Sitting of 2 May 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  ABERYSTWYTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time and passed, with Amendments.
  YORK UNITED GAS BILL.
  Read third time and passed.
  CHIPSTEAD VALLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  FOLKESTONE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  STAINES RESERVOIRS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  SWANSEA GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read third time.
  BAKEWELL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read second time, and committed.
  HOLMES'S PATENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Read second time, and committed.
  LIVERPOOL AND LONDON AND GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read second time, and committed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  NEATH, PONTARDAWE, AND BRYNAMAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  STIRLING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read second time, and committed.
  WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
  For addition Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Hamilton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  For weekly payment; From Woodstock, Edmonton, and Stratford-on-Avon; to lie upon the Table.
  CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  From Alexandria, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation; From Bridge of Allan, Acock's Green, Birmingham, and Leigh; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour; From Moulin, Slateford, Duntocher, Dundee, Glasgow, and Ceres; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  From Govan; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS BILL.
  From Wandsworth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  From West Derby, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  In favour: From Atherton, Netherton, and Hamilton; to lie upon the Table.
  OUTDOOR PROVIDENT RELIEF BILL.
  From Hamilton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (WOMEN) BILL.
  From Inverurie, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Stirling, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  From Hamilton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Elgin, Dundee, and Edinburgh (2); to lie upon the Table.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  From Huddersfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Edinburgh, Gairie, Darvel, Stonehaven, Blairgowrie (2), Alyth, London, Bolton-le-Moors, Kingston-upon-Hull (2), Broughty Ferry, Newburgh, Tayport, Ceres, Dundee (3),

  8E
  Mount Moriah and Evangel Lodges of the Independent Order of Good Templars, and Perth (2); to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Brighton, Guisborough, Donaghadee, Kent, Leeds, Acock's Green, and Ballymena; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Chatham, Sheffield (3), High Green, Shipley, Binstead, Belfast, Harborne, Tramore, Burslem (5), London, Ripley, Lockwood, Leigh, Down, Lowton Common, Glencolumbkille, Christchurch (4), Spaldwick, Felixstowe, Cretingham, East Innishowen, Stockton-on-Tees (2), Thornaby-on-Tees, Norton, Hackney (2), Buckfastleigh, Exeter (2), West Southwark, Bermondsey (2), Sandwich (2), Northampton, Nottingham, Bondgate, Margate, Witton Park (4), Bishop Auckland (14), King's Lynn, Hull (2), Newsham, Salford, Parkstone, Bingley (2), Portmahon, Fidelity Tent of the Independent Order of Rechabites, Glasgow, Wakefield, West Ham, and Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  From Hamilton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  STREET NOISES BILL.
  From Wandsworth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (DISBURSEMENTS OF HOME TREASURY).
  Return [presented 29th April] to be printed. [No. 185.]
  EGYPT (No. 1, 1898).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Finances, Administration, and Condition of Egypt, and the Progress of Reforms [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2,066 and 2,067 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  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 from the Helston Railway to the Lizard Village in the County of Cornwall (Lizard Light Railway Order, 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  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 Light Railways between Peakirk in the County of Northampton and Postland in the County of Lincoln (Crowland and District Light Railways Order, 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consents of the St. Neot's Rural District Council and the Huntingdon County Council to the Grant of the St. Neot's

  8G
  Water Provisional Order [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 186.]

  SCHOOL BOARDS (URBAN AND OTHER DISTRICTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th May, 1897; Mr. Channing]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 187.]
  UGANDA RAILWAY ACT, 1896.
  Account presented, to 31st March, 1897, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 188.]
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary for Scotland, under the Act, by Her Majesty's Inspector for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ANCIENT LAWS AND INSTITUTES OF IRELAND (COMMISSION FOR PUBLICATION) (BREHON LAW).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commission for the Publication of the Ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland, dated April, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Copy presented, of Royal Warrant approving of alterations in the Statutes [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND (PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURE).
  Return ordered—
  "Of the expenditure up to the 31st day of March, 1898, from the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Public Works, etc.) Vote upon (a) Pier and Harbour Major Works, and (b) Minor Works, under the Western Highlands and Islands (Scotland) Works Act, 1891, showing the nature of the Works, the estimated cost, the Government grant, the balance to be provided locally, the payments on account thereof, also the balances payable, etc. (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 328, of Session 1896)."— (Mr. Weir.)

  REGISTRATION OF TITLES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the operation of the Local Registration of Titles (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the Receipts and Expenditure of the Registration of Titles Offices, constituted under the said Act for each of the two years ending the 31st day of March, 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 221, of Session 1896)." (Mr. J. J. Clancy. )

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Nottingham (Newark Division), in the room of the Honourable Harold Heneage Finch-Hatton (Manor of Northstead).—(Sir William Walrond.)
QUESTIONS.

  POSTAL ORDERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, considering that more than 60,000,000 of postal orders are annually issued of a total

  9
  value exceeding £23,000,000 sterling, and that postal orders are generally, and in the case of small orders almost invariably, left blank, and that blank orders constitute a serious temptation to needy employees, he will inquire into the offer of a well-known firm to supply the department with forms of orders rising by 6d. at a time from 1s. to £1 1s., and provided with a detachable counterfoil (marked with the date, number, and amount, and office of issue), for less than half the sum now paid for the present orders; and whether he is aware that by the Mandat-Carte system (under which the sender purchases a kind of postcard marked with the sum to be remitted, such sum being delivered, together with the postcard, to the payee by the postman) all chance of fraud, theft, and mistake is obviated, and that this system has proved a great success in Germany, Switzerland, and other countries?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,):By 28 and 29 Vict., cap. 98, it is made a felony to use or imitate the Bank of England paper, on which postal orders are printed. Naturally, no other firm can use it except the Bank of England. The Postmaster General sees no reason to abandon the protection which the use of this paper affords, and the special safeguards which are maintained over the manufacture and printing. It is not proposed, therefore, to make any inquiry in the direction suggested. The Postmaster General is not aware that by the Mandat-Carte system all chance of fraud, theft, and mistake is obviated in Germany and Switzerland. But he is aware that the conditions and regulations imposed with regard to the payment of money orders in those countries are such as he could not impose in this country.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON:Will the right honourable Gentleman give it a trial?
  MR. HANBURY:No; the conditions make that impossible.

  SCOTCH AND IRISH PRISON RULES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether
  10
  he has collated the draft prison rules with the rules in force in Scottish and Irish prisons respectively; whether the particulars in which the draft rules differ from the other rules have been advisedly made, and whether they are based upon differences in the circumstances of this country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,):No, Sir; I have not made any such detailed comparison as is mentioned in the Question. If by the words "other rules" in the second paragraph the honourable Member means the existing English rules, the answer is in the affirmative.

  LORD WILLIAM NEVILL'S IMPRISONMENT.
  MR. PICKERSGILL:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Lord William Nevill was allowed one additional hour's exercise per diem during his stay at Wormwood Scrubbs Prison, and whether he has escaped further solitary confinement by his removal to Parkhurst Prison; and will he state how many of the prisoners sentenced at the same Sessions of the Central Criminal Court, along with Lord William Nevill, have received similar indulgences?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT:This prisoner was, on ten days, while at Wormwood Scrubbs, allowed an additional hour's exercise on the recommendation of the medical officer. His removal to Parkhurst was also on the recommendation of the medical officer, and he is at present in the hospital there. If, however, he is discharged from hospital, he will undergo his separate confinement. I cannot give the information asked for in the second paragraph of the Question, but the course taken in this case is not at all an uncommon one.

  FOREIGN TRAWLERS IN SCOTTISH WATERS.
  MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will

  11
  state in how many instances during the year 1897 foreign trawlers have been prosecuted for trawling within the three mile limit in Scottish waters; and in how many instances convictions have been obtained?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,):I am informed by the Fishery Board that no foreign trawler was prosecuted for fishing in the territorial waters in 1897.

  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  MR. HAZELL:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the list of pensioners on the Consolidated Fund, according to the Finance Accounts printed in June last; whether he is aware that 13 persons are stated to be receiving pensions, amounting in the aggregate to £1,350, because these pensions were formerly on the Civil List of King George IV.; whether there are also six persons, whose aggregate annuities amount to £690, who were formerly on the Civil List of King William IV.; and can he state what evidence is required that these persons are living before their annuities are paid?
  MR. HANBURY:My attention has been called to these pensions, by no means for the first time, by the Question of the honourable Member. There are, it appeals, no longer pensions payable which began to be paid in the reign of King George III., but there were still 12 pensioners in the Finance Accounts of last year (two being sisters) whose pensions date from the time of George IV. Of these three have recently died. There are ten (not six) persons whose pensions date from the Civil List of William IV. Of these four are a brother and three sisters, and four others are two pairs of sisters. With one exception, these 22 persons are women. There appears to be no legal necessity for a declaration or attestation in the case of pensions directly charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and payable under Statute. But the Pay Office requires in the case of the pensions named in the Question a life certificate attested by any one of the persons
  12
  who are authorised to attest the declarations of pensioners paid out of voted, moneys.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS FOR SAILORS' BEDDING.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the specifications for hair for sailors' bedding require it to be cleaned unadulterated horse mane and tail, and not mixed with pig or another sort of hair bristle, and that this material has always been obtained in sufficient quantity for the Navy of this country; and why, under such circumstances, and having regard to the comparatively small amount required in the current year, the order has been taken away from British firms and placed with an American house much identified with pig bristle, and not hitherto making the substance required by the specification?
  SIR CUTHBERT QUILTER:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the hair bedding for the Fleet has been ordered this year abroad; and, if so, why the contract was not placed, as usual, in Great Britain?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,):Very considerable difficulty was experienced last year in obtaining a sufficient supply of curled hair, and it was necessary to invite tenders on four separate occasions before the full quantity could be placed with British firms. Great inconvenience was caused owing to the late period of the year at which supplies were eventually obtained. This year tenders were accepted from three British and one American firm. One British firm was accepted for the whole quantity offered by it, another for the whole quantity offered for early delivery, and the third for two-thirds of the quantity offered. The American firm was accepted for a larger proportion, as it promised early delivery, both of the first half and the remainder of the supply, and the requirements of the Service necessitated large quantities being obtained as soon as possible. Hair not in accordance with the contract will be rejected. I shall only be

  13
  too glad if the tenders of British firms on the next occasion are of such a character as to admit of the whole of the orders being placed with them.

  PENSIONS TO IRISH GRAND JURY OFFICIALS.
  MR. ENGLEDEW:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give a Return showing in how many instances the several grand juries of Ireland have granted pensions to either their Secretaries, Treasurers, or Barony Constables during the last 20 years; and, if any, giving the names of the officers so pensioned, and the amount of the pension?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,):There are no official records in the possession of the Irish Government containing the information desired in the Question., Barony Constables are not entitled to superannuation, and the cases in which Secretaries and Treasurers to grand juries have been awarded retiring allowances would probably be found to be few. These officers have often continued to discharge their duties by deputy instead of claiming superannuation allowances. I hardly think it would serve any useful purpose to grant the proposed Returns.

  RULES UNDER THE PATENTS ACTS.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the authority under which general rules made under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883 to 1888, dated 11th June, 1889, and repealed 31st March, 1890, were amended by general rules dated 18th November, 1891; have the Board of Trade any statutory or other authority for reviving rules after they have once been repealed by simply referring to them in subsequent rules laid before Parliament, and without quoting them in extenso; and, if so, if he would state the nature of the authority; and will he state the amount of fees paid by duly registered patent
  14
  agents between 31st March, 1890, and 18th November, 1891; to whom was the money paid, under what authority was it received, and what has become of the money?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,):The two first paragraphs of the Question are framed under a misapprehension of the facts. As I stated on the 3rd of March, the rules of 1889, which are general rules, have never been repealed. The reference to the rules of 1891 was made in reply to the second paragraph of the Question which was then addressed to me. With regard to fees, the Registrar informs me that the amount paid by duly registered patent agents between the dates named, is £756; that the money was paid to him under authority conferred upon him by the rules; and that a sum exceeding that amount has been expended in performing the duties imposed upon the Institute by the rules.

  BURIAL ACCOMMODATION AT LARNE.
  MR. MCCARTAN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a special meeting of the Larne (county Antrim) Town Commissioners held on Thursday, 21st April, to consider, among other things, the providing of further burial ground accommodation for the inhabitants of Larne; whether he is aware of the want of sufficient burying ground in the district, and can he state the cause; and whether the Local Government Board will communicate with the Local Sanitary Authority with the view of having, in the interest of public health, proper and sufficient burial ground provided for the district?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:My attention has been drawn to a report of the meeting referred to in the first paragraph. The need for increased burial accommodation is stated to be due to the fact that the entire burial accommodation set apart for the Roman Catholic portion of the community has been taken up. The matter has been referred to the Lame Burial Ground Committee for further consideration.

  BELFAST MARKET GARDENS AND THE AGRICULTURAL GRANT.
  MR. McCARTAN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolutions unanimously passed at a meeting held in Belfast on 25th April, urging the Government to extend in the Local Government (Ireland) Bill the benefit of the agricultural grant in respect of market gardens and nursery grounds inside the boundary of any town or borough which is a separate urban, or sanitary district; whether he is aware that, as at present framed, the Bill would exclude from the benefit of the grant about three-fourths of the market gardens and nurseries in Ireland; and whether, considering that in England such market gardens and nursery grounds are included in the benefit of the agricultural grant, he will inquire into the desirability of including them in Ireland also?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:My attention has been directed to the resolutions referred to in the Question. I have no material to enable me to judge whether the estimate in the second paragraph is correct. The definition of agricultural land contained in the Bill was adopted after very careful consideration, and I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will accede to the suggestion in the third paragraph.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:Will judicial tenants in towns be excluded?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:Yes, Sir.

  BLACKHEAD LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. MCCARTAN:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the necessity for the erection of a lighthouse at Blackhead, county Antrim, whether he will state the nature of the promise or undertaking given by the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade to the deputation from Belfast which recently waited upon him; whether he is aware that Belfast Harbour Commissioners have no power to erect a light house there, as Blackhead is outside their jurisdiction; and whether, considering that Belfast Lough is so frequently used by master mariners as a place of refuge,
  16
  he will consider the desirability of causing the lighthouse works to be commenced without delay, in order that it may be used as a danger warning for the coming winter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE:I am informed that the undertaking referred to was to communicate unofficially with the Irish Lights Commissioners on the subject of the desired lighthouse at Blackhead. I have since received a communication from the Commissioners stating that they had applied for sanction for the erection of a lighthouse there. This application will come before me in due course, and I will see that no delay takes place in dealing with it. I am aware that Blackhead is outside the jurisdiction of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners.

  SITTINGS OF THE BELFAST LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. MCCARTAN:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the last sitting of the Chief Land Commission at Belfast, whether he can state the number of fair rent appeals disposed of during the sitting, and in how many cases were the judicial rents reduced, confirmed, and increased respectively?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:On Thursday last I replied to a Question in similar terms addressed to me by the honourable Member.

  TRANSVAAL OFFICIALS AND THE SECOCOENI.
  MR. ALFRED PEASE:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any confirmation from Her Majesty's Representative at Pretoria of the charges made by Mr. John Procter in his book, "Boers and Little Englanders," against Commandant Cronje, Superintendent of Natives; Abel Erasmus, Native Commissioner; and David Schoeman, Field Cornet, who are alleged to have condemned, without pretence of trial and in violation of Article 19 of the Con-

  17
  vention of 1884, Toemeretsjani, Chieftainess of the Secocoeni tribe, to pay £147 10s., and inflicted on 13 of her Indunas 25 lashes each; whether he is aware that on appeal to the High Court at Pretoria, Cronje, Erasmus, and Schoeman were strongly censured by Justice Jorissen, but before the case was ended the State Attorney interfered on the part of the Government; that the Government agreed to refund to the Chieftainess £147 10s., with interest at six per cent. per annum and pay her costs, and that Cronje, Erasmus, and Schoeman were to pay the 13 Indunas £25 each as compensation, but that the money has not been paid to the Indunas, and that they not only still retain their official positions, but have been appointed by the Transvaal Executive to be a Commission to investigate matters in the district where the Chieftainess and her Indunas reside; and whether he will make inquiries, or take steps to secure redress and protection for the natives who have been maltreated?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,):(1) The facts are as stated in the first part of the Question, according to the information which I have received; but I do not consider that the action of the officials, though harsh and illegal, was a violation of Article 19 of the Convention. The natives were not prevented from appealing to the High Court. (2) I understand that the statements in the second part of the Question are substantially correct, excepting that, according to the latest report received by me, the compensation to the Indunas with costs had been paid, and the compensation to the Chieftainess and costs were in course of being paid in January last, and that I have no confirmation of the statement that Messrs. Cronje, Erasmus, and Schoeman have been appointed to investigate matters in the district referred to. (3) In reply to the third part of the Question, I have to say that Her Majesty's Agent has been instructed to watch any further developments of the trial and settlement, and especially any attempt to prevent natives having access to the courts.

  BENTLEY NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. MADDISON:I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, under the rules of the National School at Bentley, near Farnham, Hampshire, the girls were required to sweep out the schoolroom for a week together in turn, and that it was also a rule of the school that, if they wished to avoid this duty, they have to pay twopence each in order to be exempted therefrom; whether such rules are still in force, and, if not, when they were withdrawn; and whether this is the only public elementary school available for the children of Bentley?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,):The Committee of Council have no information as to the first two paragraphs. The answer to the third paragraph is in the affirmative.

  THE ANNALY ESTATE, COUNTY LONGFOED.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL:I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state who is the receiver of the Annaly Estate, county Longford, and has the Court of Chancery had reports from him on the management of the Carrick-boy bog on this property; is the court aware that the bailiff has recently deprived three tenants named Peter Kenny, John Mason, and Peter Keenan of their spread-bank, which prevents them getting turf in this bog; whether any affidavit has been filed in court on behalf of the bailiff, and has his proceeding been sanctioned by an order of the court; whether, when Mason produced a notice received from the bailiff before the sub-commission, the sub-commissioners declared it to be an illegal document; and will steps be taken by the Court of Chancery to compel the bailiff to restore to those tenants their turbary rights?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,):The Question of the honourable Member appears to be founded on a misconception. The Crown has no right

  19
  to interfere in litigations of the character mentioned in the Question conducted by private parties, and relating to their own private affairs. Nor have I, as Law Officer of the Irish Government, any right to express an opinion of the kind asked for on the action of the court or of the parties litigant in the matter.

  FREE CARRIAGE OF SPRAYING MACHINES BY IRISH RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland has offered to carry potato spraying powder and Strawson's machines free of charge, at the owner's risk, between stations on that line; and whether he can say if any other Irish railway company has made the same generous offer?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE:Yes, Sir; and I learn with much satisfaction that the Great Southern and Western, the Waterford, Limerick and Western, the Waterford and Central Ireland, and the Great Northern of Ireland are doing the same thing.

  ANNULMENT OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL UNDER THE IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON:I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if he is able to state whether the Lord Lieutenant can annul an Order in Council under Part VI. of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill 1898, previously duly made as provided in Clause 65, sub-section (1), of the Bill, by any means other than by laying before both Houses of Parliament another Order in Council, as provided in Clause 65, sub-section (2); and, if by any other means, by what means?
  MR. ATKINSON:No, Sir; an Order in Council, when confirmed by Parliament, becomes a statute, and can only be repealed by another statute.

  POSTAL ACCOMMODATION IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in considering the question of a new post office, or an improved postal service in any district, the Department will take into consideration as a basis not only the correspondence dispatched to and from such a district, but also the distance the inhabitants have to walk in order to post a letter or receive one, especially in sparsely inhabited districts like the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?
  MR. HANBURY:Yes, Sir. In considering the question of a new post office, or an improved postal service in any district, the distance of the nearest post office from the houses of the inhabitants is always considered, as well as the amount of correspondence. The Highlands and Islands of Scotland are receiving special attention from the Postmaster General, as the honourable Member is aware.

  MUSSEL BEDS IN THE CLYDE ESTUARY.
  MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state on what terms the mussel beds in the Clyde estuary off Port Glasgow have been leased to the Fishery Board by the Board of Trade; has any portion of the beds been sub-let; if so, to whom, and on what terms; and can it be stated what quantity of mussels have been taken from the beds since they came into the hands of the Fishery Board?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY:I am informed by the Fishery Board that the whole area leased by them has been sublet to Dr. J. H. Fullarton for a term of 21 years from Candlemas, 1897, for a yearly rent of £1, with strict conditions as to culture, size of mussels to be sold, and prices to be charged to fishermen. A statement of the quantity of mussels taken since the date of the lease, as compared with previous statistics, would, I fear, be misleading, but if the honourable Member particularly desires to have it, he can obtain it at the Scottish Office.

  CONVICTIONS FOR TRAWLING IN PROHIBITED WATERS.
  MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the names of the masters of trawlers who, during the year 1897, elected to go to prison for the whole period of their sentence rather than pay the fines inflicted for trawling in prohibited waters, and will he also state the names of their vessels?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY:I am informed by the Fishery Board that the names of masters of trawlers who elected to go to prison during 1897 rather than pay the fines inflicted on them for trawling in prohibited waters, and the names of their vessels, are as follows:—"Commodore," G. N. 31, Frederick Powderall; "William Osten," S. N. 66, William Scorgie; "Commodore," G. N. 31, Thomas Fitzpatrick; "St. George," A. 673, Henry Mearns; "North City," A. 400, Thomas Buxton. But I must suggest to the honourable Member that it would be expedient if information as to details of this nature were sought by private inquiry and not by Question in this House.
  MR. WEIR:I beg to tell the right honourable Gentleman I am not asking for the information for myself, but for the information of my constituents.

