Sitting of 14 July 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  CROMER GAS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  DROGHEDA GAS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  WIGAN CORPORATION BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BACUP CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  BUENOS AYRES NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  COLONIAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Queen's Consent signified; Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  WALKER ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  FOLKESTONE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  ST. MARYLEBONE CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  On the order for Second Reading of St. Marylebone Churches Bill [H.L.]—
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months."—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I am very sensible that, as a general rule, there is some inconvenience in discussing private Bills upon the Second Reading stage, but the circumstances of this case are so unusual and the provisions of this Bill are so extraordinary that I feel justified in taking the course which I now propose to adopt by moving that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. The reasons I take this course, quite apart from the merits and demerits of the proposals of the Bill, are these: First of all there is in this case some difficulty about locus standi. The Bill is promoted by the vestry of this large and important parish of Marylebone, and in the case of any other private Bill—a Bill not promoted by the vestry, but promoted by some other persons concerned in the parish, a Bill affecting the parish in regard to this or other matters—under the Standing Order CXXXIV. there would be an opportunity given to the ratepayers to object, if they so desired, to the provisions, and object to the locus standi of the bill in Committee; but it so happens in this case that it is a matter of very great doubt whether any inhabitant or ratepayer of the parish can claim a locus standi under the present arrangements of this House. That is the first reason why I feel bound at the earliest possible moment to call the attention of the House to the provisions of this Bill. The second is this: Those most affected, the Roman Catholics and the Nonconformists, are peculiarly situated, and if we, under the new private procedure of this House, were given a locus standi, it would only be placing upon the ratepayers the burden of the great expense of asking them to present a petition against the Bill before the Private Bill Committee. In the next place, I assert, without fear of contradiction, that the promoters of this Bill have not given the ratepayers a fair and reasonable opportunity of considering

  899
  its provisions. The resolution of the vestry upon which this Bill is necessarily founded was only passed in October or November, 1897, and one of the resolutions, which was important and essential for the proper carrying out of the Bill, was only passed by the vestry upon the 14th of June last—just 28 days before this Bill is brought up for its Second Reading in this House. The Bill came down from the House of Lords as an unopposed Bill, and consequently we are placed in this disadvantageous position: the time for raising objections to the Bill is passed, and if it passes its Second Reading to-day it will pass as an unopposed Bill. I assert that the promoters of this Bill are unduly pressing the matter forward, and in support of that statement I will just say—and this the honourable Member for East Marylebone cannot deny—that I suggested that the Second Reading of this Bill should be adjourned until any day next week, in order that we who know Marylebone and live there might have an opportunity of conferring together and considering the Bill, and considering whether a good bargain has been made by the vestry, and also to give myself and others concerned and interested in this matter an opportunity of marshalling our facts and arguments far better than we have been able to under the present circumstances. These are the main reasons which justify me in asking the attention of the House to the provisions of this Bill. As a general rule, I freely admit that the Committee upstairs is the best tribunal before which to thrash out the merits of any particular Bill; but the conditions under which we are placed are such that this is the only opportunity we have of protesting against the provisions of a Measure which prejudicially affects the interests of a large number of the ratepayers of the parish of Marylebone, and which ought, in my opinion, to be the subject of an order of the Committee of the House. If the Government and the honourable Gentlemen opposite permit the Bill to go to its Second Reading these matters will not be investigated, and a Measure of great importance, involving large sums of money and affecting great vested interests, will go through this House as unopposed. So much for the justifica-
  900
  tion of the steps which those persons who are interested in this matter are taking in this Bill. Now let me call the attention of the House to the provisions of the Bill. In the first place, the Bill proposes to transfer the sites of six churches, and the fabric of six churches, with all the appurtenances belonging to them, from the vestry of Marylebone—that is to say, from the parish of Marylebone—to the incumbents of the various churches and chapels concerned. I need not point out to this House—I need not point out to anyone who knows London—how valuable are the sites upon which these churches are erected. They are large churches, built upon a considerable amount of land which is situated in a very valuable part of the metropolis. Under the Bill, and, as I suggest, without adequate consideration, the vestry of Marylebone is to hand over to the incumbents the sites, the churches, and all the appurtenances; but the matter does not end there: we are also asked to raise, under borrowing powers supposed to be conferred under this Bill, no less than £80,000, which is to be handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. We are also asked to borrow the sum of £207,000, to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be used in repairing these churches, and we are asked to give up the pew rents of these churches. We are asked not only to give up our land and buildings, but also the income which, under the arrangement made under former Statutes, has been applied to the purpose of diminishing the liability that fell upon the ratepayers of Marylebone. Those are the provisions of the Bill, and if honourable Members would only consider the range of the Bill—and I stop there and inform the House that the matter has never been adequately thrashed out in the parish. We have never had a meeting in the parish to consider this and the bearing of it on our future liabilities. I make out a further case against the Second Reading of the Bill. But if the House will permit me I will not stop there. I would like to say a word or two about the ecclesiastical organisation of the parish of Marylebone historically. I do not say it is unique, but it is certainly peculiar. In the year 1811 the parish of Marylebone presented a very different appearance physically to

  901
  that which it does now. The Duke of Portland was lord of the manor of Marylebone, patron of the livings, and also claimed, I believe, to be the lay incumbent of the parish. In 1811, just about the time when those great streets and squares were being built and laid out—probably by some enterprising builder as a speculation—an Act of Parliament was promoted by the Duke of Portland and the vestrymen of the parish of Marylebone. Under the Act power was taken to rebuild the parish church and two others. The Act of 1811 was a very complicated Act, and it would be very unfair for me to attempt to explain the details to the House offhand, and if I make any misstatements I hope that they will be pardoned, having regard to the fact that I am relying on my memory. In effect what the Act did was this: the Duke of Portland provided a particular site for one of the churches, and the sites of the other two churches were provided by the parish or vestry, which was empowered to levy rates and also to borrow money, and out of the rates so levied and the borrowed money they were to build these three churches and pay the stipends of their ministers. The Act of 1811 was followed by a subsequent Act of George IV. in 1820, which empowered the building of four other churches, which became district churches and are now in the position of being chapels of ease to the parish church for all ecclesiastical and other purposes. The peculiarity of the arrangement was this, that the land upon which these churches were built was bought out and out by the parish and is vested in them. The land, the churches, and everything connected with them was purchased by moneys provided by the parishioners of Marylebone, and the management of the churches, except so far as the services were concerned, was vested in and performed by the vestrymen of Marylebone, and that has gone on right down to the present time. Under that arrangement the sums provided by the parish are worthy of the consideration of the House. The parishioners of Marylebone have paid £173,000 for the sites and the edifices erected on those sites; they have paid £60,000 by way of stipend to the ministers; and they have paid, with some irregularity, I admit, some £15,000 for Sunday evening lectures. These large sums of money, during the course
  902
  of about 90 years, have been expended by the parish of Marylebone for these churches, and I would beg to draw the attention of honourable Gentlemen opposite to this point, that these arrangements were not entered into in pursuance of any contract or any other kind of valuable consideration accruing to the parish by those who were concerned in these building operations. They were pure gifts. Under the Act of Parliament the vestry were authorised to levy a church rate, which they did, and thus the case is a very peculiar one. That being the position from the historic point of view, how is the matter going to be altered under this Bill? At the present moment—I am sorry to interrupt the course of my observations for a moment, but I wish to drive this home, if I can, to any honourable Member who will treat the matter with fairness, and I expect it—we have a vested interest in these churches. We have the pew rents, and the fabrics are vested in us, and we have the right to appoint a great many of the officers of the church. We are now asked to give up all this, and not only that, but we are asked to pay £80,000; and in addition to the £80,000 we are to find £27,000 in order to put the churches in good repair. What is the consideration for that under this Bill? Why should we do it? I know at once what the honourable Member for East Marylebone will say. He will say the parish is going to be relieved of all its liabilities under these old Acts of Parliament, but I do not see how we gain anything by getting rid of those liabilities. What is the liability? The liability under the Act of 1876 is a liability to maintain and keep in repair six churches, and to pay certain stipends to the ministers of the churches in question. But what kind of liability is it? The bargain is a bargain under an Act. But the promoters of the Bill appear to be under the impression that this liability is a liability in perpetuity, and one which cannot be got rid of; but it is only a statutory liability at best. I say it is only a statutory liability at best. It was done without valuable consideration, done at the instance of the Duke of Portland for the purpose of developing his estate, and, done under those circumstances, I say it is only a statutory obligation at best. What a Statute of this House has

  903
  done can be undone by Statute, and we could come before this Parliament and say we have built these churches, and have maintained them and kept them in repair for nearly 100 years, and now the time has come when you must relieve us of our liabilities and carry on these churches yourself. When Mr. Russell Wakefield, the vicar of St. Mary's, Bryanston Square, came to that church the pew rents were only £140 a year. The pew rents now are £530, and the increase represents a gain to the parish. That is now going to be taken away from us by the operation of this Bill. Now, I have spoken of the liability as a statutory one, and I think in time we might come forward to the House of Commons and ask to be relieved of it, and seek to do so without doing anything detrimental to any vested interest, and I need hardly say that if we did come and seek to do this we should do so in the interest of those who were interested in the churches. But this other interest is of a purely sentimental character. I assert that in regard to one of the churches I consider that this church rate is of doubtful legality. You will observe that the consideration given by this Bill is to get rid of that liability. It is stated in the Bill itself that the liability exists under these old Acts of Parliament. I cannot state with regard to one church—the parish church—that it does not exist. By the Church Rates Abolition Act of 1868 compulsory church rates were abolished by section 5 of that Act, which made certain exceptions, and the promoters of this Bill contend that Marylebone Church was one of the exceptions. But there is a decision of the Court of Appeal in respect to this particular parish, to which I might draw the attention of the House. In the year 1874 the very question arose, not in regard to the whole of the churches, but in connection with the very church itself, the main church of the parish. The question arose as to whether the church rate levied under this Act was a legal rate or not, and whether it could or could not be enforced. The matter came before Mr. Justice Mathew, and subsequently before the Court of Appeal, in which Lord Justice Lopes, now Lord Ludlow, was presiding. There it was decided that this particular
  904
  rate did not come within the exceptions of the Church Rates Abolition Act. The effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal is this: that the consideration offered to us by the honourable Member for East Marylebone in respect to one or more of the church rates is no consideration at all. They give us nothing, because the consideration does not exist. On the contrary, what we are asked is that we who have built these churches, and maintained them for something like 100 years, should raise this large sum of money and transfer our property to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I think we have made out a good case in this matter. If the Bill is read a second time to-day, it will be passed as an unopposed Bill, and there seem to be some questions which require some discussion, and for these reasons I move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  MR. C. MORLEY: I desire to point out that there is a strong objection felt to this Measure upon the ground that it seeks to make perpetual that which has long been felt to be a very great hardship and injustice by the ratepayers of Marylebone, the compulsory payment of the church rate. I am quite sure that there is no need to remind the House of the arguments so familiar to this House of the principle under which in the past Nonconformists, who supported their chapels where they did worship, were also called upon to support the Church of the Established religion, which they did not attend. But perhaps I may remind the House of what Mr. Gladstone said, in moving the abolition of church rates, 30 years ago. He pointed out that his Bill provided that no suit should lie in any court to enforce the payment of a church rate made in any parish in England or Wales. I mention this as an indication of what was the purport and intention of his Measure, though no doubt exceptions were introduced in that Bill. Since the passing of that Act 30 years ago, while the country generally has received relief from these compulsory church rates, Marylebone, has received no such relief. What is the argument of the promoters of the Bill? A sound argument for the abolition of church rates; but I am very much surprised to hear that argument

  905
  put forward by gentlemen who by this Measure are seeking to make them perpetual. The proposal of the Bill is to hand over to the Established Church churches which have been built, either wholly or partly, at the public expense, out of the money of the ratepayers. The words of the proposal are that—
  "from and after the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, the sites, buildings, furniture, fittings, and other property now vested in the vestry, shall be vested in the several incumbents."
  I think that in itself is a very strong proposal, but how do we stand? We find that they are not ready and willing to accept the sites, buildings, furniture, fittings, and other property, unless the ratepayers are willing to find £2,700 for dilapidations, and we must also divest ourselves of £80,000, and hand that sum over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as an endowment fund; and this Bill empowers the vestry to raise this large sum of money on the security of a general rate. The result of this Measure to the ratepayers of Marylebone will be that they will be called upon for another 30 years to pay not only a compulsory church rate, but an increased church rate. We cannot be surprised under the circumstances that not only many Nonconformists, but many others complain that they should thus be compelled to subscribe to the endowment of the Church of England.
  MR. BOULNOIS: Although the honourable Gentleman opposite has described this as a very unusual Bill, and a unique Bill, it is also an extremely simple Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear that cheer, as it will relieve me of the necessity of explaining the Measure, as it shows that honourable Gentlemen are well acquainted with it. The object of the Bill is summed up in a very few words. It is a Bill to enable the vestry of Marylebone to get rid of the liability of always having to endow seven churches of the Established Church. Under certain old Acts of Parliament the vestry of Marylebone rendered themselves liable, and to cover this obligation they were empowered to levy a church rate, and also in addition received the pew rents. In the early days, when people paid pew rents, I have no doubt there was no serious loss to the vestry, but, as
  906
  everybody knows, the system of paying pew rents is gradually disappearing in this country, and it is a vanishing quantity. Therefore I do not think the argument of the honourable Member for Swansea is worth very much upon that head when he says the vestry are giving up the pew rents. The diminution of the pew rents has caused a serious deficiency to the ratepayers, and that deficiency is to be made up by the rate; but the honourable Member for Swansea denied the legality of the rate. It has been in existence for 90 years, and surely there have been many opportunities for disputing its legality, and will be, because, I suppose, before this House has settled the matter there will be a demand made for the current rate, when the honourable Gentleman will have an opportunity, if he chooses, to contest it in the law courts. The deficiency, which caused a rate of 1d. in the £, has been a source of constant irritation and annoyance to the ratepayers of Marylebone, who cannot understand that when church rates have been abolished all over the country they should be compelled to pay one in London. They have been extremely anxious to put an end to this state of things. Nothing was, however, done until January, 1896, when a committee was appointed to consider the question and draft out a scheme, if they could do so, with regard to it. In October, 1897, they reported that they had agreed with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to commute the liability of the vestry for £80,000, and that they had secured with the concurrence of the Crown as patron the Bishop of London. The committee's report was adopted by the vestry, and the Measure now before the House is the outcome. The House will realise that the committee had no easy task in arriving at this agreement, and here I should like to refer to the generous attitude adopted by the clergy in regard to this matter. They made some pecuniary sacrifices, and agreed to make concessions in other respects. One word as to the official aspect of the matter. I am not going into an elaborate survey of figures, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to this fact, that the ratepavers of Marylebone will not suffer in the slightest degree, and at the end of 30 years the ratepayers or those

  907
  of the next generation, will be paying nothing in the way of church rates; not a farthing will be raised for such a purpose. The annual charge to redeem this sum of £80,000, by half-yearly instalments of principle and interest, will be about the same as the annual deficiency upon the average of 10 years, which is suggested by this Bill. Of course, if the Bill is not passed, the deficiency arising from pew rents, and so forth, may be very much larger than at present. By an Act of Parliament the ratepayers of Marylebone have been called upon for the last 90 years to provide thousands upon thousands of pounds for the purposes of these churches. This Bill provides that they shall provide a like amount for 30 years to come, and no more. If the Bill is rejected the ratepayers of Marylebone must go on providing these thousands and thousands of pounds yearly for ever and ever. ["No, no!"] I understand honourable Gentlemen opposite to say "No, no!" but I have yet to learn that the House of Commons, whether it contains a Liberal or Conservative majority, will ever consent to bring in a confiscatory Measure which, so far as I can see, is the only alternative to this Bill. Now just one word as to the attitude of the ratepayers. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Swansea says this Measure has not been adequately discussed. I have given all the dates to the House, and I can emphatically say that this matter has been under the notice of the ratepayers of Marylebone for more than two years past, and I should certainly assume that that was ample time for its consideration. Proceedings of the vestry have from time to time been published in the local Press, and had any inhabitant or ratepayer of Marylebone taken the trouble to have looked into it, he could easily have understood how the matter was going on. There has not been the slightest disposition until quite recently to discuss the resolution of the vestry. It is quite true that last month an agitation was got up, and a public meeting was called, and so much interest was taken in the matter that out of 270,000 independent ratepayers only some 50 attended, and I will not say that they were ratepayers. Although there were three honourable
  908
  Members of this House present, so little interest was taken in the matter, and the ratepayers were so satisfied with what was being done by the vestry, that they did not even trouble to come and hear the arguments. The opposition to this Measure does not come from the ratepayers, but the Liberation Society, and I ask this House earnestly to distrust that society. I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which offers to the whole community of Marylebone a relief from a heavy burden which has been placed upon them for many years without doing the slightest injustice to a single individual.
  SIR J. BRUNNER: I may say at once that I am not a member of the Liberation Society, but at the same time I do strongly oppose this Bill. The churches which this Bill proposes to deal with were erected for the purpose of developing the property of the Duke of Portland, and it is very well known that a good church is a very great assistance to the development of property, and, as the Duke of Portland was a man of business, it was his duty to build the churches, but he was too good a man of business to do that. He did a very much better thing; he got his churches built at somebody else's expense. Now the Duke of Portland, as the owner of the property, has not paid a penny in rates from that day to this, and we are now called upon to pay to the Church £80,000. The simple reason, the cheerful reason, the delightful reason, why we are asked to pay this £80,000 is that the members of the Church of England, who get the whole and entire benefit of these churches, have got out of the habit of paying pew rents. When people, who get all the benefit of the spiritual ministrations from these churches, do not choose to pay, I certainly do not think that those who do not derive any benefit ought to be called upon to pay for them. The honourable Gentleman who spoke in favour of this Bill told us there would be an opportunity of testing the legality of these church rates. Now, I will undertake, if the honourable Gentleman will consent to postpone his Bill, that the question of the legality of this church rate shall be very shortly tested.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: The honourable Member opposite has referred to the supposed source and motive of the opposition to this Bill. Well, I am not, like my honourable Friends who have moved and seconded the Motion for its rejection, an inhabitant of Marylebone. I oppose it on general grounds, and partly because, as one who had a good deal to do with the passing of the Compulsory Church Rate Abolition Act, I am opposed to anything which runs counter to the principle on which that Act was based. The existing ecclesiastical arrangements of Marylebone are a survival of a system which no one would think of establishing in the present day. Their history has been highly curious, for, after the Duke of Portland had become possessed of the patronage which had been created by public taxation, £40,000 of public money, and which was derived from the sale of Crown lands, was expended in buying back the Duke's patronage rights; so that there was something like an ecclesiastical job in the early history of the churches; just as what I may rightly call another ecclesiastical job is to be perpetrated by the present Measure. The most striking feature or this Bill is its one-sidedness. It not only inflicts injustice upon all the Nonconformists of Marylebone, but deals unequally with the Episcopalian congregations. They are, I believe, 24 in number, but only seven of them are to be benefited by the Bill. I could understand a Measure which would distribute the proceeds of the money to be raised by this fund among and for the benefit of the whole of the churches. Nothing of the kind is proposed. It is to benefit only churches the congregations of which are not spirited enough—not to say religious enough—to obtain for themselves the requisite means for maintaining divine worship. This Bill will improve the position of the incumbents and the other officials of the churches, and as a consequence it will improve the value of their offices. It also gives additional property and additional powers to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Now, what does it do for the ratepayers? Some of the things are very evident. It takes away the churches which they helped to build, and it gives to the Ecclesiastical Commis-
  910
  sioners powers which the inhabitants now possess. It also gives the Commissioners power over the seating arrangements, which I imagine are at present in the hands of the inhabitants, and the only people who are to find the money to carry out this scheme are to be the ratepayers, who are to get nothing; but after the present generation are removed by death, their successors will no longer be fleeced as their forefathers have been who have gone before them. The promoters have put forth a statement which contains a paragraph that strikes one as strangely ironical. They say that the provisions which now govern the churches are inapplicable in the present constitution of the vestry, which has been reorganised under recent Acts. That would be a most excellent preamble for a Bill for the abolition of these obligations, but it does not contemplate abolition until the expiration of a lengthened period. The honourable Member has spoken of the impossibility of getting rid of these exactions in Marylebone on confiscatory terms. Nobody wishes the principle of confiscation to be adopted in regard to the settling of this dispute. There are other ways of settling the dispute which are perfectly equitable; for, in the first place, this right might be continued sufficiently long to practically exhaust life interests, giving to each and every present incumbent and every other official that which he receives and remains entitled to; or, if that should be thought to be a dilatory process, the next would be to commute all these claims, the parish borrowing the money which would be necessary to pay the commuted amount. Then the right would cease, and no individual whatever would suffer the slightest possible injury. But this Bill adopts neither of these Measures, but simply converts an unjustifiable tax into a perpetual endowment for the benefit of the church. Mr. Speaker, this Parliament, I think, will be known in history as a Parliament of sops and doles, and of unjust financial concessions, made for the benefit of a section of the community to the injury of the rest, and unless the House realises this now and rejects this Bill, it will be adding to the number contained in that discreditable category.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This Bill has hitherto been treated from

  911
  the point of view of the goodness or badness of the financial transactions embodied in it. But I have not heard a word on another point which seems to one far more important than this financial transaction, which I may say, in passing, appears to me to be a good one. It simply amounts to a commutation of a perpetual obligation. So far as regards the financial part of the Bill, I must say that I see nothing to object to in it, but there is one point which I do not understand. The honourable Member who is responsible for this Bill says that the only alternative to the Bill is confiscation. Now, I contend that the alternative is to leave things as they are; leave those who are in possession of the property which they now possess, and leave the responsibilities on those upon whom they now rest. That is my objection to the Bill. This Bill seems to me to be practically a Bill for the abolition of the parish of St. Marylebone, and the abolition of all their duties and responsibilities in connection with the churches, which will rest upon the Commissioners. What is the first operative clause? It says—
  "The vestry and the ratepayers of the parish of St. Marylebone, in the administrative county of London, shall be by virtue of this Act freed and discharged from all payments, obligations, and liabilities whatsoever under any of the scheduled Acts in respect of the maintenance of any of the said churches and chapels, or of any minister's residence, or in respect of the payment of any stipend or salary."
  And so forth. That is the whole essence of the ecclesiastical liability of a parish. I take it that, although it is nominally vested in the parson, it is vested in trust for the parish. The really important personages in the parish are the laity and not the parson. It is their duty from time to time to maintain their parish churches, and that duty is cast upon them. This Bill, as I understand it, proposes that the Commissioners shall take over certain obligations in return for a certain sum to be paid down. Well, Sir, that means the disestablishment and the disendowment of the Church in the parish of St. Marylebone. It is practically the disestablishment of the Church in the parish of St. Marylebone and the handing over of the church to the Commissioners, thus taking it out of the hands of the laity and the parish, and removing it
  912
  from the vestry which is the parish, because the vestry consists of the inhabitants of the parish. It is removing from the laity all obligations in the parish church in return for a payment made by them, and the handing over of all their duties and liabilities to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who, in my opinion, cannot properly perform the duties, and never will be able to perform them. There is one other point—and I do not intend to detain the House at any length—this Bill relieves the vestry and the inhabitants of their proper liabilities, and transfers them to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and if they could perform those duties properly nothing could be said of it. But you must leave the responsibility of the maintenance of the church upon the parish, otherwise every kind of abuse, ecclesiastical and otherwise, will be introduced. But, Sir, there is another mysterious body introduced by this Bill, such as I have never before heard of—that is, the Incorporated Church Building Society. This Society has certain advantages and certain rights by this Bill, and then there comes an unheard-of clause—clause 16, which provides—
  "The Incorporated Church Building Society shall not be under any liability to see to the payment to them of any of the sums authorised or required to be paid to them under any of the provisions of this Act, nor shall the Ecclesiastical Commissioners be under any liability to see to the application of any sums which they are authorised or required to pay to any rector or other person or to the said society under any of the provisions of this Act."
  They will have sums paid to them, but they are not responsible. Now, what does that amount to? It amounts to this: the parish is to buy in only the secular liability to maintain its church by making a payment to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They are to make a certain payment, as I understand, to the Incorporated Church Building Society, by virtue of which the parish is to be freed from its obligations, but the recipients of this sum are themselves to be under no obligation. This appears to me to be a most astounding proposal, and I listened in vain to the speech of the honourable Member for an explanation of some point such as this in the Bill. Unless some further explanation is forthcoming to show

  913
  that there is some greater justification than has hitherto been put forward for relieving the parish of its liabilities—not merely of its money liabilities, but of its moral and social liabilities—I shall certainly vote against this Bill.
  MR. E. MORTON: I have a particular reason in rising to address the House for a few minutes on this Bill, and my reason is that, while this Bill is one which in its policy is one of the utmost possible importance and of a reactionary nature, we have not had the advice of a single Member of the Government upon it. Now, Sir, the very essence of this question dealt with in this Bill is this, that it is against the policy and the principle of the Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Act of 30 years ago. That Act, to a certain extent, disestablished and disendowed the Church. It took away from the Church certain endowments in the form of rates for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church which the Church previously possessed. Now this Bill proposes to do this without any sort of compensation whatever. This Bill proposes to stereotype and render perpetual one remaining instance of the Church in this country. It is on that ground, and on that ground especially, that we on this side of the House strongly oppose and resent this Measure. Now what is the effect of this Measure? The honourable Member who spoke—in fact, the only honourable Member who has spoken in favour of this Bill—represented that there was a sort of property possessed by the Church in this particular parish, which we on this side of the House desire to confiscate without any compensation. Now, what is the position? Why, the fact is that for more than 80 years you have been taxing Protestants, Nonconformists, and Roman Catholics, in that parish, in order to endow and support the teaching of what they believe to be heresy, and because that iniquity has gone on, and unjustly gone on, so long you now want us to pay them off with a further £100,000 in order to perpetuate that system. We ought to have had the benefit of advice upon this question, considering the fact that this has been sprung upon this House to-day without proper consideration. This is a very important
  914
  Measure, involving a most serious principle. The parish of Marylebone has not had sufficient time to consider this Measure and to express its opinion upon it. I beg to move that this Debate be now adjourned.
  MR. LEWISseconded the Motion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I trust the honourable Member will not press his Motion. The parish of Marylebone has had ample time to consider the Bill, which is of a plain and simple character. If the honourable Member is disposed to reproach the Government with not having expressed their views on the subject, I have no hesitation in now expressing my opinion that it is a Measure which ought certainly to be passed.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: The right honourable Gentleman was not present at the beginning of the Debate. I asked the honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill to adjourn the consideration of it until Monday, and he refused. The last meeting of the vestry only took place on 16th June, and the meeting was recited in the preamble of the Bill. I challenge those who are acquainted with private Bill legislation to give me the case of a Bill dealing with the interests of a great parish like this which has been rushed forward as this has been. The right honourable Gentleman assents to giving £80,000 of other people's money. The right honourable Gentleman has not treated us fairly. The parish of Marylebone has not been consulted in the matter. I was concerned to some extent in the recent local elections, and I hardly recollect a single address in which there was any reference to this Bill, or any meeting in which this Bill was discussed. We are not asking too much in asking the Government to yield on this matter and request its framers to give us a little more time. I appeal that the Debate may be adjourned, so that we may consider what course to take. Will not the right honourable Gentleman give us a week, in order to determine our position in a matter in which peculiar parochial interests are involved? I support this Motion for the adjournment.
  MR. ROBSON: There is one reason, and a very strong reason

  915
  indeed, why the Government should give us some time—namely, the legality or otherwise of this rate. The very foundation of this Bill before us is that it forms an exception to that general enactment. It is perfectly clear from the decisions which my honourable and learned Friend read—the decisions of the Court of Appeal in 1894—that this church rate does not form any exception to the enactment of 1868. That raises a legal point of the utmost importance to this Bill, because, if the rate itself is not legal, then this compensation proposed to be given to the clergy is calculated on an entirely false basis; and I think we are entitled before we vote on this Bill, because, if the rate itself is pression of the First Lord of the Treasury, but to have the legal opinion of
  the first officer of the Crown, as to whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeal was a good one and is binding, in order to be taken into consideration in reference to this Measure.
  SIR J. BRUNNER: AS the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was not present earlier in the Debate, he did not hear me state that I undertook to have the question of the legality of this rate contested if a delay in proceeding with the Bill affords the opportunity. I repeat that undertaking.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. E. J. C. Morton.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 217.—(Division List No. 215.)

  AYES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Holburn, J. G.

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Robertson, E. (Dundee)

  Billson, Alfred

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Brunner, Sir John T.

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Spicer, Albert

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Lloyd-George, David

  Strachey, Edward

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

  Logan, John William

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crombie, John William

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  McCartan, Michael

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Daly, James

  McEwan, William

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  McLaren, Charles Benjamin

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Maden, John Henry

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Wayman, Thomas

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

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Morley, C. (Breconshire)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Woodall, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

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

  Gold, Charles

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Edward Morton and Mr. Brynmor Jones.

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Pinkerton, John

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Price, Robert John

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Aird, John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Arnold, Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

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

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newark, Viscount

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Bethell, Commander

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Biddulph, Michael

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bigwood, James

  Gunter, Colonel

  O'Kelly, James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Pender, Sir James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Penn, John

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Philpotts, Captain Arthur

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Helder, Augustus

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hill, Rt. Hn. A. S. (Staffs)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

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

  Howard, Joseph

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Howell, William Tudor

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Round, James

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Kemp, George

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Kenyon, James

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Cox, Robert

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Scott, Sir S. (Mary'bone, W.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lafone, Alfred

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawrence Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Spencer, Ernest

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

  Leighton, Stanley

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Colonel A. R.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Dorington, Sir John E.

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Drage, Geoffrey

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

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

  Drucker, A.

  Lopes, Henry Yards Buller

  Thorburn, Walter

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Edwards, General Sir J. B.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Usborne, Thomas

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

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

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

  Waring, Colonel Thomas

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  McKillop, James

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Manners, Lord E. W. J.

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Finlay, Sir Robert B.

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Milton, Viscount

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Monk, Charles James

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Moon, Edward Robert P.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Galloway, William Johnson

  More, Robert Jasper

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

  Garfit, William

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

  Wyndham, George

  Gedge, Sydney

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Morris, Samuel

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Knowles.

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

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

  Debate resumed—
  MR. LEWIS: I hope, Sir, after what has happened the Government
  918
  will see the advisability of persuading their supporters to withdraw the Bill for the present Session. We have it shown on the clearest and the highest

  919
  evidence by the honourable Member for Swansea that the rate of Marylebone does not come within the exceptions of the Act of 1868, and that has raised the greatest possible doubt as to whether the rate in the parish of Marylebone is legal at all. In addition to that, we have had an undertaking given by an honourable Member on this side of the House that the case shall be tested in the Law Courts. Under these circumstances it surely is only reasonable that the matter should stand over until such time as the case has been legally tested; otherwise the probability is that we shall be throwing away £100,000 of the money of the ratepayers of Marylebone, who, after all, comprise a large number of Nonconformists, in payment of a liability which is absolutely illegal. That is a proposition to which the House ought not to commit itself, and we ought to have a clear and full reply to the points which have been raised on this side of the House before we proceed any further with this Bill. It is only reasonable that an opportunity should be given of testing fairly and fully the important legal point which has been raised by the honourable Member for Swansea. I do not see the law officers of the Crown in their place. I should have been glad if we could have had the advantage of their presence and advice in this Debate, because the question which has been raised is of the utmost importance, and one which I think ought not to be settled hurriedly by the House.
  MR. BUXTON: I for one have listened very carefully to this Debate, and it does seem to me that every Member of the House, whichever side he sits, who has given this matter his attention must feel that the aspect of the question has altered very much since the commencement of the Debate. On that ground I appeal to the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House whether he would not be well advised if he were to endeavour to persuade those who are supporting this Bill to withdraw it in
  920
  order that it may be properly considered from a legal point of view. There can be no immediate hurry. The Vote has gone on for the long period of 90 years, and it cannot be of material importance if it continues for one year more. I am aware that I am speaking as a layman, and not as a lawyer, but the point I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to consider is this—it was assumed when this Bill was introduced that this rate did not come under the purview of the general Act of 1868. Surely it is not right, therefore, when we have high legal authority that the rate does not come within the exceptions of the Act, when we have a pledge given by an honourable Member that he is prepared to test its legality, that we should continue this Debate. Under these circumstances, I appeal to my honourable Friend who has charge of the Bill, and to the House generally, from the point of view of fairness, not to proceed with the matter hurriedly.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The House has been invited to pronounce its opinion on the question of the adjournment, and it has given that opinion; and I do not think it is right for the honourable Member to raise again the question of adjournment.
  MR. BUXTON: What I understand is that the question before us is whether the Bill shall be read now or this day six months. I was endeavouring to show that the Bill might not be read now, but be deferred, as far as I had been able to develop my points, and I am bound to say it is one which merits the attention of the Government and of the House, because this matter has been to a certain extent sprung upon us, and has assumed a different aspect since the commencement of the Debate.
  Question put—
  "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 128.—(Division List No. 216.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Aird, John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Allsopp, Hon. George

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

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

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  McKillop, James

  Arnold, Alfred

  Finlay, Sir Robert B.

  Manners, Lord E. W. J.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Milton, Viscount

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Monk, Charles James

  Balcarres, Lord

  Garfit, William

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gedge, Sydney

  Moon, Edward Robert P.

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  More, Robert Jasper

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

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

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

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

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

  Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Newark, Viscount

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Bethell, Commander

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gunter, Colonel

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Bigwood, James

  Hall, Sir Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  O'Kelly, James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Brassey, Albert

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pender, Sir James

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Penn, John

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Helder, Augustus

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hill, Rt. Hn. A. S. (Staffs)

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

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

  Houston, R. P.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Howard, Joseph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howell, William Tudor

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Colomb, Sir John C. R.

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Cox, Robert

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon, James

  Scott, Sir S. (Mary'bone, W.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leighton, Stanley

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Davies, H. D. (Chatham)

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

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Denny, Colonel

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Thorburn, Walter

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Drucker, A.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lowles, John

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Edwards, General Sir J. B.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Usborne, Thomas

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Valentia, Viscount

  922

  923

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Wyndham, George

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Knowles.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Hazell, Walter

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Pinkerton, John

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Holburn, J. G.

  Price, Robert John

  Billson, Alfred

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Burt, Thomas

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Shaw, C. E. (Stafford)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kemp, George

  Shaw, T. (Hawick B.)

  Caldwell, James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Lambert, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Spicer, Albert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Stanhope, Hon. P. J.

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Crean, Eugene

  Lloyd-George, David

  Strachey, Edward

  Crombie, John William

  Logan, John William

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Daly, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's C.)

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardig'n)

  McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davitt, Michael

  McCartan, Michael

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  McEwan, William

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Dillon, John

  M'Hugh E. (Armagh, S.)

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McKenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Doogan, P. C.

  McLaren, Charles Benjamin

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wayman, Thomas

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

  Maden, John Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Morris, Samuel

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Woodall, William

  Gilhooly, James

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'dd'rsf'ld)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Gold, Charles

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary).

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Brynmor Jones and Mr. Charles Morley.

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time, and committed.

  GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That Standing Order 73 be suspended in the case of the General Power Distributing Company Bill [H.L.], and that the Examiners have leave to sit and proceed To-morrow.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
PETITIONS.
  ALIENS BILL.
  Of the Individualist Club, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation, from Great Yarmouth, Port Sunlight, and Birstall; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  From Bodmin, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a light railway between Fountainhall Railway Station and Lauder, in the counties of Midlothian and Berwick (Lauder Light Railway Order, 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WAR OFFICE (DECENTRALISATION) (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented of Report of a Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for War, to consider the Decentralisation of War Office business, with Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RATES (NON-PAYMENT) (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "of the number of rated inhabitants in each parish in Scotland whose names were omitted from the Parliamentary Register in the year 1898 in respect of Non-payment of Rates, under the heads of (1) Relief through inability to pay; (2) Failure to pay; and (3) Being in receipt of Parochial Relief."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  without Amendment.
  HIGHAM AND HUNDRED OF HOO WATER BILL.
  with an Amendment.
POST OFFICE (LOCAL AUTHORITY) GUARANTEE BILL.
  DUBLIN SOUTHERN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  with Amendments.
QUESTIONS.

  DOG MUZZLING ORDER IN IRELAND.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in parts of England the compulsory muzzling of dogs is not in force, whereas there is no part of Ireland where the compulsory muzzling of dogs is not in force; whether he can explain why Ireland is treated differently from England in this matter; whether he intends to remove the compulsory muzzling of dogs in Ireland; and whether he will direct that, after the passing of the Local Government Bill, the powers of enforcing the compulsory muzzling of dogs will be placed in the hands of the county councils in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): On the 11th February last, in answer to a question of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth, I explained fully the reasons which led to the application of the Muzzling Order to Ireland as a whole. I am unable to say anything as regards England. The total number of cases of rabies in Ireland during the half year ended 30th June, 1897, before the law came into operation, was 335. In the half year ended 30th June of this year the number had fallen to 52. These results afford reason for believing that a continued enforcement of the Order will lead at no very distant date to the stamping out of rabies in Ireland and the consequent suspension of the Order. The county councils created by the Local Government Bill will have such powers to deal with rabies, should it still continue to exist in the country, as may be conferred upon them by Order in Council, but the powers vested in the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council of making Orders for prescribing and regulating the muzzling of dogs will remain unimpaired.

  POLICE SAVINGS IN IRELAND.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  927
  Ireland whether he can say if the saving effected by the retirement of Divisional Commissioners of Police in Ireland will be placed to the credit of that country in relieving taxation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to this question is in the negative.

