Sitting of 11 May 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Twelve of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
  Mr. Smith Barry, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. John Redmond, and Mr. Shee nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill, with Four Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Sir William Walrond.)
  MID-KENT WATER BILL.
  Reported; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  HIGHAM AND HUNDRED OF HOO WATER BILL.
  Reported; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Chelmsford, Melton Mowbray, Norwich (Extension), Preston (Extensions), and Warrington.
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to this Abingdon, Croydon, and Wimbledon, Newmarket and Moulton, Royston, Ashwell, and Melbourn, Saffron Walden and Ulverston Joint Hospital Districts."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL, ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Leeds, Manchester, and Wakefield."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Blaby (Rural), Bristol, Eastbourne, Epsom (Rural), Gelligaer and Rhigos (Rural), Malling (Rural), Newport (Mon.), Penmaenmawr, Richmond (Surrey), Rugeley, and Windsor (Rural)."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, and the Public Health Act, 1875, relating to Selby and Wenlock."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

  SOCIETIES' BORROWING POWERS.
  "To empower certain Societies to borrow Money from persons and corporations other than members."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Horace Plunkett, Mr. Courtney, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Butcher, and Mr. Yerburgh; Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

PETITIONS.
  CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Against: From Dingwall and Strathpeffer; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  In favour: From Perth; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation; From Bolton, Wingate, Penrith, Glasgow, Christchurch, and York; to lie upon the Table.
  FATAL ACCIDENTS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Perth; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour: From Perth (2), Auchterarder, Prestwich, Strathmiglo, Denny, Kilbarchan, Inverkeithing, Glasgow, Govan, Ardersier, Larkhall, Rattray, Kincardineshire, Kirkcaldy, and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  In favour: From Sheffield; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Against: From Perth, and Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Perth; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  In favour: From Salford, Longton, and Bolton; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Island Magee and Croft; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Glasgow, Grandtully, Govan, Dundee, and Newtown; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Bradwell, Crowborough, Hurstpierpoint, Deaf Hill, Trimdon (4), Leominster (3), Newport, West Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Hurworth, Glasgow, Rotherham (2), Rawmarsh, Swallow Nest, Fairlight, Nottingham, Havant, Eastleigh, Danby, Monkwearmouth, Great Meols, Edinburgh, Wyke Regis, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Stanford-le-Hope (2), Newcastle-under-Lyme, Halifax, and Burslem; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Perth and Ayr; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION.
  Copy presented, of Convention of Washington (15th June, 1897) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2080 to 2084 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PHARMACY ACTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 9th May, 1898, approving of Regulations made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  Return relative thereto [ordered 22nd March; Mr. Parker Smith]; to be printed. [No. 198.]

  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Order included in the Pilotage Order Confirmation Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 199.]

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 200.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Fifth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDER OF THE DAT.

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

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    On CLAUSE 17,
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do not know whether the Government have considered the points I raised in moving my Amendment last night. The clause as it stands would interfere very much with the existing state of things. The Government have announced that they do not intend it to put an end to the existing state of things in the corporations and county boroughs. The clause as it stands reads thus: Clause 17, subsection 2—
    "The mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of each county borough acting by the council shall, subject as in this Act mentioned, have the powers and duties of a county council under this Act in so far as they have not the same already, and the provisions of this Act with respect to administrative counties shall, so far as circumstances admit, apply in the case of every such borough."
    And so on. The previous clause excluded from the ordinary county council the power of appointing a visiting committee to a prison, and I only want to make it plain that, as the power already exists in a corporation, the Government has announced its intention of not wishing to disturb it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): This Amendment is not necessary. It is quite clear that under this clause of the Act the power of appointing a visiting committee exists, because the words of clause 4 are: "Nothing in this Act shall transfer to a county council, or a member thereof," amongst other things,
    964
    "any power to appoint a visiting committee for a prison." The earlier portion of the clause refers to the powers which are transferred to a county council. It is quite obvious that if a council independent of this Bill has already these powers, this section does not take them away. They still remain, and, therefore, any county borough that has a power of appointing a committee will still have power.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I quite admit that you can make a subtle argument of that kind, that the powers are not taken away.
    "The provisions of this Act with respect to administrative counties shall, so far as circumstances admit, apply in the case of every borough;"
    and the provisions of the Act in respect to committees are that the county shall not have the power of appointing committees. I quite concede that it is put in the form that the right honourable Gentleman says—that the power is not transferred to the county council. I quite follow, too, the reasons why the Government framed the clause as they did. But there will be tribunals in Ireland which will not construe the words in the way the right honourable Gentleman says they should be construed. Some judges would construe those words as meaning that the county borough is a county council, and is on the same footing as a county council in all respects, and that it possesses no power which a county council has not got, and he would not listen to the interpretation of the clause such as the right honourable Gentleman has made.
    MR. ATKINSON: I do not think there is any subtlety about it. The section says that the provisions of this Act shall not apply. Then honourable Members should look back to clause 4 and see what the provisions of the Act are. One of the provisions of the Act is that nothing in this Act contained shall transfer from the grand jury to the county council the power of appointing visiting committees. It is perfectly obvious that those words mean what they say. The power already exists in the boroughs, and

    965
    this Amendment would only throw doubt as to what the section means.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: It is, of course, no use for me to press it if the Government are opposed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 8, line 33, leave out 'or the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: This Amendment raises a very important point, and I hope that the Government will give it some consideration. I propose to omit the words "Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888," and I do that for the purpose of moving afterwards—
    "No approval of voters shall be necessary to enable the council of a county borough to promite or oppose a Bill in Parliament pursuant to the provisions of the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888."
    The Government places the boroughs on the same footing as the county council, or the county, and in doing that they say that certain rights of the county council which exist under the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888, shall not apply in the case of a county borough, and they do that with the object of leaving the law as it stands at present. But nothing more preposterous than the law as it stands in the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888, as applied to the boroughs, can be conceived. It was a law originally devised in the year 1858, before the Ballot Act was introduced, and before the franchise was extended. It is an anachronism of a most absurd kind, and leads to the greatest inconvenience. Let me take two cases. Take the case of a county borough wishing to oppose a Bill in Parliament. I do not at all object that before the county borough, or before any local authority, gets power to embark in such expensive litigation as promoting or opposing a Bill in Parliament necessarily involves, there should be some power outside the council itself which should exercise some authority over the local body, and to say whether its action
    966
    is right or wrong; but anything more absurd than the machinery for that purpose in the County Boroughs Act cannot be conceived. Take the case of cities like Dublin or Cork promoting a Bill seriously affecting the interests of the city. It may be a tramway Bill or a railway Bill, or anything of that kind, and the corporation considers that the interests of the community which they rule require that they shall be represented on the Bill when it comes before this House, either with the object of carrying it altogether or of getting clauses inserted in it. They have in the first place to pass a resolution by a certain majority of the council after elaborate notice, care being taken that no one can be taken by surprise. They have then to insert advertisements stating what they have done. Then they have to pass a second resolution. That is not all. When they have taken these two steps they have to go to the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board has practically to give its sanction to this proposed action. The Local Government Board has power to hold a local inquiry before it gives its sanction, and on that inquiry all classes of citizens can be heard in support of the local body going to Parliament or against it, and there are further elaborate provisions as to the amount of costs incurred to prevent anything in the shape of excess in the way of payment of costs or expenses. Would not anyone say that those provisions involve sufficient protection for the council? But on the top of all that the council of the county borough is put in this position, that it must practically hold a sort of general election in the constituency, submitting to every voter a voting paper asking him if he is in favour of or against the support or opposition to the Bill. When that system was originally devised it did not involve great inconvenience, and the expenses incurred were necessarily somewhat samll. Take the condition of Dublin; there will be a constituency of 40,000 voters, rather more perhaps. Cork would have 10,000 voters. In matters of this kind the appeal to the voter is really an appeal from knowledge to ignorance. The council of the borough has the administration of the borough in its hands, and has a knowledge of the general public affairs

    967
    which the individual voter cannot possibly be acquainted with, so that there is this complicated process: First there is the meeting of the council, then from that you go to the whole constituency and issue a voting paper to every voter in the constituency, and that is not voting by ballot, but by open voting—a relic of 1858. I quite concede that the Government are treating Ireland and England on the same lines, but there is a universal outcry against this state of things. I have in my hands a very elaborate report, prepared by English town clerks of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and there is in that a very strong protest against this system as applied to England—a system, as I have stated, originally devised in the year 1858, when the conditions of municipal life were quite different from those which exist now. What I submit to the Government is this: let them be content with the power which the Local Government Board can exercise in these matters. Before a borough council can incur costs in the promotion or opposition of a Bill it has got to get the sanction of the Local Government Board. I think that is a satisfactory state of things, because there is no doubt a tendency on the part of these bodies to embark in expensive litigation of this kind, when perhaps it would be as well if they had not done so. Any tendency of that kind will be amply checked by the Local Government Board, and to compel a corporation, which, after all, whatever its character may be, must know more of municipal affairs and of the management of a borough than the individual voter, to have a sort of referendum is an absurdity. The Government have most properly, in the case of county councils, provided that there should be no referendum of this kind. The county council, under this Act, is to have a power of opposing a Bill in Parliament without going to the individual voter, and, of course, in counties that would be absolutely impossible, and what I want is that in the case of a county borough the game law should prevail, and that the check of the Local Government Board and the necessity for obtaining their consent should be considered sufficient.
    MR. G. W. WOLFF: I merely rise to say that until I saw the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman opposite I was not aware that it would be necessary for county boroughs, who wished to oppose a Bill, to obtain a vote from every one of their voters. It seems to me to be very absurd. Hitherto in large boroughs we have been able to bring forward a Bill or to oppose a Bill without that cumbersome procedure.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): We do not propose in this Bill to alter the existing law, but simply to leave it as it is. The Committee will remember that this question arose some time ago, and on that occasion we undertook to consult the authorities in England, and to ascertain whether they would be willing to see such changes as proposed by the honourable Member opposite in the English law. I took the precaution of doing the same thing beforehand with regard to this proposal. I must say that the answers I have received are not favourable to the Amendment. Such an Amendment could not, at all events as it stands, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, be applied in the case of England. Under these circumstances I think the Committee will see that it will be impossible for us to take the step of introducing it into this Bill, and I think the honourable Member himself will admit that if you were to do away with the Borough Funds Act, so far as regards the appeal to the ratepayers—the referendum—it will be necessary to substitute some other precaution in its place. I do not think that the mere inquiry of the Local Government Board will be sufficient. All that the Local Government Board has to do is to inquire into the merits of the scheme.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: They do that at present.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: But the expenditure of money which may be involved in the promotion of the scheme is not a matter in which the Local

    969
    Government Board can interfere. The provisions of the Borough Fund Act have been applied in Dublin on more than one occasion, and at least once the corporation has been prevented from promoting a Bill.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: It does not seem to me possible, under the circumstances, for the Government to accept the Amendment, and it does not seem to be desirable either.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I shall be glad if the right honourable Gentleman will kindly explain the meaning of this sub-section (b). The words are—
    "The provisions of this Act relating to main roads, coroners, by-laws, or the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888, shall not apply."
    What does "shall not apply" refer to as far as the Borough Funds Act is concerned? It does not seem to me to be quite clear, and I should be glad to have it explained.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that the question of the honourable Gentleman is at all necessary, because the provisions of this Act, with respect to the Borough Funds Act, are those which are contained in sub-section 15—
    "The council of a county shall have the same powers of opposing Bills in Parliament, and of prosecuting and defending legal proceedings necessary for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of the county as are conferred on the governing body in any district by the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888; and that Act shall extend to a county council as if they were a governing body and the county were their district council, provided that (a) no approval of voters shall be required for any proceedings under this section; and (b) this section shall not empower a county council to promote any Bill in Parliament or to incur or raise any expenses in relation thereto."
    SIR JAMES T. WOODHOUSE: This Amendment is one which the right honourable Gentleman has felt to be of importance in Ireland, and it raises a question of importance also to the municipal corporations of England, with which body I have the honour to be connected. That body has repeatedly pressed upon the Government that some Amendment
    970
    should be made in the Borough Funds Act as applied to England. It is of equal importance that this opportunity ought not to be lost of making some Amendment in the law relating to Ireland as it affects Irish local government. I do not know whether the honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is aware that this law is extremely difficult to put effectively in operation. After the public meeting is held a plebiscite is taken of the voters, but a Bill that is promoted in Parliament refers very frequently to a large number of objects. Some of these objects the people approve of, and some they disapprove of, but they are compelled to vote on the whole Bill "Aye" or "No." They have no power of saying, "We approve of parts one to three, and we disapprove of parts four to six." Now, I do venture to suggest that the right honourable Gentleman should afford to the Irish people that opportunity which English corporations have over and over again desired to obtain for England, and have brought Bills into this House to amend the existing law. I think some facility ought to be afforded of enabling voters to express—which they cannot do now—what is their real opinion at the poll, so that if a Bill relating to a town or city in Ireland covers a large number of objects embodied in one Bill in order to save expense, and the ratepayers approve of some portions of it and disapprove of others, they may have an opportunity of expressing their real opinions. I think the right honourable Gentleman might very well consider this suggestion with a view to amending the law.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The speech of the honourable Member affords the very strongest possible argument against the Amendment. We do not profess that the Borough Funds Act is perfect, but the speech shows the difficulties which are necessarily involved when this question comes to be considered. It is quite clear, from what the honourable Member has said, that any alteration in the law must necessarily include some device for taking the opinion of the ratepayers as regards particular parts of a Bill; it is, therefore, evidently a matter that cannot be settled by an Amendment. It would require an elaborate clause to provide for

