portion of the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the right honourable Gentleman move the other two?
  MR. PLUNKETT: No.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, line 8, leave out 'two counties,' and insert 'more than one county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, line 18, after 'county,' insert in the execution of this Act or otherwise.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, line 22, at end, insert—
  "Where any expenses so incurred by the council of a county may by virtue of any enactment, or any direction given there-under, be levied off an urban district, they shall be called urban charges."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, line 27, leave out 'district,' and insert 'county district or districts.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, line 28, at end, insert 'urban charges or.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, line 30, after 'urban,' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, line 31, leave out from 'the' to 'shall,' in line 33, and insert 'demands of the county council or in connection with the poor rate.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed, to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, line 33, leave out from 'defrayed' to 'out of,' in page 23, line 2."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 23, line 3, after 'expenses' insert 'not above mentioned, but.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 23, line 3, after 'urban' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 23, line 5, leave out from the second 'Act' to 'shall' in line 11."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 23, line 15, at end, add—
  "The expenses incurred by the council of a county borough, if incurred in meeting the expenses of guardians, or in connection with the poor rate, shall be defrayed out of the poor rate, and if not so incurred and incurred in relation to the business transferred to the council by or in pursuance of this Act or otherwise in execution of this Act, or as incidental to their powers and duties as a
  772
  county council, shall, where the like expenses have hitherto been defrayed out of any rate levied by the council of the borough other than county cess, or than a rate levied under the enactments relating to county cess, continue to be so defrayed, but in any other case shall be defrayed out of the poor rate.
  "Provided that the foregoing provisions with respect to the expenses incurred by the council of an urban county district or county borough shall not extend to the expenses incurred under any provision of this Act amending or extending the Public Health Acts."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 23, line 22, after 'or,' insert 'county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 23, line 25, at end, insert—
  "Provided that the receipt given by a collector, in the case of payment of rates, or, where the treasurer is a banking company, by the secretary or clerk of the council in the case of any payment unconnectd with rates, shall be a good discharge to the person making the payment, but the amount of the payment shall be forthwith paid by such collector, secretary, or clerk to the treasurer."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 23, line 27, leave out 'such,' and insert 'their county or district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 24, line 1, leave out clause 42."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In the absence of my honourable Friend, who did not expect this Amendment would come on to-night, I move the omission of the clause, in order to challenge the policy of the Government with reference to this sum of money. Hitherto British Members on this side of the House have not taken any prominent part in the discussion on this Bill, as we recognised that the matters dealt with mainly concerned honourable Mem-

  773
  bers from Ireland; but when we some to this particular proposal of voting three-quarters of a million it is a matter concerning the whole of the United Kingdom. I am prepared to discuss the question of the financial relations of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. For all I know, Ireland is entitled to the three-quarters of a million, or to the three millions, in accordance with the claim already put forward. On the whole, I sympathise with the claim of Ireland in that respect, but this proposal is an entirely different thing. This is voting a sum of money ostensibly for Irish purposes, but it is a proposal which the Irish Members themselves did not demand, which they did not support, and which they now go to the extent of saying that it is not a payment on account as between Great Britain and Ireland. That is rather a serious matter. If there is a sum of three millions which Ireland is overtaxed in respect of, and if the Irish Members say that they will take three-quarters of a million on account and deduct it from their claim, and that they are perfectly willing that the money should be expended in the way suggested in the clause, seeing that they are primarily responsible, it is a matter more for them than for the representatives of any other part of the United Kingdom. If the Irish Members say that they are willing that this money should go to reducing the rates of the landlords, that is the last word in the matter. But that is not the position they take up. The Government say to them, "We will not give you a Local Government Bill for Ireland except this three-quarters of a million goes to the reduction of the rates on land in Ireland." It is a payment to the representatives of the Government in Ireland as a sort of compensation to the English garrison in Ireland. That is the position, and it is incumbent, as a matter of duty and obligation, on Members for British constituencies to challenge it. The honourable Member for Louth, in the course of the discussion, very frankly said that it was a bargain, and he was not going to defend it. The honourable Member for Mayo regarded the transaction as a perfectly flagitious one. He said that a bargain was a bargain, and that if he could not get the boon of
  774
  local government for Ireland except on the condition of supporting this grant, which did not come out of the Imperial Treasury, but out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, and which was not to be entered against Ireland, then he would accept it. I frankly confess as a Welsh Member, if a similar boon had been offered to Wales on similar conditions, I would find myself in a great difficulty if called upon to vote against it. No other course would be open to me except to vote for it, especially as the money would be got from the taxpayers of England, Scotland, and Ireland. What is the defence of the Government for this particular proposal? They cannot say it is an equivalent grant, because there was a sum of £150,000 voted to Ireland two or three years ago, which the Government called an equivalent grant. But now they do not put the proposal on the ground of an equivalent grant. What they say is that they are setting up a new authority in Ireland, and of transferring to it the powers of the grand juries. The new auhority is to be democratic, but will not pay the bulk of the rates, which will be paid by the minority, which practically belongs to a different party, and that consequently there would be every inducement to reckless expenditure. In the first place I may point out that the Government are stultifying their own principles. The very essence of their case is that they are trusting the Irish people with very large powers. I am not sure, after conversations I have had with Protestants in Ireland, that these powers are not larger than the powers proposed to be conferred by Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule of 1893. I do not mean that they are of a wider character, but if the Government assume that the Irish people are essentially vicious and mean to exercise every power they possess to persecute the minority, whether landlord or Protestant, I am not sure that the powers conferred by this Bill do not equip the majority in Ireland with greater powers of irritation and annoyance against the minority than would be given by Mr. Gladstone's Bill. Therefore I submit, in the first place, that the Government are rather stultifying the principle of the Bill by saying that they trust the Irish people in every county, barony, and parish in Ireland, but at the same time they will not trust

  775
  them in the matter of expenditure. I venture to challenge the suggestion that the Irish people are likely to embark on reckless expenditure. Human nature is pretty much the same in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The accusation of reckless expenditure against the London County Council has really not been justified. The London County Council elected in Conservative constituencies surely need not be defended. What has been the case with regard to parish councils and county councils? I am arguing from analogy. So far from the county councils having embarked on reckless expenditure, very few of them have put into operation all of the powers with which they have been endowed. In every Report of the Local Government Board submitted to this House since the County Councils Act and the Parish Councils Act there has been a constant complaint that the councils would not put into operation a great many powers they ought to have exercised with regard to allotments, district nurses, and a number of other questions. What is the reason? The reason is that when you come to an expenditure of rates it is not a party question anywhere. Take a parish in Wales when it is a question of expenditure on allotments or the building of a bridge or a county asylum. You will find that the farmers, who may be all Liberals, will look first to the rates, and will be most careful about the expenditure. Now, why should it be different in Ireland? You have exactly the same class of people to deal with, and I find that farmers as a rule, so far from being extravagant, are exceedingly parsimonious. The honourable Member for South Molton, who has had experience of boards of guardians and district councils, knows how exceedingly parsimonious they are with regard to the rates, and how they cannot be got to spend money on the poor, where it ought really to be spent. Poor rate expenditure is, of course, a matter very relevant when we come to consider the question of paying half the poor rate of Ireland. The farmers in Great Britain have not done their duty in the matter as regards poor law expenditure. They are always cutting down and fining in every possible way the expenditure upon our poor law system, and my own opinion is that if the boards of
  776
  guardians in this country were to do their duty, and exercise to the full the powers entrusted to them by the present poor law system, there would be less necessity for the crying need for an old age pension system. Why should it be different in Ireland? You are assuming you have in Ireland, on the one hand, a number of small tenants, and on the other hand the landlords. That is true with regard to a small portion of the country in the west. You have a small number of cottars whose rates are paid by the landlord, but if you take by far the greater portion of Ireland you will find you have to deal with the same conditions as in Scotland or Wales. You have got farmers who look upon every penny of expenditure of the rates. They have got to do it. Times are so bad in all parts of the country that £1 extra on the rates is a very serious matter. Therefore I say that so far from there being any danger of reckless expenditure, it would be to the interests of the farmers and ratepayers of Ireland, quite as much as to the interests of the landlords, to keep expenditure down. It is true that in the case of a landlord £100 or £150 may be added to his rates, but in the case of a small struggling crofter, whose rent is £10 or £15, an extra 10s. on the rates would be, practically, quite as serious. Therefore there would be every possible inducement for economy. Judging from experience in this country, I do not think that, as a rule, the county councils elected by the people are more extravagant than the old privileged bodies. I do not make any charge of reckless extravagance against the old bodies, but at the same time they indulged in unnecessary expenditure. I know of two or three prisons which were built in Wales at enormous expense, which were not necessary. I say that these new bodies are not more likely to be extravagant. I think they will be far more cautious than the old quarter sessions and grand juries in these matters, and consequently there is no occasion for any apprehension on the part of the Government that these new bodies will incur any very extravagant expenditure if you entrust them with the full powers which the grand juries have. But I object to this grant on another ground, Mr. Speaker. I object on the same

  777
  ground as that upon which we protested against the grant in England. We fought that grant strenuously when the Agricultural Rating Bill was proposed in this country. Why did we do so? We objected to this system of doles to particular classes of the community. What is this proposal? It is practically a proposal to handover a sum of £700,000 or £800,000 a year to one particular class of the community. We have already given £2,000,000 a year to the landlords in England. We have given hundreds of thousands to the landlords in Scotland. That is what the Agricultural Rating Bill has done, and the experience of the working of that Bill proves it. Of course, if you relieve the burden upon land, as I shall point out, to the extent of £2,000 or £2,000,000, you are bound to increase the value of that property by the sum by which you relieve it from expenditure. What difference does it make whether you lighten a burden by way of mortgage or rent-charge, or by way of the rates? Let me take the charges for any particular piece of land, say an estate of £1,000 a year. Say £200 would be rates, £300 would be mortgages, £500 would be tithe rent-charge. If you pay half of the rent charge, or tithe rent-charge, one half of the rates, what difference does it make? So long as you lighten the burden upon the land you increase the capital value of that land to the extent that you relieve the burden upon it. I say this is a system in order to benefit one particular class in Ireland, and it is not the most deserving class. I do not wish to make any attack on the landlord class in Ireland, but I am sure most honourable Members who have read the history of Ireland, and honourable Members who have watched the course of legislation in this House during the last 30 years, must have come to the conclusion that a good many of the numerous difficulties which Governments have had to confront in Ireland have been attributable, to a very large extent, to the action of the landowners in that country, and I say we ought to protest against a sum of £750,000, when we cannot find money for old age pensions in this country—we ought to protest against a sum of three-quarters of a million being voted in order to relieve the burdens of one class of the community.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable Member move?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Mr. Speaker, the financial arrangements of this Bill form an essential part of the scheme of the Government. As such they were accepted not only by honourable Members on this side of the House, but by honourable Members from Ireland and also by representatives of the Front Opposition Bench, when the policy of the Government was first announced last year. Nobody knows better than the honourable Member who has just spoken that if this clause were to go the rest of the Bill would go to pieces. Sir, that being so—I am glad to hear the honourable Member recognises the truth of what I have said—holding the views that he does, the honourable Member ought to have voted against this Bill on the Second Reading. Sir, it appears to me that for a small section of this House to raise this question again and again on the Committee stage and on the Report stage—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Five times.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Is nothing less than a downright waste of time, and I must express the hope that the friends of the Bill will not add to that waste of time by taking the trouble to answer the arguments of the honourable Member and his friends, as the House has decided over and over again.
  MR. CHANNING: I shall be glad, despite the somewhat fervid injunctions of the right honourable Gentleman, to say a few words in support of this proposal to omit the clause, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary gave me the proper cue for the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper. He says that, practically, without this clause the Bill would go to pieces. Well, that is exactly the charge we bring against this Bill. We agree with what was said very eloquently by the honourable Member for East Mayo in the first discussion on this clause. We believe in the policy of the late Lord Randolph Churchill, the honest and straightforward policy of giving to Ireland, freely and without

