Sitting of 12 May 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair shortly after Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BROMPTON, CHATHAM, AND GILLINGHAM WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION BILL.
  (Queen's Consent signified); Read the third time, and passed.
  LLANELLY AND PONTARDULAIS RAILWAY BILL.
  (Queen's Consent signified); Read the third time, and passed.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (ACTON SEWAGE) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL.
  (By Order); Read the second time, and committed.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW WORKS) BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table.
  EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  BAKEWELL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  HOLMES'S PATENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  NORTON AND HALTON ROADS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  MARIANAO AND HAVANA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LANARKSHIRE AND DUMBARTONSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Amendments to—
  EDINBURGH AND LEITH CORPORATIONS GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Without Amendment.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Universities (Scotland) Act, 1858, and The Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, so as to make further provision for Retiring allowances of Professors in the University of Aberdeen."
  BLACKPOOL AND FLEETWOOD TRAMROAD (TRAMWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL [H.L.]
  Also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes."
  BELFAST HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Belfast Harbour Commissioners to improve the Victoria Channel, and to construct additional docks and works at Belfast; and to confer further powers upon the Commissioners; and for other purposes."
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]
  BLACKPOOL AND FLEETWOOD TRAMROAD (TRAMWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BELFAST HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
PETITIONS.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  For weekly payment: From Grimsby; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Morley; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour: From Stirling, Glasgow, Colinson, Leuchars, Maybole, Fraserburgh, Wishaw, Crail, Bo'neas, Falkirk, and Hamilton; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  In favour: From New Monkland; to lie upon the Table.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  In favour: From Grimsby; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Airdrie, and Linlithgow; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  In favour: From Nottingham; to lie the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Doncaster; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Stretham, London, Sheffield, Ealing Dean, Willingham, Bank Head, Stockton-on-Tees, Workington, Newark-upon-Trent, Whitburn, Wells, Bathgate, Birmingham, Radford, Releath, Wookey Hole, Coxley, Nottingham, Penzance, Ruan Minor, Romsey, Helston, Cunwalloe, Cury, Mawgaw in Meneage, Constantine, Mullion, The Lizard, Manhay, Falkirk, Sheffield, and Dunfermline; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  For alteration: From Tewkesbury; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relative to a contract for the Sale of the Government Railway, and for other purposes [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Scheme for the Management of the following Foundations in the Parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate, partly in the City and partly in the County of London: (1) The Parochial Schools; (2) The Charity of Henry Petter for the Charity School in the said Parish, founded by Will dated 7th November, 1735 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 201.]
  EAST INDIA (ESTIMATE).
  Copy presented, of Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government of India for 1897–98, compared with the results of 1896–97 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 202.]
  EAST INDIA (FINANCE AND REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented, of Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India for 1896–97 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (HOME ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented, of Home Accounts of the Government of India [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 203.]
  NATIONALITY AND NATURALISATION (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 1, 1898).
  Copy presented, of Law respecting Nationality and Naturalisation in Denmark (Received the King's Assent, 28th March, 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2,085 to 2,089 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1898, of 'Pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1,170, and 1,207 of the Army Pay Warrant [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Address for "Return showing the working of the Regulations made in 1886 for carrying out the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, with statistics setting forth the number, nature, cost, and results of the proceedings instituted by the Director in accordance with those Regulations from the first day of January, 1897, to the 31st day of December, 1897 (in continuance of Parliamentary Paper, No. 220, of Session 1897)."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  INDIA OFFICE (STORE DEPOT) EXPENSES.
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of the Revenues of India, of the purchase money, compensation, and all expenses which may become payable under any Act of the present Session to empower the Secretary of State in Council to purchase Lands in connection with the Store Department of the India Office (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next.—(Secretary Lord George Hamilton.)
QUESTIONS.

  UNCLAIMED POSTAL ORDERS.
  MR. J. WILSON: On behalf of the honourable Member for Canterbury, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether he is aware
  1054
  that the postal orders issued before 1st January, 1889, and unclaimed amounted to £39,841, and that the whole of this sum was appropriated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his revenue without being credited as receipts by the Postal Department; (2) under what regulations as to time, etc., are unclaimed postal orders appropriated to the State; and (3) what is the estimated annual profit from unclaimed postal orders?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The answer to the first paragraph is yes. The amounts unclaimed for the years between 1881 (when postal orders were first issued) and 1889 were treated as extra receipts, because they represented the accumulations of eight years, and could not, therefore, be fairly treated as part of the Post Office revenue for one particular year. But in future, under Treasury sanction, all postal orders issued since 1888 which have been outstanding for six years and one month are credited year by year to Appropriations in Aid of the Post Office Vote. This arrangement does not preclude the amount of an order being paid to the owner at any time, but a new commission, equal to the original poundage, is levied for each three months the order has been in existence since the first three months. The amount to be paid to Appropriations in Aid for the last financial year in respect of unclaimed postal orders is estimated at £10,000.

  PHOSPHORUS POISONING.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the reporting of cases of necrosis, how it is that the cases of Plaistow, Maguire, Guest, and others, employed at Bryant and May's, have not been reported in accordance with the Special Rules for Lucifer Match Factories; and what has been the result of his further inquiries into the case of Lean?
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg, at the same time, to ask

  1055
  the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in accordance with his promise given on the 2nd instant, he has made further inquiry into the case of Cornelius Lean, lately employed at the match factory of Messrs. Bryant and May, who was poisoned by the yellow phosphorus used in the manufacture; whether he proposes to direct that proceedings shall be taken against the occupier of the factory and the factory doctor respectively for neglecting to give the notices required by Section 29 of the Factory Act, 1895; and whether it is intended to prosecute the factory doctor, under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, upon a charge of wilfully mis-stating the caues of death upon the medical certificate?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): The inquiries which have been made reveal, I regret to say, systematic neglect on the part of this firm to comply with the obligations as to reporting cases of phosphorus poisoning. The case appears to me to be a very serious one, and I have given instructions for the prosecution of the occupiers. As regards the factory doctor, I cannot see sufficient ground for supposing that, as suggested by the honourable Member for Bethnal Green, he made a wilful mis-statement in the certificate as to the cause of death in the case of Lean. In previous cases, however, of phosphorus poisoning he appears to have committed a breach of the Factory Acts in not notifying the fact to the chief inspector; but as he notified them to the employer, and it seems possible that he was under a bonâ-fide belief that that was all that was required of him, I have decided not to take proceedings against him.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is any inquiry going to be held into the question of the use of yellow phosphorus? Can the former Committee be revived for the purpose of such an inquiry?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: It is desirable to have an inquiry into this question, but I have not quite decided what form it will take.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the right honourable Gentleman consider the advisability of reviving the former Committee which sat four or five years ago?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have the matter in mind, but I am not yet able to make any announcement.

  LONDONDERRY LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  SIR THOMAS LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if any contract has yet been accepted for the building of the proposed new Londonderry Lunatic Asylum; and, if not, whether, in view of the transfer of powers from the Board of Control and the Asylums Board to the new county councils, the making of any such contract may be postponed until the new bodies are elected?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): No contract has been accepted for the building of the proposed new asylum, and the Board of Control are considering whether it would be right or judicious on their part to enter into a contract for such a large and important work, having regard to the changes contemplated in the Local Government Bill.

  LAND COMMISSION APPEALS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists among the tenant farmers of Ireland at the state of the Land Acts, which enable landlords to appeal from the decisions of the sub-commissioners without offering any evidence when the tenants are getting fair rents fixed before the Sub-Commissioners' Court; whether he is aware that Mr. Justice Meredith, at Armagh, on Friday last, when hearing Land Court appeals, condemned the action of the Earl of Gosford in not giving evidence before the Sub-Commissioners as being unfair to the tenants, being unfair to the Sub-Commissioners' Court, and being unfair to

  1057
  the Appeal Court; and whether he will advise the Government to cause legislation this Session so as to amend the law that landlords cannot appeal unless they give evidence before the Sub-Commissioners' Court?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware of the matters mentioned in the first and second paragraphs. It is not the intention of the Government to introduce legislation with the object suggested in the third paragraph.
  MR. DALY: If I send the right honourable Gentleman a copy of the judge's remarks will he inquire into the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, I do not see that I can do anything.
  MR. DALY: Then has not the right honourable Gentleman control over the Irish Land Commission?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no control whatever over it.

  BULAWAYO POSTAL CHARGES.
  MR. MELLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that letters for Rhodesia bearing a 2½d. stamp are charged 4d. at Bulawayo, while letters from Bulawayo to London are charged 6d.; and whether Rhodesia is in the Postal Union, and, if not, whether there is any and what agreement with the Chartered Company as to the rates of postage?
  MR. HANBURY: The postage prepayable on letters from this country to Rhodesia is 2½d. the ½ oz., and the Postmaster General is not aware that a charge is made on the delivery in Rhodesia of letters from this country fully prepaid by means of postage stamps; indeed, a few years ago Her Majesty's Government agreed to pay extra high rates for the transit of correspondence for Rhodesia in order to obviate the necessity for such charge. The matter, however, shall be inquired into. The postage on letters from Bulawayo to London is 6d. per ½oz. Rhodesia is not at present in the
  1058
  Postal Union, and the Chartered Company is at liberty to fix the postage to be charged on correspondence from that territory. There is no direct agreement between Her Majesty's Postmaster General and the Chartered Company, but the exchange of mails has been carried on under arrangements made by the Postmaster General of the Cape of Good Hope.

  CATTLE DISEASE IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of the heavy losses sustained by the farmers of West Clare by the deaths of large numbers of cattle from a disease called fluke? and are there any statistics of the number of cattle which the farmers have lost in West Clare through the disease during the last nine months?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No information has been received either by the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council or by the Local Government Board as to the prevalence of fluke among cattle in West Clare.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I hope the right honourable Gentleman will cause inquiry to be made into this matter.

  STREAMSTOWN TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why the public telegraph business at Streamstown, county Westmeath, has been discontinued; and whether he can promise to have the office there reopened?
  MR. HANBURY: Public telegraph business at Streamstown has not been discontinued; telegrams are still forwarded from the telegraph office at the station, but the delivery of telegrams outside the station has been discontinued at the railway company's request, the company apparently finding some difficulty in providing for that service. The Postmaster General is, however, in communication with the company on the subject.

  FEAROZ, THE PARSEE.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to a prisoner named Fearoz, a Parsee, who was tried and convicted before the Recorder of London near the end of 1892, and whose sentence was one of four years' penal servitude, whether he can state what has become of the prisoner, whose sentence must have expired before this date?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: This man was certified insane, and removed to Broadmoor, in March, 1895. On the expiration of his sentence in December, 1896, he was made a pauper lunatic, and removed to Hanwell Asylum. I have no further information about him.
  MR. DAVITT: Is it not a fact that this prisoner became insane in consequence of his imprisonment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: There is no indication of it.
  MR. DAVITT: Will the right honourable Gentleman inquire of the prison medical authority what was the state of this man's health and mind when he was received in prison?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am quite willing to make the inquiry.

  POSTAL TELEGRAPH CLERKS' ASSOCIATION.
  MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the local secretary of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association at Belfast requested permission to exhibit a copy of the agenda paper of the forthcoming conference of that association in the male telegraphists' dining room; will he explain why, though a fortnight has elapsed since the application was made, no answer has been returned, neither has the copy of the paper; and whether, seeing that Government employees are said to enjoy all the rights of combination applicable to trade unions, he will state
  1060
  whether any reason exists for withholding permission for the exhibition of this paper seeing that nothing objectionable is contained therein?
  MR. HANBURY: The application referred to by the honourable Member was received at the General Post Office on the 25th ultimo. Some time was spent in making inquiry into the practice in similar cases in other Post Offices. The application has now been complied with.

  CIVIL EMPLOYMENT FOR DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can give the House any information as to the civil employment which Government Departments, other than the War Office and Post Office, are now providing for reserve and discharged soldiers; and whether the provision of such employment is now part of a definite and systematic policy on the part of all Government Departments, including the Treasury and Her Majesty's Customs?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): Every effort is made by the War Office to secure from the various Departments of the Government any posts which they have available, and reliable characters are supplied to all men applying for such employment, but the systematic policy accepted by the War Office and the Post Office has not been adopted by other Departments, except the Treasury and its subordinate offices, which are governed by minutes issued in 1894 and 1895.

  SALARIES OF IRISH ASSISTANT TEACHERS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain why Irish assistant teachers who have spent five years as monitors and two years in one of the Board's training colleges only receive an average salary of £62 per annum, although some of the assistants may be University graduates,

  1061
  and may have spent 20 years as assistant teachers; and whether he can say why Irish assistant teachers only receive an average salary of £62 per year, as compared with the English and Scotch assistant teachers, who receive respectively £97 and £100 per annum?
  MR. HANBURY: The average income of male assistant teachers in Ireland, according to the latest available Return (for the year 1895), was £63 6s. 8¼d. In England the latest Return (for 1896) shows an average of £97 7s. 6d., and in Scotland (for the same year) of £103 7s. 9d. But the three countries compare very differently when the total provision for teaching is taken in proportion to the number of children in average attendance. The average payment to Irish teachers was £2 4s. per child, as against £1 15s. in England and £1 18s. 7d. in Scotland. And it is also to be remembered that in Ireland more than 7–8ths of the total payment comes from the Parliamentary Votes, and less than 1–8th from local sources; while in England the proportions are less than 2–3rds from Parliamentary Votes, and more than 1–3rd from local sources; and in Scotland the local contribution is between 1–3rd and 1–4th. The distribution of the total amount between the different classes of teachers is not a matter which directly concerns the Treasury.

  WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIA.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Russian Government have given orders for the construction of six new battleships immediately; whether two others are projected, and large orders have been placed for cruisers and torpedo-boat destroyers; whether three of the new battleships are to be of 12,675 tons, one to be constructed at the New Admiralty Yard, St. Petersburg, one at the Baltic Works, and one at Galerny Island; have two been ordered from Cramp's Yard, Philadelphia, and the sixth battleship been ordered to be constructed at Nicolaief, on the Black Sea, and will be of the "Three Saints" class, 12,660 tons; whether he is aware that the two
  1062
  vessels projected are to be of 6,600 and 8,800 tons respectively; whether he is aware of the great and unusual activity in the French Naval dockyards; and whether there is an alliance between France and Russia?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): I must preface my answer to the noble Lord's Question by stating that I know of no official statement of the Russian Government covering the ground which his Question covers. Most of the alleged facts appear to me to come from a statement in the Kronstadt Gazette, which, I think, has been called an official paper, I know not on what authority. My answer to the first paragraph of the noble Lord's Question is that I do not believe that the Russian Government have given orders for the construction of six new battleships immediately; I believe it to be correct that three new battleships are to be constructed at St. Petersburg, as suggested in the third paragraph. These are the three to be built in Russia, as I stated on the 4th instant. With reference to the fourth paragraph, I was not prepared to make myself responsible for the rumours that two battleships had been ordered from Cramp's Yard, in Philadelphia, until I had been able to test the statement. So far as I have learnt, it is not correct. One battleship only has been ordered at Cramp's; the other ship is a cruiser. With reference to Nicolaief, on the Black Sea, we received information long since that it was in contemplation to lay down a "Three Saints" there, but according to latest information it is not a battleship, but a vessel of the Vulcan type, of about 8,000 tons, which is to be laid down in that yard. The battleship Prince Potemkin, building at Nicolaief, which is a ship of the "Three Saints" type, has been under construction for some time, and has long since been taken into account, and is quite independent of any recent developments. As to paragraph 2, I know of no other battleships being projected; nor, if I knew, would it be right to attach value to intentions for the future, unless officially and definitely announced. We have several times had Russian ships carried forward as projected from list to list, which, after all, were never laid down. As to the fifth

  1063
  paragraph of the noble Lord's inquiries with reference to the tonnage of such alleged projected ships, I expect there is a confusion. I know of no battleship of such tonnage. Possibly the 8,000 ton ship may be the Vulcan, building at Nicolaief, and the 6,000 ton ship a cruiser. With reference to the question whether large orders had been placed for cruisers and torpedo-boat destroyers, I have heard of two orders for cruisers, one at Cramp's already mentioned, and one at Havre; and inquiries have been made by Russian agents with reference to destroyers. Whether orders have been actually placed for the latter I have not yet ascertained. I have endeavoured in this answer to sift the facts as far as possible, but I cannot guarantee their accuracy in the absence of positive information, and I must demur to making myself responsible for the correction of any facts which I am not able to verify. My best answer would have been simply to say that the attention of the Board of Admiralty was constantly and fully directed to the proposed large increases in foreign Navies. I have read in the newspapers that there is considerable activity in French dockyards.

  ORDNANCE FACTORY.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to the fact that the last Ordnance Factory Estimates provide for 22 clerks on the establishment and not a single manager or mechanical assistant; if the managers who superintend the workmen and the assistant engineers who are responsible for the plant are now on the wages list and not on the establishment or included in the establishment charges; and if the Secretary of State will consider the desirability of not subordinating the technical to the clerical element?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The managers and assistant engineers are on the wages list. The clerical staff are subject to the rules which affect the Civil Service generally, and their duties are quite distinct from
  1064
  those of the factory technical staff, who, as a rule, are selected by the Director General from the foremen as having shown special aptitude for the duties required.

  CHANNEL MAIL SERVICE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of delays which occur from time to time in the Channel mail service, owing to the inability of mail steamers to enter or leave Calais Harbour, his attention has been directed to an arrangement between the British and French Post Offices to despatch the mails viâ Boulogne only after a delay of not less than 24 hours has occurred; whether he is aware that on two occasions during the past winter mails have been detained at Dover 24 hours; and will he also explain why it is deemed necessary, in the interests of the public on both sides of the Channel, to detain such important mails 24 or even 12 hours at Dover or Calais before despatching them by an alternative and available route?
  MR. HANBURY: There is no such arrangement as the honourable and gallant Member seems to suppose. There is no fixed interval between the commencement of a storm affecting the use of Calais Harbour, and an attempt to substitute that of Boulogne; but it is, of course, necessary when news comes that Calais Harbour cannot be entered to ascertain not only whether Boulogne Harbour can, but also whether the necessary transfer of personnel from the one port to the other can be arranged so as to save time as compared with waiting for the abatement of the storm. It is the fact that on two occasions during the past winter mails were delayed at Dover for more than 24 hours, but on the first of these two occasions Boulogne, as well as Calais Harbour, was reported to be impracticable. On the second of them the mail was despatched to Boulogne as soon as it was possible to make arrangements for this purpose. Indeed, after they had been so despatched, the French Post Office urgently requested that they should be kept back till they could be sent viâ Calais.

  ARMY MEDICAL STAFF.
  SIR WILLIAM PRIESTLEY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what further rank and title will be conferred on Army medical officers under the expected new Warrant after they have reached the rank of colonel, and may be called upon to assume a position of greater responsibility?
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg at the same time to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office when the Warrant containing the new constitution of the Army Medical Department will be issued; and whether he can state its provisions?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The Royal Warrant relating to the Army Medical Service will be issued as soon as certain minor details which involve reference to India can be settled. It will provide for the creation of a Royal Army Medical Corps, the members of which, up to the rank of colonel, will bear military titles, the present compound title being abolished. Above the rank of colonel the members of the corps will bear the title of surgeon-general, with the precedence and privileges of major-generals of the Army, such as they now enjoy.
  MAJOR RASCH: Is it in the contemplation of the War Office to confer the rank of general or field-marshal upon veterinary surgeons as well?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: No, Sir; I do not think that Question has been taken into consideration.

  PORTUMNA AND PARSONSTOWN RAILWAY.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, as the inhabitants in the district of the Portumna and Parsonstown Railway are unanimous in their desire that the line should be sold to anyone who would engage to re-open it, he will now direct that that line should be sold to Mr. Baldwin?
  MR. HANBURY: I am not aware that there is unanimity in the district in favour of the acceptance of Mr. Baldwin's offer. On the contrary, I understand that protests have been made by some of those who are locally interested against any step in that direction pending further negotiations on their part with the railway company.

  SECOND TERM JUDICIAL TENANTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Land Sub-Commissioners have the right to deprive a second term judicial tenant of the benefits of half county cess which he has enjoyed since 1873?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The function of the Land Commission in reference to local taxes (including county cess) when fixing a fair rent is to ascertain and record in the Schedule the amount of the taxes and how they are payable, whether by landlord or by tenant, or in what proportions by landlord and by tenant. The Land Commission has no power whatever to alter the respective liabilities of landlord and tenant in reference to such taxation, which liabilities depend upon the provisions of the Statute relating thereto, and upon the contract of tenancy. There is no difference as to the function of the Land Commission in reference to local taxes when fixing a fair rent for a first statutory term or when fixing it for a second statutory term.

  NEW CANADIAN ATLANTIC SERVICE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received official information that the capital for the proposed fast Atlantic steamship service between Great Britain and Canada is now fully subscribed; whether any changes have been made in the terms and conditions of the original contract; and whether the regular calling of the steamers at an Irish port is obligatory or optional?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The answer to the first question is in the negative. A conditional supplemental contract had been made between the Canadian Government and Messrs. Petersen, Tate and Company, subject to the approval of Her Majesty's Government, making certain alterations in the original contract. This supplemental contract is now under the consideration of the Treasury and the Post Office, and it would be premature to state its purport at this stage.