  PORT NESS HARBOUR WORKS.
  MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the huge concrete blocks which fell into Port Ness Harbour during the construction of the harbour works have yet been removed?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY:I am informed by the engineers for the Port Ness Breakwater that the blocks referred to by the honourable Member were removed last year.

  THE HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state to what extent the opening of the Aviemore section of the Highland Railway is expected to expedite the transit of the Stornoway mail?
  MR. HANBURY:The Highland Railway Company have not yet informed the mail trains to and from the north of Postmaster General to what extent the Scotland will be expedited by the use of the new Aviemore line, but they have been asked to furnish time tables for consideration as soon as possible.

  THE CARNDONAGH RAILWAY.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL:On behalf of the honourable Member for North Donegal, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether steps have been taken to advertise for fresh tenders for the Carndonagh Railway; whether, pending the making of the contract, the Board of Works will take steps to proceed with the acquisition of the land, as they are entitled to do under their contract with the Lough Swilly Company; and whether he is aware that in many cases the land to be taken has not been cropped owing to the fact that notices have been served for the taking of the land under the Lands Clauses Act?
  MR. HANBURY:The tenders received in answer to advertisement being all in excess of the amount set apart for this railway out of the funds available under the Railway Act, 1896, it is hoped that more reasonable terms may be obtained by negotiation. Failing a satisfactory arrangement by this means, advertisements will be issued for fresh tenders. Under the agreement with the railway company, the purchase of land forms part of the expenditure to be included in the contract for which tenders are invited. In ordinary course, therefore, no steps could be taken for the acquisition of land until the contract has been settled. The Board of Works have no information upon the subject of the last paragraph.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:AS complaint has been made as to the limited character of the advertising, will the right honourable Gentleman take care that, if in this case there is to be a further tendering, general means will be taken to acquaint contractors with the fact?
  MR. HANBURY:Yes, I will see to that.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS AID GRANT.
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS:I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education with reference to the statement contained in the Circular of the Education Department of the 18th of April, to the Associations formed under the Voluntary Schools Act, that any deficit incurred for the payment of debts contracted before the passing of the Act will not be recognised by the Department as within the objects of the Aid Grant; whether it is intended to refer only to schemes for the future appropriation of the grant; or whether it includes the schemes already received for the first appropriation thereof?
  SIR J. GORST:The Circular was issued after the first appropriation of the grant. It does not, therefore, deal with that appropriation, but with future ones. The first appropriation was made in accordance with the opinion of the Law Officers, on which the Circular was based.

  EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY LIBRARY.
  MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is now able to state whether the Edinburgh University Council have yet restored the University Library, and put the busts of royal princes and other distinguished personages in such a condition as to add to the adornment of the Library?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY:I am informed by the Secretary to the University Court that through the great liberality of Sir William Overend Priestley, M.D., representative in Parliament for the Universities of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, in giving a handsome donation for the purpose, the University Court have been enabled to undertake an extensive scheme of redecoration and repair of the University Library Hall, including electric light installation and the thorough cleaning of the busts. The work is at present going on.
  MR. WEIR:Am I to understand that the University Court had not sufficient funds provided by the Government, and that, consequently, a private Member had to put his hands into his pockets in order to carry out the work?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY:The honourable Member can discover from a perusal of the Estimates exactly the amount of funds provided for the University Court.

  MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS.
  COLONEL DALBIAC:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the rule has been abolished enabling the refunding of medical fees paid by candidates who, having failed to pass the Departmental doctor's examination, have been granted a re-examination by a medical board and have successfully passed it; by whom should the fee paid for the second medical examination be refunded; and is he aware that, in a recent case in the South Eastern District Office, the Controller denied the liability of the Department and referred the applicant to the Civil Service Commissioners, who, however, on the 1st March replied that they are not liable for any of the expenses incurred in connection with the special medical examination?
  MR. HANBURY:So far as the Postmaster General is aware, there never has been a rule for the repayment of medical fees to candidates for appointment in the Post Office who, having failed to pass the Departmental doctor's examination, have been granted a re-examination by a medical board, and have successfully passed it. For the examination by the medical officer of the Post Office, no fee is charged to the candidate, but with the re-examination the Post Office has nothing to do. This, when granted, is granted by the Civil Service Commissioners, and is not confined to Post Office candidates, and the Postmaster General has ascertained that one of the conditions on which it is granted is that all expenses must be borne by the candidate whatever may be the result. In the particular case to which the honourable Member refers, the circumstances appear to have been properly explained to the candidate.

  CASE OF MICHAEL M'MANUS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sentence of five years' penal servitude imposed on Michael M'Manus, at the Longford Easter Quarter Sessions; whether it is true that the value of the potatoes stolen by M'Manus was not more than two shillings; and is there any means of reviewing or reducing this heavy sentence?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs. M'Manus was an old offender. As regards the last paragraph, it is, of course, in this, as in all similar cases, open to the prisoner, or any person on his behalf, to forward a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, praying for a mitigation of the sentence.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL:Will a memorial be considered?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:Yes.

  THE MAYOR OF WEXFORD.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether, in order to secure the Mayor of Wexford his statutable right to procedure within the borough, it can be arranged that cases appertaining to the borough shall be heard separately from those outside his jurisdiction; or can he suggest any other plan to secure obedience to the law which confers precedence upon the Mayor?
  MR. ATKINSON:The question of the Mayor's precedence is one which concerns him and his brother magistrates and not the Crown, since it does not affect the validity of the orders of the court, and it is not my province to make any suggestions in reference to it, beyond what I have already said—namely, that if his rights have been infringed he can get redress in a court of law.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:May I ask whether it is not the function of the right honourable Gentleman to see that the law is obeyed, and whether, as the Mayor is entitled by statute to precedence within the borough, he can arrange that the
  26
  borough court be held separately from the County Court; and, if the right honourable Gentleman cannot answer the Question, would he kindly say which Government Department can answer it?
  MR. ATKINSON:It concerns no Government Department.
  MR. W. REDMOND:In connection with this matter, I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is a fact that for years past the Mayor of Wexford has exercised the right of presiding at Petty Sessions without opposition?
  MR. ATKINSON:I am not aware of the fact, and I would ask the honourable Member to give notice of the Question.

  INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF BREAD STUFFS.
  MR. FIELD:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the increase in the price of bread stuffs generally; whether he will inquire into the facts and ascertain how far the system of gambling in futures in grain has contributed to the abnormal rise; and whether any legislative Measures will be considered, with a view to prevent gambling in staple food supplies?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE:I am aware that there has been a considerable increase in the price of certain bread stuffs, but I do not consider it necessary to make any inquiry with the view of connecting that rise with dealings in grain. As I have already stated, in reply to the honourable Member, I do not propose to initiate any legislation to prevent time bargains.

  BREEDING OF LIVE STOCK IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will consider the advisability of appointing a Commission to inquire into and report upon the improvement in breeding live stock in Ireland; and whether an

  27
  increased grant will be given for the purpose of improving the breeds of live stock in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I cannot give any promise to deal with the matters referred to in the Question, in anticipation of the establishment of a Board of Agriculture for Ireland.

  NORTH TIPPERARY POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIEN:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of an application having been recently made on behalf of the residents of Congor and Coolagoona, in the Borrisokane postal district of North Tipperary, for a delivery of letters in the locality; whether the accommodation could be afforded with little or no additional expense by the postal messenger from Borrisokane to Arderny sub-office, making a detour on his walk of not more than a mile and a half; and whether, in regard to the fact that some 20 or more respectable families in this neighbourhood are obliged to send to Arderong, a considerable distance, for their letters, he will be able to facilitate the improved service as proposed?
  MR. HANBURY:No, Sir. The attention of the Postmaster General has not been called to an application recently made on behalf of the residents of Connor and Coolagoona for a delivery of letters in the locality. Inquiry on the subject is probably being made in Ireland; in any case the honourable Member may rest assured that a delivery of letters in this locality—as in all others—will be given in accordance with the promise of the Government.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION.
  MR. J. W. WILSON:I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will state the number of voluntary schools which eventually refused to join any association; and, further, the number of those to which a Grant under the
  28
  Bill of 1897 has been made by the Department for the year ending 31st March last?
  SIR JOHN GORST:Two hundred and thirty-six schools joined no association; of these, 35 received Grants.

  IRISH LOAN FUND SOCIETIES.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON:On behalf of the honourable Member for North Fermanagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the great desire manifested in the counties in Ireland affected, he will take steps to have the evidence given before the recent Commission appointed to inquire into the administration of the loan fund societies in Ireland printed and circulated?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:On the 4th May last year I informed my honourable and learned Friend, in answer to a similar Question then put by him, that the transcript of the evidence taken at the various inquiries held by the Committee had not been printed. The evidence was very fully reported in the local newspapers, and in view of the elaborate character of the Report of the Committee already presented to Parliament, it was not considered necessary to lay the evidence on the Table of the House. I have no evidence before me to modify the opinion I expressed a year ago.

  MEDICAL PROVISION FOR THE SOUDAN CAMPAIGN.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the medical staff with the Army in the Soudan are not provided with the Röntgen rays apparatus; and whether he will take steps to supply the deficiency?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON:Arising out of the Question, may I ask whether the Secretary of State for War has received confirmation of the reports in the newspapers that the litters provided for the wounded at the battle of Atbara had no covers for the

  29
  men's heads, and that they had consequently to be carried long distances exposed to the burning sun; and whether, if there should be a further engagement in the Soudan, the right honourable Gentleman will say if these defects will be remedied?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,):The question of folding hoods for stretchers has been under consideration, and at the instance of the Director General early in March 350 sets were ordered. Of these 70 have already been delivered at Woolwich, and will shortly be sent to the Soudan, so that they will be available, I hope, before another engagement takes place. In reply to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that the Rontgen rays apparatus for field service requires special construction. One was made for Egypt, and was dispatched thither on the 5th of April, together with a large one for use in the station hospital at Cairo.

  STATUTES INCORPORATED IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. MACNETLL:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the difficult and complicated character of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, and the great number of statutes, 26 in number, incorporated in the Fourth Schedule of the Bill, and having regard to the labour entailed in searching through the Statute Book for the several sections of divers statutes, he will direct the various sections of the various statutes capable of being applied to be printed and circulated for the purpose of facilitating the work of interpreting the Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:If the honourable Member will examine the draft Orders in Council he will see that the adopted provisions of the various statutes proposed to be applied are set forth therein in full.

  PASSENGER TRAFFIC ON THE COLLSOY AND CLAREMORRIS LINE.
  MR. COLLERY:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company refuse to issue passenger tickets at the Collsoy station of the Collsoy and Claremorris line to and from Sligo; and notwithstanding that the county of Sligo guaranteed £80,000 for the construction of this line they are still debarred from using it between these two stations; and whether he will inquire into the cause of this inconvenience to the public, and procure a remedy?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE:I communicated with the Waterford and Limerick Company with reference to the honourable Member's Question, which, I am informed, does not quite accurately state the facts. It seems, however that certain difficulties which existed between the Waterford and Limerick and the Midland Great Western as to the issue of these passenger tickets have been surmounted, and I gather that they may now be issued.
  MR. FIELD:Seeing that other companies are compelled to issue passenger tickets to all stations, cannot this company be made to comply with the law?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE:I must ask for notice of that Question?

  REPORT OF THE SCOTTISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  MR. WEIR:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state when the Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY:I am informed by the Local Government Board that their Report is complete and in type. It will go to press at the beginning of next week, and will be issued as soon as it is received from the printers.
  MR. WEIR:Will the right honourable Gentleman see that it is in the hands of Members before the Vote is taken?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY:I can only say, as before, that I will bring the matter under the notice of the First Lord of the Treasury.

  TUBERCULOSIS.
  MR. CHANNING:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what steps will be taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis, so far as those recommendations relate to the Local Government Board, and especially as to the more effectual prevention of the use of diseased cows for dairy purposes?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,):This Question was down for Friday, and I am sorry I was not in my place to answer it. The Report was only issued on the previous Tuesday, and the first opportunity I had of seeing it was on Wednesday. Obviously there has not been time to arrive at decisions on the numerous important recommendations which are made. I desire also some opportunity of seeing the evidence, which has not yet been published.
  MR. CHANNING:Considering the extreme urgency and gravity of this Question, will the right honourable Gentleman at once, and without delay, consider the Report especially as to obtaining further powers for the Local Government Board over local authorities?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD:I will consider the Report as soon as possible.
  MR. CHANNING:I shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates.

  SALARIES OF PARLIAMENTARY OFFICIALS.
  MR. PIRIE:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government would be prepared to institute an inquiry into the system of salaries and appointments in both Houses of Parliament, with a view of fixing the salaries in proportion to
  32
  the nature and the amount of work entailed, and of adopting a different system from the present of making appointments; and whether the right honourable Gentleman is aware that on the 22nd of last month the Secretary to the Treasury stated that possibly the time has now arrived for an inquiry into the matter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,):The matter to which the honourable Gentleman refers is one to which the Government are giving their attention, but at present I am not prepared to make any definite statement upon it.

  PROPOSED INCREASE OF THE AMERICAN TONNAGE DUES.
  MR. CHARLES HENRY WILSON:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in reference to the Bill before the United States Congress for the imposition of increased tonnage dues, whether any further information has been received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington; whether all possible vigilance will be exercised by Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to prevent the imposition of this tax, or, at any rate, to secure that British vessels shall receive equal treatment as compared with the vessels of all other nationalities; and whether England is entitled to the full benefit of the Most Favoured Nation Clause?
  SIR GEORGE BADEN - POWELL:At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government of the United States have made any reply to the representations of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the proposed heavy increase in tonnage dues in the United States; and whether the proposed increase is confined to the general tonnage tax levied on all vessels, or is extended to or confined to the additional tonnage tax levied on vessels belonging to nations which levy light dues on the vessels of the United States?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY:My honourable Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool [Mr. C. McArthur] received, at a meeting at Liverpool on Saturday, a

  33
  long telegram, which he was authorised to read, and which appeared in The Times of that date. I think, perhaps, I might refer honourable Members to that telegram, as it is rather too long to read to the House. The substance of it, as far as British shipping is concerned, comes to this: that twenty cents per ton is proposed to be levied instead of six cents, with a maximum of 240 cents instead of 30 cents. It is proposed that the new system should come into operation on July 1. The Government are doing their best, I need hardly say, to safeguard the interests of British shipowners. There are no exemptions, I believe, except in favour of vessels in distress and those not engaged in trade. As regards the last paragraph there is no most favoured nation clause with the United States of America with regard to duties or charges on British vessels.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES:I wish to ask whether British vessels will be treated, in the levying of this tonnage duty, differently from other vessels, on the ground that Great Britain levies light dues?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY:No; I thought I explained there were to be no differential duties at all.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL:Can the right honourable Gentleman tell us whether the Bill now before Congress will, if passed, repeal the Act of 1886, which enacts differential treatment?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY:I am informed that it will repeal that Act, and it is in consequence of that repeal that no differential treatment will come into force in the case of Holland.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AS DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC COMPANIES.
  MR. FIELD:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will grant a Return of the Members of this House who are directors of one or more public companies?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY:I do not think any useful purpose would be gained by such a Return?
  MR. MACNEILL:"Is the right honourable gentleman aware that 23 Ministers divide 47 directorates amongst them?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY:No; I am not aware of that.
  MR. MACNEILL:Well, I am informed it is so.

  WEI-HAI-WEI.
  MR. BROOKFIELD:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to give the House any information as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the garrison and fortifications of Wei-hai-Wei?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY:Until we have been for some time in occupation of the port in question, I do not think we can come to any determination on the matter referred to by my honourable Friend.

  TREATMENT OF PAUPER CHILDREN.
  MR. LOUGH:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in Paddington, with 117,000 people, the guardians supported 227 children, whereas Kensington and Chelsea, with 262,000 people, supported 867 children, or nearly double as many in proportion; whether the Whitechapel Board, after close investigation into all the circumstances connected with each of the 76 children chargeable to that union, had found it possible to deal with 35 of them in various ways, leaving only 41 to be provided for directly by the guardians; and whether, in view of these facts, the Local Government Board could see their way to arrange for an investigation, by persons experienced in examining into the condition of the poor, into each individual case of the children who will shortly be displaced by the dissolution of the Sutton Pauper School, with a view to seeing what is best to be done for each child?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD:If the numbers mentioned in the first paragraph are intended to refer to the children in district schools the statement is not quite accurate. The numbers according to the most recent returns are as follows:—Paddington 123, Kensington and Chelsea 768. The facts as to the Whitechapel Union are substantially as stated. But I am afraid I cannot adopt the honourable Member's suggestion. What he practically asks is this, that the Local Government Board should investigate the case of each individual child in the Sutton Schools with a view of seeing what is best to be done for the child. If the Board were to do this, they must do the same as regards the children in any other poor law school in the metropolis, should the occasion arise. There are nearly 2,000 children in the Sutton Schools, and upwards of 9,000 in the other metropolitan poor law schools, and it would manifestly be impossible for the Board to undertake this duty. Moreover, by so doing, they would be taking upon themselves the duty which expressly belongs to the guardians of the unions to which the children are chargeable. If the children in workhouses, infirmaries, or sick asylums, certified schools, institutions for the blind, deaf and dumb and idiots, training ships, convalescent homes, and other institutions are added to the number in the district schools the total would be as follows:—Paddington, 279; Kensington and Chelsea, 1,338.

  FORCES ON THE NORTH WEST FRONTIER.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, as regards battalions, British and Native, field batteries (if any) and mountain batteries, British and Native, what are the differences between the existing forces and those maintained before the attacks on Malakand, Shabkadr, and Lundi Kotal, at or near the following stations or posts: Panjkora, Malakand, the Khyber and neighbourhood, Kuram and neighbourhood; whether any further
  36
  changes are already in contemplation; whether there are any British or Kashmir troops between Panjkora and Chitral; and whether any change has been made in the garrison of Chitral?
  The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,):The Malakand Force has been temporarily increased by 1 British and 2 Native infantry battalions, 2 squadrons of Native cavalry, and a company of Native sappers. There are no troops on the Panjkora. At the Khyber and neighbourhood there are, according to the latest returns, 6 British and 7 Native infantry battalions, 3 British mountain batteries, 3 companies Native sappers, and 2 squadrons Native cavalry. Prior to the recent campaigns, there were only small detachments at Jamrud, and the Khyber Rifles in the Khyber Pass. At Kuram and in the neighbourhood the increase consists of half a squadron Native cavalry. The distribution of the troops on the Frontier has not yet been finally settled, and I cannot therefore state what further changes may be made. There are no British or Kashmir troops between the Panjkora and Chitral, in the garrison of which place no change has been made.

  ALDERSHOT BARRACKS.
  MR. JEFFREYS:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether all the lights in the barrack billiard rooms and libraries at Aldershot are put out at 9.30 p.m.; whether the lights in the soldiers' barrack rooms are put out at 10 p.m.; whether all men of good character are allowed leave out of barracks till 11.15 p.m.; whether, consequently, these men have to find their way to bed in the dark; and whether some better arrangement as to lights can be made for the convenience and comfort of the soldiers?
  MR. BRODRICK:In the libraries and recreation rooms at Aldershot lights are usually put out at 10 o'clock, though commanding officers can at their discretion allow lights till 10.30. In the barrack rooms lights are out at 10.15. Men of good character are, at the discretion of the commanding officer, allowed

  37
  out from the South Camp till 11.15, and from the North Camp till 11.30. Those who avail themselves of this privilege have to find their way to bed in the dark. The Secretary of State is ready to give further consideration to the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the honourable Member's question, but if lights were not to be put out till 11.15 the majority of the men would be kept awake for 1½ hours for the sake of the few who are out late for their own amusement.

  CORK GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  DR. C. K. TANNER:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Cork Board of Guardians have recently served notices to quit on a number of tenants of cottages built under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, and have announced their intention of raising the rents of such cottages to 2s. 6d. per week; whether he is aware that the average rate of the wages of agricultural labourers in Cork Union is from 7s. to 10s. per week; whether, in fixing the rents of such cottages, regard should be had under the provisions of the Labourers Acts to the circumstances of the agricultural labourers for whom they are intended; in how many cases have the Cork Board of Guardians already raised the rents, and in how many cases have they had recourse to legal proceedings to determine the present tenancies in order to enforce the proposed increase; and whether the Local Government Board will make inquiries or hold a sworn investigation with a view to determining whether the increased rents are justified by the spirit or the letter of the Labourers Acts?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:The honourable Member appears to be under a complete misapprehension as to the action of the Cork Board of Guardians in this matter. The guardians have already provided 302 cottages in the union, and, having received representations in favour of the erection of additional cottages, they caused inquiries to be made as to whether any of the present tenants of
  38
  the cottages were other than agricultural labourers. The guardians found that in 16 cases the tenants could not be regarded as agricultural labourers, and in seven of these cases the guardians made an order that the tenants be required to pay 2s. 6d. a week rent, instead of a shilling, as charged to bonâ fide agricultural labourers. The tenants in question having refused to pay, the guardians instructed their solicitor to proceed against them for recovery of possession of the cottages. Thus it will be seen that the action of the guardians is not directed against the labourers, as represented by the honourable Member, but against certain tenants who are not agricultural labourers. No interference on the part of the Local Government Board is called for.