  779
  question and without qualification, on equal and similar terms, the rights of local self-government that were about to be given to England; and that was an intelligible policy, a just policy, and a policy which placed honourable trust in the people of Ireland. Well, my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo denounced the Government for their betrayal of the principles enunciated by Lord Randolph Churchill, and for the way in which they had handled this subject. He said—
  "We are called upon now, instead of having a free and unqualified gift of local self-government, to pay a bribe, or blackmail, or whatever it may be called, of £300,000 or £400,000 a year, which ought to have gone into the pockets of the people of Ireland, through a Measure which ought to have been freely given to the people of Ireland."
  That is exactly the ground upon which I shall challenge the policy which the right honourable Gentleman says is the financial corner-stone, the very principle and beginning and end of this Bill. Now, perhaps the most staunch supporter of these proposals, the thorough and chief defender of everything in the Bill in this connection, is the honourable Member for Derry City. He said £300,000 a year to the landlords is a large amount, but it is a cheap price to pay for the practical relief given under this Measure. Yes; but who pays? According to the calculation of the Financial Commission, and according to the calculation which the honourable Members from Ireland adopt, one-eleventh of this £300,000 that is to be paid to the landlords to accept this Bill is to be paid by the people of Ireland, and the remaining ten-elevenths by the British taxpayer. But if the figures given the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are to be taken as correct, that we have reached a stage at which the contribution of Ireland is only one-thirty-sixth, we are in the position, as representatives of the British taxpayers, to challenge 35 times more strongly this question than the Irish Members can. We have to pay the giant's share of this compensation to the landlords. Well, now, Sir, we challenge this proposal, and we say that this Bill, if brought in, should have been based on pure and honest principles, and not on the principles of blackmail and bribery to any class to swallow
  780
  any proposals of the kind. We say this is a disgraceful misappropriation of public money, and we say we have the right to denounce these proposals, as most insulting to a large section of the United Kingdom. The Chief Secretary referred to what passed last year, when these proposals were first foreshadowed. I really think any Member of the Government should be ashamed of what passed on that occasion. The First Lord of the Treasury, when he threw over the Bill of that year and brought forward the present proposal, distinctly based it upon this ground, that local government could not be granted to Ireland without giving a guarantee beforehand to the landlords of the country that they should not be taxed out of existence by the authorities to be created. The honourable Member for Derry based his justification of these proposals definitely on the ground taken by the Financial Relations Commission, and he used words to this effect. He said—
  "Great Britain owes to Ireland some three millions a year; that the Irish are overtaxed to that very extent. We do not expect, human nature being what it is on this side of the Channel, that you are going to pay it back all at once, but we mean to take it as we can get it bit by bit. I do think we get back the smallest bit in the form proposed by the Bill."
  I challenge these proposals, therefore, on this ground, on the ground chosen by the honourable Member for Derry himself. He must take the justification of his proposal distinctly on the result of the Financial Commission's Report. I should like to know what practical man, after listening to the admirable speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury the other day, after reading the article contributed by, I believe, Sir Alfred Milner to the Edinburgh Review last year, can any longer believe in the fiction of this enormous sum due to Ireland under the financial relations inquiries. The contribution of Ireland, if you make allowance for these contributions to local expenditure in Ireland, and the large proportion of revenue raised in Ireland which is now applied to the local expenditure for local purposes in Ireland, balancing the revenue raised in Ireland that is contributed to Imperial purposes, is £1,980,000, or one-thirty-sixth part of the Imperial revenue.

  781
  After this Bill is passed it will be reduced to only £1,365,000, or 1–52nd part of the Imperial revenue. Well, then, if you are going to treat the question on the 1–20th basis, adopted by the Irish Members—I believe some of them even go further—if you take the 1–20th scale only, instead of paying £1,980,000, Ireland ought at present to be contributing £3,500,000 to the Imperial revenue. I say the whole of the case has been demolished by further investigation on that subject, and by the speeches we have listened to here, and therefore there is no justification whatever on that ground. Well, there is, perhaps, a justification, and a limited justification, in the relatively higher rating in Ireland. I do not think any practical man who has looked into the question would seriously deny that. But, on the other hand, what is the amount of the grants from the Imperial Exchequer which are devoted to the relief of local taxation in Ireland? They amount to over £2,000,000, and, with the Estate Duty Grant and the local licences, they amount to nearly £2,500,000. The grants in aid from the Imperial Exchequer for local purposes in Ireland amounted last year to £2,037,398, and the estate duties and licences under the Acts of 1888 and 1894 and the Act of 1890 amount to nearly £2,500,000. And, as the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out in 1888, Ireland was treated very generously with regard to the adoption of the scale of 80, 11, and 9; that the actual sources of revenue, so far as they were raised in Ireland, are actually considerably less than the 9 per cent. which was granted to Ireland under these terms. Now, Sir, I do admit that Ireland is a very poor country. In one of the speeches on this matter the other day, it was treated as a question of strict justice. I would prefer to treat it as a question of generosity. I would gladly welcome proposals, wise proposals, such as came from the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, for the further development of education, agriculture, and all the higher public works among the Irish people, by a large expenditure of public money. That is a wise and sensible and intelligent policy, but the policy of this Bill, which we challenge and ask the House to reject, is a policy of simple bribery and corruption, and a policy which, I think, is an unjusti-
  782
  fiable assignment of public money to the subvention of a single class in Ireland. I ask, why should money go simply to the landlords and the agricultural ratepayers in Ireland, and not to the whole of the Irish people? Why should not it go to relieve the Irish labourers and the populations in the towns as well as the landlords and tenants in Ireland? These financial proposals which we are told are the very corner stone of the Bill, have evidently arisen from the desire of the Government to gratify their friends, the "English garrison" in Ireland. They have seized upon this opportunity after many years waiting. We know that long ago, when the late Mr. W. H. Smith dealt with this question, and brought it before the House in the first proposals of the Ashbourne Act, he distinctly justified those proposals on the ground of compensation to the landlords in Ireland for the losses imposed upon them, most properly and most justly, in my opinion, by the Irish Land Acts. That is the basis of the whole proposal from beginning to end. The Bill, as far as this clause is concerned, is, in the first place, a compensation Bill for Irish landlords, and, in the second place, it is a blackmail Bill, to enable this Government to carry out this policy, and at the same time to gratify their friends. I challenge the whole of this policy. I think it is a disgraceful misappropriation of public money, and I think it is a disgraceful disregard of the true principles upon which local self-government should rest in Ireland, as in every other portion of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, I support the motion.
  MR. STRACHEY: I think it would have shortened the Debate if the Chief Secretary had treated the Amendment with more consideration, and had attempted to defend this clause. In fact, he has not attempted to defend it at all. All he said was, if this clause goes the Bill goes. That is an admission made by the Chief Secretary on the part of the Government that this Bill has very little merit indeed, apart from the enormous bribe he is prepared to pay for the passage of this Bill. Practically it comes to that. We know very well that when a Conservative Government produced a Local Government Bill for

  783
  England it was not then found necessary to give an immense bribe in order that the Government might pass that Bill for England. They passed it on its merits, and on the principle that it was right and just to give local government to England. Well, I ask the House, why is it that the Government on this occasion do not come down here and say exactly the same? "We consider it right and just to give the right of self-government in local matters to the Irish people, and we give it on the same lines and the same principles as those in the English Bill." Not a bit of it! They have practically told us to-night—and I hope that the country will take note of this at the various by-elections which will doubtless take place very soon—that this Bill is based merely on the system of giving a gigantic bribe to enable it to pass safely and smoothly through this House without any trouble and difficulty to themselves. I think the Chief Secretary really was rather hard when he twitted us upon the small number opposing this Bill in Committee. Of course we all know that the Liberal Members sitting for English constituencies are a small number in this House at the present moment, but the great bulk of Liberal Members sitting on this side of the House did support the various proposals to cut down the financial grant in this Bill. As shown in the first Division that was taken on this very question, 107 Liberal Members voted, in the second Division 96, thus showing that the Liberal Members who were present, with few exceptions, did vote against the proposal of the Government. So I think the right honourable Gentleman somewhat unfairly twitted us upon our small numbers on that occasion, and all the more so when we remember that during the last General Election the Liberal Members who were seeking re-election were accused by Tory candidates untruly throughout the length and breadth of the country that they were anxious for, and would vote for, a Home Rule Bill that would impose additional taxes upon the working classes of this country. I ask, Mr. Speaker, what is the Government doing at the present moment? They are passing a Home Rule Bill of a kind which will impose additional taxes
  784
  on the working men of this country, as they have already admitted. What particular reason is there why this large grant should be given in aid of local taxation in Ireland? It cannot be because at the present moment Ireland unfairly pays too large an amount of local taxation, because only the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his speech as regards the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland that respecting the grant in aid from the Imperial Revenue Ireland did very well indeed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that of every pound spent in local services in Great Britain the rates bore 10s. 6d. as against 9s. 6d. from Imperial sources. On the other hand, Ireland for local purposes receives from the Imperial Exchequer 13s. 6d. in the £, while she only contributes by her local rates 6s. 6d.; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer drove that home, and made that all the stronger, when he said that in addition Ireland under the legislation now before the House would receive an additional £615,000 a year. So that Ireland at this moment, apart from this grant of £615,000 a year, is receiving an undue proportion in aid of local taxation. The injustice is made even greater from the point of view of the English taxpayer, because Ireland at this moment receives an unfair and undue share in the pound for relief of local taxation, and now, in addition, the Government come down to this House asking further for over half a million of money in further aid of local taxation in Ireland. I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why it is the Government do this, except on one ground, which has not been denied in this House by supporters of the Government, that they do this as a bribe—hush-money it has been described—for the easy and safe passage of the Bill. That may be very well from the point of view of the Government, and of Members supporting the Government, but how they can expect Members sitting on this side of the House, representing English constituencies, to be satisfied to allow the Government to carry their Bill by means of bribery I cannot understand. Therefore I think we have every right, and it is our duty, to protest very strongly against this system of carrying the Bill

  785
  at the expense of the taxpayers whom we represent in England.
  MR. GODDARD: I should like to say a few words, by way of adding my protest against this clause and supporting the Amendment for its omission. I do not do it at all on the ground of the question of financial relations. I prefer not to enter into that matter at all. I do it on the ground of objection to the growing system of subventions to local authorities out of the Imperial purse; and what this clause in effect does is to add another to the modifications which have been made of late years in the methods of levying rates. When we remember, Sir, that, apart from the Education Acts and the grants which are given to local authorities under those Acts, we are now sending down to local authorities something like £12,000,000 a year, I think it is really not too much for us to take up a little time in protesting against a system like this. The difference between this Act and the English Act is very remarkable. When the Act of 1896 was passed for England the alleged necessity for that grant was agricultural distress, but here the reason assigned is altogether a different one. The reason assigned here is really that the landlord should be safeguarded before these popular councils are granted to the people of Ireland. What the Government, in effect, says, is this: the people of Ireland are not to be trusted with local government, and therefore, before giving them these privileges which are now enjoyed by the people of England, we will withdraw from them power over that part of the rates which is paid by the landlord, and to do this we, by this clause, pay the landlord's rates. "That is what the Government, in effect, is saying. Well, the unanimity amongst the Irish Members in favour of this Bill is, perhaps, not remarkable from one point of view; but look at it from another point of view. There is evidence here of a complete mistrust of the Irish people as to local administration I can quite understand the eagerness of Irish Members to get this Bill through, because to them undoubtedly it is a Bill which sets up local governing bodies in Ireland, a thing they have been wanting—rightly and justly wanting—for years, which
  786
  they have asked for in every possible way, and have taken every opportunity of making their wants known here. But there is another side to this. Besides the mere setting up of local authorities in Ireland, I think it should be looked at from this point of view: that it changes the basis of rating. For 57 years in England personal property has been exempt from rates, and that by Statute. I believe I am right in saying that in Ireland personal property never was rated. Now, such subventions as are given in this case really do this; they substitute Imperial money—that is, money raised by income tax, money raised by the consumption of beer and tea, and tobacco, and the like; money, in fact, which is raised on personalty—what this clause does is to substitute money raised on personalty in place of money which has hitherto been raised and charged on immovable property. That is the serious position, to me, of these subventions, of these grants in aid. It is getting behind the old Act, which said it shall not be lawful to rate personal property. It is a method of getting round that, and, in fact, making personal property pay what has been paid, and ought to be paid, and has been decided by legislation should be paid, by real estate. As I said before, to my mind that is not at all a question of proportion. As to whether the amount is large or small, I do not go into the question from that side in the slightest degree, because, from my point of view, the injustice falls on the Irish peasant just as much as it falls on the English peasant. The Irish peasant will have to put his hand into his pocket just as the English peasant will, in order to pay his quota, as he pays into the Imperial money bag, to relieve the landlords of their rates. That is, in effect, what this clause does, and it is what it seems to me should be pointed out in the most distinct way. It is giving a tremendous advantage to the landlord. There is a distinct three-fold advantage even here to the landlord. In the first place, he is immediately relieved of his rates. He no longer has to pay these rates which, he has been paying. In the second place, that relief of his rates must add enormously to the capital value of his land, as has already been pointed out. There cannot be two questions about that.