    971
    it. The Committee will observe that we are simply assimilating the law of Ireland to the law of England. If the subject is to be dealt with, let it be dealt with as a whole.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman has spoken as if this were solely the case of promoting Bills. Now, I will give him a reason from his own Bill why this Amendment should be accepted. By this Bill the corporations of Cork, Kilkenny, and Waterford are, for the first time, to come under audit. To-day the council of Cork can appear in this House and pass a Bill, and no auditor can check its action; ditto the Corporation of Waterford, and also the Corporation of Kilkenny. By this Bill, the right honourable Gentleman places these three ancient corporations under a totally different system. Why, Sir, to show you the freedom which hitherto existed in these boroughs, the Cork council sent its mayor over to Rome to congratulate his Holiness upon his jubilee! That was not in the least objected to by the local Protestant party, and maybe that was a very proper expenditure of funds, but, at all events, I would say that promoting a Bill in Parliament affecting the interests of a borough was rather a more relevant and proper expenditure of the ratepayers' money. What the right honourable Gentleman proposes to do is this: for the first time these three boroughs are to come under audit, they will no longer have the power of coming to this House and being represented by counsel. What is happening now upstairs? A most tremendous struggle is going on as to whether the Dublin Corporation shall have three members or seven, on the Port and Docks Board. The Corporation is there represented by counsel, and, according to the statement of the right honourable Gentleman, not having had a referendum, they are acting illegally. So that it comes to this: that the Corporation of Dublin, which is incurring great expense in feeing English counsel to look after its interests on the Port and Docks Board, which interests are being seriously threatened from her having failed to submit the question to a referen-
    972
    dum of the citizens, is acting illegally, and they ought not to be at all represented on this Committee, which is, at this very moment making vital changes with reference to the harbour authority of the port of Dublin. There may be something to be said from the point of view of not allowing the Corporation to promote a Bill without having previously got the direct assent of the ratepayers, but surely it is an entirely different question as to whether a corporation should not be able to oppose a Bill. Two years ago, without any referendum whatever to the taxpayers, the Corporation of Dublin secured the most valuable concession that has ever been made to them from a public company—namely, £10,000 a year for wayleaves paid by the Dublin Tramway Company. That concession was obtained by Dublin merely through opposing the Bill in Parliament. Yet that action of the Corporation was illegal, and every penny expended in this House in looking after the interests of the Dublin Corporation, and of the Dublin citizens, was illegal, because there was no referendum; and now the right honourable Gentleman says: You shan't come to this House. A Bill may be sprung upon you, clauses may be suddenly inserted—as we know franchise clauses have been frequently inserted—but you cannot fee counsel or solicitors to look after your interests, because in the month of November you did not take a referendum. I suggest to the right honourable Gentleman, that it is one thing to provide for the promotion of a Bill; it is a wholly different thing to provide for the opposition to a Bill. As I said, by its vigilance in opposing the Tramways Bill, the Dublin Corporation obtained £10,000 a year, but, according to the right honourable Gentleman, Westminster is not far enough off, and before the Dublin Corporation can come here they must go to the trouble of asking 40,000 taxpayers, at a cost of some hundreds of pounds, in order to get a right to appear before the Committee. I must say that I am rather surprised that this "assimilating the law of Ireland to the law of England" is raised every time any attempt is made to insert some useful Amendment. Either it is, "This is the law of

    973
    England, and you must have it," or "This is not the law of England, and you shall not have it." Nothing is said as to the merits of the proposal, but it is England, England, England, all over the shop. What do we care about England? The law in England is no more to me than the law of Canada, or Australia, or the Cape of Good Hope. We want the right to come over here to look after and protect our interests. The right honourable Gentleman's auditors are clever enough, in checking the action of the local bodies, which, after all, are a great deal less extravagant than Dublin Castle or the Local Government Board, and no doubt they will see the corporations are not unnecessarily extravagant in opposing Bills. I earnestly commend my proposal to the serious consideration of the right honourable Gentleman.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I admit that there is a difference between opposing a Bill and promoting one, so far as the referendum is concerned, and I am prepared, without pledging myself, to consider the matter, and, if necessary, to bring up an Amendment on the Report.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman will consider the desirability of amending the law with regard to the case of opposing Bills?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I thank the right honourable Gentleman, and will withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: Do I understand, Mr. Lowther, that you rule my Amendment out of order?
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Yes, it ought to be brought up as a new clause.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 8, line 34, after 'apply,' insert, 'the quorum of a council of a county borough shall be one-sixth of the total number of such council.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think the Government will consent to this Amendment. It concerns a very apparent
    974
    grievance in connection with Irish, municipal boroughs. Let me mention a contrast which prevails in Cork City at present. There is a Board of Guardians consisting of over a hundred members, the quorum of which is three members. Three guardians can hold a legal meeting, and pass resolutions binding on the whole boards. In the Municipal Corporation of Cork, which has only 56 members, the quorum is a third of the members; that is to say, there must be at least 19 members of the Town Council to constitute a legal meeting. That is an absurd state of things. Three members can hold a legal meeting of a body consisting of over a hundred, while 19 members are necessary for a legal meeting of a body of 56 members. In this House our quorum is 40, which is, of course, nothing like a third, but if the quorum were to be the same as in the Cork Corporation it would require over 200 Members to make a House. In the Orders of Council issued under this Bill it is proposed to change the quorum in the case of urban sanitary authorities not being county boroughs, which the right honourable Gentleman proposes to make a fourth. Of course, a fourth is better than a third, but I think it is too high for the county councils, as the members may have to come from the ends of the county, and it may not be possible to collect so large a number. The larger you make the body the smaller you must make the quorum. If you have a small body of nine or ten, it is reasonable enough that you should make the quorum a third or a fourth, because it only involves the attendance of three or four members; but in a body of 40 or 50 members you would require a small quorum, because it would mean a comparatively large attendance. I understand that the Royal Commission which reported on local government in Ireland in 1878 recommended that the quorum should be fixed at one-sixth. I think that when three out of a hundred members of a board of guardians can hold a legal meeting a sixth of a town council should have the power also. Of course, every member will have an opportunity of attending. The law, curiously enough, about borough councils is more stringent than about boards of guardians. Every member of a corporation gets notice of a meeting; no member of a board of

    975
    guardians gets notice except for special business, and every guardian must remember for himself the hour and day of the meeting. And yet, with that state of things, three guardians out of a hundred can hold a legal meeting, whereas 19 out of 56 members of the corporation are required for that purpose. I do not know whether the Government would think it convenient to make this change within the Bill, but either in the Bill or by Order of Council it ought to be dealt with. My present opinion is that a sixth of the members would be a quorum large enough. I beg to move, Sir.
    Question put.
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to support the proposal of the honourable and learned Member, which is a very reasonable one, and which I hope the Government will accept. The only difference it will be necessary to make is that all members of the county councils shall have notice of the business to be brought forward, in order that if they do not attend the business need not stand still.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable and learned Member for Cork has based his Amendment on the contrast between a legal quorum of three out of a hundred guardians and a legal quorum of 19 out of 56 members of a town council. I quite agree that there is a great contrast, and as to this particular proposal I do not feel very strongly in the matter. I would suggest, however, that as one-fourth is the legal quorum for urban districts it should also apply to county boroughs.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put—
    "Page 8, line 34, after 'apply,' insert 'a quorum of a council of a county borough shall be one-fourth of the total number of such council.'"
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 8, line 36, after 'shall,' insert 'not.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
    MR. FLYNN: The subsection proposes that the provisions of the Act with regard to criminal injuries shall
    976
    apply—that is, that the power of dealing with malicious injuries is to be taken away from the corporations in Ireland. In a Bill dealing with local government, I think it is extremely inadvisable to restrict the local government powers already in existence, except in so far as may be necessary and useful. I think this would be a mischievous change. There has been no complaint as to the action taken by the corporations in this matter—certainly very few. The procedure at present in Dublin and Cork, and in the other boroughs, is as follows. The application, when made, comes before the corporation, and they decide it. They can decide as to the amount to be paid, and if they reject the application, the applicant has, I understand, the power of appealing to the Recorder of the borough. Surely that is protection enough, and why this power under a local government Bill should be taken from the boroughs I cannot understand. Unquestionably, the council of any borough is not only the proper but the very best tribunal to adjudicate on claims of this kind. They have local knowledge of the circumstances and the amount of the damage, and I think a restriction of this kind should not be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
    Question put.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reason why we propose this addition is that, having, as regards counties, entirely changed the system of procedure as regards malicious injuries, and substituted a judicial procedure for what I think is a judicial matter, it is only reasonable we should make the procedure uniform, and apply it to boroughs as well. I think myself that this change will be a good one. The question of malicious injuries is eminently one for judicial decision.
    MR. DILLON: If the question of malicious injuries is eminently one for judicial decision, why is it not made so in England? Why is it not sent to a court of law? When this question was raised on clause 5, the answer of the right honourable Gentleman was that in Ireland it is well known and

    977
    admitted that the outrages are mainly of an agrarian character. That was the only argument he used for altering the procedure in Ireland from that under the English Act. Does he maintain that the outrages in the boroughs are of an agrarian character, and, if not, on what ground does he propose to alter the procedure at present obtaining in the boroughs? Sir, the Amendment of the honourable Member for North Cork is a most reasonable one, and the right honourable Gentleman has not given a single reason why it should not be accepted.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I would like to ask whether the law in Belfast remains as it was in 1886, or has it been altered? If it remains the same, this proposal is a trap. The House will recollect the shooting of Head Constable Gardner in Belfast in 1886. It formed the subject of a Royal Commission, and the Commission reported that, as there was no law in Belfast, as in every other corner of Ireland, giving the right of compensation to policemen and others for malicious injury, the law should be altered. It never has been altered. I really cannot understand the position of the Government, which is most indefensible. It may be that some clause did slip into a private Bill. The honourable and learned Member for Londonderry says "not," but if not, the Government must put the Orangemen of Belfast in the same position as the Nationalists throughout Ireland. If you kill a policeman in Belfast you kill him with impunity, but if a policeman in the south or west of Ireland, in stopping a public-house row, gets a black eye, he can get £50 or £60. Constable Leahy, in the county of Cork, for some injuries, from which I am glad to see he is now recovered, levied £1,000 off a single barony. Why should not the district of Sandy Row be subject to the law which prevails in every other part of the country? Belfast is to have none of this jurisdiction, and when you send into Sandy Row, in July, large drafts of police, you are exposing them to an undoubted risk, as they have not the same protection afforded them as in Kerry and Clare. I must ask the right honourable Gentleman to extend this law to Belfast.
    MR. KNOX: I may state that when the last Belfast Bill was before the House the police gave very strong evidence as to the desirability for including a provision such as that now proposed by the honourable and learned Member for the City of Cork. Mr. Cameron, a divisional commissioner, gave evidence, showing the necessity for such a provision. On the other hand, I am bound to say that the Town Clerk of Belfast took the general point—which I think to be a reasonable position—that a policeman can insure his life as well as any other man. I think if that be extended to the whole of Ireland it is reasonable enough, though the extra premiums on the policies of policemen in Belfast would be probably high. If you are going to keep this special provision for the security of policemen in other parts of Ireland, it certainly should be applied to Belfast. As a matter of fact, it was by the merest accident that such a clause was omitted from the Bill in 1896. The Committee were anxious to assimilate the law, but they were informed by the authorities of the House that it was beyond the scope of the Bill. It is therefore a matter which ought to be dealt with as soon as it possibly can. I confess, if the two courses were open to us, I would sooner see the law of the rest of Ireland assimilated to the law in Belfast, rather than the law in Belfast assimilated to the law in the rest of the country. It is absurd to give policemen these privileges. It is a case where there ought to be only one law. The present position is ludicrous. By the Bill passed two years ago the area of Belfast was trebled. Previous to that a policeman injured in one of the suburbs could have got full compensation from the county; now the suburbs are included in the city, and a policeman enters them at his own risk. Belfast is still increasing, and extending, and the more it extends the greater will be the risk to the police. I do think that such an existing anomaly as this should be removed.
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I have the honour of representing Sandy Row in the House of Commons, and I think the anxiety of honourable Members opposite to bring Belfast within the purview