  MUZZLING ORDER.
  MR. T. LOUGH:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is about to suspend the Muzzling Order in Staffordshire or Norfolk?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,):With regard to Staffordshire, I would refer the honourable Member to the statement made by me in reply to my honourable Friend the Member for West Bromwich on Friday last. It has not been necessary to impose a Muzzling Order in the case of Norfolk, no outbreak of rabies having been reported from that county since July, 1896.
  MR. MCKENNA:Is it proposed to suspend it in Nottinghamshire?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE:I cannot answer that Question without notice, as the Order affecting the Midlands extends over several counties.

  INDIAN MILITARY PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
  MR. BUTCHER:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the case of Captain Judge, late of the 2nd Goorkhas,

  39
  who left England to join his regiment in September, 1897, and was killed inaction in the battle of Dargai; whether, if Captain Judge had lived, he would have completed his 20 years' service in January, 1898, and have been entitled to retire on a pension of £200 a year; whether Captain Judge left a widow and three children; whether it is customary, in the case of an officer killed in action, for his widow to receive a Queen's pension of £100 a year, and a gratuity equal to one year's pay of her husband, and for each child to receive a compassionate allowance and a gratuity equal to one third of a year's pay; whether the authorities have refused to grant the widow and children of Captain Judge any pension, allowance, or gratuity whatever; whether the authorities have also refused to refund the amount expended by Captain Judge for his passage money from England to India to join his regiment; and whether the Government will reconsider the case, and make such allowances and grants as will meet the requirements of the case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA:The facts are as stated in the first part of my honourable Friend's Question. Captain Judge rejoined his regiment from leave at his own expense, and, not having been recalled by the Government of India, was not entitled to refund or passage money. Mrs. Judge receives, as my honourable Friend is no doubt aware, a pension under the Service Family Pension Regulations. With regard to the additional pension and gratuities mentioned in my honourable Friend's Question, the Royal Warrant lays down certain rules as to the pecuniary position of those who can receive them, and the private circumstances of Captain Judge's family, independently of the Family Service Pension, are such as to render them ineligible under these rules.
  MR. BUTCHER:Will the noble lord request the Council of India to induce the authorities to refund the amount of the passage money which was expended by Captain Judge in going out to join his regiment? Can he not use his influence to secure a relaxation of this wretched rule as to the pecuniary position of an officer and his family?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA:The Council of India have absolute control over this Question. The regulations have been in force for a long time, and I very much doubt whether the authorities will be disposed to relax them. As regards the payment of passage money, I quite admit that the existing regulations are not satisfactory, and I have caused a dispatch to be addressed to the Indian Government on the subject.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:Are British officers to understand that they are indebted to the British Treasury for the regulations?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA:No, Sir; the regulations have been in force for years, and they are based on the principle that people who are tolerably well-to-do shall not get as much as those who are not well-to-do.

  ZEMINDAR OF KHARIAR.
  MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTS:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received the Petition of Lal Brijraj Sinh, Zemindar of Khariar, praying for the redress of certain grievances, of which the receipt was acknowleged as long ago as 30th July, 1897, by Mr. H. M. Laurie, Deputy Commissioner of Raipur, and forwarded by him the same day to the Chief Commissioner of the division; and, if received, what reply has been given?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA:Yes, Sir; a Memorial from the Zemindar of Khariar has been forwarded to me by the Government of India, and is now under my consideration.

  INDIAN SOCIAL CONFERENCE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Indian Social Conference at Amraoti, in December last, in favour of the abolition of the imprisonment of women in enforcement of decrees for the restitution of conjugal rights; whether he is aware that a distinct promise was given by a former Viceroy that

  41
  this provision of the Code should be expunged when the Statute again came up for revision; and will he explain why the opportunity presented recently, when the Penal Code Amendment Act, 1898, was passing through the Viceroy's Council, was not availed of in order to fulfil the said promise?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA:I have not seen the resolution, but I am aware that the Government of India in 1890 expressed their intention, when opportunity offered, to introduce a clause which would enable the Civil Courts to refuse to send women to prison in such cases. Such an opportunity occurred in 1894, when a Bill was brought in to amend the Code of Civil Procedure. The original Bill contained a provision to the effect which I have stated; but, as explained in an answer given in this House by my predecessor, on the 9th April, 1895—
  "The clause was unanimously struck out by a Select Committee of seven members, four of whom were natives of India, on the ground that the country was not yet ripe for such a change, and a motion to restore it was lost in the Legislative Council by 15 votes to two."
  The question is one of civil procedure, and has nothing to do with the Penal Code or the Criminal Courts.

  INDIAN CURRENCY.
  MR. B. L. COHEN:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state when the Report will be presented of the Royal Commission on the administration of the expenditure of India? May I also ask the noble Lord when the proposals of the Indian Government on currency, laid on the Table on Friday, will be in the hands of Members?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA:As to the first Question, I am informed by the Chairman that he hopes within a short time to lay his draft Report before his colleagues. In respect to the second Question, I hoped the Papers would have been distributed on Saturday,
  42
  but I am told they will be in the Vote Office to-night.
  SIR H. H. FOWLER:Will the noble Lord ask for a definition of "short time," as there have been so many short times during this inquiry? The delay is very serious.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA:As the right honourable Gentleman must be aware—for he has undertaken similar duties—I have no control over the Chairman of the Commission, who is quite independent of the India Office.

  NAVAL BATTLE OFF MANILA.
  MR J. HERBERT LEWIS:I beg—in accordance with private notice—to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government can give the House any information as to the engagement at Manila, reported to have taken place between the American and Spanish fleets; whether any apprehensions of danger to the lives and interests of British subjects are entertained by the Government; and whether any British warships are available for the protection of British subjects in the Philippine Islands?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY:The information we have received points to the Spanish fleet at Manila having been destroyed. A British ship is, I believe, on its way there, and I need hardly say all we can do to preserve British interests will be done.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. J. DILLON:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant when he proposes to take the Financial Resolution on the Irish Local Government Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I cannot answer. It depends on the progress made with the Bill.

  PETROLEUM COMMITTEE.
  Question proposed—
  "That Mr. Macdona be discharged from the Select Committee on Petroleum.
  "That Mr. Royds be added to the Committee."—(Sir W. Walrond.)
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES:I have observed this Motion with great concern. I cannot understand the reason of the honourable Baronet for discharging from the Committee a Member so eminently fitted to deal with cheap explosives, and adding to the Committee another Member who neither by service to the Church nor any other means has been endowed with any of the necessary qualities. I wish to ask the honourable Baronet what is the reason for this extraordinary Motion, which I am not sure I ought not to divide the House against? I understand, from the ordinary sources of information, that the honourable and reverend Member intends going out to China on behalf of a commercial syndicate. If so, he will be absent from his duties in the House for several months, probably until the end of the Session. If the Motion is carried, will the honourable Baronet ask for leave of absence for the honourable Member for Rotherhithe? I should also like to know whether the honourable Member, during his absence, will retain his post as private secretary to the Secretary to the Treasury?
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir W. H. WALROND,):I made the Motion because such a Motion is usual when an honourable Member desires to absent himself from a Committee for a certain number of weeks. My honourable Friend is correct in saying that the honourable Member for Rotherhithe is going to China. I have given the honourable Member leave to go, and he has paired with another honourable Member who is either in China or on his way there.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS:Has the honourable Baronet consulted the constituents of the honourable Member for Rotherhithe?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  The House again went into Committee on the Local Government Amendment Bill, and further considered the proposed Amendment on Clause 5, moved by the Attorney General for Ireland, dealing with the rules under which compensation for malicious injuries is to be paid. Mr. T. M. Healy having moved that opposition to claims for compensation should be raised without previous notice,
  MR. JASPER TULLYsaid: I think, Sir, that the Amendment by the Attorney General is a very dangerous one, and will do a great deal of injury in Ireland. As the law stands, on this particular point at present there is no necessity for people to give notice of opposition to the claims for malicious injury. This Bill introduces an entirely new feature. It insists that notice of opposition, shall be given. That, I think, is a very serious matter—indeed, a much more serious matter than has appeared to the House. Well, Sir, this system of procedure for malicious injuries is one which is peculiar to Ireland. You have nothing like it in England, Scotland, or Wales. I think it is a pity that on a Bill which is in so many respects a liberation Bill a blot of this kind should be put, making the existing law, which is bad enough at present, much worse, especially for the ratepayers. Of course, I know that there is a considerable body of opinion in Ireland which regards all claims for malicious injury as a kind of municipal insurance by the ratepayers. There may be something to be said from that view, but I think we have purchased this insurance at a very high price, if the law is to be applied as amended by the Attorney General for Ireland, because this brings for the first time upon the scene in the history of these malicious injury cases the speculative attorney. Previously, Sir, if a man put into operation the law of malicious injury—and in the course of my experience as a Pressman I have known numerous cases, and I know exactly what happens—no respectable solicitor cared very much to take it up, because, in the first place, there was

  45
  no provision made for costs, unless, of course, the grand jury gave a very considerable sum as compensation. But under the clause which is now under the consideration of the Committee, it is in the interest of the speculating attorney to bring these cases forward, because he will have a certain opportunity of getting costs. A new factor is now put upon the scene. Instead of making it easier for these bogus claims to be made, I think the law should be left as it is—at least, in this respect—and that people should not be required to give notice of opposition. I know very well the kind of claims which can be levied under the present state of the law. I take one of many cases that happened a few years ago in the county of Sligo. A gentleman had a saw-mill, which he used for the purpose of sawing timber. He was going down in the world, and one night his mill caught fire. The evidence produced showed that his own son was seen leaving the premises twenty minutes before the fire, which burst out in several distinct places. What happened? The grand jury, most of whom were men who were selling this man their timber, in spite of the evidence, which would convince any man that this was a case of arson, granted that man £4,000. But this case of dealing wrongly with the ratepayers' money is only one of hundreds of cases of the kind which could be brought before the House. Now, Sir, I think that we have a case here which the Government should consider, and I venture to hope that they will give way on this small point. As the law at present stands, there is no necessity to give notice of opposition. With the law, as amended, they must give notice of opposition some time before the first hearing takes place. But it is very difficult, when notice is given, for the cesspayers to make up their minds whether they will fight their case or not. In the interval between the first and second hearings facts may come to light which may alter the entire bearing of the question. Is it, therefore, to be argued, because notice of opposition is not given by the ratepayers—the people who will have to pay for the litigation—that they cannot oppose it before the judge of assize? It is not always the land-grabbers or the broken-down landlords who will be applying for compensation for
  46
  their malicious injuries. Every broken-down bankrupt in the country, with the aid of these speculating attorneys, who send out their own touts, will be induced to make bogus claims by the procedure now adopted, and an entirely new sphere of litigation, and a new tribe of litigants will be raised up. Under this state of things the heavy cesspayers and the heavy ratepayers will suffer more than even the smallest cesspayers. Under these circumstances, therefore, I really press upon the Government to give us this safeguard against fraud on the ratepayers.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,):I will not discuss the propriety or the impropriety of leaving in the clause. The only remark I would make is that if fraudulent claims have hitherto been put forward and allowed by the grand jury there is less probability that they will be allowed either by the county court or the superior court. I would remind the honourable Member who has just sat down that all the rules contemplated by this section must be laid before Parliament, if, after they have been laid on the Table of the House for the specified number of days, a petition be presented to Her Majesty to withhold her assent, of course they fall to the ground.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:And your majority would support the petition, wouldn't they?
  MR. ATKINSON:Whatever other sins the word "Opposition" may have, it certainly does not carry on its back the speculative attorney. I think the matter has been adequately discussed, and I do not see that any hardship will be inflicted upon anybody. I have already pointed out that the judge has power to dispense in any case the literal and strict observance of any of these rules; I fail, therefore, to see how any person can be prejudiced.
  MR. KNOXsaid he ventured to think that the Chief Secretary had not considered the actual effect of the words which he had accepted or incorporated in the Amendment. The proceedings before the grand jury so immediately preceded those before the judge of assize, that notice of opposition would obviously be

  47
  impossible. He thought if instead of notice of opposition the words were "notice of appeal" it would be a fair protection to both parties.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:May I point out that the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General dealt with the matter as if the only interest the county council had were a simple question of fact—of malice or no malice. In the majority of cases—in the multitude of cases—the county council will have an interest in appearing in cases where malice is admitted, because there was, apart from the question of malice, the very important question of damage. In the majority of cases the claim made by the applicant must be an excessive claim. Of course, there is a tendency on the part of all applicants to claim the full extent of the damages they have sustained before it is possible by expert evidence to come to an accurate opinion as to the fair amount. May I make a suggestion? It is that the county court judges, when they go to frame their rules, shall not be compelled to prescribe notice of opposition, whether they think it desirable or not. That is the sole effect of the words proposed by the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland in an appeal to the right honourable Gentleman to trust his own county court judges. To insist on the necessity of having notice of opposition is certainly going too far.
  MR. FLYNNsaid he hoped the Government would give way on this point. There was a belief in the minds of the Irish Members that these rules of court would be stringent and hostile in a certain direction. If they could trust the judges to deal with the rules in a spirit of absolute fair play, there might not be so much objection to them.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL:The right, honourable Gentleman has said that one of the reasons why he could not accept the Amendment as it now stands, is that the county court judges would have to act up to the strict letter of the rule. That is an opinion which I venture to say will not be acted upon. The county court judges will construe this Act as it is put before them, without any regard to any opinion expressed in this House. In my opinion the words
  48
  are wholly unnecessary. I think they afford opportunities to defeat the legitimate reasons which can be given against these malicious claims. They enable people to take advantage of the outside public who do not know much about a particular case, and in that way a great injustice may be done to the ratepayers at large. I understand that under the section proposed in this Bill the county council, as representing the ratepayers, will be the defendants before the county court judge, and they will be placed absolutely at the mercy of those persons who may like to take advantage of this malicious injury section. The words are unnecessary, and after the assistance which the Chief Secretary has received from these Benches up to this point I think it would come with a very bad grace from him if he should stick out now over a mere technicality of this sort.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I am prepared, taking into consideration the suggestion which has just been made, to omit the words, "notice to be given of application of the opposition," reserving to myself the right to raise the question again, if necessary, on the Report stage of the Bill, if it is found on inquiry that the practice and procedure of the county court does include notice of application. On that distinct understanding, I agree to the omission of the words. The section will therefore read, "Rules of court may regulate generally the practice and procedure."
  MR. T. M. HEALY:That is a very satisfactory statement, and, in return for that, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. ATKINSON'S Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:I beg to move the following proviso to the Attorney General's Amendment—
  "No court fees shall be payable on or in respect of any proceedings to which this section applies."
  If these proceedings are to be taken under the county court, rules fees will have to be paid at every stage. This is in marked contrast to the present state of things. If the applicant succeeds the court fees will have to be paid in the

  49
  end by the county, and the result will be that the county, in addition to having to indemnify the applicant against any injury, will also have to provide the applicant's court fees over the whole series of proceedings from the beginning up to the point at which he establishes his claim.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:My attention had not been called to the Amendment until a moment ago, and I should like to make some inquiries into the matter. My sympathies are, to a great extent, with the honourable Member, and if I find on inquiry that no fees are charged now, and that what the honourable Member has asked for can be done without affecting the fees charged in the county court in other proceedings. I will accept the Amendment on the Report stage.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:The right honourable Gentleman has made a very reasonable offer, and I accept it.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I beg to move as an Amendment—
  "That this section shall remain in force until the 31st of December, 1904, and no longer."
  My proposal is that this clause shall remain in force for practically five years. I think that is not an unreasonable thing. You are adopting a procedure which is entirely different from the legislation of the last 60 years, and it seemed to me that it would be unfair not to give Ireland an opportunity of overhauling this proposal after five years. I do not think it right that this procedure should be stereotyped for all time. The result will be that the Irish Statutes will be in a more confused condition than the Statutes of any other portion of the United Kingdom. I cannot conceive how the Government, having six months for the preparation of this Bill, were obliged to place this long series of Amendments upon the Paper. This proposal is a novelty; it was not in the original Bill, and I think the reason was that we did not make much row about it.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:The Amendment of the honourable Member is applicable to the whole clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I only moved that the section remain in force until 31st December.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:That applies to the whole clause.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,):I cannot altogether agree with the honourable Member for North Louth that this section should only apply for a limited period. If at the end of that period—five years, as the honourable Member suggests—the section ceases to be operative, the result will be a return to the existing procedure in which any actions of this kind will come before the grand jury. I cannot imagine that, having once changed the entire procedure, we should ever return to it. If I thought that possible I might favourably consider the Amendment of the honourable Member; but I think that is quite out of the question, and I think the honourable Member will see that this is hardly an Amendment which the Government will entertain.
  MR. PATRICK J. POWER:Taking everything into consideration, it is doubtful whether this clause will improve the position of the ratepayers; indeed, I think it will have a contrary effect. There are some safeguards in connection with claims for malicious injuries that will be swept away by the proposed legislation. I have never been able to understand the system upon which associated ratepayers in Ireland have been selected, and in my own constituency I have known large ratepayers left out because they happened not to be on the grand jury. On the grand jury the majority were county ratepayers, and they had something to say in the districts where the levies were to be made. But these duties are to be put upon the county court judges. In theory

  51
  that may be all very well, but in practice it works out very wrongly, and localities will be penalised in large sums for the doings of people who have no connection with these particular localities. I believe that the proposed legislation will lead to abuse and throw a stigma upon Ireland which she does not deserve.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I am willing to allow the Amendment to be negatived.
  MR. JOHN DILLON:I have not the confidence in the grand jury system which those learned in the law have, and by listening to this Debate, I have only had confirmed more strongly than ever my opinion of the anomaly of the law. No doubt the majority on these benches are specially opposed to the administration of this abominable system of law by grand jury. But, logically speaking, administration by grand jury is more offensive than the system proposed by the Government. In Ireland the grand jury, or a meeting of the associated cessspayers, levied this contribution for compensation for malicious injuries, and confined the incidence of the rate to some small district. Their powers in that direction were outrageous, and in some instances the rate amounted to six, seven, or eight shillings in the pound. So that it really came to be a system of the grossest possible oppression. Now the Government proposes to transfer grand jury business respecting compensation for criminal injuries to the county court, and I regard that, bad as it is, as an improvement on the present system. But it has this logical difficulty, that it produces a thoroughly indefensible principle in the administration of the law in Ireland—namely, that a stranger is entitled to levy an oppressive fine on some limited area for the purpose of the political punishment of people with whose actions and opinions he does not agree. It is a system by which you penalise and oppress innocent people. Supposing there are moonlighting outrages. It very often happens that the moonlighters come from a distance, and that nine-tenths of the people in the district where the outrage is committed are unacquainted with the perpetrators, and are in no way responsible for the crime. You cannot levy moonlighters, or the persons who commit the crime, but you
  52
  levy people who are innocent of it. The whole system is absolutely and utterly wrong and indefensible, and, bad as the Government proposal is, it is not so bad as the present state of affairs.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:One's impressions of grand juries are derived from the district one comes from, and the grand juries I have been acquainted with are not so bad as those described by the honourable Member for East Mayo. I would rather trust a grand jury than a county court judge, but I am willing to take a Division on the Amendment.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY:The Amendment is not an improvement on the clause as originally proposed. I regard the clause as preferable to the existing law, and I support the Amendment as a protest against the law as it at present stands. The ground upon which the law is based is the assumption that there is a general feeling in the community against the person outraged, and general sympathy with the person perpetrating the outrage. The most remarkable case in illustration of this fact occurred a few years ago in Dublin, where, in connection with a case of horse poisoning, the ratepayers of the county of Dublin had to pay £3,000, although they could not be supposed to have any sympathy with the perpetrators of the outrage. That case, even if it stood alone, ought to be enough to make the Government reconsider the whole question. But it does not stand alone. In the county of Dublin, two or three years ago, serious affairs took place. Some property belonging to the Christian Brethren was destroyed; and although not the slightest pretence was made that the community had anything to do with the case, compensation was assessed, and the whole community was punished to the tune of thousands of pounds for the offence of two or three blackguards. That is the law the Government wishes to perpetuate. I hope the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will reconsider the question.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL:If I am in order, I desire to say that I am in favour of the principle of the clause, and I should be sorry to see anything done that would endanger that principle. But,