  ARMY ENLISTMENT.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will inform the House of the number of recruits enlisted during the three months ending 30th June, specifying how many are specials for height or physique, and comparing these numbers with similar figures for the same three months of last year, and, if possible, giving the number of infantry recruits joining the territorial regiments of the districts to which they belong, and the numbers not doing so; and if he will state the number of Reservists in each of the three arms who have rejoined during this period of this year?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The numbers of recruits enlisted during the quarters ending on 30th June, 1897 and 1898, respectively, were 6,074 and 7,835, of whom 1,805 and 2,554 were respectively specials. The numbers of Infantry recruits who joined the territorial regiments of the districts to which they belong during the same periods were 1,905 and 2,203, the numbers who did so join were 1,926 and 2,470. The numbers of Reservists who rejoined during the quarter ending the 2nd July, 1898, were—for the Royal Artillery 101, for the Foot Guards 11, and for Infantry of the Line 884. The total net gain to the Army in the three months was 2,454, as compared with a loss of 508 last year.
  MR. PIRIE: Can the right honourable Gentleman give the number of Cavalry Reservists?
  MR. BRODRICK: Reservists are not allowed to rejoin the Cavalry.

  MILITIA BATTALIONS AT THE AUTUMN MANŒUVRES.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether, having regard to the number of Militia battalions which are being called out this year for their annual training at an exceptional date, owing to their taking part in the Autumn manœuvres, and the importance of closely watching the innovation in order to ascertain its effect on Militia recruiting, he will state to the House the number of English, Scottish, and Irish battalions so affected, and the number of recruits enlisted respectively in these battalions during the six months ending 30th June of the present year, and during the corresponding period of last year?
  MR. BRODRICK: Sixteen English Militia battalions, four Scotch, and four Irish will attend the Autumn manœuvres. During the six months ending the 30th June, 1897 and 1898, 2,829 and 3,361 recruits joined the English battalions, 811 and 1,001 joined the Scotch, and 340 and 337 joined the Irish. Thus, during the six months ending 30th June, 1898, 719 more recruits joined the 24 battalions than during the same period in 1897.

  DANGEROUS TRADES.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give any statistics showing the effect of employment in the dangerous processes in potteries on the health of women and their children, as well as on the health of young persons?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I am not sure that I understand what kind of statistics the honourable Member has in his mind. There are many recorded instances which amply prove that in the pottery trade, as elsewhere, the occurrence of lead-poisoning in the mother is capable of producing grave effects upon the child. The total number of reported cases of lead poisoning among women and girls engaged in the manufacture of earthenware and china during the two and a half

  929
  years since the Act of 1895 came into force is: women 528, girls 63—a yearly average of about 230. The number of females employed in Staffordshire is 20,705.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Secre of State for the Home Department whether he can give any statistics comparing the health of workpeople in potteries where mechanical ventilation has been introduced with the health of workpeople employed in potteries without mechanical ventilation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am afraid I have no statistics of the kind, and it would be difficult to obtain them. The great improvement effected by the introduction of mechanical ventilation is sufficiently evident, and one of the points aimed at in the new rules I am taking steps to establish is the more general adoption of fans in all dusty processes in potteries.
  MR. WOODALL: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman if he will consider the practicability of informing the House as to the proportion of cases in which lead poisoning has been certified by a medical practitioner whose report has afterwards been found by the certifying surgeon to be unfounded?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Every information of that kind I am now endeavouring to obtain. It is a very difficult question, as the honourable Gentleman knows, but I will bear it in mind.

  RAILWAY CONNECTION AT CORK.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the railway constructed between Skibbereen and Baltimore, at a cost to the public purse of £56,000, for the development of the fishing industries, does not fulfil that purpose in consequence of not being extended to the deep water pier at Baltimore; and whether, in view of the fact that under the Fish-guard and Rosslare scheme advan-
  930
  tageous connections are about to be made by bridging the Lee at Cork between all the systems in the south of Ireland and certain English railway systems, the Government will give a grant of money to extend the Skibbereen railway to Baltimore deep water pier, in order that the fishing industry at Baltimore may have the advantage of access to British and Irish markets?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not, I am informed, part of the work contemplated by the Fishguard and Rosslare Bill to bridge the Lee, and thus connect the West Cork railways with the English railway systems, but legislation with this object will, I understand, be sought by the promoters of the Bill next year. When such legislation has been obtained the question of aiding the carrying out of the project by moneys at the disposal of Government can then, if the Government think it expedient, be considered. There are at present no funds available for the purpose.

  POYNTZ PASS PETTY SESSIONAL BENCH.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the petty sessions district of Poyntz Pass, with half the population belonging to the Roman Catholic religion, there is not, and never has been, a magistrate belonging to that religious faith; whether, of the four existing 'magistrates, three consist of the local landlord, his son, and his agent; and whether he will consider the advisability of recommending the appointment to the commission of the peace some local Roman Catholic gentleman?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It appears to be a fact that there is no justice of the peace belonging to the Roman Catholic religion in attendance at the Poyntz Pass petty sessions, but I cannot say whether such has always been the case. Two of the existing justices are related as father and son, but they do not act together, and the two remaining justices in the district are unconnected

  931
  with them. The Lord Chancellor and the lieutenant of the county are at all times ready to consider the names of any properly qualified persons that may be submitted to them for appointment to the Commission of the Peace.

  DINGLE BAY FISHERIES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is a great need for the erection of a boat slip at Rhodes, Dingle Bay, county Kerry, to enable the very poor people of that distressed district, who live by fishing, to land their fish; and whether, as the cost of erecting such a slip as would meet the requirements of the case would be only a few hundred pounds, he will take steps to have it done at once?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The proposal to construct a landing place at Rhodes will be considered by the Congested Districts Board at their meeting on Saturday next.

  TREATMENT OF LIFE PRISONERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of star class life prisoners who were released since 1883, and the number of such prisoners who were released at the expiration of 10 years, 11 years, and 12 years respectively; how many life prisoners during the same period were sentenced to death and reprieved, and were since 1883 released; and how many star class life prisoners are now in prison (exclusive of treason-felony prisoners) who have served more than 15 years?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am seeing whether it will be possible to get out the figures which the honourable Member desires, but in any case their preparation will take a little time.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it true that a doctor, convicted in Wales in 1896
  932
  and sentenced to penal servitude for life, has just been released? If so, under what circumstances?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I do not think he has been released. At any rate, I must ask for notice of the Question.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I will put it down for to-morrow.

  PUPIL TEACHER SYSTEM.
  MR. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Grand Committee propose to carry out, by alterations in the Code or otherwise, any of the recommendations in the Report of the recent Committee on the Pupil Teacher System, and particularly whether they will carry out the recommendations in the Report under the subhead "Queen's Scholarship Examination and Admission to Training Colleges," and the recommendations as to changes in the curriculum for pupil teachers and students in training colleges?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The Committee of Council have not decided what alterations they will carry out. They have the Report still under consideration.
  MR. MCKENNA: Will the Committee of Council decide it before the issue of the next Code?
  SIR J. GORST: That is what they are waiting for. No alteration can be made till the next Code is published, and long after that.

  SECTION 4, EDUCATION ACT, 1891.
  MR. C. MORLEY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has taken legal advice as to the interpretation of section 4 of the Education Act, 1891, under which he is sanctioning the

  933
  imposition of school fees upon poor law children at present receiving free education in public elementary schools; and, if so, whether he will communicate the advice to the House?
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council have not taken legal advice on the subject.

  SETTLEMENT OF A LUNATIC SOLDIER.
  MR. H. HEATON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a soldier in the Yorkshire regiment stationed at Aldershot, and giving his name as James Wade, in July last became a lunatic, and according to his attestation paper that he was born in one of the parishes (of the Blean Union) situate in Canterbury, was sent there in order to be chargeable on the Canterbury Town Council; whether inquiries were there upon made by the town clerk of Canterbury who ascertained that Wade's real name was Patrick Ward; that he had previously enlisted in the Army, giving at his first enlistment his birthplace as the Curragh Camp, Ireland; that the certificate of his birth in Ireland had since been procured; and that the lunatic had never gained a settlement by residence or otherwise in England; whether he is aware that upon these facts being submitted to the Secretary of State for War, and an application being made to remove the pauper from Canterbury, where he had obviously been sent under a mistake, the matter was referred to the Local Government Board; and whether he will take steps to remedy the wrong done to Canterbury in this matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): I received from the Canterbury Town Council last year a copy of correspondence that had passed between them and the War Department, and the facts as stated in the Question accord generally with those mentioned in the correspondence. The difficulty appears to have arisen from the order of the War Office, in which they were,
  934
  no doubt, justified at the time, but which seems to have been based upon what was subsequently shown to be misinformation. The War Office are mistaken in supposing that the final adjustment of this case is a matter within the purview of the Local Government Board, and, while I can quite understand and sympathise with the request of my honourable Friend, we have no authority to give any directions, and no power, I am sorry to say, to render the town council any assistance whatever in this case.

  ROXBORO ROAD SCHOOL, LIMERICK.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the result on the Roxboro Road School, Limerick, of the Resolution of this House disapproving of the last scheme of the Educational Endowment Commissioners; have the Commissioners declined to frame a new scheme and allowed the Act to lapse without anything being done, and refused to take any steps to deal with the schools; do they collect rent from the existing tenant or enforce his covenant to repair; can the legal opinion on which the Education Commissioners are remaining inactive be obtained by persons interested; have they recommended private persons to litigate the question of the schools at their individual expense, while declining themselves to do so or to bear any portion of the costs; and do the Government, who supported the Motion to quash the schemes of the Judicial Commissioners, intend to do anything to put an end to the present state of affairs?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The result of the Resolution referred to in the first paragraph has been that no scheme has been finally approved for the management of the school in question. The Judicial Commissioners found themselves unable to frame a scheme which would not conflict, on the one hand, with the Resolution of the House, or, on the other hand, with the judgment of the Privy Council. The powers of the Commission lapsed on the 31st December

  935
  last. The Commissioners of Education, in whom the school is vested, receive rent amounting to £20 annually from the existing tenant of the school. The Commissioners of Education are not in a position to state what is the right of persons interested in the endowment to be furnished with the legal opinion referred to the fourth paragraph. The Commissioners have pointed out to the Bishop of Limerick that, while they are unwilling to involve the funds of the endowment in expensive litigation to obtain the directions of the Court of Chancery as to the administration of the endowment, there is a cheap and expeditious mode whereby any persons interested can obtain the directions in question. The costs of such proceedings are in the discretion of the court as the Commissioners are advised, and as they are prepared to submit in every way to the jurisdiction of the court, and to give every assistance to the obtaining of the directions of the court by persons interested, they have declined to give an undertaking binding the funds. The Lord Lieutenant, by Orders in Council, dated 24th December, 1896, and 30th August, 1897, extended the powers of the Educational Endowments Commission with respect to this endowment, in the hope that a solution of the questions at issue, satisfactory to the parties interested, might be arrived at, but the Educational Endowments Act having now lapsed there is no power to deal with the matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do the Government intend to allow matters to rest as they are? Will nothing be done by the Government?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We have no power to do more than we have done.

  MR. BRAILSFORD'S REPORT.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from Colonel Chermside in reference to the report of Mr. Brailsford; and, if so, whether he will state the terms of the reply to the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): Sir Herbert Chermside has only just received Mr. Brailsford's report on arrival in England. His observations, and those of the British naval and consular officers, will be communicated to Parliament when received.

  PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION FOR CRETE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the character of the provisional constitution which has been submitted by the Admirals to the Assembly of Crete; and whether it contemplates the withdrawal of the Turkish troops from the island?
  MR. CURZON: The following is the nature of the arrangement contemplated in the instructions sent to the Admirals. At the request of the Admirals, the Cretan Assembly shall appoint an executive Committee which shall be provisionally charged with the administration of those parts of the island which actually obey the Assembly. This Committee shall be in permanent touch with the Admirals, and shall be liable to dissolution by them. The Admirals shall continue to exercise their authority in the districts occupied by the European or Ottoman troops. It rests with the Admirals to decide whether the gendarmerie now under their orders shall be placed at the disposal of the Executive Committee. The question of the Turkish troops is under the consideration of the Admirals, but is independent of the provisional constitution which relates to part of the island where there are no Turkish troops at all.

  CONCERT OF EUROPE AND CRETE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Concert of Europe still exists, in regard to the settlement of Crete; and if not, what Powers are acting in concert in making the present proposals?
  MR. CURZON: Great Britain, France, Italy, and Russia have acted together in making the proposals referred to, and have communicated them to Germany and Austria. The two latter have withdrawn their forces from Crete, but have not left the Concert of the Powers.

  APPOINTMENT OF CHRISTIAN GOVERNOR OF CRETE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations are now in progress with a view to the appointment of a Christian governor of Crete?
  MR. CURZON: The Provisional Government of which I have previously spoken is being set up in Crete because of the difficulty experienced in selecting a governor acceptable to all concerned. The appointment of such an officer is therefore temporarily postponed. The Admirals will continue their functions until they can safely be replaced.

  PORTE'S PROTEST.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Porte has addressed a protest to all the Powers concerned in proposing the provisional arrangement for the government of Crete; and what action it is proposed to take in face of this protest?
  MR. CURZON: The Porte has made the protest alluded to; but I am not aware of any action that is in consequence required. The provisional scheme of government is in the meantime being proceeded with.
  SIR C. DILKE: Will the Admirals, then, continue during a period of indefinite time to govern the towns of Crete where the Assembly has no power?
  MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir; I think the period may be called indefinite in so far as it is at present impossible to fix a limit to it.
  MR. DILLON: Can the right honourable Gentleman say whether the Admirals will actually exercise authority now in the town of Candia, instead of leaving it in the hands of the English military officer?
  MR. CURZON: That Question shows a misapprehension of what has happened in the town of Candia. Papers will be laid which will show that there has been continuous co-operation between the council of Admirals and the British officer in charge of Candia.
  MR. BRYCE: May I ask whether we are to understand from that statement that the negotiations for the selection of a governor of Crete are, in the meantime, suspended, or whether they are stall going on?
  MR. CURZON: I think the former is the truer description. No negotiations are at the present moment actually in progress on the point.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: With reference to the two statements that Germany and Austria remain in the Concert, and that the Admirals must remain because they cannot safely be replaced, may I ask whether Germany and Austria will take part in the consideration of the question whether the Admirals can be safely replaced, and the forces of those countries, having been withdrawn—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a Question which ought to be put on the Notice Paper.
  MR. COURTNEY: May I ask whether the Provisional Committee can be dissolved only by the unanimous decision of the Admirals, or by a majority of them?
  MR. CURZON: That is a point as to which I do not know whether it has been discussed; it is a very important one, and I will look into it.
  MR. STEVENSON: Where will the Provisional Committee get the funds for the purpose of carrying on the government?

  WHITE ESTATE, BANTRY.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the sale of the White Estate to the tenants near Bantry will take place?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to add anything to my reply to the honourable Member's previous Question of the 24th February last on this subject.

  REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON TUBERCULOSIS.
  MR. STEVENSON: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Northampton, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has considered the Report of the Commission on Tuberculosis as regards the successful adoption of the policy of gradual elimination of tuberculosis by the use of the tuberculin test in Denmark and elsewhere; whether he will take steps to carry out the recommendation of the Commission that properly prepared tuberculin, and the services of veterinary surgeons, should be provided by the State to enable agriculturists in this country to adopt the policy of elimination; and whether he will apply to the Treasury to sanction the small grant of £5,625 per annum which the Commission think sufficient to initiate this policy?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): I am afraid that as yet I can add nothing to what I said in reply to the Question addressed to me on this subject by the honourable Member in April last, except that since that time the Report of the Royal Commission has been fully considered by the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and that no desire was then manifested for the provision of facilities for the application of the tuberculin test. It is clear, I think, that I could not approach the Treasury on the subject with any hope of success until there is evidence that agriculturists really wish that their cattle should be subjected to the proposed test on the conditions suggested by the Commission.

  OMAGH LUNATIC ASYLUM WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the reason and by whose authority the change has recently been made of the water supply to the residence of the resident medical superintendent of the Omagh Lunatic Asylum; whether the change will necessitate an additional operation of steam, etc., or is the water to be stored in the tanks that supply the institution; and, if the residence of the resident medical superintendent is no longer supplied with water from these tanks, will instructions be given to inspectors to carefully examine the state of the tanks and the quality of the water, in view of the report of the sanitary expert as to the cause of the recent outbreak of typhoid fever?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The change referred to in the first paragraph was authorised by the board of control on the application of the resident medical superintendent of the asylum. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative. An analysis of the existing water supply shows the water to be good and potable.

  JUDICIAL TERM LEASES AT CARRICKMORE.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the agent of the Gresham Assurance Company at Carrickmore, county Tyrone, invited a number of the leading tenants on the estate to meet him for the purpose of fixing second judicial term leases and failed to keep his appointment, and that since then his agent has issued a large number of civil bills and ejectment processes against the tenants, inflicting on them thereby heavy law costs and expenses; whether he is aware that this agent has issued a process against a very poor tenant for £5 for raising a quantity of bogwood, by which means the man strove to pay his rent, the only resource he had to meet the agent's demands; that the tenants on this estate made application to purchase their holdings,

  941
  but received no reply to their request; and will he say if it would be the duty of the Land Commission to order a sale if appealed to in this matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to say whether the agent invited the tenants of this state to confer with him as stated, but I understand that negotiations have taken place between the parties without result, apparently. A number of the tenants have been decreed, and the majority of them have since settled with the agent. The tenant mentioned in the second paragraph was proceeded against for cutting wood on a portion of bog not on his own holding; I have no information as to his circumstances. The tenants made application to purchase their holdings, but the property had then passed into the hands of the Assurance Company. I cannot say what would be the decision of the Land Commission in the event referred to in the last paragraph.

  OVERCROWDING ON RAILWAYS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Northampton, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the successful claim brought by Mrs. Wiley, in the Shoreditch County Court, on Saturday last, against the North London Railway Company, for injuries sustained by her falling out of an overcrowded compartment in which she was obliged to stand against the door; whether he is aware that such over-crowding is constantly occurring on the London and suburban railways at certain times in the day; and whether he can take steps, by representation to the companies or otherwise, to induce or compel the companies to make better provision of carriages at such hours?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the case referred to, but I understand the company do not admit the accuracy of the facts as stated in the Question. I am anxious to do everything in
  942
  my power to press the companies to mitigate the evils arising from overcrowding, and correspondence is continually passing between the Board of Trade and the companies on the subject. No remedy has been found. It is doubtful whether some companies can put on more trains or add more carriages to existing trains. Large accommodation is given by the metropolitan companies; for instance, the North London—the line upon which the accident to Mrs. Wiley happened—state that between 5 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. on week days (Saturdays excepted), 28 trains are run from Broad Street to Bow, having a seating capacity for 15,112 persons.

  YANG-TSZE PROVINCES.
  MR. J. WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any formal or specific agreement in writing has been concluded by the Government of Great Britain with the Government of China in respect of the Yang-tsze Provinces beyond the notice contained in the brief telegraphic dispatch of Sir C. Mac-Donald to the Marquess of Salisbury of 14th February; and whether the reply of the Yamen to the British demand referred to in that dispatch was in writing; and, if so, whether their reply will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. CURZON: If the honourable Member will refer again to the telegram to which he alludes, he will see that Sir Claude MacDonald addressed a dispatch to the Chinese Government on the subject, and received one from them in reply. The agreement is, therefore, in writing and specific. Its contents are fully described in the telegram from Sir Claude MacDonald already published; and the actual words of the assurance—namely, that, "It is out of the question that territory in the Yang-tsze region should be mortgaged, leased, or ceded to another Power," are there quoted. If, however, the honourable Member still entertains suspicions on the subject, I shall be most happy to show him a copy of the dispatch.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understand from the Under

  943
  Secretary that a formal dispatch on the subject of the Yang-tsze Valley was addressed to the Yamen by our Ambassador in China, and that a formal answer in writing was returned by the Yamen to him; I would ask the Under Secretary whether he will not lay these two important dispatches on the Table of Parliament. It is not a question of private communications: it is a matter of the highest consequence to have the text of these two dispatches, of which only a single sentence appears in the telegraphic communication.
  MR. CURZON: I think the right honourable Gentleman fancies that there is rather more in the dispatches to which he alludes than there actually is. There is not the slightest objection to laying the dispatch of Sir Claude MacDonald or the reply on the Table of the House other than the slight inconvenience of laying a single leaflet of paper which only contains a few lines.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESwas understood to ask: Is the House to understand that no alteration has been made in regard to this region since the dispatches were written?
  MR. CURZON: I think the honourable Gentleman had better wait and see the dispatches.

  PEKIN-HAN-KAU RAILWAY CONCESSION.
  MR. J. WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French are parties to the Belgian Syndicate who have obtained a concession for the railway from Pekin to Han-kau, in the Yang-tsze Valley; whether he is prepared to state the terms of that concession; and whether that contract is in conformity with the assurances given by the Government of China in respect to the Yang-tsze Provinces?
  MR. CURZON: I have no information as to the extent to which any of the persons interested in the Belgian Syndicate are of French nationality. The concession as signed has not been published, and I am unable to state the precise terms of it.
  MR. J. WALTON: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that the commercial interests of this country are so deeply involved in the question, the right honourable Gentleman will address a telegraphic communication to Pekin for information, and will convey that information to the House when he receives it?
  MR. CURZON: It is quite unnecessary to send a telegraphic communication to Pekin on the subject, because Sir Claude MacDonald has not only general but special instructions to acquaint us of all he can learn on the matter.

  LARNE HARBOUR.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the statement made by Admiral Fullerton during the last Royal visit to Belfast, that it was impossible to take the Royal yacht "Victoria and Albert" into Larne Harbour, notwithstanding that arrangements had been made for its departure from that port, whether he is aware that the largest steamers of the Transatlantic State Line for a considerable period called regularly at Larne for passengers and goods; and that one of the largest ocean steamers ever built by Messrs. Harland and Wolff called at Larne on her trial trip; whether he is aware that local pilots or captains were willing to take the yacht into Larne Harbour with ease and safety; whether, considering the reflection made by Admiral Fullerton as to the want of sufficient accommodation there, or as to the limited capacity of the harbour, any inspection has since been or will be made to test the disputed grounds for the refusal of Admiral Fullerton to bring the Royal yacht into Larne Harbour; and whether the Admiralty charts give any indication of the want of capacity of this harbour for the entrance and departure of such a steamer; and, if so, whether such charts will be revised and corrected in accordance with the facts?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): The Admiralty have no information on the points indicated in the first two

  945
  paragraphs of the Question. The dimensions and depths of Larne Harbour are correctly given on the Admiralty charts, and no action of the kind suggested in the third and fourth paragraphs will be taken.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I shall on another day ask the honourable Member if an answer given on this subject last Monday does not disclose an utter want of knowledge of the facts on the part of the Admiralty authorities.

  RAILWAY BRIDGE NEAR LISTOWEL.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what provision, if any, can be made in the Local Government Bill giving the ratepayers of the county of Kerry a right of way across the railway line between Duagh and Islandanny, situate near Listowel; whether he is aware that the grand jury of Kerry erected a bridge between Duagh and Islandanny at a cost to the ratepayers of £3,496 10s., which bridge, although completed for the past seven years, cannot be used on account of the public having no right of way across the railway; and whether some provision can be made to allow the public to utilise a bridge built at their expense by the grand jury of Kerry?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It would be outside the scope of the Local Government Bill to make provision of the nature suggested in the Question. As to the facts of the case, I replied on the 1st April last to a Question addressed to me by the honourable Member, and I must refer him to the answer given by me on that occasion.
  MR. FLAVIN: Do I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say the county council must accept this monumental piece of construction? Is there no remedy for it? Is he aware that this bridge has been completed for seven years, and cannot be used?

  GRAND JURY CONTRACTS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the grand jury of the county of Kerry, who are at present sitting, have the power to enter into contracts for any period up to five years for the making and maintaining of roads, etc., within the county of Kerry; and whether he is aware that their secretary has issued an advertisement, bearing date 27th June, 1898, for new contracts for five years?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The existing powers of the grand jury to adopt long term contracts for maintenance works cannot be interfered with until the Local Government Bill becomes law.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: And will these contracts be binding on the new county councils?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, undoubtedly.
  MR. FLAVIN: Have the Local Government Board issued any instructions in connection with these long term contracts?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board has no power to do that, but I believe a suggestion has been sent out that such contracts should not be entered into where it can be avoided.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is it fair that a county council should be bound by—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member must take some other opportunity of arguing the question.

  NENAGH GUARDIANS AND THE ENGINEER.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of a case tried before the county court judge at the recent quarter sessions at Nenagh, county Tipperary, where their engineer sued the board of guardians of the Nenagh Union for balance of an amount alleged to be due to him for certain maps prepared for the Privy Council inquiry in

  947
  connection with their scheme for labourers' cottages, in which case a decree for the full amount claimed was obtained against the guardians with costs; whether the guardians had at first decided to pay Mr. Gill, their engineer, his full claim, but were prohibited from so doing by order of the Local Government Board; if he is aware that subsequently the application to have an engineer sent down to give evidence in the case was refused by the Local Government Board, and that in the absence of such expert evidence the judge decided against the guardians; whether, under these circumstances, the guardians, considering they should not be at the loss of the costs, some £15, made application to the Local Government Board to have the amount refunded, but which request was also refused; and if, under the circumstances, he will have inquiry made, with a view to have the guardians recouped for this loss to the rates, for which they were in no way accountable?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts as stated in paragraphs one to four are substantially accurate, except the statement that the guardians were "prohibited" by the Local Government Board from paying Mr. Gill's claim in full. What occurred was this: the Board asked the guardians to have an enlarged map prepared by their engineer, showing the petitioners' holdings, etc., in eight cases for the information of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This was done, and the engineer sent in his bill for the work at the rate of six guineas per map, or £50 8s. in all, and the guardians, after communication with other unions, in which similar work had been done at a much lower rate, decided to pay the bill. When the matter came before the Board they stated that the remuneration seemed very high, and, after consultation with their chief engineering inspector, the Board informed the guardians that, in their opinion, half the amount proposed would afford ample remuneration to Mr. Gill for the work. Thereupon the guardians decided to offer him half the amount claimed, which he declined, and sued them for the full amount. It would be contrary to the practice of the Local Government Board to send one of their inspectors, or other professional advisers,
  948
  to give evidence in a case in which they were not themselves concerned, and it was open to the guardians, if they really wished to defend the action, to employ expert evidence for the purpose. But this they failed to do, and the county court judge, in the absence of any such evidence on their behalf, gave a decree for the amount claimed, with costs. The Local Government Board have no funds at their disposal to defray the guardians' costs in this case, but even if they had they see no reason for such a course, as their views respecting the unreasonableness of Mr. Gill's claim are not in any way altered by the evidence given on his behalf, or by the decision of the judge on the merits of the case as presented to him.

  GALLANTRY OF SURGEON LIEUTENANT HUGO.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the gallant conduct of Surgeon Lieutenant V. Hugo, of the Malakand Field Force, under the following circumstances:—Lieutenant Ford was dangerously wounded in the shoulder, and was bleeding to death from the bullet having cut the main artery, when Surgeon Lieutenant Hugo came to his aid. The fire was too hot to permit lights to be used to examine the wound, and there was no cover, nevertheless the surgeon struck a match and examined the wound. The match went out amid a splutter of bullets, which kicked up the dust all round, but by its uncertain light he saw the nature of the injury, and seized the bleeding artery, and, as no ligature was available, he remained for three hours under fire holding the vessel between his finger and thumb. When at length it seemed that the enemy had broken into camp, he picked up the officer, who was unconscious from loss of blood, and bore him into a place of safety without relaxing his hold of the artery; and whether the authorities have taken steps to reward suitably this splendid act of devotion?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The officer who performed the gallant action referred to by the

  949
  honourable Member was Surgeon Lieutenant J. H. Hugo, who, for his services in the late campaign, has received the decoration of the Distinguished Service Order.

  NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY FOR WEXFORD.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in the proposed local government division of county Wexford, Rosbercon, a suburb of New Ross, heretofore in county Kilkenny, is now added to the county of Wexford; if he is further aware that heretofore the counties of Wexford and Kilkenny jointly bore the charges on the bridge connecting New Ross with Rosbercon, which bridge benefited both counties equally; whether the proposed assignment of Rosbercon to county Wexford will in any way affect the incidence of these charges; and whether he will take steps to secure that the arrangement entered into by the grand juries of Wexford and Kilkenny in the past for the joint payment of the expenses of this bridge will be continued after the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This is one of many cases in which existing county charges will be adjusted following upon any alteration of county boundaries.

  IRISH ASSISTANT TEACHERS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return of the number of assistant teachers in Ireland under the National Board, giving respectively the number of first, second, and third class assistants?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The total number of assistant teachers recognised in National schools on the 31st December last was 3,604, of whom there were in the first class 108 males and 140 females, in the second class 482 males and 1,073 females, and in the third class 450 males and 1,342 females.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether no serious attempt is to be made during the present Parliament to carry a Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill, such as should constitutionally be passed in the first Session of each Parliament; and whether, by the absence of such an Act, the Land Tax Commissioners, by whom the Income Tax Commissioners are appointed, will gradually be reduced so as to consist of county magistrates only?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): I know of no constitutional necessity for passing a Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill in the first Session of each Parliament, and, when the preceding Parliament has been a short one, there is not much practical reason for doing so. In this Parliament what has hitherto been regarded as a formal and non-controversial Measure has been treated as controversial. I hope, however, that next Session the Bill may be reintroduced and passed into law. As county magistrates are ex-officio Land Tax Commissioners, the effect of continued omission to appoint new Commissioners would be as stated in the Question. But there is no intention of allowing such a result, and at the present time the number of Land Tax Commissioners is, I understand, adequate.
  MR. LEWIS: Is it not a fact that five years have now passed since the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Act was passed, and is not considerable inconvenience felt in several districts owing to the non-passing of another Act, which there is no intention on this side of the House at any rate of unduly opposing?
  MR. HANBURY: I can only say that the honourable Member himself is responsible for the withdrawal of the Bill.

  ENGLISH HOSPITAL AT ADEN.
  MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any English nurses have been engaged for the hospital at Aden; and

  951
  whether the Government of India or the Admiralty will pay their salaries?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am not aware whether any English nurses have yet been engaged for the Aden Hospital, but I am in communication with the Government of India on this subject; as also regarding the proportion of their salaries to be paid by the Admiralty and Port Funds respectively. The latter point to a large extent regulates the class of nurses to be engaged.

  INTERNAL FITTINGS OF WAR SHIPS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the attention of the Admiralty has been called to the advisability of substituting steel or aluminium for wood in the internal fittings of Her Majesty's ships; and whether any steps have been or will be taken in that direction?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The attention of the Admiralty has been continuously directed for a long time past to minimising the amount of wood and other inflammable material in the fittings of Her Majesty's ships. This policy will be continued.

  ASTON MANOR BOARD SCHOOLS.
  CAPTAIN GRICE-HUTCHINSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department has sanctioned the expenditure of £25,000 or thereabouts on the erection of higher grade Board schools in Aston Manor (which is a necessitous school board district), in spite of the protest of the ratepayers, who, in public meeting assembled, on June 28th, rejected the adoption of the scheme by an overwhelming majority; and, if so, whether the Department can see its way to reconsider their decision. In putting the Question I wish to explain that the ratepayers are not opposed to the principle, but object to the unnecessarily large expenditure?
  SIR. J. GORST: A loan of £23,000 has been sanctioned to provide for the rehousing and improvement of an existing higher grade school, and the building of a pupil teacher centre and a school for deaf children. The Department have communicated their approval of the plans to the Board, and see no reason to reconsider their decision.

  CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION SCHEME.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury have received memorials signed by nearly 50,000 Civil servants, praying for an inquiry into the superannuation system; and, if so, whether he can say when an answer will be given to the memorialists?
  MR. HANBURY: Memorials on this subject have been received from a large number of Civil servants in various Departments. I cannot at present say when an answer will be given.

  INCOME TAX ON COLONIAL INVESTMENTS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information as to the practical effect of the imposition of the double income tax in causing capital to be withdrawn from the Colonies concerned and invested elsewhere; and, if not, whether he would, in co-operation with the Colonial Office, by circular or otherwise, obtain authoritative particulars from the various Colonial Governments on this important point?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I have no information as to the effect of a Colonial income tax on the investment of British capital in Colonies where it exists, and I think it would be impossible to obtain any particulars from which a trustworthy conclusion could be drawn.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade exercises any supervision over the ratebooks of the railway companies, with the view of verifying the fact that their rates are not in excess of the charges authorised in the schedules of the various Charges Confirmation Acts; and what, if any, steps it is in the power of the Board of Trade to take in cases where charges in excess of those authorised by the Acts appearing in the rate-books of railway companies are brought to its notice?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir; the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction over the rate-books of railway companies. Section 10 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, confers on the Railway and Canal Commissioners jurisdiction to hear and determine any question or dispute as to the legality of any rate charged or sought to be charged for the conveyance of merchandise. This, so far as I am aware, is the only appropriate procedure which can be followed in regard to the matter referred to in the honourable Member's Question.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Has the right honourable Gentleman reason to believe that traders are satisfied with the present state of the law?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have received various complaints through the medium of my honourable Friend to the effect that they are not satisfied. I have stated what the law is.

  SHOP BENEFIT AND SLATE CLUBS.
  MR. ROBSON: On behalf of the honourable Member for Berwickshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is about to appoint a Committee to inquire into shop benefit clubs; and, if so, whether he will consent to inquire into the working of slate clubs?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The inquiry which I suggested was into the alleged grievances of the friendly societies against certain employers for compelling their workmen to leave those societies and join clubs established by the employers. I imagine the terms of reference would cover the case of slate clubs so far as similar grievances have arisen in connection with them.

  DISTURBANCES 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 am informed that the facts are generally as stated in the first paragraph, except with regard to the stoning of the police. The damage done to property consisted of the breaking of a few windows. The police patrol in the locality has been augmented, and the condition of affairs in the district has improved.
  MR. DILLON: Did the constable make the statement mentioned in the Question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe he did, but I do not think it was well founded.
  SIR J. HASLETT: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that this is one of the leading thoroughfares of the city, and is usually a most peaceable district?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

  VOLUNTARY EDUCATION AT OXFORD.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Education Department is breaking up the Voluntary system in the city of Oxford, by the arbitrary re-arrangement of districts, and by the suggestion (in a letter from the Department to the Oxford School Board of 2nd July) of arbitrary standards of computing accommodation, so as to prevent the existing schools providing for the number of children hitherto recognised by the late inspector and by the Department itself; whether there is any intention of treating the accommodation of the schools built and enlarged on the basis of allowing eight square feet per child, as if they were constructed upon the 10 square feet basis recently adopted by the Department, and declared to have no retrospective application; and whether, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction caused by the action of Her Majesty's inspector, the Department will reconsider its refusal to grant the special inquiry provided in the Education Act for such cases, and respectfully requested both by the Oxford School Board and by the Church school managers assembled to consider the subject?
  SIR J. GORST: I cannot admit that the Education Department are taking the action described in the first paragraph of the Question. The letter of the 2nd July contained no suggestion of arbitrary standards of computing accommodation. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. No special inquiry is provided in the Education Acts for such cases. The Department have already carefully inquired, and are still inquiring, into the whole case.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: Will further inquiry be made at Oxford?
  SIR J. GORST: I said the Department were making inquiries.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: On the spot?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes.
  LORD CRANBORNE: Will the right honourable Gentleman give an
  956
  indication to the House of the result of the inquiries before any definite action is taken?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes; if any honourable Member will ask a Question in the course of a day or two.

  CAMILLA NICHOLLS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Camilla Nicholls, who on the 2nd May last at the Central Criminal Court was convicted of the manslaughter of her servant, Emily Jane Popejoy, and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, has been removed from Wormwood Scrubbs Prison to Aylesbury Prison; and, if so, when?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: This prisoner was removed to Aylesbury on the 13th May.

  COLLIERY CHECK-WEIGHERS AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in the event of a check-weigher at a colliery being injured while in the course of his employment, from whom would he claim compensation, seeing he is an employee of the men and not of the colliery owner?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I fear I must decline to give my honourable Friend a legal opinion upon a hypothetical case in reply to a Question in this House. If the case arises in practice the point must be settled in the law courts.

  KILLED BY CYCLISTS.
  MR. HOWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of the two cyclists who ran into and killed a man in Tottenham, afterwards making off, and against whom a verdict of manslaughter

  957
  has been found by the coroner's jury; and whether he will issue a reward for their apprehension?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have had a report of this case, but it would be against the long-established practice of the Home Office to offer a reward, and I see no sufficient reason in the present instance for departing from it.

  CONVEYANCE OF CYCLES BY RAIL.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state what progress has been made by the principal railway companies of the United Kingdom in endeavouring to provide proper facilities for the conveyance by rail of bicycles, for the reduction of the rates charged for their conveyance, and for setting apart at the larger stations places where they may be left without risk of injury?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir; I am not able to make any statement on the subject. I have reason to believe that the matter is re-receiving the earnest attention of the railway companies, who are doing their best to deal with a very difficult problem.

  COUNTERVAILING DUTIES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended by the Government to impose a countervailing duty on all agricultural produce assisted with bounties imported into Great Britain and Ireland?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am not aware of any such intention, but the honourable Member should address himself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  TRIAL OF DR. COLLINS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, with reference to the recent trial of Dr. Collins at the Central Criminal Court on an indictment for wil-
  958
  ful murder, when the Attorney General who prosecuted for the Crown, while presenting the death as due to a felonious act done by the prisoner, invited the jury to return a verdict of manslaughter only, and they accordingly did so; and whether, with a view to regularise such verdicts, he will consider the propriety of introducing an amending Bill, so that a person who, without an intention to injure, kills another by a felonious act not likely in itself to cause death or grievous bodily harm, may be regularly convicted of manslaughter and not of murder?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I do not think there is any necessity for an amending Bill. The law, as he endeavoured to express it, has been laid down more than once by distinguished judges in charging juries.

  PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE VOTE.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is intended to take the Vote for the Privy Council Office; and whether he will undertake that an opportunity to discuss that Vote will be given?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid I cannot fix any date for the discussion of the Vote, nor do I imagine it one of those Votes on which discussion is most required.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: Then there will be no chance of discussing this Vote?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot say that, but there are other Votes which must have precedence.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government will take an early opportunity to consider the Report of the Committee on Old Age Pensions, and make a statement during this Session as to what steps they propose to take to introduce such a system?
  The following Question was also on the Paper:—
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has considered the Report of the Committee on Old Age Pensions, and especially the statement in that Report that the Committee found themselves precluded by the terms of the reference from considering and reporting on several of the groups of schemes for providing old age pensions; and what course the Government propose to take in further dealing with this question?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I really do not think I can add anything to the answer I gave in the House to a precisely similar question two days ago.
  MR. WARNER: Is there any chance of the country having some idea of the Government proposals before next Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That is merely repeating the Question in another form.

  WEST INDIAN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.
  SIR C. DILKE: On behalf of the honourable Member for Northampton, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what day the Colonial Loans Bill will be introduced; and when the Supplementary Estimate for the West Indies will be in the hands of Members?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will answer the first part of the Question later. As to the second, I understand that the Supplementary Estimate for the West Indies will be in the hands of Members in the course of next weak. I cannot as yet fix a day for its discussion.

  METROPOLITAN GAS CHARGES.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to constitute the Select Committee on the subject of the prices
  960
  of gas charged by the various gas companies in the Metropolis, ordered by Resolution of this House on the 22nd June last?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that the Committee has not yet been appointed, but arrangements are being made for its early appointment.

  WELSH COAL DISPUTE
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a Question of which I haves given him private notice—namely, whether he has received any communication from Sir Edward Fry with respect to the South Wales coal dispute?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir, I have received an interim Report from Sir Edward Fry to the same effect as is indicated in the communication addressed by him to the Workmen's Committee, and which appeared in to-day's papers. I have also received another interim Report which is rather long, and which I have not yet had time to read; but I do not, however, gather from that Report that Sir Edward Fry proposes to relax his efforts or that he despairs of his intervention having useful results. I may point out that if, by the efforts of the conciliator, misunderstandings which keep the parties apart are removed and they are brought together to discuss between themselves a basis of settlement, a great step will have taken place in the direction of peace.

  FORTHCOMING BUSINESS.
  MR. BUXTON: Can the Leader of the House new say when the Colonial Loans Bill will be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Colonial Loans Bill will be introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-morrow.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right honourable Gentleman fix a day when the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill will be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I cannot fix a day. I will, however, be in a position tomorrow to state definitely what will be taken in the early part of next week. I am unwilling to make pledges as to days beyond that.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: With reference to the Motion on the Paper for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule, may I ask when the Irish Local Government Bill will be taken again, assuming that owing to action extraneous to that of the Irish Members it is not finished to-night.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am reluctant to contemplate that it will not be finished to-night. In that unhappy event I shall have to determine whether under the very exceptional circumstances it should be taken to-morrow or at a Saturday sitting.
  SIR W. FOSTER: Will the Vaccination Bill be taken early next week?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I shall be prepared to say to-morrow what business will be taken in the early part of next week.

  EVICTIONS IN COUNTY TYRONE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the action of Thomas Smith, bog agent, and Robert Corrigan, estate bailiff, in forcibly evicting Emily Jefferson in the county of Tyrone without legal warrant, and to the language used by County Court Judge Brady at the last Omagh quarter sessions, in commenting upon their proceedings: and whether he will order a prosecution against Smith and Corrigan?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): Emily Jefferson was the daughter of the caretaker of the dispensary at Carrickmore. After her mother's death, about two years ago, she persisted in retaining possession of a room in which she kept her furniture without any right to do so. She did not reside in the house for the last twelve months, but visited it occasionally. Smith and Corrigan, by the direction of the agent of the landlord, Sir John Stuart, broke the door and removed the furniture, for which Emily Jefferson sued the landlord for forcible entry into the house in which she was herself a trespasser, and claimed £10 damages. She was awarded ten shillings by the county court judge.

  MAYO GRAND JURY.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to put a Question to the Attorney General for Ireland. Is he aware that among the Mayo grand jurors sworn in the day before yesterday was Mr. Vesey Stoney, who was dismissed from the magistracy and the Deputy-Lieutenancy and the council of management of local schools for conduct held to be disgraceful by the Executive; is he also aware that on the same grand jury there are four members of the bench of magistrates who met before to receive information against a prisoner, whose case was to come before the grand jury; and will the Government take steps to put an end to this scandalous state of things?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware of the circumstances referred to, and, even if the facts be accurately stated, the Executive have no control in matters of this kind.
  MR. DILLON: Am I to understand that there is no remedy to prevent a man like Vesey Stoney being sworn in a grand jury?
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  MR. RYDER, introduced by Mr. Akers-Douglas (Kent, St. Augustine's) and Mr. W. F. D. Smith (Strand, Westminster), took the oath and his seat for Graves-end, in the room of Colonel Palmer, who since his election has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE . (EXEMPTION FROM STANDING ORDER).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.) moved—
  "That the proceedings on the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, if under discussion at 12 o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, 'Sittings of the House.'"
  The House divided:—Ayes 282; Noes 101.—(Division List No. 217.)

  AYES.

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gilhooly, James

  Aird, John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Colomb, Sir John C. R.

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Ambrose, W. (Middlesex)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Arnold, Alfred

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

  Goschen, Rt. Hon. G. J. (St G'g's)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cox, Robert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

  Gourley, Sir Edward T.

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Crean, Eugene

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Hall, Sir Charles

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

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

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

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

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Dalbiac, Col. Philip H.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hardy, Laurence

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Daly, James

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Davies, H. D. (Chatham)

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Davitt, Michael

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Denny, Colonel

  Helder, Augustus

  Bethell, Commander

  Dillon, John

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bigwood, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Dorington, Sir John E.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hogan, James Francis

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Drucker, A.

  Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

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

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Houston, R. P.

  Brassey, Albert

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. B.

  Howard, Joseph

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

  Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Butcher, John George

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

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Carew, James Laurence

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Finch, George H.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert B.

  Kenrick, William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kenyon, James

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  FitzWygram, Gen. Sir F.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Flannery, Fortescue

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Knox, Edmund Francis V.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lafone, Alfred

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Garfit, William

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

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

  Coddington, Sir William

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Newark, Viscount

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Spencer, Ernest

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

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

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Lorne, Marquess of

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lowles, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  O'Kelly, James

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

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Pender, Sir James

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

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

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Thorburn, Walter

  Maclure, Sir John W.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Pinkerton, John

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

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

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  McCartan, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Valentia, Viscount

  McDermott, Patrick

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

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

  McKillop, James

  Purvis, Robert

  Waring, Colonel Thomas

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Pym, C. Guy

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Manners, Lord E. W. J.

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John L.

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartl'p'l)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Milton, Viscount

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

  Monk, Charles James

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Moon, Edward Robert P.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  More, Robert Jasper

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Ryder, John Herbert D.

  Wyndham, George

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Morris, Samuel

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Saunderson, Colonel E. J.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

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

  Murnaghan, George

  Scott, Sir S. (Mary'bone, W.)

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

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Maden, John Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Mappin, Sir F. Thorpe

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Harwood, George

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hazell, Walter

  Morley, C. (Breconshire)

  Brigg, John

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Brunner, Sir John T.

  Holburn, J. G.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hutton, A. E. (Morley)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Burt, Thomas

  Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joicey, Sir James

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  Price, Robert John

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Crombie, John William

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, E. (Dundee)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Logan, John William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Souttar, Robinson

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

  Spicer, Albert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  McKenna, Reginald

  Stanhope, Hon. P. J.

  Gold, Charles

  McLaren, Charles B.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  966

  967

  Strachey, Edward

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wayman, Thomas

  Woodall, William

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Kearley and Mr. Pirie.

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  The House resumed consideration of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, as amended in Committee.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 28, line 13, to leave out clause 45."—(Mr. McKenna.)
  MR. MCKENNA: I rise to move the omission of clause 45. It contains within it principles of vital importance to the local taxation of Ireland. In the Bill as it now stands the total and what is to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the Irish local taxation is fully secured, and therefore any Amendment which may be moved will not affect the total grant in aid of Irish local taxation. The clause we have now to consider contains two principles. The first is the alteration of the system of raising the local taxes, and the second is the gift So Irish landlords of their existing contribution to the poor rate, amounting, I believe, roughly, to about £400,000 a year. Now Mr. Speaker, I think the House is already fully aware of the reasons which the right honourable Gentleman gives for the first principle contained in this clause. Under the existing system of local taxation the poor rate is divided between the landlord and the occupier. The right honourable Gentleman thinks, rightly or wrongly, that inasmuch as the control of local taxation will come into the hands of the occupiers, who form the great majority of voters, it is desirable to put the whole of the burden of local expenditure upon them. That is the first principle contained in this Amendment. I do not think it necessary to discuss that part of the clause at length. I will only point out that the safeguard which has been given by relieving landlords of all liability for future increase of expenditure with regard to the poor rate is a safeguard which is not considered necessary at the present time in Scotland; nor, as a matter of fact, is it considered necessary or desirable in certain
  968
  large towns in Ireland, where an extended franchise already exists, and where, as a matter of fact, it has not been found that extravagance has ensued in consequence of an extension of the franchise. But the right honourable Gentleman holds that view, and he is not satisfied that the fact that tenant occupiers would have to pay half the rate would be a sufficient inducement to exercise control over extravagance. The honourable Member for East Mayo has a very important Amendment on the paper with regard to the question of the urban districts, and I do not wish to anticipate anything he has to say on the subject. But there is a certain factor involved in this clause, a factor which has nothing to do with the general principle of local taxation in Ireland. That factor is the direct gift to the landlords of their present contribution to the poor rates of a sum amounting to about £400,000 a year, which, capitalised at 2½ per cent. is equal to something like £16,000,000. This question was really raised in Committee. Had it been answered in Committee I do not know that I for one would wish to trouble the House again by touching upon the matter. But the Chief Secretary for Ireland considered himself justified, as he expressed it, in treating the Amendments dealing with this point with the contempt they deserved; and as we have hitherto failed to receive any reason from him as to why be makes this gift to the Irish landlords I for one feel it my duty to press him for an intelligible reason why, over and above this alteration of the general system of Irish taxation, he feels it incumbent on him to give a grant of £400,000 a year to the Irish landlords. It is quite obvious that the right honourable Gentleman may feel that any explanation he may give might be used hereafter at elections. He may feel that he cannot give any intelligible reason to the English electorate. But I appeal to him as to whether that is a sufficient reason for refusing to satisfy us on this side of the House in a most legitimate inquiry as

  969
  to why he makes away with such an enormous sum as £16,000,000 sterling to a particular class in Ireland—a class which is not so out-and-out necessitous as to deserve special consideration on the part of this House, We cannot dwell too strongly on the absurdity of burdening the taxpayers of this country on behalf of the Irish landlords. It is not that I have any particular grievance against the Irish landlords. I have no doubt that they, as a body, are like any other class of men you like to select. But why the poorer classes of this country, who we know have to bear a proportion of taxation beyond their means, should not have existing burdens removed from them, instead of having those burdens increased by finding a large sum of money for a particular class in Ireland, it is difficult to understand. In the debate we recently had on the Irish financial relations I think one point was established beyond doubt, and that was that as a fact the contribution from Ireland was in excess of Irish means; whether the money is returned in other ways or not is outside the question for the moment. That is not disputed: the Irish contribution is in excess of the means of the country. But the arguments proved this, that the contributions of the poorer classes of the three Kingdoms are likewise beyond their means. Ireland only contributes more because she has a larger proportion of poor members of the community. Great Britain, likewise, so far as her poorer classes are concerned, contributes beyond her means. If that be the case, if it be established beyond doubt that under our present system of taxation the poorer classes are undoubtedly over-burdened, is it not unreasonable beyond words that we should fail to give any relief to these poorer classes, but should continue the extravagant burden upon them. It is not a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is robbing Lazarus to pay Dives. The honourable Member for East Mayo has declared that this provision to pay the Irish landlords this very large sum is a species of blackmail. Sir, I can understand that Irish Members would be willing to pay this blackmail on the ground of the great advantage they hope to receive under this Bill, but are we justified in consenting to this corrupt bargain? Are honourable Mem-
  970
  bers who represent poor communities, who represent urban districts where the taxation is immensely high, in being parties to this corrupt bargain, under which an immense sum is taken away out of their control and handed over to a class which, after all, must be admitted to be a rich class? Sir, that part of the right honourable Gentleman's clause is absolutely indefensible. As to that part we have not had one word of answer, and in moving the rejection of this clause I challenge the right honourable Gentleman to state briefly, clearly, and in intelligible words what is the reason for giving £400,000 a year to the Irish landlords. I beg to move the omission of the clause.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The honourable Member who moved the rejection of this clause has challenged the Government to give a reason for relieving the burden of half the poor rate on agricultural land. The answer to that is simple. In the first place the financial proposals of the clause are part of the arrangement made by common consent last year in every quarter of the House, with the exception of a section of the Radical Party of England and Wales. The honourable Member has during the Committee stage opposed this provision of the Bill. There was, however, in every portion of the House, including the front Opposition bench, a general agreement, and it was a reasonable thing to solve the problem of local government on those lines. I venture to appeal to the House as to whether, if such an argument had not been come to, it would have been even remotely possible to pass a Bill so complicated and so difficult; whether it would not have been hopeless for us to attempt to pass a Local Government Bill through this House unless some financial arrangement of that kind had been made? But, Sir, there is nothing in this clause which hands over this money to the landlords. There is nothing in the clause providing that the landlord's share in the agricultural grant, which was £300,000 and not £400,000, as the honourable Member supposed, should be handed over to the landlords. There was a general agreement on both

  971
  sides of the House that Ireland was entitled to it. Supposing it was to be connected with the giving of local government, then the grant must be permanent. What would be the necessary result? It would be that in fixing fair rents in agricultural districts the landlord would get the benefit of this grant. What is really done is to take the precaution that the landlords shall not get the benefit except as regards the poor rate. When the time comes I am perfectly ready to defend what is the real substance of clause 45—namely, the throwing of the burden upon the occupier, not merely in the country districts, but in the towns as well. As regards the contention that the landlord is to receive the benefit of the poor rate, he would have received it in any case. The landlords are to be relieved of the payment of half the poor rate, and the tenants of half the county cess; and as this is done for the purpose of solving the great and difficult problem of local government in Ireland, I do not think the Government ought to be blamed.
  MR. T. SHAW: I trust you will forgive me for interposing on the present occasion. I have done nothing in the course of this discussion, though I hold strong views on the financial provisions, to impede the progress of any single clause. What I was particularly anxious to know was what was the defence of clause 45 in this Bill. I am still in a great dilemma, for I do not know whether I have listened to a defence or not.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I replied to the attack upon it.
  MR. T. SHAW: A reply has only been made to a speech that has been delivered. That may be one reason for not defending this Bill, but as to the merits of the clause, we may hold that there has been no reasonable defence given. What has been said, however, has been the laying down of three propositions. In the first place it is said that this is part of an arrangement. Now I think that of all things most hateful in this House the worst is to introduce anything in the nature of a personal explanation or defence; and when the right honourable Gentleman talks about an arrangement with regard to the finance of this Bill I
  972
  know that he will candidly acquit me of being any party to that arrangement. When the resolution was placed before this House on which the money was obtained for the purposes of this Bill, I did venture, though with much reluctance, to interpose, and it is only as a sequel to that interposition that I now rise to say that I never will be a party to an arrangement of this kind, which, in substance, appears to be in the nature of a corrupt bargain, and which, in its result, will be productive of much social mischief, if not, indeed, social disorder. The right honourable Gentleman says that this clause does not propose to hand over this money to the landlords. Well, technically, that is so. No doubt it is, so that this clause does not propose to hand ever the money to the Irish landlords by its express terms. But what is the provision of clause 45. It is this: that now and for all time the landlords shall be written out of the lists of ratepayers in Ireland, and the money that will enable that to be done will be money that will come out of the British Treasury. Under these circumstances I must say that it appears to me that the defence of the right honourable Gentleman is a petty defence to the handing over of this money to provide the machinery under which one class alone shall escape payment. If that be not handing over money to the landlords directly it is certainly doing so in an indirect fashion. The last observation made on the subject to which the House listened was that the landlords would not get the benefit, except the benefit of the poor rate. The landlord would get the benefit most unquestionably to the full extent of the poor rate for all time coming. Upon the clause itself I hope to address a few observations to the House which will show that it is not so easily disposed of as might be imagined by the answer that has just been given. I hold that clause 45, supplemented as it is by clause 90, is of no less stupendous importance to Ireland. It is, in a sense, quite separable from the other questions which have been discussed on previous days in these Debates. In the former clauses the money was dedicated to certain purposes, but in the present clause the actual relief, as provided by the provision of the Act, is

  973
  given to the landlords, by taking them out of the list of taxpayers in Ireland. Now that is a subject upon which no person who has inquired, or who has ascertained the opinion of financiers, can ever have had the slightest doubt—namely, that if you abolish in Ireland, or in Scotland, or anywhere else, a system which exists under which landlord and tenant shall pay equal shares of the local rates, you are abandoning a system which has been acknowledged by all authorities to be the best system of local rating in existence. In Scotland we have had direct examples of the incidence of taxation. The landlords directly pay their half of the rates and the tenants pay their half. Now in Ireland we have the same system, although not direct, but in an indirect fashion; and what is the result of that system? The result, Mr. Speaker, so far as Scotland is concerned, is that upon every proposition for the expenditure of money for local purposes it has produced a community of interests, of common responsibility between landlord and tenant, which is at the bottom of all sound finance in local transactions. What it is proposed now to do is not to relieve the occupier and the landlord alike, but to abandon what has hitherto been a sound system of local finance in Ireland and to substitute for it a system which is universally condemned by the best authorities. It has been said that there is a Commission sitting upon this subject; but, as I have said in a former speech, Commissions have sat upon this subject before now, and the latest dictum of Commissions is only as far back as 1897, when the First Lord of the Admiralty gave to the world his view, which is now before the country—namely, that the best and ideal system of taxation was where landlord and tenant were assessed equally for all local purposes. But, Mr. Speaker, this clause has a still further defect, and it is this: we have had legislation in the line of this Bill already. In Ireland, as I said before, you have an indirect system of taxation, in Scotland you have it direct; but what happened in the case of Scotland when you were dealing with the agricultural grant for Scotland? What happened then was this: it was expressly set out in the Bill that no part of the relief granted should
  974
  be given to the landlord, but solely to the occupier; now it applied expressly to the poor rate. In the present instance what you have is a declaration twofold in character: firstly, that the poor rate for all future time shall be made upon the occupier and not upon the landlord; and, secondly, a provision that the occupier shall not be entitled, as hitherto, to deduct from his rent. I say that, Mr. Speaker, in a case of this kind we do want something more as a defence of this new departure from a sound and honourable principle than a reference to a particular bargain, made under circumstances which I am altogether unable to understand. And, in regard to the grant conceded by the Exchequer, of this £300,000 of public money to one particular class, I say that until this Government came into power this new system of doles to particular sections of the community, whom we generally suppose are friendly to the policy and principles of Her Majesty's Government, was never before adopted. Mr. Speaker, the House will remember this analogy, which is the only one I can think of with regard to this. Like the student of old, in the story, the Chief Secretary is going along the highway with money in his pocket, and he sees the landlord's hat in front of him, and upon it there is printed: "Give for the glory of God, for justice, and for charity." And, like the student of old, the Chief Secretary stops to give, not on account of the inscription, but because, in the adjoining hedge, he catches sight of two cross-sticks on which rest a blunderbuss, pointing at him, and controlled by the owner of the hat. This grant is not being made out of charity or justice, but because of the landlord's gun. I have spoken of the finance—the unsound finance—under this Bill, but I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about something far more important than the money grant, and that is, what is the future of Ireland, in regard to a matter of the greatest importance—namely, the increasing of her expenditure? The result of buying out the landlord, and removing his name from the list of ratepayers, is that all the increase of expenditure will fall upon the shoulders of those who are least able to bear it in many parts of Ireland—namely, the tenantry, and the tenantry alone. The expenditure will be increased by the

  975
  extravagant methods of those who will have the control of the arrangements. Mr. Speaker, as these things develop, and as modern ideas progress, the cost of administering local affairs incessantly and regularly increases, because the expenditure on public health, upon roads, and the like under public management increases from year to year. Under these circumstances, I do say to my friends from Ireland that it is a very strange state of affairs that there should be any bargain made under which they have to assent that for all time this increase of expenditure will not fall as before—half on the landlord and half on the tenant—but will fall solely upon the tenantry of their own country. But it is not merely this, but the tenants will have to bear the cost of the progress of modern ideas, consolidations, and increases of expenditure under the Bill. If I mistake not, even the allowances in respect of exceptional distress are placed upon the poor rate. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do say that it is an extraordinary fact that we have the Irish representatives placed in such a position that they are compelled to acquiesce in a situation of this character, that the tenantry of their country shall alone, for all future time, bear the burden of the increase of expenditure, consequent upon modern progress, augmented by the artifices of the Bill, and consequent upon the passing of this Bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a situation which is not only unsound finance, but it is unsound to the point of cruelty. It is a serious outlook for Ireland, from a social point of view, because I can conceive nothing worse for Ireland than that you should tear asunder, by this clause, that community of interests and responsibility in local expenditure which is the best security for the abatement of discontent; and property is not to bear this burden, but it may be set up as an excellent defence of property not bearing a portion of the expenditure that it does not share in the benefits conferred under the Bill. But what do we know in point of fact? Will any honourable Gentleman on that side of the House get up and say that the expenditure under this Bill will not enormously increase the value of property? There will be better Toads, better provision for sanitation, and every one of these things adds to the value of the property. Therefore what you
  976
  have, as a direct result of this policy, is that on one class of shoulders you place the burden of the expenditure, and another class will reap the permanent benefit of that expenditure. I would say, in conclusion, that no one knows the difficulty I have in severing myself from certain Members of this House, with whom. I have always acted; but the House will excuse me if I say that I cannot get beyond my sincere conviction that the future of Ireland is not to be helped, but, on the contrary, it will have been made somewhat worse and more distressful by the operation of this clause. And to my friends from Ireland I would say these concluding words: are the terms of this bargain so hard and so cruel that you must do this great wrong, and place this great blot upon your country?
  SIR W. LAWSON: The right honourable Gentleman has said something about an arrangement having been male. Well, I can assure him that I have not made any arrangement with anybody, and I do not know when or where this arrangement was made, but I do think that something ought to be said about this clause, because it seems to me to be the pivot of the whole thing. The Chief Secretary himself has admitted that, for he said that this financial part of the Bill was bound up in the whole policy of the Measure. Well, it does seem to me to be a very unsound financial policy. Two years ago I remember, under the leadership of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, I sat up the whole of the night marching through the Division Lobby to oppose this very principle being applied to English landlords, and I have yet to find out that Irish landlords are any better than English landlords, or any more deserving of public money being given to them in this way. This is exactly the same proposal which we fought against in the English Bill, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will get up, and be as vigorous against this as he was against the proposal made on behalf of the English landlords. Surely we have a right to protest against this policy. The Irish Secretary last night, or the night before, seemed to think that we were rather unfair in pro-

  977
  testing, but really he ought to be a little tender towards us; if he is mighty, let him be merciful. So long as he has his big majority behind him, we cannot expect to defeat his policy, and all we can do is to protest in this way. I dare say he will tell us as a judge once said to a prisoner who protested his innocence prior to being sentenced to death—"protest, and be hanged." With regard to the policy there is one thing good in it, and only one. It is over and above board, because none of the parties to the agreement make any secret about it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Hear, hear!
  SIR W. LAWSON: My honourable Friend says "Hear, hear!" They made this agreement, and they make no secret about it—it is signed, sealed, and delivered. Who are the parties to this agreement? Well, first of all, there is the Government, and on the other hand, the Irish Party, and these two have agreed together—what to do?—to give a certain sum of money to the Irish landlords. Why? Not because they are particularly poor, not because they are particularly good, not because they are particularly sensible, not because they are particularly serviceable to the State! I know of no reason why they should agree to give this money to the Irish landlords—except one—it is to induce the landlords and their representatives in this House to pass the Bill which we are now discussing. It is a very strange contract. I wonder if honourable Gentlemen on the other side would get up to defend that policy. Either this Bill is good, or it is bad. If it is good, they ought to pass it; but if it is bad, it would be a miserable thing to be bought. The other day I saw in the newspapers a case in the north of England where a bench of licensing magistrates said that they would give a licence to a certain applicant if he gave £1,000 to a local charity. The matter was brought before a superior court, and it was held that the magistrates in so doing were wrong; but that was not so bad as the landlords taking money to pass the Bill through this House. But there are three parties involved in this; there are those who receive the money—the landlords—they are receiving it just the same as the newspapers received it from Mr.
  978
  Hooley, and if they are willing to take £300,000 a year to grant local self-government to Ireland, how much will they charge for Home Rule? I am very glad to see the gallant Colonel [Colonel Saunderson] taking a note; perhaps we will hear from him the price. Then there will be another agreement—an agreement with the Irish Secretary, who is to pay it over to the Tory Party and their friends in Ireland. Then there is a third party—those who have to provide the money. That is a touch for the United Kingdom. Who is the money got from?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: From us.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I quite admit that some of it comes from Ireland, but, taken in a lump, it comes from the whole countries.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Oh! but yes. I hope there is no harm, being the representative of the people in my constituency, in speaking on the part of the poor taxpayer, who is very hard pressed indeed. It seems to me that the Government are prepared to spend money whenever they get the chance, but still I think if the case was properly put before the electors they would object to this proceeding. Now, look here. Supposing at the last election any candidate in making a speech, had said, "I am in favour of a liberal expenditure of money on the Army and Navy," that would be all right; "I am in favour of a large sum being spent on education," that would have gone down; but would anybody believe that a candidate would be returned if he said, "I am going to vote for £300,000 of public money for the Irish landlords." I do not believe any man would be returned who said such a thing. My honourable Friend on my left [Mr. T. M. Healy] said he had heard no argument against this proposal; all I can say is that I have heard no argument for it. When this policy is put forward everybody sees what it is, but I think it would be better in dealing with public money to be influenced by morality rather than scattering it about. But I say, if we are going on in this way, if we are going to give public money to

  979
  anybody who can scramble for it, that is Tammany. I would like, before concluding, to say a few words to my Irish Friends. I saw that they had a great meeting the other day about the financial relations between Ireland and England, with Lord Castletown in the chair who, after referring to the proposed Anglo-American league, said—
  "We are going to have a Pan-Celtic league."
  I do not know what the Anglo-American league is, but I do know what the Pan-Celtic league is. Lord Castletown said that this Pan-Celtic league is to unite Parnellites, anti-Parnellites, Unionists, and every other kind of Irishman in making a demand for more money and less taxes. I object to being robbed by this league, and also to the poor Irish being robbed in order to pay these landlords, who "toil not, neither do they spin." I would very respectfully give advice to my Irish Friends on this matter—I am an old friend of theirs, and may give them a little advice. I am one of a very few Members in this House who voted for Mr. Butt's Home Rule Resolution; I am no fair-weather Home Ruler, and whatever the Irish Members do on this occasion, I will still vote for Home Rule, because I will be voting for justice, and I do justice even to Irishmen. They know that the only people in this country who are in favour of Home Rule are the democracy, and it would be very difficult to get them to continue to support Home Rule if the Irish Members go on as they are doing. The democracy will say—
  "If this thing means the emptying of our pockets, we won't have it."
  I do ask the Irish Members to refrain from voting to pay this money, not to the poor, not to the rich, but to the landlords. At all events, our duty is clear; it is on every opportunity to uphold the rights of the people, and in upholding them on this occasion and in this way, it will in my humble opinion save us from physical corruption.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Mr. Speaker, Sir, the honourable Baronet who has just sat down asked a question which I shall answer in a very few words. Before, how-
  980
  ever, I go on, I want to point out to honourable Members for Ireland what the Radical Party's idea of justice to Ireland means. It means to give Ireland anything she asks for that does not cost British money. The honourable Baronet said he was quite willing to give a Home Rule Government, and let them go over and fight to their heart's content, but there was one thing he was not prepared to do, and that was he was not prepared to put his hand in his pocket, and let the same justice be done to Ireland as was done to England, Scotland, and Wales. That is a view of justice that may satisfy the Radical Party, but it is not very general in this House, and it does not satisfy Irish Members, no matter to which Party they belong. It has been said, and the right honourable Gentleman repeated it, that a bargain has been made. I never heard a word about a bargain. The Chief Secretary never used the word bargain. [Cries of "Agreement!"] An agreement is in the nature of a bargain. "Arrangement" was the word my right honourable Friend used—the word "arrangement," not "agreement" or "bond." I venture to say, Sir, that if my right honourable Friend had brought in a Local Government Bill for Ireland without giving a similar grant to Ireland as was done to England, Scotland, and Wales, he would have found his Bill opposed by honourable Gentlemen opposite. Even if they do get the money provided by this Bill, a great injustice will be inflicted on Ireland, because for two years you will have withheld what you have given to the rest of the Kingdom. The view of the honourable Member for Hawick is that we ought to have had this Local Government Bill, but no grant with it. Then he drew a picture which I was very glad to listen to, of Irish landlords in a new character—the Irish landlord being at the end of a blunderbuss; but it was the wrong end of a blunderbuss, and I cannot say it requires the imagination of a Scotchman to see an Irish landlord at the other end of the weapon. But I do not think, Sir, that that illustration illustrates the position we assume on this question. We support this Bill as it stands, and I acknowledge freely in the House that if this Bill had been unaccompanied by a grant such as has been given to the rest

  981
  of the country, I should have opposed it, and, I believe, every Irish Member would have opposed it, and I think we should have been justified in so doing. The honourable Baronet talks about Ireland being a poor country, and he asks what bribe we would accept to consent to a Home Rule Bill. Allow me to remind the honourable Baronet that Mr. Gladstone offered us a bribe of fifty millions, and as much more as was necessary to buy the landlords out—to induce us to accept Home Rule, and we refused it with scorn. I can say certainly—and I think I can speak certainly for every man in Ireland who holds my views—there is no conceivable bribe will ever induce us to give up what we prefer—what money cannot buy—union with this country. We have accepted this Bill, and we have tried to do the best we can with it, and although I for my part imagine there may be some danger attending it, still I believe ultimately, and I have believed all along—if I did not believe it, I would have opposed the Bill—I believe this Bill will prove a success. It has been said by the right honourable Gentleman repeatedly that this money has been given to the landlords. Surely the ratepayers get more than half, and the ratepayers in Ireland are not so rich that they do not value very much the prospects that this Bill holds out to them. According to the right honourable Member for Hawick, rates and expenses will very much increase. If they do, it will be the business of the ratepayers. They will have the power to keep down expenses in the future. They will elect men to do the work, and, if expenditure grows and assumes an alarming aspect, it will be the fault of the people for electing the wrong men to carry out the work. I look upon this grant as tardy justice, and only common fair play, and I cannot conceive how a Radical Member can persuade himself it would have been grossly unjust to England to give to Ireland local government, and at the same time to give what you give to the rest of the Empire.
  MR. LAMBERT: The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has stated, as I understood him, that this Bill does not give money to the Irish landlord.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I never said anything of the kind.
  MR. LAMBERT: We shall give him an opportunity in a few moments to transfer the whole of it to the tenants, and then we shall hear what he has to say. The Chief Secretary in his speech said an arrangement had been come to in this House last May as to the disposal of this money, and I should like to know on what grounds he has based this assertion. I have challenged it before, and we have never had a lengthy Debate of these financial proposals as we have had from the right honourable Gentleman to-day, and he has had his reply from the Front Bench. As an example of the union on the Opposition side of the House with reference to those financial proposals, the right honourable Gentleman has heard the views of the honourable Member for Hawick Burghs, who sits on the Front Opposition Bench.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Has the right honourable Member for the Hawick Burghs spoken for the Front Bench?
  MR. LAMBERT: I always consider that our Front Bench is very much more united than the bench opposite. They concur at least in one thing; they read one another's speeches. Mr. Speaker, will the right honourable Gentleman allow me to say that the Leader of the Opposition himself has denounced this—it is in reply to the honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh—as hush money, to bribe the Irish landlords to keep silence. Could any man condemn a thing more than the Leader of the Opposition himself? He has denounced it, and I have a higher opinion of the Leader of the Opposition than to think he would denounce a proposal which he was not prepared to vote against. Now, Mr. Speaker, as to this general arrangement that was made. I presume the right honourable Gentleman refers to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs. What did he say upon this matter? He said—
  "Of course, the success of the proposals of the right honourable Gentleman"—

  983
  —that was the announcement of the conferment of local government on Ireland—
  "as my honourable Friend the Member for Mayo pointed out, depends largely—in fact, almost entirely, upon the nature of the measure of local government to be granted to Ireland. We must all suspend our judgment upon the whole proposal until we know what is to be the character and the extent of the reform."
  He, the right honourable Gentleman, said we must suspend our judgment until we know exactly what is the character of the Report; and then the right honourable Gentleman quotes this as being a sample of a general arrangement among all parties in this House as to this proposal. Why, Sir, we have repudiated it over and over again, and we shall continue to repudiate it; and I challenge the right honourable Gentleman to come down here and make an arrangement in this House in which we, as British taxpayers, in common with the Irish taxpayers, have to pay ultimately to the Irish landlords to induce them to accept a measure of local government for Ireland. It has been announced that the Bill would have to go to another place; and what earthly chance is there of the landlords letting go their grip of place, power, and emolument, if they were not protected by some such clause as this? I am not concerned to grease the wheels of the machinery in the other place. The Government have a 150 majority, and if they cannot pass legislation, surely they ought to—and pass it through the House of Lords. If this Bill is a bad Bill it ought not to be passed; if it is a good Bill no one ought to be bribed to consent to it. That is the position I shall take up as long as it is before the House. The Chief Secretary stated explicitly that £300,000 a year will go to the Irish landlords direct.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Will the honourable Member allow me to ask him whether he, as an agriculturist, accepted the money granted to the tenants in England?
  MR. LAMBERT: Certainly, and I will give the honourable and gallant Member an opportunity to vote this money to the tenants in Ireland. In that event, I hope the honourable Gentleman will be found in the Lobby supporting us to do what
  984
  the Conservative Party said all along the line, two years ago, in connection with the Agricultural Rating Bill—that the money should go to the tenant and not to the landlord. Of course, we shall have an opportunity of dealing with the question as to whether the tenant is more deserving of the grant than the Irish landlords, but, still, Sir, I do say that the Chief Secretary has made out no case that there has been any general "arrangement" amongst the Members on the Opposition side of the House to vote away £300,000 a year of the money of the United Kingdom for the benefit of the Irish landlords, and I shall continue to oppose it as I have always done.
  MR. DAVITT: I do not intend to trespass more than three or four minutes upon the time of the House in stating the reasons why I will support this Amendment. The honourable and gallant Member opposite in the speech which he addressed to the House a short time ago, said that the opposition to clause 45, on the part of the Radical Party, was due to a disposition on their side not to give money to Ireland. If he will permit me to say so, I think that is not an accurate definition of the opposition given from below the Gangway. If I understand the position of the Radical Members, it is this—that they object to the grant of £300,000 a year out of the Dockets of the taxpayers of Great Britain to the class which have been the dealiest enemies of Ireland's national well-being. In that proposition I heartily join. The honourable and gallant Member also said that every Irish Member would oppose this Bill if the grant to the landlords was not included.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg the honourable Member's pardon. I said if the grant had not been given; I did not mention the landlords.
  MR. DAVITT: I should be glad of the landlords in Ireland getting anything to which they had a just or a moral claim. I shall not consent either in this House or in Ireland to their ever getting from the pockets of the Irish taxpayers that to which they have no claim whatever. I listened with interest to the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the hope that he would advance some new

  985
  ground, or give some rational reason why clause 45 is retained in the Bill. He asserted that it was in consequence of some arrangement between that side of the House and this. May I ask him this question? If this Bill had been introduced without this clause 45, does he suppose for a moment that a single Member on this side of the House would insist upon giving this grant to the Irish landlords?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member knows that no Local Government Bill would have been introduced at all without some such clause.
  MR. DAVITT: But that is evading my question. There was a Government, which had been in power, of which the right honourable Gentleman was not a Member, which offered to Ireland, not a county government, but a national Government, without a bribe. Sir, I have opposed this clause for many reasons. I support the Amendment because I believe it is a just and proper Amendment. The clause is not needed. What is alleged to be the chief aim and purpose of the Bill? The Bill is to confer county and rural government on Ireland, and surely that act of justice and of constitutional right could be carried through this House without the taxpayers of these three countries being called upon to subsidise a certain class in Ireland for ever with the enormous sum of £300,000 or £400,000 a year. Again, I support the Amendment because I cannot understand why the landed interest of Ireland, or of any other country, should be exempted from the burden of supporting the poor of that country. The ownership of land in Ireland and in this country by a class was more or less acquiesced in by the general community, on the condition that the landed interests should support the poor. It was an obligation on the landed interest alone, and what this Bill proposes to do now, by means of this clause, is to remove almost every vestige of that obligation from the shoulders of the landed classes in Ireland. I am strongly opposed to that. If I could see any ground on which this money was to be given to Irish landlords, on account of their ser-
  986
  vices to the country, or of anything they have done to increase the fruitfulness of the soil, or because of the beneficent institutions erected by them in Ireland, or of any services whatever they have given in the whole course of their existence to the moral, material, or intellectual advantage of the Irish people, then I could understand why this gift should be made over to them; but it is in defiance of any record of that kind on their part that we are asked in this House to vote this subsidy, which will continue for ever. I protest against it on the part of those taxpayers in Ireland who will have to contribute to this subsidy, as well as the taxpayers of Great Britain. The artisans, the mechanics, the poor cottiers in the west of Ireland, will have to contribute their share towards this annual subsidy, and on their behalf I again record my protest against this dishonest scheme carried out by the Government, whereby they dip their hands into the pockets of the general taxpayer in order to reward their political partisans in Ireland.
  MR. ABEL THOMAS: I have not spoken on this matter until to-night, but I was hoping that I should hear from somebody on the other side why this sum of £300,000 a year should go into the pockets of the Irish landlords. When the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh rose I thought at once, "Now I shall hear the real reason, or, at any rate, the supposed reason." What did he do? He shirked the whole question. He did not touch the question as to whether this sum was to go into the pockets of the Irish landlords. All he said was that, so far as the Liberal Party were concerned, they were not generous to Ireland—not prepared to give £300,000 a year to anybody in Ireland—in which I venture to think he is grossly mistaken. It seems to me that the Radical Members have never hesitated about granting money to the poor in Ireland. What we do object to is to give it to rich men, unless we can hear some reason why they should have it. I think I should try to swallow this clause if I were given any good reason, because the Bill is an extremely good Bill, but I have not heard any reason why, after the passing of this Act, the