  REFUSALS TO JOIN VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is a fact that several of the 19 Church of England Voluntary schools from whom the aid-grant under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, has been withheld, on the ground that they have unreasonably refused to join an association, stated to the Department as their reason for refusing to join an association that they declined to join an ecclesiastical association in an ecclesiastical area; and whether the Department intends to treat this ground of refusal as "unreasonable," for the purposes of the Act, and to compel all Church of England Voluntary schools to join diocesan associations when the managers prefer to join other associations or to remain unassociated?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Such schools should, in the opinion of the Committee of Council, have joined the British School Associations which are undenominational.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the right honourable Gentleman reply to the second paragraph?
  SIR J. GORST: I have said that in our opinion such schools should have joined the British School Associations.
  MR. CHANNING: Am I to understand that an objection to an ecclesiastical area is to be treated as unreasonable?
  SIR J. GORST: I can only refer the honourable Member to my answer.
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Is it to be understood that joining an association is an absolute condition for obtaining a grant?
  SIR J. GORST: That is not the Act. If the honourable Member will refer to the Act he will find that schools are only disentitled to the grant if their refusal to join an association is, in the opinion of the Department, unreasonable.

  VACCINATION BILL.
  MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Council of the Association of Public Vaccinators has declared that the time and trouble required under the proposed Vaccination Bill will be ten times that now paid for, thus increasing the probable cost to the ratepayers from £78,000 per annum to £780,000 per annum; and can he hold out any hope that this largely increased cost will be taken over by the Imperial Exchequer?
  The following Questions, also in the name of the honourable Member, likewise appeared on the Paper on the same subject:—
  To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is willing to accede to the wish of the Council of the Association of Public Vaccinators that a public vaccinator should no longer be engaged by the board of guardians, but be appointed direct by the Local Government Board, thus removing every vestige of popular control or influence?
  To ask the President of the Local Government Board, respecting the Vaccination Bill, if the public vaccinator, having received part of his fee on the birth of a child, will receive the second

  1069
  moiety of his fee in cases where he institutes proceedings, but fails to enforce vaccination?
  To ask the President of the Local Government Board if the refusal of a board of guardians to sanction the costs of prosecutions under the Vaccination Bill will subject them to imprisonment for contempt of court?
  To ask the President of the Local Government Board if, in cases of the refusal of parents to allow their children to be vaccinated on account of ill-health or what may appear to them some other good reason, the power of instituting legal proceedings will rest with the vaccinator without any other reference or appeal either to guardians or medical authority?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): The honourable Member asks me five Questions on the same subject. It will probably be convenient to him and the House if I answer them all at the same time. With regard to the first Question, I am not aware that the Council of the Association referred to have made any such estimate of the cost. In any case, my view is altogether different from that stated in the Question. The reply to the next two Questions is in the negative. With regard to the fourth, I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answer which was given on Tuesday to the Question of the honourable Member for the Chesterfield Division—viz., that I have no right to assume that local authorities will refuse to pay any expenses legally payable by them, and I cannot undertake to reply to hypothetical Questions. As to the fifth, the power of a vaccination officer, who, I presume, is the officer intended to be referred to, of instituting legal proceedings will be subject to certain conditions. If the child were unfit to be vaccinated through ill-health or otherwise, and the parent procured a certificate from a medical practitioner to that effect, it would be a bar to proceedings under section 29 of the Act of 1867, so long as the certificate continued in force. Further, the section referred to provides that a parent will be guilty of an offence for not caus-
  1070
  ing the child to be vaccinated in the absence only of a reasonable excuse being rendered by him to the satisfaction of the justices.

  RAILWAY COMMISSION.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state how many times, and for how many days, the Railway Commissioners sat in the year 1897, how many cases were tried, how much those sittings cost, and what was the amount of reduction in rates and the increased accommodation obtained by traders?
  MR. HANBURY: The Railway Commissioners in 1897 sat in court on 47 days and heard 41 cases. The sums voted for the expenses of the Railway and Canal Commission amount to about £7,000 a year. The Commission is presided over by a judge of the High Court of England, Scotland, or Ireland, as the case may be. As to the nature and effect of the decisions of the Commissioners in 1897, the honourable Member will find all the available information in their ninth annual Report, issued as a Parliamentary Paper in the present Session.

  SANITARY CONDITION OF CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the representatives of the telegraph clerks of the General Post Office complained of the insanitary nature of the buildings of the refreshment branch before Lord Tweed-mouth's Committee; whether, since that time, repeated complaints have been made regarding many of the existing arrangements as adversely affecting the health and comfort of the staff; whether he can state what steps the Medical Department, as being the responsible body, took to investigate the accuracy of these statements, and when the medical officer last inspected the buildings of the Central Telegraph Office; whether the medical

  1071
  officer is of opinion that the new room occupied by the K Division fulfils all the requirements necessary to safeguard the health of the operators; and will he explain why, notwithstanding the serious charges of overcrowding and uncleanliness made against the refreshment branch, the medical officer has not visited that portion of the building during the last five years, during the times when the grievances exist?
  MR. HANBURY: No complaints of the insanitary nature of the buildings of the refreshment branch of the Central Telegraph Office seem to have been made before the Tweedmouth Committee, but complaints on the subject have been made since the date of the Report. On the receipt of these complaints the building was inspected and the Department took steps to acquire adjoining premises for the purpose of enlarging the refreshment rooms. The medical officers, in the course of their duties, frequently visit the building. The last visit was paid about three weeks ago. The Chief Medical Officer reports that, in his opinion, the new room occupied by the K Division fulfils all the requirements necessary to safeguard the health of the operators, but he thinks some of the hot water pipes may require casing in order to regulate the diffusion of heat. He also reports that the health of the staff at the present time is very satisfactory. The rooms are, no doubt, overcrowded, but there is, apparently, no truth in the allegation that they are either insanitary or uncleanly.

  CUSTOMS WATCHERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state if, since the increase of the working hours of Customs watchers to 54 per week, their overtime rate of 8d. per hour has been reduced to 6d.; whether they have been deprived of their former cab allowance of 1s. 6d. for attendance at 6 a.m. and up to midnight; and whether, seeing that these overtime charges for watchers are always paid by the merchant, who has never objected to the overtime rates, he will consider the advisability of having these overtime privileges
  1072
  restored to the watchers, more especially as all their overtime is made by inconvenient and very long attendances?
  MR. HANBURY: It is not correct to say that the hours of Customs watchers have been increased or their overtime rate reduced. They both remain as settled as when the class was originally formed, and they were accepted as the conditions of employment by all the men appointed to the class. It is a fact that some of these men had formerly been employed as permanent labourers and extra men, on conditions which were, in some respects, more advantageous, and in other respects less advantageous, than those of Customs watchers. But one of the objects in view in the institution of this class was to secure uniformity where the conditions had previously varied without reason, often as the result of traditional practice and not under definite authority. The abolition of the so-called cab allowance is a reform which applies to the Customs Service generally. A man who formerly received a cab allowance now receives an hour's overtime instead. It is not the case that overtime charges for watchers are always paid by merchants, or that merchants accept without question all the claims made upon them on that score. I see no occasion to reconsider these conditions, which have been laid down after due consideration, and have been accepted by those to whom they apply.

  PAY OF DUNGANNON POSTMEN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the scale of pay at Dungannon for postmen is, town postmen, 16s. to 23s.; head office rurals, 16s. to 20s.; and sub-office rurals, 15s. to 17s., seeing that the rural postmen have to pass the same examination as the town postmen and do the same work; and whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the pay of the sub-rurals so as to bring their maximum up to within 2s. of the maximum of town postmen?
  MR. HANBURY: The scale of pay for town postmen at Dungannon is 16s. to 22s., not 23s. as stated by the honourable Member. The maximum of the scale of the rural postmen, starting from the head office, is fixed at 20s., 2s. less than that of town postmen, in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee. The pay of rural postmen living in the country, and starting from a sub-office, is properly fixed at a somewhat lower rate than that for men living in towns. In accordance with the recommendations of the Tweed-mouth Committee, the minimum pay of these men, provided they do a full day's work, is not to fall below 15s. a week.

  BALLYSHANNON BARRACKS.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the reason for the delay in the commencement of the work of making the improvements in the buildings of the military barracks at Ballyshannon which were promised by the Government, and when will this work be begun?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: There is no necessity for the work to be done immediately. The permanent staff and the arms and clothing are at Lifford, where the Militia battalion will assemble on 13th June, then proceeding to Firmer, Ballyshannon, to be encamped during training. Accommodation in barracks at Ballyshannon will, therefore, not be required until after the training, but the General Officer commanding will carry out the work as soon as possible, irrespective of that.
  MR. MACNEILL: Is the honourable Member aware that these works have been promised for upwards of 12 months, and that "hope deferred makes the heart grow sick"?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The money for this work has been included in this year's Estimate, and, no doubt, it will be completed before the end of the financial year.

  SICKNESS ON THE BRITANNIA.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will lay before the House a Return showing the cases of sickness on the Britannia, between the 1st January and 1st May, and stating the opinion of the medical officers as to whether this outbreak of sickness is attributed in any degree to improper feeding?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No public school publishes lists of schoolboy ailments, and there is no reason why the Britannia should do so. Surely the noble lord does not wish to alarm anxious parents quite unnecessarily by an official list of such ailments described in technical medical language? But to allay any apprehension which the noble Lord's Question may have caused, I may state, though there have been a good many cases of mumps and measles, as there have been in many schools during the same period, I am assured that in other respects there has been no exceptional sickness. If the noble Lord will state to me on what authority he puts forward the innuendo as to improper feeding, I will give him an answer.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Perhaps I may be allowed to state at once that I have received several letters from parents of boys in the Britannia, complaining that a great number of boys have had boils and other symptoms of improper treatment.
  SIR C. DILKE: I also have received complaints in regard to the meat supplied on board.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Yes, but the innuendo is that the medical officer has ascribed the sickness to improper feeding. There is no truth whatever in that suggestion. If cases of defects of diet are brought before me, inquiry will, of course, be made. I have heard that some inquiry is being made in reference to meat. But I must repeat that the medical officer reports there has been no exceptional sickness, and no sickness can be ascribed to improper feeding. I regret to see published statements which unnecessarily alarm the parents of boys on the Britannia.

  LITIGATION REGARDING DEATH DUTIES.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the undertaking given by him on 3rd July, 1896, that he would be prepared to pay the reasonable costs of both sides if a case arose in which the general principle could be submitted to the Court for deciding the question whether settled property in which the deceased life interest has been transferred to the reversioner more than 12 months prior to death, is or is not chargeable with duty under the Finance Act, 1894, and to the fact that the case of the Attorney General v. Beech has been so submitted to the Divisional Court and to the Court of Appeal, the reasonable costs of both sides in that case in both courts have been or will be paid by Her Majesty's Government; and, if not, why not; whether, during the existence of the doubt whether duty was lawfully chargeable in such cases, the duty has been in such cases exacted and levied in and since 1896; and, if so, what is the amount of duty so levied in 1896–7 and 1897–8; whether, in view of the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal that the duty is not chargeable in such cases, the Inland Revenue authorities will now abstain from exacting it, and will continue so to abstain until their appeal to the House of Lords has been decided; and whether the reasonable costs of both sides in that appeal will be paid by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The costs of the respondents in the Divisional Court have been paid by the Crown, in accordance with the undertaking to which the honourable Member refers. In the Appeal Court, costs were given against the Crown, and will be paid according to the order of the Court. Duty has been levied in, and since, 1896, in cases in which, according to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, duty is not chargeable. I do not know what may be the precise amount of the duty so paid, and, unless it has to be repaid, there seems no reason for stating it. In view of the fact that two conflicting decisions have now been given
  1076
  on the point at issue, I believe it would be in accordance with precedent that, pending the appeal to the House of Lords, the duty should be claimed in such cases and the parties liable informed that, if the contention of the Crown fails, any over payment will be refunded. It is not intended to pay the costs of the respondents in the appeal to the House of Lords.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer absolutely undertake to pay the reasonable costs of both sides? Did he make any restriction to the effect that the undertaking should apply only to the inferior court?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, I did.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did. We were quite content with the judgment of the Divisional Court.

  PRESS CENSORSHIP IN INDIA.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a censorship of the Press has been instituted by the Indian Government in Bombay and Poona; what are the terms and provisions of this censorship, and for what reasons has it been established; and whether this censorship owes its institution to the action of the Indian or the Home Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I think the honourable Member must be under some misapprehension, for the law gives no power to institute a censorship of the Press.

  BROTHERS NATU.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India (1) whether the brothers Natu, who were deported last July from Poona without trial and without having been charged with any offence

  1077
  and have been kept in close imprisonment for upwards of nine months, were released, the one on Monday and the other on Tuesday last; (2) whether they have been released on parole, and, if so, what are the conditions of the parole; (3) whether he can state now what were the reasons for the deportation of these gentlemen; (4) whether the property of which they were deprived will be restored to them, with an account of the profits thereof; and (5) whether the Government are prepared to make any, and, if so, what reparation to the brothers Natu for this prolonged deprivation of their liberty?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: In reply to the first two Questions, I understand that the Natu brothers have not been released by the Government of Bombay, but have been allowed to live in private houses in Belgaum, where they own property, and where their families can join them. Subject to their good conduct, all restrictions will be relaxed, except that, pending further orders, they will not be allowed to leave Belgaum. As regards Question 3, I am unable to add anything to the statement which I have already made in this House relative to the reasons which induced the Government of Bombay to take action under the regulation of 1827. In reply to Questions 4 and 5, the regulation provides for the adjustment of the accounts of collections received during the attachment of estates, and for payment to the proprietor, after release of the estate, of any profits which may have accumulated; but it does not provide for any compensation to persons detained under it. The provisions of the law will be strictly followed.
  MR. MACNEILL: May I ask the noble Lord which of the reasons he has given for the deportation of these brothers is correct? The first reason he gave was that these men were deported in consequence of the murder—
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is not in order in referring to an answer to a previous Question.
  MR. MACNEILL: I am asking in reference to the statement made to the House just now.
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is completely out of order.

  ASSAM GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY TO THE BHUTIAS.
  SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether on the occasion of the annual subsidy paid by the Assam Government to the Bhutias on 26th February last, in addition to the payment of 5,000 rupees in silver and 30 yards of broadcloth, four dozen bottles of rum were also paid; and if liquor forms part of the annual subsidy; and, if so, will he call the attention of the Indian Government to the undesirability of allowing a subsidy to be paid in liquor?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am aware that the claims of the Sat Rajas of the Kuriapara Duar to levy duties on the inhabitants of the plains were bought out for an annual payment of 5,000 rupees. I have no reason to believe that any part of this subsidy is paid in liquor.

  WEI-HAI-WEI.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government have in their possession any detailed charts and plans of Wei-hai-Wei and its surroundings; and, if so, whether they have any objection to a copy of these being placed in the Library for the information of Members?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The only plan of Wei-hai-Wei in our possession is the result of a rapid survey made in 1860, and the chart of the neighbourhood is equally sketchy; but I will supply copies, such as they are.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there not a complete and detailed plan of Wei-hai-Wei, with all the soundings, published by Potter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The information supplied to me is that the only plan in our possession is the result of a rapid survey made in 1860; perhaps that survey is the one to which my honourable Friend alluded.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: Will the right honourable Gentleman give orders for another survey to be made?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  ARTILLERY FOR MODERN WARFARE.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the lessons learnt from the naval battle at Manila, which demonstrated the helplessness of guns of an old type opposed to those of recent construction, the Government will seriously consider the necessity of providing the auxiliary forces organised for the defence of this country with efficient field artillery?
  MR. BRODRICK: The information at our disposal with regard to the battle at Manila is not of a kind which enables us to draw conclusions applicable to the armament of the auxiliary forces of this country.

  BROTHERS NATU.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the brothers Natu, of Poona, who have been imprisoned at Ahmedabad under the special powers of 1818 and 1824 for several months, have now been released on parole; is he now able to state the reasons for the arrest and detention of these men and the terms upon which they have now been released; and is it the intention of the Indian Government to restore them to the control of their property and estates?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have already replied to the first part of this Question. With regard to the last paragraph, I have to say that restoration of control over the estates will be granted "whenever the Governor in Council shall be of opinion that the circumstances which rendered the attachment of such estate necessary have ceased to operate, and that the management of the estate can be committed to the hands of the proprietor without public hazard, or inconvenience," as laid down by section 9 of the Bombay Regulation XXV., 1827.
  MR. MACNEILL: May I now ask the noble Lord as to the reason for the deportation of these men?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have already stated the various reasons.

  PENALTIES FOR BREACH OF THE VACCINATION ACT.
  MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability of limiting the penalty for refusal to vaccinate to a maximum of 5s., including costs, as is now the case with regard to penalties payable by defaulting parents under the Education Act?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: My right honourable Friend has asked me to reply to this Question, and I have considered it, but the cases are by no means analogous; and I see no reason for taking the course suggested by the honourable Member.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE IN WEST AFRICA.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now give the House any information as to the stage which has been reached in the negotiations with France relative to our territorial differences with that Power in West Africa?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): As this is a Foreign Office Question, I will answer it. I am sorry to say I am not in a position to give the House information on the point.

  WEI-HAI-WEI.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can conveniently state to the House whether one battalion of the Highland Light Infantry and another of the Yorkshire Regiment have been selected for service as part of the garrison of Wei-hai-Wei? In putting this Question I wish to point out that the words "as stated in Reuter's telegrams" were originally included in the Question, but were struck out by the Clerk at the Table.
  MR. BRODRICK: No selection of regiments for service at Wei-hai-Wei has been made.

  UNIFORM OF THE CARABINEERS.
  MAJOR RASCH: On behalf of the honourable Member for West Belfast, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided to supply scarlet serges to the Carabineers in place of the blue stable jackets hitherto worn by them; whether the officer commanding has been consulted with regard to the change, and whether he is of opinion that it is likely to be popular in the regiment, and to stimulate recruiting; and what is the gain in efficiency to the Army and in money to the nation likely to result from this reform? I should also like, at the same time, to ask the right honourable Gentleman if he is aware that originally the change was made from red to blue, to make the Carabineers light cavalry, and that now they are being changed from blue to red, to make them heavy cavalry?
  MR. BRODRICK: The last change was made 40 years ago, and I am not in a position to state the reasons which prompted it. As to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that the change referred to has not actually taken place, and the circumstances are under the Secretary of State's consideration.

  PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES ACT.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £2,550,000 under the Public Buildings Expenses Act of this year has been invested, and in what securities?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Since the Public Buildings Expenses Act was passed the National Debt Commissioners have had considerable sums of money to invest, so there has been no object yet in transferring the building money from the Exchequer to the account of the National Debt Commissioners. But convenient opportunities for so doing will be watched, and it will all be invested by degrees during the course of the present financial year.

  DECLARATION OF PARIS.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Attorney General can he state to what extent under the Declaration of Paris belligerents possess the right of search of neutral ships; can the warships of the United States and Spain stop and examine ships' cargoes and papers of neutrals when outside territorial waters, although adherents of the Declaration; will he also inform the House whether subjects of the British Empire, under the Foreign Enlistment Act, can convey contraband of war to neutral ports, the ultimate destination of which being for the use of the belligerents, and can cargoes of this description be cleared at the Customs as legal merchandise; and is he aware that considerable quantities of coal are being exported from the United Kingdom to Spain; if so, should

  1083
  it be transhipped for use on board the ships of war of that country, will it be a breach of the declaration of neutrality?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The warships of the United States and Spain have a right to stop and examine ships' cargoes and papers in order to ascertain whether such ships have on board contraband of war. Subjects of the British Empire can convey contraband of war in ordinary merchant vessels to neutral ports even though the ultimate destination be for the use of the belligerents, and such cargoes can be cleared at the Custom House. Such contraband of war would, of course, be subject to the risk of capture and condemnation, and, under some circumstances, the ships in which it was being carried. The Foreign Enlistment Act does not affect the case in question. I am not aware of the shipments of coal referred to in the last paragraph; whether transhipment for use on board ships of war would be a breach of the declaration of neutrality would depend upon the circumstances under which it took place.
  MR. M. DAVITT: May I ask the honourable and learned Gentleman if he will make inquiry whether it is true that coal has been shipped from England to Spain for the benefit of the Spanish navy?
  [No Reply.]

  LEGISLATION BY REFERENCE.
  MR. J. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, having regard to the recent rapid growth of the practice of legislating by reference, and to the difficulty of understanding the scope and effect of Bills which amend or repeal sections of Acts by reference to such sections, the Government will, for the information of the House, cause copies of the sections referred to in Government Bills to be printed in full?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The Question is not one on which I can give any general undertaking, as it must depend on the
  1084
  nature of the Bill and the discretion of the Minister in charge. Her Majesty's Government fully appreciate the objections to legislation by reference, but, in my opinion, the House of Commons must bear more responsibility for the change than the Ministers who have introduced Bills, to whatever Government they may have belonged.

  RIGHTS OF NEUTRALS.
  MR. DOXFORD: I beg to ask the Attorney General if it is against the neutrality laws for a British subject to sell and deliver to a subject of either of the present belligerents a merchant steamer intended to be used by the purchaser only for the merchant service?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The answer to the honourable Member's Question is in the negative, assuming the facts to be as stated in the Question, but I must point out that every case will be decided according to the special circumstances attending the sale and the character and description of the ship.