    979
    of this Bill is due to the proposed celebrations of '98. I have no objection on the part of Belfast that a provision enabling her to give compensation for injuries should be passed. We only want to be assimilated with the law of the United Kingdom, of which we are proud to remain a part.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must confess we were not aware that there was any difference between the law in Belfast and in other parts of Ireland. If there be a difference we shall be quite prepared to accept the Amendment which stands in the name of the honourable Member for Cork City, and to assimilate the law in Belfast with that elsewhere.
    MR. FLYNN: I must urge on the right honourable Gentleman that that does not meet my point at all, which is that you propose to disturb the present procedure in the city of Cork for no reason that I can understand. The Chief Secretary says that the procedure is being changed in the counties, and that in future cases of malicious injuries must go before a judge. That is all very well for the county councils, but that is no argument why the procedure should be disturbed in the boroughs. Up to the present, in the counties malicious injuries come before the grand juries, but they are now to be abolished. The corporations always had the jurisdiction, and always exercised it fairly. Put aside the question of Sandy Row, and the killing of policemen in Belfast, and come to the ordinary cases of malicious injury. They are generally window-breaking in election riots and street disturbances. That is the ordinary class of malicious injury, and surely the corporations might still be empowered to deal with such injuries. The Amendment of my honourable Friend the Member for the City of Cork comes on at the end of the clause.
    MR. CONDON: I should like to know from the right honourable Gentleman what has become of his promise that the rights now possessed by the corporations should not be taken from them by this Bill. If he persists in his present proposal he will take away
    980
    from them the right to adjudicate in cases of malicious injury. I think it is a most extraordinary change, which is proposed without rhyme or reason on the part of the Government. The right honourable Gentleman cannot produce any claim for malicious injury in which justice was not done. If that be so—and it is so—I do not see why a right which the corporations now possess should be taken from them. Are the corporations not competent to examine any claim brought before them, and will they not do justice in the future as they have done in the past? Why should the right be taken away from the elected representatives of the community who understand all the circumstances of the cases brought before them, and transferred to a court that may or may not be influenced, but which cannot be acquainted with the local circumstances. I think the Government ought at least to keep their word with the Irish corporations and not take away from them this right. If my honourable Friend presses his Amendment to a Division I shall certainly support him. I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that if windows were broken in an election riot in Clonmel to-morrow the corporation would be as fair a tribunal to assess the damage for any injury committed as a stranger who knew nothing about the people. It is an unfair and an unnecessary proposal, and I cannot see any reason whatever for it.
    MR. CREAN: No reason has been assigned by the right honourable Gentleman for pressing this proposal on the corporations. Having acted for many years on one of the corporations in Ireland, where these cases came before us, I say that the change now suggested would not act favourably, either to the claimant who comes forward to get damages, or to the public. There is no single case in which applications for personal injury or injury to property have not been fairly dealt with, and even where appeals have been made to courts of law the awards made by the corporation have invariably been upheld. In fact, the corporation leaves it to the city engineer to assess the damage to the property. A judge sitting on a bench is not an expert in dealing

    981
    with articles broken or damaged, and the amount of compensation to be given; but we have an expert engineer to value the damage and assess the compensation. No reason has been given for the change, and I think the right honourable Gentleman might leave the law which is now working well in the cities as it is. The change, if carried out, would give great dissatisfaction.
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: I hope the Government will adhere to the form of this clause. I should like to inform the Committee what the existing system is which it is sought to remove by this clause, and to try and reconcile the system with the municipalities and the procedure set up by this Bill. I should like to inform the Committee how the system at present in force in Dublin works. Last year, on the occasion of the Jubilee celebration in the city of Dublin, advantage was taken of the occasion by a disloyal and seditious section to raise riots of a very disgraceful character, and as the result of these riots the windows of the respectable and loyal traders and the respectable and loyal citizens in that city were demolished and smashed. Under the existing procedure—and I wish to point out how anomalous and absurd it is—claims for compensation come before a selected number of the corporation, who sit as a jury, for the purpose of deciding the validity of these claims for damage and the amount to be awarded. Now, what was the extraordinary course taken by the Corporation of the city of Dublin in reference to these claims in 1897? Why, actually a month before the time had arrived when it was their duty to sit as an impartial jury to investigate these claims they actually passed a resolution that counsel was to be engaged, and paid for out of the rates, to appear before them to resist these claims. Now, I happened to be professionally engaged in these cases when they came to be heard, and I say that had it not been that the judge who presided over that jury—consisting as it did of certain members of the Corporation—happened to be a man of strong opinions, and had considerable power and
    982
    influence, I venture to submit that the claimants, some of whom established an overwhelming case for redress, would, in a considerable number of cases, have been refused redress or relief. My reason for saying this is that the system that these gentlemen from the Corporation who are sitting there, supposed to be an impartial jury, adopted was that they had counsel paid for by themselves to urge them to reject these claims. And what were the grounds put forward? Why, that these riots were not caused by the disloyal and seditious element of the city of Dublin, but were actually due to the interference of the police, whose only interference was that they endeavoured to stop processions headed by black flags, and other disloyal and seditious emblems, from marching through the streets of the city of Dublin, demolishing the windows of the loyal and respectable citizens. Now, apart from this case of the city of Dublin, I suggest to honourable Members opposite whether in Belfast, Cork, or Dublin it is not an absurd anomaly, and one which is out of date, that the jury who are to sit and investigate into the truth of these claims and award the amount of damages should be in a position to prejudice the case beforehand by arranging that counsel shall appear before them who are briefed by information supplied by the very jury as to matters which they are called upon to adjudicate?
    MR. CLANCY: I suppose that what my honourable and learned Friend has indicated in the speech to which we have just listened is intended as compensation to the electors of the St. Stephen's Division for his professional services.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I rise to order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the honourable Member for North Dublin is in order in making that insinuation as to my honourable and learned Friend?
    [The CHAIRMAN ignored the interruption.]
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I am afraid you did not hear the insinuation, Sir. The honourable Member implied that my

    983
    honourable and learned Friend was carrying out instructions here for payment he had received in Dublin.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Mr. Clancy.
    MR. CLANCY: I never said anything disrespectful of my honourable and learned Friend, who has more common sense in his head than the honourable Member who has just interrupted me. If I had said anything disrespectful, I should willingly withdraw it. I think the speech of my honourable and learned Friend answers itself. I was curious to know what would be the conclusion which he would bring out as the consequences of all these proceedings to which he referred. I thought he would have been able to conclude, if I had not known the facts, with the statement that the Corporation of Dublin, after all, did not do justice in these cases. I intend now to refer to the language of the honourable and learned Gentleman in describing the two different sections of the people of Dublin. Now, what he calls the loyal and respectable people we call by another name, and what he calls the disloyal and seditious class I am sure are not of that character at all. I should be sorry to think that any considerable part of the population of Dublin could be so described, but if that is a correct description of those with whom I am acquainted, I hope they will always continue to be disloyal and seditious in that sense. The honourable and learned Gentleman, as I said before, has supplied the answer to his own speech. The practice, under the circumstances to which he referred, of the Corporation of Dublin employing counsel to defend these actions is not only a common practice in these cases to protect the inhabitants, who have to pay, but in this case it was absolutely justified by the conduct which provoked these riots. I need not enter now into the circumstances of these riots last July—I do not believe they were riots at all—but, as my right honourable Friend has made an assertion on one side, I may be permitted to make the counter assertion that the police in almost every case provoked whatever
    984
    disturbances occurred and caused whatever damage was perpetrated. I do not like to allude to any particular section of the inhabitants, but as a matter of fact the case on the side of the people was that the conduct of the police deliberately provoked what happened, and that for what ultimately occurred in the shape of damage the police were responsible. Very well, under these circumstances, the Corporation, acting not exceptionally at all, but acting in accordance with the practice on similar occasions, rightly employed counsel as the representative of the ratepayers to argue the case in court. No injustice could possibly be perpetrated under these circumstances, because the other side were represented by counsel. My honourable and learned Friend himself was employed on the other side, and he is one of the most competent members of his profession. Of course, technically, counsel appeared for the Corporation, but as a matter of fact they appeared for the great body of the ratepayers, and nothing could be more just and fair than that the whole question should be thrashed out by counsel on both sides.
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: Will the honourable Gentleman pardon me? I was not objecting to counsel appearing for the ratepayers. What I was objecting to was that counsel should appear and be paid and instructed by the jury which is to decide the matter.
    MR. CLANCY: The honourable and learned Member has just repeated what he said before. I maintain that the counsel there representing the Corporation represented technically and really the body of the ratepayers, who could not employ counsel themselves; and, moreover, Mr. Lowther, remember this, that the question as to the right of these people to compensation was never questioned. The real question was, what was the amount of compensation to be given? That was the question, and anybody who has had any experience at all in these matters will know that what I say is absolutely true. Well, there was no claim made for compensation in any of these cases which was not extravagant, no matter from what side these claims

    985
    came. My honourable and learned Friend has appeared in many of these cases, and he has appeared for all parties and all persuasions, and he knows perfectly well that what I am saying is absolutely true, that there is no cause of a claim ever made by any person, no matter to what county he belongs, that is not extravagant, and that the man who makes it does not expect to have his claim cut down. If counsel is not to be employed, who is to make that argument for the ratepayers? What is their object in employing counsel but to see that the ratepayers are represented? And, finally, what happened? As I said before, my honourable and learned Friend would wind up by saying that compensation—that is, adequate compensation—was not given, but the Committee must have been strongly disappointed by him not referring in a single sentence to the result of all these operations. The result was that substantial compensation was given in almost every case, and this is the great case that my honourable and learned Friend brings out, if I may say so, without reference to the result.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I am very glad he did.
    MR. CLANCY: Well, the honourable Member is more competent to do it than any Member on that side, and I hope he will often take part in these Debates. There is no question about this Amendment. Where is the need for these changes? And then we must remember this is a reform Bill for extending the liberties of the people, and at the very time that you extend those liberties to the greater part of the country you cut down the Members in the country where they have exercised these liberties without injustice to anyone for the last 40 or 50 years. I shall, therefore, vote for the Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I must say that I hope the Debate will not be continued on the lines on which it has proceeded, which were calculated to engender heat and friction. The issue is really quite simple. We believe that this procedure which we have substituted will be a great improvement on the old
    986
    procedure. These are really matters which are already provided for by the procedure as regards counties, which are not county boroughs, and in this clause we merely propose that the same procedure shall stand for boroughs as well. I quite admit that the case in favour of extending it to boroughs is not so strong as originally applied to counties on the grounds stated by the honourable Member for East Mayo that malicious injuries in the counties are for the most part of the character of agrarian outrages, and we all know what peculiarities there are in Ireland with regard to these outrages. At the same time, I think that even in the boroughs the present procedure is antiquated, and undoubtedly it does often result in this, that we have persons as judges who are also to some extent interested parties. I cannot myself believe for a moment that the procedure we are proposing in this Bill creates any injustice, and I should not be at all surprised if the effect were the other way. I think it is quite possible that the corporation may prefer to give compensation for injuries after the judge refuses. I believe our own procedure is in the interests of justice, and very likely in the interests of the ratepayer.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I had not intended to take part in the discussion on this particular Amendment, but as a citizen of Dublin and an inhabitant of the St. Stephen's Green Division I heard with very great regret the observations of my honourable and learned Friend the new Member for that division. I confess I think that he imputed to the Corporation of Dublin—a most responsible body, and a most representative one of the feelings of the citizens of Dublin—something in the nature of corruption. But what they did was perfectly legitimate, and had they not done so they would have been wanting in their duty. Claims were put forward arising out of those riots—and I am not going into the merits of those riots. The town council, or rather the Corporation, were trustees of the ratepayers of the city of Dublin. Their duty was to see that exaggerated claims were not allowed to pass without question, and it was their province and their right to have those claims fully

    987
    investigated, and for that purpose they employed counsel to go before the judge of the High Court—who was one of the judges of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench—finally to determine what the damage was. Then why should it be imputed to this body, which is one of the most responsible bodies in the whole Empire—I say that without fear of contradiction—why should it be imputed to them that they were guilty of something like malversation and corruption? Why should this opportunity upon a technical clause be made the ground for imputing to the general body of the inhabitants of Dublin that they were seditious? Such language as that coming from such a weighty authority-as I admit, from his talent and his position, my honourable and learned Friend undoubtedly is—gives the Members of this House who do not know Ireland—that is the English and Scotch Members—the impression that Ireland is something beyond the pale of reason, and almost of civilisation. I do trust, with regard to this section, that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland—whose lecture I do not altogether regret, because I think it my business to say something on behalf of this Corporation, which I hope will have a good deal of force and effect—with regard to this clause will explain why it applies to every municipal borough in Ireland, because the definition of borough is not confined merely to seven or eight cities, or whatever they are, but it applies to every municipal borough, and those boroughs are getting no benefit from this Act. They are not getting any relief from what has been called the bribe or the dole. They are not relieved from any portion of their share of burdens, and they do not participate in this £780,000 a year. Why, then, should you disturb their ancient constitution in this respect? Has any reason been given, and has any advantage been claimed for it? Honourable Members from below the Gangway have remonstrated against this clause, and I do respectfully submit that it will not in any way impair the symmetry of the Bill, or its general object, if the Amendment is accepted, and I do ask the Government to yield to the Amendment of the honourable Member for Cork, and leave out this clause.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The opinion of the Government seems to be this, that nobody can be just or honest in Ireland unless he is in receipt of £3,500 a year. You may be a hanger-on of the Government, or a person using backstairs influence; you may be a person of the most cringing and snivelling description in order to secure office; but the moment you get it the arm of judicial authority is placed upon you, and you become endowed with all the virtues, and we must prostrate ourselves in admiration before you. But the ordinary human man, who does his work for nothing—the citizen of Dublin who goes to trouble and expense in the discharge of civic duties, who looks after the rates, and streets, and lighting, and who does the work at great expense, trouble, and inconvenience to himself—for the first time a brand of contempt and of dishonour, so to speak, and of want of confidence is placed upon him; and his functions, without any necessity whatever, are to be handed over to the officials of Dublin Castle. And this is all to be done in a Local Government Bill. The Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division has told us of the corruption of the jury of the Dublin Corporation, and of the fact that the Dublin Corporation found it necessary to employ counsel to reduce extravagant claims. I remember the notorious case of Sibthorpe's compensation. He was a leading freemason of the city of Dublin, and his claim was resisted by the City Corporation, and the arbitrator gave a few hundred pounds. But he was able, however, backed up by a freemason jury, to get a sum equivalent to three times the value of his property. This was done by the partisans of law, order, and virtue, to show that all the corruption was on one side, and all the decency on the other. And yet an occasion like this, when the Committee was getting on quietly, is used to stir up indignation of this kind when we are debating without any heat or needless partisanship. But when the gardener's widow was shot, she was not able to get a shilling, although Sibthorpe was able to empannel a freemason jury to give him three times the value of his premises. I noticed the words of the Chief Secretary—the very careful words he chose in his speech—

    989
    pointing to a further enlargement of this section, and a further enlargement of this jurisdiction. I venture to say that anything of the kind will be stoutly resisted by us. The clause as it is is bad enough, but any proposal to widen it in any sense will certainly lead to a great deal of complication. I wish to point out to the Committee that the position of your boroughs is this: you gain nothing whatever from it; you get no agricultural grant, and all their ancient franchise and jurisdictions are taken away. And this extraordinary result will follow by way of illustration, that a man in the St. Stephen's Green Division, when he takes a lease of his house from the landlord, has to pay all the rates. Throughout the boroughs the privileges of the citizens all through this Bill are being violently and openly interfered with, without any cause whatever. The rights of the coroners are given over to the Lord Chancellor, the rights of the subject are given over to the judges, and the whole theory of compensation from our peers for malicious injuries is to be finally taken away. And this is being
    done in a Local Government Bill. I assert this—and I have had a great deal of experience in these matters—that, in any case of dispute between Protestant and Catholic, there is no justice for the Irish Catholic. After 14 years' experience of cases where Catholics and Protestants have come into collision, or in competition, I say there is no justice for the Catholic. I assert also that it is notorious that the whole manipulation of the judge and jury system in Ireland is under Protestant influence. And now under the pretence of conferring additional local liberty, the people are to be deprived of this last relic of ancient freedom we enjoy. At all events, if we have to give compensation in these cases, then the citizens, who have to pay, should have some voice in the amount which is to be paid. And this is done under the guise of conferring upon the people local government.
    Amendment put.
    The Committee divided.—Ayes 89; Noes 126.—(Division List, No. 94.)