  987
  landlords should be freed from this liability to the poor, and from the payment of their present share of the poor rate in Ireland. One reason has been suggested, and I cannot help thinking that it is a disgraceful reason if it is true. It is that we are giving £300,000 a year to men who have no right to it, simply to make them hold their tongues, or to get their votes, and if we are doing that we are doing something which is monstrously unjust and unfair, and in time it will revert to the disgrace of our country. I do hope that some honourable Member on the other side of the House will, before the Division is taken, give us some good reason why the landlords should have this sum, and until that reason is suggested the only possible way in which the people of this country will understand the matter is that it is a deliberate bribe, paid to men who have not deserved it and ought not to get it, in order that they might support the Bill either by their vote or by their silence.
  MR. CRIPPS: Before the House goes to a Division I should like to say a very few words as to why I cannot support the Amendment. I am sorry to say I cannot agree with the reason which has been given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Certainly, for my part, I Should not support any proposal which appeared to be either in the nature of hush money, bribe, or dole, because an arrangement had been made between parties in this House on any question of the kind.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I did not say it was a dole.
  MR. CRIPPS: The Chief Secretary says he did not say it was a dole. Of course he did not, but honourable Members opposite profess to regard it as a dole or a bribe. Let me say a few words in answer to the honourable and learned Member who has just sat down, why I consider this proposal apart from all arrangements absolutely just and fair. As the honourable Baronet who has just spoken said, the principle in this Bill is precisely the same as that contained in the English Bill. What was the principle in the English Bill? It simply was that real property having been rated art about twice the burden which ought to
  988
  be thrown upon it, that injustice which existed undoubtedly for a long period of years was put right so far as agricultural land was concerned by the English Bill. It was not a question of giving one farthing to anyone. It was merely a question of putting an end to an injustice which had admittedly existed for a very considerable time.
  MR. S. EVANS: Why did you limit it to five years?
  MR. CRIPPS: I would not limit it to five years, but, whether it is limited to five years or not, that is the principle of the Bill. Let me apply the same principle to the present Bill. In England the remission was given to the ratepayer, who was in all cases the occupier. In Ireland you have the occupier and the landlord. I would not give a penny of this money to the landlord as such, or to the occupier as such. I should give it all to the ratepayer, be he occupier or landlord. Let us deal with the expression "ratepayer." He is the man who is paying too much, he is suffering from injustice, and just as you relieved him in England, so you ought to relieve him in Ireland. That is the whole of this clause, and in voting with the Government, I wish to protest against the terms occupier and landlord in this connection. The ratepayer is the person to be treated justly and that is the object of the clause.
  MR. BROADHURST: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to draw attention to a few statements made by the Chief Secretary during the Debate on this clause. In the first place, to do him credit, he never attempted to meet the arguments of the honourable Member for Monmouthshire, but he blandly and clearly stated that this clause must be in the Bill in order to secure its passage. That is the effect of what he stated tonight in his supposed reply to my honourable Friend who moved the Amendment. I have taken down his words. He says—
  "No such Bill would pass through this House without some such provision."
  And at a later stage he said that he knew perfectly well the Bill would not pass, and never would 'have been introduced but for the existence of clause 45. That

  989
  is an admission that the Irish landlords would resist every attempt to do justice to the Irish people, unless they got a consideration for withdrawing their opposition. That is my conclusion from his statement, and he cannot get away from his own words. I doubt whether the Chief Secretary saw the importance of his admission—an admission which I suppose has never before been made in the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown—that we are passing legislation as a result of an arrangement of a financial nature for the relief of the Irish landlords, in order to get this Bill through the House.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not accept the conclusion which the honourable Member has drawn from my remarks. I stated that this Bill would not have been introduced without such a clause, and that it was in pursuance of an arrangement come to in different parts of the House last year, but I have never said that I do not think that the arrangement is in itself a reasonable one. I think, certainly, the arrangement is a reasonable one. In 1892 a Local Government Bill was introduced with certain checks and safeguards, but they were so unpleasing to the honourable Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies, that it was hopeless to introduce a Bill of that kind again. It was absolutely necessary to introduce other safeguards, which could only be of a financial character, and it was in order to introduce those safeguards that we put these clauses into the Bill.
  MR. BROADHURST: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will notice that, as the Chief Secretary progresses and repeats his explanation of this transaction, it grows worse and more disreputable. The Chief Secretary now plainly tells us that it was hopeless to attempt to pass just legislation ['"No, no!"]—allow me to put my own construction on the Chief Secretary's statement—it is evident that he regards it as hopeless to attempt to give a Measure of justice to the Irish people in the form of local self-government without bringing forward extraordinary financial considerations for the purpose of removing opposition from a certain section of the Irish population. ["No, no!"]
  990
  We all know what that section is. Well, Mr. Speaker, I only rose to call the attention of the House to these extraordinary admissions made here in the light of day that the British Parliament has sunk so low under the management of the Chief Secretary and his friends that it is hopeless to get justice for the people of Ireland without buying off opposition at the cost of the general taxpayers of the country. If any town council in the kingdom had been guilty of such proceedings they would be subjected to inquiry at the hands of the Public Prosecutor, and would probably be proceeded against under the Conspiracy Laws. We cannot mistake the admission made by the Chief Secretary to-night, and I do not know whether this is not an occasion when some constitutional authority should not consider the advisability of impeaching Her Majesty's Government for corrupt bargaining with a certain section of the community in order to buy off opposition. May I say one word with reference to the speech of the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite? He was good enough to say that the Liberal party under Mr. Gladstone had attempted a bribe of 50 millions for Home Rule. I understood him to say that. But the honourable and gallant Gentleman fails to see that the landlords in consideration of that money were to hand over their land to the tenantry of Ireland—in other words, to the Irish nation. That was the bargain and it was not a bargain like this, to pay away money without any return. It was a definite proposal to give this money to the Irish landlords for the surrender of their rights over the land. The honourable and gallant Gentleman's statement was painfully misleading, and as surely as he did not wish it to be misleading he will forgive me, and perhaps think me—
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Oh, no!
  MR. BROADHURST: The honourable and gallant Gentleman is not so generous as I thought. I thought he would thank me for correcting his statement, which would appear to disadvantage in the papers to-morrow if not corrected. I shall certainly vote for the Amendment of my honourable Friend on the ground of constitutionally safeguarding the

  991
  interests of our constituents and preventing in future bargains and arrangements by Her Majesty's Government. I notice that the Chief Secretary did make this admission, that there were a few English and Welsh Radicals who had not been asked about the arrangement, and in a lofty way he seemed to think they were of no consideration—mere incidents in the affair—and that he had to take no account of them whatever. But he finds now he has to take them into account, and they have drawn from him an admission which no Minister has ever been found to make before from the Ministerial Benches. I sincerely hope that this admission will be noted by the House, and that we shall receive a large contingent from the opposite benches in defence of constitutional rights and the purity of legislation.
  MR. WHITTAKER: The honourable Member for Stroud a few minutes ago gave a particular reason why the grant was given to agriculture in this country. It was that personalty might be made to contribute to local rates. Having made that statement, I venture to think he cut away from himself entirely any justification for the present grant. For this reason. Ireland receives £150,000 a year as the corresponding grant to the agricultural grant in this country. That was more than Ireland's share as the taxation of personality in Ireland to the estate duties—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not in order to discuss the amount of the grant. That has already been disposed of in a previous section.
  MR. WHITTAKER: I merely wished to answer the honourable Member for Stroud. His contention was that this was a grant from personalty to relieve the burden of rates upon realty. If in order, I should like to point out that already Ireland gets more than her share, and that this particular grant would be five times the amount that Ireland is entitled to because of her contribution. If not in order in pursuing that line of argument out, I will not follow it, but the simple fact is, that the grant proposed would be five times the (amount to which Ireland is entitled by her contribution to the estate duty
  992
  from which this tax is to be taken. Ireland is already getting more than her share, and its increase cannot be justified by the arguments put forward by the honourable Member for Stroud.
  MR. PINKERTON: I am strongly impressed with the purity of political motive displayed on this side of the House. The honourable Gentleman who opposed the agricultural grant is like Mark Twain's good little boy—so honest that he is simply ridiculous. We know perfectly well that the financial arrangement is the foundation stone on which the Local Government Bill is built, and, so far as I am concerned, and looking at this matter from an entirely different standpoint from the landlords, I do not object to the landlords getting their share. The Free Trade policy that has benefited the artisans and manufacturers of England, that has built up the shoddy aristocracy of England, has ruined the agricultural interest in Ireland both of landlord and tenant, and I hold it is sheer hypocrisy on the part of men who have benefited by the decline of the agricultural interest in Ireland to grudge this small concession. I do not hold a brief for the landlords. I am as much opposed to the system of landlordism as my honourable Friend, but I cannot for the life of me recognise the principles of Henry George, when they come from my honourable Friend, who takes occasion to vote in direct opposition to them the next minute. The proper way is not to find fault with the agricultural grant, but honestly and openly to go into the Lobby against the Local Government Bill. I look upon the acts of the landlords in Ireland as Lord Clive did on his excesses in India. I am astonished at their moderation. Considering that under the laws of England until the last few years irresponsible power was placed in the hands of the landlords, as a rule that irresponsible power was exercised in a very moderate way indeed. For my part, as a tenant righter and a Radical, I would rather a thousand times have held land under the old school of landlords than under the newly-enriched individuals who are taking their places. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that you ruled the honourable Gentleman out of order when he was dealing with the excessively generous gift that is about to be extended to Ireland.

  993
  If we had only a united Ireland, if the landlords had only ventured to trust the people, and had identified themselves with the popular movement at an earlier period, we might have been in a position to wring from the British Treasury even a larger concession than we are now getting. It has been thrown in my teeth that, as a representative of a town, I am supporting this grant to the agricultural interest, but I can assure honourable Members that the low prices which press heavily on the producers are of material benefit to the consumers, and the sooner we put an end to all this cant about the generosity of the British Treasury and John Bull the better. For my part I would sooner refuse the grant than accept it if offered in such a grudging manner. Allusion has been made to the bribe which Mr. Gladstone offered to the land-
  lords of Ireland. I never regarded it as a bribe, but at the same time I am heartily glad that the landlords of Ireland had not sufficient common sense to accept it. It would have imposed upon the tenants of Ireland an impossible burden. Home Rule would have been too dear at the price of 20 years' purchase on the then existing rents; but now from my standpoint I think this Local Government Bill, with this small concession to the landlords, and a similar concession to the tenants, is fairer to Ireland than the financial proposal of Mr. Gladstone's first Home Rule Bill.
  Question put—
  "That the words, 'the poor rate shall be made,' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 236; Noes 78.—(Division List No. 218.)

  AYES.

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Allhusen, A. H. E.

  Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

  Garfit, William

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Ambrose, William (Middlesex)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Arnold, Alfred

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cornwallis, F. S. W.

  Gilhooly, James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Godson, Sir A. F.

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Crean, Eugene

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Crilly, Daniel

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

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

  Cross, A. (Glasgow)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

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

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Barry, R. Hon. A. H. Smith- (Hunts)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hall, Sir Charles

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

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

  Daly, James

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Davies, H. D. (Chatham)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Bethell, Commander

  Denny, Colonel

  Hardy, Laurence

  Birrell, Augustine

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dillon, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Helder, Augustus

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Butcher, John George

  Drucker, A.

  Hogan, James Francis

  Carew, James Laurence

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Holland, Hon. L. Raleigh

  Carvill, P. G. H.

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Howell, William Tudor

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

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

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

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

  Finch, George H.

  Jenkin, Sir John Jones

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Kenyon, James

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kilbride, Denis

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Knox, Edmund F. V.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lafone, Alfred

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

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

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Stock, James Henry

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  O'Kelly, James

  Strauss, Arthur

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  O'Malley, William

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles L.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Parnell, John Howard

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

  Lowles, John

  Penn, John

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Thorburn, Walter

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Pinkerton, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. E.

  Vincent, Col. C. E. Howard

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

  Purvis, Robert

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

  McCartan, Michael

  Rasch, Major. Frederic Carne

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  McDermott, Patrick

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Warkworth, Lord

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

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  McKillop, James

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

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

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Mellon, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Williams, Joseph P. (Birm.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Milner, Sir F. George

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Milton, Viscount

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

  Monk, Charles James

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wyndham, George

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

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

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

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

  Morrison, Walter

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Murnaghan, George

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

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

  Spencer, Ernest

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Holburn, J. G.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Billson, Alfred

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

  Spicer, Albert

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stanhope, Hon. P. J.

  Brigg, John

  Kitson, Sir James

  Steadman, William Charles

  Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

  Lambert, George

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Strachey, Edward

  Burns, John

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Caldwell, James

  Logan, John William

  Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cawley, Frederick

  McEwan, William

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Maden, John Henry

  Wayman, Thomas

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Mappin, Sir F. Thorpe

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Davitt, Michael

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Woodall, William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Philipps, John Wynford

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Rickett, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. McKenna and Mr. Broadhurst.

  Harwood, George

  Robertson, E. (Dundee)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Hazell, Walter

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 28, line 13, after 'made,' insert the word 'half.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move an Amendment, not exactly as it stands in my name on the Paper, because I understand that is not in order, but an Amendment proposing to divide the responsibility for the poor rate between landlord and tenant. We have already discussed the question whether this sum of money is to go to the relief of the poor rate at all. That has already been disposed of. The question now to be disposed of is whether the substantial relief given to Ireland is to be given to the landlord, or is to be divided between the landlord and the tenant. I propose that the whole of this enormous sum of £300,000 a year should not go exclusively to the landlord, but as the rate is divided at the present moment between landlord and tenant, consequently, the relief should be divided in the same proportion. I submit to the judgment of the House, Mr. Speaker, that the landlords are not entitled to the whole of this sum of £300,000, if they are really entitled to anything. At the present the rates are supposed to be divided in Ireland between landlord and tenant equally. That is, you have got in Ireland a system something like the Scotch system, and I want to know from the Government what has occurred to induce them to change this system in Ireland. Has anything been done by the Irish landlords to justify the Government in saying that in future they are to be excluded from payment of any portion of the poor rate at all? My honourable Friend the Member behind me has told the House that the landlords really ought to bear the burden of the poor rate altogether, and that originally they did so; at any rate, the burden of the maintenance of the poor fell upon the land. That is perfectly true as far as England is concerned, but it is rather curious that the whole history of the poor rate in Ireland has been one long series of efforts on the part of the Irish landlords to evade the performance of their obligations with regard to the poor. In England, in the reign of Eliza-
  998
  beth, the landlords in the landlord Parliament imposed poor rate upon the land. In Ireland, the Irish Parliament, composed of landlords, deliberately shirked the issue. Of course my contention is that the landlords do not deserve this consideration. There is nothing in the past with regard to their treatment of the poor which would justify the House of Commons in saying that, for the future, they are to be excluded from the payment of rates. According to the contention of the honourable and learned Member for Stroud, the land has borne the burden of poor rate quite long enough, and it is time it should be exempted, and that personal property should bear its share. But in Ireland it is quite a recent thing for the poor rate to be paid out of the land at all. The landlords have consistently shirked their duty, and it was only an English Parliament which imposed the performance of this obligation upon them. In their own Parliament the only Acts they passed to deal with the poor rate at all were Acts of Parliament which empowered the granting of licences given to beg, but no rates levied That is true of the Irish landlords; licenses given to beg, but no rates levied upon their property for the maintenance of the poor. I say that landlords who have so treated their poor in the historic past in their own country do not deserve exceptional treatment from this House. I submit, in addition to that, that the way in which the landlords in Ireland have treated their tenants in the past has not been such as to induce the Imperial Parliament to treat them with any exceptional generosity. I have been looking at the record of the Land Commission, and I find there that, during the time between the passing of the Land Act and the year 1897, a large number of cases have been dealt with by the land courts. The aggregate rents submitted to the judgment of these courts amounted to £6,384,000. These rents were cut down by the land courts to £5,047,000, a reduction of £1,350,000; that is, rents were reduced by 20 per cent. Perfectly impartial courts came to the conclusion that the landlords of Ireland were charging something like 20 per cent. upon their tenants in excess of what they ought to have charged;

  999
  and yet this is the class for whom the Government come to the House of Commons and ask us to vote £300,000 out of the Imperial Treasury in order to relieve them of the burden of the whole of their rates. Now, I should like to know why this treatment should be meted out to one class of the community rather to any other section, and I think it is the first time in the history of Parliament that any proposals have been submitted to it with a view to exempting one class, one section, from the burden of any rate. And why start this precedent with the landlords? At the present moment they are paying one-half. The Government say in future they will pay nothing. As I propose to prove later on, when I come to another Amendment, they go even to the extent of saying that no contract will be valid under which they could be free to pay any portion of the poor rate for the future. I should like to know what the landlords of Ireland have ever done for the State, or anybody else, which would justify the House of Commons in meteing out such exceptional treatment in starting a precedent in their favour of exempting them from payment of poor rate. Poverty in Ireland has been very much the result of the oppression of the landlords.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Entirely.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My honourable Friend behind me says "entirely." Perhaps that would be rather exaggerating the state of the case, because you have poverty here and in every other country, and I suppose poverty will be with us for all time. But anyone who reads the history of Ireland must come to the conclusion that the exceptional state of distress and destitution is very much the result of the conduct of the Irish landlords themselves. Reductions have been voluntarily made by English, Welsh, and Scotch landlords; Heaven knows they were not large enough, but still, there were reductions made. But in Ireland you have had to introduce a court to compel the landlords to reduce the rents. These courts found that they were charging something like a million and a half more than they ought to do upon these poverty-stricken peasantry, and the result of the investigation when these
  1000
  courts came to review the rents for the second time shows that the first statutory reduction of rents was not sufficient, and the reduction on the second statutory term amounts to another 20 per cent. That is, at the present the landlords are charging something like two and a half millions in excess of what they ought to do by way of rent out of the peasantry of Ireland. What have they done to justify us in relieving them of poor rate? There is another very remarkable fact. I find that the aggregate amount of poor rate has been getting less year by year. It has been getting less for a good many years, and the burden upon individual ratepayers has increased year by year. Why? Because of the depopulation of Ireland; because you have got whole tracts devastated there; because you have got evictions. One honourable Member informed me the other day that there was a district of something like 400 square miles which you could walk across, and not find a single tenanted house from one end to the other. This, I say, has been the result of the conduct of the landlords themselves. The result has been that you have no property upon which to levy your rates, no population which will bear the rates; the burden of the rates is crushing down the populations that are left. The burden increases year by year, and that is the action of one section of the community—the very section that you are proposing to exempt from poor rate by means of this clause. I say it ought not to be done. What is the object of this poor rate? The object of the poor rate, of course, is, in the first instance, to relieve distress—distress, as I have pointed out, created to a very large extent by the action of the landlords themselves, by their extravagant rents, by their neglect of their duties as landlords. But there is another object-lesson which I think is a rather interesting one from the point of view of the landlords. The poor rate is to pay emigration expenses, the expenses of emigrants who quit the shores of Ireland, and, for the future, the landlord is not to bear any proportion of that burden. Well, now, if there is any section of the community that is more responsible than another for driving the peasants to other countries it is the landlords. They are more responsible for the

  1001
  enormous emigration which you have had from Ireland during the last 40 or 50 years than any other class, and I certainly contend they ought to bear their share of the burden of emigration, seeing that they have been responsible for it to such a very large extent. I contend, Mr. Speaker, so far from relieving them of their whole share of the burden, we ought not to contribute a, single farthing. There is nothing in their past conduct, or in their present conduct, to justify us in doing so, and I move the Amendment which I have already handed in, that this grant should be divided between the landlord and the occupier.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The view of the honourable Member is that the Irish landlords are so injurious a class that no public money should be spent in the way which it is proposed in this Bill to be spent in relieving them of their liability to pay rates. That is, I think, broadly, the justification by the honourable Member of the course that he has taken, and it is a view of the case that occupied the House yesterday, and again this afternoon. The Amendments have all rested, I think, on that broad, historical view of the case. Now, Sir, I do not rise to dispute or to discuss it. Much may be said against, the Irish land system, and much may be true. Much may be said, I think, about the mode in which the House has dealt with Irish property, but I do not mean to deal with that vexed question, which really traverses the whole history of Ireland during the last hundred years or more, and which raises, directly or indirectly, almost every possible subject of controversy on what is the most controversial subject in modern politics. I rise rather now to appeal to the honourable Gentleman and his Friends whether this view of theirs—a view which they are perfectly entitled to place before the House—ought not to be considered by this time to have been sufficiently discussed and dealt with by the House. I do not for a moment suggest that honourable Gentlemen who have taken a special part in this discussion were in any sense bound by the first understanding arrived at between the various sections of the Irish Party and the Government. I make no such
  1002
  charge against them. The honourable Member did on that occasion get up and say that there were portions of the Bill in which he and his friends were interested, and that they would, whether there was or was not an arrangement, insist upon their rights. All I would now point out to the House, and to honourable Gentlemen opposite, is that that right, which I do not deny, has surely now been exercised to the full. They have laid with great pains their views before us yesterday and to-day. I cannot prevent them, if they desire it, from continuing to lay those views before us on the remaining portions of this clause, and the next clause also, but I would respectfully point out to them that if they do they will inflict a very serious and real hardship upon the great bulk of the Members of the House. They will compel a Saturday sitting, which is inconvenient, I think, to all English Members, but especially inconvenient, I am given to understand, to Irish representatives, who will be compelled to remain over here at a time when they had every reason to hope they might, by general arrangement of business, be able to get away. Well, Sir, there is thus this general inconvenience inflicted on the House, and I cannot, so far as I am concerned, see that anything is gained by honourable Members with regard to the course that they pursue. They have desired, as I understand, to bring prominently before the country what they regard as the great blot on this Measure. They have left neither in this House nor outside this House the smallest doubt as to what their views are. I do not believe that any argument could be adduced in favour of those views which they have not put before us with great force yesterday and to-day; and under these circumstances it does seem to me it is hardly from this point of view necessary to inflict a hardship upon the House from which the great body of the House, on both sides alike, suffer, and it seems to me not to be of any advantage even to those who hold the views to which the honourable Member has given such strong expression. I can do no more than make this appeal, but I trust that honourable Members will see that a Saturday sitting is not a course

  1003
  which would assist them, and I am sure they would not desire it.
  SIR C. DILKE: I think that in the spirit of my honourable Friends behind me there is no desire to Debate at greater length than has already been debated the general principles of this question, but the right honourable Gentleman will see if he looks at the Amendment before the House, and also at one or two of the others, that there are some points of detail which are deserving of some discussion. Therefore, I think, we may say there is no desire upon the part of anybody to further prolong the discussion upon the general principles, which we consider have been adequately discussed. We would now draw attention to what we consider are the particular points at issue. What is now before the House specially is the principle of the division of the rate between the landlord and the tenant, and we are giving up in this Bill what we had hoped would have been extended to all parts of the United Kingdom. The First Lord of the Admiralty is not now in his place, but he and many Chancellors of the Exchequer and Presidents of the Local Government Board have pledged themselves to the principle of the division of the rates between the owner and the occupier. There has been no special ground put forward for getting rid of it here. You have it in Scotland in a different form, and you are pledged to introduce it into England, and yet you are giving way on this point to Ireland.
  MR. DAVITT: I would strongly support the appeal which has been made by the right honourable Gentleman. I think honourable Gentlemen on this side of the House have been justified in the line they have pursued, both yesterday and to-day. I believe they were called upon to do and say what they have done by their conscientious convictions. I shall certainly support my honourable Friends in their Amendments, but I do strongly appeal to them to give a favourable consideration to the observation which has been made by the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I do not think any object can be gained by prolonging this Debate, and I think my honourable
  1004
  Friends have shown by their arguments and their speeches that they had good reason for the line which they had taken up, and that they have set themselves right before the country and need not fear their constituents. A Saturday sitting has been held over our heads in the way of a friendly threat if this Debate is unduly prolonged, and I am sure we do not wish to come here on Saturday. I heartily support the appeal which has been made.
  MR. LAMBERT: After having listened to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, if I may be allowed to say so, I greatly regret that the same spirit was not manifested yesterday by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I feel one difficulty, but shall mat detain the House so long by any remarks of mine as I had intended. I think there is extremely strong and good ground for the Amendment of my honourable Friend, but as the right right honourable Gentleman has stated to us that he wished the Debate closed as soon as possible, personally speaking, so far as I am concerned, I am willing to accede to the request. I must say I am very sorry the same spirit did not actuate the Government yesterday. There is just one point, and that is this: under the English Act this grant is going to the tenant in the first place. Now I would strongly advocate that the same principle that is established by the English Act should be carried into effect by the Irish Act, that the money should go to the relief of the tenant, because whenever there has been a question between the working farmer and the landlord in this House I have always been constant in taking the side of the tenant, and I shall continue to do so, whether they be Irish or English. I myself think that the Irish tenants have even more ground for receiving this grant than can be urged with respect to the claim of the English farmer, for this reason: they are very poor, and have not nearly so much money to spend upon the land, and in Ireland they are rented up to the hilt. The competition for land in Ireland is so great that every penny goes into the landlords' pockets, except where the tenant is protected by the land court; but from the farmers I always understood

  1005
  that the only reason for this loan, for this grant, was to give some consolation to the landlords for what the land court has done, but that was knocked on the head the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who distinctly stated that no one would venture to say—that no landlord would venture to say—that he had been compensated by the English taxpayers, because of the land court. In support of this Amendment, I put in the protest that Ireland will derive no benefit whatever from this money, which goes into the landlords' pockets. It will not go towards the education of the people of Ireland, nor will it make her any more prosperous than she is at the present time. I regret that the Industries Bill was not proceeded with, and I see that in this clause we are giving just about double the amount which the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary thought necessary to carry that Bill into effect. By giving this money to the tenant I think you would raise his taxable capacity, and in the end he would be able
  to bear a larger rate. I think that the local authorities in Ireland will increase the rates, for the simple reason that you cannot elect local authorities without the people electing them requiring something in the nature of public work to be done, and you cannot proceed with public works without money. By the suggestion which I make, you will increase the rateable capacity of the Irish tenant, and thus enable these local authorities which are to be elected in Ireland to carry out provisions which, from want of money, they will otherwise be debarred from carrying out. I think the Amendment of my honourable Friend is a wise one, and I think it will be a wise thing for this House, and for Ireland, if it gives this grant to the tenant in the first place.
  Question put—
  "That the word 'half' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 182.—(Division List No. 219.)

  AYES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

  Harwood, George

  Souttar, Robinson

  Billson, Alfred

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Brigg, John

  Hazell, Walter

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holburn, J. G.

  Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)

  Burns, John

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Caldwell, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Maden, John Henry

  Woodall, William

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Davitt, Michael

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Lambert.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  NOES.

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

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Allhusen, A. H. E.

  Carvill, P. G. Hamilton

  Cornwallis, F. S. W.

  Ambrose, W. (Middlesex)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Arnold, Alfred

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Crilly, Daniel

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

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

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

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

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Bethell, Commander

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Colston C. E. H. Athole

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Daly, James

  Kenyon, James

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

  Davies, H. D. (Chatham)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Purvis, Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pym, C. Guy

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Lafone, Alfred

  Rasch, Major Frederic C.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Crnw'll)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Drucker, A.

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks.)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry C.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Flower, Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowles, John

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Garfit, William

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Spencer, Ernest

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gilhooly, James

  McCartan, Michael

  Strauss, Arthur

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  McDermott, Patrick

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

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

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  McKillop, James

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Mandeville, J. Francis

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

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

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. M.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Monk, Charles James

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

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

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Warkworth, Lord

  Hardy, Laurence

  Morris, Samuel

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morrison, Walter

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Murnaghan, George

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Helder, Augustus

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hogan, James Francis

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Howell, William Tudor

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Parnell, John Howard

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Pinkerton, John

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

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Kemp, George

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 28, line 14, leave out from 'hereditament' to the end of sub-section 1."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 28, line 17, after 'lodgings' insert 'and except that if made heretofore in respect of a half rent under section 63 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, and the enactments amending the same, it shall continue to be so made.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 28, line 19, after the word 'rate,' insert the words 'except in respect of any
  1008
  increase in the poundage of such rate which may accrue after the commencement of this Act.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My next Amendment is not on the Paper. I put it in yesterday, in order that it might come into the Paper to-day, but through some mistake it has not done so, but the effect of the Amendment—I am not sure that I recollect the exact words, but, starting with the word "rate," on line 19, insert—
  "Except in respect of any increase in the poundage of such rate which may be accrued after the commencement of this Act."
  The effect of that, of course, is to prevent what occurred under the English Act. It is a matter requiring serious consideration, and, as we have pointed out, it is

  1009
  a matter of importance, especially in Ireland, where the poor rate individually is going up, although in the aggregate it is going down. I know some cases where the poor rate is 2s. in the £ at the present moment. That is the basis on which the payment would be made by the Treasury. Supposing that next year, in that particular district, through exceptional distress, or from some other cause, that poor rate goes up to 2s. 6d., the extra 6d., if the Bill is carried through in its present form, will fall entirely upon the shoulders of the occupier. That is exceedingly unfair to the owners of the factories. There was a good deal of trouble in this country with regard to something of the sort, especially among the collieries, where the rate has gone up in consequence of something happening in the district and the extra rate has fallen upon the factories and industrial concerns of the district. In Ireland we have no collieries, and we have not many industries, and those that we have, such as they are, are not in a very prosperous condition. When you deal with the tenant he gets half the cess paid, and there is some encouragement for him to meet this extra burden, but the factories and industrial concerns of that kind do not, and I think it is exceedingly unfair, when they do not get any portion of the cess paid for them, or any other rate, that you should place this burden upon them, with which they have nothing to do. In the course of the Debate on the Irish Local Government Bill we have heard of the crushing of the Irish industries, but here is an opportunity for the Government to say it will not be responsible for any rate that would in the future tend towards the crushing of the Irish industries. I can quite understand the difference between a rate of 2s. and a rate of 2s. 6d. making all the difference between a profit and a loss. There are several concerns in England and Wales where, although no profit is made, they are able to drag on from year to year so long as there is no actual loss, but in cases of the kind a heavy rate would make all the difference. If every additional rate is to fall upon the shoulders of these poor industrial concerns, then the result may be exceedingly serious, and I do appeal to all honourable Members to assist me to prevent this state of things creeping into the Irish
  1010
  Bill. The tenant has only got to pay half the cess, and if there is an increase he only has to pay his share. Why should not the same rule apply here? The landlord has got his relief; he is to be exempted from all the rates in the district, and I say it is very unfair to the tenants, and still more to the industrial classes in Ireland. I beg to move the Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The county cess is a different thing altogether. If this Amendment were accepted the result would be that the tenant would deduct from the rent half any additional amount that was put on to the county cess, as well as the poor rate. Over and above that, I do not want to press that; I object to it upon its general merits, and therefore it would be quite unnecessary to attempt to amend it so as to meet that suggestion. The object of this clause has been to throw every increase in the rates upon the occupier in order that he may have every motive for economy. The occupier will have entire control of local government in his hands, and the landlords, who are also occupiers, will in respect to the land they occupy be in exactly the same position. Our object in this clause is to make it to the interests of the occupier to study economy, and the arrangement we have adopted will have the effect of throwing the entire burden of the rates upon the occupier, and at the same time give him the benefit of the rates if they fall. I think the Amendment of the honourable Member is inconsistent with the following clause, clause 46; but that, again, I do not urge, because, as I said before, I object to it entirely upon its merits.
  SIR C. DILKE: We have no desire to discuss this Amendment at length, but rather to put upon record our views upon the matter. I think there is the very best reason for speaking at length upon this particular Amendment, but we do not wish to prolong the Debate.
  Question put—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 151.—(Division List No. 220.)

  AYES.

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

  Gilhooly, James

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Gourley, Sir Edward T.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Harwood, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Billson, Alfred

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

  Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)

  Brigg, John

  Hazell, Walter

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Souttar, Robinson

  Burns, John

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Caldwell, James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Crean, Eugene

  McCartan, Michael

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Crilly, Daniel

  McDermott, Patrick

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Maden, John Henry

  Woodall, William

  Curran, T. (Sligo, S.)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Davies, M. V. (Cardigan)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lloyd-George and Sir Charles Dilke.

  Davitt, Michael

  Murnaghan, George

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  O'Malley, William

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ambrose, W. (Middlesex)

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Lowles, John

  Arnold, Alfred

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flower, Ernest

  Macaleese, Daniel

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Garfit, William

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

  Bethell, Commander

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  McKillop, James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. H.

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  More, Robert Jasper

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  Morrison, Walter

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Parnell, John Howard

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Colomb, Sir John C. R.

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Helder, Augustus

  Pinkerton, John

  Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Hogan, James Francis

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Howell, William Tudor

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Purvis, Robert

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jeffreys, Arthur-Frederick

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kemp, George

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Daly, James

  Kenyon, James

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Crnw'll)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks.)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry C.

  Sharpe, William E. T.

  Drucker, A.

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  1012

  1013

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christch.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

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

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Warkworth, Lord

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

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

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

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

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 28, line 19, leave out 'and any contract to the contrary respecting such deduction shall be void.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think there is any precedent for words of this sort. The law steps in and says, "You are not a fit and proper subject for a contract; you may agree to bear your share of the burden of the rates, but we cannot permit you to do so." That, surely, is an extreme proposal, and this is the first time it has been inserted in an Act of Parliament. How very different the conduct of the Government is with regard to the landlord, compared with what it is with regard to the tenant! Whatever the law may be, there is nothing to prevent the tenant entering into a valid contract to pay all his grand jury cess at the present moment. Though the tenant is protected by law, the law says, "We will allow you to enter into any contract you like." I do not see that there is anything in the position of the landlord which calls upon the law to step in and protect him against the tenant. I do not see the object of these words, or any conceivable motive which can have induced the Government to have introduced them. I can understand them saying that the present law is to be altered, and that the tenant is not to be entitled to deduct from the landlord for past improvements. But if the landlord in future likes to make arrangements with regard to the rent or rate, why should the law step in and say, "No; the contract entered into shall be absolutely void"? Why should the law step in and say that the landlords should not pledge themselves in any way? If that is so, it was not explained in Committee. There are a great many other contracts to which those words can apply. I shall be obliged to press the matter to a Division.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The words are intended to protect a tenant against his landlord, just as much as to protect a landlord against himself.
  MR. CALDWELL: I do not see how the Chief Secretary makes out that this can be worked in the interests of the occupier. If you look at the clause you will see that the occupier would be entitled to deduct from the rent a part of the poor rate. I do not see how it would be an advantage to prevent the tenant making a contract in his own interest whereby a reduction shall be made from his rent in respect to that. This is a clause which certainly is not in any law in Scotland, nor is it in any law in England. Honourable Members on the other side of the House have always claimed freedom of contract, and the only cases in which it is urgent have been the cases of working men, who are supposed to be not quite so capable of defending themselves. Hence the Truck Acts. Landlords ought to be quite capable of defending themselves. But they now seek to prevent freedom of contract where it is in the interests of the landlords.
  MR. MCKENNA: I was not in the House when the right honourable Gentleman made his answer, but I understand that he objects to these words being excluded. The point can be met by inserting in clause 46 a proviso that clause 46 shall operate except where the landlord has continued to agree to pay half the rate. There would be absolutely no difficulty in inserting that proviso in clause 46. It seems to me a most extraordinary interference with the freedom of contract. The right honourable Gentleman wishes to put the whole of the burden upon the occupier. In whose interest does he wish to do that? Solely and admittedly in the interests of the

  1015
  landlord. If the landlord, with the knowledge of the risk he runs, chooses to enter into this contract, surely it is no business of the House to interfere on behalf of the landlord, who undoubtedly is competent to enter into a contract if he pleases. I put it to the right honourable Gentleman, who is a member of the party who has always opposed any interference with freedom of contract, what is the public necessity for those words in the clause? There is absolutely no necessity to protect the landlord; he does not need protection. In the interests of the public no necessity is shown. The only conclusion one can come to is that the right honourable Gentleman, by inadvertence, put this into the Measure, and is too proud to
  allow it to be excluded. Now, in the case of the towns, it will cause an undoubted amount of difficulty and confusion. The system in Ireland has worked admirably, in which the landlord paid one-half and the tenant one-half of the rates. They may prefer, for their own reasons, to continue to do so. Legal troubles and delays are bound to ensue. I support the Amendment of my honourable Friend.
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 48.—(Division List No. 221.)

  AYES.

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

  Drucker, A.