  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state when the Bill providing for the superannuation of teachers in public elementary schools will be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot at present mention any date. As the honourable Member knows, the subject is one which the Government are anxious to deal with.

  CHINESE INTERNAL WATERWAYS.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to inform the House as to the changes in respect to the internal water communication in the Chinese Empire?
  MR. CURZON: As stated in the House on 21st March, regulations with reference to the recent opening of all internal navigation are being drawn up by the Inspector General of Maritime Customs, and will be communicated to Parliament as soon as received. We have recently inquired of Her Majesty's Minister at Peking what progress is being made, but have not yet received his reply.

  FOOD SUPPLIES IN WAR TIME.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the Resolution on the subject of our national food supplies in the event of war, which was unanimously accepted by Her Majesty's Government and by this House on 6th April, 1897, and in view of the recent rise in the price of bread stuffs In the United Kingdom in consequence of the American-Spanish war, and also in view of the well-known and continuous short supply of bread stuffs in the United Kingdom, the Government will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the question of our national food supplies, and in particular into the consequences that might arise from the aforesaid short supply of bread stuffs in the event of Her Majesty becoming involved in a war with some European Power, with a view of ascertaining whether any means may be adopted for increasing our national reserve of bread stuffs?
  MR. LOGAN: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the American and Spanish war has in no way interfered with the importation of wheat into this country, and whether it is not also a fact that, with the exception of two years, at no time within the last 10 years have we imported as much wheat from the United States—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice ought to be given of such a Question.
  SIR W. CODDINGTON: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is not a fact that the Increased price of wheat is largely due
  1086
  to its scarcity in consequence of the short crops last year, and whether it is not a fact that the price of 42s. 4d. a quarter has been exceeded in five consecutive years from 1878 to—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! Notice ought to be given of that Question also. The honourable Member is entering on a Debate.
  MR. LEWIS: May I ask whether the enhanced price of wheat is not very largely due to certain speculations?
  MR. SETON-KARR: I wish, before the right honourable Gentleman answers the Question, to omit the words "in consequence of the American and Spanish war."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In regard to the various supplementary Questions, both finished and unfinished, upon the subject of the recent rise in wheat, I may say it is not a question which I think any Member of the Government has any special information upon. Certainly I have none. Perhaps the Question had better be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, who will give the views of the Department on the subject. In answer to the Question on the Paper I have to say that the effect of a state of war on sea-borne commerce, especially in raw material and food stuffs, is one of which we recognise the full importance to this country, and one which necessarily engages our careful attention. We do not, however, think that a Royal Commission to inquire into a single isolated aspect of the complex problem of national defence would serve a useful purpose, nor ought I to say anything to my honourable Friend which would suggest that a scheme of Government food storage, which I believe he advocates, is one which in our judgment could be adopted with advantage.

  REPORT ON IRISH LAND PROCEDURE.
  COLONEL WARING: On behalf of the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether

  1087
  the Government will give a day for the consideration of the Report of the Commission on the Procedure of the Land Commission in Ireland under the Land Acts and Land Purchase Acts?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not at present see any prospect of being able to find a special day such as my honourable Friend desires. At his request I have already promised one day for the discussion of Irish subjects.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the Debate be deferred until the evidence has been laid before Members of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have not promised a day yet.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING IN SCOTCH WATERS.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the fact that 33 per cent. of the masters of vessels convicted of illegal trawling in Scottish waters during the years 1896 and 1897 elected to go to prison rather than pay the fines imposed, will he consider the advisability of so amending the provisions of section 10 of sub-section 6 of the Sea Fisheries Regulations (Scotland) Act, 1895, that in such oases penalties may be imposed on the owners of the offending trawlers as well as on the masters?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Government cannot undertake legislation on the point during the present Session.
  MR. WEIR: May I ask the Lord Advocate why, when I asked him this question two or three days ago, he referred me to the First Lord of the Treasury?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The statement made by the honourable Member is not in accordance with my recollection, and I shall be glad if he can point out any record of such an answer.

  MUNSTER DAIRY SCHOOL.
  SIR ROBERT U. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any decision has been come to with reference to the application of the Governors of the Munster Dairy School that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland should, in future, undertake the payment of two sums, one of £50 as an addition to the salary to their superintendent, Dr. Smyth, and another of £37 10s., lecture fees, both hitherto paid by the Governors out of their own funds, and also that a farm steward should be appointed to assist the superintendent; whether the application has been approved of and recommended to the Treasury by the Commissioners; and whether the application will be acceded to?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg at the same time to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any decision has been come to with reference to the application of the Governors of the Munster Dairy School that two male itinerant agricultural instructors for Munster should be appointed by the Board of National Education to lecture and advise on agriculture generally and specially with reference to the spraying of the potato crop; whether the application has been approved of and recommended to the Treasury by the Board of National Education; and whether, in view of the general failure of the potato crop last year, coupled with the success of the spraying process in individual cases where tried, and the consequent probability that the spraying process, if properly recommended this year, will be largely availed of, the Irish Government will urge on the Treasury the advisability of assenting to the recommendation of the Board of National Education, so as to make the services of the instructors available immediately?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact that the Governors of the Munster Dairy School and Agricultural Institute made an application of the nature indicated, and that this application was submitted to the Treasury. The Treasury, however, did not see their way to accede to the application, having regard to the

  1089
  proposals now under consideration for the establishment, at an early date, of a Board of Agriculture in Ireland.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he has considered the special importance of the application in view of the coming year; will he consider the advisability of pressing on the Treasury that there is a special reason why this year some step should be taken?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am quite ready to consider that suggestion, but I am afraid I can hold out no hope of giving a different reply.

  FINES ON CORONER'S JURYMEN IN YORKSHIRE.
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the alleged short notices of inquests and hasty summoning of jurors stated to have been practised by the coroner for the districts of Idle and Windhill, in Yorkshire, and to the fact that a fine of 40s. was imposed upon a householder because, in arriving at an inquest 10 minutes after he had received notice, he was deemed by the coroner to be late; and whether steps can be taken to ensure reasonable notices of inquests being given by the coroner to the local police to enable them to obtain the attendance of suitable jurors with reasonable length of notice to the householders summoned?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have made inquiry, but have been unable Do ascertain that any such occurrences as are alleged ever took place. If the honourable Member can supply me with any details, I will inquire further.

  BALLINAHINCH GRAVEYARD.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a mob broke into the churchyard at Ballinahinch, county Down, and
  1090
  demolished with sledge hammers the monument erected over the grave of Betey Gray, and also took away the wreaths which had been placed on the grave by various '98 associations from Belfast; and whether inquiries will be made into the matter? I should like to point out that this is a private burying place and not a public burial ground.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that on the night of the 30th ultimo, and again on the following day, a number of men entered the farm of a man named Robert Armstrong, near Ballinahinch, and broke a stone which had been placed, as I am informed, over the spot where one Betsy Gray had been shot in the Rebellion of 1798. I am not aware whether the remains of the deceased woman had ever been buried there, but the place is not a churchyard or graveyard, as suggested in the Question. Armstrong can, of course, prosecute these persons for trespass if he so desires. Wreaths were, I believe, also removed on the occasion. On the information at present in my possession there does not appear to be any ground for action by the Government in reference to what took place on the occasion.
  MR. MACALEESE: la there any truth in the statement that the police have the names of the miscreants who perpetrated this abominable outrage, and will there be no prosecution?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is it not a fact that the stone in question was a monument, which cost £50, and was erected by a relative of the deceased person? Will the right honourable Gentleman see that the police make inquiries into what is regarded in the district as a sacrilegious outrage?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The police have inquired.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will they now receive an order to make strict inquiry?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Things will, no doubt, take their usual course.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Royal Irish Constabulary have printed instructions with respect to the Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 and 1881, and Amending Acts, to the effect that the Constabulary are not required to enforce these Acts; and if, in view of the serious diminution of sporting and other wild birds in Ireland, and also of the fact that such instructions are contrary to the Statutes cited, steps will immediately be taken to rescind these instructions?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: By the 6 Will. IV., cap. 15, sec. 13, the Constabulary are expressly prohibited from enforcing any Act relating to the preservation of game. The Acts mentioned in the Question do not repeal this Statute or impose any special duties on the police in reference to them. It has always been considered that the instructions requiring the police not to enforce the Statutes mentioned in the Question come within the spirit of the Act of William IV. quoted.
  MR. S. BUXTON: But are not these Acts intended distinctly for the protection of birds which are not game birds? Will the right honourable Gentleman take precautions to see that they are carried out in that respect?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to the statement just made by me.

  CUSTOMS OFFICERS' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the principal coast officers of Customs petitioned on the 6th May, 1897, for an inquiry into certain alleged grievances; and whether, seeing that in the reply, signed by the Chairman of the Board of Customs, it was stated that the Board saw no reason for appointing a committee to inquire into the position of these officers, but that the Board would be prepared to consider the cases of any
  1092
  officers individually, and invited certain officers to send in statements of their cases, he will explain why the officers, numbering 30, who applied to the Board in July and August last year, have not yet received any answer to their applications?
  MR. HANBURY: The facts are as stated. The reason why no reply has yet been made to the individual petitions is that the Commissioners of Customs have had larger questions of organisation under consideration, which it is desirable to settle before dealing with the points raised by the petitions.
  MR. DILLON: Will a reply be sent?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, when a decision has been arrived at.

  SOUDAN.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what source it is proposed to meet the extraordinary expenditure on account of the military operations now in progress in the Soudan?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I expect to have to make a proposal to the House on the subject, and I must defer any statement until then.

  LADY DE BURGH'S ESTATE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the order made by Judge Ross in November, 1896, for the sale of that portion of the estate of Lady de Burgh situated in the parish of Cappamore, county Limerick, whether he can explain why it is that the sale has not yet been carried into effect, although the tenants offered 17½ years' purchase 18 months ago?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The order of the land judge in this case was not made until March, 1897. I am informed that the solicitors having charge of the sale held the matter over pending

  1093
  decisions in certain cases arising out of the 40th section of the Act of 1896, and that these decisions having been given, they now propose to meet the tenants after the 26th inst., for the purpose of discussing the terms of sale.

  JAMESON RAID.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an agreement has been arrived at with the Government of the South African Republic as to the amount of the indemnity to be paid in respect of the Jameson raid; and, if so, what is the amount agreed on, and by whom is it to be paid?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No, Sir, I have not had any answer from the Government of the South African Republic to the questions raised in my dispatch of 10th April, 1897, printed in the Blue Book, C. 8,721.

  IRISH CLERKS OF THE CROWN AND PEACE.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a petition has been presented to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in December, 1896, by the assistants to the clerks of the Crown and Peace and local registering authorities praying that they might have their appointments made permanent, in accordance with the provisions of the 9th section of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877; has the Lord Chancellor considered the petition; and can he state whether the prayer of the petitioners has been or will be granted?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The petition referred to in the Question was received, but the Lord Chancellor has not seen his way to accede to the application which it contains.

  CLONES POST OFFICE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what progress has been made with the erection of
  1094
  the new post office at Clones; and if he can state at what date the building will be ready for the transaction of business?
  MR. HANBURY: An offer is under consideration to provide a suitable building to be rented by the Department on a site in The Diamond, which is highly approved by the town commissioners. This proposal, though it is rather costly, is about to be recommended to the Treasury for adoption.

  DERRY CORPORATION AND THE POLICE TAX.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether (1) his attention has been called to resolutions of the Derry Corporation relating to the extra police tax on that city; (2) whether he can say what are the free quota for Derry and Belfast respectively, when those quota were fixed, and what has been the percentage of increase of population since; (3) whether he is aware that the quota allowed in southern towns of less population is greater than in Derry; (4) and whether he will revise the quota so as to bring it into proportion with the present population?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The resolutions referred to have been received, and a communication has been addressed to the Derry Corporation on the subject. The present free quota of constabulary assigned to Derry is 62, and to Belfast 500, both forces having been fixed by Order of Council, dated the 19th May, 1897. I am informed by the Registrar General that the population of Derry in 1891 was 33,200, and that the present population is about 36,000. The population in 1891 of the city of Belfast, as now constituted, was 273,079, and the population of that city at present is estimated at 304,610. The fact is as stated in the third paragraph, but I must point out that the assumption that population is the only factor in determining the distribution of the free force is an erroneous one. The general circumstances of each city or county are also taken into consideration in allocating this force. The free force of Derry City was increased from 30 to 47 men in 1885, and to 62 in

  1095
  1888, whilst the extra force was reduced in the former year from 45 to 28 men, and has not since been increased. The distribution of the free establishment of police is revised triennially, pursuant to Act of Parliament, and there is no power to undertake a further revision until May, 1900.

  CASE OF PATRICK DIVER.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Patrick Diver, who was convicted at Letterkenny Quarter Sessions before Judge Webb by a jury, one of whom was not the person summoned, but personated that person, and that on the personation being afterwards discovered Judge Webb stated that it was a bad conviction, but that the matter had passed out of his hands and must be dealt with by the executive; whether he is aware that the jury had agreed to recommend the prisoner to mercy, but through a blunder this recommendation was not conveyed to the judge; and whether, under the circumstances, Diver will be released?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to the proceedings at the trial of Patrick Diver at the recent Letterkenny Quarter Sessions, on which occasion one of the jurors summoned to hear the case was personated by his brother. I have no information that Judge Webb stated that the conviction was a bad one, or that the facts are as alleged in the second paragraph; but I am aware that the learned judge states that no recommendation of the jury, even if made, would have induced him to pass a lighter sentence on the prisoner than that passed. The Lord Lieutenant, having fully considered the matter, has been advised that the conviction is legal, and that the law should take its course, and has further decided that there are no mitigatory circumstances in the case which would render the prisoner a proper subject for mercy.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES CONFERENCE.
  LORD BALCARRES: On behalf of the right honourable Baronet the Member for Exeter, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has received any representations from Chambers of Commerce in India with regard to the representation of India on the proposed Conference with regard to the sugar bounties; and, if so, what decision on the subject has been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The representations described in my honourable Friend's Question have not yet reached me; but I am expecting a dispatch from the Government of India on the subject. Meanwhile the Government of India have telegraphed requesting that they may be represented at the Sugar Bounties Conference; and this will, I hope, be arranged.

  POONA PUNITIVE POLICE.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the District Magistrate of Poona and the Commissioner of Police for the Division are the principal officers responsible for peace and good order in the city of Poona; whether both of these officers protested against the imposition of a punitive police; whether the Commissioner was censured for making this protest; and whether the Secretary of State has sanctioned that censure?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The District Manager of Poona and the Commissioner of Police for the Division are responsible, like other subordinate officers, to the Government of Bombay for the proper performance of their duties; but, as I have already stated in this House, the Government of Bombay are alone responsible for the decision as to the imposition of a punitive police force. It is not usual, nor, as a rule, expedient to publish the views of subordinate officers, on a due consideration of which the responsible authorities may have had to form their

  1097
  opinion, but on this occasion I am prepared so far to depart from the established practice as to inform the honourable Member that the allegations contained in his last three Questions are devoid of any foundation.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the total cost of the punitive police at Poona is correctly stated at Rs. 115,207; and, if so, whether he will direct the Bombay Government not to levy any amount in excess of that sum?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have on three different occasions stated, in reply to questions in this House, that, according to the information in my possession, the cost of the punitive police at Poona is about Rs.960 a month, or Rs.11,500 a year. I believe that information to be correct; but, even if the cost should be in excess of that sum, it will undoubtedly have to be borne by the city of Poona.

  DEATH OF DR. SIRCAR.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received particulars regarding the death of Dr. Sircar, honorary magistrate and municipal Commissioner of Barrackpore?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I regret to say that from information which I have received it appears to be certain that Dr. Sircar's death was caused by a brutal assault. I believe that an arrest has already been made in connection with it; and as the matter will, of course, be the subject of a judicial inquiry, it is obviously inexpedient that I should anticipate the result of that inquiry by making any further statement at present.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Will the noble Lord say what steps are being taken in this matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have said that an arrest has been made in connection with this outrage.

  UGANDA.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been brought to his notice that a recent military expedition in Uganda was actually sent on active service without a doctor to look after the sick and wounded, and that Captain Dunning, D. S. O. Royal Fusiliers, who was seriously wounded, lived for some days in great agony; further, that there is every reason to believe that his life would have been spared had he received even ordinary medical aid; and will he explain why medical volunteers for this service, who could easily have been obtained in this country, were not called for?
  MR. CURZON: The incident alluded to occurred in March, 1895, before the present Government came into office. The arrangements for the expedition in question were made by the officer commanding the troops in Uganda. There were at the time only three medical officers attached to the Uganda Staff, none of whom, unfortunately, were available for the expedition, which could not, for military reasons, be postponed to admit of volunteers being procured from this country. The number of doctors on the Uganda staff has recently been raised to twelve.

  SALARIES OF PARLIAMENTARY OFFICIALS.
  MR. SOUTTAR: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Aberdeen, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to his statement that the question of the salaries and appointments of the officials of both Houses of Parliament is now engaging the attention of the Government, and in view of the desirability of an inquiry being made into the existing system, he will agree to the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to inquire what changes are practicable, so as to secure the fixing of salaries in proportion to the nature and amount of the work performed, and the making of appointments on some system in accordance with modern requirements?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We are prepared to assent to a joint committee to inquire into the establishment of the two Houses of Parliament, but I cannot at present pledge myself as to the terms of the reference.

  NEW MEMBERS.
  The Honourable CHARLES WILLIAM SYDNEY PIERREPONT, commonly called VISCOUNT NEWARK, for County of Nottingham (Newark Division); and
  ALEXANDER HENDERSON, Esquire, for County of Stafford (Western Division)
  Were introduced in the usual manner, and sworn.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  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.

    CLAUSE 19.
    Question proposed—
    "Page 9, line 32, to leave out sub-section (b), and insert instead thereof—
    "(b) The local government electors for each district electoral division shall elect two councillors for each such division which now returns one elected poor law guardian, and three councillors for each such division which now returns two elected poor law guardians."—(Mr. Smith-Barry.)
    MR. J. C. FLYNNresumed his speech, which was interrupted on the previous evening by the rules of the House. He said: I do not intend to encroach upon the time of the Committee in re-discussing this proposal. I regard
    1100
    it as an attempt to get in a class of representatives under which the so-called minority will be benefited. But I may point out that, when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, there should be no such thing as majorities or minorities in connection with the work of local government. I am persuaded that the electors, whether for county councils or district councils, will take a broad and proper view of this question, and will elect men upon their merits—men who have done good service and have a good record in their own localities. No narrow system of exclusiveness will restrict the electors in their choice. I believe the principle of the Amendment is wrong. It proposes to establish a precedent which has not been introduced into the English or Scotch Bills. I am convinced that English and Scotch Members would not tolerate the introduction of such a clause, and I hope the Government will not entertain the idea of this Amendment. Towards the close of our proceedings last night I gathered from a few observations of the right honourable Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Government were going to consider this proposal on the Report stage. If the right honourable Gentleman had not made these observations I should not have continued my short speech this evening, but I think the right honourable Gentleman should not hastily make any declaration of that kind. Speaking for myself, and I think I may say for many Irish Members, we shall conceive it to be our duty to oppose it with all the resources and all the strength we can command. I believe, as I have said, the principle of the Amendment is wrong: it is not in the English Act, it is not in the Scotch Act, and it is a reflection upon the men for whose protection it is supposed to be designed.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I had the honour to move an Amendment, at an earlier stage of the proceedings, of a similar kind, and perhaps the Committee will allow ma to say a word or two on the question. The same arguments that were used in opposing my Amendment have been used in opposing the Amendment of the honourable Member for South Hunts. On

    1101
    the occasion of my Amendment we had a speech from the honourable Member for South Louth, who delivered pretty much the same speech in opposing the Amendment of the honourable Member for South Hunts, and who seemed to be influenced and biassed by some experience he had of the London County Council. He informed the Committee that he and some other gentlemen were elected for some division of London to the County Council. They were opposed in politics, and apparently, from what the honourable Member said, both went into the County Council against the principles which they advocated outside the Council. If we had double constituencies for the rural districts, a similar misfortune might arise, although I do not anticipate that in Ireland we shall have such a misfortune. According to the honourable Member for South Louth, if the same constituency in Ireland elected him and myself, that constituency would pratically cease to be represented. That is not so; we would not nullify each other. If the safety of the British Empire were in question, that might be so; but, on all matters which affect the welfare of Ireland, I am happy to say that I would find myself in the same Lobby as the honourable Member. Then would be seen the edifying spectacle of the Unionist lamb and the Home Rule tiger walking peaceably together into the Division Lobbies.
    MR. M. DAVITT: The Unionist lamb would be inside the Home Rule tiger.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I look forward with great confidence to the future of these boards. I hope the good sense of the gentlemen elected to represent the constituencies will prevent them taking opposite sides in these councils simply because one happens to be a Unionist and one a Home Ruler, one a non-ratepayer and the other a ratepayer. They will, I hope, consider the matters that come before them from the point of view as to whether or not it would be a good thing for the county and the people whom they represent. If we have only single constituencies the result will be that if two men stand, one a Home Ruler and
    1102
    the other a Unionist, undoubtedly the electors of that division will stand by the man of their own political colour; but, if two candidates are standing for the division, the electors will say, "We will elect the man of our own political colour, and if the other man is likely to make a good local representative and do the work, we will give him a vote as well. This is not a question of a landlord minority; it is not a landlords' question at all; it is a ratepayers' question, and, from my knowledge of the feeling in Ireland, I can say that the Amendment of the honourable Member for South Hants and the Amendment I moved on a former occasion have the entire acceptance of the great majority of the ratepayers of Ireland.
    MR. DAVITT: The honourable and gallant Member who has just sat down has not done justice to his own intelligence in the speech he has just made. He has told us that there is no division between Members on this side of the House when the purpose is the plunder of the British taxpayer.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I did not say plunder.
    MR. DAVITT: It is characteristic of the landlord class that they are prepared to unite with the whole of the English people on the one hand, or with their political opponents on the other, if, as a result of this united action, money can be put into the pockets of the Irish landlords. But, whenever money is not concerned, when any question of principle or national sentiment or liberty may be at stake, the Irish landlords are ranged on the opposite side from the mass of the Irish people. I oppose this Amendment on two grounds; first, because, if carried, it would, I think, defeat the object for which the Member for South Belfast has fought so long and so consistently—namely, to have women representatives on district councils; and, secondly, because it goes contrary to the obvious bargain of the Bill. What is that bargain? It is this: that the landlords and grand jurors of Ireland have, with their eyes open, willingly contracted to