    AYES.

    Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

    Gibney, James

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Gold, Charles

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. B. (Clackm.)

    Harwood, George

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbysh.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Perks, Robert William

    Billson, Alfred

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Blake, Edward

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Brigg, John

    Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Burt, Thomas

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Caldwell, James

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Cameron, Sir C. Glasgow)

    Holburn, J. G.

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Hutton, A. E. (Morley)

    Roche, Hon. Jas. (E. Kerry)

    Carew, James Laurence

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Roche, John (East Galway)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kitson, Sir James

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

    Sheehy, David

    Crombie, John William

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Souttar, Robinson

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Steadman, William Charles

    Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Daly, James

    MacNeill, John G. Swift

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

    Davitt, Michael

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Dillon, John

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

    Tully, Jasper

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Doogan, P. C.

    McKenna, Reginald

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    Doughty, George

    McLaren, Charles B.

    Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

    Duckworth, James

    Maden, John Henry

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Woodall, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Murnaghan, George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Mr. Flynn and Mr. Crean.

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Fitz Wygram, Gen. Sir F.

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

    Arrol, Sir William

    Flower, Ernest

    Myers, William Henry

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Godson, Augustus Frederick

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

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

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

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Gretton, John

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Purvis, Robert

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

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Rankin, James

    Beckett, Ernest William

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

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Bethell, Commander

    Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Bigwood, James

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hornby, William Henry

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

    Rutherford, John

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

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

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Kenyon, James

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Knowles, Lees

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lafone, Alfred

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. R.

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

    Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

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

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

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

    Cox, Robert

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Waring, Col. Thomas

    Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

    Lowe, Francis William

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Denny, Colonel

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

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

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

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

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Younger, William

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fisher, W. Hayes

    Mount, William George

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Fitzgerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Muntz, Philip A.

    The Resolution was agreed to.

    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 8, line 43, at end, add—
    "And as respects Belfast, the enactments mentioned in Part I. of the First Schedule shall, notwithstanding any Act of Parliament, apply within the county borough in the same manner as in any other part of Ireland."
    MR. M. HEALY: Now, Mr. Lowther, I understand that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary accepts this Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, I will accept that Amendment.
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 8, line 43, at end, add—
    "(d) The council of each county borough shall elect the harbour board or port authority now exercising jurisdiction within any portion of such borough; (e) the council of each county borough shall be entitled to elect the same number of Commissioners to the Irish Lights Board as the Corporation of Dublin."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The Government have all along been engaged in restricting the powers of the Irish corporations. Let us see now whether, in the Local Government Bill, they will do anything to extend it. My proposal is that the port authority shall be elected by the corporation much in the same way as was the case at Cork

    993
    If that is too strong, I am willing to accept the proposal that half the port authority should be elected by the corporation, if the Government cannot see their way to widen the scope of the Bill to the extent I desire. My Amendment has one great advantage, and that is that every existing local authority is opposed to it. That is the greatest compliment that could be paid to my Amendment. The ridiculous franchise which exists all over the country is left, and not one of these boards wants to be responsible to public opinion. They are engaged upstairs in a long argument over a Bill not promoted by the Nationalists, because we have several times endeavoured to bring about some reform of the port authority of the Port of Dublin. But this Bill is promoted by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, which is a reading-room in the city of Dublin and nothing more, and it is felt to be a great scandal that this readings room, on its own motion, has brought in a Bill to reform the port authority. I understand that the course taken by the Port and Docks Board is this—and it is rather comical: first of all, they give the Dublin Corporation seven members, then they give them three—whereas they have already five—and now, in fear of their opposition, they are going to give them more. They are going to play this trick upon this House, as to which I now warn the Government, that we will give them days over this Port and Docks Bill, because the position they are adopting is that they will accept the Amendments moved in this House, but when the Bill gets into the House of Lords, they are going to strike out the Amendments, so that this House will only afterwards have the question before it of agreeing with the Lords' Amendments. I have the strongest distrust of the Port and Docks Board. Originally, under the hand and seal of the Irish Parliament—the authority to which we owe anything that is good and democratic in Ireland—the control of the port authority was vested in the Dublin Corporation, but in the bad days, by a private Act, this board was filched from the corporation, stolen
    994
    away, and the corporation lost its ancient jurisdiction and influence, and it was given to the port and docks authority, and a nice muddle they made of it. At this moment the port authority is practically bankrupt, and has no real means of carrying on the business of the port, and in the face of that they claimed last year power to put an additional tax upon commodities, and an additional tax upon vessels. They seem to have an idea that the taxes upon commerce are paid by the shippers, but I say that the taxes upon commerce are not paid by the shippers, but by the general body of the community. And so absurd are the port dues of Dublin that you can bring in ready-made window frames without a tax, but if you bring in the materials for making them there is a tax upon those materials. So that actually there is a premium offered to these foreign window frame makers, whereby the native manufacturers, who are working up the raw material for the window frames, are put to a great disadvantage. So much for the port authority of Dublin. What is the state of things in Belfast? The Corporation of Belfast have twice appeared at the Bar of the House of Lords, in order to oppose the Belfast Harbour Bill, and the House of Lords said that the Corporation of Belfast had no locus standi. That is to say, that the great Corporation of Belfast, the mayor of which was made Lord Mayor not long ago by Her Majesty, has no locus standi in connection with its harbour, according to the decision of the House of Lords, and by the high franchise, which excludes the general body of the people from any control over it, they keep up this miserable clique. The case of Cork is a reasonable one, and it is in order to approximate the case of Cork to that of the other ports of Ireland that I bring forward this Amendment. If you go to Limerick or Waterford you have the most unreasonable state of things. You have a franchise which admits nobody except a very select few, with the result that there have been injunctions granted by various Masters of the Rolls in regard to the port authority.

    995
    The latest Act on this question is a private Act of 1863, relating to Dungarvan. By that Act the Dungarvan Corporation have been given the sole control of the port and are the port authority, but if you go to the older Act you will find a franchise of the most extraordinary description. Now, I certainly say that the time has come, if you will steal from us our ancient rights and franchises, to give us some enjoyment of our privileges. If you take away our ancient rights, our compensation for malicious injuries, our right to the removal of coroners, what substitute do you give us? Why is my lease to be broken in regard to the payment of rates? By this Bill, in respect of a lease, under which the landlord should pay all my rates, he can say, "No, I shall not," although I made my contract in the open market, with that provision. You are taking away from us rights which we have had, rights as to which there was no complaint, and under these circumstances it is only fair that these absurd anachronisms should be reconstituted, and that some popularly-elected authority should be appointed. If the Government will give me some assurance that they will consider the matter, I shall not press my Amendment.
    MR. WOLFF: This is one of the most extraordinary proposals I ever heard made before the House. This is a proposal to alter the franchise of the Harbour Board, and a proposal to set up the corporation or the town council as the harbour authority, or, I should say, to enable the corporation or the town council to elect the harbour authority. I can quite understand that the honourable Gentleman opposite is not satisfied with the franchise which elects the Harbour Board, and that he should, like my honourable Friend the Member for Londonderry, bring in a proposal that the franchise should be altered altogether. But to throw the whole election, or half of the election, into the hands of the borough council or the corporation, seems to me to be a most extraordinary proceeding, and one which, I trust, will not commend itself to the Government. The honourable Member has made some strong
    996
    observations about the Harbour Board of Dublin. There is no doubt that the board was in a very bad condition, but from the fact that there is a Bill before the House of Commons it is evident that the condition of things may be altered with the consent of this House. In the course of the Debate the honourable Member said that the Bill to which I have alluded had been promoted by the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin, which he calls a reading-room. As a matter of fact it is representative of all the largest traders and merchants and shippers in Dublin, who know far more about the working of a harbour than a county council or town council is likely to do; and I may add that this Bill is not only being promoted by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, but it is being promoted with the consent of the Corporation of Dublin, which corporation, I fancy, has many gentlemen on it whose political opinions are the same as those of the honourable Member. In regard to Belfast, I can only say that they certainly have done the very best work that I know of being done by any harbour board. I do not know of one which would have done better. But if again that is wrong, if again the constitution of the board or the constitution of the electorate does not please my honourable Friend, there is a remedy before the House; and it seems to me that the thing to do would be to alter the method of election, but not to make a sweeping alteration like this, giving the election of the Harbour Board to the town council altogether. All through Ireland there is no uniform system as regards harbour boards at all. Every harbour board has its own law, and every one of them works in a different way, and such a proposal as the honourable Member now makes is entirely different to anything that was proposed in the English Local Government Bill. It is an entirely new departure, and one which, if adopted, would be likely to give very much worse boards than we have at present. I feel that if the election of the Harbour Commissioners were to rest in the hands of any body like the town council or the borough council, it would be a serious incentive to jobbery. I doubt very much whether a town council would elect members of the harbour boards themselves, who would form a body capable of doing the work as well as

    997
    it is done now. I am most strongly opposed to this Amendment.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I have listened with some amusement to the speech of the honourable Member for Belfast. I should like to know whether he is pleading for the city of Belfast or on behalf of the Harbour Board, because the opinion of the city of Belfast is, on this question, I venture to think, beyond doubt; and I agree that on an occasion so important as this to the chief commercial city of Ireland the other Members of the city of Belfast should be here to give some information as to the feelings of their constituents. But, at any rate, one of these gentlemen is a regular attendant, and we shall hear from him probably before the Debate is concluded. The people of Belfast do desire that the Harbour Board shall be in some way made responsible directly to the electors. I believe that it is true that they would prefer that the Harbour Board should be directly elected by the local government electors rather than that they should be indirectly elected, as proposed by my honourable and learned Friend. But that is a question of very small importance, whether the system of the community electing the board is adopted or not, or whether the board is indirectly elected by the council which the community elects. There is no doubt that, though my honourable and learned Friend prefers not to have a separate election on this occasion by the popular electors, still the members of the corporation who are elected by the local government electors would doubtless choose very much the same people as the electors themselves would choose if they had an opportunity of doing so. I am sure my honourable and learned Friend would give the honourable Member for Belfast his support for the direct election of the Harbour Board, and if the Government is ready to accept an Amendment for a direct election of the board by the local government electors, I feel sure that my honourable and learned Friend would be just as willing to accept that as the proposal which he now advocates. The main object is to get the Harbour Board responsible to the people and the machinery for carrying out that object is a matter of
    998
    comparatively small importance. I think the question raised by this Amendment is a matter of the very greatest importance. The constitution of the Harbour Board is a matter not only for the shippers and the large traders, because we have the theory advanced that it is a matter for the people of the town. That is a question of principle. Now the Belfast Corporation has taken that side of the question, and has declared that the constitution of the Harbour Board is a matter for the consideration of the whole town. The Member for East Belfast says it is a question for the big shippers, and he went so far as to suggest that men elected by the people would be guilty of jobbery. Of course, it would be treason to suggest that there would be jobbery amongst big shippers, or that they would or could, for instance, build a graving dock in a position where it would be an enormous advantage to a particular firm.
    MR. WOLFF: Will the honourable Member kindly tell me what he means?
    MR. VESEY KNOX: Oh, yes; we know all about it. There is a Bill being fought upstairs this year, and we have seen the clauses of the Bill. I will not go so far as to say that there would be corruption among the big shippers for this purpose. On the contrary, the building of this graving dock may be a defensible proposition, but it is absurd to say that the Corporation of Belfast, because it is popularly elected, is likely to be corrupt, and that the Harbour Board, because it is not popularly elected, is a body not liable to corruption, I do not think we need have this argument of corruption used in this Debate at all, because every public body may become corrupt, but I do not think there is any more probability of a popularly-elected body becoming corrupt than there is of a body elected on a limited franchise becoming corrupt. Let us look at it in the broader light as to what these bodies are supposed to do, and then you will find that there is a strong case for allowing the people themselves to have a voice in the election of these boards. There is hardly a port in Ireland in