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Ambrose, Wm. (Middlesex)

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Field, Wm. (Dublin)

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowe, Francis William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowles, John

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Flower, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Garfit, William

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Bethell, Commander

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  McCartan, Michael

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gilhooly, James

  McDermott, Patrick

  Carew, James Laurence

  Gilliat, John Saunders

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

  Carlile, William Walter

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  McKillop, James

  Carvill, Patrick George H.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Morris, Samuel

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Murnaghan, George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Helder, Augustus

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  O'Malley, William

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Hogan, James Francis

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Pinkerton, John

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Purvis, Robert

  Daly, James

  Kemp, George

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)

  Kenyon, James

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Dillon, John

  Lafone, Alfred

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Crnw'll)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Roche, Hon. J. (East Kerry)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

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

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Thorburn, Walter

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Spencer, Ernest

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

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Warkworth, Lord

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

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

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Harwood, George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Souttar, Robinson

  Billson, Alfred

  Hazell, Walter

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Brigg, John

  Holburn, J. G.

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)

  Burns, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Whittaken, Thomas Palmer

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Leese, Sir J. (Accrington)

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

  Crean, Eugene

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Woodall, William

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Maden, John Henry

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Llloyd-George and Mr. McKenna.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Parnell, John Howard

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rickett, J. Compton

  After the usual interval,
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 28, line 22, at end, add 'provided always that this section shall not apply to any county borough, borough, or town as defined in this Act.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. DILLON: When I brought forward at the Committee stage the clause which I now propose the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House admitted that the operation of this clause and the application of this clause to boroughs, and, in fact, to all those who had not benefited under the agricultural grant, was no part of the so-called arrangement which has been so often referred to, and no argument has up to this point been placed before the House why the incidence of rating in the boroughs and towns should be altered by the present Bill. The reason given for this was that it was done in the interests of symmetry and the general system of rating in Ireland. I do not, however, attach much force to that argument, because we all know that an elaborate inquiry is at present in progress on the whole question of rating, an in-
  1018
  quiry which extends to Ireland as well as to England, and the only ground on which the Government justify their action in altering in the present Bill the whole system of rating and the incidence of rating in Ireland, is that it is essential to the great change of the local government in the rural districts that the landlords should be protected and certain safeguards given to them. I do not understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that the same considerations apply to urban districts, and therefore I do not see that any grounds have been stated or any argument brought forward in favour of altering the incidence of rating in the urban districts. I do not desire to enter into this question at any length, because I did state my views pretty fully on the Committee stage; but what I desire now is to point out what is the attitude of the Government as the result of the consideration which they promised to give to this proposal. I cannot find that they have put down on the Paper any Amendment on the subject that I expected to find as a result of that promise. But, without desiring to again go over the ground which was gone over in the Committee stage, I desire for a

  1019
  moment to refer to one matter which is a new matter in connection with this particular aspect of clause 45; that is, the new clause which has been put down by one of the honourable Members for Belfast. It is a long clause which is to be considered, and it is included amongst the Government clauses in respect of which the Government are going to recommit the Bill, and, as I understand it, is intended to provide especially for the convenience of certain owners of property in Belfast, who strongly object to the operation of this clause. I understand—but I may be entirely wrong—that there are in Belfast a certain number of property owners, and a considerable number of persons who own small workmen's dwellings, which are so characteristic of Belfast; and in that city a system is in force—and I am not sure that it is not in force in other cities in Ireland, but I know it is in force in the city of Belfast—under which the owners of these houses or blocks of workmen's dwellings can compound with the rating authorities and get a discount. That is to say, if the owner undertakes to be responsible for the rates he gets an allowance of perhaps 10, 15, or 20 per cent., which is that much less than the rates would be if collected under the ordinary circumstances directly from the tenant. That is what I am given to understand is in force in Belfast, and I understand that it was to meet cases of that kind that the honourable Member for Belfast put this clause on the Paper. As far as I can see, that clause itself seems very technical and intricate, and, of course, the Attorney General for Ireland understands it better than I do; but, as far as I can understand it, that clause in no way meets my Amendment, and if the Government refuse to leave the rating of Irish towns as it stands at present and leave the system unchanged I shall oppose to the utmost of my ability the clause of the honourable Member for Belfast. I only wish to state that now, because I have some reason to believe that the Government intend to accept the clause of the honourable Member for Belfast without meeting the objections that have been made. Now, Sir, what I want to know is this, and I move the Amendment for this purpose: I do say that I think it is most unjust and unreasonable that as regards towns and county
  1020
  boroughs, as defined in this Act, which get no benefit whatever either as regards the occupier or the owner from the agricultural grant, they should have their system of rating altered, and altered, it may be, to the great injury of the occupier. That is what I stated before, and I want to know on what grounds the Government justify this. I will only, in conclusion, state what is the actual operation of this. I know perfectly well that clause 45 must be read in conjunction with clause 90, and while the whole burden of the rate is thrown upon the occupier in the urban district—take my own district for an example—the landlord pays half the rates at present, and the tenant pays half. I know that I should be entitled under the adjustment of rent clause to deduct from my rent half the rates which hitherto have been paid by the landlord, but according to the adjustment of rent clause, I should only be entitled to deduct half the standard rate. So that in the city of Dublin, where I have a lease for 99 years, if the rates increased by 6d. in the £, whereas under my contract the landlord should bear half of that increase—under this Bill, without any notice whatever given to me, I am to bear the whole burden of the increase in the rates. If that is not the meaning of the Act I should be glad to hear some explanation of it. As I read the Act, the effect of clause 45 read in connection with clause 90, is that the whole of the increase will fall upon the occupier, whereas under the law, if left alone, the occupier will bear only half the burden of the increase and the owner half under the present Irish system. The Government say, in the case of the rural occupier, "We offer him some advantage, as we pay half his county cess, although he has this additional burden." Well, I frankly accept the position. We were parties to this grant on the Second Reading of the Bill, although I did not accept the arrangement last year. On the Second Reading of the Bill, after I had carefully read the Measure and recognised in it a great measure of emancipation for the Irish people, as we were told that we must either accept the financial provision or do without the Bill, I decided to swallow these conditions. But that

  1021
  applied only to the case of the rural occupier, where you offer a reduction of half his rates at the same time that you throw upon him this full responsibility. In the case of the rural occupier and the city occupier, that the latter should be compelled under this Bill, although obtaining no financial relief whatever, to bear a greatly increased burden in addition to the rates, while the burden is to be lifted off the landlords, entirely surpasses my comprehension. I beg to move this Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member for East Mayo is quite correct in his statement that this matter formed no part of the arrangement to which he has alluded. In the discussion on this Bill it was agreed that the burden of the rates should be. Thrown upon the occupier entirely, but I may also say that it formed no part of the original arrangement that we should extend the municipal franchise in Ireland, as we actually have done. Well, Sir, the reason why this provision was inserted was this: when my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury introduced his Bill in 1892 it also included the municipal franchise, but, as the House will remember, that Measure provided for a system of minority representation. The Government have abandoned the idea of minority representation, and this is the construction they have put upon it. Our idea now is to throw the burden of the rate in the first instance on the occupier, so as to let the responsibility rest upon those who have the power.
  MR. DILLON: The right honourable Gentleman might explain why he extended the franchise in Belfast, where they have a private Act, because other towns in Ireland have no such private Acts.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: When the Government introduced the franchise they had to take care that there was some safeguard, and we inserted this provision as a safeguard. The honourable Member has referred incidentally to a clause which is down in the name of my honourable Friend the Member for Belfast, and he has taken it for granted that that clause put down will be
  1022
  accepted by the Government in the interests of certain property owners in Belfast. Well, Sir, if we do accept that clause, a point which has not yet been absolutely decided, it will certainly not be upon the grounds put forward by the honourable Member for East Mayo, for my honourable Friend has put it down upon other grounds. It is entirely a question of the collection of rates. It has been represented that in Belfast and other places there are conditions which make it difficult, perhaps almost impossible, to collect the rates. My honourable Friend put the clause down to meet those cases, and when the proper time comes for the consideration of it the Government will have to decide whether they will accept it or not. The honourable Member may rest assured that that clause has been put down on the Paper merely from the point of view of facilitating the collection of the rates from a fluctuating class of the artisan population. The honourable Member for East Mayo has stated that this provision, as applied to towns, will, in the case of long leases, be that the amount of deduction which the tenant will be allowed to make from the rent will be measured by the rates in the standard year. That apparently was so as the Bill was introduced, but when this matter was being discussed in Committee this was pointed out with great force by the honourable and learned Member for Louth, and I admit frankly that a provision of that kind was open to very serious objection. Now, in order to meet that objection we have put down an Amendment which has apparently escaped the attention of the honourable Member for East Mayo. It is an Amendment to clause 90, and he will find it at the end of the Amendments to that section. The effect of it will be that where a lease has more than five years to run the amount of deduction which the tenant may make will be measured not by the standard year, but by the amount which was deducted before this Act was passed. I think in the case of long leases the landlord must take the rough with the smooth, and he must be taken to have run the risk; but in the case of the very short leases the landlord would not anticipate so important a change in the law as has been created by this Bill. There is, Sir,

  1023
  just one other remark I wish, to make. The honourable Member, to judge from his speech, imagined that this applied to all municipal rates whatever. I may, however, point out that it only applies to the poor rate and what was county cess, unless, indeed, the town council adds to the poor rate anything which is collectable as the poor rate. That is a matter which it is competent for the council to decide.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I shall not detain the House more than two or three minutes, but I desire to express my entire concurrence with this Amendment. I do not think there has been a shadow of fair play towards those large towns and county boroughs. The right honourable Gentleman must be aware that for years there was an agitation going on to assimilate the municipal franchise in Dublin, Waterford, and Cork with the Parliamentary franchise, and the Government have actually yielded to that in respect of the borough of Belfast and the borough of Londonderry, and by Acts of Parliament, since they came into power, the municipal franchise in those places has been assimilated to the Parliamentary franchise, while no consideration whatever has been given to county boroughs like Waterford, Limerick, and Cork with regard to this assimilation of the municipal to the Parliamentary franchise. Now, I think it was suggested by the honourable Member for East Mayo that this adjustment of rent clause does not meet the case, because by section 90, sub-section 1, letter B, it is provided that—
  "Where the amount is to be raised for union or district charges, then in respect of union or district charges in that union or district as certified for the standard financial year."
  That is what applies to houses in the city of Dublin. Now, everyone knows that the poor rate and, what is equivalent to it, the county cess is increasing from year to year in Dublin. If you look at the statistics of the rates for the last 10 years it will be found that they vary. Sometimes they are 1s. 10d., 2s., 2s. 4d., and 2s. 6d. Why, then, should a landlord in Dublin or any other borough be relieved from any surplus that may arise over and above the standard amount? I say there has
  1024
  been no arrangement for that. I do not admit that any compact has been entered into on behalf of the Irish party or on behalf of those interested in boroughs, and I do respectfully ask the right honourable Gentleman to yield this point, which he knows to large cities will make a very great difference in the rates which they will have to collect. Like my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo, I myself am the holder of a lease in Dublin, and therefore, as far as the Amendment mentioned by the Chief Secretary goes, it may help such leases, but I think that only emphasises the injustice to those who hold yearly tenancies or leases of less than five years, because the exception admits that there has been no difficulty in enabling the tenant under certain leases to deduct his half of the surplus from the landlord's rent, therefore no machinery is required. If it can be done in the case of long leases, there is no reason why it should not be done in the case of yearly tenants or of leases of from three to five years.
  MR. MCKENNA: With regard to the case of towns and cities in Ireland, I am sure we must all sympathise with the desire of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers, but the right honourable Gentleman seems to have overlooked a provision in the Bill. He seems to have forgotten apparently that the great mass of the proletariat living in towns and urban districts will not under his Bill, as it now stands, pay rates themselves, and consequently his safeguards absolutely disappear.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think the honourable Member is mistaken.
  MR. MCKENNA: The right honourable Gentleman may not be aware that it is the custom of people of the poorer class to live in tenements and lodgings, and if he will look at his Bill he will see that there is an exception in clause 47, which reads—
  "Such rate shall be made on the occupier of the hereditament, except where it is a house let in separate apartments or lodgings."
  Consequently we find this, that the proletariat who do, as a matter of fact, live

  1025
  in tenements and lodgings will be voters under this Act, although they will not be ratepayers, and consequently the very class of people whom the right honourable Gentleman wishes to safeguard the ratepayers against will be on the register as voters, but will not be on the rate book as ratepayers. Now, if the right honourable Gentleman accepted the Amendment of the honourable Member for East Mayo he would not be diminishing in one iota the real safeguards in this Bill. We know from Scotch experience that there is no likelihood of extravagance merely because the franchise is extended. We know that from, experience in London, and also in the large cities in Ireland, such as Dublin, Belfast, and Londonderry, where they have now got the extended franchise similar to the Parliamentary franchise, and where the landlords pay half the rates. It is proved by Scotch and Irish experience that this supposed safeguard is not necessary; but what are we to think of an argument based upon a safeguard that does not exist?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It does exist.
  MR. MCKENNA: The right honourable Gentleman says it does exist, but he must know, as a matter of fact, in Dublin, and in other cities in Ireland, the poorest class of the inhabitants live in lodgings and tenements, and they will be on the register, and they will not be ratepayers. Therefore his safeguard is to meet a case that does not exist, and to provide against an evil which experience has shown has never arisen.
  MR. FLYNN: The Amendment in question is certainly an improvement on clause 45, but anyone who understands the tenure of houses in towns must know that the question naturally arises, why does this Bill deal with county boroughs and towns at all? They do not get one penny out of the grant, because the agricultural grant does not touch them. In the county boroughs we have local government at present, for we have already our mayors and corporations, and all that you have done is that you have reduced the municipal franchise to the Parliamentary limit. Is the argument to be that you are afraid of these men who will exercise
  1026
  the franchise in future? The honourable Member has corrected this, and, of course, those who live in tenements and in houses occupying a certain number of rooms will also have a vote, and you have no protection against them. To put it in a very few words, you are needlessly and uselessly introducing a vast amount of confusion into the present relations between landlord and tenant in county boroughs and towns, which it is absolutely unnecessary that you should have done at all. Take the city of Cork, and the same argument will apply elsewhere. In that place large numbers of the humbler class live in houses let at moderate rentals of about £15 and £20 a year: I mean the clerks and the better class of working men. The system is that these men never pay rates at all. They pay their rent half-yearly, quarterly, or monthly, as the case may be, but in nine cases out of ten they pay no rates. You now impose upon them the necessity of paying half the rent in advance. I say that is unnecessary, and you are introducing into these county boroughs a complicated system which is utterly uncalled for. Then, again, you do not protect the yearly tenant, but you protect the leasehold tenant in the Amendment proposed by the right honourable Gentleman. You do not protect the yearly tenant at all, who has hitherto been in the habit of paying the city rate and the poor rate, and who deducted one or two small items, and half the poor rate, from his rent, but now you deprive him of that altogether. I believe that he has to give the landlord notice to terminate the tenancy before he would be entitled to a release, and he must accept the new tenancy. I have been looking through this clause and applying the best of my intelligence to it, but I cannot see why it should be introduced at all in connection with county boroughs or towns. I freely admit that the Amendment put down by the right honourable Gentleman is an improvement on the clause as it previously stood, but without saying anything about it I will conclude by again repeating that, in my opinion, the clause was totally unnecessary, and it implies a mistrust of those citizens who are entitled to the municipal franchise, and that it is a provision in the. Bill which was

  1027
  totally unnecessary, and which I believe will not do any good.
  MR. DILLON: I am sorry that the right honourable Gentleman could not see his way to go further than he has done in the Amendment to which he has drawn my attention. I admit that it is a concession, and I am extremely anxious to expedite the progress of business, although under ordinary circumstances I should most certainly have pressed my Amendment to a Division. I now ask leave to withdraw it.
  SIR C. DILKE: Before the Amendment is withdrawn—and I do not know that permission will be given to allow it to be withdrawn—I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman if we can have any further information as to the most remarkable arrangement or about the two arrangements which were made upon the introduction of this Bill. We have heard a great deal about one arrangement, but to-night the Chief Secretary told us that this matter was no part of the original arrangement.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I can explain that. I used that as a sort of incidental reference to what fell from the honourable Member for East Mayo in regard to the arrangement originally come to in May last, in which he stated that when he saw the Bill he was prepared to fall in with our financial proposals rather than lose the Bill altogether.
  SIR C. DILKE: I will not pursue the matter further. The House is always very jealous of these arrangements made in advance, but, as the Leader of the House admitted, we were no parties to the arrangement.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think the Chief Secretary has disposed of the substantial point, and I do not think it matters so much whether there was an arrangement or not. The point is whether this is to be regarded as purchase money for the municipal franchise. If it is, I think it is a thoroughly corrupt idea, and it is an idea which has tainted the whole of this Bill. It is absolutely corruption and bribery on the part of the Government. What is the principle?
  1028
  The principle is this. Irishmen are entitled to self government, and to the franchise as part of that self-government. They are entitled to that as citizens of the United Kingdom. The Government admit this, and their supporters admit it, but they say, "We will not confer it upon them unless they pay a certain price." Now, one portion of that price is to be paid out of the Imperial Treasury. The right honourable Gentleman does not deny for a moment that these towns are perfectly competent to exercise the franchise otherwise he would not have conferred it upon them. He cannot dispute the proposition that they are entitled to it, but he says, "I will not confer it except upon a certain condition." It is a most corrupt bargain, which is only to be carried out on the condition that it penalises somebody else, and penalises townspeople in the interests of the landlords. As a protest against this system of corruption and the buying of privileges at the expense of somebody else, I think we ought to support the Amendment.
  MR. LAMBERT: I should not have intervened at this stage but for the interruption of the honourable Member for Carnarvon. I think we are entitled to say that this proposal is only adding insult to injury. If these people pay a portion of the taxes, this proposal is actually upsetting an arrangement which has existed for years, and this Act puts them to the trouble of having a new arrangement, while they have the privilege of paying for the benefit of somebody else. This is a thing which ought not to be, and I do not see why, if he does not give the ratepayers in the towns any relief, he should put them to the expense of entering into a new arrangement with the landlord. If he would do something for the towns in Ireland and in England he would have a very good case with which to come to the House. As I said before, I think it is only adding insult to injury that the people in the towns should have to pay towards the rates of the agricultural landlords.
  The House divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 174.—(Division List No. 222.)

  AYES.

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

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Pinkerton, John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Holburn, J. G.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bayley, T. (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Billson, Alfred

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Brigg, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Burt, Thomas

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Spicer, Albert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Crean, Eugene

  Logan, John William

  Strachey, Edward

  Daly, James

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  McCartan, Michael

  Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  McDermott, Patrick

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davitt, Michael

  McEwan, William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Maddison, Fred.

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Dillon, John

  Maden, John Henry

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Woodall, William

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Morris, Samuel

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

  Gilhooly, James

  Murnaghan, George

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. McKenna and Mr. Lloyd-George.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Hazell, Walter

  O'Malley, William

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir Alex. F.

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Garfit, William

  Allhusen, A. H. E.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gedge, Sydney

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Arnold, Alfred

  Cornwallis, F. S. W.

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

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

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Bethell, Commander

  Davies, H. D. (Chatham)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Denny, Colonel

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Drucker, A.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Butcher, John George

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Helder, Augustus

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)

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

  Howard, Joseph

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Charrington, Spencer

  Flower, Ernest

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Kemp, George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Kenyon, James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fry, Lewis

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lafone, Alfred

  1030

  1031

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

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

  Lawrence, Sir EDurning- (Corn.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Purvis, Robert

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swans'a)

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Warkworth, Lord

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

  Rickett, J. Compton

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

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Lowles, John

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Sharpe, William E. T.

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

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

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  McKillop, James

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

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

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Monk, Charles James

  Spencer, Ernest

  More, Robert Jasper

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Morrison, Walter

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

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

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We have entered our protest against these financial clauses. The next Amendment stands in my name, and is—
  "To insert, after 'Acts,' page 28, line 24, the words 'and the value of a holding shall be ascertained under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts.'"
  I do not wish to occupy the time of honourable Members any longer, and, seeing that no object would be gained by this particular Amendment, I do not propose to move it.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 28, line 32, after 'or' insert 'other urban district or the commissioners of any.'"
  "Page 28, line 37, after 'lodgings' insert 'and except that if made heretofore in respect of a half rent under section 63 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, and the enactments amending the same, it shall continue to be so made.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 30, line 11, leave out 'any charge in connection with.'"
  "Page 30, line 42, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 44, and insert 'in the execution of the Labourers Acts, 1883 to 1896,
  1032
  when incurred in the standard year, shall not be deemed to have been special expenses within the meaning of this section, and when hereafter incurred, whether in respect of transactions begun before or after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 25, leave out 'said salary of one trained nurse,' and insert 'salary of the trained nurses.'"—(Sir T. Lea.)
  SIR T. LEA: This subject has already been debated, and on that occasion, I think the feeling of the House was clearly in favour of the proposal contained in this Amendment. I do not wish to repeat the arguments I used on the previous occasion. It is merely a question of the amount of money to be paid, and in the interests of good nursing I ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to accept my Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is impossible to accept this Amendment. The amount of money at our disposal is limited, and the proposals of the Bill are most advantageous. There are also

  1033
  reasons in connection with the provision of nurses to workhouses which justify our proposals.
  MR. JORDAN: I think the Amendment is a reasonable one, considering that the Local Government Board often compel the guardians of the unions to appoint trained nurses. In view of that compulsion we have a right to ask some such concession as is proposed in this Amendment. To refuse it will be unfair, ungenerous, and against the interests of the poor, the sick, and the afflicted. I desire to impress upon the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary the desirability of accepting this Amendment.
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 29, after 'workhouse' insert 'or engaged in the teaching of destitute or pauper children.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 32, line 16, after 'Lord Lieutenant' insert 'on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation of those facts.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "Page 32, line 19, at end, insert 'provided that this section shall be held to apply to harbour charges in Bray, Dungarvan, and Kinsale.'"—(Mr. J. O'Connor.)
  MR. J. O'CONNORThe town of Bray is excluded from the benefits of clause 50, and I venture to think that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary must see that Bray is quite entitled to the benefits of inclusion. The town commissioners have gone to great expense in building a harbour. It was not a harbour designed for the purpose of attracting visitors or
  1034
  tourists, but as a refuge for the fishermen of the district. Many lives are lost on this part of the coast, and the construction of the harbour was recommended by the fishery inspector and by a Royal Commission as a public work, and as security for the fishermen engaged in that locality. I am sure the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will see that it is unfair to exclude Bray from the benefits of this clause, and I trust that he will devise some means by which the town may benefit.
  MR. FLYNNsupported the Amendment, remarking that the municipality of Bray found itself saddled with the cost of this harbour, and he thought they were entitled to the benefits of the clause.
  MR. DAVITT: May I appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment of the honourable Member for Wicklow, especially as everyone must admit who has been there that Bray is one of the most charming spots in Ireland, and the citizens have shown a praiseworthy spirit of industry in trying to make it attractive to visitors.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Bray is a very rich district, and I do not consider that it is entitled to special privileges. I cannot see my way to accept this Amendment.
  Question put, and Amendment negatived.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I only rise to say that, having argued in favour of Bray and other towns, I do not want to do it again. I only trust that at the next General Election the non possumus attitude of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary with regard to Bray may be recollected, and that the people will bear in mind what they get for supporting the right honourable Gentleman.
  MR. PLUNKETT: I hope the electors of Bray in my division will take no such action.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 24, after 'counties' insert 'at large.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 23, line 25, at end, insert 'and.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 26, leave out from 'not' to 'counties' in line 27, and insert 'if it is conveniently possible to avoid it, be divided between more than two counties, and shall not in any case be divided between more than three.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 28, leave out 'so.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 28, leave out 'two counties' and insert 'more than one county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 29, after 'part' insert 'so far as it is not contained in an urban sanitary district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 33, line 29, after 'size' insert 'and rateable value.'"
  "Page 33, line 34, leave out 'two counties' and insert 'more than one county.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 36, at end of line, insert as a separate sub-section—
  "Where the boundary of any county or borough or county district or other area is altered by or in pursuance of this Act or any Order in Council made thereunder, the consequential alterations of the ordnance map shall be as soon as may be made through the Commissioner of Valuation in manner directed by the Lord Lieutenant in Council."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask if this Amendment is one that ought to be inserted? It is true that there are counties which are to remain for electoral purposes unchanged, but why the ordnance map is to be altered because of alterations made by the Local Government Board I cannot see. It may be that the Government understand the thing sufficiently, but it appears to me that it is not a thing that ought to be inserted in the Statute. It ought to be left to Departmental direction. This is the first time that you have provided for alterations in the ordnance map. We are putting in a provision that where the boundaries are altered for the purposes of this Act alterations in consequence are to be made on the ordnance map. It is a very doubtful provision. Where should we be? We may be in the county Cork for one purpose and in the county Kerry for another purpose.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Act does not touch the Parliamentary boundaries; they will remain distinct from the boundaries established under this Act. It is difficult to make alterations in the

  1037
  ordnance map. It is clear that these alterations should be made, but if the honourable Member insists upon the omission of the Amendment I shall be glad to omit it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 34, line 11, at end, add—
  "The power of the Local Government Board to divide a poor law electoral division into wards or to combine poor law electoral divisions for the purpose only of election shall cease, but nothing in this Act, nor in any Order made thereunder, shall affect—(a) any power of the Local Government Board in relation to sanitary districts under section 7 of the Public Health Act, 1878; or (b) the general power of the Board to combine, divide, or otherwise alter district electoral divisions; and the Board in the exercise of any such power may divide any townland.
  "Provided that any Order of the Local Government Board combining, dividing, or otherwise altering district electoral divisions, if made after the first day of May in any calendar year, shall apply to lists of electors in the next calendar year, and to any register of electors formed out of such lists, and to elections held after the time at which the register of electors so formed has come into force, and shall not apply previously."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 34, line 16, after 'militia' insert 'police registration.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 34, line 25, after 'shall' insert 'subject to variation of boundaries.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 34, line 30, leave out from 'of the' to 'or' in line 32, and insert 'Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 34, at end, add—
  "The court house of a county at large when situate within a county of a city or town shall, while it continues to be such court house, be deemed to form part of the body of such county at large; provided that if any court held for the county of the city or town is held in such court house, the court house shall then be deemed, for the purpose of the jurisdiction of that court, to be part of the body of the county of the city or town.
  "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen, on petition from the council of any borough other than a county borough by letters patent, to revoke the grant of the commission of the peace for the borough, and to make such provision as to Her Majesty seems proper for the protection of interests existing at the date of the revocation.
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the same officer shall continue to be clerk of the Crown, and when the offices of clerk of the Crown and clerk of the peace are amalgamated, shall be clerk of the Crown and peace for the county of Antrim and for the county of the city of Belfast constituted by this Act, and the same officer shall continue to be clerk of the Crown and peace for the county of Londonderry, and for the county of the city of Londonderry constituted by this Act.
  "Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of section 25 of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, 1843, nor the provisions of section 1 of the Quarter Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1845, which relate to the county of the city of Kilkenny.
  "The Juries (Ireland) Acts shall extend to any county of a city constituted by this Act in like manner as if it were mentioned in the same class in the first and second schedules respectively to the Jurors Qualification (Ireland) Act, 1876, as that in which the counties of the cities or Dublin and Cork are mentioned, and jurors' books shall be made for such county of a city accordingly."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put—
  "That these words be inserted."
  Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment—
  "Line 6, after the word 'town' to insert the words 'and any court now held in the county of Dublin may also be lawfully held in a court in the county of the city of Dublin and vice versâ.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question put—
  "That these words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Words inserted in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 37, line 20, after 'business' to add 'and if such board room and offices are situate outside their district, to hire a board room and offices.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 38, line 14, to leave out from beginning of line to end of line 18, and insert—
  "The council of a county, upon a proposal made by the council of a district in which any old road or public work is situate, or where the expenses of the maintenance of the road or work are levied wholly off the county, then, without such proposal, may, if the road or work appears to such county council to be useless, and they resolve so to do, stop up or abandon the road or work; but if an objection by any ratepayer is lodged in the manner and within the time determined by an Order in Council under Part VI. of this Act, the said resolution shall be of no effect unless approved by the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 38, line 40, after 'council' to add 'or county court.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 39, line 5, to leave out 'under the Grand Juries Acts.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 39, line 8, after 'surveyor' to insert 'or surveyors.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 39, line 12, to leave out from the second 'and' to 'be' in line 15."—(Sir Thos. Lea.)
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that this Amendment was unnecessary, because, although by the Schedule the old Act was repealed, the Local Government Board still retained control.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 39, line 26, to leave out from beginning of line to 'part' in line 32."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 39, line 35, after the second 'surveyor' to insert 'and any such secretary or surveyor or assistant surveyor shall not be appointed or removed, nor shall his salary be fixed or altered, without the concurrence of the Local Government Board, and he shall have such qualifications (if any) as may be prescribed.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 40, line 23, after 'council,' to insert 'provided that an officer shall not be disqualified for superannuation by reason only of his acting as an officer of a school attendance committee under the Irish Education Act, 1892.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 40, line 37, after 'officers' to add 'or to the powers of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council or the Lord Lieutenant under sections 68 and 69 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 41, line 1, after 'necessary' to insert 'for the performance of their duties in relation to lunatic asylums.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 41, line 11, to leave out 'appointed under this section' and insert 'of a lunatic asylum, save that all reference in that Act to the approval of the inspectors of lunatics or of the Lord Lieutenant shall be repealed.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 41, line 12, leave out from beginning of line to 'the grant' in line 16."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 41, line 19, after 'officer' to insert 'and any such superintendent or medical officer shall not be appointed or removed, nor shall his salary be fixed or altered without the concurrence of the Lord Lieutenant, and he shall have such qualifications (if any) as may be prescribed. '"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 41, line 26, after 'treasurer' to insert 'and in the case of the clerk.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  MR. CONDONhad on the Paper the following Amendment:—
  "Page 41, line 41, at end, to add—"
  (5) An urban district council may, with the approval of the Local Government Board, appoint a medical officer of health for their district and pay him a salary, and after such an appointment the district shall not be liable to contribute to the additional salary granted to the medical officer of a dispensary district by reason of his being medical officer of health: provided that the powers of this section shall not be exercised so as to diminish the salary or emoluments of any existing officer."
  MR. SPEAKERruled that, as the Amendment proposed to deal with salaries, to be paid out of the rates, it was out of order on the Report stage.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 14, to leave out sub-section 1, of clause 67."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. DILLON: I altogether fail to understand what considerations induced the Government to introduce into the Bill the sub-section the omission of which I now propose. When I objected, on the Second Reading of the Bill, to the principle of this exclusion, which I regard as a penal provision, I was told by some honourable Members that the clergymen in Ireland of various denominations have no objection to this provision, and the Chief Secretary, in his speech on the Second Reading, gave, as well as I remember, as the solitary reason in favour of this extraordinary departure from the law, as it prevails in Great Britain, that he considered that the business of Irish county and district councils would be more economically administered if clergymen were kept off those bodies. I thought at the time that that was a very feeble and slight reason for introducing into a popular Measure like this a provision which I felt sure would excite the greatest possible bitterness and feeling. What has occurred since then has fully justified the anticipations that I formed on the Second Reading. When the Standing Committee of the Irish bishops met they in the strongest possible terms protested against this proscription. About three weeks ago, when the general annual meeting of the Catholic bishops was held at Maynooth, they passed unanimously a resolution protesting against the denial to Roman Catholic clergymen of the ordinary rights of citizenship. Similarly, the Catholic clergy of the Diocese of Cloyne, under the presidency of the bishop, the Most Reverend Dr. Browne, met this last week and protested against this deprivation of civil rights. I confess that I deeply regret that this question has been raised by the Government at all. I think it is most unnecessary, most unwise, for the Government to raise this question in the present Bill. I have always held the view, and I hold it still, that if the Government had simply left the law in this regard in Ireland the same as it is in Great Britain, the cases in which clergymen would have stood for the county councils, or for the district councils, would

  1043
  have been extremely few; I do not believe there is any great desire on the part of the Irish clergymen to enter the county councils, and I believe the cases in which they would have stood would have been very few, and they would have been cases well known to all of us, where in certain very poor districts it is exceedingly difficult for the people to obtain any educated man to represent their views on the council, except some popular local clergyman. But, as I say, if the question had been let alone, it would not have been a large question; it would have been confined within extremely narrow limits. I am convinced that if this matter had been left alone, and the law had been made the same as it is, in Great Britain, very few clergymen would have come forward. Some might, and I think it would have been very desirable if they did, and very much to the advantage of the unfortunate people. But I felt that when the Government, animated by whatever motive, introduced this law of proscription aimed at the clergymen of Ireland, and differing from the law as it exists in Great Britain, they were raising a very serious question indeed, and we are entitled to ask this question. We have been told on innumerable occasions that the object of the Government was to make this Local Government Bill for Ireland in all its main particulars the same as the law is for England, except where special circumstances in Ireland necessitated a departure from the English law. Now, we are entitled to ask what are the special circumstances which justify a disability being placed on the clergy in Ireland? It is in the answer to that question which must be given that I see the whole mischief of this business. When we first raised the question what was the answer of the Government? The only answer given on the Second Reading was that, in the opinion of the Government, the business of the county councils, and the poor law unions would be more economically administered if the clergymen were kept off. Why does not that apply in Great Britain as well as in Ireland? It was perfectly manifest to every Member of this House that that answer was not the real answer. In Committee there was another answer given which I confess astonished me,
  1044
  coming from any man of the intelligence of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The answer given by him was that there are certain special circumstances in Ireland connected with the influence of the clergy, which, made it extremely undesirable that they should be admitted to the county councils, and we were given to understand that it was because of the great political influence exercised by the Catholic clergy in Ireland—because there was no attempt in Committee to deny that this Measure of proscription is aimed at the Catholic clergy of Ireland chiefly, and I say entirely—the Government took this position, that the reason of this alteration of the law was that the Catholic clergy in Ireland are possessed of an amount of political influence which renders it desirable to proscribe them as a class, and to drive them off all these representative bodies. Sir, I think a more foolish reason was never given in favour of proscribing a class. In my judgment, a more fatal policy was never entered upon by a Government than to proscribe a class—I do not care what class it is—and deprive them of their right to represent the people, on the ground that their political influence was too great. Has a Government ever succeeded in diminishing the influence of any class by such a proscription. I say that the whole of our political history teaches us that such proceedings always end in failure and disaster, and I believe that when you endeavour to draw a wall against a class to debar them from their rights of citizenship, the effect is invariably to increase the influence of that class amongst their own people. Let me examine for a moment what would be the logical effect of carrying out the principle laid down by the Chief Secretary in his speech in Committee. You consider it dangerous that the Catholic priests or clergymen of any denomination should be admitted as candidates for the councils in Ireland, and you object on account of their too large political influence. Are you going to prevent them by this law from using their political influence? If that be your motive, then you are logically bound to go a great deal further. Why not forbid them from exercising the franchise; why not forbid them speaking at elections; why not

  1045
  forbid them from expressing any opinion upon political matters at all? I say you will not lessen their influence by this proscription, and, further, I say that you will rob this great enfranchising Act of a great deal of its healing effect on the Irish people by sending it to that people poisoned and marred by an insult to a most respected body of men. I go further than that. I say it is an insult levelled at the whole people of Ireland. What is the ground on which the Government base or seek to justify this provision? It is, in point of fact, stripped of fine phraseology, that we are a priest-ridden people, and that we cannot take care of ourselves against our own clergy. I say that that is not only an insult to the Catholic clergy. I believe from what I have heard that not only the great body of Catholic clergy, but a very large section of the Protestant clergy are against this provision. It is an insult levelled not only at the Catholic priests of Ireland and at the clergy of other denominations, but it is an insult levelled at the whole people of Ireland, because it implies that the people of Ireland are ignorant and priest-ridden, and unable to work this great Measure of local government, unless the law protects them against the clergy of their own Church. Would this provision have been inserted in the Bill if Ireland had been a Protestant country? It is put in specially, because Ireland is predominantly a Catholic country. I say, therefore, that it is an insult levelled at the priests of Ireland and at the people of Ireland; that no sufficient justification has been shown for it; that it has, as I fully expected when I first heard the right honourable Gentleman explain the opinion of the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill, aroused feelings of the bitterest animosity in the minds of the Catholic priests, and bishops, and that instead of achieving the legitimate objects which the Chief Secretary had in mind, it will entirely fail and will have no effect whatever in diminishing the Influence of Catholic priests or of clergymen of any religious persuasion in Ireland, but that it is an insult which will be deeply and bitterly resented by them and will furnish, I daresay, in the future matter for agitation and for demands for redress. I hope that after the Debate
  1046
  that took place in Committee the Government will see their way to alter their minds in regard to this clause. I think it would have been greatly to the advantage of the Bill, and would have improved its chances of smooth working if this question had not been raised at all, but it has been raised, and I venture to say that the time will come when the Government will realise that in inserting this provision of the Bill they have made a great mistake.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: As an Irish Protestant I desire strongly to support the Amendment and to join my Catholic colleagues on these benches in urging the Government to reconsider their position—in my humble judgment their very unfortunate and mistaken position—in regard to this important matter. It appears to me to be only too transparently evident as my honourable Friend has just said, that the insertion of this provision is directly aimed at the Catholic priests of Ireland, who, as everyone knows, form the vast majority of the Irish clergy. Now, as the Resolution which my honourable Friend has referred to clearly and forcibly points out, this provision virtually deprives the Irish priests of their civil rights as citizens, rights which have been freely extended to the clergy of Great Britain, and as this Resolution points out, the fact that the clergy of Great Britain enjoy these rights makes the exclusion of the Irish clergy all the more invidious and offensive. As far as I can understand, the chief reason—and I think the only reason—that has been advanced for this provision is that the Catholic clergy of Ireland possess very considerable influence over the Irish people. But, Sir, it must be remembered that the Irish clergy possess that influence because they have always stood by the people in their troubles and difficulties, and have always assisted and advised them in all their troubles. It is because I am convinced that the advice and the assistance of the Irish clergy of all creeds would be of the utmost value in conducting the business of these new councils that I strongly support the Amendment of my honourable Friend.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I am not at all surprised that this Amendment has been moved by the honourable Gentleman