    1103
    sell the power they have possessed in local governments for so much cash. They are going to get the cash, and under this Amendment they also wish to retain the power. I protest, Mr. Lowther, that they cannot have their cake and eat it. This Bill proposes to provide them with an endowment which I value at £20,000,000 or £30,000,000, and, if they have any honest sentiment, they ought not to seek, in an Amendment of this kind, to obtain special representation on the district councils. I hope the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will stand to the bargain which, in this Bill, he has very generously provided out of the public purse for his political friends and supporters in Ireland. If I were in the position of the right honourable Gentleman opposite, the mover of this Amendment, who is to be a beneficiary under this Bill to the extent of £1,500 or £2,000 per annum, I would be ashamed to take part in this Division.
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I should not have intervened again in connection with this Amendment but for the remarks made by the honourable Member for South Mayo. I support the Amendment for the reason that it is necessary in the interests of local government by women. The honourable Member for South Mayo himself is in favour of giving to women a proper share in the local government of the country. I hold in my hand a letter from the Women's Local Government Society—an entirely non-party organisation, of which the President is the Countess of Aberdeen—in which it is started that the Society is desirous of informing me that they have received a letter from one of the women guardians in Ireland strongly urging that steps be taken in favour of the Bill, which provides two councillors for each district, because, the letter goes on to say, they have had letters from Ireland in which it is stated that the electors would desire to elect men to represent them on questions of politics and religion, but would elect women to see to the sick poor. In the interests of social well-being, and in the interests of the sick poor, I ask the right honourable
    1104
    Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to support this proposal of the honourable Member for South Hants, so as to enable women to take their proper share in the local government of Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): At an earlier stage of the proceedings on the Bill, when I suggested that consideration of the question of double-member constituencies in connection with county councils should be postponed to the Report stage, in order that an opportunity might be given for the fuller formation of public opinion on the subject, I had in view, not merely the constituencies in county councils, but also the constituencies in district councils. I recognise that, if there are sufficient arguments in favour of double-member constituencies in the election of county councils, the arguments in favour of double members in district councils are stronger. The honourable Member for South Mayo has just suggested that the landlords of Ireland have entered into a bargain in this matter, but that I absolutely deny. The position is this: that, while we do not view with favour the introduction of a system of minority representation, or of what have been called "fancy franchises," on the other hand we should be glad to see the adoption of a system which would facilitate the retention on county or district councils of members of the grand jury class; and I have always understood that that desire was fully shared by honourable Members opposite, who wished to see the grand jury class have a proper representation.
    MR. DAVITT: What the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said, on introducing the Bill, was that he trusted members of the grand jury class would stand as candidates for these popular bodies.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is so, and this proposal that each elector should have two votes for each of the councils is not a proposal for minority

    1105
    representation. The honourable Member contended that, while that is not a minority representation, it will, incidentally, have the effect of enabling a large number of grand jury representatives to be returned than by the single member system. If that is so, if that argument has any force, it is a great recommendation of the system. I am in doubt, however, as to whether the object will be achieved by the system of double-member constituencies, and I think my honourable Friends will do well to consider very carefully whether the doubling of the members of the council will not bring with it disadvantages greater than the advantages which the honourable Member expects. I have stated the difficulties which I see in the adoption of the proposal. However, I am prepared to consider the whole subject on the Report stage, and will approach its decision with a perfectly open mind; but in the meantime I do trust that my honourable Friends will carefully consider the arguments on both sides before coming to a final conclusion.
    MR. DILLON: As the Amendment is to be withdrawn, I only rise to say that the view I take and the grounds on which I object to this matter are nearly exactly the same as have been just stated by the right honourable Gentleman. I do not think that the effect of the operation of the Amendment would be to put a larger number of the grand jury class on the county councils. The grand jury class can get back into some share of control by one means, and one means only, and that is by winning the confidence of the people. They are mistaken if they imagine they can get returned by having two-member constituencies, for if the people are determined not to have a member of the grand jury class they will not return him whether there be one or two members to be elected. I object to the Amendment because it would throw a considerable burden on many parts of the country in expense and in finding candidates, and it would injure the councils by doubling the number of members and lowering the qualifications of the men to be elected.
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Why not get women?
    MR. DILLON: That is one aspect of the question into which I do not care to enter, because I have not voted for many of these proposals in this House. The proposal of the honourable Member for South Belfast is that one man and one woman should be returned, but I do not consider that feasible. Under the Act of the honourable Member for South Belfast a great many women have been elected to poor law boards in preference to men. I. myself know many districts in which women have beaten men. But, coming back to the Amendment, the person who is liked best by the people will be elected in these elections. One of the reasons why I support this Bill as enthusiastically as I do is that the poor people will have a vote now owing to the abolition of the property qualification, and whover these poor people think will treat them most kindly and do the business of the district best will be elected. I am strongly opposed to the Amendment, as I believe nearly all the Irish Nationalist Members are, mainly on the grounds stated by the right honourable Gentleman.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: There is one point arising on this Amendment to which attention has not been called. The effect which would result from increasing the number of representatives in each division would depend very much on the system of voting adopted. If the Chief Secretary decides to increase the number, I hope he will consider the great importance of introducing proportional representation. Several honourable Members on the other side of the House have discussed this question as if the effect of proportional representation would be to give the minority greater power than they otherwise would have, but there are many cases in which it would have just the opposite effect. No doubt it would do something to give the minority their fair share; but, on the other hand, it would secure a majority to the majority of the electors. The system of single and double constituencies did not secure that. On the contrary, it was quite possible that a minority of the

    1107
    electors might secure a majority of the representatives. This had happened over and over again, and had led to revolutions, as, for instance, in Geneva and in Ticino only a few years ago. Reference has been made to the case of London. It was very remarkable, because at the last county council election a minority of the voters secured a majority of the representatives. This would not have happened under proportional representation. I hope Her Majesty's Government will not only consider the number of seats for each district, but also the way in which the votes are to be given, in order that not only shall the minority have that representation to which they are entitled, but also that the majority shall have the majority of representatives. I hope the matter will be fully considered by the Chief Secretary, but, after the assurance he has given, I think my right honourable Friend would be well advised not to press the matter.
    MR. SMITH BARRY: After the satisfactory assurance that the right honourable Gentleman has given us that he will consider this matter, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. In doing so I may say that I do not look on this as a question of proportional minority-representation, or as a landlord Amendment. It has met with great favour from many different classes throughout Ireland, and is really a question of general convenience rather than an Amendment moved in the interests of any particular party.
    SIR THOMAS GRATTAN ESMONDE: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say that I very strongly object to it? I believe it would make the new bodies very unwieldy. The more members there are the more difficult it is to transact business. We have to look at this matter from the point of view of practical business. The honourable Member for South Belfast is anxious that ladies should be represented on these councils. I can assure him there is no strong objection to ladies on these benches, and we would be very glad indeed to see ladies elected.
    LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: There is no doubt that in postponing this proposal we are postponing a very important matter to the Report stage. From what the Chief Secretary has said he appears rather favourably disposed towards some change from the Bill as it now stands. I hope the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Hunts will allow me to say, and I hope he will believe me, that I hope that whatever plan of representation may ultimately be adopted, it may be a plan whereby the landlord or Unionist class in Ireland—call it which you will—will not be excluded from representation on these important bodies. Although I sit on the opposite side of the House from his, I look upon this question from that point of view. This Amendment has been supported as a means of defending the landlord class in Ireland; but I venture to ask the right honourable Gentleman to weigh very carefully the remarks of the Chief Secretary, and to consider whether this Amendment may not have the very opposite effect. May I remind the right honourable Gentleman that in 1885 single-member constituencies were strongly put forward by the Conservative party as the best means of preserving the interests of Conservatism at Parliamentary elections in constituencies which are analogous to those now before us, and for obvious reasons? Suppose it happens that a landlord is very popular in a certain district, and that you add to it another district in which he is not well known—it is very probable he would not be elected. The honourable Member for Mid-Armagh indulged in political prophecy, which I think is a rash thing to do. I am not going to indulge in political prophecy, but I venture to say that there is no certainty in the matter. It seems to me it is possible this proposal would work in a way different from what he thinks. He says that, if there are two members, people will split their votes and return one Unionist and one Home Ruler. How does he know? Is it not equally probable that if there is a Unionist or a Home Rule majority, two Unionists or two Home Rulers will be returned? These are probabilities of which it is impossible to state the result. If I may express

    1109
    my own opinion it would be that the landlord or Unionist class in Ireland should identify themselves as much as they can with the people among whom they live; and if they do that, though. I am not a Unionist myself, they will find, whether there be single or double-member constituencies, that, instead of being able to preserve only the rags of minority representation, they will very likely command a majority.
    MR. TULLY: I want very briefly to give the Committee one or two instances which tell against this proposal. The unions in Ireland generally consist of twenty-five or thirty electoral divisions. Take the case of this House. When it appoints a Committee to inquire into South African affairs, petroleum, or any other important matter, it limits it to seventeen members. Does anyone imagine it would be better to have 34 members? You will generally find that a crowd is always more cruel than a committee, and surely it stands to common sense that where there is a large number of men acting and reacting on each other there must be excitement and less chance of fair play. We are all aware that a mob will do a thing which an individual would shrink from. Instead of this Amendment being favourable to the views of the Unionists, it would tell against them by crowding the board rooms.
    MR. W. E. H. LECKY: I think it should be remembered that there are many electoral districts in Ireland now returning two members, and which have also an ex-officio member, all working together in perfect harmony. It is surely very desirable that these districts under the new system should be able to elect this ex-officio member with out being obliged to displace one of the two other members whom they had elected, and with whom they had every reason to be satisfied. The conversion of one member into two member constituencies will not secure a minority representative if the elections are run on exclusively political grounds. But politics have naturally little or nothing to say to that work of the district councils. Many
    1110
    boards of guardians are not elected on such grounds. It is probable that this will be the case in many of the new councils, and the probable result will be that one or two members will be returned of the tenant class and one of the grand jury or large ratepayer class. This would be of all things the most desirable. I hope the Government will consider the Amendment favourably, as it is vary strongly supported on this side of the House.
    MR. LOUGH: May I point out to the right honourable Gentleman that one of the difficulties he mentions exists in the last sub-section to clause 18. He will see that any electoral division divided into wards will in future be divided into separate electoral divisions corresponding with the wards, and the council will consist of as many members as there are now wards. I am satisfied to a great extent with the comments of the right honourable Gentleman in postponing this point, but I would attach great importance to the adoption of this Amendment or anything like it. It would throw on Ireland the difficulty of finding five thousand more candidates. Five thousand candidates will be required as the Bill now stands, and it would be impossible to get an additional five thousand. The board rooms would also have to be altered or new ones built, and the councils would be very unwieldy. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will consider these difficulties which he recognises, and if he does, he will stick to the Bill as it stands.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I have put down the Amendment standing in my name in order to ascertain how the electoral qualifications under the Bill compare with the qualifications now in force in reference to poor law guardians. At present any person holding rateable property to the value of £8 in a union can be a poor law candidate in any division of it, and what I desire to know from the right honourable Gentleman is whether an elector may become a candidate for any division within a rural district other than the division in which he is residing.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Oh, yes.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: That being so, I beg to move.
    Question put.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment. What the honourable Member proposes is to shut out all the disqualifications provided by the Bill, one of which is that a person having a contract with the district council may not be elected.
    MR. DILLON: Do I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that any man who has a qualification in a district is entitled to stand for any division of that district?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: That is my point.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I gave the honourable Member that answer, and I thought he was satisfied. But the Amendment not having been withdrawn, I gave my reasons for not accepting it.
    MR. POWER: The wording of the Bill as regards county councils and district councils, with reference to this matter, is very vague. I may assure the right honourable Gentleman that legal authorities in Ireland do not understand whether or not a man eligible as a candidate for an electoral division must be resident in that division. I understand from the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman that he need not be resident in the division, but I would suggest that the wording of the Bill be made clearer.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is perfectly clear. There is not the slightest doubt about it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 10, line 6, after 'district,' insert—
    "'Or has, during the whole of the twelve months preceding the election resided and continues to reside, in the district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps it may be necessary to state why these words have been introduced. They are
    1112
    almost identical with the words of the English Act, and, unless residence is made a qualification as well as rate-paying, it would be very much more difficult for women to be elected to district councils than without this qualification.
    MR. TULLY: Would an elector who goes to the seaside for a couple of months be disqualified?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 10, line 6, after 'district,' insert—
    "'And no person shall be disqualified by sex or marriage for being elected or being a district councillor.'"—(Sir C. Dilke.)
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: The Amendment which I propose to move is not an Amendment of substance, as far as the intention of the Government is concerned. I may call it an Amendment of form, and it is the most curious case of an Amendment of form being necessary that I have ever come across in all my experience of dealing with eligibility and the qualifications for electors. Under the Bill there is an extension of the principle of legislation by reference, because a great number of things, which in other Acts have been done in the Acts themselves, are now proposed to be done by an Order in Council, which is to come before the House afterwards. Now, Sir, the case I have to put before the Committee is a much stronger one than the ordinary one to which I have referred. In this particular case no ordinary human being will be able to make out what is the meaning of the law by perusing it, and even lawyers will differ about it. The words which deal with the subject in this legislation should be quite clear. The rights of the electors and the question as to who should be elected are not questions of opinion, and ought to be clear to any ordinary person. They are matters which cannot be referred to the opinion of an official, they have to be decided by the electors themselves, and it is essential that the Act should be

    1113
    clear regarding them. The effect of the clause is to upset both the present law and the intention of the Government if we take the Act without the Order in Council as regards married women. The honourable Member for South Belfast carried in 1896 a Statute, entitled the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Women Act, and that Act was clear as regards the rights of married women. Married women can now be elected to boards of guardians. But clause 20 repeals that Act, if it stood by itself without the Order in Council; but the Order in Council sets it up again. The Order in Council again makes the law that which Parliament made the law in 1896. The intention of the Government is perfectly clear. It is to include Parliamentary electors, and, "in addition, women, who would be Parliamentary electors, but for the fact that they are women." But they are excluded under the words of clause 20, to be again included by the Order in Council. My case is no doubt a case of form, and the Order in Council is clear. I do not suppose that will be disputed. But I do submit to the Committee that this is essentially a question in which it is important that the definite meaning of the Government should be conveyed in the Statute itself, and the words should not be simply set out in an Order in Council. It should be clearly stated what the intention of the Government is in the Act, and then people will know exactly where to find it. With regard to the rights of the electors as to who shall be qualified to be elected, the words of the Statute should be complete and final, and it should not be necessary to go to an Order in Council at all.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I have a similar Amendment a little lower down on the Paper, and, whilst I thank the Chief Secretary for accepting the first part of it, and inserting it in the Bill, I hope the Government will accept the Amendment of the right honourable Baronet.
    MR. JOHN DILLON: The system adopted in this Bill of legislation by an Order in Council is, I think, entirely without precedent in the legislation of this country. The Chief Secretary in introducing the Bill said that he would
    1114
    be careful to see that no contentious subjects were left out of the Bill and that only those which were not contentious would be left to be dealt with by the Orders in Council. There are certainly a good many instances in which he has not observed that pledge. Under clause 62 the Order is an Act in itself and a good deal of it is concerned with detail about which contention would arise, and there are a good many clauses which undoubtedly ought not to be withdrawn from the consideration of the House. These Orders in Council are subsequently to be altered in accordance with any change made in the Act, and to be laid upon the Table of the House, and the only method by which the House can deal with them will be by moving an Address after Twelve o'clock at night. It means practically withdrawing the matter altogether from the consideration of the House. Well, Sir, in this Order in Council, clause 11 deals with disqualifications, and under that clause comes Sub-section 1. Now, that is a highly contentious subject of debate. The second sub-section is again a contentious question, and certainly one upon which we may have a difference of opinion. Then, again, there are in that clause several other disqualifications. For instance, there is a disqualification that nobody is to be eligible for any post or position of a county council or a district council or board of guardians who has been, five years before his election, or since his election, convicted on indictment and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour without the option of a fine. Some years ago, whole boards of guardians would have been cleared out by the operation of that disqualification, and, possibly, the whole of a district council may be so affected. I consider that such a disqualification as that ought not to be put into the Bill, and the question will have to be raised by Amendments to that Bill. What I rose for the purpose of addressing the Committee upon, was to say that I entirely agree with the view put forward by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, that the enormous extension given to this system of Orders in Council is a very evil precedent, and the right honourable Gentleman ought, at least, to observe strictly the promise he gave in introducing the Bill,

    1115
    that all contentious matters would be kept out of the Order. I maintain that in that one clause he has put three or four very contentious matters which ought to have appeared in the Bill itself.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In substance, the English Act has been followed in this case. The mere fact that it is proposed to deal with this matter by an Order in Council does not prevent the honourable Member for East Mayo moving an Amendment to the clause dealing with the question of the disqualification, if he thinks it is a contentious matter. But, Sir, I do submit that this is not a very convenient place to discuss the considerations which have induced the Government to adopt the system of Orders in Council. Having regard to the immense length of these Orders in Council, the difficulty was that, if we had inserted clauses in the Bill on these various questions dealt with by the Orders in Council they would have endangered the success of the Bill, which we think it is extremely important should be passed this Session. Sir, in reply to the right honourable Baronet, I cannot see that he has got anything to complain of, because when the Orders in Council are passed they will form part of the Act of Parliament just as much as the Act itself. As a matter of fact, it appears to me that, on the whole, this question is clear, and that there is absolutely no ambiguity about the disqualification as to what is meant. I really cannot understand what is the nature of the complaint which the right honourable Baronet has made, except in so far as it is a complaint against the existing system of legislating by Orders in Council.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: What is the intention in putting it in the Bill at all? If the defence is that which we have just heard, why not say that the whole question of disqualification is to be dealt with by the Order in Council? My point is that the Bill says one thing, and the effect of the Order in Council is to override it on that particular point, and make it a different thing. This is a very objectionable way of dealing with the question. What is to be the position of
    1116
    the ordinary person desiring to see who is eligible for election on these bodies? Is he to have to go to two different documents to find eligibility? I am quite sure that the ordinary voter will not be able to understand the language of this clause.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not prepared for a moment to admit that there is any difference between the Order in Council and this Bill. The right honourable Baronet asks, will the Orders in Council be contained in the Statute Book? I presume that, unless there is a special provision made, that will not be done. But everybody will know, by looking at clause 52, which is meant, and everybody will know that this Act must be read in connection with the Order in Council. I suppose there is hardly any Act of Parliament—any important Act—which must not be read in conjunction with other Acts of Parliament, and I see no greater inconvenience in this Act having to be read in connection with an Order in Council than arises in all the other Acts passed, which have to be read in connection with other Acts. It is perfectly clear that under this Bill no one will be disqualified by sex or marriage.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: Will the right honourable Gentleman assure us that no person will be disqualified by sex?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The words are—
    "No person shall be disqualified by sex or marriage."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Having had some experience in the passing of Acts of Parliament through this House, I venture to say that it is not in the power of the British Government to get a Measure of this magnitude through without adopting some such principle as the Government has adopted. I say this with deep regret, because it leads to confusion, and there is enormous difficulty in getting it understood, having regard to the cumbrous and lumbersome machinery of this House in regard to Irish legislation. Unless some method of this kind had been adopted, I venture to say that we should never have got through it.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I have more than once in this House protested against legislation by reference and allusion as an abuse of our system of legislation. Sir, the system of legislation by reference and allusion is extremely mischievous, and the right honourable Gentleman himself and his colleagues on the third Bench below the Gangway say that this course is only pursued because the Government dare not submit to Parliament the proposals they embody in these Orders in Council in their Bill. It has been again and again admitted that this is so, and it is now admitted again here. I have certain proposals which I wish to embody in this Act of Parliament, and if I did embody them I could not get the House of Commons to consider them, or they would not adopt them. I am, therefore, forced to put the effective part of my proposal into another document, and legislate by reference. What I wish to point out is this: that I have heard constantly of legislation by reference and allusion to other Statutes. Now, that is abusive enough, and that is improper enough, but how much more abusive and improper is it to legislate by allusion and reference not only to Statutes themselves, but also to an Order in Council, which is no part of the legislation of the country, but which is an act of the executive, and finds no place in the Statute Book. Sir, I say that this is an outrageous exaggeration of the principle of legislation by reference. Without reference or allusion to existing Statutes we are now asked to legislate by reference to an enormously long Order in Council, which is itself as long as two or three Acts of Parliament. I am surprised, after the replies we got, that the Government is going to pursue this vicious system of making it impossible to ascertain what is the real meaning of the Act.
    MR. M. DAVITT: There would be some point in the argument of the honourable Member for King's Lynn if the proposal before us were to add the whole of the Order in Council to the Bill. But that is not the proposal in the Amendment of the right honourable Baronet. What he wants to do is to
    1118
    make it perfectly plain to the public in the text of the Bill that women are qualified to represent people on the district council. In view of the widespread interest taken in this question throughout the country, I hope the Government will see its way to concede this small point, in order that there will be no doubt about it at all as to the meaning of the Bill.
    MR. MCKENNA: I think there is a very practical reason for this Amendment, for there are five Orders in Council, and it is extremely difficult to find which are the particular paragraphs that apply to married women. In the Orders which I hold in my hand I find there are five different indexes, and consequently the woman who desires to know if she is eligible to stand will meet with great difficulty in discovering what is the law. She will first of all have to consult the Act of Parliament, and she will find that she is disqualified because, although an Act which already exists does give her the necessary qualification, that is repealed, and that will give her the impression that she is not qualified. She will then, probably, be told to refer to the Orders in Council, but as no references are given in the Bill itself to the particular paragraphs of the Orders, it will be impossible for any ordinary person to discover easily what the law is on the subject.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: The right honourable Gentleman probably has no difficulty in finding those words in the Order. Perhaps he would have no objection to allowing them to be inserted in the Bill.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot accept them.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I trust the right honourable Baronet will go to a Division on this Amendment if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary does not accept it. I pointed out, some days ago, in the course of the Debate, that in a matter of such importance as this, which deals with the qualification of a large mass of the popula-