  53
  as the clause is framed, I apprehend very great difficulty will arise upon it hereafter. If I am right, the result, if this Bill becomes law, will be that the party who complains of injury will be under no necessity to post a notice within three days, and it will be competent for them months afterwards to institute a claim before the county court judge. Before deciding how I should vote on this Amendment, I should like to have some assurance from the Chief Secretary that the clause will be amended so as to enable the Lord Lieutenant in Council to re-enact the provisions of the Grand Jury Act as to preliminary notices of procedure.
  MR. ATKINSON:I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that it is our intention to introduce words something like these: "including all preliminary notices," which will give the Lord Lieutenant in Council ample powers to frame the rules. A preliminary notice must be given a certain time after the injury has been committed.
  MR. SERJFANT HEMPHILL:I was not in the House when that was stated, or I should not have raised it now.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I see that in the Act dealing with the matter the Government propose to leave the following words standing: "The said grand jury shall, during the time appointed, transact," etc. As I understand it, the Lord Lieutenant, by an Order in Council, makes the county court judge and the judge of assize to be constituted and to include any grand jury, and I want to know why are these words allowed to stand. Why are they not repealed?
  MR. ATKINSON:They will be; repealed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:There is no lega] difference, so to speak.
  Committee divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 203.—(Division List No. 82.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I should be pleased to go on with these Amendments. They were put down in the interests of the larger cesspayers, and I am really surprised at the action of the Government in refusing to accept them.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:I move to add at the end of Clause 5: "Section 106 of the Grand Juries (Ireland) Act, 1836, is hereby repealed."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:It would be more convenient to move that as an Amendment to the schedule of Acts repealed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:I submit, Sir, that if I bring it on on the schedule it will not effect the object I have in view. What this clause does is to transfer certain business from the grand juries to the county courts—namely, the business relating to malicious injuries; and if I move to omit the section from the schedule, all I can do is to leave the business in the hands of the grand juries.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:What I suggest is that, as the Amendment is really to repeal a certain section, the proper place to ask the assent of the Committee is when the Repeal Schedule is under consideration. There is a schedule mentioned in Clause 68 which proposes to repeal Acts and portions of Acts of Parliament in connection with this Bill. That is the proper place to raise the question of the honourable Member's Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:You have, Mr. Lowther, yourself given a reason why the Amendment should be now considered. The repeals in the schedule are repeals consequent on the passage of the Bill. The repeal which I propose is not a repeal consequent on the passage of the Bill, but it is a substantive Amendment of the law quite relevant to the subject under discussion. I submit it is the constant practice to have at the end of a Bill a schedule of repeals consequent on the passage of the Bill, but, in addition, there is a repeal which involves a change in the law, and that class of repeal is always embodied in the Bill itself.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:I think it would be very inconvenient to have repeals of some Acts in the Bill itself and of some in the schedule of the Bill.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:It has been done.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:It is a very inconvenient practice.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:I do not wish to press the matter, but I submit, Sir, you are laying down an important Parliamentary precedent in now deciding that all repeals must be in the schedule. I submit it is a departure from previous procedure, and it lays down a new Parliamentary doctrine for the first time.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:If it is a new one I am quite prepared to take the responsibility.
  The question "That Clause 5 as amended stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
  Question put "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER:With reference to the Amendment of the honourable Member for North Belfast, I wish to know whether it will be necessary to move it now or to defer it until another part of the Bill dealing with the special circumstances of the city of Belfast is reached? If the right honourable Gentleman will assure me that it will be competent for my honourable Friend to move the Amendment at a later stage, in connection with the consolidation of rates in the city of Belfast, I will defer it; otherwise, I beg to move the Amendment now.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I will certainly give my honourable Friend the assurance he asks for. The question can be raised later.
  MR. VESEY KNOX:I do not think there is any reason why there should be in a county borough rather than anywhere else two rate-collecting authorities. I do not know what the opinion of Belfast may be on the point, but I do know that a great many people in Belfast complain greatly of the fact that there are three rate-collecting authorities in the city. There is the water rate levied by the Water Commissioners, a number of rates collected by the borough, and the poor rate. They think that is a great nuisance, and it is certainly very desirable that all rates should be collected in one rate, and by one authority.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER:I am quite content with the assurance of the right honourable Gentleman that the matter can be discussed at a later stage.
  MR. CLANCY:I am astonished that the Government have an open mind on the question, because, when asked by my honourable Friend the Member for Waterford a short time ago if they proposed it with reference to Dublin, the Chief Secretary stated they did not.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:No; I stated that I would express no opinion.
  MR. CLANCY:That is exactly what I complain of. The right honourable Gentleman did express an opinion in answer to the question to which I refer.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I did not desire to discuss the subject then.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:I do not propose the omission of sub-section (b) to cut down in any way the powers of the county councils, but it does occur to me that some of the powers covered by the two Acts mentioned in it should be discharged, not by the county councils, but by the district councils. With regard to the second Act, I need not say anything. It is an Act for the destruction of the Colorado beetle, passed at a time of considerable panic. The insects were destroying the potato crop in Canada, and it was feared that they might be introduced into Ireland and commit similar ravages there. The Bill was passed through Parliament in a great hurry, and, so far as I am aware, it has never had any operation in England. But the first Act—the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894—is very important. It is at present administered by the boards of guardians in their character as the local sanitary authority, and the proposal now is that the powers conferred by the Act should be transferred from the local sanitary authorities to the county councils. Take the county of Cork. There are at present, I think, in the county 19 boards of guardians, and, however they may be reduced, you will not get them down below 16 Unions. This gives within the county of Cork 16 sanitary authorities all working locally; and it appears to me to be a more effective method of carrying out the very important duties under the

  57
  Act than to have one central body in each county, and to transfer to it these duties. Now, each of these local bodies have, I understand, a sanitary inspector and, apparently, one of the results of passing this sub-section will be that in the county of Cork there will be 16 sanitary inspectors deprived of employment, and all empowered to come down on the county for compensation. But apart from any mere temporary matters of this kind, it does appear to me that the proper authority to administer the Cattle Diseases Act is the local sanitary authority and not the county council. Under the Act it is provided that the local sanitary authority may exercise its powers by committee, and a committee of that kind should be, in fact, sitting in permanence. Now, in the case of the local authority, there is sometimes a weekly meeting, otherwise a fortnightly meeting; whereas the county councils may meet only once a quarter. Therefore, it appears to me that it is unwise to substitute for a local committee a central body of a somewhat necessarily unwieldy character, which will not act locally and often, and, therefore, will not always be in a position to deal with matters of urgency as they arise. I am aware that the more important powers under the Act are not exercised locally, but by the Lord Lieutenant in Council; but there are important duties which have to be discharged locally, and the proper body to carry out these duties is the local body, and not the county council.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:The expert advice which I have been able to obtain with regard to this Bill points to the conclusion that large areas are better and more convenient than small ones for the administration of this Bill. It would be perfectly competent for the county council to appoint a leading professor; therefore the objection raised by the honourable Member opposite is not likely to be a serious one. Now that county councils are to be set up in Ireland it is very desirable that they should be entrusted with the powers to which the honourable Member has referred. As regards the veterinary surgeons, of course it will be open for the county councils to demand the appointment of a better staff, and it will be per-
  58
  fectly competent for them to appoint special committees to perform the duties now discharged by the guardians under the Diseases of Animals Act.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE:I would ask the honourable Member not to press his Amendment, because I am sure that all agriculturists, whether occupiers or experts, will confirm the view which has fallen from the Chief Secretary, that the larger area is the best to cope with the stamping out of disease. Some years ago I was appointed to act as Chairman of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Agriculture on swine fever, and the Legislature subsequently adopted the recommendations of that Committee. We had unanimous evidence from experts that the larger area was the better one. Of course I am quite willing to grant that that inquiry was specially directed to having a larger area than even the county, so as to hand over these Acts in certain cases from the county authority to the larger administration of the Board of Agriculture in England, and to the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. Now that has been done, and has become general by Acts passed in regard to swine fever. But even with this larger area—as I have experienced in my own county—under the English administration the upper hand has not yet been got of this terrible disease from which the farmer is suffering more at present than from any other disease. There is one point which the honourable Member raised which is a very interesting point, and ought not to be lost sight of by the Committee, and that is with regard to compensation. I cannot help thinking that it would be a mistake to fill up this Bill with clauses and claims tending necessarily to loss of office and compensation, for probably in most cases the county council would be able to offer the work connected with the stamping out of these diseases to these same gentlemen who at present hold the appointments, and then they would work as subordinates under the county council. In that manner they would be debarred from making any claims for compensation.
  SIR T. G. ESMONDE:I do not think the question of compensa-

  59
  tion arises in this matter, because in the case of swine fever the inspectors are employed by the boards of guardians. I think on the whole that the Amendment of my honourable Friend is a good one. In order to cope effectively with the disease, rapidity of action is the essence of the cure; therefore I think the local district councils would be the best authority to deal with it. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland intends our county councils to meet quarterly, or not, because that raises another consideration, and I should like to know in what part of the Bill that question will arise.
  MR. J. LLOYD WHARTON:I think the Committee of the county council could be very well left to deal with this question. They could be summoned as often as required, and might be entrusted with greater powers, and that system would be far more popular, and I think the work would be done in a more satisfactory way.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:I think it is a matter we may fairly leave to the responsibilities of the Government. There is a little matter I wish to allude to. We are now in the month of May, and this new body will not be elected for a year, and the question is whether they should be transferred from the appointed day.
  MR. JASPER TULLY:I do not think that the Amendment proposed by the honourable Member for Cork will work in the direction of economy. He has given us the case of Cork, with its 16 veterinary surgeons. My experience of other parts of Ireland is that the unions, instead of each having a veterinary surgeon, try to group themselves together and appoint one veterinary surgeon. But that system has resulted in a good deal of friction between the unions, and does not work harmoniously. I think it will be best, after all, to trust to the county councils in this matter. They will be elected by the ratepayers and the householders of the county, and I think we can trust that in a matter like this they will select, instead of the 16 or 17 required in Cork, four or five competent veterinary surgeons to do the work of the whole county. We shall also get rid of the expense which is at present incurred for doing the work under the Cattle Diseases
  60
  Act. The boards of guardians are supposed to be the authority, but they really have very little to do, for the county council usurp the whole power themselves. At present four or five clerks are required to transact any nominal business where one would do. The county council could pay a higher salary, and would get a better man for the work.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:After the opinions which have been expressed, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. CLANCY:I am sorry the honourable Member is going to withdraw his Amendment with regard to veterinary inspectors. You will have to compensate the clerks to the boards of guardians, who will lose a certain amount of their income under this Act. Not only this, but you will have to pay additional sums, and it seems to me that as regards the question of expense it is a very serious matter. One honourable Member said he was afraid that a uniform system could not be adopted. This is one of those matters which the Government at Dublin Castle have taken right good care to keep to themselves. Not only does this ridiculous arrangement exist at present, but the guardians can also appoint one set of inspectors, and then another inspector may be appointed to look after them, and to do the very same work. I know one case where the same man was appointed for both positions. There is no fear whatever, as long as the Castle at Dublin has the appointing of these inspectors, that a uniform system will ever be adopted. I think you will have to compensate veterinary inspectors also for loss of income. An officer who holds office under the Council is "a person appointed on the 21st March." Therefore you will have to compensate the veterinary inspectors, and you will have to also compensate the clerks of the boards of guardians, and finally you will have to pay an additional sum to the clerks of the county councils.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS:I am surprised that honourable Gentlemen opposite, instead of demanding compensation for the veterinary surgeons, are not asking for compensation for the poor farmers, for they are the people who suffer the most from swine fever.

  61
  As to the veterinary surgeons, I never heard of giving them compensation, for generally they have no fixed salary, but are paid according to the amount of work they do. What we really want is—and it will be very much better—to entrust the power under the Act to the larger authority rather than to a smaller one, and I would remind honourable Gentlemen of this, that the county council often delegate their powers to smaller bodies appointed by the local authorities who have some cognisance of the disease, and who report to the central authority, and take steps to stamp out the disease. I am sure that they will prefer the larger authority, and by this arrangement you will have a very much better chance of stamping out the disease.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON:I quite agree with the right "honourable Gentleman in the way he is dealing with this portion of the Act, but I am not quite certain that the question of compensation will not arise. In some cases the veterinary surgeon is appointed by the board of guardians at a salary. In other cases he is paid by the amount of work he does, and the number of cases he has to deal with. I think it is very questionable whether if a veterinary surgeon is appointed by salary it is not a case for compensation. But I think that can be met, because this Bill does not propose to increase the number of veterinary officers, and the county councils have the power of appointing those officers to whom they would have to pay compensation. I do not agree with the Member for North Dublin that the clerks of the boards of guardians will be entitled to compensation. They are appointed at a salary, and, in addition to that salary, they get an allowance for the discharging of certain duties under this Act. The Government at no time can take away these duties, and there is no clerk of any union who can allege a right to compensation. The duties they are called upon to discharge are in addition to their duties as clerks of unions, and the moment that is taken away they have no duties to discharge; therefore they have no claim, in my mind, to compensation.
  MR. VESEY KNOX:The honourable Member seems to think that we are
  62
  concerned chiefly in getting compensation for these veterinary surgeons, and that we are not concerned at all about the farmers. But I think we are concerned in exactly the opposite way, for we are concerned about the farmers. I quite agree with what was said by the noble Lord, that it would be better to have the larger area and not the smaller one. I think the argument used by my honourable and learned Friend in moving this Amendment was hardly applicable. The board of guardians meets very frequently, and it does not always happen that there will be a meeting of the council when there is a meeting of the guardians. But apart from that, looking at it on the broad grounds, I think it would be better to have the wider area. I think, however, that we should secure, before passing this Bill, that the change from the smaller to the wider area shall not constitute a legal claim for compensation. As I read the Bill as it now stands there would be a good claim in law, but not in any other way, for compensation. The Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to think that this was not so, but if he looks to the definition clause at the word "office," he will find it has a very broad one. It is on page 39, and it reads—
  "The expression 'office' includes any office, situation, or employment, and the expression 'officer' shall be construed accordingly."
  It is clear that even if it is not an office in the ordinary sense of the word, it is an employment, and therefore I think the veterinary inspector is clearly an existing officer, and, I believe, would be entitled in law to compensation. Section 72 reads—
  "Where business of any authority is transferred by, or in pursuance of, this Act to any county or district council, the existing officers of that authority employed in that business, and not in any other business of that authority, shall become the officers of the council of that county or district."
  That would mean a veterinary inspector employed in any part of the county by a board of guardians, who would become an officer for that county. I think, therefore, that it is quite clear that this does require some further consideration. I think it would be easy to secure that these men should have, after an appointment by the council, the same sphere of duties as they have at present. It seems to me that the clause as it stands

  63
  would create a deal of confusion, and would be almost certain to cause claims to be made for compensation. That being so, I hope, if my honourable Friend withdraws the Amendment now, that this matter will be considered before we come to Section 72 of the Act, and that the Chief Secretary will see that the Bill does not give compensation in these cases, if there is a general opinion in the House that there ought not to be any compensation.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:It is rather regrettable that we should have to discuss the question of compensation here at this stage, because we are likely to hear so much more of it hereafter. I do not think the Bill will give compensation to those officers who have been alluded to in the course of the Debate.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY:In the English Act they have the power of delegating their authority to any other smaller authority. They have that power under Section 31. As the English county councils have been given this power, I certainly think that the Irish county councils ought to have the same power.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  MR. P. FFRENCH:I beg leave to move the following Amendment—
  "Clause 6, page 3, line 31, at end, add—'County councils shall have the same power of administering the Explosives Act, as that possessed by the English councils.' Clause 6, page 3, line 31, at end, add—'(c) the business of the justices in petty sessions under the Explosives Act, 1875.'"
  I trust the right honourable Gentleman who has charge of this Bill will see the necessity of accepting my Amendment. The magistrates are the local authorities for the administration of the Explosives Act. They appoint the inspectors under the Act, but they do not pay them. The board of guardians are compelled to pay them at whatever salaries the magistrates choose to fix, and this is an anomaly of which boards of guardians loudly complain. Now, I think the business of the justices under the Explosives Act should be delegated to the county councils.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:With regard to these officers who are paid by the guardians, honourable
  64
  Members opposite are aware that the Government have declared themselves against this practice, and we intend, at a later stage of the Bill, to introduce a clause with the object of putting an end to the system. Seeing that these duties will be carried out by the Government, free of charge to the local authority, I do not myself think there is any necessity under the circumstances that any such Amendment should be adopted. I would suggest that, unless the power to appoint the officer ceases, it is obvious that this Amendment should be withdrawn. If it is desired, I will accept the Amendment, if the following words be added—
  "Except the power to appoint any officer, which power shall cease."
  SIR JOHN COLOMB:I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not accept this Amendment, but let the clause stand as it is.
  Amendment, with additional words added, agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 7.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY:I beg to move—
    "Clause 7, page 3, line 33, leave out 'but,' and insert 'and may charge any expenses incurred by them as such on any part of their county for the requirements of which such expenses have been incurred. In the case of a county council the local rate for the purposes of the said Acts shall be the county fund as hereinafter defined. A county council may borrow for the purposes of the said Acts in like manner as it is hereinafter empowered to borrow for any other purpose.'"
    It will be remembered that the stumbling block of the English Compulsory Education Bill was because the local rate to be paid was not clearly defined.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:That is dealt with by Section 48.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY:Yes; but Section 48 simply relates to general county affairs.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:If the honourable Member will look up Section 48 he will find that it reads—
    "And the expenses of a county council under those Acts shall be county-at-large or district charges, according as that council direct."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY:Will the right honourable Gentleman accept the second sentence, taken from the English

    65
    Act—because I think it is necessary. As the Bill stands, the expense will go for the whole county, but it is very desirable that if the county council were to assist any particular locality which induced them to exercise these powers they should be able to charge that to the council.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:The honourable Member has evidently not looked at the sub-section which I have just read, which does apply to the rate, and also allows the county council to charge either the district or the county at large.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY:Then I do not move.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    On Clause 7 (Powers of County Council as to Technical Education),
    MR. VESEY KNOXmoved, as an Amendment—
    "Page 3, line 36, leave out 'authority,' and insert 'borough council.'"
    He pointed out that the clause provided that a county council should be a local authority within the meaning of the Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891, but that the section should not prevent any other local authority under the Acts from acting concurrently with the county council for the promotion of technical education. He thought it was very desirable that there should be large areas in respect to technical education, and, speaking generally, it was, in his opinion, most undesirable that there should be any smaller area than a county.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:There is some difficulty in connection with this clause, owing to the fact that in Ireland district councils already have powers. The Government have only proposed in the Bill an intermediate course. No doubt the whole question of technical education in Ireland will have to come before the House, and be treated in a fuller manner than it is possible to treat it in the present Bill. Meanwhile, I suggest to the Committee that the course we propose is the best.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE:I would urge that the view of the Chief
    66
    Secretary should be accepted. In the English Act there is a little subsection which may have escaped attention, under which a local rural authority can, under certain circumstances, rate itself for the purpose of technical education. I am acquainted with one case in which this was done.
    MR. M. HEALY:The powers of local bodies, instead of being in any way curtailed, should be extended and enlarged. In the English counties the local bodies are in a much better position with regard to technical education than we are in Ireland, because a portion of the Customs and Excise duties have been handed over to the English local bodies, to be applied to the purposes of technical education. We have nothing of that kind in Ireland. The grant in Ireland is applied to a totally different purpose. I have in my hand the Report of the Cork Agricultural School, and in that Report attention is called to the fact that in the years 1896 and 1897 there was spent by the English counties a sum of £78,000 for the purpose of furthering technical education. I believe that, compared with what is spent in other countries, £78,000 is not a very large sum for England; but when compared with Ireland, the expenditure of anything like £78,000 is very munificent indeed. One of the great wants in Ireland is am improved system of technical education, and I am glad, Sir, to learn from the right honourable Gentleman that he proposes to deal with the whole matter at a later date, and in a Bill which will be more cognate to the subject. Now that the right honourable Gentleman has made that announcement, I do not think it fair to press on the Committee the proposal which I had put on the Paper in the form of a subsequent Amendment. I take the view that there may be many cases in which local authorities, dealing with a smaller area than that of a county, might, with good results, contribute to some local school which the county would not desire to contribute to, or could not be fairly expected to. The penny in the pound which could be raised in a small area is quite small enough, and to cut it down by dividing the penny between the county council and the local

    67
    authority is really to diminish the amount to an extent which would make the power to contribute not worth talking about. In Cork, and in other localities in Ireland, we are continually having complaints as to the totally, and almost disgracefully, inadequate manner in which technical instruction is dealt with in our schools. Why, Sir, the local school in Cork—the Cork Agricultural School—which has done such good work, has been struggling for years, as the right honourable Gentleman knows. Its governors have approached Chief Secretary after Chief Secretary in a vain attempt to get from the Government anything like an adequate sum to enable it to keep up with the wants of the district. So far, however, we have failed to make any impression on the Government, and we are left to our local resources. My desire is that the powers of making these contributions by local authorities should be increased rather than diminished.
    MR. VESEY KNOX:In view of the statement made by the Chief Secretary that the whole question of technical education in Ireland will be treated in a more comprehensive manner in a future Bill, I shall withdraw my Amendment. At the same time, I do think it is almost absurd to have a penny rate divided in its expenditure.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    MR. H. C. PLUNKETTmoved the following Amendment—
    "Page 3, line 40, at end, to add—'Provided further that nothing in this section contained shall affect any scheme or provision for technical or manual instruction instituted or made by any local authority before the passing of this Act, or the continued payment, after the passing of this Act, of any aid in pursuance of such scheme, or provision by such authority."
    I understand the right honourable Gentleman is willing to accept this Amendment with some qualification. I will not delay the time of the House, but will ask him to state what qualification he requires.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I suggest that the words "or provisions" should be left out in the second line of the Amendment, and in the last line of the Amendment. The word "scheme" occurs already in the section.
    MR. PLUNKETT:I accept that, and move my Amendment with those words deleted.
    Amendment adopted.
    Clause 7 then agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.
    On Clause 8 (Expenses, and Determination by County Council, of Main Roads),
    MR. T. M. HEALY, in moving the Amendment standing in the name of the honourable Member for West Islington, namely—
    "Page 3, line 41, leave out 'one_ half of,'"
    said he regarded this clause as one of the most important in the Bill. He objected that one half of the expense of the maintenance, enlargement, or improvement of any main road should be levied on the administrative county, and the other half upon the county districts in which the road was situated. All the charges for the great main roads of a county should be placed upon the county rates. This clause was of enormous importance, and ought to be considered specially by a Select Committee. At present it was very unsatisfactory to know that the persons who would have to determine as to what were main roads, and as to the charges upon them, would be the county councils, who could not be regarded as bodies likely to deal with the matter impartially.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was his intention, on Clause 22, to introduce Amendments which would meet the objections of the honourable Gentleman. One Amendment would provide that the council of any urban district might undertake the entire management of the main roads in the district, the expenses of which were at present leviable on the county at large, upon such terms as might be agreed upon between the parties, and approved by the Local Government Board. That would give power to the urban districts to take, over the management of the main roads.
    SIR J. COLOMB:Will the Bill, as proposed now to be amended, interfere with the difference between urban districts