  787
  This is land which will come into the market undoubtedly at some time or other. There is land hunger in Ireland. These people will want to buy their land. When they do buy it, they will have to pay for it an increased sum, on account of the passing of this Bill. On account of this grant now being made by the clause to the Irish landlords, they will have inevitably to pay a larger sum for the land which they buy. That is the second advantage. It is a very large one. It is difficult to estimate; if you capitalise this grant by, say, 20 years' purchase, it becomes an enormous sum of money. Well, then, there is a third advantage, and that is that it frees the landlord from any future increase in rating, on account of improvements, that may be effected in the country. Now, I think that is a very serious thing when you come to look into it. It is perfectly clear. Take a holding what at the present time pays £20 a year in rates, and in the course of a few years some workhouse or other public institution will be erected; the amount required for that holding might be £25 a year. All that the Imperial Exchequer will pay will be the half of the £20—that is, £10—and the extra £5 will have to be found by the ratepayers who remain. That is the effect of it. You cannot get away from that fact. The landlord is relieved from his rates, and therefore any improvement that is effected out of the rates must necessarily fall more heavily upon the other ratepayers who remain. I think I see another difficulty. Suppose the landlord is an occupier, and sits in these local bodies. He can vote in these local bodies moneys for the expenditure of rates which will improve his property. He can vote for them as an occupier. That property, if agricultural land, will not bear this increased expense. That is the effect. I think it is a little hard for the Secretary for Ireland to say that We are wasting time in bringing such things as this to the notice of the House, because, after all, it is not a mere question affecting the Irish people. It is a large question for them, I quite admit, but it is a question also affecting the English people, and we have a perfect right to voice the feelings of the English people on this subject. Holding
  788
  such views as I do on the effect of these subventions, no one can charge me with inconsistency in this matter. I have always taken every opportunity of voting against these grants in aid, and I always shall do the same thing.
  MR. LOUGH: It will not be well for those who are friends of the Bill to prolong the Debate, but I personally feel so much ashamed of the position which my friends here have taken having regard to their past conduct upon this matter, that I cannot help saying a few words on the subject. My honourable Friend who introduced the Debate seemed to found his argument chiefly on the position taken up by the honourable Gentleman the Member for East Mayo. The great thing that we must remember with regard to this matter is that it is not a new subject. It was discussed in 1896 and in 1897, and we are now in 1898 discussing it again, with all freshness as if we had never seen it before. Well, the point is this, Sir, that it was the Liberal Party who, in 1896, took it up and pressed it upon the Government, and the Liberal Party, by one of its most distinguished leaders, who advocated it in 1897, and there was not a single Liberal Member on these benches behind me who voted against it on that occasion. My honourable Friend who has just sat down said he never missed an opportunity to vote against this proposal. He missed an opportunity in 1897. Not a single Liberal Member voted against it. My honourable Friend here has laid the chief blame at the door of the honourable Member for East Mayo, so far as there is blame. He said the honourable Member for East Mayo had described this as a flagitious waste of public money.
  MR. DILLON: And I say so still.
  MR. LOUGH: Well, Sir, I am going to quote the honourable Member for East Mayo. On the 13th May, 1896, when the English Bill was before the House, the honourable Member for Derry City moved, an instruction that the grant should be extended to Ireland in the form in which it is now extended.
  MR. DILLON: No; extended to Ireland in the form in which it is applied

  789
  to England. At the time I was opposing the English grant, and I did oppose it night after night.
  MR. LOUGH: Well, I will enable the House to judge in a moment. The honourable Member's present description of the Bill is that it is a flagitious waste of public money. In 1896, Sir, he went into the question of Irish rates. He mentioned that in Carlow they were 1s. 11d., in Clare 2s. 11d., and he said that the poor rate in Ireland averaged at least 2s.; that is not quite accurate—and, adding county cess, he arrived at a local rate of 4s. in the £.
  "It was evident, therefore, that if the amount of rates on agricultural land in England was only 2s. 4d., the local burdens in Ireland were far heavier. If this Bill were extended to Ireland, that country ought to receive nearly half as much as England had received under the grant."
  That is what the honourable Member for East Mayo said in 1896. I think, with submission, that, having said that in 1896, and having appealed for half the amount that was given to England, when the Government do give £730,000, which is about half the amount—when they give it to pay the half of these rates which he had described as so large—he is going a little too far when he describes it as a flagitious waste of public money. The second Debate was in 1897, on May 6th. It is curious how all these Debates come on in May. In this Debate again the honourable Member for Derry City moved a similar Motion—that opportunity should be taken to extend the grant to Ireland—and on that occasion we had the opinion of the Liberal Party very fully expressed, and with perfect unanimity. Let it be remembered that every Liberal who was in the House voted in favour of the extension of this grant to Ireland, and none against it.
  MR. CHANNING: No!
  MR. LOUGH: The honourable Member for Northampton says he did not vote in favour of it. I did not say he did. I said that every Liberal who was present voted in favour of it, and no Liberal voted against it. It makes rather a strong case against the Liberals
  790
  who are now opposing it that the Liberals raised the point in 1896 and in 1897, and now that the Government are granting it in 1898 a certain number of them go against the proposal brought forward. I think, really, this is greatly to be regretted. For my part I have not changed my mind. I draw a great distinction between this grant and the grant that was given to England, and for the very reason that I stated when opposing the English Measure, I think the English grant was a very unjust grant, because it was given to a very small section of the community at the expense of the rest. I think that the Irish grant is a very righteous grant, because it gives much needed relief to the great bulk of the community of an agricultural country. Well, the position is a perfectly tenable one. I think the grant is right for another reason. It is right because the rates in Ireland are at least twice as high as the agricultural rates in England. You have 4s. in the £, against 2s. 2d. In Ireland the rates are increasing, year by year; in England they are diminishing. An honourable Member asks me how much they are. I will give the House the figures. The local rates 60 years ago in Ireland were 2s. 6d. per head of the population. The local rates to-day are 17s. 6d. per head, so they are seven times as high as they were 60 years ago. Therefore a far better case exists for applying this grant to Ireland than that which existed for applying it to England. There is another reason. This House is responsible absolutely for these high local rates in Ireland. This House has never allowed publicly elected local authorities to control these affairs. It was this House, and even the Liberal Party, which imposed the heaviest burdens on the Irish localities. It was, for instance, the Liberal Party which constructed the worst light railway in Ireland, under which alone there are, in some districts, now rates of from 2s. to 5s. in the £ to be paid. Another example may be found with regard to workmen's houses. There are taxes for every workman's house erected in Ireland, under a scheme that was devised from these benches, of £5 per house per annum, levied on the locality. Think of that burden on

  791
  30,000 houses—houses of poor workmen—levied on the locality for the construction of those buildings under legislation devised from these benches. It was all done with the best intentions, no doubt, but it did not work; and it would be a most mean and shabby thing for this House, when passing a Bill giving authorities in Ireland power to manage their own local affairs, to do what my honourable Friends here ask it to do—to say, "Let them have the authority, but let them have no monetary assistance for the obligations which we have thrown upon them." This House is responsible in Ireland for local rates as well as Imperial taxes, and it is one of the measures of justice which this House should undertake to relieve the burden of these rates.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: But what about the landlords?
  MR. LOUGH: I am asked what about the landlords? There is not a word about the landlords in the clause. I will deal quite fairly, if my honourable Friends will allow me. There is a clause, I believe clause 45, in which a certain undue share is allocated to the landlords. That is the clause to vote against. I voted against it last time, because I think it is an unfair allocation of the money. My position is perfectly consistent. What does this clause do? It simply does the same thing in Ireland that you have already done in every other part of the United Kingdom. If the principle is wrong, my Friends are still more wrong in voting against at now. If the principle is bad, we voted against it before it was applied, but when you have carried out that principle in five-sixths of the United Kingdom, it is a monstrous injustice to deny it to the other sixth. There has been a good deal of criticism on these benches of the fight honourable Gentlemen who lead the Liberal Party. I venture to say, in this matter, they have set a good example to their followers. They have not taken any part in this unfair opposition, as I think, to the grant proposed. My right honourable Friend the Member for Montrose, and the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, and I believe, the Leader of the
  792
  Opposition, did not see their way to take any part in this opposition against the grant, and I do think that after the action of Liberal Members in 1896 and 1897 what is being done now is very ill-judged indeed. For myself, my position is clear. Having voted as I did in 1896 and in 1897 I cannot turn round now, as some of my Friends will. I stick to my opinion. I regard it as a most just Measure for this House to undertake, and I firmly believe that if my Friends think they will carry any further extension of Local Government in Ireland without also considering the financial basis upon which the new Constitution will rest, they will be disappointed again as they were before.
  MR. DILLON: The Chief Secretary for Ireland made a very wise and pertinent appeal to the friends of the Government proposal not to address the House, and certainly I think the speech to which we have just listened is full confirmation of the wisdom of that course. I have reason to say, "Save me from my friends." I had no idea of intervening in this debate, and I shall not occupy the attention of the House for more than a few minutes. I only rise to say, in respect to the utterly uncalled-for and absurd attack made by the honourable Member for Islington upon me, having taken no part in this debate, and not intending to take any part in this debate, that I withdraw not one single sentence that I have uttered in connection with this grant. I claimed that this grant should be given to Ireland when the Agricultural Ratings Bill was before the House on this ground, that although I objected to the whole principle of these subventions set up here in England, if you give the grant to the agricultural interest in England you are bound to give a similar grant on the same lines to the agricultural interest in Ireland; but I never said then, I do not say now, that you are bound to give that grant in an unfair way, on different lines to those on which you gave it to England, so that the landlords should collar about £300,000 a year more than they would get if the grant had been on similar lines to the English grant. My position throughout the whole business is this. The Government, with an enormous majority, said to the Irish Members last

  793
  year, "On these terms you can have local government, and if you won't consent to these terms, you will not get local government." We considered the price, and, although we did not like it, and we did consider it a very scandalous way of treating the Irish people, we said we were prepared to pay the price, heavy and bitter as it is to pay, rather than wait for an indefinite period for this great measure of emancipation. These were the terms upon which we agreed to support the Measure, and I have supported it, and I shall support it on the present occasion, because we agreed to support it last year. It was a bargain which was forced upon us by the irresistible power of a Government with 150 majority. I think they ought to have given us this benefit, as they promised to do, without exacting this price, but as they decided to exact this price and have told us repeatedly that we must pay the price or do without local government, I said then, as I say now, we are willing to pay the price, although we deeply resent this treatment.
  MR. MADDISON: Mr. Speaker, as one who has availed himself of every opportunity to support similar proposals to that now before the House, I take the opportunity of saying a word or two. I listened with great regret to the speech of the honourable Member for Islington. It was so totally different to the feeling which pervades the great working class constituencies of this country. He appeared to me to be, and not only appeared, but I am quite certain he was, a far more extreme advocate of the landlord party than the honourable Member who has just sat down, who is the responsible leader of the Irish Nationalists. Mr. Speaker, what I want to say is this: that I support the Motion before the House as a hearty Home Ruler. I would not like there to be the slightest suspicion that in anything I might do there was any antagonism to the demands of the Irish people for the largest possible form of self-government, and, Sir, if these proposals, if this money, had been given to those wretched, starving Irish peasants on the west coast, although it might go against some of my views on political economy, I would support it
  794
  heartily, because there is a real need for it. But, Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member for Islington, who has spoken on behalf of the Government and of the landlords, did not give us a single argument in his speech to combat the views of my honourable Friend, who sits on my right, to show that this money would not go largely to the landlord class; that, having gone to the landlord class, it would not have the effect which the honourable Member pointed out. Now, Mr. Speaker, I also join with my honourable Friend in objecting to these doles to particular classes. I am a working man, and I know that amongst the working classes of this country there is an enormous amount of poverty, and also a temptation placed upon men like-myself to listen to arguments and to demands which would cause us to come to this House and make, on their behalf, certain demands which, for the moment, would appear to benefit the working-classes. Now some of us, at great risk, have set ourselves against what we believe to be false and pernicious doctrine, but how are we to do it, Mr. Speaker, if Her Majesty's Government are giving large sums of money to one class of the community, or largely one class, and to the very class which, putting any controversy aside, at any rate, is the most comfortable, lives the best, and is, at all events, most removed from penury and want. Now, Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency composed almost entirely of the working classes, and of small tradesmen, and I feel it to be my duty here to-night to raise my voice as a humble Member of this Houser against the unjust method of giving public money—which these poor men in my division will help to contribute—when there are large numbers, not only of the working classes, but of tradesmen, who find the greatest possible difficulty in paying their rates. Now, I may be very dense—honourable Members opposite seem to agree, and I am not going to controvert that—but, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to see why, if you give to-Irish landlords, whom Irish Members have told us, and for my part have demonstrated, have been the great curse of their country—if you are going to give half or three-quarters of a million of money in order that they may receive

  795
  their rates—or rather they will be relieved from the necessity of paying their rates—I have no answer to the small shopkeeper in my constituency who demands that I shall stand up in this House and ask to have his rates paid for him. [Cries of "Divide! Divide!'] Well, Mr. Speaker, I am putting a point of view that honourable Members will have to meet in a place where they do not cry "Divide, divide!" and I venture to say that these English constituencies, and London constituencies as well, will relieve some honourable Gentlemen of the possibility of crying "Divide, divide!" Now I have only to say in conclusion that this proposal to omit this
  clause does, without doubt, endanger the Bill, according to the right honourable Gentleman but, Sir, those of us who have in our humble capacity done our best to give Irish Members not this sort of restricted Local Government but a full Measure, Mr. Speaker, which will satisfy not a number of grabbing landlords but the national spirit of Ireland—a spirit, I venture to say—
  MR. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move—
  "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes 172; Noes 39.—(Division List No. 202.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

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

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Field, William (Dublin)

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

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

  Finch, George H.