    1119
    tion, namely, the married women, we should not trust to this or that reference to this or that Order in Council. In the first place, that particular Order in Council may not be adopted by the Privy Council in Dublin. The Privy Council in Dublin has a right—and I have no doubt will exercise it—to modify any of the clauses, and, according to their law and constitution, it may be put to the vote at the Privy Council whether a particular clause shall pass or not. There may be occasions on which it is necessary to rely upon an Order in Council, rather than to spread it out on the face of the Bill. But this is a simple Amendment to remove all possible doubt. In three lines it shows that there is no question as to whether a woman is qualified to be a district councillor, and the fact of her being a married woman should be no disqualification. Why, for the sake of consistency, or for any other reason, that simple point should not be put upon the face of the Act of Parliament, I, for my part, cannot understand.
    MR. L. H. COURTNEY: I have no doubt that my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary does not need any encouragement upon this point. I quite approve of the method of proceeding which the Government have adopted, because I think it is most desirable that we should recognise the necessity of relieving Bills of all details which can be dealt with independently. But supplementing a Measure by Orders in Council, where it can be done with advantage, as in the present case, is, in my opinion, a very wise procedure, and one which every foreign Legislature adopts. As to the Bill itself, it has been made as simple as possible by the principle of these Orders in Council, and I think the course adopted in the present Bill is a great improvement on the previous machinery. We have been legislating by reference of a most intricate kind, but in this case it is plain and simple, because you have all the supplementary provisions taken in order. The only thing that is necessary now is that the Orders shall be obtainable as easily and expeditiously as any of the Acts themselves. Therefore the
    1120
    criticisms as to the confusion and doubt, and the possibility of not being able to ascertain the meaning of the Act of Parliament, have no real existence whatever. The ordinary man and woman even now do not desire to consult Acts of Parliament, and they will not desire to do so in future. They will know, if this Bill is passed, that married women are eligible to sit on district councils, as provided by the Order in Council, and there will be no doubt whatever about the law on the subject.
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: I have great sympathy with my honourable Friend who has just sat down, and I have also with many Members of the House, because I have had a very painful experience myself of carrying through the House a Measure of a similar character to that which is now before the House. When I heard just now the Member for King's Lynn protesting against legislation by reference, I thought I had heard that speech before on a similar Bill before the House. I quite agree with my honourable Friend who has just sat down that he must adopt this mode of carrying through this Bill. I do not suppose many Members would like to contemplate the prospect of this Bill being 40 or 60 days, as the English Local Government Bill was, in Committee. I think it is to the interest of all who desire that this Bill should be passed, that we should facilitate, as far as possible, any reasonable arrangement that the Government may make to narrow down the actual legislation in the Bill to what are beyond all question matters of contention. But I think this case hardly comes within that category. This has not been so clear a matter as my right honourable Friend who has just sat down seems to think, as he has presented it to the House. Now, when I was at the head of the Local Government Board I expressed a very strong opinion that no board of guardians in this country was properly qualified unless a woman were upon it, and I hold the view now which I held then, because the admission of women to boards of guardians has been such a great success in England. I

    1121
    was confronted, when the Bill of 1894 was before the House, with a very serious difficulty, and that was whether married women were legally competent to discharge those duties, although there was no question about single women. Practically, the law was to be enforced by the electors themselves, because the Local Government Board always declined to express any opinion upon that point, but Presidents of the Local Government Board, who held certain views, encouraged the election of married women without positively saying that it was legal. From the point of view of the Local Government Board, we fought that question, and the words were put in which my right honourable Friend now wishes to put into this Bill in order that there should be no disqualification either by sex or marriage. Now, I understand that the right honourable Gentleman does not object at all to these words, because they already appear in the Order in Council, I understand.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, they are.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: Then it is simply a question that there should be no possibility of a mistake on this question. Let me appeal to the right honourable Gentleman as to what he himself has done. Under clause 19 he has distinctly enacted that—
    "A person, shall not be qualified to be elected or to be a councillor of the council of a county district unless he is a local government elector for the district."
    And he has actually amended that, and carried it a step further by the last Amendment that was put from the Chair, namely—
    "or has during the whole of the twelve months preceding the election resided, and continues to reside, in the district."
    Now, if that is right to be put in, and I think it is a reform, why not put the other question in, around which there has gathered a controversy, and in reference to which there is much difference of opinion, although I do not think the effect will be different? I quite admit that the Order in Council will be the statutory authority, but I cannot under-
    1122
    stand what objection there can be to inserting these lines. I do not think the right honourable Gentleman in any way infringes the principle that all non-controversial matters shall be put in the Order in Council, and he will make this Bill clear beyond all question. At all events, it will settle the principle by actual legislation.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The cases which the right honourable Gentleman who has just spoken alluded to are altogether dissimilar. The Amendment proposed does not alter the intention of the Bill.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: It is by way of addition.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Undoubtedly. The introduction of the words proposed by the right honourable Baronet will in no sense alter the effect of the Bill.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Not if taken together.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Bill and the Order in Council are to be taken together all through. The right honourable Gentleman speaks of this as having been a matter of controversy, but there is no doubt in the mind of anyone as to what the law means. We have put this into the Order in Council because it was simply our object to bring up the law in Ireland as regards election under the Bill to a district or a county council exactly to the point where it already stands in England and Scotland, and we did it in this way purposely in order to avoid the introduction of anything contentious. In this Bill we have strictly carried out my undertaking that what was put in the Orders in Council might be regarded as non-controversial. One word more in reference to what has fallen from the honourable Member for King's Lynn in regard to legislation by reference. I may say that I agree with what has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, that this method of legislating by Orders in Council is, in many respects, a very great improvement on the old system of legislating by reference, which taxed so

    1123
    greatly the ingenuity of draftsmen. We have attempted to do this by Order in Council, in order to put it in the shortest form instead of having to refer to innumerable Acts of Parliament, and in order that everything could be stated with the utmost clearness, and so far from this being a disadvantage from the point of view of the person desiring information, I really think that it is a great improvement.
    MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: This is a subject in which I take an especial interest, and upon which I should like to say a few words. I am exceedingly glad that the right honourable Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite has expressed the opinion which he has just given to the House. I confess when my right honourable Friend rose a minute or two ago, I was somewhat taken aback, because I regard his authority as very high in this House upon subjects such as this. But here is a common sense matter before us, and it seems to me that as men of business we ought to make things absolutely clear, and nothing could do that better than the insertion of this Amendment. There appears to
    be no difference of opinion as to what these words should be, and there appears to be no difference of opinion as to what ought to be done. Let us therefore agree to put the words into the Bill, and then this vexed question will be settled for ever. I may say that if the right honourable Baronet goes to a Division I shall go into the lobby with him.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Has this House lost its common sense? Here is a proposal which the Government intends to make law. It is in the schedule, and the course pursued is this. It being as much law in the Schedule as it is in the Bill the question is whether you will have your law in the Schedule or in the Bill, and this House of Commons solemnly proposes to take up time and to go to a Division upon a question of that sort. Irish Members are often acoused of loquacity and folly, but we have never fallen to such folly as this yet.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 246.—(Division List No. 95.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Joicey, Sir James

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

    Doughty, George

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Duckworth, James

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

    Dunn, Sir William

    Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Lambert, George

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Evershed, Sydney

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

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

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lloyd-George, David

    Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

    Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

    Logan, John William

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Lough, Thomas

    Billson, Alfred

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Brigg, John

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Brunner, Sir Jno. Tomlinson

    Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (Wol'tn)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    McEwan, William

    Burt, Thomas

    Gold, Charles

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Caldwell, James

    Greene, W. Raymonde- (Cambs.)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Grey, Sir Edw. (Berwick)

    McKenna, Reginald

    Carew, James Laurence

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Maddison, Fred.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Harwood, George

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Cawley, Frederick

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Havne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Moss, Samuel

    Commins, Andrew

    Holburn, J. G.

    Murnaghan, George

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Crombie, John William

    Hudson, Geo. Bickersteth

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Davitt, Michael

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Dillon, John

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    O'Malley, William

    Parnell, John Howard

    Souttar, Robinson

    Weir, James Galloway

    Pease, Alfred B. (Cleveland)

    Spicer, Albert

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Perks, Robert William

    Steadman, William Charles

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro'gh)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Strachey, Edward

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

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

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

    Woods, Samuel

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Sir Charles Dilke and Mr.

    Shaw, Thos. (Hawick, B.)

    Wayman, Thomas

    William Johnston.

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Cripps, C. A.

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

    Aird, John

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Hill, Sir Ed. Stock (Bristol)

    Allhusen, A. H. E.

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampst'd)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Curran, T. B. (Donegal)

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Arrol, Sir William

    Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

    Holland, Hon. Lionel Raliegh

    Ascroft, Robert

    Currie, Sir Donald

    Hornby, William Henry

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

    Howard, Joseph

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Howell, William Tudor

    Baird, John G. Alexander

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Daly, James

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Denny, Colonel

    Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

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

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Kenyon-Slaney, Colonel Wm

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Kimber, Henry

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

    Knowles, Lees

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

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Beach, W. W. (Hants.)

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

    Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall)

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

    Bethell, Commander

    Fisher, W. H.

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

    Boulnois, Edmund

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Brassey, Albert

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Leighton, Stanley

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

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

    Butcher, John George

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Carlile, William Walter

    Fry, Lewis

    Lowe, Francis William

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Garfit, William

    Lowles, John

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

    Gedge, Sydney

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

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

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Gibney, James

    Macaleese, Daniel

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

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.)

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    McCalmont, Gen. (Antrim, N.)

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim E.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

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

    Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    McKillop, James

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

    Gretton, John

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Coddington, Sir William

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. F.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Monk, Charles James

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

    Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.)

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

    Heath, James

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Crilly, Daniel

    Henderson, Alexander

    More, Robert Jasper

    1126

    1127

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Round, James

    Tritton, Charles E.

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

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Tully, Jasper

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Ward, Hon. Robt. A. (Crewe)

    Myers, William Henry

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Waring, Col. Thomas

    Newark, Viscount

    Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

    Warkworth, Lord

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Nicol, Donald Ninan

    Seely, Charles Hilton

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

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Seton-Karr, Henry

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

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

    Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

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

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

    Smith, Abel (Herts)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Smith, James P. (Govan)

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Pryce-Jones, Edward

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

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Purvis, Robert

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)

    Wodehouse, Edm. R. (Bath)

    Rankin, James

    Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Reid, Sir Robert T.

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Wyvill, Marmaduke d'Arcy

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Strauss, Arthur

    Wyndham, George

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Young, Capt. (Berks, E.)

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Younger, William

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

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

    Sir William Walrond and

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Question put and agreed to—
    "That clause 19 as amended stand part of the Bill."

    CLAUSE 20.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Clause 20, page 10, line 17, at end, add—
    "And (c) where the Local Government Board constitute any urban county district or county borough, or part of such district or borough, a district electoral division returning more than one guardian, each elector may give one vote and no more far each of any number of persons, not exceeding the number of guardians to be elected for that division; and (d) an elector shall not at the same election vote for the members, whether district councillors or guardians, of a board of guardians for a union in more than one district electoral division in that union.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    MR. GERALD BALFOURproposed this Amendment, and said that he had a further Amendment to make to it which was little more than a verbal alteration.
    MR. M. HEALYobjected to the proposed alteration. He said that the Government had put down the Amendment in a particular form—he had examined the form and found it a correct one—and then without notice the Government proposed to change the Amend-
    1128
    ment. He suggested that that was an inconvenient course, and that it would be better to let the Amendment stand as it originally stood. Then, if on the Report stage an Amendment was thought to be necessary, by all means let it be made. Having examined the matter, and being especially interested in a constituency which would be especially affected by the Amendment, he certainly thought that it was much better as it was in the original form, and he hoped the right honourable Gentleman would not insist upon the proposed change, which was not a good one.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: To save time I will leave the Amendment as it was originally on the Paper.
    The Amendment to the Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put and agreed to—
    "That the amendment stand part of the clause."
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 10, line 17, add—
    "'Provided always that, notwithstanding anything in this Act, every urban district shall be entitled to the same number of guardians as such district

    1129
    was immediately preceding the passing of this Act entitled to, and whether such district was constituted as one or more poor law electoral divisions, and the Local Government Board may, on the application of the urban district council of any urban district, for the purposes of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts, 1838 to 1892, divide such district into wards corresponding to the number of guardians returnable by such district, or otherwise.'"—(Mr. Horace, Plunkett.)
    MR. H. PLUNKETT: I am not quite clear whether the Amendment which the right honourable Gentleman has just moved has done away with the necessity for mine. I see that this Amendment contemplates more than one guardian for each electoral division. I cannot find any clause or consequential Amendment giving effect to this in the Bill. Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will explain to me exactly how the matter stands.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no need to do that. We shall leave things as they are. All that my Amendment will do will be to prevent its being necessary for the Local Government Board to divide an area into single member constituencies for the return of guardians. There is no need for any consequential Amendment. My right honourable Friend's Amendment is one which we cannot accept. In many places the electoral district extends beyond the area of the urban district, and the guardian representing such electoral district represents an area beyond the town. The second part of the Amendment is, I think, unnecessary. You comprise all the electoral districts into one, which, in my opinion, there is no need for.
    MR. H. PLUNKETT: I am quite satisfied if the right honourable Gentleman can assure me that, approximately, the townships will have the same number of poor law guardians that they now return. We do not want absolutely the same, but approximately.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board will take into consideration all matters which they properly ought to take into consideration. I think it would be unwise to constitute the number of guardians for the urban districts exactly.
    MR. H. PLUNKETT: I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
    The Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put and agreed to—
    "That Clause 20, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

    CLAUSE 21.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 10, lines 19 and 20, leave out 'and if they think fit, a vice-chairman.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
    MR. LOUGH: The words which I propose to omit enable the district council to select its vice-chairman from outside. I do not object, of course, to there being a vice-chairman, but I decidedly think he should be a member of the council. I do not wish to go the length of saying that the district council may not elect its chairman from outside, but I want to secure that, at any rate, the vice-chairman should be elected from amongst the councillors.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the Amendment of the honourable Member were accepted, there would have to be a consequential Amendment. As things are, if a vice-chairman is elected from outside he should be considered as an additional councillor.
    The Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 10, line 20, leave out 'or persons qualified to be such.'"—(Mr. Luttrell.)
    MR. LUTTRELL: The object of the Amendment which stands in my name is to prevent persons sitting upon the district councils who are not elected. This clause provides that a chairman and a vice-chairman may be chosen from outside the council; and, in addition, by sub-section (b), the district council can—
    "besides the chairman and vice-chairman, choose from persons qualified to be councillors

    1131
    of the district not more than two persons who shall be additional councillors during the term of office of the council."
    Therefore, you may have four district councillors chosen from the outside. I gathered from the right honourable Gentleman, when he replied to my honourable Friend, that he was prepared to accept this Amendment standing in my name by the addition of certain words. I am willing to accept that, but I think it is only fair that I should state that I cannot take it as affecting the principle which influenced me in moving my Amendment. My object in moving my Amendment is to make the district councils thoroughly representative of the districts; and in order to do that I think that they should only be composed of members directly chosen and elected by the people. I think the universal opinion on both sides of the House upon this subject is that the district councils should be made as representative as possible. We are all agreed upon that. Now, here is an opportunity of doing so; and I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will not only see their way to accept this Amendment, for which I thank them, but that also, at a later stage, by adding to the Bill another Amendment, they will not allow any person who is not elected to the district council to be chosen as either chairman or vice-chairman.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am prepared to accept the honourable Member's Amendment on the distinct understanding that in sub-section (b) shall be substituted the word "three" for "two," so that the councils may choose from persons qualified to be councillors of the district not more than three persons, who should be additional councillors.
    The Amendment was agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 10, line 21, after 'such,' insert—
    "'For the chairman shall by virtue of his office be a Justice of the Peace for the county, but before acting as such justice he shall, if he
    1132
    has not already done so, take the oaths required by law to be taken by a justice.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
    MR. DILLON: This Amendment has to a great extent arisen out of the argument of the right honourable Gentleman as to population. I would only urge upon the Chief Secretary that, as regards the rural district councils, he ought not to base his argument upon population. That argument has reference to small towns only, and inasmuch as the size of the population of the rural districts is left entirely in the hands of the Local Government Board, and that they can easily arrange to suit themselves, I think it is very invidious for one district council to have this privilege and another not.
    Question put—
    "That the Amendment as proposed stand part of the Bill."
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I would suggest that this whole matter should be put off for the present in order that we may bring in a new clause dealing with the whole subject. In considering this point we have to consider, not merely the position of the chairman of the district councils, but also that of the chairmen of the urban councils. The honourable Member for Mayo was rather thinking that the Government had in their minds the case of the very small urban districts. When I spoke first I said that we should have to insert the number of the population. He says it is now for the Local Government Board to fix the area of a rural district. That is not altogether so. The Local Government Board, in fixing the area of the rural district, have to take into consideration the difficulties of so arranging it. In carrying it out it would be practically impossible not, in some cases, to make rural districts, which would be much smaller than the average. The population I had in my mind was 5,000. I find since then that the average population will be nearly 9,000.
    MR. DILLON: As the Government has practically accepted this Amendment I will not take up the time of the

    1133
    Committee. I will only ask him to go a little further in the new clause which he proposes to bring forward, and I suggest to him that "5,000" will exclude a great number of the districts.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: All towns under that clause will be entitled to have a town justice, and we are considering the advisability of choosing who shall be the town justices.
    The Amendment was withdrawn; and several consequential Amendments, including the substitution of "three" for "two," as suggested by the Chief Secretary, having been adopted,
    The clause was agreed to.