  1047
  the Member for East Mayo, because it is mainly owing to the influence of the clergy that he and so many of his friends find themselves in this House. The honourable Member for East Mayo says that this is a reversion to the old penal laws. It would be so undoubtedly if it proposed to exclude the Roman Catholic clergy, and did not exclude the clergy of other denominations, but the Government propose to exclude the clergy of all denominations. And permit me to say that the only denomination in Ireland that has objected to this exclusion is the Roman Catholic denomination. None of the other denominations in Ireland have objected to it. They have all unanimously come to the conclusion that the exclusion from these councils of the clergy of all denominations is an exclusion that ought to form part of the Bill. Now, the honourable Member for East Mayo says that in this country the clergy are permitted to participate in county government. I venture to say that, if in this country—in England, or Scotland, or Wales—there was a clergy possessing the great power that the Catholic clergy of Ireland possess—
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What about the Primrose parsons?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: If the English clergy possessed that power, and if they used that power not simply in the exercise of their religious functions, but for the purpose of obtaining political power and domination, I venture to say that the English people would never consent to allow the clergy to sit upon local governing bodies. I have every respect for the clergy of any religious denomination in their proper place, but it is idle for us to shut our eyes to the fact that in Ireland the Roman Catholic clergy have not been satisfied with exercising their authority and influence in the promulgation of their religious beliefs, but that they also devoted themselves to achieve political domination in Ireland. I remember the Meath election and other elections where the Roman Catholic clergy have achieved a dominant influence in many constituencies in Ireland. If they choose, they have a right to take that line, but you cannot eat your cake and have it; you cannot achieve domination in politics in Ireland, and then come
  1048
  forward in the House of Commons and place yourselves on the same level as other denominations who have never attempted anything of the sort. The honourable Member for East Mayo read some resolutions come to by the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, which resolutions concluded with what, as far as I can make out, was a threat, and I am afraid they are just the people to carry out that threat, but I do not think the House of Commons ought to be dominated by a threat from the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland or anybody else, and I say that if the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland choose to make this threat, that in itself is an extra proof of the justice of this exclusion which is contained in the Bill. I have pointed out before, that it is impossible to divest our minds of the fact of the immense power which, as the honourable Member for East Mayo will not deny, the Roman Catholic bishops and priests of Ireland exercise not only on the religious views but upon the political views of their people. At election times every Roman Catholic chapel in Ireland is a rostrum from which politics are preached.
  MR. FLYNN: That is absolutely wrong.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The proof of it is that 40 or 50 Members opposite are returned to this House in consequence of the influence exercised by the priests. We cannot shut our eyes to this fact. I ask the House to consider what chance would any Irishman have in standing for a county council if his own parish priest is to stand against him. Of course, it would be absolutely hopeless. There would be no semblance of fair play. The result of accepting this Amendment would mean that in a great part of Ireland, in the south and west, and in a great many of the midland counties, the county councils would be altogether under the influence of the priests. Judging by their action in a recent case, I should say that their action on the county councils will have a very considerable effect in increasing the immense-power that they already possess in Ireland. If the Protestant denominations in Ireland felt keenly on this subject they would have shown it very clearly, and they have not shown anything of the

  1049
  kind. There has not been a single meeting of any denomination of Protestants to protest against this clause. I know the Protestant mind of Ireland better than many honourable Members of this House, and I most emphatically deny that any of the Protestant denominations feel aggrieved in the slightest degree by the clause as it stands. Therefore I hope the House will not accept the Amendment of the honourable Member for East Mayo. As to this clause being an insult to the Irish people, I cannot conceive that that statement will have any weight in this House. If it is an insult at all, it is an insult to me, as much as it is to any other Irish Member here. I do not feel in the least insulted. I hope the House will stick by the Government and reject the Amendment of the honourable Member.
  MR. ASQUITH: I desire to associate myself entirely with what has been said by my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo. We have had some experience in this matter in England. When the Municipal Corporations Act was passed the Parliament of that date saw fit, on imperfect information, to exclude ministers of religion from the councils. When, in the year 1888, we reconstructed our system of local government in the counties, by a Measure proposed by a Conservative Government, we resolved with the unanimous consent of both Parties in this House—
  "that clerks in holy orders, and other ministers of religion, shall not be disqualified from being elected."
  Those are the words of section 2. That legislation was followed when we came to create our district and parish councils, and no one has yet been able to rise in this House and say that it has been attended with any pernicious results. Indeed, it is consistent with the most obvious principles of local and democratic government. Why should you exclude from the choice of the electors, who, after all, are the ultimate judges, any particular class of the community from the position of candidate, and from the opportunity of being elected? If the priests have those occult powers of mischief which have been depicted in such lurid colours by the honourable and gal-
  1050
  lant Member opposite, the electors can reject them if they see fit. ["Oh, oh!"] Why not?
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Because they are afraid.
  MR. ASQUITH: Then they are not fit for self government at all. The electors in Ireland are or are not free and independent, and capable of being entrusted with the management of their own affairs. If they are so much under the domination of the priests, what does it matter whether you exclude the priests? Because, if you do not have the priest, you will have the priest's nominees. What difference does it make whether the priest or a person named by the priest is selected? We in this country have found that the free and full extension of the area of choice, coupled with the free and full extension of the area of those who are to choose, has been attended with most beneficial results, and I cannot possibly see upon what ground, consistently with the principle upon which this Bill is based, the application of that principle to a particular class in Ireland should be denied. The honourable and gallant Member opposite has spoken of the enormous influence which he says is possessed by the Catholic priests of Ireland. Does he imagine that the influence of the priests is going to be destroyed or whittled down simply by excluding them from themselves becoming candidates? If their power exists, it will exist equally well, and be exercised equally effectively, whether the priest or anybody else is nominated. What the House has now to face is this question, whether in extending local self government in Ireland it should arbitrarily exclude from the possibility of being elected a single class of the community equally qualified by every consideration, both of property, of intelligence and of common sense, whether it should exclude those persons from among the number for whom the electors may vote. I fail to see how, consistently with the principle on which this Bill is based, such an exclusion can be justified, and I believe all parties in this House will agree that if local self government is to be a reality we must make the area of

  1051
  choice co-extensive with the area of the electorate.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I would remind the honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for Armagh [Colonel Saunderson] that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland is not an established church, and that whatever power the Irish Catholic clergymen have comes to them, not by reason of an establishment, but from the people. The power of the Catholic Church in Ireland, to which the honourable and gallant Member objects, comes to the Catholic priests directly from the Catholic people, and for the reason that the people of Ireland have confidence in their priesthood—a confidence which the priesthood eminently deserve.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I thought it came from the Pope.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: Then all I can say is the honourable and gallant Member must improve his education in these matters. There is one point which has been omitted in this Debate, and it is this: that on the grand juries there is no objection whatever to clergymen of the Established Church in Ireland, or Protestant Church, serving upon the grand juries. I have myself repeatedly served upon grand juries in Ireland, on which clergymen of the Protestant Church have also served. I do not see why, if this power was allowed to Protestant clergymen under the old régime, it should be denied to Catholic or Protestant clergymen under the new régime. The honourable and gallant Member objected to the declaration of the Irish Roman Catholic bishops, and he said that the bishops in that declaration held out a threat to this House to which he hoped the House would not yield. Sir, the Roman Catholic bishops merely asserted the constitutional rights of the Roman Catholic clergy; they merely asserted their rights to the privileges of citizenship; they made no threat to this House, but simply relied on the justice and fair play of this House to see that their constitutional privileges and rights were respected. I do not for a moment suppose that if this provision were not included in this Bill the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland would ever serve upon
  1052
  Irish county councils, or would ever be inclined to serve upon them, but I object to the provision simply on account of the stigma of political inferiority which it is sought to cast upon a very large section of Irish citizens, and I join heartily with the honourable Member for East Mayo in his protest against such an exclusion.
  MR. HAYDEN: As an Irish Catholic I oppose the Amendments proposed by the honourable Member for East Mayo. I do so with the full consent and approval of very many priests, both in Ireland and England. I have received approval of our action from many of the best class of priests both in this country and in Ireland. They, with us, think it would be a cruel thing to pit an Irish priest, speaking perhaps from the altar, as a candidate against one of his own congregation for a place upon one of these boards. If this proposal of the Government be such an insult to the Irish people and to the Irish priests as the honourable Member suggests, it is certainly strange that several weeks went by between the Second Reading of the Bill and the time at which an Amendment was put down to reject this proposal by any Irish Member. As a matter of fact not one single Member from Ireland moved in this matter until the right honourable Gentleman who sits on these benches, the Member for the Forest of Dean, moved in the matter.
  MR. DILLON: I beg the honourable Member's pardon. I put down this Amendment I think the second day after the Second Reading. It is true the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had moved in the matter, but it was only an hour or two before my Amendment appeared on the Paper.
  MR. HAYDEN: As a matter of fact the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman appeared first on the Paper, and it was not till a considerable time after that other Amendments were proposed. It is also notorious that not one word has been said by an Irish priest or bishop to resent this terrible insult, and nearly four months elapsed before the First Reading of the Bill and the resolutions of the Irish bishops, which the

  1053
  honourable Member for East Mayo has read. There was also an additional fact that in the Divisions that took place on the Motion in the Committee stage, out of all the Irish Members only 29 of those who sit on these benches voted against this insult to their priests, who are so largely responsible for sending them to this House. In the Division which took place on that question in a less important form a few nights ago only 35 out of the 70 men sent here to represent them supported them, which goes to show there is little reality in their statement that the proposed exclusion is an insult to the priests of Ireland. We who sit on these benches represent a very large body of Catholic opinion, and I think we can speak for a certain number of priests. We have no desire to deprive priests or anybody else of the rights and privileges of citizenship, but we say that a class that has abused its privileges, that has united against the liberties of the people:—["Oh, oh!"]—yes, it has united against them, and anyone who wishes to find proof of that can find it in the report of the Meath election petition.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: They have been the defenders of the liberties of the Irish people for hundreds of years.
  MR. HAYDEN: I say we do not wish to deprive priests of the rights of citizenship, but we are not afraid to say to you in the House of Commons, and we are not afraid to say it in Ireland—we have said it in Ireland, and we were subjected to insult and persecution for saying it—that we wish to preserve the rights of citizenship for the vast majority of the people of Ireland, and the majority of the people are far more important than any class, and we say that their liberty cannot be preserved to them if representatives of the majority have to stand up as candidates for these local bodies against their own clergymen, who have advantages that no laymen can possess, and who have shown that they can and will use those advantages to the utmost extent.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I regret that I cannot on this occa-
  1054
  sion support my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh. This is not a matter of politics at all, and I do not agree with the honourable Member for Roscommon that the rights of citizens are being supported by those who are opposed to this Amendment. I believe what was said by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife was perfectly true—that it is futile to attempt to war against the influence of the priests by excluding priests from the exercise of the rights of citizenship. I believe, on the contrary, that the sooner you bring the priest into the open the sooner you make him feel that, with the privileges of citizenship, he has to observe the responsibilities of citizenship. The moment you give to the priest, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, some privilege because he is a priest, or the moment you take away from him some privilege because he is a priest, you make him more or less a citizen. It seems to me that the whole history of Europe in the past, and the whole history of Europe in the present, is a pregnant lesson against giving special privileges to the clergy, or inflicting special disabilities upon them. I agree with my honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh that the influence of the priests at elections in Ireland has been disastrous. Nothing, to my mind, can be more positively deplorable than the influence of the priests in politics. But I do not believe for a moment that when you bring the priests into the forum of public criticism, when you subject them to the rough and tumble of an election, when they have to stand the criticism of opposing candidates—I do not believe that you will make them more powerful than they are now. I believe that Irishmen are like other people, and that they will want to get their business done in some way, and if they find that it is ill done by their representatives, be they priests or laymen, they will very summarily dismiss them and put others in their place. I cannot see anything in the teaching of history or in contemporary politics in favour of the special exclusion of clergymen of any denomination from the sphere of local government. I hold that a man is neither

  1055
  more nor less a citizen because he happens to be a priest. For these reasons I shall support the Amendment of the honourable Member for East Mayo.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife, who intervened in this Debate in support of the honourable Member for East Mayo, laid great stress upon the example of England, and in those solemn tones that he knows so well how to adopt he told us that in this country the admission of ministers of religion to the county councils was unanimously agreed to by every party in this House. Now, Sir, compare that unanimity with the difference of opinion that exists on this question in Ireland. Had my right honourable Friend considered the comparison I think he would have seen that the cases of England and Ireland do not stand exactly on the same footing. But my right honourable Friend used an argument of a kind that I must confess did not greatly impress me. He said that this was a matter for the electors. The electors might reject those whom they thought unfit and elect those whom they thought fit, and he said that if it was necessary to impose those disabilities on the choice of the electors that only proved that the electors were not fit for self government. The electors are free and independent persons, says my right honourable Friend, and therefore should require no protection. Sir, let me appeal to that logic which so distinguishes the right honourable Gentleman, and let me ask him this question: Take the ballot; what is the ballot but a protection of the free and independent elector? But, again, my right honourable Friend says it should be left to the electors to choose whom they should elect as their representative. If that is so why should not the same principle apply to, the election of Members of this House, and why should not women have the right to become members—a proposition of which my right honourable Friend has been a consistent opponent? I think it is perfectly clear that in practice we have never recognised these general arguments from democratic principles. We have always looked, and rightly looked, to the considerations applicable in each particular case that has presented itself. Now I
  1056
  come to the speech of the honourable Member for East Mayo. The honourable Member says that it was most unwise of the Government to raise this question. He says we should have left the English law as it stands, and then it seemed to occur to him that Ireland is not in this matter, and in some other matters also, governed by English laws, but by Irish laws, and then he used a strange phrase. He said, "We should have left or made the law the same as in England." 'Now, there is a great deal of difference between "leaving" and "making" the law the same. Whatever our wishes might have been it was absolutely impossible for us to avoid raising this question. What we have done is as regards all councils except county councils, to leave the law in Ireland exactly as we found it. Had we done what the honourable Member wishes we should have been obliged to insert a special provision, so that under no circumstances could we avoid raising the question. The honourable Member for East Mayo says that the proposed exclusion of ministers of religion from membership of the county and district councils has created a bitter sense of injustice in Ireland. Sir, I very much doubt that. I have received during the course of this Bill innumerable representations upon very many points connected with it. I have received some communications upon this particular point, but out of all the communications I have received during all these months the only one addressed to me personally with reference to this clause in a sense adverse to the proposal made by the Government was from a Protestant clergyman, who objected to clergymen being excluded. I think he was almost a unique specimen of his class. I have, however, received a certain number of communications, not only from Roman Catholic laymen, but from Roman Catholic priests, and in no single case has there been any expression of the strong feeling of resentment of which the honourable Member for East Mayo talks. Of course, I know on what he bases his statement. He rests on the declaration of the hierarchy, but whether that declaration corresponds with lay opinion in Ireland is another question. The declaration of the hierarchy rests upon what they describe as the ordinary

  1057
  rights of citizens. Can the right to be elected to serve on administrative bodies in this country be properly described as an ordinary right of a citizen? Ministers of religion of any denomination have no right to sit in this House. Then take the case of local government in England. It is perfectly true, as my right honourable Friend said, that the ministers of religion were by the Local Government Act of 1888 admitted to membership of district councils and county councils, but there was at the time an existing disqualification to their sitting on the councils of municipal boroughs. Was that disqualification removed? No; it exists at the present moment. As a matter of fact, we have, so far as the existing law goes, not deviated from it on this question, but have strictly followed it. We have adhered to the English precedent in every respect, except that we have not admitted ministers of religion to membership of the councils. Now, why have we done that? I observe that Roman Catholic bishops in their declaration have said—I will not call it a threat, but they have stated—that if the priests are debarred from sitting on the councils, they will, at all events, continue to exercise their influence outside. Here we come to the real point. What kind of influence is it that experience shows is exercised by the priests in Ireland? Sir, I am afraid there can be no doubt that it has been most unfortunately, as I consider, the practice of the priests in Ireland to carry into the domain of politics the arms of spiritual warfare. That is the real distinction in this matter between England and Ireland. In England such a thing does not occur, or, if it does occur, it is immediately resented by those upon whom it is brought to bear. In Ireland, unfortunately, that is not so. I ask the House: suppose a Roman Catholic priest, say, in the west of Ireland, were to stand for one of these county councils; does anyone who knows Ireland imagine for a moment that the electors would really be perfectly free to use their judgment, and that they would use their judgment merely as to whether the election of such a priest increased the strength of the administrative body?
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Certainly.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I hear one honourable Member say "Certainly." I am sure myself that the real conviction of even honourable Members who sit opposite, is that every influence would be brought to bear, spiritually and otherwise, to ensure the priest's election. ["No, no!"] I will grant, if you like, that very few priests would stand if they were eligible, but I say that those who did stand could not afford not to be elected, and it is certain that they would use their influence, not merely as ordinary citizens, but as priests, to secure that election. I say actual experience in Ireland abundantly bears that out, and it is really impossible for anybody who is acquainted with the condition of affairs to dispute it. My right honourable Friend the Member for Belfast has admitted all this, but he has not drawn the conclusion from it which we have drawn. He says that whatever influence the priests now possess they will continue with undiminished power to use, although that influence will be exercised outside. Now, I do not believe myself that whatever the power of the priests may be outside, it is the same thing whether they sit or do not sit upon these councils. If they do not sit upon these councils, we believe that these administrative bodies will be freer to exercise their judgments apart from priestly influence. I admit that there may be a good deal to be said on the other side. One of the difficulties in connection with the administration under the new system which will be established by this Bill will be that of securing a sufficient number of instructed and capable men to fill the posts of councillors, and I am perfectly ready to admit that in many cases, in mere point of ability and education, no better candidates could be found than the priests. No doubt there is something to be said on both sides, but, weighing the arguments and judging the matter impartially, I believe that the interests of administration will be best served by maintaining the Bill as it at present stands.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I venture to think that the honourable and gallant Member for Armagh was hardly correct in the facts which he put before the House. It is idle to deny that the

  1059
  clergy of Ireland of all denominations exercise a greater influence than the clergy of England. That is true of the north as well as of the south; it is true of Protestants as well as of Catholics. It is due to facts in the history of the country, to which it is unnecessary to refer, but which are within the knowledge of every Member of the House. Nobody acquainted with Belfast would deny that Dr. Magee exercises a great influence in that city, and I believe deservedly. I would remind the House of the fact that, although I believe there have been few instances of Presbyterian ministers being returned to this House from Scotch constituencies, there have been such ministers returned sometimes as Nationalists and sometimes as Unionist Members. There is no doubt that the priests and clergy of all denominations do exercise in Ireland a very great influence. But why are you to have men of this great influence excluded practically from all the local bodies? The exclusion does not exist to-day. There are a number of local bodies existing in Ireland to-day upon which clergymen are permitted to serve. Take the case of grand juries. Priests as such are not excluded from the grand juries, nor are Protestant ministers of religion. Take, again, the presentment sessions. There is nothing to prevent them sitting on those bodies. Take, again, the district asylums boards. Those boards are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, which means, of course, the Chief Secretary. It has been the custom of successive Chief Secretaries, year after year, to appoint a large number of ministers of religion to sit upon those boards, and I would ask the Chief Secretary why, if it is inconsistent with free administration, he has appointed priests and even bishops to sit upon the asylums boards? Has he ever had a single complaint from a layman, a member of those boards, that any undue influence was attempted to be used as a clergyman by one whom he himself had nominated? And I would remind him that one of the chief administrative duties which will be taken over by the new councils will be those of the asylums boards. We have the fact that the Chief Secretary has year after year nominated priests to take part in important adminis-
  1060
  trative duties, and yet now we are told that the people are not to be allowed to elect the very men whom the Chief Secretary himself has appointed. I put it to the House that that affords a clear proof of what it is the Chief Secretary really means. The right honourable Gentleman, in proposing and adhering to this clause, does not show so much a distrust of the priest as distrust of the people of Ireland. The only precedents the right honourable Gentleman could cite for this exclusion were two, and both were due to the same period in the history of this House. There is the exclusion which is contained in the Irish and English Municipal Corporations Act, and there is the exclusion under the Irish Poor Law. During the period of Whig domination there was a general distrust of allowing the clergy to have anything to do with political affairs. I do not suppose there are many Whigs left in politics to-day; I find they have apparently on this point their successors behind me, but, however, there are not many Whigs in this House to-day. The Whigs of that time, with a narrow spirit that has not been held by the Liberals who succeeded them, were against allowing the clergy the rights of citizenship. They were not allowed to take part in municipal politics, and in Ireland they were refused any part in the administration of the poor law. With those two exceptions, due to an exceptional period in our administration, there is no precedent for the exclusion which the Chief Secretary now proposes. Then, again, these county councils will be the authority for technical education. There is no more important duty which will be confided to the new bodies than that connected with technical education. And it is essential that for a good system of technical education you should have harmonious working between the elementary schools and the technical systems. In almost every parish in Ireland the priests are the managers of the elementary schools; so that you are excluding the very men whose knowledge and experience would be of the greatest assistance in dealing with the important subject of technical education. I ask whether that is not entirely contrary to the interests of good government. I will refer to another instance. On the Congested Districts Board, of which the

  1061
  Chief Secretary is a member, there is a Catholic bishop and another Catholic priest. I would ask whether the presence of these gentlemen upon that board has not been found of the greatest service in its deliberations, and why? Because in the congested districts which they represent, there is unfortunately, owing to the social condition of the country, the greatest difficulty in finding men of education who can give up sufficient time for public service, and to perform public services with the requisite ability. Under this Bill it will be necessary in the congested districts to select many hundreds of men to perform these local duties. I ask why there should be excluded from the new bodies the very clergymen who have been proved by the voice of the Chief Secretary—I suppose we could point to no higher example of administrative wisdom—to have been always of great service in practically the same capacity. I venture to think that in the interests of good government in Ireland the decision at which the Government have arrived is most unfortunate. I admit, of course, freely, that from some points of view something may be said for this exclusion as for every exclusion, but I venture to think that the experience of all other countries points against the wisdom of the Chief Secretary's decision. Take the case of France. There is no more anti-clerical Government than that of France, and yet priests in France are eligible for every public body—for the Councils of the Departments, for membership of the Chamber of Deputies, and even for membership of the Senate. There is no district in Ireland where priests have more influence than they have in Lower Brittany. Priests are members of the Departmental Councils in Brittany, but I have never heard that their influence there has been found contrary to the interests of good government. I never heard that even the most extreme anti-clerical member sent to represent the most anticlerical part of France in the French Chamber of Deputies has got up and moved the exclusion of the clergy. Surely the Chief Secretary, the spokesman of a Government returned to power largely by the influence, the legitimate influence, of the clergy of the Church of England in this country, as the
  1062
  spokesman of their interests in English matters, ought to be ashamed of taking an extreme anti-clerical position in this House which, none of the anti-clericals of France would ever venture in the French Assembly to adopt. It is not a position, I venture to think, which will facilitate the working of this Bill. I should have thought that a Conservative Government would have recognised that in the main the clergy of Ireland are a conservative force; that if at various times in the past they have been driven into opposite courses it has been mainly by such exclusions as that which is imposed by this clause. It seems to me extraordinary that a Conservative Government should propose to exclude from the local bodies of Ireland the most naturally conservative force in the community, and I venture to think that in doing so they are not true even to the traditions of their own party, that they have committed a mistake in the interests of their party, and, what is still more important, a mistake which will leave an embittered feeling in the minds of those whom it is the greatest interest of every man who is entrusted with any share in the government of Ireland to reconcile to the existing state of affairs.
  MR. PLUNKETT: As I am forced to throw in my lot with this Amendment, I hardly like to give a silent vote. I cannot agree with the honourable and learned Member who has just spoken. I think it is ridiculous to talk of the decision which the Government has arrived at as an insult to the clergy. I cannot imagine anything more conciliatory than the tone adopted by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary throughout, and I think we must all agree that there has never been a Minister who sat upon those benches who has shown lass bigotry on all religious questions in connection with Ireland.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I do not think that I made any attack upon the tone adopted by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I merely said that the proposal was one which had not been made even by the most anti-clerical members of the French Assemblies.
  MR. PLUNKETT: At any rate, I do not think the proposal is anti-clerical,

  1063
  because, after weighing the pros and cons with great ability, the right honourable Gentleman has arrived at the opposite conclusion to that at which I arrived, not, I admit, on quite so deep grounds, but simply upon my own experience in Ireland and with a very large knowledge of the Irish priesthood. Sir, this House has largely interested itself in the attitude of the priest in politics in the past. It ought to be remembered that the priest has not always been in politics in Ireland. O'Connell brought him in, and he has remained there ever since. I think anyone who knows anything of Irish life will bear me out when I say that the number of priests who have taken an active part in politics is grossly exaggerated. The vast number of priests who attend to their religious duties and take no part in politics are never heard of at all; they do not appear in the newspapers, and those who do appear in newspapers are taken as a type of the entire class. The influence that they are exercising in politics is undoubtedly very much less now than it has been, in even recent years. I feel too very strongly that the Government show a want of faith in the healing effect of their Measure. If their Measure succeeds, as I believe it will, I am quite confident that the inducement for the priests to take an active part in politics will be very much less than it has been in the past. Furthermore, I am certain that they have no desire at present to take an active part in local administration. There may be a few districts where it is very hard to constitute the new councils without their aid, but those are very poor and backward districts where politics do not run high. In the few cases where priests are likely to be elected I do not think their election would do any harm. To put the whole matter in a nutshell, I do not believe myself that the priests want to take part in the working of these bodies. If I did think they were anxious to do so I should certainly vote against the Amendment, but I think that their exclusion will do a great deal more harm than their admission.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is hopeless to expect anything like an effective Debate upon this question; but I should like to ask the
  1064
  House and Government to consider this matter in relation to the subject-matter of the Bill itself. Everyone who has spoken upon this subject has assumed that these county councils will be legislative bodies. They will be nothing of the kind; they will be purely administrative bodies. What are the subjects to be dealt with by these bodies? Roads, fences, bridges, drains; those are the main subjects. How can sacerdotalism possibly come into such work as that? It is ridiculous to suppose that it can come in at all. Another part of the duties of the councils is the making, levying, collecting, and recovering poor rate, the business of the guardians under the Diseases of Animals Act, and the Destructive Insects Act of 1870." These are the subjects upon which the "terrible priest in politics" may be supposed to be brought to bear within the county councils. Then as regards their powers outside the county council, does anyone believe the priest will stand for the county councils? I do not believe if this Amendment were accepted by the Government that throughout the length and breadth of Ireland one single Catholic priest would stand; and I further believe that the bishops who passed the resolution, if any priest attempted to stand, would instantly make a synodical decree preventing such candidature. But it may be said, why do you struggle against this prohibition if that be so. I believe the bishops passed this resolution simply in order to resent what they regarded as an insult. I believe that the Chief Secretary is free from all taint of bigotry; I make no such charge against him, although undoubtedly we have had again and again to differ with him. I believe he has brought in this prohibition largely in order to sooth the bigotry of those in the north of Ireland who fear the inclusion of the priests, and who would regard that inclusion as another objection to the establishment of a system of local government for Ireland. I believe if this Amendment were passed, the only effect it would have as a practical measure would be that you would have scores of Presbyterian and Protestant clergymen in Ulster acting as candidates and sitting as county councillors, whereas I believe that no one single Roman Catholic would seek election at all. The right honourable Gentleman has stated that

  1065
  exclusions already exist. But, Sir, when were those exclusions passed? The Poor Law Act was passed in the first year of the reign of the Queen, 1837, eight years after emancipation. The Municipal Corporations Act was passed in the third and fourth Victoria, 11 years after emancipation. Are the models of the Queen's reign in that respect to remain unchanged after 60 years' experience, after 60 years' toleration, after 60 years' emancipation? Are the Queen's subjects to be treated in the same way and in the same spirit at the conclusion of her reign as they were at the beginning in Ireland, and in Ireland alone? This Debate has been to some extent a painful one for Irishmen. I agree that there was some force in the argument of the Chief Secretary that there was divided opinion in Ireland in relation to this question. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Roscommon has taunted Members sitting on these benches with being the priests' representatives. I should like to know what we were when Mr. Parnell was chairman of a united party. Were we then the priests' representatives? I can only say that Mr. Parnell's return to this House was largely due to the very priests referred to by the honourable Gentleman, and especially to the Bishop of Meath. Be that as it may, I admit that such speeches as we have had to-night lessen our hope of having an effective Division, much less an effective Debate, upon this question; but upon the whole, looking at the position of the Government without heat, and, I hope, with some endeavour to appreciate the difficulties that he in their way, the conclusion I have come to, as a juror, upon this difficult question is that, instead of diminishing, the power of the priests by the course which you have taken, you are driving them into a position of antagonism—you are driving them to the front. They believe that this exclusion has been levelled against them; they believe that they are now a proscribed band in Ireland. Speeches such as that which has been made tonight by the honourable Member for Roscommon are not likely to induce them to lessen their efforts or diminish their influence. It is opposition of that kind which will lead them to put forth further effort and further determination. The only result, I believe, of this exclusion will be that instead of having peaceful elections
  1066
  —elections in which solely questions of administration will be considered—another element will now be imported into these contests, from the fact that the Orange Party on the one hand and the Party represented by the honourable Member for Waterford on the other, have joined hands in a kind of blood brotherhood on this question, in order to exclude the priests from their due share in the administration of these county affairs. That, I think, will be the only result. I think it is a deplorable result, and upon the whole I think that, however strongly the honourable Member for Waterford and his friends may feel, they might perhaps have done better for themselves and their country, and the religion they profess, if they had left the advocacy of these exclusions solely and entirely to the Orange and Ascendancy Party.
  MR. FIELD: Speaking as the representative of the St. Patrick's Division, Dublin, unopposed at the last election, I think I am entitled to voice the opinion of my constituents upon this subject. My colleague, the honourable Member for Roscommon, who represents probably the most Catholic constituency in Ireland, is also entitled to voice his opinion. We have heard a good deal in this Debate from Gentlemen who say that they voice the entire Catholic opinion of Ireland. I deny that. There is a large amount of educated independent Catholic opinion in Ireland that is entirely with us on this question. We have had read to the House a manifesto from the Catholic bishops. The bishops—of whom I desire to speak with all respect—did not issue a manifesto at the time of the Parnellite crisis, when certain dignitaries of the Church practised something very like coercion towards the Parnellite candidates. It is because I am in favour of freedom of opinion and of liberty of action in political matters that I intervene in this Debate at all. We are told by honourable Members on this side of the House that we are intolerant to the clergy. I want to know what tolerance the clergy showed during the time of the Parnellite crisis. We have been told also that there were exceptional circumstances why this exclusion should not exist. I say that these special circumstances which exist in Ireland at the

  1067
  present time go to justify the exclusion. We have not forgotten the Meath Election Petition, and we remember the famous phrase, "fire to his heels and fire to his toes." We are told that reverend gentlemen are denied the rights of ordinary citizenship. I say they are not ordinary citizens. I maintain, as a Christian and as a Catholic, that, where a man is charged with a sacred mission, he is better employed in the sphere of his elevated duties than he is in mundane politics. I do not desire to say anything disrespectful, but I ask the House to imagine an election in Belfast with the Rev. Dr. Kane as a candidate on the one side and the Roman Catholic parish priest on the other. What would be likely to happen, in such a case, on the Shankhill Road? I am quite certain that honourable Members who vote against us, in their calmer moments, will come to agree with the conclusion at which we have arrived, and that is that in the future the administrative government of Ireland will be far better carried on without any sectarian influence, and that it is for laymen to manage lay affairs. This is really no policy of exclusion, because ministers of religion have never asked for these positions. So far as I am aware, there is no desire on their part for them. Probably, I have as much intercourse with the priests of my religion as any man of this House, and I have never heard from any priest or parson (and I have friends amongst the parsons, too) the slightest desire to interfere in the management of county councils. I do not intend to further delay the House, but I hope that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will stand by the clause he has introduced, and I can tell him, as an independent Member, that a large body of Catholics in Ireland, including a number of priests, will thank him for the course he has taken.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not unnatural that a question of this kind should induce a certain amount of feeling and a certain strength of language, but I cannot help deprecating the continuance of this discussion. I do not wish to survey again the arguments which have been brought before us, but there is one observation which
  1068
  I should like to make. The learned Gentleman who spoke last but one, and spoke very temperately and ably upon the subject, rather regarded this as an attack upon, or an insult levied at, the Roman Catholic priests. I can assure him that that is not the intention of the Government. Our intention was the very opposite of any attack or insult upon the Roman Catholic priests. The clause deals with ministers of all denominations, and it is not levelled against one or another, and the honourable and learned Member himself will admit, I think, that if the clause were cut out of the Bill the number of priests who would be likely to take part in county council work would not be very great. I frankly admit that this is a question upon which there is, and perhaps inevitably must be, some difference of opinion. We have given very anxious attention to the matter, and we are inclined to think that, in the interests of all concerned, laymen and clergy—laymen of all political opinions, clergymen of all denominations—and in the interests of local government in Ireland, the exclusion to which exception has been taken would, on the whole, be advantageous. But, Sir, however that may be, am I not right in saying that, in my judgment, the Debate has now sufficiently covered every aspect of the question? Difficult as the question is, apt as it is to raise unpleasant controversies even between friends, we may perhaps now come to a decision upon it. I would just remind the House that we have still much work to do, and I trust the appeal that I make will not be thought unreasonable.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not regard this as a question which raises religious differences at all. I think it is quite possible for men of different religious creeds to have different views of this question. To my mind, it is a question which goes down to the very roots of religious liberty and statesmanlike progress. I confess I cannot share the view of the honourable Member for Roscommon and the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh, that the best way to meet what they regard as clerical domination is an exclusion like this. I do not fear any power which is associated with responsibility; what I do

  1069
  fear is irresponsible power. I can find no answer whatever to the argument of my right honourable Friend the Member for East Fife, that if there be a strong clerical injuence in Ireland—and no one can deny that there is—you have to make your choice between dealing with the priest or with the nominee of the priest, and that in one case the priest has to come in and fight the question simply as a secular question and a question of public affairs; and, in the other case, the priest exercises his influence without any responsibility whatever. It has been said here to-night that clergymen of all denominations are excluded from membership of this House. I have always been against that exclusion. I have seen clergymen in the French Assemblies, and I do not see any reason why anybody should be excluded from the public bodies of the country to which they cannot be admitted without the free choice and vote of their fellow-citizens. Catholic clergymen are admitted to public bodies in this country; they are members of boards of guardians and other bodies, and are found to be very good members too. Now, what is the position that I am asked to place myself in by those who oppose this Amendment? I am asked, as an Irish Nationalist, by the assistance of English votes against the majority of Irish votes, to inflict an exclusion upon Catholic priests in a Catholic country which is not inflicted upon them in a Protestant country. I confess I am utterly unable to reconcile that position with my views as an Irish Nationalist in this House. I am not more in favour than any Member on the opposite side of the House can be of undue clerical influence in political affairs,
  but the law is quite able to deal with cases of undue clerical influence, and so long as the clerical influence is used openly no harm can be done. The mistake honourable Members seem to me to make is this. They think to exclude clerical influence by excluding the priests. In my opinion, they are going the best way to unduly exaggerate that influence.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: This is a matter about which I feel so strongly that I would not like to give a silent vote. I regard this clause as a gross and deliberate insult to every minister of religion in Ireland, no matter to what denomination he belongs, although, no doubt, it is more particularly levelled at the Roman Catholic priesthood. I have read a work entitled "The History of England in the Eighteenth Century," and I find there 40 pages devoted to an account of "priest-hunting" in Ireland. That is a book written by W. E. H. Lecky. I wonder what has become of it? This clause I call a "priest-hunting" clause, and it deserves to be cut out and pasted in that chapter written by the right honourable Member for Dublin University. The clergy of Ireland deeply resent this insult to their cloth. It will alienate any little sympathy the priesthood may have got with the right honourable Gentleman, and they will no doubt follow out the policy suggested in the declaration of the bishops that has been read to-night, and see that their influence is exercised to the best of their ability.
  The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 74.—(Division List No. 223.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Clancv, John Joseph

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Arnold, Alfred

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Baillie, J. B. B. (Inverness)

  Butcher, John George

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carew, James Laurence

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

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

  Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)

  Cornwallis, F. S. W.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

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

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

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Cox, Robert

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Finch, George H.

  Loder, G. W. Erskine

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Round, James

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Fry, Lewis

  Lowles, John

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Maclure, Sir John William

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  McKillop, James

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Milton, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Monk, Charles James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Hardy, Laurence

  More, Robert Jasper

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morrell, George Heroert

  Waring, Colonel Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Helder, Augustus

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

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

  Henderson, Alexander

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

  Howell, William Tudor

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Hozien, Hon. J. H. C.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Parnell, John Howard

  Wylie, Alexander

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Wyndham, George

  Lawrence Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  NOES.

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

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  O'Brien. P. J. (Tipperary)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hazell, Walter

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

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bethell, Commander

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  O'Malley, William

  Billson, Alfred

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Blake, Edward

  Jameson, Major J. E.

  Pinkerton, John

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Carlile, William Walter

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Carvill, Patrick G. H.