  Lorne, Marquess of

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

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hunts)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose

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

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

  Flannery, Fortescue

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fry, Lewis

  McKillop, James

  Bousfield, William Robert.

  Garfit, William

  Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

  Brassey, Albert

  Gedge, Sydney

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Milton, Viscount

  Butcher, John George

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Monk, Charles James

  Carew, James Laurence

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  More, Robert Jasper

  Carlile, William Walter

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Morris, Samuel

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mount, William George

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

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Murnaghan, George

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Newdigate, Francis A.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Howell, William Tudor

  Pinkerton, John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Crilly, Daniel

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

  Purvis, Robert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Kenrick, William

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kenyon, James

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Daly, James

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Knox, Edmund Francis V.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lafone, Alfred

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lawrence Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

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

  Rutherford, John

  Saunderson, Col. E. J.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

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

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'r, N.)

  Sidebotham J. W. (Cheshire)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Wylie, Alexander

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wyndham, George

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Stock, James Henry

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

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

  Williams, Col, R. (Dorset)

  NOES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Brigg, John

  Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Strachey, Edward

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Lambert, George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  McCartan, Michael

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Woodall, William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Evershed, Sydney

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Maddison.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Hazell, Walter

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Question put accordingly—
  "That the words 'as from the' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 33.—(Division List No. 203.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Crilly, Daniel

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Balcarres, Lord

  Daly, James

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith- (Hunts)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Dorington, Sir J. Edward

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Bentinck, Lord H. C.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Brassey, Albert

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Howell, William Tudor

  Butcher, John George

  Evershed, Sydney

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

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

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

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

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Finch, George H.

  Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kenrick, William

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Kenyon, James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Flannery, Fortescue

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Charrington, Spencer

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Knox, Edmund Francis V.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Flynn, J. C.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fry, Lewis

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-Corn.)

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

  Garfit, William

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

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

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Crean, Eugene

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stock, James Henry

  Lorne, Marquess of

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Lough, Thomas

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Sullivan, Donald (Westmeath)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pinkerton, John

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

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  McCartan, Michael

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Tollemache, Henry James

  McKillop, James

  Purvis, Robert

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Valentia, Viscount

  Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

  Richards, Henry Charles

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Milton, Viscount

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Monk, Charles James

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

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

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Morris, Samuel

  Rutherford, John

  Wilson, J. W. (Worc'r, N.)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Wodehouse, Edmd. R. (Bath)

  Mount, William George

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Wylie, Alexander

  Murnaghan, George

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wyndham, George

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

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  NOES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Billson, Alfred

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Strachey, Edward

  Brigg, John

  Lambert, George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Woodall, William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Channing and Mr.Lloyd-George.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Hazell, Walter

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  And, it being after Midnight, further proceeding on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.

  TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
  This Bill was read a second time, and committed.
  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION (BORDER COUNTY COUNCILS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again.
  MUSSEL FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  This Bill was read a second time, and committed.

  METROPOLITAN COMMONS BILL.
  This Bill was read a second time, and committed.
  House adjourned at 12.30.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the clock.

NEW PEERS.
The LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The LORD PLAYFAIR—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10).
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
DEVONPORT, PLYMOUTH AND STOKE TRAMWAYS.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
LONDON BUILDING ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
Committee to meet on Thursday next.
NEATH, PONTARDAWE AND BRYNAMAN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW WORKS) BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
BURNLEY CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
The Queen's consent, and the consent of the Prince of Wales in right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 1st of July and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
BOLTON, TURTON AND WESTHOUGHTON EXTENSION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 1st of July and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on Thursday and Friday last discharged, and Bill committed.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That they adjourn this day at Half-past Two o'clock, and pray leave not to sit again until Thursday next at Twelve o'clock; read, and leave given accordingly.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That they adjourn this day at Half-past Two o'clock, and pray leave not to sit again until Thursday next at Twelve o'clock; read, and leave given accordingly.
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That they adjourn this day at Half-past Two o'clock, and pray leave not to sit again until Thursday next at Twelve o'clock; read, and leave given accordingly.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That they adjourn this day at Half-past Two o'clock, and pray leave not to sit again until Thursday next at Twelve o'clock; read, and leave given accordingly.
GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read the third time; Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
HIGHAM AND HUNDRED OF HOO WATER BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DUBLIN SOUTHERN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
KEIGHLEY CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CRAWLEY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
EAST HAM IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
WISHAW WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LISKEARD CORPORATION (WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.

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

E. Abingdon,

L. Southampton,

L. Kenmare (E. Kenmare),

L. Stanmore,

L. Welby (chairman);

Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet on Thursday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
(Leeds Order (No. 1) Opposed.)
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Middlesex County Council Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; read, and agreed to; all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH TEACHERS PENSION RULES, 1898.
  Rules under section 11 of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879; presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Proposed Amendment of the scheme relative to the efficiency of the volunteers in force under Her Majesty's Orders in Council dated 31st July 1880, 14th April 1884, etc.

  INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Return of all Loans raised in India under the provisions of any Acts of Parliament chargeable on the revenues of India outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 31st March, 1898, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, etc.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

BILLS ADVANCED.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 150.]
  LIBRARIES (OFFENCES) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment; the Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read the third time on Tuesday next.
  PHARMACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read the third time on Monday next.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read the third time on Thursday next.
  SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments; the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 151.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with and that the Bill be read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made, on the 8th day of March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 8th day of March, 1898, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read the second time; Agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.

  PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) RELIEF BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I feel that I need not detain the House many minutes in recommending it to your Lordships. The Bill requires but little explanation beyond what is given in the Memorandum, and I hope it does not require much argument to commend it to your Lordships. The clauses are all taken from the Bill, which was introduced by Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons last year, but which could not be proceeded with for want of time. There is a very general desire in Ireland that these clauses should be passed into law without delay. The Bill is almost entirely of an enabling character, and directed to supply omissions in the existing law which do not exist in England, and to give to Irish boards of guardians further powers, such as are already possessed by English boards of guardians. The first clause deals with the important matter of boarding out orphan and deserted children by boards of guardians, which it is desired to bring up to date and to place on a basis more in conformity with modern ideas. The second clause enables boards of guardians, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to provide for the teaching of workhouse children in National schools in the neighbourhood; and the third clause enables them to send children for education and training to certain schools of an industrial character where they will obtain a better training than they could possibly receive in the workhouse. The fourth clause is directed to restraining the employment of pauper children under the age of 12 years, the principle of which is already recognised both in Ireland and in England, but the existing law has been found to be insufficient to secure the object in view. My Lords, I have reason to hope that the Bill will receive the support of Her Majesty's Government,
  614
  and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I have only to say, on behalf of the Irish Government, that this Bill meets with their cordial approval and sympathy, and I hope your Lordships will accord the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

  POST OFFICE (LOCAL AUTHORITY GUARANTEE) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Moved—
  "That the Orders of the Light Railways Commissioners as submitted to the Board of Trade be in future presented to this House together with the Orders as confirmed by the Board of Trade."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the operation of the Light Railways Act, 1896, and especially to the alterations made by the Board of Trade in the Orders submitted for confirmation by the Light Railways Commissioners; and to move that the Orders of the Commissioners as submitted to the Board of Trade be in future presented to this House, together with the Orders as confirmed by the Board of Trade. It is now two years since the Light Railways Act was passed, and the first Report of the proceedings of the Board of Trade, and also the Report of the proceedings of the Commissioners appointed under the Act have been laid on the Table of Parliament, as also have the Orders which had been made by the Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade up to the end of last year. My Lords, it may be as well that I should remind your Lordships very shortly of the provisions and the effect of the Light Railways Act.

  615
  Your Lordships will remember that under the Act full power was given to the Board of Trade with regard to the railways which were described as light railways, though they were not defined, and it was laid down in the Act that an Order, when finally made by the Board of Trade, should have the effect of an Act of Parliament. I would remind your Lordships that at the time when the Bill was passing through this House objection was taken by the noble Lord at the Table, and by other peers, to the fact that there was no definition of light railway in the Bill, and that, therefore, the Board of Trade would receive absolute power to decide that anything was or was not a light railway. My Lords, notwithstanding those objections, the Bill was passed in the form in which it stood, and the result is that at the present time anything is a light railway which the Board of Trade says is a light railway, and nothing is a light railway which the Board of Trade says is not. My Lords, with regard to the other provisions of the Act, I may remind your Lordships that Commissioners were appointed under the Act, who were to make inquiries into all applications made to them for the formation of light railways. They were directed to hold a local inquiry; they were directed specially to inquire into the conditions for the public safety, and other matters of that kind, and they were to lay their Orders, which were Provisional Orders only, before the Board of Trade for consideration and confirmation. My Lords, the Board of Trade have received the power either of passing the Orders unamended, or of altering and modifying them, and then passing them, if it saw fit to pass them at all, in the final form which they would assume. Therefore, there is no means of raising any question with regard to any of those Orders before they become law. But, my Lords, although Parliament surrendered its powers in regard to light railways, it did not at the same time surrender all its interests, and therefore, when these Orders are laid upon the Table it is only natural and right that we should look into them, and see what the Light Railways Commissioners recommended, and how far their recommendations have been accepted or altered by the Board. My Lords, it may be as well that I should
  616
  state to your Lordships what were the intentions of those who framed this Act, because that alone, I think, enables the House of Parliament to form a judgment of what was intended to be a light railway, and what was intended to be the operation of the Act. Now, Mr. Ritchie, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, said that one of the main difficulties had been the expense of the requirements for the public safety enforced by the Board of Trade. He said that—
  "As regarded the requirements for the public safety, the public must make up their minds that, if they desire to have these railways, they must of themselves exercise an amount of caution, and not insist upon those elaborate precautions which, on trunk lines, where trains were running at great speed, might be necessary, but which in other countries had been abandoned where great speed was not desired."
  And he said, further, that—
  "As far as the question of public safety is concerned, the Board of Trade is empowered to deal generally in the way of modification with those requirements in their Order, and the circumstances of each case would be considered in respect of permanent way, gauge, posts, and brake power. No limitations were contained in the Bill as to any of these requirements, but the Board of Trade would have power to deal with each separate application, and the requirements which seemed to be necessary in each case."
  That was the intention of Mr. Ritchie, and Mr. Bryce, who had previously been President of the Board of Trade, entirely concurred in the propriety of those views. He pointed out that the cheapening of requirements as to the construction and working of the line were essential, and that no Bill would be adequate if this were omitted. He said that—
  "As regarded the cheapening and the dispensing of certain requirements, the Government were in the same position as the late Government—such as the strength of the staff, the provisions for interlocking points and signals. All these were matters with regard to which great economy in the construction and the working of the line might be effected. Someone had said, 'Utilitas publica, periculum privatum.'"
  I am sure that was not Mr. Bryce himself. Continuing, Mr. Bryce said—
  "There were cases where there would be a certain amount of risk, and there were level crossings where there was danger; but he