    CLAUSE 22.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 11, leave out lines 5 and 6."—(Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.)
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: My only object in putting down this Amendment is to ascertain from the Chief Secretary, or the Attorney General for Ireland, what the object of this clause is. The words of clause 22 provide that—
    "Subject to the provisions of this Act there shall be transferred to the district council of every county district the business of any baronial presentment sessions so far as respects their district"—
    That is quite clear—
    "and to the district council of every urban district, so far as respects their district, the business of the Grand Jury of the county in relation to public works, the maintenance of which is not wholly or partly leviable off the county at large."
    And then come the words which I cannot understand. It may be my fault, but so it is, and I should like a little explanation with regard to them—
    "But the said transfer shall only operate so far as the business is not already the business of the district council."
    If it is the business of the district council, I fail to see how it could be trans-
    1134
    ferred, and, therefore, for that reason, I propose, by my Amendment, to eliminate from the clause those words which appear to me to be utterly unnecessary, and which only embarrass it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. ATKINSON,): In reply to my honourable Friend's remarks, I am bound to say the words are not necessary. The whole meaning of the Act is that the business of the district shall be transferred to the district councils. Having regard to the provisions of sub-section 3, the meaning is made clear, and those words were only intended to perfect the machinery for the business transferred. I do not think myself that they are necessary, but they are put in as a Measure of greater caution.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I do not press my Amendment if my right honourable Friend does not like to accept it, but I think this clause would be much better without these words.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: At one time I must admit that I had a great objection to this clause on account of the restrictions placed on the powers of road-making, etc., in this Bill, but now I must confess that so far as I can see it does not matter in the slightest degree if you continue to pile up restriction upon restriction ad infinitum in this clause, because it is not on this clause that the objection arises at all; it is in clause 11 that the restrictions are expressed; and I think that the right honourable Gentleman, by providing in this section that the county councils are not to spend more than £50, has practically killed the making of roads in Ireland, and my Amendments upon this point have lost their value. It does not matter whether by this clause you restrict the expense to one-fourth of the amount certified by the Local Government Board, or whether you restrict it to a one hundred and twenty-fourth. The whole question is this. I have spoken to several Irish Conservative Members of this House upon the object of clause 11, and the action taken by the Government

    1135
    upon it, and I have spoken to several eminent Irish lawyers also, and they all agree that it is entirely unnecessary to alter the grand jury procedure in this matter. One gentleman told me there was not a case in which a landlord had ever put in a claim, upon the making of a new road, for compensation. Now, however, the Government proposes that a new road shall not be made under the old procedure, and, in addition, that the county councils shall not expend more than one-fourth of the amount certified by the Local Government Board to have been the average expenditure thereon during the three yews preceding this Act, which will practically put a stop to the making of new roads altogether. For myself, I have lost all the interest that I had in this clause. My real point was on clause 11, and as we have been defeated upon that "horse, foot, and dragoons," I will not move my Amendment now. I have not quite lost all hope that when we come to a new clause, which I have put down on the Paper, later on the Government may make some concession and relieve us from the ancient procedure in Ireland which so oppresses us. I do not move the Amendment upon this clause which stands in my name, because I feel the utmost indifference to the provisions of this clause. If the Government will amend their earlier clause I will attach some importance to this. Otherwise I decline absolutely to debate this matter until we come to the new clause which I have put down upon the Paper dealing with the whole question of roads.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 11, line 7, leave out sub-section 2."—(Mr. Dillon.)
    MR. DILLON: I propose the Amendment that stands in my name. Now, under this clause there was no limit on the part of the grand jury for making the roads. When the grand jury in sessions determined to expend money in making new roads the men who had to pay the greatest portion of the expense of the rate leviable for that purpose had no voice whatever as to the road being made. If that system worked so well, as
    1136
    we have been told it did by hon. Members opposite, I want to know upon what ground the Government proposes to put a limitation upon these bodies, which will under this Bill be representative of every ratepayer who has to pay a share of the expense of making the roads. No man who has to pay for the work of making a new road in Ireland now will be denied a voice in this council, and, that being so, I cannot understand why the Government should put a restriction upon the councils in the matter of making new roads, which does not exist, so far as the grand juries are concerned—a body of much less value than the councils to be instituted under this Bill. We have heard a great deal about the large ratepayers, but the small ratepayers are just as much entitled to be considered in this matter as the large ratepayers, and you may be perfectly certain, so far as these county councils, who are to be responsible to the ratepayers for three years, are concerned, that if the result of their three years' administration is not satisfactory to the electors they will be very soon cleared out and a new set of men brought in. If you are going to give the whole responsibility to these local bodies which you are going to set up, the only check you have upon their extravagance is the vote of the ratepayers.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member for East Mayo professes not to know, or not to understand, the reason why the Government has imposed these restrictions with regard to this subject. I thought myself that the reason had been explained with sufficient clearness in the previous stages of this Bill. I explained it at great length upon the First Reading of the Bill, but perhaps, I had better do so again. Sir, the reason we propose these safeguards, if I may once more say so, is this, that the new county councils will be elected by ratepayers who, in any case, pay so small a rate that the rate they pay and the increase would be practically of no importance to them compared to the amount which they would receive in the shape of wages when they were engaged upon the work of making new roads.

    1137
    What operates in the mind of the Government is this: we feel that the district councils may, under pressure from these ratepayers, start works in road-making or road-repairing, which would be practically in the shape of relief works. That is a well-founded apprehension, which is very widely felt, and if the Government did not stand firmly by this provision it might be very well said, and with justice, that they were not keeping faith with their old friends on this side of the House with regard to whom the insertion of a clause of this character was one of the reasons for their acquiescing in, and accepting, this Measure; and, therefore, the Government will have most certainly to stand fast by this provision. The honourable Gentleman for North Louth said he did not attach very much importance to this subject.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I say, under the circumstances, I wash my hands of it entirely.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government, on the other hand, does attach very great importance to it. Now, I can say that if this sub-section is added to the Bill, we might possibly consider whether any concession can be made as to the procedure of road-making. But, if this sub-section is not included in the Bill, the procedure as to road-making must be made much more strict than it is. I am prepared at a later stage to consider this matter, but not on this present occasion.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Certainly, if the Government will not give way on this point, I should say let us wait and see how the clause will operate. Do the Government really suggest—do they really believe in their own minds—that the small Irish ratepayers will stir up first the rural council, and then the district council and the county councils, and, finally, the Privy Council of Ireland, to sanction extravagance in order that they might get wages on relief works? That is the grotesque absurdity of this clause, and I, for my part, would rather be put under sound restrictions than lose,
    1138
    as we shall do under this Bill, the privilege of road-making in Ireland. I have spoken to a number of Irish Members upon this subject, and there is not one man who has a word to say in favour of clause 11; and if the Irish grand jury system worked so well, I do not see the necessity for that clause. But, let us see what the Government proposes to do. I trust, and do urge, that they will not take away from us the power which is of vital importance to the Irish people—the power of making roads and of opening up the desolate mountain districts.
    LORD E. FITZMAURICE: I should like to make one suggestion to the right honourable Gentleman, and that is—if he will not give way on this subsection altogether, whether he will not limit it to a certain extent, as I pointed out in the earlier clause the other night. In all these matters there are two things to be considered: there is the expenditure for the repairing and maintenance of the road—the annual up-keep of the road; and there are the works for improvements which are charged on capital expenditure. Now, as I read this clause, the standard expenditure will include everything; and, therefore, you will have the fact that the Local Government Board, in giving their warranty or authority under this sub-section, would have to start upon a basis of figures which, presumably, have not included any considerable sum for capital expenditure. You may assume that in Ireland, a good deal more than in England, these local bodies, in their early days, will have to make good a great deal of the neglect of past years. It may be found necessary to expend large amounts of money. Now, under this sub-section, you will have to pin down these boards to an exceedingly narrow basis of expenditure. The full extent to which the clause will operate was, in my opinion, certainly not appreciated by the Gentleman who drew it up. As the honourable Member for North Louth has pointed out, what you have to consider is the development of the country; and there is nothing in the world upon which a country depends so much for the development of its rural and poorer districts, as the making of roads. There are many poor districts in

    1139
    Ireland where development is necessary, and where the only way to develop the country is the making of roads, which are useful and necessary to the people. Therefore, I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, as regards this subsection, the average standard expenditure now mentioned should not be restricted to the up-keep of the roads so as to distinguish it from the amounts required for the improvement of the roads. The picture which has been drawn of the ratepayer clamouring for more roads in order that he may be engaged upon the work of making them I do not attach importance to. I do not apprehend that that state of things will occur. I am inclined to think that the small tenant farmer, to whom every penny he makes is of importance, is rather more likely to err on the side of sordid economy than in any reckless expenditure or extravagance in road-making. It is the intelligent opinion of the better educated class of ratepayers who see the advantages to be derived from these matters, and who, as a rule, have to overcome the antagonism of the more Ignorant who do not see the advantages of them before they can be undertaken, on which you will have to rely.
    SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the noble Lord who had spoken had made a suggestion which had no foundation at all. He said that there was no doubt that, as in England so in Ireland, the new local bodies would have to make great improvements in regard to the maintenance and repair of the roads that had in the past been neglected. Now, the noble Lord must know there was no part of the United Kingdom in which the roads were so good, and, in that respect, attracted the attention of strangers visiting Ireland.
    LORD E. FITZMAURICE: I did not say the existing main roads were not good. I know well enough that there are some splendid roads; but there are a great number of places where the roads are few and far between, and where the expenses of making and repairing would be great.
    SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he was glad to think the Government intended to stand by the clause.
    MR. DILLONsaid his desire was to be brief; and he was in hopes that there might have been some change of mind on the part of the Chief Secretary and the Government, after the arguments they had heard. He listened the other day to the Chief Secretary's statement that his speech was so incorrectly reported that it could not be referred to.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I did not say that. I was speaking in reference to certain particular figures. The figures were so confused in the report in Hansard—though not in the Times—that it was impossible to make anything of them.
    MR. DILLONsaid the right honourable Gentleman never gave them one argument in support of this sub-section. The contention of the Government in regard to this clause was absurd; it was that, in order to carry out a corrupt distribution of the rates—which it was feared would happen—there would be put on the relief-works the majority of the small ratepayers of the entire county. They had simply got to state that argument to show its absurdity.
    SIR T. ESMONDEsaid there had been a considerable increase in the expense of road-making. He was chairman of a committee of a grand jury that went all over the country, and they came to the conclusion that considerable expense would be necessary to put these roads into proper condition. Contracts were tendered for these roads; and it must be remembered that in Ireland they were bound by law to give these contracts to the lowest tenderer. He wished to point out that under the law at present it was almost impossible to carry out these contracts satisfactorily. He hoped the Government would consider that point. If they would insist on making a limit to the expenditure upon roads they ought to raise this one-fourth to one-third.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it would be well if they could confine county surveyors to their work solely in the counties. They sometimes found that a man would be county surveyor in one part and engineer in another, and then come in for superannuation under this Bill. Would the Government state that they would put down a clause in reference to this matter before the Report stage, or give them some pledge that their arguments on clause 11 had penetrated their minds?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he could not give that pledge. The Government, however, would reconsider the procedure in connection with the making of the roads. At present the Government could not possibly give way on this sub-section. He hoped it would not be discussed at great length. Ample power was given under the sub-section to the Local Government Board to increase the amounts that might be spent if good cause were shown.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLconfessed that he thought the Government ought to show more confidence in their new county councils than they do by insisting on this. He could not agree with the Member for Great Yarmouth—whose knowledge was probably derived from the county Kerry—as regards the condition of the roads. The main roads in Kerry might be very good, but no doubt Kerry would be very much improved by suitable expenditure on the district or smaller country roads. It appeared to him that the Bill did limit and fetter the county council. It showed a great want of confidence in the powers of judgment and discretion of the county councils. It would seriously hamper them in the discharge of their duties, and his opinion was that the effect would be that the roads of Ireland would be in a worse condition than they were at present. He hoped that the honourable Member would go to a Division. The Chief Secretary had said that the Government were determined to carry the clause, and that there was no use in opposing it. If that were accepted as an argument it would apply to almost every clause.
    MR. FLYNNtook exception to what an honourable Member has said as to the roads of Ireland being the best in the kingdom. On that matter he would refer the honourable Member to the cyclists. Their testimony was to the contrary. Here and there in Ireland there might be good roads, but, taken as a whole, they were not as they ought to be, for the reason that under the contract system the contracts were taken at prices so low that they could not make good roads. The Irish roads were half starved. It was practically impossible for the county surveyor to exercise such pressure upon the authorities, and to overlook them, so that they might be put in a proper condition. They were unfed and starved, and he hoped the new bodies would put things right. There would be great difficulties in many instances, but there was no doubt that the expenditure would have to be increased on these roads. This one-fourth would very easily be eaten up. He could not understand why the Government took up this attitude in regard to local affairs; he could not understand why they should not be in the hands of the district and county councils. Heaven knew if there had been extravagant expenditure on the roads! But now every additional penny expended would fall upon the occupier; and they were actually told that they would cut off their own noses to spite somebody else's face—that they would injure themselves in order to do a possible injury to somebody else. It was really very childish, petulant, and obstinate on the part of the Government. With regard to some of those clauses, they might understand that honourable Members from Ireland on both sides of the House knew the local government of Ireland better than the Government did—their knowledge of local roads, works, and such things was far greater. He did not offer any advice to the Chief Secretary. He seemed to think that obstinacy was a virtue. Their progress on the Bill would be very much quicker if the right honourable Gentleman would give way. At any rate, he hoped the mover of the Amendment would go to a Division. There was a very strong opinion on his side of the House

    1143
    in regard to it. They believed that this Sub-section was utterly unnecessary.
    MR. JORDANsaid there were cases, as once in Derrygonnelly, in which every associated cesspayer and every magistrate voted against the making of new roads and the repairs of old ones. He was afraid that district councils and county councils would be slow to vote even sufficient money for the improvement and maintenance of the roads. He himself would be the first to recommend the spending of money for the improvement of the country. Instead of there being extra outlay, his fear was that they would not vote sufficient money to keep the roads in repair. An honourable Member a few moments ago declared that the roads of Ireland were very good. In that case there was no need to fear the next outlay.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
    MR. JORDAN: No doubt there were dome that were good already, but in out-of-the-way mountainous places they were very bad, and people had the greatest possible difficulty in getting to fairs and markets, taking their produce there, and bringing back their requirements. Under these circumstances he could not see why the Chief Secretary should refuse to listen to the suggestions made by the honourable Member for Louth, and other Members from Ireland, that the restriction of one-fourth should be changed to one-third, or even one-half. It was not fair that the county councils should be treated differently from the grand juries; it was not fair to tell county councils to go to the Local Government Board for their assent to the making of a road in any part of a county. Would the county council not be as good a custodian of the public purse as the grand jury? Why should the county councils not be able to make roads in the mountainous districts? If, as was said, there was some jobbing with the old grand juries, the new county councils could not be worse. If they trusted grand juries to make roads and repair them he did not see why they should not trust county councils. This proposal would constantly put them under the supervision of Dublin Castle.
    1144
    If the right honourable Gentleman would give way there would be a great deal more confidence in the scheme of the Government than they had now. Dublin Castle, or the Local Government Board, would insist on measuring things by their red tape; they would keep the county councils 12 months before they could make up their minds, and the matter would have to be submitted to some Board of Works attorney of Dublin Castle. And all this while the money was the people's own. They were to be guided by the advice of some paid official, who might not agree. Thus was the interests of their country jeopardised by Dublin Castle or the Dublin Local Government Board.
    MR. M. HEALY: This Bill has been introduced, and certain suggestions for its improvement have been made by the representatives on this side of the House. One thing that strikes me is the distrust in the people shown by the Government. The people of Ireland are in future going to vote the money for this purpose out of their own pockets, and my experience of the smaller ratepayers who sit upon boards of guardians is that the smaller the valuation the more narrowly do they look at every project which comes before them at the board. I speak, Mr. Lowther, from my own experience, and, since the £8 ratepayers became members of boards of guardians, I can assure this Committee that the greatest economy has been observed by the guardians. A man of small valuation, whether on a board of guardians or a district council, will look in the most narrow and miserable way at every item that comes before him, while the man of large valuation, who has a large income, looks at those matters in a far broader and more liberal spirit. Therefore, that the Government should say that, because now a number of small ratepayers are to have some say in this matter there will be extravargance unless there is supervision by the Local Government Board, is, to me, simply absurd. I think the right honourable Gentleman need not have the least fear of entrusting matters of this kind to the very smallest ratepayers in Ireland, because, to my mind, instead of extravagance in the future, there will be the greatest narrowness and stinginess exercised by the small ratepayers.

    1145
    That is my experience, Mr. Lowther, and I would appeal to the right honourable Gentleman not to insist upon this provision, but to accept the Amendment which has now been put before him. I believe that if he does he will find from what conies under his notice hereafter that the smaller the ratepayer is the more stingy he will be in regard to this expenditure. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not prolong the Debate any further. The right honourable Gentleman is prolonging the Debate by refusing this reasonable Amendment. If he had accepted it we should have been able to devote at least an hour to some other clause, and certainly, so long as the right honourable Gentleman persists in this way in declining to agree to Amendments put forward from this side of the House, we shall have to occupy considerable time until these matters are thoroughly and fully discussed.
    MR. J. SAMUEL: I will not detain the Committee more than one or two minutes, but this is a question, I may say, that I feel very strongly upon, because I think that in our legislation in this House in regard to the Local Government Bill we have made a very great mistake; in fact, a fatal mistake, as I shall show; and under this sub-clause I fear we are going to commit the same mistake so far as Ireland is concerned. Now we have heard during this discussion, Mr. Lowther, a great deal about assimilating the law of Ireland to that of England; and I am sure that if this proposition was now made with regard to England there is not a single rural or district council in the country that would for a moment submit to have its expenditure supervised by our county councils. In England I may say it is not the rural and district councils who are extravagant. It is not they, but it is the county councils that require to be supervised. I read a report in one of the papers to-day of a most important Debate in one of the northern county councils, where they refused to take over the main roads and to manage those main roads themselves because of the great cost which they would incur by taking them over; and I hold in my hand a statement as to another county
    1146
    council in a county where the cost of the main roads amounts to £110 per mile, while the same roads as managed by the district councils will only cost £64 per mile. Now I am a member, Mr. Lowther, of a highways committee in a large town, and I have also been a member of the works committee of a county council for the past nine years, and I will tell you why I find there is extravagance in one more than in the other. When I sit as a member of the highways committee in the town, I know whether the expenditure is required or not, because I happen to know the particular road upon which it is proposed to spend the money; but when I sit as a member of the works committee of the county council, which has an area of 40 miles by 20, I am in entire ignorance as to whether the amount of money proposed to be spent is required or not. Many men are there brought together who have not the slightest knowledge as to whether the money proposed to be expended upon a particular road is required or not; and what is the result? It is this: that in the county council—I speak now of the county council of Durham—the expenditure since 1888 upon roads and bridges has gone up from £16,000 to £35,000 a year. It is going up at the rate of a full £1,000 a year, and that is entirely due to the fact that—and it will be the same in the Irish county councils—not a single member knows the road, with the exception of the man who happens to represent the district which is under consideration. Otherwise, not a single member of the county council will have the slightest knowledge as to whether the money has been expended properly or not. And this proposal, in my opinion, will lead in Ireland, as it has led in England, to very great extravagance in main road expenditure.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Sir, I rise to order, and beg to submit that the observations of the honourable Member have no bearing whatever on the Amendment.
    MR. J. SAMUEL: Yes, they have a bearing, and this bearing: my argument is that the county council has not the

    1147
    requisite knowledge to supervise the expenditure.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Mr. Lowther, the Committee have already decided that the county council shall have this power, and I submit that the honourable Member's argument is not relevant.
    MR. J. SAMUEL: I understand, Mr. Lowther, that the Amendment which has been moved proposes the omission of sub-section 2, under which the county council will have power to sanction or not to sanction the expenditure of the rural council—that is to say, they will not be permitted to sanction the expenditure if it exceed by one-fourth that of the average expenditure of the past three years. I am afraid that the right honourable Gentleman will find out in time that the only proper way to ensure economy by our spending authorities is to make every local authority feel responsibility for the expenditure. Unless you do that, I am certain that in Ireland, as well as in England, extravagance will follow; and it is because that is the result of my own experience for a long time in this country that I have ventured to make these few remarks.
    MR. WEIR: Mr. Lowther, I will occupy only a very few moments in speaking upon this point. The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has referred to the expenditure of district councils and county councils upon roads in England. I know something of the expenditure upon the
    maintenance and construction of roads in the Highlands of Scotland, in districts similar to those in the west of Ireland. There the parish councils and the county councils are most careful in their expenditure, and not a sixpence is expended more than is necessary. The parish councils are even parsimonious in their expenditure, and if ever the matter is referred to the county councils the greatest economy is exercised. I would appeal, therefore, to the Chief Secretary for Ireland not to hesitate to give the rural councils under this Bill full powers. They must be the best judges of what expenditure is really necessary; and, as has been said, if the Local Government Board have to be appealed to, there may be a delay of 12 months before the matter is decided. I am convinced from what I have seen in the Highlands of Scotland in regard to expenditure in connection with the repair and construction of roads by rural councils and by the county councils, that the power should be left in the hands of similar bodies in Ireland. The right honourable Gentleman proposes a muzzling process by setting the Local Government Board over these local authorities. The whole thing is absurd, and I trust the mover of this Amendment will carry it to a Division. If he does so, I shall certainly go into the Lobby with him.
    Question put—
    "That the words 'a county council shall not without the consent of the Local Government Board approve of any expenditure in, stand part of the clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 154, Noes 113.—(Division List No. 96.)

    AYES.

    Allhusen, A. H. E.

    Bigwood, James

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Brassey, Albert

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Arrol, Sir Willam

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

    Ascroft, Robert

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. S.

    Butcher, John George

    Cross, H. S. (Bolton)

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

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

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Chamberlain, J. Austin (Worc'r)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

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

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

    Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

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

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

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Fisher, William Hayes

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

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Flower, Ernest

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Round, James

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Forster, Hy. W. (Sevenoaks)

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

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Saunderson, Col. Ed. James

    Fry, Lewis

    Lowe, Francis William

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Garfit, William

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Sharpe, William Ed. T.

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    McCalmont, Gen. (Antrim, N.)

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

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

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

    McKillop, James

    Spencer, Ernest

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Gretton, John

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Monk, Charles James

    Thorburn, Walter

    Hatch, Ernest Fredk. George

    More, Robert Jasper

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Heath, James

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Helder, Augustus

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

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

    Mount, William George

    Waring, Col. Thomas

    Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

    Muntz, Philip A.