  Kemp, George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Knox, Edmund Francis V.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Colville, John

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Crean, Eugene

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Strachey, Edward

  Crilly, Daniel

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Curran, T. B. (Donegal)

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

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

  Daly, James

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  McCartan, Michael

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'ddersf'ld)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Gilhooly, James

  Morrison, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murnaghan, George

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 16, at end, insert 'until a period of two years has passed after the passage of this Act."—(Mr. Murnaghan.)
  MR. MURNAGHAN: Even after the Division we have just had, I venture to hope that the right honourable Gentleman will accept this Amendment. After the first elections, and when the country has had time to settle down to the working of the new régime, there can be no reason to continue the disqualification of a highly-respected class of the Irish community. I think the right honourable Gentleman is desirous of doing what he can to meet the wishes of the Irish people, and I believe that if he will accept this Amendment he will remove what is a great blot upon the Bill.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot accept this Amendment. If, as we believe, there are valid reasons for excluding the clergy, those reasons will be none the less valid two years after the passing of the Act.
  Question put—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  Negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 19, after 'guardians,' insert or commissioners of a town."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 21, after 'elector,' insert or resident, as required by this Act."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 21, at end, insert—
  "Any member of the council of a county or county district or board of guardians or commissioners of a town who, after the passing of this Act, is convicted of acting when disqualified, or of voting when prohibited, shall, for a period of seven years after such conviction, be disqualified for being elected or being a member of the same or any other such council, board, or commissioners."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I should like the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General to explain the reason for this Amendment. Why is not the ordinary law sufficient? The Amendment may be necessary from a drafting point of view, but I think it should be safeguarded by providing some sort of appeal, as is done in the case of disqualifications imposed under the Corrupt Practices Act. It is possible that a man may be disqualified by a mere accident, and the court should have power to excuse the disqualification in such cases.
  Mr. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that an appeal would be provided.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 27, at beginning, insert 'outside a county borough."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 30, after 'district,' insert 'and such direction, if given, may authorize the poll for a councilor for a district electoral division to be taken outside that division, if it is taken within the county electoral division comprising it."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 30, leave out 'and,' and make the rest of the sub-section into a new sub-section."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 31, after 'election,' insert 'of such councillors."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 35, leave out from 'of a' to end of line 36, and insert 'rural district council shall be the fifth day, and of a county council the twelfth day next after the said day of election of councillors."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 37, at beginning, insert 'outside a county borough."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 42, line 39, leave out 'ninth day of June which,' and insert 'day next after the said day of election of councilors, which day."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 43, line 2, leave out 'in a town or township having commissioners' and insert 'of the commissioners of a town."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 43, line 4, to leave out 'twenty-fifth day of November,' and insert 'fifteenth day of January."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. DALYpointed out that this change would be more inconvenient. In many municipal boroughs the election took place on the 16th October, and the Amendment would involve a re-election within about three months.
  SIR J. HASLETT: I think this is a very unfortunate change. The entire machinery of county boroughs under the Municipal Corporations Act is based on taxation, and no possible object can be served by altering it. There is no impossibility in having the register of electors perfectly ready on the 25th November, and I cannot see what is gained by altering the existing machinery. Perhaps my right honourable Friend will state why he considers the alteration necessary.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: For various practical reasons the 25th November has been held to be an inconvenient date, and we have been strongly urged to make the change to the 15th January.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 43, lines 6 and 7, leave out 'first day of December,' and insert 'twenty-third day of January."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 43, line 9, leave out from 'office' to end of line 12, and insert—
  "(2) In the case of the council of a borough the ordinary day of election of councilors and aldermen shall be the fifteenth day of January, and the quarterly meeting of the council shall be held at noon on the twenty-third day of January, and at such hour oh such other three days before the fifteenth day of January then next following as the council at the quarterly meeting in January decide.
  "(3) The first business transacted at the said quarterly meeting in January shall be the election of the mayor, and the outgoing mayor shall retire and the newly-elected mayor shall come into office on the ordinary day of retirement of the mayor, or as soon after as the new mayor has made a declaration accepting the office, and the ordinary day of retirement of mayor shall be the day of the said quarterly meeting, or if the council have, by a general resolution, so directed, the following twenty-third day of February.
  "(4) In a county of a city or town the selection of three persons qualified to fill the office of sheriff shall be part of the business transacted at the said quarterly meeting in January, and the day of that meeting and the ordinary day of retirement of the mayor shall respectively be substituted for the first day of December and the first day of January, in section four of the Municipal Privilege (Ireland) Act, 1876.
  "(5) In the case of the council of any borough or urban district, or the commissioners of any town, the outgoing aldermen, councilors, and commissioners shall retire, and the newly-elected aldermen, councilors, and commissioners shall come into office on the sixteenth day of January, and that day shall be the ordinary day of retirement of aldermen, councilors, and commissioners.
  "(6) The fact that an outgoing mayor, chairman, alderman, councilor, or commissioner has ceased, upon the new register of local government electors coming into force on the previous first day of January, to be a local government elector shall not disqualify him for continuing in office until the abovementioned ordinary day of retirement of mayor, chairman, alderman, councilor, or commissioner, as the case may be, and also, if he is a mayor or chairman, and a new mayor or chairman has been elected, until that new mayor or chairman has made a declaration accepting the office."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. FLAVIN: By sub-section 4 of this proposed new clause the date of the

  1077
  election of sheriff is provided for, but I think what is not provided for is whether he will have to retire on the 15th November.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The sheriff will continue to hold office.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 43, line 12, at end, insert—
  "Where any members of a joint committee or joint board are appointed by any county or district council, whether under this or any other Act or an Order in Council, and the council are elected triennially, the members appointed by such council who are in office at the date of any triennial election shall continue to be members of such joint committee or board until the day after the first meeting of the newly elected council, and the consideration of the appointment of such members shall be part of the business at the said meeting after the election of mayor or chairman."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 43, line 14, at end, add 'an election in any urban county district may be held and the poll may be taken at any suitable place within the borough or town which the urban district council may appoint."—(Mr. Condon.)
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think this provision is necessary. Under other sections of the Bill the corporation will have all the powers necessary to provide suitable places for polling stations.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 43, line 17, leave out 'fixed' and insert 'appointed under Part VIII. of this Act."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 44, line 8, after 'demand' insert less 10 per cent. which may be deducted as and for the cost of collection, irrecoverable rates, pensions, and office expenses."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I submit that the amount allowed in the Bill for the ex-
  1078
  penses of collection is altogether insufficient. Under the existing law the Collector-General got 20 per cent. of the cost of collection. I admit that the Dublin Corporation can collect the police rate cheaper than the Government could, because they have the existing staff of officials, but the result of the change will give 15 per cent. more to the Government than they are entitled to. I think the 10 per cent. I suggest is perfectly fair, but if the Government prefer it, I should have no objection to add to my Amendment the words—
  "Or such sum, if any, as ascertained by the Local Government Board to be the actual cost.
  I do not see why the Treasury should make a profit of £700 or £800 a year by this change in the law.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have carefully gone through the memorandum provided by the collector, and I have had that memorandum submitted to one of the best of the Local Government Board auditors, and he reports, and I am sure he is right, that if the amount of the loss had been taken every year at 5 per cent., it would more than pay the cost to the corporation. Further than that, the offer that I made to the honourable Member was that the Government would be prepared to allow 5 per cent. to be deducted, and also to pay their proportion of the expenses of pensions. I notice that the honourable Member's Amendment includes pensions.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Pensions and office expenses.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: But the offices are now abolished. It does seem to me that if the corporation are going to take over the collection of the rates they ought not to charge the Government more than the bare cost of collection. As a matter of fact, at 5 per cent., the corporation will gain on the transaction, and in addition to that we offer to share the pensions. The honourable Member will bear in mind that the question of pensions is not of permanent importance, because in the course of a few years they will disappear as the officials die

  1079
  off. Therefore, I think, it is quite right to separate the two heads of expenditure However, I think no reasonable objection can be made to the clause as we have drafted it, and I do not see my way to accept the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am bound to say that I have a very handsome concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer later on to the Dublin Corporation which will bring them in something like £50,000 a year, and therefore I will withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. FLYNN: Do I understand that the corporation will be protected from loss on pensions?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes; the corporation are bound to gain on the transaction.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Transpose clause 68 so as to come after clause 51."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 46, line 21, after 'send' insert 'without payment."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 46, line 24, leave out 'such' and insert 'the said."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 46, line 24, after 'union' insert 'and the Evidence Act, 1851, shall apply as if the copy were a certified copy within the meaning of that Act, and every person shall have the same right to inspect and take copies or extracts from the said copy as he would have if it were a poor rate, and section 70 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, and any other enactment relating to such inspection, copies, or extracts, shall apply accordingly."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 46, line 38, leave out sub-section 1."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 47, line 1, leave out from 'electors' to 'shall' in line 2."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 47, line 4, at end, insert—
  "Where persons are entitled in respect of the ownership of a freehold, copyhold, or leasehold qualification in an electoral division of a Parliamentary borough to be registered as Parliamentary electors for the county and not for the Parliamentary borough, the names of such persons shall be entered in a separate list for such division, and that list shall, for the purpose of local government elections, form part of the local government register of electors for that division, and for the purpose of Parliamentary elections shall form part of the register of Parliamentary electors for the Parliamentary county."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. VESEY KNOX: It seems to me that this Amendment is open to very great objection. The voters referred to will presumably be non-resident, because if they had any residential qualification they would come on the register in another capacity. There is no such provision in any of the English Acts. In the English Acts nonresident freeholders have no votes for municipal purposes, and I fail to see on what ground it is necessary to give them votes in Irish boroughs. There will be, I think, great difficulty in working out this provision. The way in which it will operate will, I think, be this. In some divisions of the borough there will be a close contest between the two parties, and those who have a residential qualification in another division of the borough, and who happen to have a freehold qualification in the doubtful division, will prefer to vote in the division in which they have the freehold qualification. I venture to think that in this matter there is no justification for departing from the English precedent. The English law in this

  1081
  respect has worked well for about 60 years, and I do not think we should now depart from it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Let me point out that a distinct pledge was given, when this Bill was in Committee, that no attempt would be made to affect the Parliamentary franchise. Yet the Government are now turning the borough Parliamentary franchise into the borough municipal franchise. That is a conversion not known to the law. The Government gave us a very distinct pledge in this matter, a pledge as solemn as ever was given in this House, and reiterated again and again. The real reason of the Amendment is to meet the case of the city of Derry. You have already got three wards out of five in the city of Derry, with an absolute majority in permanence for the ascendancy party in the city, and that does not satisfy you. I repeat that I regard this Amendment as a breach of the distinct pledge given by the Government on the faith of which we on this side made considerable concessions.
  MR. ATKINSONdenied that the Amendment was a breach of faith in the smallest degree. It was proposed for the very purpose of fulfilling the pledge to which the honourable Member referred.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to move to leave out from the word "list" in the fifth line to the word "for" in line 7. There may be words in some other part of the Bill which meet this point, but I should like it made clear. This will definitely raise the question mentioned by the honourable and learned Member, whether a franchise should be created for municipal purposes in Irish boroughs which do not exist in English boroughs, and for which there is no possible justification. Why should non-resident freeholders be allowed to vote in boroughs in Ireland when they are not allowed to vote in boroughs in England? That is shortly the point, and in order to take the sense of the House, I beg to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out from the word 'list' in line 5 to the word 'for' in line 7."—(Mr. Knox)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I propose this new clause in fulfillment of a pledge which we had given; but judging by the hard words that have been used, honourable Members opposite seem to entertain a real objection to it, and I am perfectly ready to withdraw it.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 47, line 16, after 'several' insert 'district."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  "Page 48, line 11, at end, add—
  "(11) For the purpose of carrying out the revision of the lists of Parliamentary electors and the local government register of electors of the county borough of Dublin, the present revising assessors for the borough of Dublin are hereby appointed to be Dublin revising barristers, subject to the provisions and with the like powers as if they had been so appointed under an Act passed in the twentieth and twenty-first years of the reign of Her present Majesty, entitled 'An Act to enable the Lord Lieutenant to appoint revising barristers for the revision of lists and registry of voters for the city of Dublin."—(Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.)
  MR. SPEAKER: This Amendment, I understand, would involve a payment from Imperial sources, and therefore it cannot be moved on the Report stage.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 50, line 7, after 'relating' insert 'amongst other matters."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 50, line 37, after 'guardian' insert and town commissioners."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 50, line 37, after 'guardians' insert 'and town commissioners, and committees appointed by or comprising members of any of such councils guardians, or commissioners."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. JORDAN: Before we pass from this clause may I ask one question of the Attorney General? There is an Order in Council provided under this 73rd clause which gives the Local Government Board the power to make rules for the appointment of returning officers. I have had a resolution sent to me—
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Gentleman does not appear to be speaking to the Amendment now before the House.
  MR. JORDAN: I wanted to ask the Attorney General a question on the clause itself.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the Chief Secretary is the only question now before the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 51, line 30, before 'Act' insert 'or any other."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 51, line 35, after 'sessions' insert and councils, authorities, and officers affected by the Act."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 51, line 37, at end, insert 'for securing to existing officers until they begin to receive remuneration under the provisions of this Act the like remuneration as they would have received if this Act had not passed."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 51, line 38, after 'for' insert 'regulating."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 53, line 1, after 'councils' insert 'or guardians."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 54, line 6, at end, insert the expression "county at large" shall include "riding at large."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 54, line 12, at end, insert 'the expression "presentment sessions" includes road sessions and special road sessions."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 54, line 14, after 'jury' insert 'and presentment sessions."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 54, line 23, at end, insert 'the expression "judge or assize" shall, as respects the county of Dublin, or the county of the city of Dublin, mean the high court or any judge thereof."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 54, line 32, at end, insert 'the expression "maintenance," when used in relation to any road or public work, includes the reasonable improvement and enlargement of such road or work."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 55, line 25, to leave out 'day appointed' and insert 'appointed day."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 56, line 10, at end, insert 'the expression "Pensionable office" means an office coming within the provisions of any Act authorizing the grant of a superannuation allowance."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 56, line 10, at end, to insert—
  "The expression 'Dublin Metropolis Police Acts' means the Acts specified in Part V. of the first schedule to this Act; each of the Acts relating to the Dublin collection of rates specified in Part IV. of the first schedule to this Act is in this Act referred to by the short title in that schedule mentioned."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 56, line 18, to leave out from the first 'mentioned' to end of line 19."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 56, line 29, at end, to insert—
  "The Order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council relating to the division of Tipperary maybe varied by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, so as to bring the same into conformity with this Act and with the Orders in Council made in pursuance of this Act, but otherwise shall continue in force."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 56, line 31, after 'council' insert 'or county court."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 7, to leave out 'seven' and insert 'fourteen."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 9, at beginning of line, insert 'the foregoing provisions of."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 10, at end, add—
  "The Local Government Board in the case of the first election—(a) may give a direction under this Act with respect to a district electoral division not being a polling district, although there is no representation made by the county council; and (b) if of opinion that any district electoral division ought to be divided, may allow more than one councilor
  1086
  to be elected for that division, and in that case each elector in that division shall at the first election have one vote, and no more, for each of any number of persons not exceeding the number of councilors authorized by the Board to be elected for that division.
  "A poor law electoral division as adopted in fact for the purpose of registration in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight shall be deemed to have been legally so adopted, and shall, except so far as the Local Government Board otherwise direct, be a district electoral division for the purpose of election of county and rural district councilors and guardians at the first election under this Act."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, lines 13 and 14, leave out 'twenty-fifth day of November' and insert 'fifteenth day of January."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 14, after 'and' insert 'except in the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 16, after 'day' insert 'next after the day."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, leave out lines 18 and 19."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 19, at end, add—
  "Provided also that members of joint boards shall not be disqualified from sitting on such boards by reason of their ceasing to be members of the constituent authorities which they have up to the twenty-fourth day of November next represented, but shall remain in office until the termination of the term for which they were originally appointed to serve on such boards."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  MR. PLUNKETT: I move this Amendment in order to get an explanation from the Government as to the effect of the interregnum between the termination of the old Act and the commencement of the new.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: These gentlemen are not disqualified.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 20, after 'county' insert 'other than a county borough."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 20, after 'assizes' insert 'or in the county of Dublin at the Easter presenting term."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 21, after 'choose' insert 'or appoint a committee to choose."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 30, leave out from 'shall' to their in line 31, and insert 'at."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 57, line 39, after 'chosen' insert 'and additional councilors so chosen or appointed shall also be additional guardians."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 1, after 'this' insert 'part of this."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 15, leave out 'existing."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 16, to leave out the words 'county solicitors."—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words 'county solicitors' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. FLYNN: I have no objection whatever to properly and fairly observing the interests of exercising officers where they are interfered with, by the Bill, but I certainly do object to treating the county solicitors as entitled in any way to compensation. I should like to hear what justification the right honourable Gentleman can suggest.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We have simply followed the precedent of the English Act.
  MR. CREAN: I do not think it is sufficient justification to say that a similar provision is in the English Act. There may be circumstances which make it justifiable in an English Act which do not apply to Ireland at all. I sincerely hope the Government will give way in this matter. We have let a number of matters go by without opposition, although as to some of them we have felt rather strongly, but in this case I can conceive no justification for including such an official as the county solicitor.
  MR. JORDAN: I suppose that in a case where a man has not been six months in office he will be entitled to compensation.
  MR. ATKINSON: There is a proviso that the officials shall have held office for a given time. In the English Act the matter is dealt with in exactly the same manner. As honourable Members know, the remuneration of the county solicitors is very small. Compensation is provided under section 120 of the English Act, and it would be very hard to say that in such a matter as this Irish officials should be treated differently from English officials.
  MR. DALY: I think the right honourable Gentleman is scarcely consistent. The section of the Act that he referred to provided for superannuation to the coroner, and, as the right honourable Gentleman himself pointed out, the coroner does not give the whole of his time to his duties.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The coroner is not affected under this clause. Clause 120 of the English Act which is scheduled to this Act gives the compensation.
  MR. DALY: I hope the Government will not persist in objecting to this Amendment. We have been going very smoothly up to the present point, and I think we deserve some concession from the Government upon a matter on which we have formed a pretty strong conclusion.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I certainly shall insist on taking the Division upon this question, because we have really had no justification from the Government for allowing compensation to this official.
  MR. T. M. HEALYinquired upon what scale the compensation was to be assessed.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Sub-section 8 provides for the case of existing officials.
  MR. ATKINSON: Sub-section 8 provides for the transfer of duties, and subsection 11 provides for compensation.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I really think that this is not a matter that is worth fighting about. The question is an extremely small one, and, as a matter of fact, we all know that these gentlemen are never removed from their offices at present, so that if they are disturbed by reason of this Act, it seems to me that they are entitled to compensation.
  MR. PINKERTON: The only argument in defence of this provision is based on the English Act. That, after all, is not a very conclusive argument. I would point out that, as the Bill was originally introduced, it did not contain a provision for the county solicitors.
  The House divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 36.—(Division List No. 224.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Arnold, Alfred

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, George H.

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert B.

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

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Godson, Sir Augustus F.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Bethell, Commander

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milton, Viscount

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gray, Ernest (W. Ham)

  Moon, Edward Robert P.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

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

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Hardy, Laurence

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Newdigate, Francis A.

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howell, William Tudor

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

  Parnell, John Howard

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kemp, George

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Colomb, Sir John C. R.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Lawrence Sir E. Durning- (Corn.)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cox, Robert

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

  Williams J. Powell (Birm.)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Round, James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Wyndham, George

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Saunderson, Colonel E. J.

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

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

  Waring, Colonel Thomas

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

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

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

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

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

  NOES.

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Billson, Alfred

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Brigg, John

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Carvill, Patrick G. H.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Murnaghan, George

  Colville, John

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pinkerton, John

  Daly, James

  Knox, Edmund Francis V.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macaleese, Daniel

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

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  Field, William (Dublin)

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Flynn and Mr. Crean.

  Gilhooly, James

  McCartan, Michael

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 19, leave out 'existing.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 21, leave out 'who,' and insert 'provided such deputy.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 22, after 'office' insert 'and also any assistant to the secretary of the grand jury who has devoted his whole time to the duties of his office, and who has been employed in such duties for not less than three years previous to the date of the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
  MR. FLYNN: I hope the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. The assistants are not a very large number, but they have gained experience in their work, and I think it would be highly desirable that they should be transferred.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to accept this Amendment. An "assistant to the secretary" may, and mostly would be, a mere clerk deputed at odd times to do mere clerical work.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 23, leave out the first 'existing.'"—(Mr. Gerald, Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 27, leave out from 'urban' to end of line 28, and insert 'county district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 40, at end, insert—
  "And the former service of any existing county surveyor in any county other than that of the county council to which he is transferred shall, for the purpose of superannuation, be reckoned as service under that council; provided always that such other county or counties shall be bound to pay to such county council, by way of contribution to such superannuation, such sum as the Local Government Board shall determine to be the proportion properly payable by such county or counties."—(Mr. Pinkerton.)
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The result of this proposal would be to throw an unwarrantable burden on the county council, and I cannot agree to the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 40, after 'service' insert and the service of any existing county surveyor in any other county shall be reckoned as part of his service."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 41, after 'jury' insert 'or any existing assistant county surveyor.'"—(Sir Thos. Lea.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 59, line 2, to leave out from 'council' to end of sub-section."—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 59, line 2, after 'hundred,' insert 'and ten.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words 'and ten' be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 59, line 3, after 'then,' insert 'or at any time thereafter during the period of five years immediately following said last day of March.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. PLUNKETT: The only object of this Amendment is to allow a longer period during which the secretary and his new employers can see how they get on together. I think it is a very useful provision, and I commend it to the consideration of the Government.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The effect of this would be that if a man did serve five years it would be impossible to remove him. I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 59, line 6, after 'abolished,' insert and such allowance shall be calculated upon the prescribed scale upon the number of years of completed service."—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot accept this. The terms of the grant have been most carefully considered, and we must abide by them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 59, line 29, to insert the words 'every county council shall within one month after its first meeting.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DILLON: I understand that the right honourable Gentleman is prepared to accept an Amendment giving some time for the preparation of the scheme.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We should have no objection to six weeks.
  MR. DILLON: Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will make a note of the matter, and have some alteration made in the House of Lords.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 59, line 11, at end, insert—
  "Provided, however, that such compensation shall be two-thirds, and in any other case not less than one-half, of the salary and emoluments then payable to or receivable by such secretary."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 59, line 12, after 'the,' insert 'expiration of five years from the.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 60, line 3, leave out 'deputy,' and insert 'assistant.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 60, line 5, to leave out 'such,' and insert 'rate.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 60, line 5, after 'collection,' insert 'or the collection of other public rates.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 60, line 7, leave out 'new officers,' and insert 'officers not transferred to or previously employed by the council.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 60, line 8, at end, insert—
  "Provided that any existing poor rate collector of the guardians who shall express his willingness to serve shall be entitled to be preferred as an officer under such scheme."—(Captain Donelan.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: This Amendment affects a very large class of officials in Ireland. The present poor rate collectors under the guardians have been in the habit of discharging very important duties with reference to the Franchise Acts in Ireland, and they are therefore thoroughly acquainted with the preparation of voters' lists. Under the circumstances I think it would be of advantage if they were given preference in the selection of officers under the new scheme.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think this is a matter that may well be left to the county councils themselves. They would naturally, I suppose, give preference to competent and experienced men.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 60, line 11, leave out from 'received' to 'a gratuity,' in line 21, and insert—
  "An existing officer (a) if he holds a pension-
  1096
  able office, and has within the prescribed time notified his willingness to serve, shall, if he is not continued by the scheme as an officer of the county council, be entitled to receive from the county council the same compensation under this Act as if his office were abolished; and (b) if he holds a pension able office, and has not within the prescribed time expressed his willingness to serve, and is not continued by the scheme as an officer of the county council, shall be entitled to receive from the county council a gratuity; and (c) if he does not hold a pension able office, and either within the prescribed time expresses his unwillingness to serve, or is not continued by the scheme as an officer of the county council, shall be entitled to receive from the county council a gratuity. Every gratuity shall be."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 60, line 13, after 'council,' insert 'or who, if continued, expresses his unwillingness to serve.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 60, line 33, leave out from 'hold' to end of line 35, and insert 'a pension able office.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 61, line 2, after 'union' insert 'or dispensary district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 61, line 3, after 'becomes,' insert 'in the opinion of the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 61, line 9, after 'the,' insert 'approval of the Local Government Board, any county or district council may at any time make a special agreement with any of their officers as to the conditions upon which he is to enter into or continue in their service, or as to the manner in which his duties are to be discharged, and any such agreement shall be binding upon such council and their successors, and upon such officer; and, in the absence of any such special agreement, then.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 61, line 17, leave out 'salary,' and insert 'remuneration.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 61, line 18, leave out 'sanction,' and insert 'determine.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 61, line 25, after 'district,' insert 'or in an urban district out of any borough or corporate fund.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 61, line 34, at end, insert—
  "Any difference as to the council to whom an officer is transferred by this Act shall, in the absence of agreement, be determined by the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 61, line 43, at end, add—
  "(20) Every pension, allowance, or other compensation granted under this section shall be payable to, or in trust for, the officer to whom it is granted, and shall not be assignable for, nor chargeable with his debts or other liabilities."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 1, after the first word 'clerk,' insert the words 'or any other officer.'"—(Mr. Field.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words 'or any other officer' be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 3, leave out the words 'or incapacity.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words 'or incapacity' stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 8, after the word 'service' insert the words 'on the abolition of office.'"—(Mr. Plunkett.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 12, leave out the word 'Treasury,' and insert the words 'Local Government Board' instead thereof."—(Mr. Field.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the word 'Treasury' stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 17, before 'peace,' insert 'Crown and.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 22, leave out sub-section 2."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 25, leave out sub-section 3."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 33, at end, add—
  "Every existing justice of the county of the town of Galway, or the county of the town of Carrickfergus, shall be a justice of the county of Gal way or of Antrim, as the case requires, in like manner as if he were named a justice in the commission of the peace for such county; and the said county of the town shall, until any other district is made, form [part of the county petty sessional district to

  1099
  which it adjoins, or if it adjoins more than one such district, then of the district with which it has the longest common boundary and any such existing justice shall, except when at quarter or general sessions, act only within the petty sessional district of which such county of a town forms part."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 36, leave out the words 'if he were to retire on the appointed day,' and insert the words 'when he shall here after retire' instead thereof."(Sir John Colomb.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words 'if he were to retire on the appointed day' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR J. COLOMB: As I read this clause, it would appear that it is only those who are actually entitled by age to retire, and to retire on the appointed day, that will be entitled to superannuation. Suppose A and B under this clause have served their 20 years, and that A, on the appointed day, is 60 years of age, then he comes under the operation of the clause; but if B is 60 years of age on the day afterwards, he does not come under the clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he hoped the Government would not accept this Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that if it was the general wish of honourable Gentlemen opposite that 20 years' service should be sufficient to qualify for super annuation he was willing to make the change; but he certainly would not assent unless the proposal was generally agreed to.
  MR. FLYNN: There will certainly be no general agreement on this side. So far as I am concerned, I should feel it my duty to go into the Division Lobby against the Amendment. I think the Government went far enough in the clause as it stands, and I hope they will not go any further.
  MR. JORDAN: Suppose a young man is appointed at the age of 20, and he
  1100
  serves till the age of 40, he is then in the very prime of life, and yet you propose to retire a man with a pension, and set him free to take employment somewhere else. That I contend would be an enormous hardship on the ratepayers. If this Act is to contain so many provisions for pensions and superannuation allowances it will inflict an injury on the community rather than a benefit. It is our advantage to be as economical as we can consistently with the improvement of the country.
  MR. DILLON: I venture to rise only for the purpose of pointing out that it will be useless to go on with this discussion, because the Chief Secretary said that he would not accept this proposition unless there was general unanimity. It is plain from the speakers we have heard that, there is no such unanimity. I did not rise to express an opinion on the Amendment one way or another, but to point out that time is valuable.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question is one of considerable difficulty. The clause is one of the most difficult in the whole Bill. It has been most carefully considered by the Government, and I hope the honourable Member will not press his Amendment.
  SIR J. HASLETT: It certainly is hard that a man who has seen 35 or 40 years' service should be cut out from receiving any superannuation allowance because he does not happen to be 60 years of age on the day he is compulsorily retired.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I hope the Government will stick to their own proposal in this matter, both here and in the other House. I fail to see why we should give pensions and superannuation allowances with this liberality to all sorts of officials.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 39, after the word 'misconduct,' to insert the word 'incapacity.'"—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the word 'incapacity' be there inserted."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he could not accept the Amendment, which was inconsistent with the principle of the clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 40, after 'to the,' insert 'Acts and.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 41, at end, add—
  "For the purpose of the provisions of this part of this Act with respect to existing officers, the expression 'qualified for superannuation allowance,' shall mean qualified as regards age and length of service, and the devotion of his whole time to the service."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. FLAVINinquired whether this Amendment would not result in excluding district officers from superannuation allowances.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that the case referred to would be covered by the Act of 1889.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, after line 41, add—
  "The qualification for a superannuation allowance herein referred to shall be having had on the appointed day a minimum service of twenty years, anything in the Local Officers Superannuation (Ireland) Act, 1869, or this Act to the contrary notwithstanding."—(Sir Jas. Haslett.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 63, line 13, after 'irrecoverable,' Insert 'or from sufficient cause he has been unable to collect same before the appointed day.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 63, line 13, leave out from 'irrecoverable' to 'he,' in line 15."—(Sir John Colomb.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 63, line 22, leave out 'may,' and insert 'shall.'"—(Sir John Colomb.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 63, line 24, at end, add—
  "Nothing in this Act shall prevent any high constable and collector or collector of a barony or district from collecting in like manner, as if this Act had not passed, any county cess comprised in any warrant held by him prior to the next spring assizes, whether he had lodged the amount thereof to credit of the county treasurer or not, and for the purpose of such collection such warrants shall remain in full force and effect for the period of two years from the date of their issue, and, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any existing Act of Parliament contained, such high constable and collector or collector of a barony or district shall, by virtue of such warrant, be entitled to enforce within the period aforesaid the collection of all county cess included therein by distress or other legal process, except such portion as may be dealt with as irrecoverable or uncollectable under the provisions of the next succeeding paragraph of this section.
  "Provided that if such constable or collector alleges that any portion of the said cess not recovered by him is at the appointed day irrecoverable, or from sufficient cause uncollectable, and that if this Act had not passed be would have been relieved by the grand jury from paying that portion, or that such portion, if paid in by him, would have been presented to him by the grand jury, he may apply to the county, council to relieve him from so paying that portion, or if he has paid it to the county treasurer, to repay him the sum paid and the county council, if it seems, having regard to the diligence used by the high constable or collector, and to the poundage he received in respect to the collection, and to all the circumstances of the case, equitable to grant the application in whole or in part, may so grant the application and pay the necessary sum as part of their expenses in the execution of this Act.
  "Provided always, in the event of the refusal of such application by the county council, the high constable and collector or collector of a barony or district may appeal from such refusal to the Local Government Board, who shall entertain the subject matter of such appeal, and make such order thereon as to them seems just.
  "Provided nothing in this section shall affect the right of the county council to recover such uncollected cess, or so much thereof as they shall deem fit, and all provisions in any existing Acts of Parliament applicable to the recovery of such cess by grand juries shall apply to the county councils under this Act."—(Sir John Colomb.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DALY: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment, because it is a matter which affects my constituency very much. I put a question to the Chief Secretary yesterday upon this very subject. At South Monaghan the collector has been in the habit of being in league with the landlords of that district, and has from time to time neglected to collect the cess upon evicted farms. The cess collector is also the poor rate collector; the same man collects the poor rate and the county cess. When a case comes before a grand jury of a man who has neglected to pay his cess, the common practice of the grand jury is to forgive the cess upon evicted farms. For this reason I object entirely to the first proviso in this Amendment.
  MR. ATKINSON: I do not think there is any need for this Amendment. Under the grand jury system the collector gives a bond for the payment of the entire amount that he has collected. The only effect of the clause as it stands is that if the collector has actually paid the entire amount, but has not succeeded in collecting the entire amount, he should be able to go to the grand jury, and ask them to pay him back such amount as he has not been able to collect.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I think it is perfectly unreasonable, after sitting continuously for more than 12 hours, that we should be asked to consider an Amendment of this kind. I shall certainly oppose the Amendment if it is pressed to a Division. If I may be allowed to express an opinion, I think the way in which this Bill is being rushed through the House is turning legislation into a farce.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think those who have turned legislation into a farce are the gentlemen who were engaged all day yesterday in obstructing the progress of business. Coming to the Amendment itself, I think it is right that these gentlemen should have an opportunity of making a case before the county council.
  MR. DILLON: I cannot see the least objection to this Amendment so far as regards the first part of it. With regard to the second proviso, giving the collector power to appeal from the county council to the Local Government Board, I think that is rather a large order.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: May I point out there would hardly be any appeal of that kind, because in all probability the man who did appeal would cease to be the elector for the county council.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: These cess collectors are paid at an extraordinarily high rate, and I do not think a case can be made for any special advantage being given them. Under the third proviso, I am afraid that the barony collectors will be always appealing, and there will be endless trouble between them and the county councils.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 63, line 37, after 'effect,' insert 'as from the gale day next after the appointed day.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 64, line 25, leave out 'a person,' and insert,' an occupier.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, line 2, after 'rate,' insert 'of poor rate or county cess, as the case requires.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, line 2, at end, insert—
  "Where any change of the rent of a holding, whether by way of reduction, payment, or deduction, caused by the provisions of this section, would amount to less than sixpence, no such change shall be made; and where though exceeding sixpence it would involve a fraction of sixpence, then, if the fraction amounts to threepence or upwards, the change shall include the full sixpence, and if the fraction amounts to less than threepence the change shall exclude the fraction."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, line 22, leave out from 'where,' to 'The,' in line 25, and insert 'part of the holding is agricultural land and part is not agricultural land, shall distinguish the rateable value of each such part.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, line 27, at end, insert—
  "Where the existing tenancy of a holding in an urban district is constituted by a lease of which not less than five years are unexpired on the appointed day, then, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, the rent of such holding shall be unaltered, but the occupier shall be entitled to deduct from his rent such portion of the amount of poor rate actually paid by him from time to time in respect of such holding, as he would have been entitled to deduct if this Act had not passed, or if he was entitled before the passing of this Act, to deduct all the poor rate and county cess, then the whole of the poor rate so actually paid."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment—
  "Line 2, after word 'lease' insert the words 'for lives or a lease.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Transpose clause 90 so as to come after clause 45."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 66, line 10, leave out 'poor law auditors,' and insert 'officers.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 66, lines 14 and 15, leave out 'poor law auditor,' and insert 'officer.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 66, line 27, after 'operation,' insert 'Provided that in that year the jurors' lists and books shall be made out by the same officer and in the same manner as if the said order had taken effect.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 67, line 3, leave out from 'operation' to end of line, and insert 'as to rural district councils and guardians on the twenty-fifth day of March, and as to county councils and urban districts on the first day of April, and as to all other matters on the first day of April.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 67, line 4, after 'or,' insert 'on.'—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 67, line 4, after 'day,' to insert not more than twelve months.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 67, line 5, after 'as,' to insert 'in any case.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 67, lines 6 and 7, to leave out 'provisional council or.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 67, line 14, at end, to add, as separate sub-sections—
  "Provided that the enactments relating to the registration of local government electors

  1107
  or to the elections, or to any matter required to be done for the purpose of bringing this Act into operation on the appointed day, shall come into effect on the passing of this Act.
  "A reference in any enactment of this Act to the appointed day shall mean the day upon which such enactment comes into operation."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.

  SCHEDULE 2.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 70, after line 16, to add 'Clonmel, Kilkenny, Sligo, Newry, Galway, Drogheda.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DILLON: I move this Amendment by way of making one last appeal to the right honourable Gentleman to accede to the wishes of these small towns that they should be made county boroughs. We have argued the case out fully, and I have no intention now of going into the details, but I do really think that this is a concession which the right honourable Gentleman might well make.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I need hardly say that I should be very glad to meet the wishes of honourable Gentlemen or to do anything to oblige them; but we have given this matter the most careful consideration, and we have come to the conclusion that to make these small towns into county boroughs would not conduce to good administration.
  MR. DILLON: I do not think that any good would be gained by prolonging the discussion at this hour, but I very much regret the decision the Government have come to.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  SCHEDULE 3.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 71, line 18, after 'pawnbrokers,' insert 'including the duty paid by pawnbrokers in the Dublin Metropolitan area.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Agreed to.

  SCHEDULE 6.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Leave out schedule 6, and insert new schedule 6 (Parliamentary Paper No. 292)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 74, line 12, leave out from 'marked "C,"' and insert 'so,' where the same next occurs, and from 'and the clerk of the Crown.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 74, line 24, after 'thirty-four,' insert from 'other than those' to 'concerns of the county,' and from 'and the whole of such fiscal' down."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 74, line 34, leave out from 'forty-one' to end of line 36."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 75, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'to' in line 13, and insert 'sections sixty.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 75, line 17, leave out 'and,' and insert 'seventy-four.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 75, line 17, after 'seventy-five,' insert 'and eighty-one.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 75, line 34, leave out 'section one hundred and ten,' and insert 'in section one hundred and ten the words "secretaries to grand juries." "—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 75, lines 46 and 47, leave out 'sections one hundred and twenty-three and,' and insert 'section.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 75, line 57, after 'person,' insert 'or persons injured.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 75, line 57, leave out from 'to to end of line 60, and insert 'touching the said offence and.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.

  Amendment proposed: "Page 76, line 44, at end, insert—

  4 and 5 Vic. c. 10

  An Act for extending to the county of the city of Dublin the provisions of an Act passed in the nineteenth and twentieth years of His late Majesty King George the Third, in Ireland, intituled "An Act to prevent the detestable practices of houghing cattle, burning of houses, barns, haggards, and corn, and for other purposes," so far as relates to burning of houses

  The whole Act.

  Agreed to.