  617
  believed on the whole that the experience of this and other countries was satisfactory. In the United States they might see trains running at the speed of four miles an hour through populous districts, and children playing about, and yet few accidents happened."
  So, my Lords, both Presidents of the Board of Trade were entirely agreed that great cheapness in the construction of these railways were absolutely necessary if they were to succeed, and this was one of the essential points with which the Bill was supposed to deal. Well, my Lords, the question that we have now to ask is, in what sense has the Act been carried out, and has it been carried out in the manner which Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Bryce proposed and hoped that it should be carried out? My Lords, all that Parliament has to guide it are these Orders as they are laid upon the Table; and I must point out to your Lordships—and this is the justification for the Motion that I have moved, namely, that the Orders of the Commissioners, as submitted to the Board of Trade, be in future presented to this House, together with the Orders as confirmed by the Board of Trade—that it is impossible to tell from the confirmed Order only what the Commissioners originally proposed, and how far their recommendations have or have not been disagreed with. So long as the noble Lord who is Chairman of the Commission is on the Commission and in discharge of his duty, his mouth is closed as regards criticising any of the proceedings that may have been taken with regard to the Provisional Orders which the Commissioners have presented to the board. Well, now, my Lords, three Orders were laid on the Table in 1897, and in 1898 there had been three more—the Rinkton Order, the Lizard Order, and an Order called the Crowland Order. These are, so far as I know, all, or nearly all, the Orders for light railways proper. There have been two or three other Orders for what are really tramways in populous places, and which are not light railways properly so-called. Now, my Lords, in every single one of these Orders that I have mentioned the Commissioners were of opinion, in the first instance, that continuous brakes were not required, and in every one of these cases the Board of Trade has incorporated continuous brakes. With regard
  618
  to the Crowland Order, which is the last, there is a slight difference, because, instead of incorporating the words of the Act of Parliament of 1889, which gives the Board power at any time to insist upon continuous brakes, a specially written clause has been inserted in the Order; but, so far as I can make out from studying it, there is no actual difference whatever between that and the Order which appears generally in the Act of Parliament. Then, my Lords, with regard to the signals. In all those cases the Commissioners were of opinion that no signals were required except at places where the line joined a main line of railway. My Lords, in every case that clause of the Commissioners has been struck out, and arrangements have been made proposing signals of different sorts. Now, my Lords, I am not going to attempt to take your Lordships further into the matter, because, in the first place, there are other details which I have not been able to ascertain. I only ascertained these by asking direct questions as to matters of fact at the Board of Trade itself, and also at the office of the Light Railways Commissioners; but there may be other matters which it would be very easy to go into in detail if we were holding an actual inquiry. I think I have said enough to show to your Lordships that, in some essential principles, the Board of Trade has departed from the recommendations of the Commissioners. Now, my Lords, the next thing that one naturally asks is, by what tribunal were these alterations made, and how far were the opinions of the Light Railways Commissioners taken into-consideration, and how far were they themselves consulted as to the alterations before they were made? So far as I can ascertain, practically the Court of Appeal in this matter has been an official, generally the Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade, assisted by some of the permanent advisers, including one of the railway inspectors of the Board of Trade. My Lords, one then naturally asks, what is the expert advice which was taken, and were the Commissioners consulted? I believe that as a matter of fact their secretary was generally present, at all events after the first Order or two; but I should be very much interested to know from my noble Friend opposite [the Earl

  619
  of Dudley] whether, before these alterations were made, the matter was referred back to the Commissioners, or whether they had an opportunity themselves personally of laying their views before the Board of Trade. A case occurs to my mind, which may occur to the minds of other noble Lords in this House—an analogous case—where a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament was appointed to inquire into certain railway rates which had been made by the Board of Trade. As Lord Balfour of Burleigh, whom I see present to-night, and who was Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade at the time, will remember, he and Sir Courtenay Boyle (the Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade) were both present at the sittings of the Joint Committee. They heard all that the opponents to the rates they had proposed had to say, and, after all the evidence had been heard, the Duke of Richmond, who was chairman, I think, during the whole length of the sittings of that Committee—two or three years—asked them whether they had any remarks to make, and especially what reasons they had for having fixed upon the specific figures which they had fixed upon. Now, my Lords, I want to know whether there was real consultation in that sense in these cases. I am speaking only from general ideas, but I rather think that the Board of Trade did not hold any local inquiries when considering these matters, or, at all events, if they did, those inquiries were very rare indeed. Your Lordships will remember that, in the first instance, the Commissioners had gone down to the spot; they inquired into every detail upon the spot. They satisfied themselves as to what was required for the safety of the public. That was one of the points specially referred to them, by the Act, and the recommendations which they made were based upon full and complete knowledge of the locality, of all the facts, and of the persons interested. I should like to know what opportunity the Board of Trade had of inquiring into these matters, and of ascertaining that the Commissioners had made a mistake, and that it was better to insert regulations in the Orders different from those which the Commissioners had proposed. I wish to say one word, too, my Lords, with
  620
  regard to the expert evidence—the expert assistance which the Board of Trade had. I believe—of course, I speak liable to correction—but I believe they were assisted by the ordinary inspectors of the Board. I should be the last person to say a single word in depreciation of the efforts of those inspectors, and the great advantages which they have conferred upon the public when dealing with railways; but, at the same time, your Lordships must remember that an inspector, who has all his life been dealing with railways intended to run at a high rate of speed, and which are very large and important undertakings, is hardly the best person to turn his attention to, and to express an opinion upon, these light railways, which are confessedly for quite different purposes, and which were made and intended to be worked in quite a different way. And, moreover, the Act is a little hard on the inspector. The Act says that upon the Board of Trade is cast the duty of looking after the safety of the public. When the official engineer of the Board of Trade looks into this matter, it is only natural that he should observe that if there should be any accident at any time the first person whose action would be called in question would be the inspector of the Board of Trade, and therefore it is natural also that he should place considerably more value upon absolute safety to the public than upon the requirements such as I have read to your Lordships, which the President of the Board of Trade said were intended in light railways. Now, my Lords, that is all I have to say, but it seems to me this is a question whether this Act is going to succeed or not. In what sense are you going to work it? Are you going to work light railways as the promoters of the Bill intended they should be worked, or are you going to make them into undertakings which are very safe to the public, but which, at the same time, cannot be at once absolutely cheap and absolutely safe in the sense that the ordinary large railway is? My Lords, it may be said, of course, that the insertion of these clauses about continuous brakes do not necessarily imply that continuous brakes will be insisted upon. That is very true. But then you must make allowances for them in the

  621
  capital of the undertakings. The capital of the undertakings has purposely been kept very low for the excellent reason that the Commissioners have been anxious not to raise the capital to such a figure that it would pay any promoter to advocate the making of a light railway with the intention of reselling it at a profit. For that reason the capital sum has been kept at the very lowest figure possible. If you introduce more of these conditions, you increase the capital, and the result will be, I am afraid, that the success of your Act will be greatly imperilled if you continue to work in this way. My Lords, I beg to move that the Orders of the Commissioners, as submitted to the Board of Trade, be in future presented to this House, together with the Orders as confirmed by the Board of Trade.
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of the Motion of my noble Friend. I think you will all admit that light railways are very different from ordinary railways, and therefore should not be subjected to the same conditions. The speed of light railways is considerably less, and they generally run by the side of the highway. Commissioners were appointed two years ago by Her Majesty's Government to carry out these matters, and they take considerable trouble in the performance of their duties. I am well acquainted with the work that has been performed since my noble Friend Lord Jersey has been chairman. The Commissioners, at considerable sacrifice of time and trouble, hold local inquiries on the subject and hear evidence; and then after due deliberation the Commissioners make a Report, and what is the result? The Board of Trade, it may be, makes small Amendments, but the result of it all is that these schemes are hung up indefinitely, partly owing to the want of further capital, but directly owing to the obstruction of the Board of Trade. I do think, if I may be permitted to say so, that it is a hard case to appoint gentlemen to do this work, voluntarily, at a considerable sacrifice of time, and then that their decisions, after local inquiries, are set aside, overruled, or, at any rate, delayed by the action of the Board of Trade. I
  622
  trust, therefore, that your Lordships may be disposed to accept the Motion of my noble Friend.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, my noble Friend, in the course of the speech which he delivered, said this was a question whether the Light Railways Act was to be a success or not, and, so far as I could follow him, his whole contention was that in administering the Act, and in considering the Orders which had been submitted to them by the Light Railways. Commissioners, the Board of Trade have been too drastic and too stringent with regard to the arrangements for public safety which they have inserted into the Orders that he referred to. My Lords, I think that the Board of Trade perfectly agree with my noble Friend that, in a matter of this kind, care has to be taken not to strangle or stifle enterprise by unnecessary safety arrangements. But I think, that if the effect which both of us wish to avoid had in reality taken place the result would have been that fewer Orders would be now applied for by people throughout the country than heretofore. It may interest the House, in this connection, to know that although the public, for the last six months, have been in possession of information upon this subject, and have had knowledge of the requirements as to safety which the Board of Trade have insisted upon, the Orders, instead of decreasing, have increased; and we have up to now been asked to sanction more than 1,000 miles of light railways throughout the country. Therefore, my Lords, at any rate up to the present, I think we may take it as tolerably certain that the action of the Board of Trade has not stifled or strangled the promotion of enterprises of this kind. Now, my Lords, my noble Friend specially referred to two classes of arrangements that had been made by the Board of Trader—firstly with regard to continuous brakes; and, secondly, with regard to signals; and he has complained that in every case the Board of Trade have insisted on brakes being attached to the rolling-stock on those lines where the Commissioners have not thought them necessary. My Lords, in answer to that, I cam say this—

  623
  that in many instances we have been told at the Board of Trade, by the promoters themselves, that no matter whether the Board of Trade insisted on continuous brakes or not they intended to use them; and for this very good reason, that without continuous brakes the manager of the line, no matter whether it is a light line or a heavy line, runs such an enormous risk of accidents, and of criminal proceedings in case of accidents, that for his own safety, and for the safety of the directors and shareholders of that line, he wishes to take every precaution in his power to avoid an accident. And, in addition to that, my Lords, it must also be remembered that in many cases of this kind the rolling-stock is transferable—that is to say, the same rolling-stock is used on both heavy and light lines which connect with each other, and therefore the company, being desirous of interchanging the rolling-stock, would fit continuous brakes to the rolling-stock whether they were insisted upon or not. So much for that point; but in defence of our action I wish to point this out to the House, and that is, that in administering an Act like this, which has but recently been passed, when we have not yet on either side sufficient experience to enable us to judge with any certainty how these matters will work out in the future, the Board of Trade, being saddled with direct responsibility with regard to public safety, must, I think, lean rather more to stringency than to laxity in these matters. The noble Lord has quoted from the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade in introducing this Bill, in which he said that requirements insisted upon in respect of heavy lines would not be insisted upon in regard to light lines. That is perfectly true, and that course has been followed in considering these Orders. As the noble Earl is perfectly aware, there are many arrangements for public safety, such as complicated systems of block-working, interlocking of signals, fencing, gating level crossings, etc., which Parliament has insisted upon in respect of heavy lines, but which have been, to a tremendous extent, modified in the case of these light lines. For instance, we have dispensed to a great extent with fencing; we have dispensed to a great extent with
  624
  gates across level crossings; and, instead of insisting upon a complicated system of interlocking of signals and block-working, we have only asked that some communication should exist between the various stopping places, and that some simple arrangement such as that which is used in Ireland should be put up by which the confliction of two signals can be avoided. In the Crowland Order, to which my noble Friend referred, our expert advisers informed us that there was nothing to prevent two signals being in opposition to each other. We only desire that some arrangement should be made by which that is impossible. I am told that a system such as the one we have insisted upon is by no means expensive, and is one which has been tried and found successful upon the light railways in Ireland. Therefore I do not think that the noble Earl is quite correct when he says that after giving the public the idea that we were going to be very lenient in these matters, as foreshadowed in the speeches which he quoted, we have not carried out that policy, and that we have insisted upon the requirements which are necessary upon heavy lines. My Lords, I would also, before passing from this subject, remind your Lordships that in the Light Railways Act of 1896 there is a clause which specially puts upon the Board of Trade the responsibility of looking into these matters. The Act says—
  "The Board of Trade shall consider each Order, specially with regard to questions of public safety."
  Therefore, my Lords, although we have every respect for the able work which the Light Railways Commissioners do, although we have every respect for the views which they put before us, we do not think that we can divest ourselves of the direct mandate which Parliament has imposed upon us to take every precaution against any possibility of accident to the travelling public. Now, my Lords, with regard to the point which my noble Friend raises as to the relationship between the Board of Trade and the Light Railways Commissioners. My noble Friend seems to think that the Board of Trade, in altering these Orders, did not take into consideration for one moment the views which the Commissioners had