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

    Howard, Joseph

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

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Howell, William Tudor

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

    Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Myers, William Henry

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

    Newark, Viscount

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Kemp, George

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Wodehouse, Edm. R. (Bath)

    Kimber, Henry

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Wyndham, George

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Young, Capt. O. (Berks, E.)

    Knowles, Lees

    Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall)

    Purvis, Robert

    Sir William Walrond and

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverp'l)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Renshaw, Charles B.

    NOES.

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Knox, E. F. Vesey

    Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Lambert, George

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

    Duckworth, James

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberl'nd)

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lloyd-George, David

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Logan, John William

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

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Lough, Thomas

    Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Billson, Alfred

    Gibney, James

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Birrell, Augustine

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    McCartan, Michael

    Blake, Edward

    Gourley, Sir Ed. Temperley

    McDermott, Patrick

    Bolton, Thos. Dolling

    Grey, Sir Edw. (Berwick)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Brigg, John

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Caldwell, James

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    M'Hugh, P. A. (Leitrim)

    Carew, James Laurence

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Maddison, Fred.

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Moss, Samuel

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.)

    Murnaghan, George

    Commins, Andrew

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Crean, Eugene

    Hogan, James Francis

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Crilly, Daniel

    Holburn, J. G.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Crombie, John William

    Holden, Sir Angus

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    O'Connor, A. (Donegal)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

    Daly, James

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Davitt, Michael

    Kilbride, Denis

    Parnell, John Howard

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth

    Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

    1150

    1151

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Souttar, Robinson

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Rickett, John Compton

    Strachey, Edward

    Weir, James Galloway

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Robson, William Snowdon

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

    Williams, John C. (Notts.)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Fees)

    Tully, Jasper

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Ure, Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Sheehy, David

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Mr. Dillon and Mr. Flynn.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Question put and agreed to.

    MR. M. HEALY: Mr. Lowther, I understand that this sub-section is proposed on the ground that the Government fear extravagant expenditure as a consequence of the smaller ratepayers setting on foot what will practically be relief works. I believe that idea to be entirely illusory. The small occupiers, we are told, in many counties constitute a very large bulk of the ratepayers of the district, but to suppose that they are going to tax themselves to provide a road whether it is required or not is a mere absurdity. However, Sir, if there is a danger of that kind, I submit to the Government that such a danger can only arise in the case of a new road. The old roads of the county must always be kept in repair, and contracts must always be given out for that purpose. Those contracts are, as a rule, for five years, and sometimes they are for seven years, and therefore there can be no system of what I may call log-rolling amongst the smaller occupiers in any case, and certainly not in the case of main roads. It is inconceivable that contracts for such a purpose could be given out on that principle. I have observed, Mr. Lowther, that under a later part of this Bill the Government propose to abolish the existing system whereby the lowest contract must be accepted by a district council. I am appalled to see that that is to be done, and when the proper time comes. I shall certainly move an Amendment saving the existing system in that respect. Into the reasons for that I will not, of course, go at present. I quits admit that the present system of contracts is susceptible of abuses, and I will put an Amendment on the Paper with the object of putting an end to every such abuse. But, certainly, the Government are misguided in making the proposition that the lowest tender should not
    1152
    be accepted. It is at the present time the only safeguard against jobbery. I think myself that it is a most valuable safeguard, and I, for my part, will make a strenuous effort to secure that that safeguard shall be preserved when these new bodies are created. But I note for the present that it is the proposal of the Government that in future the local authority shall not be bound to accept the lowest tender. In other words, having a choice of tenders, both supported by an offer of due security for carrying out the contract, the Government propose that it should be in the power of the county council to say that the higher tender shall be accepted and the lower tender not accepted. Now, that being so, it does seem extraordinary that the same Government should impose this limitation on the expenditure of the county councils. They say, on the one hand, that the local authority may take the higher tender when they might accept a lower tender; and in the same breath they say that if the expenditure exceeds certain limits, it shall not be in the power of the local body to carry out the works. Now, I do submit that whatever may be said as to new roads, in the case of the repair of new roads there can be no danger. I am arguing the question on the supposition that the Government is open to reason on this question, and I say it is absolutely impossible that the proposal as to maintenance charges shall be included in the sub-section under consideration. You have so many miles of roads in each county to keep in repair, and the county council is bound under a clause in this Bill to keep them in repair. They would be bound to do so under the existing law, and I hope they will be bound, if this Bill passes into law, to accept the lowest tender to keep those roads in repair. You have a perfect system of checks to secure that—in regard to the maintenance of roads, at any rate—there shall be no excessive expenditure

    1153
    on the part of local bodies; what case, therefore, can there be for including maintenance charges under the limitation of expenditure which you propose in this Bill? We all know that the rate at which labor is paid in Ireland has enormously increased during the last 50 years. It has not increased there perhaps so much as it has increased elsewhere; but everybody knows that the rate at which labor is now paid is considerably higher—and we are all very glad of it—than it was 50, or even 20 years ago. Emigration and other causes have brought about a steady increase in the cost of labor, and it is to be presumed, therefore, that there will be a steady increase in the mere cost of keeping the roads in repair. But why should that increase of cost be taken into consideration as against the county and district councils, whether you are estimating that their charges for new works are excessive or extravagant or not? I insist that, apart from the question of expenditure upon new roads, when it comes to a question of maintenance charges, it is most unfair and most unjust to debit as against the county councils in regard to their expenditure the amount which they are compelled by law, and will be compelled under this Bill, to spend on the maintenance of new roads. I trust that the Government will, at any rate, take into consideration the argument I have addressed to them. I submit that there is a valid and reasonable distinction between the cost of maintenance of old roads and the cost of making new roads; and however it may be urged that extravagance may take place with regard to new roads it is impossible to argue that in connection with the maintenance of old road any system of jobbery can exist.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Mr. Lowther I cannot ask the Government to accept this Amendment. If the proposed words were inserted the effect would be that, in the case of a district council which had not happened to construct any roads in the three years previous to the standard year, the Local Government Board would have to be appealed to in regard to each separate new road. So far from increasing the
    1154
    liberty of the district councils, the Amendment would restrict it further.
    MR. TULLYsaid the proposal to limit the expenditure of the county councils on roads to one-fourth the amount certified to have been the average expenditure thereon during the previous three years was a very mischievous and monstrous one, as also was the system of accepting the lowest tender for work. The latter system had led to fraud and litigation, and the roads had in the end, though badly made, cost more than was paid in England for good roads. He desired to express his satisfaction that the Government was ready to depart from the vicious system of compelling county councils to accept the lowest tender in all cases.
    MR. M. HEALYsaid that he should raise the question of accepting the lowest tender when the proper time came for discussing it. The right honorable Gentleman the Chief Secretary had stated that if his (the honorable Member's) Amendment were accepted its effect would be that in the case of a district council which had constructed no new roads for the past three years the council would not be able to incur any expenditure in that district without the consent of the Local Government Board. He did not contend that his Amendment was drawn in an ideal form; the form of the Amendment was governed by the wording of the clause. But the argument used by the right honorable Gentleman against the Amendment was the strongest conceivable argument against the Chief Secretary's proposal.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that if the expenditure on roads was likely to be more than was covered by the margin provided, the Local Government Board would consider the matter and act fairly.
    MR. M. HEALYsaid he was not discussing how far the Local Government Board would exercise their power wisely. If they granted that the Local Government Board would do everything that was reasonable no argument against the clause would remain. The Government,

    1155
    in this clause, had admitted that there should be a certain margin within which the county councils should act without the authority of the Local Government Board. His argument was that that margin should be extended, and it was no answer to his argument to tell him that the Local Government Board would act reasonably in every case. He hoped the Government would see that there was a distinction to be drawn between maintenance and construction. In connection with the former, there could be no fear of the abuses contemplated by the Government in connection with construction.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that it would be quite possible for the local authority to require maintenance work far beyond the real necessities of the case.
    LORD E. FITZMAURICEsuggested that there should be a limit placed on maintenance, and none on construction. He thought that instead of patching up the clause it would be better to strike it out altogether and bring it up in a new form on Report.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: AS there is a general desire to get on with the Bill, I think the Amendment might be withdrawn. There is no scientific road-making in Ireland, and it is therefore most desirable that some system should be established by which the counties could obtain the necessary appliances for such a purpose. There is not even power in some cases in Ireland to purchase a steam roller.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURreplied that the matter was under consideration.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 11, line 16, after 'council,' insert 'not being the council of a county borough.'"
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This clause is not intended to apply to county boroughs. The matter will be made perfectly clear on the Report stage.
    MR. M. HEALY: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 11, line 18, after 'Board,' insert, as a new sub-section—
    "Every urban district council shall, for the purpose of any business transferred to them from a Grand Jury, either by this or any other Act, or by any order made under the Public Health Act, 1878, have the same powers as respects land or easements of rights over land as a county council and the provisions of Part 1 of this Act with respect to the acquisition, purchase, taking on lease, or exchange of land, easements, or rights, or the taking or use of any land, easements, or rights by a county council, shall apply accordingly with the necessary modifications."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    MR. M. HEALYasked the right honoruable Gentleman whether he had considered the desirability of modifying the clause in the Public Health Act, under which it was provided that work could only be commenced in the month of November.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that he would consider the matter.
    Question put.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 11, line 28, leave out sub-section 5, and insert—
    "(5) The council of any urban district may undertake the entire maintenance of any road in the district, the expenses of the maintenance of which are leviable partly off the county at large, and may so undertake upon such terms as may be agreed upon, or in default of agreement, be fixed by the Local Government Board.
    "(6) Nothing in this section or in the provisions of this Act with respect to main roads shall affect the provisions of any local Act or any Provisional Order confirmed by an Act respecting the maintenance of any road in an urban county district, or respecting the liability of the district to contribute towards the expenses of the maintenance of roads partly leviable off the county at large.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    MR. M. HEALYmoved to omit the words."roads partly leviable off the county at large" at the end of Subsection 6 in order to insert "any road outside the urban district."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that Some tribunal, such as the Judge of Assizes, or the Local Government Board, should be constituted to settle disputes as to road charges between district and county councils.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not think the suggestion was unjust, but should like some time to consider it.
    Question put.
    Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
    The new sub-sections were then added to the clause.
    Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval,

    On CLAUSE 23.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 11, line 36, insert at end—
    "And the amount of such poor rate may, if such council think fit, be such an amount as in their judgment will be sufficient after allowing for sums irrecoverable by reason of premises being empty, or any other cause, to raise or discharge not only the sum in respect of which the rate is made, but also such a sum as will meet the expenses of what is in their judgment a due proportion of the expenses incurred and to be incurred in and about making and recovering the rate."—(Mr. Plunkett.)
    Amendment withdrawn.
    Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether there was any intention on the part of the Government that there should be any severance in the future of the functions of burial boards and the other functions of the rural sanitary authority?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was not proposed to sever the duties of burial boards from other duties exercised by the rural district authorities.
    MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he should like to ask the right honorable Gentleman whether it would not be necessary to make express mention of their functions, because if the right honourable
    1158
    Gentleman looked into the Public Health Act he would see that the burial board was practically elected of poor law guardians and the rural sanitary authority. At present they were practically the same body discharging different sets of functions. Would the new district councils carry over the functions of the sanitary authorities?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the district councils would take over all the functions of the rural authorities.

    CLAUSE 25.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 12, line 12, add at end—
    "Rural district councils shall also have the powers and duties of urban authorities under the Public Libraries (Ireland) Act, 1894, and the provisions of the said Act shall apply to rural districts with the necessary modifications."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not think it desirable or reasonable to give this power to rural authorities.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    Clause 25 agreed to.

    On CLAUSE 26.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 12, line 21, insert at end—
    "Provided that the number of persons other than members thus appointed shall not exceed in number one-fourth of the committee."—(Mr. Flynn.)
    MR. FLYNNsaid he had no reason to believe that the rural district councils would act in an unreasonable manner with regard to the appointment of committees, but the principle of co-option ought not to be Carried too far.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the appointment of the committees could be revoked if their methods of business should not commend themselves to the district council or the guardians. It was undesirable to omit the clause limiting the number of non-members, as the honorable Member suggested. It was really quite sufficient that one member of the district council or guardians should be a member of the committee,

    1159
    so that he might report the proceedings of the committee to the body to which he belongs.
    MR. FLYNNsaid he thought the Amendment was reasonable that not more than a fourth of the committee should be co-opted.
    MR. JORDANsaid he did not see the necessity for the committees at all.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the advantage of appointing them was, in the first place, that it would save the guardians a certain amount of time, and, in the second place, that they would possess special local knowledge, which would be very useful.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.

    On CLAUSE 27.
    Amendment proposed—
    "That upon the merging of certain cities or towns in county areas the inhabitants of any such city or town shall not be liable to pay any county rate or charge for which they were not liable before the passing of this Act."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. HEALYcomplained that these cities or towns were suddenly to be plumped down in the middle of a county council system with which they had never before been in touch, but no provision whatever was made as to the county charge. It seemed to him most unfair that this should be done without any local inquiry. He ventured to say that the Government had not fully considered the matter.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid this was a point which also had to be faced in the English Act. If the towns were merged in the counties they would be liable for their share of the county charges, but it would be open to the county council to declare roads in those towns to be main roads, the towns to be responsible for contribution for the maintenance of the roads.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested to the Government the desirability of bringing up an adjustment clause.
    MR. DILLONsaid he believed that there was a very strong feeling among such towns as Kilkenny and Drogheda, that they should be made county boroughs, and he could not see what objection the right honorable Gentleman the Chief Secretary could have, when a vast majority of the inhabitants desired to preserve their present rights unless he could clearly show that it would dislocate his system. He thought at least he might give them an opportunity of explaining their reasons. He understood that a very representative deputation was coming over from Ireland to wait on the Chief Secretary in reference to this matter.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid he thought in these matters sentiment ought to be allowed a certain amount of play with regard to these old towns. They must remember that many of these towns were very ancient towns, many of them having old charters, and having sent Members to the Irish Parliament; and he felt quite certain that these towns would object to their identity being lost through the action of the Bill.
    MR. KNOX: I believe there is a strong feeling that there should be an administrative county that is not a separate assize area, and I see no difficulty in meeting such an arrangement. In Yorkshire the assize jurisdiction has been successfully overcome, and there would appear to be no objection to follow the same practice in regard to towns like Kilkenny and Drogheda. Under the present system conflict arises between the counties and the boroughs. I think this is the most unsatisfactory part of the English Local Government Act, and there is no reason to suppose that it will work out satisfactorily in Ireland. The conflict might be still greater where there are at present separate counties which are losing, I will not call them privileges, but distinctions which they possess at the present time; so I venture to think that there is great reason for considering whether there ought not to be a clause dealing with an administrative county which is not a separate assize area, and I

    1161
    cannot see any difficulty in arranging that in the case of the county of Derry. I have had a great number of communications from my constituents, and I find that it is a matter upon which there is a good deal of difference of opinion, and it is a matter upon which I have not myself a very strong view, but the county grand jury is very strongly of opinion that the change is a mistake, and so are many other people. Therefore, I venture to say that if the Government could consider the matter it would be an advantage, because there is a strong case in favor of making some of these towns which are smaller than Cork into separate administrative counties, without imposing upon them at the same time the obligation of being separate assize areas.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As regards the suggestion of the honorable Member for East Mayo that these comparatively small places should be made county boroughs that is a proposal which does not commend itself to me. I must remind him that in large boroughs having a population under 50,000, under the English Act it was found necessary, in many instances, to merge them into counties, just in the same way as is proposed in the case of Drogheda and Kilkenny in this Bill. I am bound to say that I do not see how it is possible to carry out a large measure of this kind without offending somebody. Of course the Government are anxious to do that as little as possible, but it is impossible, in carrying out these large reforms, to avoid offending the prejudices or the sentiments of the inhabitants of particular localities. I am bound to say that I see great difficulties in the way of carrying out what has been suggested. I do not say that I should not be prepared to consider the suggestion of the honorable and learned Member for North Louth at the Report stage, but in saying that I do not wish it to be taken as absolutely giving any pledge that I will go further than I have already gone in this Bill.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: As far as I can scrutinise the local government terms of taxation, I believe that, while under this clause Galway town will benefit by the Government proposal, Drogheda will lose substantially—at least, that is the conclusion I have come to; but whilst Drogheda will lose substantially by this arrangement, I would ask the Government to go further than that of dealing with the question of main roads. There are a very large number of charges besides the main roads. There are the charges of the county secretary, the county treasurer, and the county surveyor, all of which officers places like Drogheda now possess. They have a town clerk, who corresponds with the county secretary; they have a borough surveyor, who corresponds with the county surveyor; and they have a borough treasurer, and a number of other officers. Of course, I may be told that a portion of the expense of these officials will be thrown upon the county, but on the balance. I think they will rather lose I would ask the right honorable Gentleman to provide in the clause for the general county at large for charges in addition to main roads, and to bring up an arrangement for substantial relief being given to towns like Drogheda, such as they would have got under the provisions of the Public Health Act of 1878. I have heard of no Amendment whatever making towns contribute to boroughs. On the contrary, I would like to see Derry not made a borough at all. With a great deal of respect for their historical claims, I do not think any of them gain in any way in this matter of county boroughs. The sole question involved, to my mind, is one of taxation, and not a question of history or remote antiquity. The Government have given me some satisfaction and I will ask them to go further and if the Government will do this I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I would rather not promise that.
    MR. J. DILLON: I only just want to say that the right honorable Gentleman took up an extraordinary position on this question, because the Government

    1163
    did not contemplate with equanimity the throwing of additional charges on Kilkenny and Drogheda. That cannot be defended on the ground that for a long time past these boroughs have not contributed their fair share to the county at large.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It might be argued.
    MR. J. DILLON: I think this is a most unhappy opportunity to select to increase the burdens of Drogheda and Kilkenny, because, whilst relief is given to other towns, no relief is given to them A more extraordinary thing could not be imagined. If the right honorable Gentleman would introduce some provision which would give some small measure of relief to the urban ratepayers of Drogheda and Kilkenny it would be much appreciated. I do not want to continue this discussion, because the whole question will come up again on the schedule, but I hold the view that these towns ought to have their share of relief. The matter will be fully discussed later on, so I do not want to waste the time of the Committee.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I wish to point out that, in addition to Carrick-fergus, we have Drogheda and Kilkenny. As regards these I do not quite understand what the honorable Gentleman means when he says that he does not see any relevance in the question of assize in these cases. I understood the right honorable Gentleman to refer to the clause. After all, the Amendment does substantially raise the status of these towns speaking generally, without raising the whole question of what the clause intends It did occur to me in the course of the discussion whether it would be applicable to these particular localities or not. As regards these three towns, which are at present cut off from county jurisdiction, it might be quite reasonable to deprive them of their assize juries and sheriffs at the expense involved in that proposal, and they might certainly have a strong case for being continued in their status of complete fiscal separation from the county of
    1164
    which they form a part. If the Government do not adopt that view of the matter there is another view which I think they might well adopt, and that is the proposal of private Bills dealing with larger communities in Ireland, as was done in the case of the borough of Belfast, where there were said to be great anomalies and inconveniences, and accordingly Belfast came to Parliament for a private Act, by which it largely cut itself off from county jurisdiction. What was done was this: an inquiry was held at the passing of the Act, firstly, as regards the roads, and, secondly, as to the other county charges. As a matter of fact, commissioners were appointed by the Local Government Board to decide what would be a fair sum to compel the borough of Belfast to contribute to the county at large. Then there was a further provision providing that at any time in the future the charge could be readjusted on a further appeal to the Local Government Board; and those are the terms on which Belfast has ever since continued. It does appear to me that that am a very convenient thing for the borough of Belfast, and a very proper arrangement. I think the same thing has been done in other localities in Ireland, and it does seem to me that there is something to be said for the proposal to do in the case of the towns I have mentioned something of the same character. That is to say, immediately after the passing of the Act, an Inquiry relating to those localities might be held to consider what their contributions should be to the general county charges. In the case of these localities it is really worse than has been stated; but after this takes place Drogheda would still continue to have to pay its officials; that is to say, the corporation would continue to exist, and it would have its town clerk and borough surveyor, and it would go on having to pay them just the same It is all very fine to say that the localities have escaped the incidence of local taxation, but it seems to me that the case will be that these localities will have to pay double taxation, at any rate, as far as officers are concerned, because while having to contribute the expenses of the county offices they will have to pay the borough officers. It is only the