    999
    which one of the obstacles to progress has not been that there are a few shippers in the town who have had some peculiar advantages, and have done their best to prevent England or Scotland coming into that port and competing. There is hardly a port in Ireland of which this remark is not true. Now, the interests of the whole people of the whole town are to bring to the port every shipper that they possibly can from all parts of the world, whilst the interests of the shippers of the port are to keep things in a narrow ring for themselves. I am bound to say that the Harbour Board of Belfast have been better than most others in this respect—I certainly think it is, even with the £20 franchise. The Harbour Board there has been much more nearly popularly elected than the Harbour Boards of some other towns. I will say that with the £20 franchise they have a much nearer approach to popular representation than Dublin has. Dublin has been stagnant for years, and that is due mainly to the policy that the Harbour Board has pursued, and the present condition of the port of Derry is due to the same cause. But a committee of that board has passed a resolution in favour of the popularisation of the board. There is a difference between a popularly-elected body and a body representing only the shippers. A proposal was made that there should be certain sheds erected for the convenience of Atlantic steamers—especially the tramp steamers, which come from time to time from America, and which could not, of course, have any opportunity of putting up sheds of their own; and the idea was that harbour sheds should be put up which would attract this class of steamers. But, because there was a majority of men who had their own sheds, and who would not allow any shed to be put up by the Harbour Board, because it might give an advantage to competitors in the trade, that idea was not carried out. It is an example of the sort of thing that is happening at most of the ports of Ireland. Belfast is, in this respect, an exception. The Harbour Board there have gone in for an enlightened policy, and have erected a large number of sheds, which are to be open to all these
    1000
    steamers, and it is because of their enlightened policy that they have attracted all classes of traders to Belfast. This is the question which is essential to the progress of the Irish ports. The question is whether the Harbour Boards are to be left in the hands of small, local shippers, who destroy competition by refusing to allow the outside shipper to come in and compete, or whether they shall be in the hands of the people of the towns who are interested in attracting shippers from all parts. That is a very important and very essential question, and I do not consider that anything more important can possibly be raised during our discussions on this Bill. Then there are other questions. The Harbour Boards are large employers of labour. The House has adopted the principle of the fair wages Resolution. In regard to the Harbour Board of Belfast I do not make this proposal in any way as a reflection on the way it has performed its duties, but on general grounds.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURcould not go into the merits of the existing Harbour Boards in the west of Ireland, but the Government could not accept the Amendment on broad, general grounds. It must be obvious to the Committee that in the case of other harbour boards there were a number of conflicting interests involved, and the results had been seen not only in Ireland but in England, where boards had been made up of members representing different interests. To decide the exact constitution of a harbour board was a difficult, complicated, and debatable matter. Each case required separate consideration, and it seemed to him it was not fair to impose the same constitution on all the boards. The question was too difficult and thorny to be dealt with in the present Bill.
    MR. M. HEALYasked the President of the Board of Trade, whom he saw in his place, why the Department over which he presided had done nothing to introduce order and method into the numerous Port and Harbour Acts. They had been passed for many years, and amended again and again, but there was

    1001
    no law laying down the lines on which those harbour authorities should be constituted, and the effect of that was that it was practically left for private initiative, in the case of every harbour, to formulate schemes and put them before the Board of Trade. The English Harbour Board, which looked after the commercial interests of England, had left an important question of this kind in the discreditable state in which it now remained. On every occasion it was Ireland that chiefly suffered. In England they were dealing with rich and valuable interests in localities that could spend large sums of money, but in the case of Irish local authorities they were dealing with places where £50 a year was the revenue. The result, in the case of Irish ports, was that nothing was done from one year's end to another to have some form of government which could look after the port and serve its interests. He agreed with what the Chief Secretary had said, that in this matter of port legislation there were many interests to consider. There were large towns situated 20 miles up a navigable river, and others situated on the sea, and there were two instances in which the local circumstances made it desirable that in any legislation there should be a good deal of elasticity in establishing port authorities. He thought the system in some cases should be improved, and the harbour authorities should be directly elected by the ratepayers. The ratepayers might well be represented in this question of Harbour Board by the local authority. It might be left to the local authority, general instructions being given to make selections from shippers and merchants. He quite recognised that the interests of the shippers should be represented; he would give them a large and substantial, though not a preponderating, representation. He believed that the traders ought to be specially represented. A proposal might very well be devised by virtue of which a corporation might be committed to elect the harbour authorities, making a special direction in each case that each separate interest concerned should get separate representations of the board when the corporation proceeded to elect its body. The local body might well be trusted to elect the shipowners and mer-
    1002
    chants, such as would fairly represent the shipping interests of the port and the trading interests of the Harbour Board. If the Government saw their way to yield to representations on that point, the Bill would be much more satisfactory. They certainly ought to have some satisfaction from the Government. The Board of Trade ought to take the matter into their consideration, the desirability of looking into these Harbour Acts, and by consolidating them introduce some sort of harmony with the requirements of the Board of Trade.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)said that, as the honourable Gentleman had made an appeal to him, he felt bound to reply. The Board of Trade had not taken a general survey under the Acts affecting harbour trustees with a view of having them consolidated. There were dissimilarities that required special arrangements, and they must have proportionately a considerable number bearing on the circumstances of the harbour authorities. He did not see how the honourable Gentleman could get over the difficulties he himself acknowledged did exist in regard to each separate case.
    MR. M. HEALYsaid his observations in connection with the Board of Trade related to their failure to consolidate all the public Acts affecting Harbour Boards.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADEreplied that, if they attempted to consolidate these Acts, there would require to be somewhat similar treatment of all the various boards.
    MR. M. HEALY: No, no!
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: What the honourable Gentleman confined his remarks to was, that there were general Acts of Parliament dealing with harbours and their management passed from time to time, and there was some difficulty when one desired to know what the law of Great Britain and Ireland was. He would be glad, however, to consider the question of how it could be done in the way the honourable Member suggested, by consolidation. He had no doubt there were

    1003
    a large number of other questions affecting that of whether consolidation might properly be undertaken. If the honourable Gentleman asked him to look into the matter in order to see whether anything could be done, he would be glad to do it.
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: Mr. Lowther, I should not have intervened in this discussion, after the statements which have been made by the Chief Secretary, if the honourable Member for Cork City had not risen to continue the Debate. But in consequence of his speech I think I may ask the indulgence of the Committee while I say a few words on behalf of the Belfast Harbour Board, with which it is proposed to interfere by the Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for Louth. I hold in my hand a statement issued by the Belfast Harbour Board, from which I may be permitted to make a few quotations. This statement declares that the proposals of the honourable and learned Member for Louth are altogether outside anything either in the English or Scottish Local Government Acts, for the English and Scottish Acts did not in any way affect the English and Scottish Harbour Trusts, whose constitutions remain unaltered. There does not seem to be any reason why this experiment should be made upon Belfast, and although Belfast was not specially named in the Amendment, yet he thought that both Belfast and Derry were present to the minds of the honourable and learned Members opposite when they proposed these alterations.
    MR. KNOXsaid he had already carefully stated that he thought the Belfast Harbour Board was the best in Ireland because it had at present the widest suffrage.
    MR. JOHNSTONthought that if the Belfast Board was the best in Ireland that was a sufficient reason why it should be left alone. They object to the proposed Amendment on the ground that the—
    "Trust managed by the Harbour Commissioners is not one which is worked for the benefit of
    1004
    Belfast alone, but for the greater part of the towns and country districts situate in the North of Ireland, for which Belfast is the port for export and import alike."
    Belfast is very much interested, of course, as a city, in the management of the Harbour Trust, but the towns and country districts of Ulster are also interested, and therefore there is no-special reason why the Harbour Trust should be managed entirely by the Belfast Corporation. The Commissioners urge that to do what is proposed would be to go back to ancient history, for Belfast Harbour was at one time under the management of the Belfast City Corporation; but, by a subsequent enactment, the Corporation was relieved from the management, and the harbour was placed under a distinct and separate Trust called the Ballast Corporation. As this statement of the Harbour Board goes on to say—
    "The history of Belfast in this respect is identical with that of Liverpool, where a similar condition of things arose, which ultimately necessitated a separate and distinct Trust Corporation being provided for the management of the Mersey Harbour and Docks."
    The history of the progress of Belfast has frequently been referred to in the House of Commons, and perhaps the Committee will allow me again to remind them that in 1786, the year after the Ballast Corporation was constituted, the total tonnage of vessels entering Belfast Harbour was only 34,287 tons. Fifty years afterwards, in 1836, the trade of the port had increased to 309,256 tons; and last year the figures had increased to 2,298,868 tons. As an indication of the position and importance of the Belfast Harbour Trust as compared with the Belfast City Corporation, I may mention that the total authorised borrowing powers of the Harbour Commissioners amount to £1,773,320, and the total amount actually borrowed is £1,213,866. The authorised borrowing powers of the Corporation amounted on the 31st of December, 1896, to about £2,300,000, and the total amount actually borrowed was about £1,386,500. The total expenditure by the Harbour Commissioners is about £2,250,000, the balance over borrowed capital having been provided out of revenue. These figures, considered as an evidence of the works that

    1005
    the two bodies have respectively carried out, show that the Harbour Trust is, as regards Belfast alone, an equally important Trust with the City Corporation. It claims, therefore, that as its management has been good in the past, and as it is still largely interested in the development of the shipping trade in Belfast, in connection with other portions of Ulster, it would be unfair and unjust to place the Harbour Trust under the management of the Belfast Corporation alone. The revenue of the City Corporation is derived generally from rates assessed upon the inhabitants of the city, while the revenue of the Harbour Trust is derived generally from rates on goods and rates on vessels, paid in the first instance by traders and shipowners, and eventually paid by the consumers of the goods imported or exported through the harbour, such customers being scattered all over the north of Ireland. From these facts it evidently would not be right that the Belfast Corporation should manage and control these affairs when it has nothing whatever to do with the rates by which the Harbour Trust is maintained. I will not, Sir, prolong this discussion any further; and, indeed, it is almost unnecessary that I should have risen at all, but my silence, after the speech made by the honourable Member for Cork, might have been misconstrued. I desire most emphatically to support the view taken by the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this occasion, and to beg most earnestly that Her Majesty's Government will not disturb this excellent Trust which has managed the affairs committed to it in a manner calculated to develop the shipping trade of Belfast and the north of Ireland, and the welfare of that portion of Her Majesty's United Kingdom.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not wish to continue this Debate, and I have always acknowledged that the Belfast Harbour Board is one of the best and most useful of these bodies. But I do think that when the Government on the one hand say they will not give us English powers, and then at other times say we must have them because they are in certain English Bills, they must show some consistency. What we object to is this in-and-out running. The effect is that we get at one time a number of vicious provisions which are not to be found in any Bill
    1006
    at all, and which have no counterpart in any legislation whatever, and then on the other hand, when we make a proposal to give corporations powers such as they have had before, the Government say, "It is not in any English Bill and we cannot assent to it." Now, the right honourable Gentleman rather implied that these were matters which should be dealt with in individual private Bills; but, Mr. Lowther, nobody knows better than yourself that when we attempt to deal with them in a private Bill, the House of Lords throws it out and says it is not covered by the Notices. Then this House says it is not germane to the Bill, and must be done by a public Act, and when we try to do it by a public Act, they say they have no time to devote to the passing of that Act. It is never àpropos to propose reform for Ireland. You could keep this House sitting for hours, and all night, if you were proposing coercion or something in the interests of the landlords, but when you propose anything for the benefit of Ireland, the great Constitutional Party can hardly keep its members together.
    MR. ATKINSON: Look on the Front Opposition Bench. There is only one right honourable Gentleman there.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It is, nevertheless, very well represented. The honourable Member for Belfast has preferred to take up the line adopted by the Harbour Board, rather than the line adopted by the Corporation. Which body does he think represents more fairly the views of the people of Belfast—the Corporation, which is elected by the citizens as a whole, and which has passed a resolution demanding this reform, or the Harbour Board, which is elected on a very limited franchise? We have all admitted that the Belfast Harbour Board is one of the best and most useful bodies; but I would point out that these harbour authorities have functions of enormous importance, and on their action the advancement and prosperity of the country depend. I will give an instance of the hardship of the present Bill. In Kerry an enormous levy is annually made for the upkeep of that pier, and yet the Harbour Board is absolutely non-representative. The county of Kerry has not a single representative on that body. I would ask the Chief