  625
  formed from information derived at local inquiries or other sources. In that my noble Friend is in error. In the first place, on nearly all these cases one of the Commissioners has been to the Board of Trade before that body has heard the Order, and has talked to one of the officials with regard to it. In addition to that, there is always, at these inquiries, one of the secretaries of the Light Railways Commissioners present, who instructs the official who may be hearing the case as to the reasons which have induced the Commissioners to make such and such a provision; and therefore, my Lords, it seems to us that it cannot be said that we have ridden in any way rough-shod over the opinions of the Commissioners, or wantonly changed an Order they had prepared. I might say that in this connection I have had a talk with Lord Jersey, who, as your Lordships know, is chairman of the Light Railways Commission. I regret that my noble Friend has brought on this Motion to-day, when Lord Jersey is unable to be present. But this I can say, that Lord Jersey has expressed to us, in the fullest terms, that although there are differences of opinion as to technicalities between the Commissioners and the expert advisers of the Board of Trade, he is perfectly satisfied with the relations between the Board and the Commission, and has no complaint at all to make against the way in which those who have to administer the Act have worked together. But in order that there should be no possibility of misunderstanding upon this point we have arranged, in addition to the safeguard to which I have alluded—in addition to the presence of the secretary—that in future, upon any occasion on which it may seem to the Board of Trade necessary to alter the Order upon any important point, a Commissioner should be asked to wait upon the Board, and to go fully with them into the reasons which have induced the Commissioners to take a particular course. But, my Lords, my noble Friend has quoted the instance of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, and he has said that the procedure adopted there ought to be followed in this case. I think the two cases are totally dissimilar. In that case my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland and Sir Courtenay Boyle attended the sittings of
  626
  the Commission as officials of the Board of Trade. They were appealed to upon questions of rates, and they answered upon these subjects. That was a perfectly proper course, but in this case my noble Friend asks that a perfectly independent body, such as the Light Railways Commissioners, should attend the hearing of cases in a totally different court; in other words, he is asking that the judge of a lower court should sit upon the bench in the upper court.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: That is not what I asked.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Then I misunderstood the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: All I intended to ask was that the decisions of the Light Railways Commissioners on matters of principle, such as continuous brakes, should not be altered without their having been thoroughly consulted.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: The noble Earl quoted the illustration of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, in which the officers of the Board of Trade were present. I do not quite, therefore, see, if he did not intend that the Light Railways Commissioners should be present at the Board of Trade, the relevancy of his illustration. It is obvious that that could not take place; it would be undignified and improper. As the noble Earl does not mean that, I pass it over. In any case, I hope we have done in the past everything we could to consult the Commissioners, and in future we are going to invite a Commissioner to be present on all occasions when an important alteration is to be made. I do not think I need go further into this subject. I am sorry that my noble Friend has raised this question at the present time, because, as I said before, the Act is yet too young for us to be quite certain of how these matters will work out. But if my noble Friend had waited until the time came when the whole procedure laid down by the Act had to be reviewed, I think that, perhaps, would have been a better time to have discussed the procedure under the Act; but still, as he has raised it now, I hope I have said enough to assure the House that we do strongly feel the disadvantage of hampering enter-

  627
  prise with any unnecessary restrictions, and that so long as we can adequately discharge the responsibility which Parliament has directly laid upon us in this matter we are perfectly ready to meet both the promoters and anybody else who might take their view of the case upon the most reasonable terms possible. I think, my Lords, I omitted to refer to the Motion with which my noble Friend concluded his remarks. I cannot help thinking that there would not be very much advantage in laying these Orders upon the Table, for this reason—that in the first place, the Order would then be sanctioned, and therefore, the laying of it upon the Table would not affect the final decision with regard to it; and, beyond that, it would be impossible for the House to derive proper information from the draft of the Order and the completed Order. It would be impossible for the House to know, without further information, what changes that might be noticed between the two Orders had been agreed to, what changes had been put in at the direct request of the promoters, and what changes had been made by the Board of Trade, in contravention of the views of the Light Railways Commissioners. And therefore, my Lords, if my noble Friend would agree to withdraw his Motion, and give the Board of Trade a little longer time to attempt to satisfy him upon that point, we should be glad.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In answer to what the noble Earl has said, all I want is some information that I can understand. As it is, this Order, as modified by the Board of Trade, is laid on the Table of Parliament, and there it lies, but Parliament is kept in absolute ignorance as to how much of it belongs to the Board of Trade, how much of it belongs to the Commissioners, and what has happened at all. It is quite true that great power has been given under this Act to the Board of Trade, and that what the Board of Trade does has the force of an Act of Parliament, but I should like to have some means of judging what the Board of Trade have done, and what the Commissioners did. If my noble Friend will suggest to me any other way by which I can get that information, I shall be perfectly ready to accept it, but, as it
  628
  is, this Order, as now laid on the Table, is to me only double-Dutch.
  Question put.
  Motion negatived.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but at the same time I wish to point out that we are kept entirely in the dark by the Board of Trade.

  FISHERIES DEPARTMENT.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is correct that the Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade, with its assistant secretary and experienced sea fisheries inspector, has been abolished, and the interests of the sea fisheries industry placed under the charge of the Assistant Secretary of the Harbour Department, with an inspector of Scotch salmon fisheries as chief inspector; and, if not, what are the new arrangements proposed with regard to the vacancy caused by the retirement of the Assistant Secretary of the Fisheries Department? My Lords, I have put this question on the Paper in order to get some definite and accurate information with regard to the future position of sea fisheries at the Board of Trade. Those who are connected with the fishing industry, and those who have taken a great deal of interest in it, have been very much surprised and very much dismayed at the report which has gone forth during the last few weeks that the Fisheries Department is about to be abolished, and that it is either going to be merged or combined in the Harbour Department. I have had a great many communications from official representatives—well-known and recognised representatives—of the trade, stating that they look upon this step, if it is true, not only as a retrograde step, but as a step in direct contravention of the Resolution of the House of Commons and disastrous to the trade. I would remind your Lordships that it is now 30 years ago since the fishing industry was rescued from a back room in the Harbour

  629
  Department, and combined with the shipping industry in the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. Since that time the sea fishing industry has developed in an extraordinary manner, and I see it is stated by the Sea Fisheries Inspector of the Board of Trade that over £7,000,000 worth of fish were landed on our shores last year. It was during the time we were connected with the Marine Department that the Acts of 1883 and 1887, the regulations which now obtain in regard to the fishing industry and the North Sea Fishing Convention, were brought forward and carried; and it was only because the shipping industry developed to the same extent that it became necessary for the Board of Trade to consider the question of what was to be done, as it was no longer possible to keep these two great industries in the same Department. The whole question was thoroughly discussed and the trade consulted, and the result was that Sir Edward Birkbeck moved, in the House of Commons, in the Parliament of 1886, a Resolution, with full permission of the Board of Trade—and that Resolution was carried—to the effect that there should be a separate Sea Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade, with an Under Secretary to look after the interests of that industry. I believe, but I am not quite sure, that the following year the Sea Fisheries Department was set up, and that the Salmon Fisheries Department, which had up to that time been under the Home Office, was combined with the Sea Fisheries Department, but if I am wrong with regard to that the noble Earl who will reply on behalf of the Board of Trade will correct me. From that time up to the present we have got on most amicably with the Board of Trade. We had, in the first instance, as Under Secretary, Mr. Swanson, Who had been chief inspector of sea fisheries under the Marine Department. He was succeeded by a very able man, Mr. Barrington, who has retired this year. They had as Chief Assistant Mr. Malan, who has had practical experience in this matter; for, in addition to a very long connection with the Board of Trade, he was for five or six years engaged in one of the largest sea fishing ports in this country, putting into force the regulations they wished to try. We are now told that the separate Sea
  630
  Fisheries Department is to be abolished, although it appears on the Estimates of the present year, with the Votes for the Under Secretary and the two inspectors [Mr. Malan and Mr. Fryer], and that it is to be combined with the Harbour Department, under the present Under Secretary of Harbours. We are further informed, in a paragraph which appeared in official type in the Times, and other newspapers, a short time ago, that a Mr. Archer, who is, I believe, the salmon fisheries inspector in Scotland, has been appointed to be chief inspector of the Harbour Department. Well, that simply means this—that the two prime officials of that Department will neither have the slightest knowledge or experience of sea fisheries. The sea fishing industry is on a very different footing from the salmon fishing industry. It very often happens that we are compelled to put forward the Foreign Office and the Admiralty in order to protect the interests of the sea fisheries, and it is necessary, before they can do anything, no matter how great the emergency, that they should be put in motion first by the Board of Trade. We all know that correspondence between Departments is not one of the best or most rapid modes of procedure, and therefore it is necessary that those who look after the interests of the sea fishing industry in the Board of Trade should have the interests of that industry at heart. I will not detain your Lordships further. I only hope that the noble Earl will be able to give some explanation which will be satisfactory to the trade, but if it is only the explanation given in the other House I am afraid it will not be satisfactory.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I do not think a very long explanation will be needed to satisfy my noble Friend. I think he has misunderstood the facts of the case if he imagines that the Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade has been in any way abolished. That is not so. What has happened has been that the Harbour Department has been merged with the Fisheries Department, and that both have been put under one Assistant Secretary instead of, as before, under two Assistant Secretaries. The chief inspector of fisheries has now, therefore, more freedom to attend to his technical work and to his expert advice

  631
  than before when he was hampered by secretarial duties, which kept him in London, and which could be perfectly well performed by an Assistant Secretary. There Las been no diminution of staff; indeed, instead of the interests of fishing being in any way disparaged by this change, we think that, on the other hand, it will derive great advantage. My Lords, my noble Friend has alluded to Mr. Archer's qualifications for this post. We have every reason to believe that Mr. Archer is a most able and experienced gentleman. He has performed, I believe, his duties in Scotland to the utmost satisfaction of the Scotch Office, and we have every reason to believe that he will be able to discharge the work that is now entrusted to him in the most satisfactory and efficient manner. It is, perhaps, impossible to find a man who combines as great and as complete a knowledge of one class of fishing as of another. There is no doubt that the salmon fishing question, to which my noble Friend has alluded, requires greater study and greater technical knowledge than the sea fishing question, but we have no reason to suppose that a gentleman who has capabilities sufficient to master the difficult questions connected with salmon fishing, as Mr. Archer has, will in any way show want of efficiency in a branch of the subject far less technical and requiring far less study.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I am bound to say that the reply of the noble Earl will not be satisfactory to the trade. The fact remains that they are to be put under a gentleman who has given all his attention, all his life, to harbours, and the second in the Department is to be a gentleman who has not had anything to do with sea fisheries. The whole question will be, no doubt, brought up on the Votes in the other House.
  The subject dropped.