    69
    and county districts, which was decided upon a long Debate?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:The effect of the second part of that Amendment will be to preserve that arrangement. With regard to what fell from the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for North Louth as to Belfast, I might say that any obligations under which Belfast and Derry now stand to the surrounding country will be adjusted under the Act. They will not, by merely being constituted county boroughs, be freed from any of their present obligations.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the matter was very obscure. He held that a main road, other than a main road in a borough or town, ought to be maintained wholly at the expense of the county authority. It was absurd that the cost of maintaining the roads which were the real arteries of traffic, such as the road running from Dublin to Howth, should not be borne by the county at large.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:It will be a district charge.
    MR. T. M. HEALY:My suggestion is that the charges for the great main roads should be county charges. Under the old, antiquated system, when a mail cart travelled upon a road, that made it a main road, which was absurd. You now propose to abolish the mail cart distinction, but you leave the question of half-charge where it was.
    LORD E. FITZMAURICE:I think the Committee will not complain if opportunity is taken on this. Amendment to raise a discussion upon certain important matters connected with the question of the roads. In my opinion, it may, perhaps, result in the saving of a considerable portion of time if a few observations, at any rate, are made upon this question, which is not only an important one, but I might almost say a dangerous one. In the first place I would like to say, without any desire to enlarge upon the subject, but much rather with a view to future legislation, that I regret that the Government have not thought fit to adopt the suggestion of the honourable Member for Louth, and throw the whole of the expense of the main roads upon the
    70
    county. I may remind the Committee, perhaps, of what happened in England and also in Scotland, I believe, but certainly in England. An Act was passed by Mr. Sclater-Booth, when President of the Local Government Board, to the effect that one-half of the main road charges should be thrown, upon the county, and the other half upon the local sanitary authorities, which were practically the same as the urban districts are now. No doubt that was a considerable step in advance for the year 1878; but it became quite clear after ten years' working that it was far better to throw the whole charge of the main roads upon the county fund, and that step was taken in the Act of 1888, and the year after it was done in Scotland by an analogous Measure. No doubt there may exist reasons in regard to Ireland which may have induced the right honourable Gentleman to adopt the same rather slow procedure which we had in England, and thus confer upon Ireland, or rather inflict upon Ireland, a period of ten years during which there is to be this division of charge. I rather regret that the right honourable Gentleman has not had the courage of the opinion of his English colleagues, and that he has not assimilated the law between Ireland and England as the law was assimilated between England and Scotland in regard to charge. Outside this matter there is a second point, and it is one to which I really desire to ask the most earnest attention of the Chief Secretary and his legal advisers. We in England have had something like nine years' litigation between the county councils and the urban councils upon the point which the honourable Member for Louth has brought before the attention of the House. Even now some of these points are not yet settled. Others are only imperfectly settled, and in the course of the discussions which have taken place in the courts of law very severe language has been used by at least one of the judges in regard to the bad drafting of the clauses in the English Act on the relations between the urban councils and the county councils. I do not wish to weary the Committee by a long statement of what these points are, nor do I want to try and inflict my own individual opinion upon the Committee, but I do hope that by the time we reach the

    71
    Amendment, which the Chief Secretary has put down he and his legal advisers will do their best to make themselves acquainted with the English decisions, as far as they touch the question in Ireland, and will attempt to save the Irish county councils and urban district councils that very long litigation which the English county councils have been subjected to by the clause which was inserted in Committee in the English Act. The honourable Member for South Dublin has placed an Amendment on the Paper, which he has informed me he now intends to withdraw, which proposed to include the identical words which were in the English Act. I am very glad to hear that he intends so doing, because it was upon these very words that this protracted and expensive litigation arose. In the first place, there was a point as to whether a footway was or was not part of the road. I do not mean an ordinary gravel footpath only, but a pavement—even an as phalted pavement, or other pavement of the most expensive kind. That was a matter in which thousands of pounds were involved. The whole question of the entire paving of large towns through which main roads ran was involved, and the urban councils went to law with the county councils upon the point as to whether the county councils should pay for the maintenance of such paving, and beat them. I do not think it was at all understood in this House at the time that that was going to be the law. That was the result of a test case, which was taken up to the House of Lords, and decided as I have described; but even when the highest court in the land had decided that the county councils were to maintain footways, whether of expensive stone or common gravel, other difficult points remained which have not yet been settled. I beg the Committee to understand that I only mention these things to show how important they are, and with a view to saving Irish county councils, if possible, from the enormous expense and worrying litigation to which the English county councils have been subjected. As I was saying, there still remained other points. After it was decided that the county councils were to bear the paving expenses, there remained unsettled the question as to
    72
    whether the decision meant the whole of the expense, or part of it; and to this day there exist the widest differences of practice. Only this morning I was reading an account of what was done in the county of Derry. There they pay one-half of the expense. In my own county, we pay the whole, whilst others pay two-thirds and others three-fourths. Then there is the point, where the urban council has contracted a loan, as to whether the county council must repay the instalments. A decision has been given on that point of law, and it may be appealed against any day; but at present the law is believed to be that the county council can be called upon to repay the instalments of a loan from year to year. Then there is a question with regard to the interest on Loans, upon which litigation is pending at this moment. That is a very important point, in regard to which thousands of pounds are involved. Here, at last, I think the county council have got the best of it. These are practical points. I do not want to weary the Committee with regard to them, but I hope I have shown the Committee that these are exceedingly important matters, and that the Chief Secretary and his colleagues will be doing a great service to the county councils and the ratepayers of Ireland generally if they will take these matters into their serious consideration, with a view to seeing whether the Irish ratepayers cannot be saved from wasting enormous sums of money in costly litigation, which has been the unfortunate lot of the county councils of England. This litigation has lasted now for a period of nine years, and is not yet concluded. My object in putting down an Amendment to the Amendment proposed by the honourable Member for South Dublin was because in his Amendment he followed the clause in the English Act word by word. Now, on the clause in the English Act, besides those I have mentioned, another very important point has been raised, which has never yet got into a court of law, but I hold in my hand a copy of counsel's opinion on the matter, and that opinion is the best that can be obtained. That question is this—and it would arise upon the very words that the honourable Member wished to introduce—if an urban

    73
    council wishes to widen a street, and buys a house and land, and raises a loan for the sole purpose of that extension, can they not claim that extension as a matter of right as an improvement of the main road? The word "enlargement" is left out of the English Act. The county council has therefore refused to pay, and the best opinion that can be had is that the county council are right. The urban councils are very far from pleased with that opinion, and in all probability they will go to law upon the point. I trust that I have shown the Committee that these are important points of law which may involve the Irish county council in expensive litigation, and, what is worse, may lead to a great deal of ill-feeling and bad blood. I would therefore most strongly urge upon the Government that they should give their earnest attention to the points I have mentioned, and which I have only mentioned with a view of endeavouring to improve the Bill and render its working as smooth as possible.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I entirely appreciate the views which have been expressed by the noble Lord. But with regard to the question of throwing upon the county the whole of the charge of the main roads with which he began his speech, I would remind him that the circumstances in Ireland are not the same as they are in England and Scotland. The main roads in England and Scotland were invariably turnpike roads in the first instance. That system of turnpike roads has never been adopted in Ireland, and in this Bill we are simply proposing to maintain the existing system, under which part of the expense of maintaining these main roads is to be borne by the barony and the other part by the county council. There were reasons why we should not follow in the Irish Bill the precedent set in England and Scotland. Then as regards some of these legal points, I have had some of them before me. I know very well that there are difficult points involved, but under the provisions of our Bill these questions are hardly likely to arise, because the effect of the Amendment of which I have had copies handed round will be practically that the urban district councils will take over the whole management and maintenance of the roads. The question
    74
    of pavement, the question of enlargement, the question of improvement are questions which I shall be prepared to consider. It appears to me that the easiest way of avoiding the expensive litigation referred to by the noble Lord would be to make each urban council take over the roads which will be given to it by this Amendment, either upon terms agreed upon to the county council, or upon terms fixed by the Local Government Board. The urban district council will, as a matter of fact, now find it better to take over the improvement and enlargement of urban roads.
    MR. LOUGH:It seems to me that it would be desirable if we could avoid some of the larger questions which have been raised, and also the question of towns, which has been referred to. My intention was only to refer to the roads in country districts in Ireland, and to suggest that it would be much more convenient if the cost of maintaining them were levied over the whole county, rather than that there should be an account as to each road between the urban district council and the county council. The only argument that the Chief Secretary has given to the Committee is that the case in Ireland is not exactly the same as it is in England, where the roads were turnpike roads. That argument only carries us a very short way. I should like the Chief Secretary to take into consideration the Irish circumstances, and if he does that I think he will see that there are a great many reasons for adopting the suggestion that no division of charges should take place. If my Amendment were adopted, it would require one or two subsequent Amendments. I think the Amendment which the right honourable Gentleman has suggested with regard to the towns rather supports my argument. He says that there is an advantage in allowing the urban districts to acquire the full control of the roads if they desire to do so. Very well, then, there is an exactly similar advantage in allowing the county council to have full control of the main roads in rural districts if they desire to do so. Rather than have a variety of authorities contesting as to what should be charged, and how it should be charged, I suggest that the full control should be given to

    75
    the county council, and that the county council shall be obliged to levy a full rate.
    MR. G. BALFOUR:I suggest a division of charges.
    MR. LOUGH:That is my point. I think that this division of charges will be extremely inconvenient, because many difficult questions will arise which would be entirely avoided if the simple method were adopted of allowing the council to have full control. In the first place, there will be different calculations as to how much should be paid between the district council and the county council of a particular district, and as to whether the county council is spending too much upon a particular road. I think that strife of this kind should be avoided, and it would be a great deal better that the whole matter should be left to the care of the county council. There is another point in connection with this matter which I would ask the Chief Secretary to consider, which appeals to me strongly. A road in a county may be of greater use to a district which it does not pass through than to some other district which it does pass through. Take the case of a road passing a quarry or a mine in a particular district, two miles from the main road, and the mineral has to be brought out on to the main road and carried a long way; supposing that the quarry happened to be in a different district from the one in which the main road lay. Now, that district would suffer a hardship, it would be paying half the cost of maintaining a road which mainly benefited a neighbouring district which was not obliged to contribute. There you would have a bone of contention thrust upon the county. I do not think that the Chief Secretary has given a single argument as to why we should not adopt the simple expedient of having only one authority in the matter, and thus avoid all divisions and complications. I am sure he intends giving the matter every consideration, but the Bill would be greatly simplified if provision were made to bring the law in Ireland into line with the law in England.
    COLONEL WARING:I think we might let this matter remain as it is. For the last 60 years we have been carrying on the business of the Committee in this
    76
    divided manner, and with these divided accounts, and no complication has ever arisen, and there have been no disputes. I think it would be infinitely better and much less costly to allow the state of affairs which has gone on so long and so well to continue.
    SIR T. ESMONDE:I rather agree with the honourable and gallant Member that our present system of divided accounts has worked well in the past, and I do not see why we should change it.
    MR. TULLY:We have heard a great deal of the interests of townsmen and the interests of the countymen, but I know that whenever a town is cut off from the county the town takes care to make a very good bargain. I know of a case where a town cut itself out of a barony, and it has only to pay for four or five miles of road. The valuation of the town and barony is about £10,000, of which the barony is £6,000, but the barony has 20 to 30 miles of road to maintain at £6,000 compared with the four or five miles which the town has to maintain out of its £4,000. There is the case of Athlone, which got cut off from the county of Roscommon, and by so doing put up the rates of the county by a penny or twopence in the pound. It was obliged by this House to make a contribution of £100 a year towards the county rates. I think there is a great deal to be said in the case of a poor peasant who lives on the mountain side, who keeps, perhaps, a donkey, a cow, and a pig, and who has to pay for the upkeep of the roads used by the rich people of the towns, and in some cases roads over which traction engines go, which do not benefit him one bit. I think there should be some understanding as to what the effect of the Bill will be as regards the urban sanitary authorities. The Chief Secretary said that a number of the urban sanitary authorities would proceed immediately to maintain the roads inside their township. That would be a very good bargain for the towns, but I should like to know how it will affect the countrymen?
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH:I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or the Attorney General, how this clause will affect a town situated as Sligo is situated. Sligo passed in this

    77
    House in 1869 a local Act, called the Sligo Borough Improvement Act, under the provisions of which it was agreed that Sligo should be liable for a certain proportion of the county-at-large charges. That proportion was not a definite proportion, it was a variable proportion, varying according to the valuation of the county and the borough. At the present time in the borough of Sligo we are maintaining all our roads. We have our own surveyor, we pay all our officers, and, notwithstanding that fact, we are now obliged, under the provisions of the Act I have mentioned, to pay a certain proportion of the county-at-large charges. I think that the terms contained in the Act of 1869 were agreed to by the representatives of the borough because it was necessary to do something to induce the grand jury to allow the Act to pass. We think that, while we are maintaining all our roads, and paying all our officers, we should not be called upon to pay for the county roads, whether main roads or not. I should like, before this Amendment is disposed of, to hear from the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General in what position Sligo will find itself when this clause is in operation.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I am afraid, Mr. Lowther, that this discussion is drifting into a very desultory one, and I hope that the discussion will endeavour to confine itself to the particular Amendment before us. In answer to the honourable Member who has just spoken, I think he is not aware that certain Amendments have been put down to Clause 22. If Sligo has made such an arrangement as he informs us, that arrangement will be preserved in its entirety.
    MR. KNOX:I venture to support this Amendment on its merits. The honourable and gallant Member opposite thought it better that things should remain as they were, better altogether from the question as between county and town, and looking only at the rural area, without taking the town into account. But I think there is a strong case for spreading the whole cost of the principal roads of the county over the county at large. I think, if the honourable Member will consider the circumstances of Ireland, the case must inevitably appear much stronger. What happens in the counties
    78
    is this: the parts of the county which are more prosperous — the more level parts of the county—are served by railways. The main roads are of smaller importance, and are much less used for through traffic from other districts. In the poorer parts, the more mountainous parts, especially in Ulster, there are main roads of the very greatest importance in the whole county, and these roads run through poor places, and they are maintained now half at the expense of the district, although they are in all essential particulars of much wider importance. I think it would be a most desirable thing to spread the cost of the charges for the maintenance of these roads over the county at large, as has been done in Scotland and England. I do not think that some of the questions referred to by the noble Lord will arise under this Bill. He is, perhaps, aware that the system in Ireland is entirely different to what it is in England and Scotland. In England what happens is, that in most counties the main roads, if paid for by the county, are repaired yearly by contract by the district authorities; in Ireland every road will be maintained by the county, and the only question is as to who shall pay for it.
    LORD E. FITZMAURICE:I only alluded to the urban councils.
    MR. KNOX:The questions are somewhat different, though I admit, that there are many points in which there has been a good deal of litigation under the English Act which we should do well to pay attention to. The offer made by the Chief Secretary that the charge for the widening of the road should be taken as part of the maintenance is a valuable suggestion, which I hope he will see his way in carrying out. Then, when you come to the question between the rural and urban districts, there are in Ireland a number of local Acts under which the various local authorities have each made their own particular bargain. In some cases a local authority has made a good bargain, whilst in others it has made a bad bargain for itself owing to the changes which have been brought about. Sometimes a town has gone down, whilst others have increased beyond all expectation.

    79
    I do think now that there is a very strong case for revising all those cases, not by a Provisional Order, but by widening and extending the powers of adjustment upon a broader basis of equity by this Bill as it stands. I do not know how far the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will see his way to deal with the question, but I do think there is very strong ground for revising all these local Acts on the broad ground of equity, if not of law. I imagine that the chief object of the Committee will be to see that the urban districts shall neither gain nor lose anything by this Bill. Now, I think that a very much wider principle ought to be adopted, and that a new and fair adjustment ought to be made. It is absurd to pay such reverence and respect to arrangements made in such a way as these were. I therefore hope that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, if he cannot see his way to accept the Amendment of my honourable Friend, will see his way to consider this point, and say whether there is not a good deal to be said in favour of it when we get to the same stage in the Bill upon the Report. Upon the question of the towns, I venture to suggest to the right honourable Gentleman that the best way to deal with the matter is to leave the towns altogether outside, and to enforce some sort of reasonable contribution from them.
    MR. T. HEALY:The honourable Gentleman should remember that under the Act of 1871, as I understand, there was power to absolutely sever the towns from the counties, and in the case of Wexford the borough of Wexford was absolutely divorced from the county of Wexford, and the borough is responsible for no "county at large" rates. That was the situation in 1871, and so it remained until 1878, when you repealed what you had done in 1871, which was in itself a retrograde movement. Now, what I do press upon the Government is this: in my opinion there should be some sort of elastic clause which would not bind the county in a cast-iron way for all time. You must remember before this Bill is passed that if we pass this Measure we shall be another 60 years, if we should be unhappily tied to this
    80
    Parliament, before this matter will again come up for consideration. It is rather a strong measure to pass a Bill like this, and make no inquiry as to the administration and order. The question of responsibility changes so, and it is one that from time to time ought to be recognised, and it is positively absurd for the honourable Gentleman to say we have had no trouble for 60 years, and, therefore, let these things go on as before. The people have not been heard because they had no voice; they were gagged by the grand juries. It seems to me that there ought to be some elastic clause to deal with these matters, some power to change them, and we ought not to be bound in this rigid manner.
    MR. LOUGH:I would ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to consider this matter a little further; I. myself, attach a great deal of importance to it.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I am bound to say that my own judgment is against this Amendment.
    The Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. T. M. HEALYmoved upon Clause 8, page 4, line 4, after "barony" insert "or urban district." This is a point which the Government propose to meet by their own Clause 22. The Bill provides, "every road the maintenance of which at the passing of this Act is levied partly off the county at large and partly off any barony," but it does not touch the towns at all.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I should suggest, as an Amendment, to leave out "partly off any barony" if the honourable Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.
    The Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. M. HEALYmoved upon Clause 8, page 4, line 5, to leave out "until it ceases so to be as hereinafter provided." I have moved this Amendment because I consider the proportion of main roads is absurdly small if you consider the mileage throughout the country, and I do not think in this Bill we ought to do anything to assist the county councils to diminish them. Now, I have taken

    81
    the trouble to obtain the figures with regard to the county of Cork, and I find from them that there are some 5,000 miles of roads in that county, and of that 5,000 miles only 200 are county at large roads. That has arisen by the system of dealing with the matter as a question of mail roads under the Grand Juries Act. Before the Grand Juries Act was passed I have no doubt that the proportion of mail roads to the urban roads was very much greater, and there are many which ought to so exist now which were urban roads, but made continuations of the mail roads by the mails being carried over them. But with the introduction of railways the result has been that as the railways were extended and the mails came to be carried by them, mile after mile of the old mail roads were struck off and reduced to the status of urban roads. In Ireland now the proportion of mail or main roads is absolutely absurd. If you take a map of the county of Cork, and consider the number of towns, and then consider the number of roads between those towns which should all be in the nature of main roads, you will see how absurd it is. There is not more than 10 per cent.—not more than 5 per cent. of the mileage of the roads which are at present main roads. Now what I object to is, that when we transfer the jurisdiction from the grand juries to the county councils, the county councils shall have power to strike off the list as they please any of those roads which are now main roads. I think their power ought to be in an entirely different direction. The more main roads you have in a country the better it is for the people. We are by this Bill getting rid of the absurd principle of district rating, the result of which is to make the poorer district bear the whole burden of its own poverty, instead of getting assistance, as they should have done; we are now getting rid of that absurd principle, and shall obtain that assistance from the richer districts, and, that being so, my opinion as to these main roads is that it ought not to be put into the power of the county councils to decrease the mileage of the main roads as they at present exist. In my opinion, the state of things at present is such that the mileage of
    82
    main roads is reduced to such an extent that it must be practically impossible to cut off a single mile further from them; but I certainly do think that it ought not to be put in the power of the county councils to do so. My Amendment is to secure that any road which is now a main road should continue, under the new order of things, to be a main road, and that it should not be struck off the list and reduced to the status of an urban road.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:The Amendment is: "Clause 8, page 4, line 5, leave out 'until it ceases to be as hereinafter provided.'"
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:The effect of that will be to place upon the county councils the principle—"Once a main road always main road." I doubt whether that is advisable, because the changes with regard to railway accommodation have been so great that what at one time was a very important main road is not now of any importance whatever, and I think it should, under such circumstances, be reduced to the position of a district road.
    MR. VESEY KNOX:I venture to put this to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I believe, in the north of Ireland generally, it is of vital importance, and especially in those counties where the greater part of the district is well-to-do, and the part which is not is a minority having different views. With regard to county Down, I know that in that county there are a considerable number of roads, particularly in the south part of the county, which now come under this provision. Now I feel morally certain that when the county council of county Down come to map out the county again they will say that certain part of the county have got more main roads than another part; there are too many, and we must cut off so much and throw them upon the district; and, although I do not say so, it may very well be that one of the reasons why they will do so is because that part of the county is very differently situated from other parts which are much richer. I say that there would be in those parts of the north of Ireland, where the people of the older race have been driven into the mountainous districts, a great danger of