    1007
    Secretary to undertake to look into the question of harbour development, with a view to legislating upon it, and not deal with it in this piecemeal and fragmentary way. My contention is that while a full measure of representation should be given to the shipping industry, it should not be solely represented, and that the people at large, through their corporations, should be adequately represented.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think there would be considerable difficulty in dealing in a uniform manner with all these cases. However, I am quite willing to look into the question with my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 8, line 43, at end, add—
    "The council of each county borough shall be entitled to elect the same number of Commissioners to the Irish Lights Board as the Corporation of Dublin."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he thought he should have the support of the honourable Member for Belfast in this matter.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I was doubtful as to whether this Amendment was in order. I have had some difficulty in discovering how the Irish Lights Board is constituted.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: You are in exactly the same difficulty, Mr. Lowther, that we are all in, and a difficulty which has, I believe, been shared by the President of the Board of Trade on more than one occasion. Admittedly the Dublin Corporation have the right to elect three Members to the Irish Lights Board. The Dublin Corporation was originally the lighting authority, and therefore has the right to elect three members. In that way I suggest that this comes fairly within the limits of a Local Government Bill. I admit, Mr. Lowther, that the question is one of difficulty for yourself, and whichever way you decide I shall be satisfied.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Irish Lights Board was constituted by an Act of Parliament passed by the Irish Parliament in 1786, and it is only incidentally that the Dublin Corporation are brought in, and are given the power of nomination. That being so, I think it hardly comes within the scope of an Irish Local Government Bill to give powers to county boroughs to elect Commissioners to the Irish Lights Board. I think it would require a new Act to deal with this matter.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: If I may say so, I think that is a very natural decision.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 8, line 43, at end, add—
    "Where the whole or any portion exceeding one-half of the salary of any person is paid by the council of a county borough, such council shall on the next vacancy and thereafter nominate and appoint the successor of such person to any office."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In moving the next Amendment that stands in my name, my object is to provide that those officials who are largely paid out of the local rates should be responsible to the local authorities. I do not wish to press the matter unduly, as I have already taken up some time to-day on this clause, but there are a number of these officials, and I think it is rather hard that the Government should retain the nomination of these officials, while the councils have to pay the piper. It appears to me that some reform is needed in the matter. Either let the Corporations be no longer responsible for the pay of these officials, or let the Government hand over the nomination of them to the Corporations.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would consider the matter.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 8, line 43, at end, add—
    "(d) Provided that the approval or consent of the Local Government Board or of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be necessary in any case where such consent or approval was not necessary before the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    MR. CLANCY: I really do not see the necessity for making a speech in support of this Amendment. I fancy it will commend itself to the Government. The Corporation of Dublin, a body with the proceedings of which I am most acquainted, have exercised their powers without being called into question in any matter. No charge of misconduct of any kind has been brought against that body, and I think it would be intolerable for the Government to take advantage of the present Bill to put additional fetters upon the powers now exercised by the Corporation of Dublin. The same thing might be said of other Corporations, and I hope the Government will accept my Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It will be impossible for the Government to accept an Amendment of this kind. I do not see how it will come in at the end of this clause.
    MR. CLANCY: All through this Bill, in regard to these new councils, it is provided, in almost every case, that before anything can be done the Lord Lieutenant or the Local Government Board must give consent or approval. In respect of most of these matters, so far as I can find out, in which the Local Government Board and the Lord Lieutenant will be brought in to interfere with the working of the ordinary county councils, the corporations are at present absolutely free. I do not think the Local Government Board effectively interferes with the Corporation of Dublin at present, except in the matter of auditing their accounts. My object in moving my Amendment is to secure for corporations in the future the freedom from executive control which they have enjoyed up to the present, and enjoyed, I maintain, without any disadvantage to the public and with great advantage to the working of their own concerns. This freedom
    1010
    should be conserved to them, and not taken away by a side wind. Perhaps my Amendment is not in the proper place, but if the right honourable Gentleman admits the principle of it, then I shall be prepared to move it as a new clause later on.
    MR. BALFOURsaid he could not ask the Government to accept this general Amendment. He suggested that the honourable and learned Member should move, in each case where he thought the approval or the consent of the Local Government Board or the Lord Lieutenant should not be necessary, an Amendment to the effect that this provision should not apply to that borough.
    MR. CLANCY: The right honourable Gentleman has suggested a course which will prove injurious to this Bill, as it will involve the dotting all over the Bill of fresh Amendments.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is impossible for the Government to do other than judge each case by itself.
    MR. CLANCY: I withdraw my Amendment for the present.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn, and clause 17 agreed to.

    CLAUSE 18.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 9, lines 4 and 5, leave out 'urban district,' and insert 'town.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: He thought the Government had selected a very clumsy phrase. "Town" was a good old word, and ought to be retained.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid the term "urban district" was used all through the English Act.
    MR. KNOX: I do not think the term "urban district" is an improvement. There is no real reason why townships should be abolished. Although there are no particularly sweet associations connected with the townships around Dublin, the word is still a good word, and has

    1011
    excellent associations in other hemispheres.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: What will become of the Town Commissioners if this clause passes?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: They will become urban district councillors.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The English language is being Latined and Greeked to an extraordinary degree. I withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 9, line 7, after 'borough,' insert 'or town.'"—(Mr. Jordan.)
    MR. JORDAN: This section of the clause provides that all urban sanitary authorities shall be called urban district councils, and their districts shall be called urban districts, but that nothing in the section shall alter the style or title of the corporation or council of a borough. What are we to understand by the definition of the word "borough"? Does it include such a place as the one I am going to refer to? In 1870 the Town Commissioners of Enniskillen got a private Act through this House at great cost and inconvenience, Clause 5 of which enacts that—
    "The Commissioners appointed and authorised under and by virtue of the former Acts, and their successors from time to time appointed and authorised under and by virtue of the former Acts, and this Act, shall be a body corporate by the name of the 'Commissioners of the Borough of Enniskillen,' and by that name shall have perpetual succession, and a common seal, with power to purchase, take, hold, and dispose of lands and other property for the purposes of this Act, and the former Acts, and shall be the Commissions for carrying this Act into execution."
    I want to know if the term "borough" includes such a case as that. If it includes such a case as that, it is all right. If it excludes such a case as that, it is all wrong. The object of my Amendment is to provide that nothing in the section shall alter the style or title of ancient towns like Enniskillen, of whose rights and privileges I am extremely jealous. I do not think it would be fair, Mr. Lowther, that an ancient township like
    1012
    ours, having obtained, at great cost, a special Act, should come within the scope of this section, and have given to it a name which is strange and which we know nothing about.
    MR. ATKINSON: The section as it stands will in no way affect the style or title of towns like Enniskillen.
    MR. JORDAN: Will we have the right to use one common seal?
    MR. ATKINSON: Certainly, two common seals.
    MR. JORDAN: We have two seals, as a matter of fact. I withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 9, line 18, after '1892,' insert 'or, where the Local Government Board think fit a combination of such electoral divisions.'"
    "Page 9, line 19, leave out from 'wards,' to 'each,' in line 20."
    "Page 9, lines 20 and 21, leave out, 'or combination.'"
    "Page 9, line 21, at end, add—
    "Provided that each such ward or combination, being a district electoral division, shall be subject to alteration by the Local Government Board, in the same manner as a poor law electoral division."
    "Page 9, line 29, after 'council,' insert—
    "(2) In a town being an urban district in which the Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act, 1828, shall be in force, the said Act shall from and after the first election of the council after the passing of this Act be no longer in force, and instead thereof the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854 (as amended by this, or any other Act), shall be in force in the said town in like manner as if the last mentioned Act had been adopted in the said town in manner provided therein."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALYsaid that this Amendment appeared to him to compel the Local Government Board to accept, the existing unit of electoral division with the proviso that it had power to divide the electoral division. There was a special enactment that a poor law division would be called a district division. It, therefore, prohibited a formal combination of these district electoral divisions. The honourable Member, who

    1013
    was very indistinctly heard, was understood that, according to the Chief Secretary's arguments, his Amendment was required.
    The first part of the Amendment was agreed to.
    On the second part the honourable Member was understood to say that, as the law stood, the Local Government Board had power to alter the electoral divisions. As the clause stood, it constituted a ward as it existed at the moment of the passing of the Act, and he apprehended that, while the Local Government Board had power to alter an ordinary division, a ward was stereotyped.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that he would not object to the Amendment.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary how this Amendment, if carried, would affect a town like Sligo? It is not a county borough; it will be an urban district, and I should like to know if the Local Government Board would have power to rearrange the boundaries of a town such as Sligo? If so, I would oppose it.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I will move the Amendment, not really as a question of compulsion, but to call attention to the fact that, if the clause stood in its existing form, there would be two—[remainder of sentence not heard.] I quite agree that there is something in the point made by my honourable Friend below me [Mr. M'Hugh], and I propose, in view of what he has said, if the Government will consider the question, to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to assent to Mr. Healy's proposition.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put—
    "That the clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
    Clause agreed to.

    CLAUSE 19.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 9, line 27, after 'roll,' insert—
    "And the provisions made by or in pursuance of this Act respecting the qualification and mode of election of councillors shall extend as well to the aldermen as to the councillors of the urban district."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 9, line 27, after 'roll,' insert—
    "Provided that a person shall not, unless otherwise qualified, be entitled to be a I cal government elector of an urban district if registered in the Parliamentary register of electors for such district in respect of a qualification as a freeman."
    "Provided that a person shall not be entitled to be a local government elector of an urban district if registered in any year in the Parliamentary register of electors in respect of the county or borough occupation franchise within the meaning of the Registration of the People Act, 1884, unless such person shall have resided within, or within seven miles of, the urban district during six months immediately preceding the 20th day of July in such year."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    Agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 9, line 27, after 'by,' insert 'section 2, sub-section 2.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the clause as it stood was wide. Section 2 said that the councillors
    "shall hold office for a term of three years, and shall then retire together, and their places shall be filled by a new election."
    That was the change which he thought it was intended to effect, and if any other change was intended he thought it ought to be set out on the face of the Bill.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think the universal opinion was that these councillors were to be elected for three years. I understood the district council was to retain office for three years, and that there was to be no ad interim election.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: My Amendment is intended to effect a change, to have the urban and rural districts to stand on the same basis. I would suggest that there should be a hard and fast rule.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I am unable to understand the proposals of the Chief Secretary in regard to the election of urban district councillors. He has stated that urban district councils will be elected under the new Act as they are elected at the present time, with this difference, that they will be elected under a new franchise. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary what will take place under this Act next year with regard to urban districts?
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I think local feeling is agreed that uniformity should be adhered to, and that all the members should retire together at the end of three years. The reason I speak on behalf of that is that you get much greater interest in an election and much greater interest in public affairs when all the members retire at the same time, and if that is the case you afterwards get a period of three years during which business will be done free from the turmoil of election. I don't believe there is any advantage to be gained by an annual election, I hold that the old popular doctrine is the right one, the doctrine under which we ourselves are elected to this House. Then there is also the argument from economy. I hope the Chief Secretary will accept the proposals that have been made for having a uniform period.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My own opinion is in favour of triennial elections. I do not venture to go the same length as regards towns and boroughs as honourable Gentlemen for Ireland have done, but if it appears to be the general opinion, I shall be only too glad to accept the Amendment.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: There is no doubt about it.
    MR. COURTNEY: I hope that in the interval before Re-
    1016
    port stage is reached the right honourable Gentleman will look into the matter a little more deeply. My experience, as chairman of an inquiry held into this subject, is that much diversity of opinion prevails. One set of witnesses, officially representing municipal corporations in England and Wales, were unanimous in the view that it was impossible to conduct elections in a smooth, orderly, and popular manner, except under the system of a third going out every three years. Representatives of the county council were clear that the only way to secure true representation was by the whole body going out every three years. Representatives of the city of London were clearly of the opinion that to get rid of political issues involved in borough elections, the whole of the representatives of a town should be changed annually. I think my right honourable Friend will find that with the varying circumstances and conditions of towns great diversity of opinion will arise.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think if the right honourable Gentleman had pursued his investigations to harbour boards he would find a general feeling that they should not go out at all. However, he has given a satisfactory assurance, and I am quite sure he will bring good judgment to bear on the question. Therefore, I will withdraw my Amendment.
    MR. M. HEALY: I am in favour of a third of the county council going out every year. This Bill has been brought forward on the basis of existing arrangements. Local authorities have had no warning that this change should be made, and certainly I would say that if the whole system of election is to be revolutionised it would be only fair to existing bodies to give them an opportunity of expressing their opinions before this great change is made. The system has worked well so far as I know. [Cries of "No."] I am only expressing my own opinion. It has to be said that every local body has considered this Bill. They have gone into it and not one of them has asked that the new system should be substituted for the old. I hope the Government will stick to their proposals.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I shall endeavour to ascertain the feelings of the towns in Ireland on this clause.
    MR. DALYsaid with regard to these annual elections, so far as he was concerned he would be very sorry to see them take place. He believed that annual elections would cause a great deal of ill-feeling in certain constituencies from time to time, and the fewer elections in these constituencies the better. If the right honourable Gentleman were to take a vote he would find that the people would not be anxious to have an election every year. It would cost considerable expense for printing and a lot of trouble, and he thoroughly agreed with the opinion of the noble Lord who had spoken that it would be better to give the new council at least three years' trial. He hoped the right honourable Gentleman would take steps to ascertain the views of the electors of urban districts, and if that were done he thought he would find that the majority would be in favour of having the elections every three years. It seemed to him strange that a guardian or a councillor for a rural district should be elected every three years, and that a guardian for an urban district had to stand for election every year; and the urban district councillor had to perform precisely the same duties as the rural councillor. He thought the right honourable Gentleman would see that this was rather contradictory, and he hoped he would yield to the majority of the Members for Ireland and say that the urban elections should take place only every three years, as in rural districts.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 9, line 29, insert at end—
    "Provided that where one-third of the councillors of any such district are elected annually, the Local Government Board, on request made by a resolution of the council passed by two-thirds of the members voting on such resolution, may, by order, apply to the district the provisions of this Act with respect to the duration of office of county councillors, and make such incidental provisions as appear to the board necessary or expedient for bringing
    1018
    such application into full effect, and, in particular, in the case of a borough, for making the triennial election of councillors coincide with the triennial election of aldermen."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I desire to point out to the right honourable Gentleman that by adopting this Amendment he would prejudge the very question they were discussing. He thought it would be well that they should postpone the consideration of this clause to the Report stage.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid he hoped that the Chief Secretary would postpone this clause, inasmuch as it was impossible for the Committee to know what would be the law in relation to this matter. The whole section was in a most nebulous state, and unless the whole matter was postponed until the Report stage the Committee would be groping in darkness.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsuggested that this Amendment should be passed, because it would correspond to the Amendment already passed in respect to county boroughs. The matter could be reopened at a later stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 9, line 29, after 'council' insert—
    "And the chairman of any such urban council while in office shall be a Justice of the Peace for the urban district, in the manner provided by Section 3, Sub-section 2, in relation to chairmen of county councils."—(Mr. Macaleese.)
    MR. MACALEESEsaid the Bill simply provided that during their year of office the chairmen of urban councils should be ex-officio justices of the peace, like the chairmen of county councils, and he ventured to express the hope that the Chief Secretary would accept the Amendment.
    CAPTAIN DONELANsaid he desired to join with his honourable Friend in expressing the hope that the right honourable Gentleman in charge of this Bill would consent to this