  BIBLE TEACHING IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord President of the Council whether he can inform the House on what authority
  632
  or on what evidence the Vice-President of the Council stated publicly that the teaching of the Bible in Board schools in large towns was far superior to the teaching of the same subjects in Voluntary schools in the same places? My Lords, the state of the case is this: a little while ago the Vice-President of the Council publicly made a statement that the Biblical instruction in Board schools—not the doctrinal instruction, but the instruction in the contents and history of the Bible—was so far superior to that to be found in Voluntary schools that there was no comparison possible between them. Now, my Lords, I have two things to say about that. I would be glad if the Lord President would be kind enough to notice them. In the first place, I should like to point out that ever since 1870 the Education Department have given up all investigation into the religious instruction in these schools. Her Majesty's inspectors, neither in Voluntary schools nor in Board schools, look at the religious instruction. All that they have to do is to see that the time-table is kept, and that the proper time is given over to the subject in accordance with that timetable. But they do not examine the children, and they have no direct means of knowing what their religious knowledge is like. Now, then, when this system was first introduced of setting aside all examinations of the religious instruction, it was felt as a very serious loss to their own cause by all those who are very much interested in that part of education, because, my Lords, there can be no question at all that the fact that this was one of the subjects in which Her Majesty's inspectors examined gave to it a very much greater importance in the eyes both of teachers and learners. The children felt that it was an important matter since the Queen's inspector looked into it and the teachers felt that it was a very important matter, because, coming under the supervision of Her Majesty's inspector, it affected his Report upon the work of the teachers, and this advantage was entirely lost when the change was made. However, no complaint was made on that subject. It was thought that the promoters of Voluntary schools would be able to provide inspection of their own, which in some degree might make up for

  633
  the loss which they had sustained; but, my Lords, it seems to me very hard, while we lose the advantage of that inspection, that we should, nevertheless, be subjected to criticism, and that, while inspectors have not authority to examine into the subject, nevertheless the Department, through the Vice-President, appears to form an opinion, and publish that opinion to the world. Moreover, the Department is necessarily looked upon by the world at large as very much led in the matter by the opinion of the inspectors, and by their reports upon what they find in the schools, and the inspectors, it seems to me, have no right to make reports when they have no right to make examinations. I venture to think it is stepping out of the province of the Department altogether to make criticisms of this kind. Even if the criticism was perfectly sound, I should still protest against its being made on a matter which does not come within the cognisance of the Education Department at all. Of course, the Education Department has a general supervision of all that is done in the schools, and as regards the moral government of the school that is a very important matter indeed; but as for the doctrinal instruction and the instruction on religious information, that seems to me to be altogether outside the scope of the Department. My Lords, this, of course, I should say, even if I believed that the statements made by the Vice-President of the Council were perfectly accurate. I am not at all prepared to deny that there is in Board schools exceedingly good teaching, and that there is in some Board schools exceedingly good teaching in the religious department of the instruction. I have no doubt about it. I have said it, and other bishops have said the same; but it is a very different thing to say that there is to be found in different Board schools very good religious instruction, and to say that, taking it generally, the religious education in Board schools is altogether superior to that given in the Voluntary schools. I do not know how the comparison has been made. All the evidence that I can get together points entirely in the opposite direction. I have made, naturally enough, such inquiry as I could make; our own diocesan inspectors altogether question this statement, and say
  634
  they do not at all acknowledge that the Biblical instruction in the Board schools is better than the Biblical instruction in the Voluntary schools, and their own accounts of the results of their examination are such as to show that the Board school must, indeed, be something very different from what schools are generally, if the religious instruction in them stands above the kind of religious instruction in the schools of the Church. There are not many modes or means by which we cant actually compare the two, but one or two things have struck me particularly. This is one that was brought before me in a letter I received this morning from the diocesan inspector of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where he says that he comes across the children educated in the Board schools and the children educated in the Voluntary schools, in the Sunday schools. He has to inspect the Church Sunday schools, and he says that he finds there that the children of the Voluntary schools are very superior to the children of the Board schools. That, of course, is no more than his opinion, but it is borne out by several others, who write to the same effect, and fully borne out by the accounts given in the Reports of our owns diocesan inspectors everywhere about the character of the religious instruction in the Voluntary schools. I hope, therefore, that the Lord President of the Council will be able to explain in some satisfactory manner how it is that the Education Department are stepping out of their province in this way, and also on what authority and what evidence the Vice-President bases such a criticism on that with which he has, properly speaking, nothing to do.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the history of the incident to which the most reverend prelate has just called attention is, I think, a somewhat curious one. Its origin arose in a speech which was made by the Vice-President of the Council in the other House of Parliament, in opposing a Motion for the universal establishment of school boards. In the course of the Vice-President's speech on that occasion he said that he had always admitted that the education of most of the Board schools in the large towns was excellent,

  635
  and he incidentally observed that—but perhaps I had better quote his own words. He said—
  "He was not at all certain if it came to be a real test that they would not find that the facts and history of the Christian faith were better taught to the children in the Board schools."
  The Vice-President went on to say that he had always held that opinion as to the education given in the Board schools in the larger towns, but that the case in the rural districts was altogether different, and that, in his opinion, in the rural districts the country clergyman was a far better and more competent school manager than the farmers or tradesmen of whom the school board would be composed, and under whose management the education given was generally extremely inefficient. Well, my Lords, that statement of the Vice-President does not appear to me to be of a very aggressive or irritating character, but it appears to have called down upon him the severe animadversions and criticisms of some supporters of Voluntary schools, and especially, I believe, of some of the Church papers, and the Vice-President accordingly felt it necessary, in making a speech in moving the Education Estimates, to make some reference to the criticism to which he had been exposed. Of course, the most reverend prelate perfectly understands that any opinion which has been expressed by the Vice-President upon this subject refers solely to the Bible lessons which are given in common both in Voluntary and Board schools, and the Vice-President did not attempt to express or convey the slightest opinion upon the comparative value of that Bible instruction which was common to both classes of schools and the doctrinal instruction which, of course, could only be given in Church schools. I think I had better give the explanation of his statement in the Vice-President's own words. He has written to me a statement. He says—
  "The statement was an expression of my own personal opinion, as the context of my speech shows, and was not based upon any official or other authority."
  [Ironical cheers and laughter.] I think, in answer to those cheers, I ought to say
  636
  that every noble Lord will see, who has carefully studied the statements to which the right reverend prelate has called attention, that the Vice-President never represented them in any other light.
  "The evidence" (the Vice-President proceeds) "upon which my opinion was formed consisted partly of a comparison of the staffs of the two classes of schools, partly of personal communications with inspectors, teachers, and others, and partly of my own observation. Since I have held my present office I have seized every opportunity in town and country of visiting schools when I could do so without my official character being known. Personal experience, though unreliable as the sole source of knowledge, is a good corrective to opinions derived from the statements of others. One of the best tests of good teaching is the interest which the children take in the lesson given, and this is not very difficult to discern. When I determined to hear and see for myself the religious teaching in Board and Voluntary schools in London, I asked Mr. Ernest Gray, M.P., to select me a fair sample of each. It was impossible for me to visit a sufficient number of schools to make an average for myself. The Voluntary school selected was St. Matthew's, Westminster. This is what the head teacher is reported by the National Society to have said of it at a public meeting—
  "'This school in all its departments had invariably been awarded the highest grant by Her Majesty's inspector. The diocesan inspector had classed it as "excellent," and he was proud to say that the managers had staffed and equipped it as well as any Voluntary school in London.'"
  "The Board school, which I visited on the next day, was in Marlborough Road, Chelsea. The staffs of the two schools, as given me by the Education Department, are as follows."
  Then the Vice-President quotes certain figures, with which I need not trouble your Lordships, and goes on to say—
  "My own convictions and the policy which, under your direction, I have while in office carried out are, as you know, strongly in favour of the maintenance of Voluntary schools. The disadvantages under which Voluntary schools are placed in great towns where they have to compete with Board schools are not in any way the fault of their managers and teachers. To them I have never attributed any blame. I think them, on the contrary, deserving of the highest praise for the extent to which they make the means at their disposal serviceable to the cause of education. But the difficulty of providing sufficient incomes for Voluntary schools in great towns does, in my judgment, seriously menace their prosperity and affect their efficiency, and should, in their interest, be faced and overcome."
  Well, my Lords, on this point I have only further to say that, in my opinion, this

  637
  statement to which the most reverend prelate has called attention was not entirely a gratuitous statement on the part of the Vice-President, seeing that it was made in consequence of a very guarded and unaggressive statement of opinion made on quite a different occasion, having been severely called into question. I can only say, as the Vice-President has said, that it is the personal opinion of my right honourable Friend and his personal opinion only, and your Lordships may rest assured that it is, under the administration of the Education Department, no part of the duty of the inspectors either to inquire into or to formulate criticism upon the religious instruction given in the Board schools. I have only further to add, on this point, that the opinions expressed by the Vice-President do not relate, and do not purport to relate, to the religious instruction given in the schools of the country generally, but solely to those in the metropolis; and I do not see that this expression of opinion on the Vice-President's part need have given rise to any very great annoyance or irritation on the part of managers of Voluntary schools. I waited a little while, after the most reverend prelate sat down, to hear if any other observations were likely to be addressed to your Lordships upon the speech which has been called in question. I am, of course, perfectly aware that not only the point which has been referred to on this occasion, but several other points contained in that speech, have excited a great deal of public attention; have caused apparently some disquietude to the supporters of the Voluntary schools, and a proportionate amount of satisfaction to the supporters of Board schools. I have read, of course, that speech with a great deal of attention, and I confess that I do not find in it any traces of that hostile spirit towards the Voluntary schools which has been imputed to my right honourable Friend. The speech is evidently that of one who is anxious—sincerely anxious—to increase the efficiency of both Board and Voluntary schools, and of one who is deeply impressed by the difficulties under which elementary education suffers now, and which render the result obtained from it inadequate in comparison with the enormous expenditure incurred upon it. My
  638
  right honourable Friend commented on a great number of obstacles which, in his opinion, impede the progress of education. Among them were the early age at which children leave school, their irregular attendance during their school period, the inferiority of Voluntary schools in large towns, generally the inferiority of schools, Board or Voluntary, in rural districts, and the want of a sufficient number of trained teachers. Several of those obstacles can only be dealt with by legislation, and the Government have proved, by the Bill which they introduced in 1896, their desire to deal with some of those obstacles. That Bill would have raised the age of exemption from attendance of children at school from 11 to 12 years, and would have provided a more efficient organisation for education in the rural districts. That Bill, however, was defeated mainly by the efforts of those who are now loudest in approval of the Vice - President's strictures. The Bill which was passed by Parliament last year was intended in some degree to redress the inferiority of Voluntary schools in towns, to which my right honourable Friend referred. The proposal embodied in that Bill, to give to schools in urban districts a larger proportion of the grant in aid, was most strenuously resisted by those who are now loudest in applauding the Vice-President's comparison between the efficiency of Board and Voluntary schools in towns. The speech of my right honourable Friend appears to me to have been intended to enforce three points, not one of which, so far as I can see, is in antagonism to the interests of Voluntary schools. In the first place, he desires to raise the present age of exemption. That, as I have said, is a principle which already has received the approval of the Government, and has been embodied in a Measure, and which, if it could be carried into effect, would equally benefit Board and Voluntary schools. In the second place, he desires to see a better organisation of schools in rural districts, not for the management of schools, but for the support and assistance of schools, both Board and Voluntary—a Measure which, if carried out, would relieve Voluntary schools in rural districts from the danger to which they are now exposed of being supplanted by Board schools. In the third place, my right honourable Friend advocated, as he

  639
  always has done, the giving of power to local authorities to afford some assistance to Voluntary schools from the rates. As I have said, two of these principles have been adopted by the Government, and I believe are generally acceptable to all the supporters of Voluntary schools. The third of them—that of assistance to Voluntary schools from the rates—has been very fully discussed, and, although it was not adopted by the Government, and although the Government are still of opinion that it would be inexpedient, and would not be a real or permanent good to the Voluntary schools themselves, still, it is a principle that was most strongly urged by the warmest supporters of Voluntary schools in many parts of the country, and the advocacy of such a Measure cannot, in my opinion, be deemed hostile to the present Voluntary schools. But in enforcing these points my right honourable Friend has dwelt upon deficiencies which he sees in our existing system, and especially those affecting Voluntary schools, in a manner which appears to have alarmed, and to some extent irritated, their supporters. It may be that some of the statements of my right honourable Friend may be open to question; it may be that different inferences may be drawn from certain facts from those he has drawn. For instance, the irregularity of attendance to which he adverted does not appear prejudicially to affect Voluntary schools in comparison with Board schools, On the contrary, the statistics prove that the attendance at Voluntary schools is somewhat better than in Board schools, and I think that, although my right honourable Friend is able to produce a large number of instances in which the attendance is miserably bad, and in which the authorities evidently fall short of their duty; yet, on the whole, I think my right honourable Friend has perhaps taken an unduly despondent view of the state of attendance in the elementary schools. It is now 81½ per cent. of the number on the books. The Department, I am informed, consider that a reduction of 12½ per cent. for unavoidable causes is not an unreasonable reduction; therefore, though striking instances to the contrary may be found in certain cases, taking the average attendance throughout the coun-
  640
  try, it is only 6 per cent. below that which the Department consider to be a satisfactory attendance. As to the inferiority of Voluntary schools in large towns, my right honourable Friend was, I think, careful to point out that that inferiority was due to no fault of the managers themselves, but solely to the inadequacy of their resources. He pointed out, and I think rightly pointed out, that the Act of last year only partially redressed that inequality of resources, and that if the subscriptions should fall off that partial relief would disappear. He referred to what he termed an ominous drop in the subscriptions. I wish that my right honourable Friend had pointed out that that ominous drop had taken place before the Act came into full operation, and that it was a drop from the previous year, in which the very highest amount of voluntary contributions which had ever been raised was obtained by the abnormal claims made on the supporters of Voluntary schools. But the danger which he pointed out is a real one. No doubt, if the effect of the Act of last year should be that the supporters of Voluntary schools should in any degree relax their efforts, it will be impossible, considering the competition to which they are exposed from rate-aided schools in large towns, for them to hope to continue with efficiency without further assistance. We have as yet not had time to form an opinion as to the working of the system of association brought into existence by the Act of last year; but, so far as we can see, we have reason to believe the system is working well, and the Department have every reason to hope that the object of that Act will be attained, and that the assistance given will be applied, as it was intended it should be applied, to promoting the efficiency of the schools, while voluntary subscriptions will not continue to decline, but may rather be expected to increase. There is only one other point in the speech referred to which appears to have given some pain to those who are interested in education. The Vice-President appears to have aroused a considerable amount of indignation by a quotation he made from a report of one of the inspectors, in which that inspector said that the farmer and the squire were no friends to education.