    83
    such action being taken by the county councils, which will, perhaps, take a broader view than the grand juries. Now one of the places I allude to is in the lower part of the county, where there are very few railways, and where, of a necessity, the mails are carried by road, and if the provision is not made by the insertion of these words which my honourable Friend wishes to insert, it will be in the power of the county council of county Down to close the roads to the poor people in the mountainous districts in the southern part of the county, and I am sure that that was never intended. I do not think the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary intends that to be the effect of his Bill.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:They can appeal.
    MR. VESEY KNOX:I am quite aware that the people will have a right of appeal, but then money is not always ready at hand for that purpose; and then, again, the appeal must be by the district council, and the district council does not always represent every part of the district which is suffering. There is a very important question, too, from another point of view—from the point of view of the tourist traffic in Ireland. I believe honourable Members on both sides of the House are anxious to develop in every possible manner the tourist traffic in Ireland; and from that point of view alone it is extremely important that we should have as many main roads as possible, because we may naturally expect that there will be more expenditure in that direction than in any other; therefore I entirely agree with the Amendment which my honourable Friend proposes. I believe it is perfectly true that, as in England, the county council will not be able to get rid of a main road without the consent of the district council. I know that that is so in England, because I know the London County Council is extremely anxious to get rid of some of their main roads, but, owing to the district council withholding their consent, they are unable to do so.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL:I generally agree with my honourable Friends the
    84
    Members for Londonderry City and Cork City, but I regret that upon this Amendment it is not in my power to agree with them. I think it would be extremely unfortunate to stereotype, as it were, every main road in Ireland. It appears to be feared that there will be some abuses of their powers by the county councils, but I do not at all apprehend anything of the sort. But, even if there be such a fear, I think that this Bill will be fully and sufficiently guarded by the powers given under it to the district councils. I see that Sub-section 5 gives the right of appeal to the districts, and I think that is a sufficient protection.
    MR. H. C. PLUNKETT:It seems to me that the point of view put before the Committee by the honourable Member for Londonderry as to the tourist traffic in Ireland rather tells against him. It appears to me that, if he desires to have new roads made in Ireland, it would be very unwise indeed to establish such a principle as—"Once a main road always a main road." In my opinion the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary is quite right in not laving down an unalterable principle at this time, when we all know that a complete revolution in the method of locomotion upon the highways by motor-cars, etc., may be expected to take place at a very early date. Therefore. I think it is very wise to leave the county councils a large discretion in this matter to deal with the roads as altered circumstances may render necessary.
    SIR T. G. ESMONDE:I think I should be very strongly opposed to any interference of any kind with the powers of the county councils in this matter. I think they ought to be left to say what will be main roads and what will not.
    MR. TULLY:I think it would be expedient if the county councils had not the power. I know something about the roads of Ireland; and I know some of the mail roads are not generally used. In the county of Roscommon, for instance, where the coal mines have recently been re-opened, the roads leading to them are not generally used; the district is a very poor one, and the taxes there are very heavy. I think this is

    85
    a useful provision in this Bill if that power should be given. The county councils should not have the power to say what a road should be.
    MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTSON:I am in sympathy with the honourable Member for Cork on this Amendment. We have not got the trouble in the south-east which they have around Londonderry, but we have some country districts which are sparsely populated. I see the force of what the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary says—that the county councils must have some power to make existing main roads cease to be main roads; but observe what this clause says, and what is provides: "That any road not mentioned in such declaration shall cease to be a main road." It appears to me that this clause is altogether wrongly framed. The roads appear to have to be made main roads by the county council. They ought to be left main roads unless the county councils specifically declare that they shall not be so. Instead of the county councils having first to say they shall be main roads, they ought to be left main roads until the county councils should determine the contrary.
    MR. M. HEALY:My Amendment was simply to prevent the total cost of the roads, which hitherto has been charged upon the county, being thrown upon the districts. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 4, line 8, that after 'roads' should be inserted 'or navigation trackways.'"— (Mr. J. J. Shee. )
    MR. J. J. SHEE:Let me, in putting this Amendment, call the attention of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the question of the navigation trackways in Ireland, to which no reference whatever is made in this Bill. I desire to call the attention of the Government to this question of navigation trackways, in respect to which certain difficulties have arisen. There is no means under the Legislature at present to have obstructions to navigation trackways removed. If they were declared to be public roads even, and not main roads,
    86
    jurisdiction would be given under the ordinary law of the country for the removal of obstructions. The question was recently raised with reference to a navigation trackway bordering the river Suir. The police commenced a prosecution on the subject, and attempted to remove an obstruction, and they were successful in so far that the magistrates convicted; but upon an application for a writ of certiorari, the Court of Queen's Bench decided that the magistrates had no jurisdiction in the matter. Therefore this matter with regard to the navigation trackways is a matter of great importance, and I think they should be declared to be public, at the least, roads.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:With regard to the difficulty which has just been placed before the Committee, it has not been, so far as I am aware, considered by the Government; but I do not think the honourable Member's Amendment would be a good way of accomplishing the object the honourable Gentleman has in view. I am quite ready to consider whether it is not desirable to insert words in the Bill which will give such powers over the navigation trackways as are desired.
    MR. T. HEALY:I think it is only right to say, with regard to this prosecution, that, as it was solely a prosecution for the benefit of the whole of the people of the country, it is, in my opinion, a very great pity that it was not upheld by the Attorney General.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURexpressed his willingness to consider whether it was not desirable to insert words in the Bill, giving such powers over the navigation trackways as might be desired.
    MR. M. HEALYmoved to insert in the third sub-section, after the provision giving power to the county council to make a general declaration defining the particular roads in the county which shall be main roads, a stipulation that the declaration shall be a provisional declaration.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the suggestion was decidedly an improvement on the procedure proposed by the Bill, and would tend to prevent any possible friction between county councils

    87
    and district councils. It would be best, however, to insert the proposal as a new sub-section at the end of sub-section 4 of the clause.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONmoved to omit from the sub-section the words—
    "And any road not mentioned in such declaration shall cease to be a main road."
    MR. J. SAMUELsaid he thought there was great force in the Amendment. The county councils ought not to have power, by the simple omission of a road, in the declaration to make it cease to be a main road.
    MR. A. O'CONNORsaid that the matter was one which might be of very great interest and importance to an exceedingly poor district.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURagreed that it was desirable to omit the words, with a view to the subsequent Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for Cork, which he had already accepted. He was prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. M. HEALYmoved to add the following sub-section after sub-section 4—
    "A declaration shall at first be a provisional declaration, and shall be communicated by the county council to each district council in the county in the prescribed manner. After the prescribed time, and after considering any representations which may meantime have been submitted, either by any district council or by any person or persons claiming to be interested, the county council shall take the said provisional declaration into consideration, and may adopt same, either in its original form or after modifying it by including in it any additional roads."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would accept the Amendment if the honourable Member would omit the words at the end, "by including it in any additional roads," and insert in their place, "either by way of exclusion or inclusion of roads."
    MR. M. HEALYexpressed his willingness to accept those words in place of those he had suggested.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:Of course, there is a certain amount in what the honourable Member says, but I do not see any way to obviate the difficulty.
    88
    However, I am willing to accept the Amendment if the honourable Member omits the words at the end, "by including in it any additional roads," and substitute "either by way of exclusion or inclusion of roads."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY:I assent to that.
    Amended Amendment agreed to.
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS after the usual interval,
    MR. G. BALFOUR:Sir, the next Amendment I have to make is in Clause viii, page 4, line 19, to leave out the words "give not less than sir months' notice of a proposed declaration," in order to insert the words "forthwith communicate the new declaration as finally adopted."
    Amendment agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. G. BALFOUR, the word "proposed" was omitted from line 21.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I have also to move to leave out in line 23 the words "those six," in order to insert the word "two." The term of six months originally proposed was suggested under the impression that there would be no inconvenience in making the declaration known in the period to the Local Government Board, but now that time has been given for the town and district councils to come to an arrangement, six months appears to be too long, and I propose to substitute two months instead.
    MR. M. HEALY:Would the right honourable Gentleman consent to insert "within the prescribed time" instead of his proposed "two months"?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I can have no objection to that suggestion.
    The words "those six months" were omitted, and "prescribed time" inserted.
    MR. M. HEALY:I wish now, Sir, to move an Amendment at line 33, merely to prevent any doubt arising such as I have previously suggested.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:Before that is done, Sir, I have an Amendment to move which I mentioned earlier in the evening. I shall not, of course, move it as it stands on the Paper, but in order to make the matter clear I propose to move

    89
    to insert the words, after line 33, "This sub-section shall apply to so much of any mail or other road as is situate within an urban county district." I move that Amendment because I admit that there is some obscurity in the clause as already passed as to whether it does or does not apply.
    [Notice being taken that there was not a quorum, the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS counted, and found 40 Members present.]
    MR. M. HEALY:It occurs to me that the Amendment which the right honourable Gentleman has now moved is inconsistent with an Amendment previously accepted on the other part of the clause, line 4, after "barony."
    MR. G. BALFOUR:No, Sir, I am moving to leave out words inconsistent with it.
    MR. M. HEALY:Oh, yes, quite right; I beg pardon.
    MR. G. BALFOUR:I do not know that it is necessary to insert this Amendment, and it is only for the sake of extra caution that I move this Amendment to prevent ambiguity.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. M. HEALY:I move to insert, at the end of the clause, "A suspended declaration which afterwards becomes operative shall operate as from the date when originally made." This Amendment is intended to remove any difficulty that may arise as to the chargeability on these two boards during the period when the declaration is suspended. I think the Bill should make the matter clear, lest there may be a dispute as to whether for a period of some months the charge of maintaining the mail road should be on the county or the district council. My own view is that it is necessary to make the declaration operative from the date at which it was originally made, because from that date the five years' term originally runs; and, therefore, that being so, it would be undesirable to have one particular road chargeable from a later date than the one in the five years run, lest it should throw the whole arrangement out of gear.
    MR. G. BALFOUR:Yes, Sir, I think the Amendment is quite right, but I would suggest that there should be
    90
    appended to it, "any later date fixed by the Local Government Board on an appeal," for it is just possible that there might be a later period running not actually from the date when the declaration was made. I hope the honourable Member will accept such a proviso.
    MR. M. HEALY:I have no objection to it, but it occurs to me that it would be a convenient thing to have the five years run the same for all, and that even when the Local Government Board made a declaration on appeal that declaration should go back to the original beginning of the five years' term. However, as the right honourable Gentleman desires it, I will accept the words he proposes.
    As to Clause 8, page 26, line 33, par. 7,
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid: I beg to move as an Amendment to add—
    "(7)Nothing in this section shall be held to prevent a greater proportion than one-half of the cost of the construction, repair, or maintenance of any bridge from being charged on any county."
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I think this Amendment is one which we can accept, if the honourable Member will allow me to add—
    "Or at any later date which may be fixed by the Local Government Board on an appeal."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY:I accept that arrangement, and, under the circumstances, withdraw the Amendment.
    Agreed to.
    As to Clause 8, page 4, line 33, at end,
    MR. T. J. CONDON, had given notice of the following Amendment—
    "Any declaration or declarations made under the provisions of this section shall not increase the incidence of any charge in any urban district for which provision was otherwise made by law and in force at the passing of this Act."
    He said: I understand that this Amendment has already been covered by one accepted by the Government, and I therefore, beg to withdraw it.
    MR. CONDONhad also given notice of the following Amendment as to Clause 8, page 4, line 33, to add, at end—
    "Nothing in this section shall alter the existing jurisdiction, power, and authority of the Corporation of Clonmel with respect to any roads, bridges, footpaths, or other public works within the district of such Corporation."

    91
    He said: I understand the Government are going to move an Amendment which will meet the point I have in view, and therefore, it is unnecessary for me to move it.
    As to Clause 8, page 4, line 33, at end,
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE, said: I beg to move as an Amendment to add—
    "The county council may, if they think fit, contribute towards the costs of the maintenance, repair, improvement, and enlargement of any road, highway, or public footpath in any county, although the same is not a main road."
    This is a very simple matter. There may be cases in which a county council, while unwilling to make a road a main road, may feel, in regard to improvements, a desire to contribute towards its maintenance. I therefore hope the right honourable Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:It seems to me that if this power should be given it will be possible for a county council to over-ride the previous enactments of the clause, and would interfere with the financial arrangements of the Bill.
    MR. DILLON:I hope the right honourable Gentleman will accept the Amendment. It seems to me very unlikely that the county councils would be extravagant. The procedure introduced by the Amendment simply leaves it open to the county council to make a contribution, if, in their opinion, it would enable some poor districts to adequately maintain its roads. There are districts where this would be a great convenience, and I therefore trust the right honourable Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
    COLONEL WARING:I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. The permission would undoubtedly be used for the purpose of subsidising roads in the immediate neighbourhood of the county towns, as gentlemen living in distant parts of the county would not be so regular in attendance at the council meetings as those living in the immediate neighbourhood. I think it is better to stick to the original words of the Bill.
    MR. T. LOUGH:I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give consideration to the last words of the Amendment—namely, "a public footpath
    92
    in any county." A footpath might be made in a remote part of a county, which might assist in the development of the tourist traffic, and yet be in a situation in which it would be unlikely that the district council would undertake the expense of making it. I would therefore appeal to the right honourable Gentleman to accept the words of the noble Lord. The objection urged has reference to main roads, but in the concluding words of the proposed Amendment main roads are expressly excluded. The point is not main roads at all. The point is to secure the provision of footpaths in mountainous districts where the authorities will not make them, but where, if made, they would be a distinct encouragement to tourists. The honourable and gallant Member who has just sat down has suggested that the Amendment would be used for the sake of throwing on the country at large the cost of the repair of the roads in the immediate neighbourhood of county towns. I think that is extremely unlikely, because all the roads near a town would be main roads. At any rate, there would be more main roads there than in the places to which I have alluded. Therefore, for the sake of developing the tourist traffic, by making these footpaths, and enabling the county council to make a contribution, where it may be necessary, towards them, I would press upon the right honourable Gentleman the desirability of considering the Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:It is perfectly open to the district council to make such footpaths. To give the county council this power would make it possible for them to evade all the precautions introduced in the earlier part of the clause. Moreover, if this power is only to be used in the way of contribution, the district council will, in any case, have to initiate the road.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL:I think the Amendment is a most valuable one. It is taken from the English Act, and I understand that those who are well acquainted with the working of the English Act assert that it has worked admirably, and that there has been no attempt to abuse it at all, either on the part of the county council or the district

    93
    council. I do not think there is any fear of the county council, in matters of this kind, taking work upon its own shoulders which ought to be discharged by the district council. I am speaking with an experience of some years, and I assure the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary that if this Amendment is inserted it will not in the slightest degree prejudice what ought to be the legitimate work of the district council.
    MR. J. JORDAN:This is a most valuable Amendment. It will enable poor and mountainous districts to make roads when such an undertaking would be too heavy without assistance from the county council.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:May I point out that the Amendment does not give any such power?
    MR. JORDAN:I thought it did; but roads such as I have referred to would be most valuable in enabling poor people to get their produce to the markets. They cannot do that unless they have the roads, and they cannot get the roads unless the county council gives some assistance. I move, in line 2, after the word "the" to insert the word "construction."
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR:If the word "construction" is added, that will be a departure from the English model.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE:I am quite willing to accept the Amendment to my Amendment, and to agree to insert the word "construct," but I think the words of the Engish Act are quite sufficient. The insertion of the word would not, however, endanger the earlier part of the clause. If there had been any chance of that I would have been the last person to accept the addition of the word which the honourable Member for Fermanagh has proposed.
    MR. DENIS KILBRIDE:I desire to support the Amendment. It will operate very beneficially in mountainous districts, especially in the west of Ireland. In many cases the roads are kept in a bad state of repair because of the poverty of the particular districts in
    94
    which the roads are situated, and the grand juries and the county surveyor are not anxious to spend large sums of money in keeping them in proper repair. But it is not the people who inhabit these districts who mainly use these roads, or for whose accommodation they were first made. These roads were made mainly for the accommodation of the people who live in the lowlands, but resort to the bogs in the mountains for their year's fuel. As the Bill now stands, the cost of the maintenance of these important roads is still thrown upon these poor districts. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to accept the Amendment. By so doing these important roads will be kept in a proper state of repair. They cannot be considered main roads, but they are as important to the people as main roads.
    MR. JAMES P. FARRELL:I beg to support the Amendment, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will alter his opinion about it. It is more important than it looks. It is merely permissive, and not arbitrary; and, therefore, the right honourable Gentleman would run no risks in accepting it.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR:The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved would affect the county I represent very materially. Wicklow is one of the most mountainous counties in Ireland, and one of the first which tourists from England and from the Continent touch when they visit the country. If the Amendment of the honourable Member for the Cricklade Division were embodied in the Bill, it would, I am certain, be of very great value to the county of Wicklow. I suggest that the honourable Member for Fermanagh should withdraw his Amendment to insert the word "construction," and take a Division on the Amendment of the noble Lord as it stands. If adopted, it would have very useful results over many parts of Ireland—in Kerry, Donegal, Cork, and Wicklow.
    MR. VESEY KNOX:It is a most extraordinary fact that, so far as I know, there is no sort of authority in Ireland whose duty it is to repair the smaller roads. In France there are communal roads, and it is the

    95
    same in every other country in the world; but in Ireland, unless a road is a county road, it is nobody's road, and is repaired by nobody. Even in a county there are a great many roads which are repaired by nobody, and when a bridge falls down—as sometimes happens—it may not be repaired for years. There is no authority at present to do this. The county council and the district council say they have no authority to spend any money upon a road of that kind unless they make it a county road and take upon themselves the obligation of repairing it for all time. I think it might be desirable that, in certain cases, a sum of money should be granted, for instance, to repair the effects of an extraordinary flood, without taking the road over as a regular main road. Pending such consideration, I believe it will be a most useful thing if the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted, to repair such damage as I have suggested, and occasionally to repair those by-roads when taking upon themselves for ever the obligation of maintenance.
    Amendment to Amendment withdrawn.
    Committee divided on Lord E. Fitzmaurice's Amendment:—Ayes 109; Noes 173.—(Division List No. 83.)
    Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.