  —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 76, line 51, leave out from 'six' to the end of line 4, page 77."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 77, lines 10 and 11, leave out section nineteen from 'provided that no sum' to the end of the section."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 77, line 18, after 'thirty,' insert 'and section forty-one.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 77, line 39, leave out from 'sixty-one' to the end of line 40."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 76, line 2, after 'thirty-six,' insert 'one hundred and thirty-eight, one hundred and thirty-nine to such presentment.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 76, line 20, after 'prisons,' insert 'and secretaries to grand jury.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 78, line 2, leave out from 'section' to 'term,' in line 6, both inclusive, and insert 'sections one hundred and twenty-two to one hundred and twenty-eight.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 78, lines 7 and 8, leave out 'one hundred and twenty-three.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 78, line 32, leave out from 'in section four' to 'section,' in line 40, both inclusive, and insert 'the whole Act.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 79, line 28, leave out 'sections one and two,' and insert 'the whole Act.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 15, after 'forty-nine,' insert 'and,' and after 'fifty' leave out 'and,' and insert 'section fifty-two from "but in case where" to "Monday following"; section fifty-three, except as regards the mayor; section.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 17, after 'fifty-five,' insert from 'shall cause' to 'year and.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 39, leave out from 'similar,' to 'to,' in line 44, both inclusive."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 47, before 'auditor,' insert 'municipal commissioner.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 47, leave out from 'and' to the first 'and' in line 49, and insert 'or commissioners.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 52, leave out from 'in section' to 'council,' in line 54, both inclusive."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 54, at end of line, insert 'section eighty-three from "and in like" to end of section.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 55, before 'auditor,' insert 'municipal commissioner.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 58, after 'assessor,' insert 'and the words "or commissioners."'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 4, after 'auditors,' insert 'and from "and every municipal" to "his office."' "—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 7, before 'or auditor,' insert 'or municipal commissioner.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 11, before 'auditor,' insert 'commissioner.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 12, at end of line, insert 'and the words "auditor or assessor," and the words "or by a person qualified to vote for the commissioners for such borough, and such person,"' where those words next occur; and the words 'or town fund.'
  "In section ninety-two the words 'or board of municipal commissioners,' 'or commissioners,' and 'or is qualified to vote as aforesaid,' and the words 'or board,' 'or chairman,' and 'or commissioner' wherever they occur, and from 'the whole' to 'whole council or board,' and from 'and the said quarterly meetings' to the end of section.
  "In section ninety-three the words 'or board of commissioners' and the words 'or board' wherever they occur.
  "In section ninety-five the words 'or board' wherever they occur."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 13, at end of line, insert 'section one hundred and twenty-five,' from 'provided further' to the end of the section.
  "In section one hundred and twenty-nine, from 'or on account' to 'of this Act,' the words 'or commissioners,' and from 'or person' to 'such commissioners.'

  1113
  "In section one hundred and thirty the words 'or commissioners.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 16, after 'words,' insert 'or commissioners' and 'or commissioner and.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, lines 18 and 19, leave out 'section one hundred and thirty-eight.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 32, leave out from 'four' to the end of line 36."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.

  Amendment proposed: "Page 82, after line 7, insert—

  35 and 36 Vic. c. 60

  The Corrupt Practice (Municipal Elections) Act, 1872

  The whole Act so far as unrepealed.

  Agreed to.

  —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 82, in the third column, leave out lines 17 to 34 inclusive, and insert 'the whole Act, except so far as it is applied by any Act or enactment.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 82, line 36, after 'upwards,' insert 'and from "or the chairman," down to "be in force."'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, after line 6, insert 'section seventeen.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, lines 8 and 9, transpose these lines to come in after '1847,' in line 25, as a new paragraph."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 36, after 'section,' insert, as a fresh paragraph, 'section five from "and at the like times" to the end of the section.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 39, leave out from 'twenty-six' to end of line 47, and insert 'except so far as it affects the title of any property real or personal.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 82, lines 6 and 7, leave out 'so far as they relate to urban district councils.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 9, after 'section,' insert 'and the rest of the section, except so far as it applies to any case where a rate can, under the provisions of this Act, be made on the immediate lessor.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, leave out from the beginning of line 10 to 'section,' in line 13."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, lines 16 and 17, leave out 'sections twenty-two and twenty-three,' and insert 'section twenty-two.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 19, leave out 'twenty-four,' and insert 'twenty-three.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 20, after 'one,' insert 'and section, thirty-five.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 24, after 'ten,' insert 'and twelve to sixteen.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 26, after 'eight,' insert 'so far as regards towns which are urban districts.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 47, after 'sixty-two,' insert 'and.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 47, leave out 'and,' and insert 'section.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 48, after 'seventy-five,' insert 'except so far as it applies to any case where a rate can, under the provisions of this Act, be made on the immediate lessor.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.

  Amendment proposed: "Page 86, line 6, at end, insert—

  53 and 54 Vic. C. 30

  The Poor Law Acts (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1890

  Section three.

  —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 84, line 5, after 'rent,' insert 'except so far as it applies to any case where a rate can, under the provisions of this Act, be made on the immediate lessor.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 84, line 7, after 'property.' insert 'except so far as it applies to any case where a rate can, under the provisions of this Act, be made on the immediate lessor.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 84, line 12, after 'three,' insert 'except so far as they apply to any case where a rate can, under the provisions of this Act, be made on the immediate lessor.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 84, line 21, before 'section,' insert 'section six and.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 84, line 52, after 'eleven,' insert 'except so far as it applies to any case where a rate can, under the provisions of this Act, be made on the immediate lessor.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 85, line 20, leave out 'section ten to "dispensary districts and."'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.

  Amendment proposed—

  "Page 86, line 18, after 'asylum,' insert 'where those words first occur.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Agreed to.

  Amendment proposed: "Page 87, line 11, at end, insert—

  53 and 54 Vic. c. 31

  The Pauper Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Superannuation Act, 1890

  Section three from "within the meaning" down to "one hundred and eighteen," and the words "with the approval of the inspectors of lunatics, or one of them" and the words "or servant" wherever they occur in that section; and section four.

  Agreed to.

  —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Amendment proposed: "Page 87, line 13, at end, insert—

  55 Geo. 3, c. 89

  The Court Houses (Ireland) Act, 1815

  Sections one and two.

  2 and 3 Will. 4, c. 85

  The Charities (Ireland) Act, 1832

  The whole Act.

  3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 37

  An Act to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the Church in Ireland

  Section seventy-two from "at the next assizes" to the end of the section.

  Agreed to.

  —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 87, line 14, leave out 'the whole Act, so far as unrepealed,' and insert 'section two, from "and to order" down to "such county," where those words next occur; section three, from or "for dividing" to "this Act," and the words "or division"; and section four.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 87, lines 25 and 26, leave out 'and from "to divide" to "division or."'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 88, line 35, after 'nineteen,' insert 'except so far as it applies to any case where

  Amendment proposed: "Page 88, after line 44, insert—

  35 and 36 Vic. c. 69

  The Local Government Board (Ireland) Act, 1872

  Section four from "and save as" to the end of the section.

  Agreed to.

  —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Amendment proposed: "Page 88, line 47, at end, insert—

  38 and 39 Vic. c. 17

  The Explosives Act, 1875

  Section one hundred and eighteen from "including" to "under this Act" so far as relates to county councils other than the councils of county boroughs, and from "all expenses incurred in any petty sessions district" to the end of the section.

  Agreed to.

  —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  a rate can, under the provisions of this Act, be made on the immediate lessor; and sections twenty-one.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 88, line 39, leave out 'commissioners.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 88, line 40, after 'under,' insert 'none.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.

  Amendment proposed: "Page 88, line 50, at end of line, insert—

  39 and 40 Vic. c. 43

  The Coroners (Dublin) Act, 1876

  Section three from "in addition" to "required" and the word "further."

  Agreed to.

  —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 89, line 7, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 10."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.

  Amendment proposed: "Page 89, line 31, at end of line, insert—

  46 and 47 Vic. c. 60

  The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883

  Section five from "provided that" to "number of twelve;" section six from "the scheme shall also" to "charged;" in section seven the words "and the proposed area of charge," and from "the provisional order shall also specify" down to "charged;" in section eight the words "declared by such order to be;" section seventeen from the beginning down to "Part Five of The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878," and the words "out of which special expenses are payable."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Agreed to.

  Amendment proposed: "Page 89, line 34, at end of line, insert—

  48 and 49 Vic. c. 77

  The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1885

  In section twelve the words "declared by such order to be;" and section eighteen.

  49 and 50 Vic. c. 59

  The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1886

  Section five,

  60 and 61 Vic. c. 43

  The Military Manœuvres Act, 1897

  Section nine from "persons not more" to "have effect," being sub-sections one and two.—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Agreed to.
  Bill re-committed in respect of the new clauses standing on the Notice Paper, and of the four Amendments standing in the name of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. Gerald Balfour).
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  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.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 89, line 25, after 'section,' insert 'three from "equal to" down to "said period" and from "provided always that" down to "hold such inquest"; and section.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  "(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 re-opening 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 proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 5, after 'the,' to insert 'completion of an infirmary in course of erection at the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Murnaghan.)
  Mr. MURNAGHANexplained that the special object of his Amendment was to provide for the case of the two infirmaries in Cork City, one of which would, under the Chief Secretary's clause, receive no contribution.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid it was inadvisable to insert in a Bill of this kind clauses dealing with special institutions. The clause moved by the Chief Secretary laid down rules applicable generally to all cases. On this ground the Government could not accept this Amendment, nor that standing in the name of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYhad on the Paper the following Amendment—
  "Line 13, at end, add—
  "As regards the county of Cork, the county council, in addition to any contribution made by them towards the South Charitable Infirmary and County Hospital, situate in the city of Cork, may, if they think fit, contribute annually towards the North Infirmary and City of Cork General Hospital, situate in the said city, a sum not exceeding seven hundred pounds per annum, on such conditions as to the admission thereto of patients from the county and the representation of the council on the committee for managing the said infirmary as may be agreed upon with the said committee. The said county council may also from time to time make such other and additional grants as it may deem expedient either to the said two infirmaries, or to any other public hospital in the said city. Provided always that the total amount of the contributions made by the said county council towards hospitals and infirmaries shall not exceed the sum of two thousand two hundred pounds per annum.
  "The council of the county borough of Cork, in addition to the two sums of seven hundred pounds per annum, which it is at the date of the passing of this Act authorised to contribute towards the said two infirmaries, respectively, and the sum which it is at the said date authorised to contribute to the Cork Fever Hospital, may, if it thinks fit, contribute a further sum not exceeding in the whole five hundred pounds per annum to such public hospital or hospitals in the city of Cork as it may think fit, on such conditions as to the admission to the infirmary or hospital of patients from the county borough and the representation of the council on the committee for managing the infirmary or hospital as may be agreed upon."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: After what the right honourable Gentleman has said, I
  1122
  will not move my Amendment, but I would suggest that when, the Bill goes to another place the Government should consider whether words cannot be introduced to cover the case of the Cork infirmaries.
  Original Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 10, line 35, at end, insert—
  "Any county council may, notwithstanding anything in any other Act, contribute to any such county infirmary or fever hospital as above in this section mentioned any amount not exceeding the amount in that behalf mentioned in the Grand Juries Act, 1836."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 25, line 22, after 'raised,' insert 'and any town which is constituted an urban sanitary district, or which, being an urban sanitary district, is added to a rural sanitary district, shall, if the order for such constitution or addition was made before the end of six months after the passing of this Act, whether made before or after that passing, and whether confirmed or taking effect before or after the end of such six months, be treated as having been so constituted or added, as the case may be, during the standard year."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In new clause, 'loans to boards of guardians,' after sub-section (5), insert the following sub-section—
  "A loan by guardians shall not be of such amount as exceeds, or will make the total debt of guardians under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor exceed one-fourth of the total annual rateable value of the union. Provided that the Local Government Board by Provisional Order may extend the said maximum to double the amount above authorised, and the provisions of the Public Health Act and this Act with respect to Provisional Orders shall apply with the necessary modifications."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "Page 8, after clause 11, insert the following clause—

  "(1) The county council, without prejudice to the power under section one hundred and sixty-two of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, or

  1123
  any other enactment, may, for the purpose of the maintenance of the roads in their county, whether main or other roads, acquire, purchase, take on lease, or exchange any land from which materials may be got for the repair of such roads, and may purchase or hire any steam roller, scarifier, or other machine, and may place at the disposal of the persons contracting for the repair of the roads, materials from the said land, and the use of the said Steam roller, scarifier, or other machine, upon such reasonable terms as may be agreed upon.

  "(2) Section one hundred and sixty-two of the Grand Juries Act, 1836 (which relates to the power to obtain gravel, stone, sand, or other materials), shall extend to authorise the digging for, raising, and carrying away of gravel, stone, sand, or other materials, out of any river or brook at a distance of at least a hundred and fifty feet above or below any bridge, dam, or weir, where the same can be taken away without diverting or interrupting the course of the river or brook, or prejudicing or damaging any building, highway, ford, or spawning-bed."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "Page 18, after clause 30, insert the following clause—

  "(1) An urban district council, and if so authorised by order of the Local Government Board a rural district council, may (a) acquire, purchase, or take on lease, lay out, plant, improve, and maintain land for a recreation ground or public walk; and (b) support or contribute to the support of a recreation ground or public walk, or contribute towards the purchase or cost of the laying out, planting, or improvement of any recreation ground or public walk, when provided by any person and permanently dedicated as such; and (c) make by-laws for the regulation of any such recreation ground or public walk, and by such by-laws provide for the removal from such recreation ground or public walk, by any officer of the said council or a constable, of any person infringing any such by-law.

  "(2) The recreation ground or public walk may be either within or without the district of the council, if it is convenient for the use of the inhabitants of such district.

  "(3) Any expenses incurred under this section by a rural district council shall be defrayed as expenses under the Public Health Act, 1878.

  "(4) The acquisition of land for the purpose of this section shall be deemed to be a purpose for which land may be acquired under the Public Health Act, 1878, and the provisions of that Act with respect to the acquisition of land shall apply accordingly.

  "(5) Sections 219 to 223 of the Public Health Act, 1878, shall apply to the by-laws made under this section."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "Page 34, after clause 53, insert the following clause—

  "(1) Where any county of a city or town becomes by virtue of this Act part of a county at large, then on the application within the prescribed time of the council for any district, urban or rural, which comprises all or any part of the area of such county of a city or town, the Local Government Board shall make an adjustment as between that area and the rest of the said county at large respecting the contribution by the said area to the county at large charges (whether for the salaries of the county officers or main road or other purposes), and as respects the declaration of any roads within the said area to be main roads, and any order made upon such application in respect of the main roads shall have the same effect as if it were a declaration by the county council under this Act in respect of such roads.

  "(2) Any order for adjustment under this section shall be subject to appeal within the prescribed time to the Appeal Commission, mentioned in this Act, and in the event of an appeal the order shall be suspended, but shall afterwards operate as from the date at which it would but for the appeal have operated or from any later date fixed by the Commission on the appeal.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am afraid the Government have not met the point I raised in Committee—namely, that county councils will have to go to Parliament in order to get the roads under their jurisdiction.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that difficulty could possibly arise, but we will consider the matter.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "Page 34, after clause 53, insert the following clause—

  "(1) If after the expiration of not less than fifteen years from the date hereinafter mentioned the council, either of a county or of an urban county district as respects the financial relations between such county and district, or the council of any county district

  1125
  as respects the financial relations between that district and any other county district, allege that the said financial relations are inequitable and satisfy the Local Government Board that there is reasonable ground for that allegation, the Board may inquire into the circumstances, and, if they think it just so to do, may by order alter the financial relations, but such order where it alters the provisions of any local Act or Provisional Order shall be a Provisional Order.

  "(2) 'Financial relations' means the relations between the county and urban county district, or between the two county districts as respects the burden of the expense of the maintenance or construction of any road or public work or of the salaries of the county officers or of any other county at large or district charges, or as respects any contribution "by the county or any district to such expenses, salaries, or charges, whether such relations are specified in any Act or Provisional Order confirmed by an Act or in any agreement or order made under Part II. of this Act in respect of any such public work, or by any adjustment made in pursuance of this Act or of an Order in Council under this Act, or are not so specified.

  "(3) The date from which the said fifteen years are to be calculated shall be the passing of this Act, or in case of any Act, Provisional Order, agreement, order, or adjustment made after the passing of this Act, then the date at which the Act, Provisional Order, agreement, order, or adjustment came into operation, or in the case of an order under this section, then the date of that order."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "Page 18, after clause 30, insert the following clause—
  "Where a rural district council, under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, hold any land on lease, they may by agreement purchase the interest of the lessor or any other superior interest in such land, and shall have the same power of borrowing the purchase money as they have of borrowing money for the purchase of land under the said Acts, and for the purpose of any such purchase an advance may be made under section 18 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, as amended by the Public Works Loans Act, 1897."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "Page 43, after clause 67, insert the following clause—
  "Ballot boxes, fittings, and compartments shall be provided and kept for each county and county district and for each electoral division of a union situate in an urban district at the expense of the rates of such county, district, or union, and may be used free of charge at any Parliamentary election for any county or Parliamentary borough comprising the whole or any part of such county, district, or union, and any damage other than reasonable wear and tear caused to the same shall be paid as part of the expenses of the election in which they are so used.
  "It shall be the duty of the returning officer at any such Parliamentary election to make use, so far as practicable, of the ballot boxes, fittings, and compartments provided in pursuance of this section, or otherwise the property of any county or district council, and the court upon taxation of his accounts shall have regard to the provisions of this section.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYhad on the Paper the following new clause—
  "Where, in the opinion of the county council, the doing of any work would be of public advantage, and power to undertake or present for same is not conferred by any existing Act, the council may represent the facts to the Local Government Board, whereupon, if such work or expenditure is sanctioned by the Local Government Board, the council may proceed with the same, and raise the amount required for its execution by a charge on the county at large."
  THE CHAIRMANruled that as the clause proposed to impose a charge on the Imperial Exchequer, it was out of order to propose it at this stage.
  New clause—
  "Where the council of any county borough or any urban district consider that it would be beneficial for the inhabitants of the borough or district that any post or telegraph office should be established within such borough or district, or any additional facilities (postal or other) provided by the Postmaster General within such borough or district, the council may undertake to pay the Postmaster General, any loss he may sustain by reason of the establishment or maintenance of the office or the provision of the facilities, and any expenses incurred under this section may be paid in the case of a borough out of the borough fund or the borough rate, and in the case of any urban district not a borough out of the rate

  1127
  out of which the general expenses of the council under the Public Health Act, 1878, are defrayed."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That, the clause be now read a second time."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not raise any objection to this.
  MR. JORDAN: I think this clause is wholly unnecessary. If they want additional postal facilities in a borough the Post Office authorities should give those facilities without any payment by the county council or district council. I object to the clause altogether, as conferring on local authorities the power of spending the money of the ratepayers in establishing facilities that ought to be provided by the Post Office authorities themselves.
  Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.
  New clause—
  "The boundaries of the county borough of Dublin shall, as from the commencement of this Act, be the boundaries recommended for the city of Dublin by the Report of the Municipal Boundaries Commission (Ireland), 1879, appointed to inquire into and report on the boundaries of certain towns in Ireland, and the boundaries of the city of Dublin shall be extended accordingly, and the powers and jurisdiction of the municipal corporation of the city shall apply and be in force within the area of the city as so extended. The Local Government Board shall, after the passing of this Act, make such order or orders as may be necessary or convenient for carrying this enactment into execution, and for that purpose shall have all the powers conferred on them by this Act or any Order in Council made there under with respect to the alteration of boundaries, the adjustment of property, income, debts, liabilities, and expenses, or any matters incidental thereto."—(Mr. J. Redmond.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the clause be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. Redmond.)
  MR. J. REDMOND: I regret that this clause comes on at this hour of the morning, when it is quite impossible for me to enter fully into the reasons for it. All I will say is this. In the year 1879, when a Royal Commission inquired into this question of the extension of boundaries in Dublin, the Royal Commission unanimously recommended that the boundaries of the city of Dublin should be extended so as to include neighbouring townships. The city is somewhat peculiarly situated. The population is congested to an extent probably unknown in any other city in the United Kingdom, and the extension of boundaries recommended by the Royal Commission is extremely essential for the prosperity and advancement of the city in the future. There were over 100 witnesses examined before the Royal Commission representing various parties, and the balance of testimony was strongly in favour of the extension. It is true that there were some object-ions raised chiefly on the ground that it would mean increasing the rates in these townships, but that objection, whatever was its value at that time, has almost entirely disappeared since then, because the rates in the townships have risen since that date. If this amalgamation takes place there will be one uniform rate, which will be actually less than the rate levied in most of these townships. There has been no general revaluation since 1854. Since that time a sum amounting to nearly two millions has been spent on the improvement of the city, and the increased valuation consequent on the expenditure of that sum has been only £2,000. If this extension takes place it is calculated that the valuation will be increased by £130,000 or £140,000. Sir, I regret extremely that it is impossible for me at this hour (ten minutes to five in the morning) to fully explain this clause to the Committee. It is one of the greatest possible importance to the city of Dublin, and I believe a very strong case could be made out to the Committee for it. Its importance to Dublin no one can overrate, and I trust it will be accepted by the Government.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: If the honourable Member had been able to say that the two townships to which he has referred desire incorporation, that would have had great weight with the Committee; but, as a matter of fact, they are unanimously opposed to this incorporation. I do not think the Corporation of Dublin have shown to the townships outside that their management of the city of Dublin is such as to induce the townships to join them. For instance, the drainage of the city of Dublin is a disgrace to the city. The river Liffey is the main sewer of the city. All I can say is, if any inhabitant of an outside township desires to have his feelings aroused against the Corporation of Dublin, all he has to do is to stroll alongside the Liffey. I heard a story the other day of a man who tried to commit suicide in Dublin. He made determined and elaborate preparations to effect his purpose; he bought a rope, a pistol, and a quantity of poison. He swallowed the poison, then he tied the rope to a lamppost on Carlisle Bridge, and fired the pistol at his head. The shot, instead of hitting his head, struck the rope and cut it. The man fell into the Liffey, which was so foul that it caused him to throw out the poison, and so his life was saved. I imagine that that man entertains no very high opinion of the manner in which the Dublin Corporation attends to the drainage of their city. As the townships themselves spent an enormous sum of money in carrying out a most perfect system of drainage, they do not see why they should be included within the boundaries of the city. For these reasons I hope that the Government will refuse to entertain this clause, which is opposed unanimously by these townships.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I quite recognise the importance of this subject, but I think the honourable Member will feel, and the Committee will feel, that so many interests are involved, and the matter so deserves and requires to be thrashed out before a Private Bill Committee, that it would be contrary to all precedent and all public policy if we make such a change in what I may describe as an appendix to a public Bill of this kind. I hope the honourable
  1130
  Member will feel the force of this observation, and will not press the Amendment now, although I quite recognise that it is a matter in which he naturally and properly takes great interest.
  MR. J. REDMOND: Of course, under the circumstances I cannot press the' Amendment any further. If the circumstances were different, and the time were different, I think it would be necessary to have a long Debate on the subject, as the question is of so great importance. However, I have nothing to do now but to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  New clause—

  "(1) There shall apply to Ireland so much as the Lord Lieutenant by Order in Council declares applicable of the Allotments Acts, 1887 and 1890, and the Local Government Act, 1894, as far as same relates to the acquisition, the hiring, and the letting of land for allotments.

  "(2) An Order in Council under this section may (a) apply any of the said enactments to both county and district councils, or to either of them, notwithstanding that they relate to county councils only, or district councils only, or to parish councils only; and (b) make such adaptations of the said enactments as appear necessary or expedient for carrying into effect the application thereof to Ireland."—(Mr. Power.)

  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the clause be now read a second time."—(Mr. Power.)
  MR. POWER: A great deal has been done for the agricultural labourer, but nothing for the artisans and labourers living in towns. I propose that, there should be power to apply the Allotment Acts, of 1887 and 1890, and the Allotment Sections of the Parish Councils Act.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURwas under stood to say that the subject was receiving, the attention of the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  New clause—
  "The council of an administrative county may pay out of the county fund, as general expenses incurred in the execution of their duties under the Local Government Act, 1898, any sum not exceeding thirty-one pounds in any one year as an annual or other subscription to the funds of any association of county councils which may be formed for the purpose of consultation as to their common interests, and the discussion of matters relating to local government, as well as reasonable expenses of the attendance of representatives, not exceeding in any case four, at meetings of the association."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the clause be now read a second time."
  MR. DILLON: With one or two slight alterations, the wording of this clause is exactly the same as the clause in the English Act. The English Association of County Councils has become a most useful body, and I have no doubt that if a similar organisation is formed for Ireland it will have a like success.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think there should be some experience of the working of the county council before an association of this kind is formed. I am afraid that if an association were formed immediately, the only effect would be to provide, at the expense of the county fund, a pleasant outing to members. Further, the clause, as drafted, would permit of more than one association being formed, which is an important departure from the English precedent. I cannot accept the proposal.
  MR. DILLON: I shall not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be reported, with the Amendments, to the House."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope I may be permitted, on this Motion, to make myself the mouthpiece of a large body of Members of the House in offering a word of congratulation to the Chief Secretary in connection with the conduct of this
  1132
  Bill. We have been in conflict with him over a hundred clauses of the Bill, and, while we have had some very hard things to say of him, I do not think he has ever said one hard thing of us. The right honourable Gentleman has displayed those great qualities which most of us recognised during his conduct through this House of the Irish Land Bill. I congratulate him on his conduct of the Bill which we have just concluded. I believe it will not only add to his reputation and his credit, but to the credit of this House and the credit of his Party, and, I believe, to the benefit of our country.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(rising in response to general cries of "Third Reading!") said: I should like, of course, to take the Third Reading now, from every point of view, but, Sir, the general indication of the course of business did not imply that the Third Reading would be taken this morning. Although no pledge was given by the Government, I am afraid that if any honourable Gentleman came down on Monday, and desired to express his views on the Third Reading, he might have some reason to complain when he found that the Bill had been read for the third time at the close of a long sitting at five o'clock in the morning.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that, as the promoters of the Bill desire the Third Reading to be set down for Monday.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Motion made, and question put—
  "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  House adjourned at 5 a.m.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter-past Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY.
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in the case of the

  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL
  ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that clauses 87 to 92 be struck out of the Bill, unless the approval of the Bill by the shareholders of the Great Western and of the Great Southern and Western Railway Companies be proved before the Select Committee to whom the Bill is referred, and that clauses 44 to 56 be struck out of the Bill, unless the approval of the shareholders of the Waterford, Dungarvan and Lismore and of the Fermoy and Lismore Railway Companies be proved before the said Committee, and that proof be given before the said Committee that the Bill has been approved of by the shareholders of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company.
  Read and agreed to.

  BOLTON, TURTON AND WEST-HOUGHTON EXTENSION BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
  LISKEARD CORPORATION (WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House to be in Committee To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  House to be in Committee To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  House to be in Committee To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
  LEYTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  LONDON BUILDING ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Reported without Amendment.
  RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY 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 5th of July and Friday last discharged, and Bill committed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Moved, That the order made on the 8th day of March last, "That no Private 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.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  Moved, That the order made on the 8th day of March last, "That no Private 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.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (ACTON SEWAGE) BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  MUMBLES RAILWAY AND PIER BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  DUNDEE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
  CARDIFF RAILWAY BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Windsor Dock, Cardiff, Bill, do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Cardiff Railway 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.
  SOUTHAMPTON GAS BILL.
  The Queen's consent signified, and the Bill reported with Amendments.
  MALDON WATER BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (WESTERN DIVISION).
  General Report for the year 1897, by T. A. Stewart, Esq., M.A., LL.D., one of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors.
  FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  Annual Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries for the year 1897.
  WAR OFFICE.
  Report of a Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for War to consider the Decentralisation of War Office business; with Minutes of Evidence.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896, LAUDER LIGHT RAILWAY ORDER (1898).
  Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a light railway between Fountainhall Railway Station and Lauder, in the counties of Midlothian and Berwick.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
PUBLIC BILL BUSINESS.
  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee as ordered.

  CLAUSE 1.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 5, leave out '1897' and insert '1898.'"—(Lord Harris.)
  LORD HARRIS: This Amendment, my Lords, merely corrects an error.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Perhaps it would be convenient, my Lords, if I say at once that I have no objection to any of the Amendments which have been put down by the noble Lord (Lord Harris).
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "After clause 2, insert as a new clause—

  "(1) No expense in relation to the promotion of a Bill in Parliament shall be charged under the Borough Funds Act, 1872, unless the requirements of this section have been complied with.

  "(2) Where the council of a borough or urban district have resolved to promote a Bill in Parliament and the Bill has been deposited, notice shall be advertised in some local newspaper circulating in the borough or district on one day in two successive weeks stating—(a) the title of the Bill; and (b) that the Bill has been deposited, and the date on which it was deposited; and (c) that copies of the Bill may be inspected at a place within the borough or district specified in the notice between the hours of ten in the forenoon and five in the afternoon on every week day for twenty-one days after the date of the first advertisement, and that extracts may be taken free of charge; and (d) that the mayor or chairman may at any time within twenty-one days after the first advertisement of the notice be required by such number of the electors as is in this Act mentioned to take the opinion of the electors by poll as to the expediency of proceeding with the Bill or any part thereof.

  "(3) The first advertisement must be made within seven days from the deposit of the Bill."—(Lord Harris.)

  LORD HARRIS: The object of this clause is obvious—namely, to secure publicity of the intention of promoting a Bill in Parliament in a way that will make it certain that the persons interested will get notice that the Bill is being promoted.
  Question put.
  New clause agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, leave out from 'the' in line 14 to 'not' in line 15, and insert 'first advertisement of the notice required by this Act.'"—(Lord Harris.)
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on your Lordships having accepted the new clause.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 16, after 'than' insert 'one hundred electors or,' and after 'electors' insert 'whichever may be the less.'"—(Lord Harris.)
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, under the Bill as it stood it provided that not less than one-twentieth in number of the electors would have to sign a request for a poll. It is obvious that in some of our largest boroughs the number covered by one-twentieth would be very large indeed, and the object of this Amendment is to define some reasonable number which would justify a poll. The Local Government Board have thought that 100 was about a fair average, taking all boroughs, but in order that small boroughs might not be put to serious inconvenience, the Amendment provides that in the smaller boroughs the number shall be one-twentieth—that is to say, in a borough of 2,000 it would be one-twentieth—and in a borough above that number, 100.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 20, leave out 'adequate' and insert 'not less than seven days.'"—(Lord Harris.)
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, the Bill, as it was introduced, provided that the official who summoned the electors to a poll should give adequate notice. "Adequate" is not defined, and I propose to substitute "not less than seven days."
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 23, after 'effect' insert 'and shall be published by affixing it on or near the principal door of each church or chapel in the borough or district, and at the place where notices relating to the council are usually exhibited.'"—(Lord Harris.)
  LORD HARRIS: This Amendment has been amended again since the noble Earl

  889
  saw it, and now reads as above. The object is to give as much publicity as possible as to the time, place, and mode of voting.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have no objection whatever to the Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 4, as amended stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  New clause proposed—
  "Insert as a new clause after clause 6—
  "Where the mayor or chairman of the council is unable or unwilling to perform any duty under this Act the council shall appoint some other person to perform the duties for him."—(Lord Harris.)
  LORD HARRIS: The Bill did not make any provision in the event of the mayor or the chairman of the council being unable or unwilling to act. This Amendment makes that provision.
  Question put—
  "That this clause be here inserted."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 7.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 9, after 'shall' insert 'when taxed by a taxing officer of one of the Houses of Parliament or allowed under the Borough Funds Act, 1872.'"—(Lord Harris.)
  LORD HARRIS: These words are always inserted in Bills of this character.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 8 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 9.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Leave out clause 9."—(Lord Harris.)
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I beg to move that this clause be omitted. It provides that—
  "Where in any local Act any restrictions are imposed in regard to the promotion of a Bill in Parliament by a council, or any special provision is made for the payment of the costs, charges, and expenses intended to be provided for by the Borough Funds Act, 1872, or this Act, the council may, at their option, either proceed under the provisions of their local Act or under the provisions of the said Act and this Act, and nothing in this Act shall be construed to take away or diminish any rights or powers now possessed or enjoyed by any council under any local or general Act."
  This clause gives the option of proceeding under any Act of a local character, and there are so many of these that the Local Government Board feel that it would be wise at present to leave the clause out altogether.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this is the only Amendment to which I have any objection. Take the case of Birmingham. Birmingham has special privileges, under the local Act, of taking the opinion of the inhabitants in a simple way in the town hall by ballot. If this clause is omitted that will be done away with.
  LORD HARRIS: I have an alternative to propose, and that is that this Act might be read as one with the Act of 1872, which contains the provision that—
  "Nothing in this Act shall alter or affect any provisions contained in any other Act,"
  and so on.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I would prefer the alternative.
  LORD HARRIS: I will not press my Amendment.
  Question put—
  "That clause 9 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.

  CLAUSE 11.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 5, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert 'references.'"
  "Line 4, leave out 'reference' and insert 'references.'"—(Lord Harris.)
  Question put.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to, and Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES (DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER) BILL.
  House in Committee as ordered.

  CLAUSE 1.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 7, after 'marriage' leave out 'between a man and his deceased wife's sister.'"—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 9, after 'provision' insert 'between a man and his deceased wife's sister, both being domiciled therein.'"—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I am not going to put the House to the trouble of dividing on this question. I only say, by way
  892
  of protest, that I do not think the provision here is adequate for the purpose for which it is designed. In the first place, I am not prepared to say that the law of "domicile" is the same in all the Colonies, or in all parts of Canada, as is recognised in England. I think there ought to be some definition of "domicile." I am particularly interested in this question because I see my noble and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy here. The other night, as your Lordships will remember, nothing wag more touching in my noble Friend's speech than the very interesting description of a gentleman coming home to this country and finding that he could not inherit land here. The phrase "coming home," which occurred frequently in my noble Friend's speech, rather suggested that domicile is a thing that can be changed, but, as your Lordships are aware, domicile means a permanent home. The domicile which is contemplated by this section ought to be defined in some more definite manner than the Amendment proposes. I would suggest to my noble Friend behind me, who is in charge of the Bill [Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal], that he should take counsel with my noble and learned Friend [Lord James of Hereford] as to defining "domicile," which may be a different thing in different Colonies, and which, at all events, requires definition.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already been taken, because my noble Friend Lord Strathcona and myself have conferred on this point. I certainly would prefer, if my noble and learned Friend will allow me, that this Amendment should stand without definition. To define "domicile" is impossible. You must determine each case as it arises on the facts of the case. As Lord Bramwell once said—
  "If you asked me to define what is day and what is night, I could not do it, but I can always tell you whether it is day or whether it is night."
  So, in the same way, the question, when it arises in our courts, whether at the time of the marriage the parties to it had been domiciled, can always be determined without difficulty; and if the tribunal consisted of my noble and learned Friend the

  893
  Lord Chancellor there would always be a certainty that justice would be done on this question of domicile.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Notwithstanding that compliment, by which my noble and learned Friend sought to get rid of any opposition, if you are going to make exceptional legislation on behalf of persons whose homes are in other parts of the world, I should like to have it defined in such a way that any tribunal would be able to give reasonable ground for the faith that is in them.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 1, leave out from 'Act' to the end of the clause."—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, my object in moving this Amendment is to avoid the inconsistency which will exist if this Bill passes in its present form. The Bill proposes that these marriages shall be valid in this country, but at the same time it makes them invalid fiscally for the children of these marriages. If you are going to do an act of grace to the Colonies it should be complete; it is an ungracious act to extend a favour and then withdraw it with the other hand. There is no reason to suppose that any large sum of money will be involved, and I think it would be much better if the Treasury were to forego any claims in this matter. I therefore move the omission of the words—
  "And no claim by the Crown for duties leviable on or with reference to death, and before the passing of this Act due and payable, and no payment of or discharge for such duties before the passing of this Act duly made or given, shall be prejudicially affected hereby."
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, the promoters of the Bill cannot accept this Amendment. We cannot dispossess the Crown of duties which may become due, and therefore this safeguard must, so far as we are concerned, remain in the Bill.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question put—
  "That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  Motion agreed to, and Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Its provisions are few and simple, and I hope to be able to justify them to your Lordships in a very few words. It happens on rare occasions that individuals render service to the State, or attain eminence either in Parliament or in the learned professions, or in the intellectual or artistic world, which in the opinion of the Crown and of Parliament are deserving of a national memorial. My Lords, such a memorial generally takes the form of a statue or other monument in one of our national churches or cathedrals, which is erected almost always out of money furnished by Parliament, and after a faculty duly obtained from the dean or chapter or other body or person charged with the custody and care and maintenance of the sacred building. My Lords, as the law now stands the altering of everything within our cathedrals and within our national churches is absolutely at the discretion of the dean or chapter or other person charged with the care of the same for the time being; and it may happen that what one dean has approved of his successor may see fit to alter. My Lords, this Bill only proposes to alter the present law to this extent, that when a national monument as defined in the Bill has been erected, such national monument shall not be removed or altered without the permission of the Crown, duly obtained, and without the matter having been brought under the notice of Parliament in the manner provided in the Bill. I hope your Lordships will be of opinion that this is no more than is due in the first place to the family of

  895
  the deceased, to whom the monument is a most honoured and valuable possession; and also that it is no more than is due to the Crown and to Parliament, who had found the money for erecting the memorial, and who had previously obtained the permission of the then dean and chapter for that purpose. This is the whole effect of the Bill, and I venture to hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, on behalf of the Home Office I beg to say that they have no objection to this Bill being read a second time. The Bill appears practically only to do for the State in the case of State monuments precisely what the law at present does in regard to monuments erected by a private individual. In the latter case the monument cannot be removed without the consent of the heir-at-law, or somebody representing the people who contributed towards the cost of putting it up. It seems reasonable, in the case of a national monument, that it should not be removed without, at all events, the State, who have contributed to the cost of erecting, or who have erected, the monument being consulted. I have, therefore, no objection to the Bill being read a second time.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time.

BILLS ADVANCED.
  UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time (according to order); and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.
  LIBRARIES (OFFENCES) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  COMPANIES ACT (1867) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the first time, and to be printed. [No. 154.]

  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION (BORDER COUNTY COUNCILS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the first time, and to be printed. [No. 155.]
  House adjourned at 5.