  641
  My Lords, I do not deny that I regret that an assertion so wide, so vague, and of so sweeping a character should have been made by any official in the service of the Department, and I regret also that the assertion should be repeated in an official statement by a representative of the Education Department. If a statement such as that is true in any degree—no doubt there may be certain districts in which it may be true—it is a statement which is absolutely incapable of proof. That it is not universally true we know from our own experience, for it is within our knowledge that whatever may be the opinion of the country gentleman of England as to the value of education to the agricultural labourer, there is probably no class, as a class, that has done more for the cause of elementary education than country gentlemen, or have done it at a greater pecuniary sacrifice. In justice to Mr. Rankine, the inspector whose report has been quoted from, and to the Vice-President, it is only right to say that indifference to education or hostility to education was not imputed by them solely to squires and farmers. Mr. Rankine went on to say that the labourers are, a rule, absolutely indifferent to the advantages of education for their children, and as labourers are the parties chiefly and primarily concerned, certainly, until a different state of things exists and a different state of public opinion obtains in rural districts, I think it is impossble to expect that any great improvement will be obtained. There is a passage in the report by Mr. Rankine which follows that which has been quoted, and which, I think, might be usefully added. Mr. Rankine said almost immediately after the words quoted—
  "The weakness of our system of education is that it does not work itself thoroughly into the national life. It is still too much an institution imposed by legislative enactment. The love of education for its own sake is wanting."
  These observations go very nearly to the root of the question. That weakness is not a weakness that can be remedied by premature attempts at legislation, or to impose burdens either on parents or ratepayers which they consider, perhaps mistakenly consider, are already almost too heavy to be borne. My Lords, I think I
  642
  have dealt with the principal points in the speech which has called forth so much attention, and has alarmed and irritated managers of Voluntary schools. I think I have been able to show that, whatever the opinion your Lordships may hold as to the views expressed by the Vice-President as to the want of efficiency in our system of education, especially in Voluntary schools, the criticisms which he has made were not made in any spirit of hostility to that branch of schools. It has not been alleged, and I do not think a single instance can be alleged, in which the administration of the Department by my right honourable Friend has in any degree been biassed against Voluntary schools, or by any opinion he may hold as to the efficiency of that system. My Lords, with this explanation, I will conclude by assuring the most reverend prelate that, as to religious instruction, the Department have not the slightest intention of calling upon their inspectors to officially express any opinion, and that the observations from the Vice-President were entirely and solely the expression of his own personal opinion.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I do not trespass upon your Lordships' time in the position which, up to a short time ago, I had the privilege of holding, as Chairman of the London School Board, but I address your Lordships as an ardent supporter of our system of Voluntary schools; and as such I beg to tender my most sincere thanks to the right reverend prelate for the initiation of this Debate, and to assure him that I think he will receive the hearty thanks of all those who have the good of Voluntary schools at heart, for having extracted the opinion which has just been expressed by the noble Duke. There is one person, above all others, whom I should like to congratulate. I should like to congratulate the Vice-President of the Council on the fact of his good fortune in being subordinate to a chief who has shown such loyal and chivalrous feeling in defence of his subordinate. I am afraid the speech the noble Duke has made will not carry the same conviction to the lovers of Voluntary schools as it will carry to the mind of his subordinate. I know, myself, from what I have heard, and from expressions

  643
  of opinion in another place, that no speech of recent date has caused such heart-burning, and has carried such dismay to the minds of some of the most devoted supporters of the Prime Minister at the last election, as the speech of the Vice-President which has been referred to, and which the noble Duke has so gallantly defended. I confess I should have liked to have seen the noble Duke take a totally different line. I should have liked to have heard him explain how it was that his subordinate was permitted to give expression to what he called his personal opinion. If I were a Member of the House of Commons, or if I were one in the country who read the statements made by the Minister who represents the Education Department in the House of Commons, I should imagine that that man who represented his chief in the House of Commons was giving vent to the opinion of his chief, because he was merely the mouthpiece of his chief; and I assure your Lordships that in the country it is firmly believed that the opinion which emanated from the Vice-President, and which we now hear was of a personal character, was the view held by the President of the Council, and by the other Members of the Cabinet. I cannot for a moment believe that such is the case. That part of the country with which I am associated returned, at the last election, a vast number of Members to Parliament to support the Prime Minister and his policy, and a great number of them owe their return to the fact that the present Government, when in opposition, pledged themselves to do what they could to benefit the Voluntary schools, to make them as efficient as possible, and, so far as they could, to put them on an equal footing with Board schools. That was a very important factor in the last General Election, and I think it would be hard to ask supporters of the Government to face their constituents who have elected them on the pledges given, and to explain this speech of the Vice-President of the Council in the House of Commons. My Lords, the Government, we can say, have certainly redeemed their pledges, and have endeavoured to benefit the Voluntary schools so far as laid in their power. I confess myself, as one who has practical experience of the Voluntary school
  644
  system, that I should have been glad to have seen the Government benefit them to a greater extent, but that they have benefited them is shown by the Report which emanated from the Board of Education, and that the results have been satisfactory are also shown by that Report. I was only this afternoon looking through the speech delivered in the House of Commons by Mr. Cripps on this subject. He referred to the fact that the Vice-President of the Council did not call attention to the Report of his own Department, showing that the Act of last year had more than carried out all that was expected of it. That document expressed satisfaction with the result obtained by the Association of Voluntary Schools, with the zeal and discretion shown by the governing bodies, and with the reasonable spirit in which the school managers had co-operated. The success which had attended the administration of the Act had (it said) been shown by the absence of friction. I am glad to notice that the noble Duke apologised for that part of the Vice-President's speech, in which, quoting with considerable glee, if I may say so, from the report of Mr. Rankine, he said that the squire and the parson were no friends of elementary education. That was a gratuitous insult to the squire and to the parson. I have practical experience of this matter. I conduct my own schools myself with the aid of the clergyman. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the efficiency gained is as high as it can be, and that is entirely due to the fact that the squire, the parson, and myself do all in our power to maintain the efficiency and the proper conduct of our schools. I think a more gratuitous insult could not possibly have been levelled at the squire and the parson by one who was speaking as the representative of the Education Department. I thank the noble Duke for having apologised for that part of the Vice-President's speech; otherwise I do not think the Prime Minister would find the squire and the parson supporting him at the next General Election with the ardour with which they supported him at the last election. I am at a loss to understand what it is the Vice-President of the Council requires. Does he wish to repudiate the whole system of Voluntary schools? He certainly has thrown cold water on that system and on

  645
  the efforts of the Government to benefit and maintain the position of Voluntary schools. Therefore, I should like to know what it is he does want. If he wants to abolish the system, the ratepayers of the country will not thank him for the extra taxation which would be involved, and an act of greater injustice could not be perpetrated. The noble Marquess below me made a great speech at Preston on education, and anything more contradicting that speech than the speech of the Vice-President of the Council could not be imagined. How are we to connect that speech of the noble Marquess with the speech recently delivered by the Vice-President, and which is now entirely repudiated by the Lord President of the Council? It is somewhat difficult to understand how far Under Secretaries are allowed to introduce their own personal views into Parliament. We have been told that the Vice-President spoke simply on personal grounds, but how are we to know when he is representing his chief and when he is representing himself? For instance, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs might make a speech of an unauthorised character which might embroil us in war, before the noble Marquess at the head of the Government had an opportunity of contradicting that speech in Parliament. I think it is quite time that those who are subordinate in office should understand their position. They should recognise that they are Under Secretaries, no matter what they call themselves, and that they are only the mouth-pieces of their chief. I sympathise with the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council in the difficult and chivalrous task he has performed to-day, but I cannot help my mind going back to 1891, when the Lord Privy Seal, then Secretary of State for India, had the somewhat difficult task to perform of repudiating his Under Secretary in the House of Commons. The Under Secretary had made a speech which was known as the "Poppy-head" speech, in the case of Manipur. That Under Secretary is the same gentleman who has been so gallantly defended to-night by the noble Duke. My Lords, the views I have put forward with regard to the question of Voluntary schools will, I think, commend themselves to the minds of all those who hold, as I do, a feeling of admiration for, and devotion
  646
  to, our Voluntary school system; the views I have put forward with regard to the position of Under Secretaries will, I am sure, commend themselves to the community at large.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I venture to think that the noble. Marquess who has just sat down has been somewhat unjust to the Vice-President of the Council. No one could think, however, that the remark made in the other House of Parliament in regard to the attitude of the squire and the farmer, in regard to education, was just or generous. Your Lordships know, as the noble Duke has rightly said, there is no class who have done so much for elementary education in England, speaking roughly, as the country gentlemen. They support their village schools, ordinarily, almost entirely out of their own pockets. But, my Lords, there are truths which have to be said, although they may be extremely unpalatable, and I venture to think that if Sir John Gorst meant to say that in the long run our denominational schools will not be able to hold their own against schools entirely supported out of the rates, he said what was perfectly true. Anyone who is acquainted with the state of education in the north of England knows perfectly well, however disagreeable the truth may be, that in the long run denominational schools will not be able to hold their own unless they get what is only just and fair—a fair proportion out of the rates—and I hail with great satisfaction the words which fell from the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council when he alluded to the question of rate aid for denominational schools.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the discussion has certainly wandered a very long way from the particular point which the most reverend prelate brought before us. I must say I so far sympathise with the Vice-President that I think he did good service to the cause of education in pointing out the defects in the schools which form part of the system. I do not believe that the supporters of Voluntary schools, or of any other schools, will gain anything by concealment of the defects and deficiencies in that system. What we,

  647
  who are not such ardent supporters of Voluntary schools, and what I personally believe is that, from various causes, and without imputing blame to managers or teachers, many Voluntary schools, particularly the smaller ones, have fallen below the standard which ought to be the standard of education in this country. That, I apprehend, is also the view of the Government, because it was no doubt on that ground that they gave an extra subsidy to those schools. The noble Duke rather seemed to say that we were not to go beyond the wishes and the feelings of the people of the locality in regard to education. I hope that will not be the principle on which the Education Department will proceed. I trust that the pressure which has been exercised by those who have the interests of education at heart upon those classes in the country some of whom, at least, are not as much interested in education as we could wish, will be continued steadily by the Education Department. They should not do anything that is unfair; but at the same time I am certain that pressure is necessary to bring the schools up to a proper standard. I must say for myself that I agree with a good deal of what has been said by the noble Marquess opposite [the Marquess of Londonderry]. I do not think it is at all desirable that Members of the Government should express opinions, which may be described as personal opinions, upon matters which really concern the Government as a whole. The noble Marquess, I think, spoke rather disparagingly of the office of Vice-President. It is certainly one of an important character, and one not infrequently held by Members of the Cabinet. I think myself it is always a practice injurious to the public service, in the long run injurious to party interests, that any Members of the Government, and especially the higher Members of the Government, should express opinions of their own on matters of high policy concerning Departments with which they are not connected; and, therefore, I hail with joy the excellent principle laid down by the noble Marquess opposite.
  The subject dropped.
  House adjourned at 6.25.