      CLAUSE 9.
      MR. THOMAS LOUGH:The Amendment that I have put down here is in order to more fully define the duties of the county councils in regard to the care of the lunatic poor in their district and county. The words that I have proposed to omit run as follows—
      "Provide and maintain sufficient accommodation for the lunatic poor in that county, in accordance with the Lunatic Asylums Acts."
      Instead of these words I propose to insert the words which appear in the English Act, and then the clause will run—
      "It shall be the duty of the council of every county to carry out the necessary revision, enlargement, maintenance, management, and visitation of, and other dealings with, asylums for pauper lunatics."
      My objection to the words of the Bill is that there is not sufficient guidance
      96
      given to the county councils as to the spirit in which they shall carry out this important duty. I believe that this is another of those clauses drawn with a fear that the county councils will be extravagant. My fear is that they will be niggardly, and that they may perpetrate one of the greatest disgraces in the country at present by their management of these asylums. I think there is no more disgraceful thing in the existing Castle system, as it is called in Ireland, than the management of the lunatic asylums. There are 22 of these lunatic asylums in Ireland, and out of the 22 there is only one which has been constantly mentioned in this House, and with the condition of which this House may be said to be familiar, and that is the Richmond Lunatic Asylum. It is constructed to accommodate 1,000 patients, and it actually contains something like 1,600 or 1,700. It is not only overcrowded, but it has become plague-smitten, and it has bred infectious diseases, which are not only unknown in any other part of Ireland, but in any other part of Europe. You may think that the Richmond Lunatic Asylum is a singular instance, and that all the other asylums are in good condition, but the truth is exactly the opposite; the Richmond Lunatic Asylum is a good specimen of the whole of the Irish lunatic asylums. Almost every one of them is overcrowded and plague-smitten, and some of the most terrible diseases exist in these asylums at the present time. I must say that the Bill effects a practical reform that I desire to see carried out in taking them from the control of the Castle and putting them under the county. But I want the Chief Secretary, if he can, to kindly give his consideration to the question of the enlargement of the definition of the county council's duties which I have proposed, because I am afraid that if the clause stands as it is at present the various county councils will be guided entirely by the existing traditions of the treatment of lunatics in Ireland. The words, "sufficient accommodation for the lunatic poor in accordance with the Lunatic Asylums Acts," seem to me to be likely to suggest to the county councils that they are to do the very least possible for these poor persons. Instead of these words I suggest a wider definition—the definition

      97
      given in the English Act. Of course I am not absolutely attached to the words I have suggested to be inserted, I have only taken them because they have the very high authority of being used in the English Act; but if any better definition can be given I shall be satisfied, and I only press upon the Chief Secretary that the instructions given to the county councils in the Bill as regards their responsibility of caring for the lunatic poor are not sufficiently explicit and humane. I beg, therefore, to propose the Amendment which I have put down.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:If the honourable Member will examine the first sub-section of the clause he will see that the words which he thinks are insufficient are enlarged in that sub-section, because the sub-section empowers the Lord Lieutenant to adopt a remedy. That subsection runs—
      "It shall be the duty of the council of every county to provide and maintain sufficient accommodation for the lunatic poor in that county, in accordance with the Lunatic Asylums Acts, and if it appears to the Lord Lieutenant that any council fail to perform such duty, he may order that council to remedy the failure within the time and in the manner (if any) specified in the order."
      Then there is a sub-section to the clause dealing with the question of management, that is Sub-section 5, and that runs—
      "The county council, through the said committee, shall properly manage and maintain every lunatic asylum for their county; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may appoint and remove the officers of the asylum and regulate the expenditure; and the powers, under the Lunatic Asylums Acts, of the Lord Lieutenant, or the inspectors of lunatics, as to these matters, and as to land and buildings, and as to the appointment of governors or directors, shall cease, and also the board of control for lunatic asylums shall be abolished."
      I think, therefore, there is no sufficient reason for the honourable Member saying that there is no adequate instruction to the county council to perform their duties in connection with lunatics in the clause. The question of management is left entirely to the county council, the Lord Lieutenant only intervenes when the county council fail in performing their duty. I may add that I do not think there is any justification for the charges which the honourable Member has brought against the management of lunatic asylums in Ireland.
      MR. J. TULLY:I think the Amendment which the honourable Member for Islington has brought forward as to the assimilation of the law relating to the management of asylums in Ireland with the law in England, is a very good one indeed. There is one point which has been overlooked by the Government in connection with this matter of lunatic asylums in Ireland, and which I think the Amendment might cover. That is the point to which the inspectors of lunatic asylums in Ireland have been referring year after year in their reports, in regard to a provision for having in Irish lunatic asylums a class known as "paying patients." In Ireland you cannot, at the present time, in public asylums, have that class of paying patients. In England, on the other hand, provision is made to provide for that class. I think that is a very serious blot on the law as it stands at present. I have been reading the reports of the inspectors in Ireland, and year after year they have been asking the Government to make this slight change which would enable the poor people who are not exactly paupers—middle-class people, traders, shopkeepers, and farmers—to be treated as a separate paying class in these asylums. That has been already done in the case of the union hospitals. After a great deal of hesitation a provision was made in the case of the union hospitals that people who were willing to pay for the maintenance of their friends could get their friends treated as paying patients, and as a separate class. That has worked very well. It has removed a great deal of the odium which had hitherto attached to those hospitals, and they are, as a consequence, more largely availed of by people in different parts of the country. In the case of the asylums this is the time when we should insist upon a moderate reform in this direction, because there are a number of cases of people who are able to pay £20 or £30 a year in support of their friends who are afflicted with lunacy. At present if their friends are sent into the district asylums they are clothed in the same uniform as the pauper lunatics, they are treated exactly the same, and are marched out to do the work that the pauper lunatics have to do. It is very distressing to the relatives of these people to see their friends treated in this

      99
      manner, but the only alternative for them in Ireland is to send their friends away to Scotland to private asylums where they are accepted on moderate pensions. In Ireland there are only a few private asylums, run simply as personal speculations, and it is to the interest of the men who are running them that the patients who are put into them shall not be treated with a view to their ultimate recovery.
      THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:The remarks of the honourable Member are not relevant to this Amendment, because the words of the clause and the Amendment deal only with pauper lunatics.
      MR. TULLY:I think the Amendment proposed by the honourable Member applies the law as it stands in England to the management of these asylums.
      THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:It is only referring to pauper lunatics.
      MR. DILLON:On a point of order, Sir, there are no such things as pauper lunatics; that term does not apply in Ireland.
      THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:I take the words from the Amendment of the honourable Member for Islington.
      MR. M. HEALY:May I suggest that it is part of the functions of lunatic asylums to take in patients who are able to pay?
      MR. TULLY:I think it should be clearly understood that these remarks of mine are covered by the Amendment of the honourable Member, which says, "carry out the necessary provision, enlargement, maintenance, management, and visitation of, and other dealings with, asylums for pauper lunatics." These words should, in my opinion, be held to include a provision of the law which is existing in England at the present moment. I am asking for nothing which is not the law in England, and I think that in the few remarks I have made I have striven to establish a case for a change, and I hope that the Government will later on, if not at the present moment, take some steps to insert this provision which their own inspectors have been asking for year after year.
      SIR T. ESMONDE:I think that the proposal to allow paying patients to go into these asylums is a very good one.
      THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:The question is not raised under this Amendment. This Amendment is strictly limited to paupers.
      MR. LOUGH:We are dealing with asylums for pauper lunatics, and these asylums in Ireland are unable at present to take paying patients at all, and these very words which I have proposed to be added in the English Act give that liberty which honourable Members from Ireland would like to see included in this Bill.
      THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:Even if the contention of the honourable Member for Islington is correct, I do not think that the question which has been raised is covered by this Amendment.
      SIR T. ESMONDE:If the question were raised, I can only say I should support it.
      SIR W. FOSTER:I should like to support the Amendment of my honourable Friend on these grounds, because the Amendment contemplates giving more definite and larger powers than the original words convey to the county councils in Ireland, and the Amendment gives these powers by certain specific words so as to encourage the county councils to do the duties in connection with the asylums without waiting for the order of the Lord Lieutenant. I am rather in favour of the exercise of local government in such matters rather than allowing them to lean too much on the central authority. As the words of the clause stand, they rather tend to encourage such a leaning. I should be glad to see greater liberty given to these county councils to interfere in the work of the asylums without waiting, as I said before, for orders from the Lord Lieutenant, and because I think that the words of my honourable Friend would indicate more specifically the manner in which the county councils should exercise their powers, I am of opinion that the Amendment ought to be supported.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I have already explained the reason why I object to this Amendment. The first sub-section states that this particular duty of the county council, in connection with the lunatics, shall be properly done, and the failure to so properly do it may be visited upon them by an order of the Lord Lieutenant. If, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant, there has been a failure, then the county council is made the subject of a special order. No doubt the county council would consider that it was undesirable that there should be an order from the Lord Lieutenant in such a manner, and would act accordingly, and I may say that we have already taken in the Bill full powers for providing that the county councils shall not fail in their duty.
      MR. DILLON:I cannot say that I am prepared to support the Amendment of the honourable Member for Islington, but I certainly do not like to allow the words of the first sub-section of the clause to pass without some protest. Of course, it would be more convenient to take a general discussion as to the working of this clause upon the clause as a whole, after the smaller questions raised by the Amendments have been disposed of. The words proposed to be left out by the honourable Member for Islington would cast a burden on the ratepayers, which I am sure would be found to be absolutely intolerable, because the words of the first sub-section say—
      "It shall be the duty of the council of every county to provide and maintain sufficient accommodation for the lunatic poor in that county, in accordance with the Lunatic Asylum Acts, and if it appears to the Lord Lieutenant that any council fails to perform that duty he may order that council to remedy the failure within the time and in the manner (if any) specified in the order."
      As I say, I do not intend at this stage to enter into that question at large, but in my opinion, in view of the reports of the Lunacy Commissions and the present condition of the lunatic asylums of Ireland, to throw upon the ratepayers the burden of providing adequate accommodation for the great and daily increasing number of lunatic poor in Ireland
      102
      is a cruel and most outrageous proposal. Taking into account the financial proposals of the Bill later on, I cannot support the Amendment of the honourable Member for Islington, and I think it would be more convenient to take the discussion on the clause as a whole.
      MR. J. P. FARRELL:In order to put the Committee in order upon this subject I will move to add as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment of the honourable Member for Islington "and to make provision for the reception, at moderate pensions, of lunatics other than pauper lunatics." I think that would meet the objections that have been raised upon this point, and I think it would offer the Committee a chance of putting into the Bill a very useful provision. The honourable Member for South Mayo has spoken of the great amount of cost that would be put on the ratepayers if this clause passed in its proposed form. I would respectfully suggest to him that a great number of these people who are confined by magistrates' orders as nominal pauper lunatics are of a class who would be very glad to avail themselves of the opportunity of paying a pension. I move, therefore, as an addition to the proposed Amendment—
      "And to make provision for the reception, at moderate pensions, of lunatics other than pauper lunatics."
      THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:I think that question should be raised as a separate sub-section.
      MR. J. P. FARRELLthen withdrew his proposition.
      Amendment negatived without a Division.
      MR. T. M. HEALY, in moving the following Amendment—
      "Clause 9, page 4, line 37, leave out 'Lord Lieutenant,' and insert 'Local Government Board;'"
      "Clause 9, page 4, line 41, leave out 'Lord Lieutenant,' and insert 'Local Government Board;'"
      said: To-day, thanks to the beneficent influence of the English Government,

      103
      there are 20,000 lunatics in Ireland. My Amendment deals with a subject which goes to the root of the whole matter. Originally the State made no contribution to lunatics in Ireland. The landlords, who drove the people either mad or to America, took very good care that they should not contribute anything to lunatics, and the British Government assisted them in that by placing the whole charge of lunatic upkeep and management on county rates. The British Government, in the original Acts, seemed to suppose that only a very small number of lunatics would have to be provided for. I think, in the original Acts, the idea, was that there would not be more than 30 or 40 per county, and the British Government conceived themselves to be extremely liberal when they came to the conclusion that 4s. a head would be a sufficient contribution from the Government for the upkeep of these institutions. Time went on, and at last Her Majesty's Government, being of a frugal mind, have determined to throw the whole charge of these lunatics upon the counties. That is done under this Bill. And in doing so the Government have provided for the abolition of the Board of Control, and they substitute for the Board of Control the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I can assure the Committee that if there is any subject upon which we feel more bitter than another it is this one. The suggestion is that the Board of Control, which has hitherto looked after Irish lunatics, is to be abolished, and that the care of these 20,000 persons is to come under the kind patronage of Lord Cadogan and his successors. Subsection 1 provides that the Lord Lieutenant shall do the work of the Board of Control. The Lord Lieutenant appears also, in Sub-section 2, the Lord Lieutenant appears in Sub-section 4, the Lord Lieutenant appears in Sub-section 5, the Lord Lieutenant appears twice in Subsection 6, and the Lord Lieutenant also appears in Sub-section 7. That is the end of his Excellency. At the outset, I
      104
      denounce the proposal contained in this clause as a gross hypocrisy. Everybody knows that the Board of Control is not going to be abolished, everybody knows that the Lord Lieutenant is not going to look after these lunatics, everybody knows that a Department in Dublin Castle, presided over by Sir F. Cullinan, C.B.—who will be the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for the purpose of this section—assisted by clerks, will fill the position of the Board of Control. I have been looking into the Reports that have been made to the Lord Lieutenant on this lunacy question, but which have never been acted upon, and I turn to the latest of them. It is a Report made in 1878–9. The Committee reported that (page 103)—
      "We are of opinion, therefore, having surveyed the whole question, that the whole of the lunacy administration of Ireland should be under the general control, as the Poor Law and sanitary administration is, of the Local Government Board."
      Well, that was the opinion of these gentlemen in 1879. I turn to earlier Reports, and I find that they all denounce the management of the Irish lunatic system, and suggest that it should be placed under the Local Government Board. In order to give the Committee some idea of the cost and of the constant manner in which this question was being brought under the notice of Parliament, I quote from a Report presented in 1867–8 as to the cost of this system at that time. I find that they complained then, as we complain now, of the enormously growing cost of the upkeep of the lunatic asylums—that is to say, of the 22 or 23 county institutions worked without control, and practically without any vigorous check being placed upon them. The grand juries of Ireland said at that time—
      "There are at present 23 asylums in Ireland, and unless some alteration is made as to the class of persons sent to them a considerable number of new asylums will have to be erected."
      The Government neglected that Report, as they neglected other Reports, and as

      105
      they will, no doubt, neglect every argument addressed to them to-night. The only alleviation brought about by the present Government has been the turning of the women out of Grangegorman gaol, and the turning of the overflow of lunatics into it. It was stated in 1867–8 that no charge on the county cess had so enormously increased as the charge for lunatics. If that was true then, how much more bitterly has it come home to us now? This I know—it may be denied in Committee to-night—but this I know, that when I made my Amendment first—when I first put it upon the Paper—and I did not hear this from any officials—the Government were disposed to accept it. Is that denied?
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:Yes.
      MR. T. M. HEALY:I say, when I first put my Amendment upon the Paper it was about to be accepted by the Government, but the clerks in the Castle and the lunatic inspectors—I beg their pardons, Commissioners; they are an order of what is called birthday men, entitled to certain privileges when the Queen's birthday comes round, and must be called Commissioners, they object to the term inspectors—those gentlemen objected.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:There is absolutely no truth whatever in the allegation which the honourable Gentleman has made. The Government never had any intention of accepting this Amendment.
      MR. T. M. HEALY:What is the Government? Who are the Government? Is the right honourable Gentleman the Government? Where is the Cabinet? There is no one present on those Benches. Or is the Lord Lieutenant the Government? He has no voice in this House. I say that my Amendment was practically regarded as an accepted Amendment in Dublin Castle, and was so treated in that ancient hostelry until
      106
      these objections had been raised. Now, what is the defence of the present system of the management of lunatic asylums in Ireland? It is not even pretended that you have made a success of it. Admittedly, year by year, the cost of asylum management is growing; admittedly, year by year, you do not turn out any more cured patients; on the contrary, you are creating or you are treating the asylums as huge prisons. There is no efficient method, and, in fact, if a doctor turns out a patient as cured from an asylum, and he does anything wrong or commits any offence, that is the very last patient the doctor ever allows to leave the asylum. The notion of treating these asylums as curative institutions is absolutely absurd. You are making them tombs for the people by your system. As contrasted with the systems of other lands, I say your system of lunatic treatment in Ireland is a failure and a disgrace. Who is responsible? Dublin Castle is responsible. It has kept the thing in its own hands, and appointed its own inspectors or Commissioners, who, under the system, are grossly overpaid, both as regards salary and pension, and which so afflicts our annual Estimates. As regards the pension, the way in which these officers are run in and run out, after two or three years' service being run off on a pension, is disgraceful. If I had supposed that this Amendment would have come on to-night I would have given the House a few samples of it. Why, in Dublin now there are men who, in the bloom of their youth, are walking about as gentlemen at large, instead of doing something to earn the money which this Government provides for them. I say that there is no efficient control, and, what is worse, there is no sympathy. What is the alternative? Nobody has criticised the Local Government Board at times more strongly than I have done. We have criticised it up and down continuously during the last 17 or 18 years upon the Estimates. But it is a Board

      107
      which you can criticise. There are people upon that Board whom you can get at. You can go into the Customs House, and argue with the gentlemen inside, and local authorities can address remonstrances and resolutions to the Board. The gentlemen on the Board also regard themselves as being persons under Parliamentary control. We know them by name, though, indeed, the Government have got rid of two of the members in view of this Bill. But what is the Board of Control? Is it pretended that that is an office of Her Majesty? No such pretence could be made, and consequently I demand the acceptance of my Amendment on behalf of the suffering poor, whose unassuaged sorrows and afflictions call aloud to Heaven for vengeance. Because, of all the appalling systems which your alien rule has set up in Ireland, the most appalling is this lunatic system—this death in life, without hope, without comfort, without society, and without cheer, and, as I say, without efficient control. I propose to substitute some sort of Parliamentary control for the appalling system, which has had the disastrous results that this has had in the past. I say that you are not entitled to keep the dead hand of Dublin Castle upon the throat of this system. What entitles you to keep the control in Dublin Castle? What line of argument do you take? The money you pay, the 4s. a day, is not your money. You do not pay it. We pay it; the British give us nothing. The British are the outdoor relief of Ireland. You pocket millions every year out of our money, while you are talking all the while of the milch cow of the British Treasury, by which we are spoon-fed. You are simply paupers existing on Irish money. All we wish to do here is to claim the control, not for an Irish Board, not for a Board nominated under the Castle system, but for a Local Government Board, every member of which is your nominee, and who will be responsible under the Bill. I believe you will have the choice of nominating them, in place of the gentlemen you have turned out in the cold, because you would not give them a few more years. That is not denied. You said that Sir George Moffatt said he would
      108
      keep on if you gave him five years, but you would not give it to him, and then you say he went at his own request. You offered him one year, which meant that he would be kept on to do all the drudgery under this Bill, and he said, "No; if I am to be kept on, I want more than one year, I want something further." The right honourable Gentleman the Irish Secretary lives in the Palace of Truth, and I sometimes think there must be a telephone laid on between there and Paradise. What do we ask? We ask that we shall have the dealing with this system of lunacy administration, not by a popular Board, but a Board of your own nominees, whom we could criticise in Parliament, and who, when they send down their inspectors to this Board to be created, can be met by open criticism, and we make this demand at the moment when the British Government is shouldering off its responsibility for the failure which it has created, when, having given us its 4s. per day, it has not ceased from its manufacture of lunatics. So far as the British Government is concerned, they tell us, "Thus far shall we go, but no further, but you may get as mad as you like." Year by year, decade by decade, and generation by generation, the total of Irish lunatics has gone on increasing, and we ask that, as you are able to do nothing to bring assuagement and criticism to this system, you shall hand it over, not to Dublin Castle, but to an establishment, of which the Chief Secretary should be the head. We want an institution of which the head is not the Lord Lieutenant, who sits in the House of Lords, but which is the Chief Secretary, whom we can criticise in this House. In that spirit I move my Amendment, and in doing so, I take leave to say that I do not think in the history of British Administration in Ireland there is anything more miserable than the attempt to throw the increasing lunacy, which is of your making, upon the shoulders of the Irish people.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:The honourable Gentleman has made in this Committee a most extraordinary speech. The greater part of it, I must say, has in reality been a violent attack on Dublin Castle, and not only on Dublin Castle, but also on certain officials whom he has actually mentioned by name.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL:Oh, how monstrous!
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:Who are not here to speak for themselves, but whose action it is my duty to defend here. The honourable Member has stated again and again that the management of lunacy in Ireland depended, not on a Board of Control, not on the inspectors of lunatics, but upon Sir Frederick Cullinan and the clerks under him.
      MR. T. M. HEALY:Will do so under this Bill.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:I understood the honourable Gentleman to say "will be already." The honourable Member goes on to say, "Dublin Castle, by which we are now to understand Sir Frederick Cullinan and his clerks, were prepared to accept this Amendment." What has Dublin Castle got to do with accepting or rejecting an Amendment in the House of Commons? The acceptance or rejection of the Amendment falls ultimately upon the House itself, and the idea of substituting the Local Government Board for the Lord Lieutenant has never entered into the mind of the Government, for reasons which I shall presently explain. The honourable Member opposite has gone farther than this in his attack upon Dublin Castle, for he has referred to the retirement of Sir George Morris and Sir Francis MacCabe from the Local Government Board, and apparently it is to Dublin Castle that he again ascribes the retirement of these gentlemen and the appointment of their successors. Sir, he
      110
      has told the Committee that these gentlemen have been practically forced out of office. Now, I can myself tell the Committee this: that both of these gentlemen have expressed to me personally their desire to retire, and that, in reality, they have been continued beyond the term, at which they themselves would have been willing to retire. But the most extraordinary thing is this: the honourable Member has made a great attack upon Dublin Castle, but his other charges seem to have very little in them. But if it is really true, as the honourable Member says, that he is in possession of all these curious revelations as to what Dublin Castle is, and what Dublin Castle says, that, indeed, would be the severest condemnation of Dublin Castle which I have yet heard from him, because it appears to me that the honourable Member is very much more in possession of the views and opinions of Dublin Castle than the Chief Secretary is. The thing is perfectly ridiculous from beginning to end, and I must say that these attacks upon Dublin Castle are some of the most absurd things that I have ever heard of, even within the four walls of the House of Commons.
      AN IRISH MEMBER: No, no.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:Yes, Sir. I do not hesitate to say that the officials at Dublin Castle are as zealous and as efficient as the officials in any other Government Department; and it is, to my mind, monstrous that these continual attacks should be made against men who are actually incapable of defending themselves. What would be said if such attacks were made upon the officials of the English Departments? And why should officials in the Irish Department be treated worse than in the English Department?
      AN IRISH MEMBER: Because they are worse.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:Is not the task which is thrown upon these gentlemen difficult enough without