    1019
    Amendment. As he was aware, this Bill conferred little or no benefit upon the urban districts in Ireland, and he would therefore venture to hope that he would take this particular opportunity of granting this small privilege to the urban councils. He had reason to know that the urban councils in Ireland would view this concession with satisfaction, and he therefore sincerely hoped that the right honourable Gentleman would give this concession to the urban district councils.
    SIR T. G. ESMONDEsaid a number of towns which had mayors in Ireland would to some extent be wiped out under this Bill.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that when the mayor of a town was an ex-officio justice of the peace he would still continue to be a magistrate after the passing of this Bill. Perhaps he should not be out of order in referring to a clause later down in the Bill, making chairmen of district councils justices of the peace. The conclusion arrived at by the Government was that some of the councils would be so small that it would be undesirable. He would suggest to the Committee, that where an urban or rural district consisted of more than a certain population, say 5,000 at the last census, its chairman should be an ex-officio justice of the county.
    MR. DILLONsaid he was very glad that the Chief Secretary had made up his mind to make some sort of concession on the point. But he put it to him, was it worth while to make this reservation for the sake of a few small councils? No such limitations were to be found in the English Act, every chairman of a rural district council being an ex-officio county magistrate. He did not know what he had based his calculations upon, but he thought it was hardly worth while for the sake of a very few men, to make an invidious distinction of that kind.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid he hoped the right honourable Gentleman, in bringing forward this Amendment, would also provide for the precedence
    1020
    which the chairmen of urban councils are to hold. At present there was a very burning question in Ireland as between the lieutenant of the county and the mayor of the borough of Wexford as to who should take the chair at the petty sessions. Some of the highest legal authorities in Ireland had given diametrically opposite opinions as to which had the right. It was impossible to balance or weigh one of those opinions against the other, because both came from such very high authority that it would be presumption for anyone to try and determine which was right. Now, as they were legislating on this subject it was very desirable that this knotty question should be decided once and for all, and that they should not have a recurrence of the rather unbecoming scenes which had taken place in the petty sessions court at Wexford.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid the offer of his right honourable Friend was much larger than what was asked for by the mover of the Amendment. That offer was that the chairman of every urban district containing a population within a certain limit should be a justice of the peace for the county. The question of precedence could not arise. There was no intention to create a number of Wexfords by this procedure. He thought it was hardly wise in towns containing a population of 1,500 or less than 2,000 inhabitants to appoint the chairman of town commissioners.
    MR. DILLONsaid he only wanted to say one word. If the Government adhered to the population limit, 5,000 would be too high. They must remember what the character of Irish towns was. A town with a population of 3,000 was a very important town in Ireland, and very often, a very ancient town.
    MR. M. HEALYsaid he agreed that there were a great many towns which would be affected by the proposed limitation. He believed the 5,000 limit would shut out nine-tenths of the rural centres from the privilege which the right honourable Gentleman proposed

    1021
    to confer upon them. He hoped, if the right honourable Gentleman adhered to his limit at all—which, he thought, was rather a doubtful matter—he would certainly make it much lower. There was also the question of the appointment of magistrates. The law as it stood was in a most objectionable condition. In his judgment it would be much better to have no power of appointing magistrates at all than to have the existing law, throwing the invidious procedure of election on the Lord Chancellor. They all knew what a Lord Chancellor usually did. He wrote making inquiries as to the politics of the town commissioners, and, having obtained those particulars, made his appointment accordingly. That was most objectionable. It would be much better, in his judgment, that no town commissioner should be a magistrate than that there should be that offensive process of selection, the result of which had been that there had been constant conflicts between the towns and the executive government over this absurd arrangement. If the Government do not make all these urban chairmen county magistrates, they should certainly amend the clause of the Act of 1854, so as to provide that the chairmen should, at any rate, be urban magistrates.
    MR. TULLYsaid the refusal of the Government to accept the Amendment would hit the small towns very hard. The question of town courts was an important one. He happened to live in a town where the Lord Chancellor refused to act under the rights conferred by the Act of 1854, and appoint a town magistrate. The Act of 1854 dealt with a number of offences, such as obstructions, and disturbances in the streets, and a number of other petty offences, and the result of the Lord Chancellor's attitude was that no town court could be held. He thought that if the Government refused this small concession they would be practically wiping out the rights of small towns in regard to town courts. As to the population limit, he certainly thought 5,000 was too high. In the county of Leitrim, which he represented, there was not a single town with a population of 5,000, and in the adjoining
    1022
    county of Roscommon, and also in a neighbouring county, it was the same. He thought that if the Chief Secretary looked into this small point—it was not a very big concession that they were asking for—he would see his way at least to provide that they should have town magistrates and town courts, as they had had in the past.
    MR. SMITH BARRYsaid he sincerely hoped his right honourable Friend would very carefully consider the matter before he increased the number of magistrates in Ireland at all. In his opinion it was high time that the unpaid magistrates should be swept away altogether, and that they should have nothing but paid magistrates. He did not care whether the unpaid magistrates were of the landlord class, or of those who had been appointed for political reasons; but from top to bottom they had ceased to be able to exercise that control, and to command that respect and influence, which magistrates should enjoy. I sincerely hope that, instead of increasing the number, he will do all he can to restrict, rather than increase, the number of that body.
    MR. D. KILBRIDE: I understood from the Attorney General that when this Bill was introduced it was intended to be a popular Measure. Now, the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General is aware of the fact that some years ago a late Member of this House, and a man who was looked upon in this House as a Member of exceptional ability, was the chairman of the town commissioners in his native town in the west of Ireland. He will remember that the Lord Chancellor refused to appoint him as a magistrate under the Town Improvements Act, and the result was that this body of town commissioners had no magistrate at all, because their chairman, who was the most capable man in that body, was refused appointment by the Lord Chancellor. Consequently, the town commissioners refused to send the name of any other gentleman. I want to know from the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he wants to put an end to such anomalies

    1023
    as that, and prevent their existence in the future, and whether he wishes this Bill, when it comes into operation in Ireland, to run smoothly, and to be a really popular Measure, or does he not wish this? There is nothing to my mind more likely to create friction between the urban authority and Dublin Castle officials than the fact that the chairmen of these bodies will has appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who has the option of refusing to appoint the chairman of town commissioners because of his religious views or his political opinions. As the honourable Member for Cork said, the fact that he is made chairman by the town commissioners is proof positive that in the opinion of that body he is a fit and proper person, and the ablest man for that position. I would, therefore, strongly urge upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he has the intention of making this Bill run smoothly in Ireland, to adopt the suggestion made by the mover of this Amendment.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: I only wish to echo the sentiments which have fallen from my right honourable Friend the Member for South Hunts, that we should be extremely cautious in what we do to prop up a system which has long ago ceased to be the best for Ireland. The views put forward by my right honourable Friend are correct, and it will be far wiser to prepare the way in Ireland by abolishing local magistrates altogether as early as possible. We have come to this point: that men are chosen, not because they are known to be independent men, but because they are pliable, and because they are popularity hunters. I think that of all the disastrous things that can happen to Ireland, or to any country, the most disastrous is that your magistracy, which has to administer the laws of the country, shall be popularity hunters. I doubt whether the fact of adding new duties to the office of chairman is a wise step at all, for I think it will throw into contempt both the county council and the district council, and will be an additional inducement to tamper with justice. If a
    1024
    man whose election is coming has a seat on the bench, that is a state of things likely to tamper with justice. I entirely share the opinion of my right honourable Friend, and I hope the Government will be exceedingly cautious in what they do. I should like to ask what is the need of this Amendment? I fail to follow exactly what the suggestion of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary is. Does his suggestion go any further than urban councils? Is his proposal something of this kind: that every person who is made a chairman of an urban district council will be a county magistrate if the population is not less than 5,000? Is that the proposition? I merely put the point because in some cases you will have too many magistrates. I quite admit that in a district where the number of magistrates is really insufficient for the duties of the bench, then. I think, that the elected chairman might be a fit and proper person to be made a magistrate for the think, that the elected chairman might be a fit and proper person every man who has been elected to the position of chairman is a very great mistake.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: We have just listened to two very remarkable speeches, and their remarkableness consists in this: that two honourable Baronets have suggested the abolition of the Irish magistrates, and they do so for the first time upon a Bill that abolishes the functions of magistrates as ex-officio guardians.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: I have advocated it for 20 years.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: This is the first time I have heard any gentleman belonging to the landed class advocate the abolition of rural magistrates, and I have been in this House for the last 15 years. But the moment a Bill is brought in which does away with the power of jobbery by the abolition of ex-officio guardians, at that moment the honourable Baronet comes forward and suggests that they should be abolished; and I will

    1025
    only say that the honourable Baronet himself and the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Hunts may at least take some comfort in the fact that "in death they are not divided." I should like to give the House one or two illustrations of the right honourable Baronet's and the right honourable Gentleman's consistency. They are now anxious to keep in with the people and do their share of the county work by coming forward on these county councils. Now, I should like to see them take their share in the work of these bodies, but do they suppose that they are promoting their popularity by these suggestions? The moment you propose a Bill to abolish ex-officio powers, then the right honourable Gentleman and the honourable Baronet say that these magistrates are no longer necessary. If they had said that some time ago I could have agreed with them, but now they have become more or less harmless, and they will have to seek election at the hands of the people for public office. I am not at all sure that these gentlemen will find this Bill a great sweetener to their dispositions.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I respectfully beg to dissociate myself from the opinions expressed by my honourable Friends. I am an Irishman, representing an Irish constituency—not an Irishman representing an English constituency. Now I do not desire to see any curtailment of the honours bestowed on my countrymen, and I certainly do not wish to see them deprived of the commission of the peace which so many of them have exercised conscientiously and with great ability. Now, I speak more freely on this point because I am not a magistrate myself, but I do speak definitely upon this particular Amendment before the Committee. The Chief Secretary will, no doubt, give it the consideration which the whole subject deserves.
    MR. FLAVIN: My general experience in the county of Kerry of magistrates as ex-officio members of boards of guardians is that they are prepared at all times to do any sort of a "job" on behalf of their friends. My
    1026
    principal object, however, in rising is to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in what position will townships be placed with a smaller population than 5,000? In the county of Kerry, for example, we should only be entitled to one magistrate under the clause as it stands. Under the arrangement as proposed by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in Kerry, we are entitled to one magistrate, and for these reasons I would ask the Chief Secretary to take into consideration the condition especially of those counties which have only one town—and possibly in many cases not more than two towns—having a population of over 5,000. In my county we have not a township that reaches 5,000 people. In Listowel we have not even a magistrate on the town commissioners. We have not a single magistrate appointed under the Town Commissioners' Jurisdiction Act, and therefore I would press on the Chief Secretary the necessity of taking into consideration the question of reducing the limit, which he has set at 5,000, to, at all events, 2,000 or 2,500.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: The honourable Member for Yarmouth appears to have a fear of popular magistrates; it seems to me that he prefers very much to have unpopular magistrates. Now that is just the class of magistrate that we have in Ireland, and have had for a long time, and that is one of the reasons why the people have no confidence in them. The honourable Member who has just spoken objects that the men who want these positions, and would strain every nerve to attain them, would be popularity hunters for political purposes, but apparently he has no objection to there being hunters in Dublin Castle, and creepers up the back stairs of that somewhat too famous institution. I think that the men who would, under this proposal, be elected would hold a position which would entitle them to accept and fulfil the position of magistrates, and that they would be worthy of the position and dignity conferred upon them. I do not think that the Irish electors would put into that position men who were