      111
      being exposed to the calumny and abuse and aspersions which are so constantly cast upon them from the opposite side of the House? Now, Sir, I come to the merits of the honourable and learned Member's proposal. He says that we ought to substitute the Local Government Board for the Lord Lieutenant. I may explain that that could not in any case be done without extensive alterations in the law, which we are certainly not prepared to propose to the House in this Bill. The Lord Lieutenant, in the matters to which this clause refers, will have to act upon the reports of the inspectors of lunatics and other inspectors, who are a perfectly independent body, for the Lord Lieutenant, in all matters with which he is not closely conversant, will have to act upon the report of the inspectors. Now, if you are to substitute the Local Government Board for that independent body, if you are to substitute the Local Government Board for the Lord Lieutenant in this clause, it will necessarily follow that the inspectors of lunatics will have to be put under the Local Government Board. There may be something to be said for that, but there is also something to be said against it; but merely to subsitute the Local Government Board for the Lord Lieutenant would not carry out that change, and to carry out that would involve an extensive alteration of the existing law.
      MR. T. M. HEALY:Why should it not be made?
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:Well, I am not prepared to make it at all events in this Bill. In defending the inspectors of lunatics as a separate Department we are again following the English practice. The inspectors of lunatics in England have to report to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary has to carry out the duties, or some of the duties which are proposed, and which are the same as those functions which are entrusted to
      112
      the Lord Lieutenant under this clause. I refer in particular to the inspectors of lunatics in England, who have to report as to the sufficiency of accommodation. If the accommodation is not sufficient, then the Home Secretary orders the county council to provide sufficient accommodation. The honourable and learned Member says that there ought to be a Department with a Parliamentary head upon whom they could make an attack, and that he should not be the Lord Lieutenant who sits in the House of Lords. But surely the honourable and learned Member knows perfectly well that the Chief Secretary is here to represent the Lord Lieutenant, and if any attacks are to be made upon the conduct of that Department it is upon the Chief Secretary that attack should be made. That is the constitutional usage.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL:The Lord Lieutenant is a member of the Cabinet.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:What difference does that make? Is a Member of the Cabinet not to be attacked? If he is in charge of the business of a great Department in the House of Commons, is he not there to answer questions?
      AN IRISH MEMBER: Yes, certainly.
      MR GERALD BALFOUR:I only hope the theory—a very extraordinary theory—which the honourable Member for Donegal has set up that the Chief Secretary should be exempted from all attack because he is not a member of the Cabinet—
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL:The right honourable Gentleman is perfectly right in commenting on my conduct, but he shall not misrepresent me. What I said was that the Lord Lieutenant cannot be criticised because he is not a Member of this House; and by a Rule of this House he is outside the range of criticism.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:The honourable Member must be aware, or if he is not he ought to be, that in these matters the Chief Secretary takes the place of the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant is the Constitutional expression, but the person to be attacked, if anybody is to be attacked, is the Chief Secretary. Sir, I cannot see that, unless you are prepared to make extensive alterations in the law, which will require a great deal of consideration, this Amendment of the honourable Member, which is a simple thing in itself, but upon which he put such an extraordinary construction in his speech, is not one which ought to commend itself to the favour of the Committee.
      MR. E. H. CARSON:While I do not agree at all with many of the views put forward by the honourable Member for Louth, this Amendment does appear to me to raise a most important question. Now, Sir, I think the honourable and learned Member was unjust in his criticism of this section even as it is drawn, because while he denounced the Lord Lieutenant as being callous of the sufferings of the pauper lunatics he seemed to forget that under this particular sub-section the Lord Lieutenant will have the power to interfere only when the county council has neglected to do its duty. Therefore, all the strictures which have been passed upon the probable indifference of the Lord Lieutenant in the future—strictures with which I do not concur—seem to me to fall to the ground. But Sir, that does not in the slightest degree settle the question, and the matter still remains as to what the Lord Lieutenant should, or should not, have to do with reference to the matter under this section, or, indeed, under any part of this Bill at all. Sir, it is perfectly true that when you mention the Lord Lieutenant as having the power of supervision you do not mean the Lord Lieutenant at all, and the Lord Lieutenant himself will have no more to say as to supervision
      114
      under this section than any Member of this House will have, except as far as an honourable Member might bring the subject before this House. The reason why I think the matter is worthy of consideration by the House is this, that I do think it is a pity that the Queen's representative in Ireland in matters in which he will not in reality be concerned at all should be, under Acts of Parliament, consequently brought into the necessary hostility which must arise in reference to executive Acts. And of course if it was the fact that the Lord Lieutenant himself had to perform certain functions under this Bill, and that it was impossible to carry out the Bill without the intervention of the Lord Lieutenant, then the section of the Act might be enacted in the way it is. But, Sir, I want to know why, if the county council in Ireland fails to do its duty under that section, should we have the collision that must necessarily then occur between the Executive and the persons in the habit of being entrusted with this matter, and why should we have the hostility which must occur between them? Why should that be put down to the Lord Lieutenant, who is simply the Queen's representative in Ireland? Why should the responsibility not be put down to the Department which will have to carry out the matter in the absence of proper supervision by the county councils themselves? I should like to know how the Lord Lieutenant is to act in the matter at all. We are told that, in regard to this particular matter, there are inspectors in lunacy who will make reports to the Local Government Board. Well, Sir, the Lord Lieutenant will act solely upon those reports of the inspectors in lunacy, but why cannot these inspectors make their report to the Local Government Board? The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary seems to think there is some difficulty about the matter, but I cannot see it. If the formal matter is to be done upon the reports of these inspectors under the

      115
      various Lunacy Acts, I cannot for the life of me see why a particular Department cannot carry out what is reported by these inspectors just as well as the Lord Lieutenant, who will probably never see the reports at all. And that brings me to the second question, as to whether the Local Government Board are the proper persons to entrust with these matters. Sir, the Local Government Board ought to be a strong central authority for carrying out the various functions that are imposed upon them by the Bill, and they will have to be a strong authority if they are to act, in any sense at all, according to the spirit of the obligations cast upon them by this Bill. Now, Sir, what are the Local Government Board to do at present? They have to supervise and superintend, and do, in relation to boards of guardians, and the proper supervision for the sane paupers in Ireland, exactly what we say they ought to have to do if this Amendment were carried in relation to the pauper lunatic asylums in Ireland. They have exactly analogous duties in every way. They have to see that proper accommodation is provided, that the rates are properly collected and applied, and they have duties imposed upon them of themselves appointing proper persons to carry out what the boards of guardians are permitted to do. All we ask in relation to these matters under consideration—namely, the pauper lunatic asylums—is that there should be a proper Department answerable to this House, and a Department which we can hold liable if they do not carry out the directions of these Acts of Parliament; and, above all, in a country like Ireland, a Department which will be above all politics and political parties, who may be in power for the time being, and that they shall be persons who will see that the duties cast upon the county councils shall be carried out. I do think that we, on this side of the House, ought to take every opportunity—and under this Bill we have several opportunities—of dissociating the executive power in the person of the
      116
      Queen's representative, and I do think that this ought not in any sense to be a party question. I believe that there are many honourable Members on both sides of the House who are agreed that it would be much better, if you are to have the Queen's representative in Ireland, that he should be there solely and only as the Queen's representative, and not be put forward as doing executive acts which must be the responsible acts either of the various permanent Departments you set up or of the particular political Government which may be in power for the time being.
      MR. DILLON:I do not think that anybody can say that the lunacy administration in Ireland, as it stands at present, or as it is proposed to be constituted under this Bill, is satisfactory; but, on the other hand, I confess that I do not think that the transfer of the lunacy administration of Ireland to the Irish Local Government Board is a satisfactory solution of the problem. It may be that it would be an improvement on the present state of affairs, or on the state of affairs proposed to be set up under the Bill. The honourable Member for Dublin University said that the Local Government Board had to do, under the present law, exactly the same for the sane poor as it was proposed by this Amendment that they should do for the insane poor. As a matter of fact there are no insane poor in Ireland. I confess that I think it would be a pity to bring the administration of lunacy in general in Ireland into the same close connection with, and under the same machinery, the administration of the Poor Law, which has been shamefully neglected for years in Ireland. I hold and feel strongly that the question of the administration of the Poor Law is based upon a totally different principle from the question of the administration of lunatic asylums, and I think the two things should be dealt with quite separately. The charge of the lunatic

      117
      poor may, I think, fairly be held to be an Imperial charge. But, from the very nature of the case, the State, in dealing with the lunatic poor, should be protected from any abuses or any of the extravagances of a too wide administration. Therefore, I maintain the question of the administration of the lunatic asylums is not, as the right honourable Gentleman said, analogous to that of the administration of the Poor Laws, and the two things, I think, ought to be kept entirely apart. I really approach the consideration of this question with a perfectly open mind. One argument—and a very strong argument for the Amendment—was pointed out by the honourable and learned Member for North Louth when he said that what it proposed to do was to place the administration of lunacy in Ireland under a body which should be responsible directly to this House. If I thought that the Bill proposed to take the control of lunacy administration away from this House, of course, on that ground alone I should heartily support the Amendment; but I understand from the Chief Secretary that he himself would be responsible, under the proposals of the Bill, in the fullest sense for the lunacy administration in Ireland.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR:Hear, hear!
      MR. DILLON:Therefore the administration would be just as much open to criticism in this House as it is now. I understand the Chief Secretary to give his word that in case the Bill passes in its present shape he would be equally responsible to this House for the lunacy administration, and that assurance cuts away one, at any rate, of the arguments advanced in support of the Amendment. Now I turn to the Report of the very interesting Departmental Committee which sat in 1894 on the question of lunacy administration in Ireland. The Report points out that the Statutes con-
      118
      cerning lunacy administration are 27 in number, commencing with the Act of 1834, George I. In paragraph 7, on page 3, they state that the question of the transference of the control of lunatic administration from the Board of Control to the Local Government Board had been very carefully considered, and they believed that such transference would be a great improvement on the existing arrangement. After full examination of the whole matter they arrived at the conclusion that the creation of a strong and independent department was necessary if the lunacy administration of Ireland was to be made as satisfactory as that of England and Scotland. I confess that those are the lines on which I should like to see this problem solved. The question of lunacy administration, both as regards private and public asylums in Ireland, is one which undoubtedly is, year by year, increasingly engaging the earnest attention of all who take an interest in the welfare of the people of Ireland. I think the burden of properly controlling the administration of these asylums is probably too great to be borne satisfactorily by the Local Government Board, and that what is required is an independent department with nothing else to attend to. I do not know whether the Government can give us any hope that some reform may be carried out on those lines. I daresay the Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth would be an improvement on the whole, but I could not see my way to give a silent vote, feeling so strongly as I do upon the subject.
      MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL:I confess, speaking for myself alone, I am altogether in favour of the Amendment. This 9th Section, in my view, is one of the most vital and important sections of the entire Bill. The increase of lunacy in Ireland is a problem of the gravest character, and I submit it is the first duty of any Government that may

      119
      be in power to determine how to grapple with it. I quite agree with honourable Members who have already spoken on this question, that the first duty of the State is to provide for those who may be afflicted with lunacy through no fault of their own. Take, for example, the Richmond Asylum in Dublin. The state of that asylum is, I venture to say, a public scandal. It is overcrowded in a most scandalous manner, and the effect of that overcrowding has been to generate a disease of the most infectious and dangerous character—the disease of beri-beri. The existence of such a state of things—and no doubt similar lamentable conditions prevail in other asylums—is a disgrace to the Government which is responsible for it. But, strong as is the necessity for some reform, I unhesitatingly say that the provisions of this clause are entirely inadequate to effect that reform. Now I come to the Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. I agree that it is most undesirable to throw personal responsibility in this matter upon the Lord Lieutenant for the time being; but, so far as I understand the clause, the responsibility would be thrown, not on the Lord Lieutenant personally, but he would have the assistance of his Council. He may act either on the advice of his Council or on the suggestion of the Chief Secretary—who, perhaps, would be his responsible adviser—but there is nothing In the clause to compel him to do so. On one point I differ from the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. I do not at all join witih him in his criticisms or observations about the officials in the various departments of Dublin Castle. I speak from a certain amount of experience, and I think I should be doing less than my duty if I did not announce, as the result of my experience, that I believe they are all most honourable men, and most anxious to discharge their duties efficiently. I am speaking of them, of course, as individuals; I do not speak
      120
      of the system. I am averse to the bureaucratic system which, prevails in Dublin Castle, but I think, having regard to my experience of the officials, I should be unworthy if I did not pay this tribute to them individually. The system, as a system, I totally deprecate, but, speaking of the officials only as individuals, I cannot in any way join with the criticisms of the honourable and learned Gentleman. Now, we know that the Local Government Board is about to be reconstituted. Two members of that Board—Sir George Morris and Sir Francis MacCabe—having retired, the Government have it in their own power to fill up those vacancies by the most competent men. It is possible now for the Government, if this Amendment is carried, to obtain the most able assistance and the best constituted board for the purpose of superintending the management of these lunatic asylums, and I trust the right honourable Gentleman will not fail to take advantage of this opportunity.
      MR. KNOX:When the honourable and learned Member said that the Irish Lunacy Commissioners had seldom had any previous experience of lunatic asylums, I thought of looking through the number of men appointed Commissioners of Lunacy in England. The English Commissioners, I venture to think, would vie with their Irish brethren in the want of experience. We know that certain honourable Members of this House have, from time to time, been appointed Commissioners who have had no experience of lunacy, except, perhaps, in this House. So far as I understand, lunacy administration is one of those things to which it is of great advantage to be able to bring a fresh mind, and that is why, in making these appointments, men are chosen who have had no previous experience. These gentlemen who are appointed as Commissioners of lunacy are neither better nor worse than other gentlemen who are sent about

      121
      in Ireland to make inspections of other kinds. It is usually a mere accident that they are selected for this particular duty. I do not say they are incompetent; I daresay they discharge their duties conscientiously according to their abilities; but the fact remains that they are appointed without previous experience, and I cannot see that we have any assurance that there would be any better inspection of lunatic asylums if the work were done by a separate department appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, rather than under the control of the Local Government Board. I know that in many respects the present system works most unsatisfactorily. For instance, take the matter of building arrangements. When a new asylum has to be erected the authority of the Board of Control has to be obtained. So far as I can understand, there will be no change in that respect under this Bill. It is true the Board of Control will be abolished, but the work will still have to be done "to the satisfaction of the Lord Lieutenant," which means the Board of Control, and the effective voice in the matter will be that of men who may be experts in lunacy, but who certainly know nothing about architecture, and there will still be the same absurd requirements made by these gentlemen, who are never satisfied unless the architect appointed has something to do with the Board of Control. I think there is little to be said for these separate departments, dealing with various items of local government. It has been said that Ireland is the most inspected country in the world. I am altogether against the multiplication of these separate departments. The more simplicity we have in the administration of Ireland the better.
      MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER:The Amendment moved by the honourable and learned Member for North Louth does not appear to me to be absolutely relevant to this clause. I believe there
      122
      is nothing more important in this matter than popular control, which makes it the interest of those who support the lunatics to get rid of them as soon as possible. The honourable and learned Member, in some of his observations, criticised individuals, but I take it that his real objection was to the particular body which is to be charged with the supervision of the county councils. I would point out that the supervision will not begin until the public authority has failed to do its duty. The Chief Secretary has definitely stated that he will be responsible to this House for the administration of lunacy matters, and that completely answers one of the main reasons advanced against the clause.
      MR. HARRINGTON:I think that the popular feeling in Ireland is that the Local Government Board is really a most unsuitable body to have the supervision of lunatics. That is certainly the view of everybody who has had experience of its administration. There is no doubt a feeling that reform is necessary in the matter of inspection of asylums, but no one believes that the Local Government Board is the proper body to take the work in hand.
      MR. MAURICE HEALY:No one acquainted with the facts will dream of defending the condition of pauper lunatics in our asylums, but that condition is not in any way due to the Local Government Board. It is due simply to the unjust state of the Poor Law, and without some special legislation the Local Government Board will be powerless to make any change in the condition of these unfortunate people. The real question is this: in the future, the control of lunatic asylums is to be entrusted to the county councils. Their management is to be supervised by a central body in Dublin, and the question is whether that central body shall be the Local Government Board or the advisers of the

      123
      Lord Lieutenant. I am at a loss to understand how there can be two opinions upon the matter. In the first place, the work I take it which the Department would have to discharge would be the work of inspection and supervision. Now, the Local Government Board at present discharges the duty of the inspection of workhouses. Why should not the inspection of asylums be carried out conjointly with the inspection of workhouses? There is no reason why lunatic asylums should not have the same direct and constant supervision which the Local Government Board at present exercises over the workhouses. One cause of the failure of the present system of dealing with lunatics in Ireland is the totally inadequate supervision exercised over the asylums by the inspectors. I am in favour of the supervision of all institutions of this kind by the State, and I think the duties of inspection and management could be carried out with satisfaction by the Local Government Board.
      MR. TULLY:I think it cannot be denied that there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment although I agree that the Local Government Board have completely muddled all the arrangements with regard to the treatment of pauper lunatics. Still, if we are to choose between the Local Government Board and the Lord Lieutenant, I think we should decide in favour of a Department whose acts can be criticised in this House.
      MR. T. M. HEALY:The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has really not answered one of the objections I advanced against this clause. The Board of Control is to be abolished, and the question is: what authority shall be substituted in its place? No one can deny that the whole system of the treatment of lunatics in Ireland has been disgracefully mismanaged, and what we feel is that no effective reform will be brought
      124
      about so long as the system is controlled from Dublin Castle.
      It being Twelve o'clock, the Debate was adjourned.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  SHERIFFS DEPUTE TENURE OF OFFICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  AMERICAN TONNAGE DUES.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL:I should like to ask my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can confirm the report that the proposed great increase in the tonnage dues, under the consideration of the American Congress, has now been definitely abandoned?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY:The information to which my honourable Friend refers has reached me to-night, but not from an official source. If he will be good enough to put a Question on the Paper to-night, I hope to be able to answer it at Question time tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:Can the right honourable Gentleman now state on what day he proposes to take the Budget Resolution, which he says must interrupt the progress of the Irish Local Government Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY:I am sorry I was not able to give the honourable and learned Member the information he asked for at Question time. I am now able to state that we shall take the Budget Resolution on Monday next.
  House adjourned at 12.10.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  FORRES WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Petition for additional provision; of the Forres Water Company Limited, and
  2
  the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Forres; together with proposed clauses and Amendments annexed thereto; Read, and referred to the Examiners.

  ANDOVERSFORD AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY BILL.
  Read second time, and committed; Committee to be proposed by Committee of Selection.
  ILKESTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Read second time, and committed.
  CLERGY MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time; Passed, and sent to Commons.
  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Read third time; Amendments made; Passed, and returned to Commons.
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
  Read third time; Passed, and sent to Commons.
  AGRICULTURAL COMPANY OF MAURITIUS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from Commons agreed to.
  GUY'S HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from Commons agreed to.
  PATRIOTIC ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from Commons agreed to.
  TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from Commons agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  EGYPT, No. 1 (1898).
  Report on the finances, administration, and condition of Egypt, and the progress of reforms:
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (1898).
  Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:
  No. 2,066. Austria-Hungary (Trieste);
  No. 2,067. Russia (Batoum):
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BREHON LAW COMMISSIONERS.
  Report of the Commissioners for the Publication of the Ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland, dated April, 1898:
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  1.(Lizard 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 from the Helston Railway to the Lizard Village, in the county of Cornwall:
  2.(Crowland and District Light Railways Order, 1898)—Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of light railways between Peakirk, in the county of Northampton, and Postland, in the county of Lincoln:
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Royal Warrant approving of alterations in Statutes:
  Presented by Command, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Report by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consents of the St. Neot's Rural District Council and the Huntingdon County Council to the grant of the St. Neot's Water Provisional Order:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  For suppression of the practice of; of the South London Anti-Vivisection Society; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Broughton-in-Furness Water, Hayling Water, Portsmouth Water, Ross Water, St. Neot's Water, and Wrexham Water: Presented by the PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 47.]
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Cannock Gas, Colwall Gas, Crossgates, Halton, and Seacroft Gas, and Slough Gas: Presented by the PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 48.]

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Blackpool, St. Anne's, and Bytham Tramways, Great Crosby Tramways, Liverpool Corporation Tramways (Extensions), and Waterloo-with-Seaforth Tramways: Presented by the PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY
  6
  to the BOARD of TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 49.]

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to East Ham Urban District Tramways, Eccles-hill Urban District Tramways, Huddersfield Corporation Tramways, and Linthwaite Tramway: Presented by the PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 50.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Carlisle Tramways, Hartlepool Tramways, and City of Oxford and District Tramways: Presented by the PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 51.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Alder shot, Bridgwater, Chislehurst, Gravesend, and Hastings: Presented by the PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 52.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Colne, East Stonehouse, Margam Rochdale, St. Anne's-on-the-Sea, and

  7
  Weymouth and Melcombe Regis: Presented by the PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 53.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Middlesbrough, Nuneaton, St. Albans, Whiston, and Willesden: Presented by the PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 54.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Birkdale, Burslem, Chorley, Crewe, Maidenhead, and Stoke-upon-Trent: Presented by the PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 55.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Montrose and Perth: Presented by the PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 56.]

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1893, to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses
  8
  Acts: Presented by the LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 57.]

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
  To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under the Elementary Education Acts, 1870 to 1893, to enable the School Board for Barnes, Brighton and Preston United District, Cellan, Heston, Llanelly, and Low Leyton to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts: Presented by the LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (The Duke if DEVONSHIRE); Read first time; to be printed; Referred to Examiners. [Bill No. 58.]
NEW BILL.

  LAND CHARGES BILL. [H.L.]
  To amend the law relating to charges on land, and to matters connected therewith: Presented by the LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY); Read first time; and to be printed. [Bill No. 59.]
  House adjourned at 4.35.