    1027
    unworthy to hold the office, however much they aspired to the position, and whatever steps they took to attain it. Why should the people do otherwise than elect upright and impartial men to the magistracy? To say that because of his political opinions they would elect a man unfitted for the position is absurd. That argument is not tenable. I support this proposition. I think it is in the interest of this Measure, in the interest of good government, and in the interest of the country, not to be alarmed or apprehensive with regard to a little reform of this character, but to show some degree of trust in the people, and to show that you believe that in their own sense of the fitness of things, they will be able to look after and take care of their own interests.
    DR. RENTOUL: I do not think that it is worth while or that very much will be gained by continuing the discussion in regard to this matter any longer. I have long been of opinion that the appointment of the magistrates should be largely in the hands of the county councils. At the present time the magistrates are appointed by the Lord Chancellor upon the recommendation of the lord lieutenant and the vice lieutenants of the county divisions, and the reason why the Lord Chancellor acts upon the advice of those gentlemen is that he being in Dublin three-fourths of his time does not know anything as to the qualifications of the nominee for the position. While the grand jury was in vogue there was no one who was more likely to know the qualifications of the gentleman nominated for the office than the lieutenants and vice lieutenants of the counties, but now under this Bill the whole condition of things will be changed. It will be the county councils who will practically know the qualifications and the fitness of the various men in the various districts, and they should, in my opinion, nominate. It is in the power of the Lord Chancellor to appoint a man to the magistracy on the nomination of anybody, and, for the matter of that, upon no nomination at all; but he is in the habit of waiting for the nomina-
    1028
    tion of the lieutenants and vice lieutenants of the counties. I believe under this Bill the county councils will have the power—and exercise it—of sending up from time to time to the Lord Chancellor the names of fit and proper persons to serve upon the magistracy, and that, if those names are so sent up, the Lord Chancellor will accept them, and appoint.
    MR. DILLON: Not at all. Not necessarily.
    DR. RENTOUL: This Amendment is not of much consequence, because the appointment of the magistrates will not be confined merely to the chairmen of the district councils or county councils, and if they send up the name of a proper man he will be appointed.
    MR. HEALY: What do you mean by "proper"? There is not any such provision in the Bill.
    DR. RENTOUL: I know there is not, but neither is there any provision that the county councils shall not send up names. The Lord Chancellor may, of his own motion, appoint anybody without any nomination whatever, and it seems to me a very strange thing if the county councils send up the name of a proper person where there is need of a magistrate in the district, that the Lord Chancellor should pass him over.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think that the honourable Gentleman is under some misapprehension. I have already said what we had in contemplation in regard to the magistracy and the chairmen of district councils. I think this is a very inconvenient way of discussing this question, and we might be able to discuss it much better upon Clause 20. The Amendment which the honourable Gentleman has put upon the Paper would not confer any further powers upon the members of the urban and district councils than they possess at present. But, apart from that, I have already promised to consider the question, and at the present time I trust the Amendment will be withdrawn.
    MR. MACALEESE: I trust the right honourable Gentleman will give some further consideration to this matter.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    MR. SMITH BARRY: I think I have an Amendment, not upon the Paper, to leave out line 32 and line 33. It is virtually the same Amendment which was brought up in connection with the parish councils. We had a discussion upon the same matter the other day with regard to the election of parish councils, and the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he would consider the matter before it came to the Report stage. I bring up the Amendment upon the district councils, because, whatever may be said of it with regard to parish councils, there is a very much stronger case with regard to the district councils. Now, on the board of guardians there are so many ex-officio members in each electoral division, an elected member, and an ex-officio member. In many cases there are two members sitting for each division. With regard to county councils there are new constituencies altogether, with regard to parish unions there are not. As regards the electoral divisions, I think the old poor law guardian would be elected by the new electors. He would have a prior claim upon the electors, and the electors might be very sorry and extremely loath to get rid of a man who had actually been serving them for so many years. I do not wish to make a long speech upon the subject; it is a very simple Amendment, but is specially worthy of the consideration of the right honourable Gentleman, who is going to consider the case with regard to the county councils, and I do ask, and press him to consider it in this also.
    MR. DILLON: The argument of the right honourable Gentleman, who has just sat down is not convincing. He has given us to understand that the work of the board of guardians in Ireland has been done in the past by a numerous body, consisting of elected and ex-officio guardians. Now, everybody in Ireland knows that nine-tenths of the work has
    1030
    been done by the elected guardians. He further says that the present guardians would, in every case be re-elected. I do not think that this is so at all. There is no provision in the Bill for this purpose. There is a provision for district councils, who will act as guardians, and in view of the great changes made in the elections, and the methods of carrying them out, the right honourable Gentleman is not entitled to express any opinion as to the probable result of them. They will be on entirely different lines, the whole system will be altered, and every precaution is taken by the Bill that the will of the people shall be fairly and fully expressed by the people of the districts. I think the same argument was used against the proposal to have two members for each county council district. Is it to be supposed that the electors of a division, who hold certain views, will deliberately take care to elect one man to express those views, and another man to oppose them? If his idea is simply to double the number of guardians, that can be done by altering the districts, but this is a grotesque idea which he has that he is going to balance the opinion of the majority with the opinions of the minority.
    DR. RENTOUL: The honourable Gentleman has just alluded to this as a grotesque idea, and so it is. We have had the same discussion before on the county councils, and the matter has been thoroughly thrashed out, and, in my opinion, there was no argument deduced in favour of two men being elected for one constituency. I think nothing more idle ever entered into the minds of men than to think that men will deliberately elect a second candidate to disfranchise themselves. That is what this will come to when we have two men representing one constituency, and two men going into opposite lobbies upon all great questions. We had a similar thing happen on the London County Council, and it came at last to a general pair, the two members stayed away because it was too farcical to see them come time after time, and vote against each other in almost every case. There is another objection to this system of joint

    1031
    candidates, and that is that you are always responsible for the failings of the other man. That is to say, the two joint candidates shall be of the same opinion. Supposing one of the candidates is a foolish man and breaks the law in some way, his companion is held to be liable for his debts, and, therefore, the man who has tried to conduct his own election in the most careful manner finds his election upset simply through the folly of the man who happens to be associated with him. I know one case myself where a very foolish thing was done; a candidate employed a cabman to take some people to the poll for hire, and if there had not been a great deal of manipulation by which the matter was covered up, the other man would now be defending an election petition, although one of the candidates had conducted his election with as much care as possible, and to put thousands of people into the difficulty of being responsible for the policy of another man, would, to my mind, be putting a very great burden upon the men who are standing for election. Before we are to consider this, I should ask that we should have some solid argument in its favour. In point of fact, I know that new and fresh men will have a far better chance of election than the sitting members. In my opinion, this proposal of the right honourable Gentleman is simply ridiculous and unworkable.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: If the right honourable Gentleman attaches so much importance to this Amendment, why did he not put it upon the Paper? Is it fair to the Committee at this time of day to spring an Amendment like this upon it? And the honourable Gentleman is a Privy Councillor, too! I challenge any Member to get up and say he understands the proposal which has been made. My views are not perhaps original, but my views as to this Bill are that we should let the whole thing go to the House of Lords as it is, and when it comes back to us again we shall be able to consider the proposal as a whole, and we shall know what the landlords want, and when we know that we shall be able to discuss it. I think it would be most inconvenient, when the main ques-
    1032
    tion has gone, to report that a subsidiary question should be put forward and our opinion asked upon it. I really think, as the Government has resisted every subsidiary Amendment that has been made, we really ought to find out first what the Conservative Party proposes to do. Does the right honourable Gentleman speak for the Conservative Party? I am rather inclined to think that he does not. My own tendency would be to make some provision for the territorial classes in Ireland, and I should like to do so.
    MR. DAVITT: Give them more money?
    MR. DILLON: I am quite prepared and quite willing to give these men upon this Bill any money which they will get under this Bill, and they can have it with my cordial approval. I am in favour of their having some representation on these bodies, but I do not think we ought to be asked to at once decide the extent of that representation. When this Bill comes down from the House of Lords I think it will be proved that these gentlemen are perfectly competent, and know exceedingly well how to take care of themselves.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I wish to make another remark upon this matter. Some time ago I piloted a Bill through the House to enable women to sit as poor law guardians in Ireland, and that privilege has been very largely taken advantage of by them. They now consider and fear that if this arrangement is made, and every district only elects one guardian, they would in all probability be precluded from sitting as guardians at all; but if, on the other hand, two persons were elected for each district, one might, not unnaturally, be a man, and the other a woman. I put it to the Committee and to the Chief Secretary, who, we know, is favourable to giving women their proper rights, that some consideration should be given to this matter, and that we should see that nothing shall be done by this Bill to disfranchise the women who now sit and work so well upon these boards.
    MR. FLYNN: There is just one thing I should like to call attention to, and that is the language and altered tone of the Chief Secretary with regard to these Amendments. With regard to the scheme of representation on the district councils and county councils, the best common sense of Ireland is just as much against any fanciful scheme of territorial representation as are the English people.
    It benig Half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    House resumed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL (CONSOLIDATED FUNDS).
  Resolution (10th May) reported.
  MR. BLAKE: In view of the very interesting though desultory Debate which took place upon this subject, I wish to state in the briefest way the general conclusions on which I act in reference to my vote on this question. If we were now dealing with the general policy of making subventions to local rates out of the central Treasury, I think there would have been a great deal to be said against it. My belief is that these subventions do not afford the best guarantee for economy. My belief is that the more directly you can place before the taxpayers the proposition that he who spends must pay, the more plainly you show him not merely that the shoe pinches in a general way, but make him feel exactly where it pinches, and who pinches, the more you will ensure economy. My belief, further, is that under our system of taxation, however much you may disguise or obstruct it, the ultimate result of a system of general subvention towards local rates is to place that subvention upon the general taxpayers that it increases the sum of the Budget, that it comes in the end from the taxes on consumption, the taxes on
  1034
  the masses, and that it thus unjustly imposes a burden on them for the relief of the local taxes on property. But this is not our present situation. That system, for good or evil, exists to a very large extent, and so long as it does exist we are entitled and bound to insist, as representatives from Ireland, that it shall be applied to that country to the extent to which it is applied to the rest of the United Kingdom; and it is on that ground that I argue for the extension of the agricultural rate to Ireland. You are, in fact, extending it, and you are doing it in terms, and in substance, although not directly acknowledging it in Debate, as stated by a prominent Member behind the Front Bench. To that we hold you. You are not on this occasion, in our judgment, dealing in any degree with the question of any undue and disproportionate taxation of the country. If that were intended, believing as I do that the inevitable tendencv will be, in the case of land, the value of the product of which depends upon foreign competition, to give the advantage to the owner, whether he be occupier or landlord, I would be reluctant to support it. I believe that even the tenant who purchases in the future under the Irish Land Acts will pay an enhanced price for the estate in view of the additional advantage he will obtain as such purchaser. The general result of applying this as a mitigation of Irish over-taxation would be this: that that over-taxation which is on articles of consumption, and not on property, is to be said to be mitigated by the application of a part of the over-taxation of the Irish masses in relief of property which is not relatively overtaxed. That would be aggravation under pretence of mitigation. But on the indicated ground I am quite ready to support the claims of Irishmen to be treated just as men of the same class under like conditions are treated in this part of the United Kingdom. When the clauses are reached various serious questions may be raised. It is contended that the dealing is not the same, but is more favourable to the landlord; and it is contended that the conditions are not the same, since the conditions of agricultural distress in Ireland, although we aver, on the whole,

  1035
  more severe than those which are said to justify the agricultural rate in England, differ in this, that owing to the fixing of the rents for a long term by a judicial process agricultural distress has operated in a different way, and on different classes. It has operated much less severely on the landlord, and more severely on the tenant in Ireland. Therefore, the plan is open on that ground, and it is also open on other grounds, to grave objections, social, economic, and political. But, Sir, I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the discussion must be reserved. For my part, I frankly confess that my ardour, never very keen, to intervene in Debates is chilled on this occasion by the somewhat frank, if not somewhat cynical, admission the Government has made. They have announced to their distrustful friends on the other side of the House that the price of this distribution of the grant is the Bill, and they have announced to their distrusted opponents on this side of the House that the price of the Bill is the distribution of the grant. We are told by our happier fellow-subjects on this island, that they, like Paul, are free-born. We may say to them, "See with what a great price we must buy this freedom." But, Sir, the Government must remember that a bargain must be kept, that if it is a case of a bargain and sale, and of price and consideration, we who are called upon to pay must receive the goods, and that any attempts made here, and expected, particularly by the honourable Member for North Louth to be made more assiduously, and with greater effect elsewhere, to fritter away the talent of the concession of freedom in return for that price, will be strenuously resisted. Sir, turning to the other elements of the Resolution, my honourable Friend from Mayo very rightly and prudently complained of the absence of figures with reference to this local Budget, and pointed out the alarming indication of its inadequacy to meet the demands of the future. The Chief Secretary, with the candour which he generally displays, has acknowledged to my honourable Friend a very serious error into which he was inadvertently led in the figures which he gave yesterday. He has admitted that the increase of local licences between 1888 and 1897, instead of being £44,000, was £15,500,
  1036
  thus that the increase was not 28 per cent., but less than nine per cent. in 10 years. That is another proof of the importance of further and fuller consideration of the materials available as to the statistics, both of this country and of Ireland, before we can finally dispose of the question of the adequacy of the Budget. The only other remark I shall make is with reference to the claim somewhat ostentatiously made of the exceptional generosity of the balancing grant of £35,000. It was said that that grant was absolutely without consideration. This claim to generosity is, even assuming the figures, quite illusory. You are evading the payment of £1,160,000 out of the £1,460,000, representing two years' arrears of the agricultural grant, which will be due in equity and in justice on the principles which were set forth by the time this Bill comes into operation. You are reserving for future purposes the balance of £300,000, and thus a very moderate interest on the arrears, which, you are keeping from Ireland, more than pays the £35,000; so that your generosity consists in agreeing to pay a very moderate interest on the principal which you hold back from us. That is the extent of your generosity. To that I feel bound to say we must answer, "Thank you for nothing."
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: As the question is one of great importance and means voting three quarters of a million for subsidising the Irish landlords, I think the matter ought to be discussed more fully than it was yesterday. It can hardly be discussed in the short time before six o'clock, and I move that the Debate be adjourned.
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member seems to be under the impression that this Debate must close at six o'clock. That is not the case. It can go on after six.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGEsaid he would persist in his Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it seconded?
  There being no seconder,
  House adjourned at 5.55.