    1165
    officers of the grand jury that are abolished. I do think that the Government might consider this matter again, and see if they cannot adopt some method that would adjust these matters.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will consider it with other matters.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: A place like Kilkenny at present is a city. It has a grand jury and it has a city commission; it has all the staff of an ordinary county. Will it continue to have all the duties attaching to grand juries for criminal purposes? Will it retain its sheriff? Because at present the writs are issued to the sheriff of the city of Kilkenny I think the Committee ought to know what the meaning of this clause is and what the effect of it will be upon the county and city of Kilkenny. In both these cases the commissions are quite distinct. There is the commission issued for the city of Kilkenny from the Clerk of the Hamper, and there is the grand jury summons. All the duties of an ordinary grand jury are discharged by the city of Kilkenny. Is this state of things to be swept away by this section, and, if so, are we to retain the whole paraphernalia of a separate jurisdiction for such places as Kilkenny and Drogheda? Drogheda is in the same position as Kilkenny; in every way it has an altogether distinct venue. [Cries of "Agreed!"] I believe I am quite in order. If I am out of order I will bow to the ruling of the Chair. I want to know for the information of the Committee, and I am not sure that the honorable Member who called out "Agreed!" knows himself, what the result of this section will be on these particular places. I happen to know something of both these localities—experience gained in past times of my professional life—and I am anxious to know how they stand under this Bill. If the grand jury system remains for these counties and cities, and counties and towns, for fiscal purposes, they come within this section. Then, I ask the Chief Secretary, what is the position of
    1166
    these cities? Will they constitute urban districts in themselves, or will they be attached? The section does not say that. It says—
    "Any county of a city or town which does not become a county borough shall, for the purposes of this Act, be situated and form part of the administrative county."
    One would say from that that it was at once merged in the whole county of Kilkenny or the county of Louth. I think it is very obscurely worded, and I only ask for information on the subject.
    MR. ATKINSON: If the honorable and learned Gentleman is not satisfied with the wording of the clause I would ask him to refer to the earlier part of the Bill. He will find that those towns which do not become boroughs are merged in the administrative county, and he will find further that every urban sanitary authority becomes an urban district. These are all urban sanitary authorities; therefore, they become urban districts. They are merged in the county, and, therefore, they cease to be a separate county.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: My right honorable and learned Friend has not stated whether the grand jury system will continue and the various officers connected with these counties of cities and counties of towns. It becomes all the more necessary to ask that question because, in a subsequent section, the sheriffs of these places will be abolished. I am at a loss to know who will execute the writs that are issued in cases of judgments, because there is a distinct venue. The city of Cork is a distinct venue from the county of Cork, and the town of Drogheda is a distinct venue from the county of Louth, and if the sheriffs of these various bailiwicks are to be abolished it will be a very good thing for the inhabitants, because I should like to know who will execute the writs.
    MR. ATKINSON: I will relieve my honorable Friend from any apprehension on that score. The county

    1167
    of a city and the county of a town is to form part of the administrative county which it adjoins. Of course its separate maintenance as a county would cease, and with it the sheriff.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I would like to make a suggestion. Under the 3rd and 4th Vic, when the Corporation of Wexford was abolished, and there was no sheriff in the town, the mayor had the issue of the writ, and also he served the writ for Parliament for an election. That is now abolished, but Kilkenny is not abolished as a borough, nor is Galway. The writ goes now from this House to the Sheriff of Kilkenny because it is a county of a town, and I would suggest, by way of keeping up its dignity, that the writ should go to the mayor. That is with regard to Kilkenny. With regard to Galway, that town was very badly treated by the 3rd and 4th Vic.; the treatment it received under that Act was really shocking. The ancient Statutes regarding it were abolished without any necessity whatever, but from the pure malice of the times. It will only be a reasonable compensation for that treatment for the writ to go to the Mayor of Galway, who is one of the most ancient functionaries of the kingdom. I commend the suggestion to the consideration of the right honorable Gentleman, as I feel sure it will tend to maintain the dignity of the towns, which I think we ought to do something to promote.
    MR. ATKINSON: With regard to the honorable Member's suggestion as to the Mayor of Kilkenny being the returning officer for Parliamentary purposes, I think that it is a reasonable suggestion. With regard to the town of Galway, he must remember that the town of Galway and the county of the town of Galway are absorbed in the county of Galway, leaving nothing of the town of Galway as an administrative area; and, really, it is so small that there would
    1168
    hardly be room for a mayor and corporation.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not agree with what the right honorable Gentleman says about Galway. But there is a difficulty which I quite recognize between the Parliamentary and the urban boundaries. As regards Kilkenny, the right honorable Gentleman will hold himself to his pledge to give the mayor the writ.
    The Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put—
    "That Clause 27 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I want to ask the right honorable Gentleman a question on a point that arises on this clause. This clause will merge three counties of cities into the adjoining counties. This clause does it for administrative purposes, and clause 45 does the same thing for judicial purposes—justices of the peace, and so on But these areas have at present local justices. These justices are not justices of the counties to which these areas will be annexed, and this Bill does not make them justices of these counties. I want to know what will be the status of these justices of the peace when this Bill passes. The judicial area for which they are constituted justices will be merged into the counties by this Bill, and they will not be justices of the wider area from which the old area is drawn. It seems to me that we should have either in this clause, or clause 45, an enactment providing that the justices of the peace for these small areas will become justices of the peace for the wider areas.
    MR. ATKINSON: That is a matter which will be considered when we reach clause 45.
    Clause agreed to.

    CLAUSE 28.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think that this clause will introduce a very beneficial change into the urban life of Ireland in

    1169
    those small towns which are scattered throughout the country, but I am trusting that the Government will go a little further than the clause goes at present. The position is a little complicated by the financial question, which we shall have discussed in the next clause, and which I shall not raise now; but, apart from finance, I wish to discuss whether this clause takes a proper course in dealing with these urban areas. The position of the small towns scattered over Ireland is at present most anomalous and absurd. A town in Ireland, having a population of 1,500, was offered local government, as constituted by a towns commission, which gave it the position of a township. The towns commission had comparatively large administrative powers, such as lighting, water supply, sewage, and the power of making bylaws, and a whole series of other matters. Taking advantage of the invitation, a very large number of the smaller towns of Ireland brought themselves within the provisions of the Act of 1854. But since the passing of that Act there has been passed another Act, entitled the Public Health Act of 1878, which rescinded in a very large measure the privileges which the Act of 1854 had conferred, because it transferred from the towns commissioners practically one-half, and in some oases three-fourths, of their whole jurisdiction. It took it out of their hands and passed it over to the local boards of guardians of the areas in which these small towns were situated. That Act had this advantage: that sanitary expenditure, if it were carried out by the urban area itself, all fell on the occupiers, whereas, when the sanitary powers were transferred to these boards of guardians, the sanitary expenditure was divided between the landlord and the tenant, and it is that fact that has reconciled many of these places to the changes which had taken place under that Act. Under this Bill the people who vote the expenditure would have no interest in the sanitary work which has to be done. Every town in Ireland wants a system of sewage, which is extremely
    1170
    bad in some of the towns in Ireland at the present time. All that involves a great deal of expense under the old Act; the towns would discuss when and how the work was to be done, and what it should spend in doing it. All that they can do at present is to send two or three members to a board of guardians, comprising perhaps 50 or 60 members, the balance of whom are drawn from the rural area, and have no interest in the town, or whether it has a proper water supply or a proper system of sewage, or anything else; and in these small towns there have been continual conflicts between the boards of guardians and the towns. A town wants certain things done for its protection and its improvement, and the board of guardians is utterly uninterested whether it is done or not. In the town of Skibbereen there was for two years a very serious conflict indeed. The board of guardians was induced to go to the expense of instituting a water supply, and while they were doing that and spending all this money the work was being done in such a scandalous manner that there was every chance of the money being thrown away. The board of guardians had no interest in the matter, and the town had to pay for the water supply which was being instituted. The town of Middleton has been for very many years without a sewage system, and in the same way they have only two or three members upon the board of guardians, and the board, as a whole, has very little interest in what becomes of the town. Up to the present the town has not had the advantage of that sewage system. The merit of the clause is that, so far as it goes, it extends the old state of things, and gives these little towns the complete control of their own affairs; but what I object to in this clause is that it proposes to give power to one-fourth of the electors of a town to exclude the town from the benefits of this clause. Now, we have heard of minorities, and the rights of minorities, but a proposal that one-fourth of the electors of a town should be given the power of depriving

    1171
    the town of the right to manage its own affairs which the Government proposes to give it, certainly, to my mind, requires some explanation. My first Amendment amends that clause in this way: the clause, as it stands, leaves to the Local Government Board the option as to whether or not a town should be constituted an urban sanitary authority. I say that that should not be so, but as soon as this Bill comes into force they should be made urban sanitary authorities. I quite concede that that could be done by an Order of the Local Government Board, but what I object to is that it should be left with that Board to say whether a town should be an urban area or not. I object also to limiting the clause to a town of 1,500 people. It appears that there are six towns in Ireland which, since the 1854 Act was passed, have fallen below that limit, but that does not deprive them of their rights under that Act. I would suggest that this clause should apply to all towns which had towns commissioners, and that they should become urban sanitary authorities. It is certainly a monstrous provision that one-fourth of the electorate should be able to deprive the town of the benefit of this clause, and that should be most certainly struck out of the Bill.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable and learned Member for Cork moved this Amendment, as I understand, in the interest of the small towns; but the provision which he would substitute in place of the clause in the Bill would be a compulsory provision, compelling all the towns, whether they liked it or not, to come in under the Act of 1854, and become urban sanitary authorities, with all the possibilities and expense which that might entail. It appears to me that many of these small places might become urban districts under this Act, and be their own local authority, with all the debts and the obligations which will fall upon them. Our clause is a permissive clause, and I think, possibly, we might impose the obligations upon those towns to become
    1172
    sanitary districts did considerations of mere symmetry permit it, but we could not venture to go so far as the honourable Member suggests. The honourable Member is speaking in the interests of the towns, and he professes to say the provision is not a fair one. Surely the honourable Member, in making those remarks, forgot that these towns can, by means of a Provisional Order, become at any time sanitary districts. The honourable Gentleman says that no doubt there is a great benefit under this Act, and that any towns commissioners desirous of coming in could do so by a Provisional Order, whilst he bitterly complained of the insertion of a provision that if one-fourth of the electorate should object the town would not be entitled to become an urban sanitary district. That is not altogether a hardship. The reason why Parliament, as a general rule, insisted on a Provisional Order in these cases is that it shall not be entirely in the hands of the majorities. If the majority of a town was sufficient to decide this matter, why should there be a Provisional Order at all? I should very greatly object to that if we did not limit the clause to, say, within 12 months after the passing of this Act. At all events, we ought to preserve some power so as to provide in the clause some protection.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I quite admit that there is an expensive and tedious process by which these towns can become sanitary authorities, but it is not surprising that since the Act of 1878 there has not been a great desire on the part of towns to become, under the circumstances, urban sanitary districts. The great injustice in Ireland at the present time is that the whole charge of the sanitary rules falls upon the occupier, whereas in the counties it extends to both the occupier and the owner. I ask the honourable Gentleman to extend the time given by this clause, and I think that is a reasonable compromise. I would ask him to what extent he proposes to extend the time. There is no

    1173
    reason why it should not be permanent, but if he limits the time I will accept that.
    MR. TULLYseconded the Amendment. He said: At present a small town is not an urban sanitary authority. Sanitary work is done by the officials of the entire union. If you compel small towns to become sanitary authorities they would have to employ their own officials, and the expense of that would fall on the ratepayers of the town—the salary of the doctor, the salary of the clerk, and the salary of the sanitary officer. At present the salary of the sanitary officer is borne by the entire union, and the Government have to contribute; whereas, if you compel your small towns to become urban sanitary authorities, you have to begin new salaries for the doctors and clerks at a very considerable expense. There is another question to be considered—this question of the preferential rate that exists in towns under the Towns Improvement Act. At present only one fourth of the rate is levied on land, and I would like to know from the right honourable Gentleman opposite whether this arrangement will continue—whether the landowners will continue to escape from what I consider to be a very fair burden, or whether occupiers will pay the full rate. That is a very important consideration, and we ought to know whether the arrangement will continue that the holders of land will pay one-fourth and occupiers the full rate.
    MR. HAYDEN: This must be taken with two other Amendments as one entire Amendment. It will read—
    "Every town shall, after this date, be an urban sanitary district."
    I take it that the sub-section, as it stands, gives far more local self-government to the small towns than the proposal of the honourable Gentleman the. Member for Cork, because
    1174
    the proposal of my honourable and learned Friend would assume that there is no option given; they must become urban sanitary districts at the passing of the Act. I know members of the towns would say that a large number of them would object to become urban sanitary districts because of the loss of the agricultural grant. That is a very important point. As the matter stands there is a certain amount of local option, and the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman gives no local option whatever. You would override the opinion of the inhabitants. It would give them no choice; nolens volens, they must become urban sanitary districts and lose the benefit of the agricultural grant. Take the town of Mallow. It is not an urban sanitary district; it has no control over the sanitation of the town; but it is a township—[interruption]—I really cannot hear myself talking. Under the present arrangements the boundary of the town runs about a mile and a half outside the town proper. On this agricultural land the tenants are entitled to the benefits of the Land Act, but they lose the entire benefit of the agricultural grant. They would lose that benefit without being consulted, without having the option of saying whether they were willing to adopt it or not. Thy clause as it stands gives them that option. I do believe that, under these circumstances, a very large number of these towns would be found strenuously objecting to this. At any rate, let them have local option. Under the circumstances, I think that the clause, as it stands, would be far better than the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee will be asked to come to a decision as to the first words of this sub-section. If it pronounces in favour of the first words it will prevent the Amendment of the honourable Member from being raised.
    MR. HAYDEN: I am anxious to see towns with a larger population than 1,500 but with a less population than 6,000 compulsorily made urban sanitary districts. I think that the limit fixed by the honourable Member for Cork is rather small, because it would injuriously affect a few towns; whilst on the other hand towns with a population of, say, 2,000 or 3,000—which in Ireland are fairly important towns—ought to have their own self-government, and be an administrative district in themselves. Now, I think this Act that we are passing might reasonably be applied to such towns as those with a population of 3,000. The amount of agricultural grant which would be calculated within those towns would be very small; and it seems to me there is an Amendment later on in the Paper to try to get the agricultural grant for agricultural land within those towns. It might be left permissive to towns of between 1,500 and 3,000, and made compulsory in towns over 3,000 or 5,000. The towns of over 6,000 are very large ones under the Public Health Act. Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman might take the matter into consideration before the Report stage.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: On this subject there is, I believe, considerable difference of opinion among my honourable Friends. We speak from our own experience. I have an Amendment following very much the same point that has been raised by my honourable Friend. It is said that if that Amendment is agreed to these small towns will lose the benefit of the agricultural grant. I am not at all sure that these small towns will gain very much in any case by the agricultural grant. I am rather of opinion that, inasmuch as the agricultural grant will only be given to agricultural land, no allowance will be made in respect of buildings on that land. Those counties will gain no advantage from the agricultural grant. We shall hear more about this point. My object is to maintain the independence of these small towns. There, as a rule, the
    1176
    boards of guardians are so constituted that the representatives of the towns are in a small minority; if, say, a question of sanitation is raised, the representatives of the towns are naturally out-voted by the representatives of the district. I suggest to the Committee that these small towns might be merged into these boards of guardians. These small towns should be made ipso facto urban sanitary districts, unless in a certain period—say three months, which might be a fair allowance—this proposal were petitioned against by a larger number than is mentioned in the clause. I shall be anxious to hear what explanation the Government will have to make with regard to their intentions on this point. I do not wish to continue the controversy as to urban sanitary districts, but I will just refer to the case of urban districts which have not taken advantage of these enactments. That is an important question, and I will call this attention of the right honourable Gentleman to the case of Gorey, a town in Wexford, which has a population of over 3,000 inhabitants. In 1618 it had a charter given it by James the First, and it had a coat of arms authenticated by the Ulster King at Arms, the celebrated Daniel Molyneux, in 1623. This town used to return Members to the Irish Parliament, but when the Act of Union was passed, like so many others, it disappeared from its old position. It has since been governed by towns commissioners who have governed it with success. I submit that regard should be had to places of this kind when we are deciding upon this Amendment, and that their identity should not be lost.
    MR. DALY: I am sorry I cannot agree with the remarks of the honourable Baronet and the honourable Member for Cork, because the effect of this proposal will be to impose a great deal of expense upon towns of 1,000 to 1,500 inhabitants. I wish to obtain the opinion of the Chief Secretary upon the point. They would have to look after the sanitation of the town,

    1177
    and they would have to employ a medical officer, as they have not done up to the present time, and if they have to keep the roads in repair it will be necessary for them to have an engineer. I want to ask the Chief Secretary a question to which I hope he will be good enough to pay attention. A sealed order was sent from the Local Government Board to a great many boards of guardians in Ireland about a month since as to creating a number of towns urban sanitary districts. What is the meaning of this sealed order? I do not understand; and I should like to have an explanation or an opinion from the right honourable Gentleman as to what is the meaning of this sealed order being sent down from the Local Government to so many boards of guardians in Ireland. It was sent, for instance, to Castleblaney and Carrickmacross, cutting them off from the rural districts which they were connected with before, and the people in the towns I have mentioned are not at all satisfied, as they believe that in future they will have to do their own sanitary business and to look after the roads. If so, it would involve a great deal of expense, and the charge would come on a small number of the inhabitants under the sealed order for work hitherto done by the grand jury.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe there is some misconception on this point. I have made inquiries, and find that there was an order from the Local Government Board as to boundaries, and that is possibly the one to which the honourable Member refers; but unless I actually saw the order I could not express a definite opinion upon the matter.
    MR. DALY: I merely rose for the purpose of getting some information from the right honourable Gentleman, who seems to be scarcely aware that this sealed order was sent down.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the question of this sealed order having been sent can have any bearing upon the
    1178
    clause we are now discussing, for, of course, this Bill has not yet come into operation.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: Mr. Lowther, I object to this Amendment, first because of the shape and form and manner in which it has been proposed. I object to it again because it will injure a large number of my constituents by placing them outside the present financial arrangements and depriving them as to a certain area of the benefit of the Government grant. On these grounds I shall certainly strongly resist the Amendment proposed by the honourable and learned Member. I think if the honourable and learned Member had some experience of rural life he would know a little more of the requirements of rural life; but I think the honourable and learned Member must pass his time in some large city, and that his knowledge of rural affairs is very limited indeed. He instanced a case of boards of guardians who were indifferent to the wants of certain towns. Now, I have had some experience of boards of guardians, and I know this, that whenever any complaint as to a sanitary defect came in there was no desire on the part of the guardians to delay doing their utmost to provide a remedy. They were always most anxious to do so whenever a complaint was made, and I know there was no hesitation in expending money for the purpose, because it would cost the town nothing, and only affected the area. They could tax the area, and these people who desired to be benefited would have to pay the piper; and that being so, I do not know of any reason or inducement to compel the guardians, as the rural authority, to do anything injurious to the people in the town at all. I therefore hold that the honourable and learned Member who has proposed this Amendment is aiming a very serious blow at the rural authorities throughout the country. They certainly ought to be left free to decide what they wish to do, for they know their needs a great deal better than the honourable Member for Cork City can do. And I think that, in

    1179
    making this proposal, he shows very little of the Home Ruler; for, in the first place, he desires to bring in the element of compulsion, and, in the next place, he would inflict a burden upon people who do not wish for any new burden, because they are pretty well overloaded at present. And therefore, Mr. Lowther, I have great pleasure in supporting the Government on this occasion. It is very pleasant to me to be able to afford to do so at the present time, for it shows that there is some amount of sense in what I have said. I am, in the first place, an advocate of the Home Rule principle, on which I was sent to this House. In the next place, I am trying to prevent a certain number of my constituents from being deprived of the benefit of the agricultural grant, and that is something too. Therefore, I hope the Chief Secretary will not listen to any blandishments from this side. I believe there will be some wily inducements thrown out by honourable and learned Members, who will attempt a solution of this difficulty by asking the right honourable Gentleman to consider a certain limit of population; but I warn the Chief Secretary not to do that.
    MR. LOUGH: I think, Mr. Lowther, that there is a great deal in some of the objections which have been raised to the Amendment, and that if the Chief Secretary would agree to withdraw the time limit—"within 12 months after the passing of this Act"—I would suggest that the honourable Member for Cork City might withdraw his Amendment, and accept the clause as it stands in the Bill, with the time limit alone removed. I think the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill has already thrown out a hint that he would justify, if not abandon, the time limit, and admit an Amendment of that kind.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I hope the right honourable Gentleman will agree to the proposal not to exclude agricultural land from the benefit of the Act, because otherwise it will inevitably lead to questions relating to these towns being
    1180
    considered solely, not with regard to the benefit of the people themselves, but as to how they will affect the agricultural grant. I am glad, Mr. Lowther, for that reason, that this discussion has taken place, and I have no doubt the right honourable Gentleman has had representations made to him in this Sense. I am afraid that I am not convinced by the objections raised to this Amendment, for I believe it is in the interest of all towns to have in their own hands complete control of their own affairs. I believe that even if it at first involved some small pecuniary loss to some towns, the gain in having control over their own sanitation, and in having the complete management of their own affairs in their own hands would more than compensate them for any expense which might be incurred. I recognise, however, in view of this discussion, and the various expressions of opinion which have been given on this question, that I could not expect the Government to accept the Amendment, and I shall be prepared to accept the proposal which has just been made by my honourable Friend the Member for Islington, that I should ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, on the understanding that the time limitation will be removed.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to add one word. I think that when the small towns come to realise the conditions in regard to sharing in the agricultural grant, it is hardly probable that they will desire to become urban sanitary authorities. The Committee will already have gathered that we attach very great importance to the clause dealing with this matter in the financial part of the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 13, line 29, to leave out 'one' and insert 'three.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    The following Amendment stood in the name of Mr. Maurice Healy—
    "Page 13, line 37, leave out from 'order' to 'an' in line 38, and insert 'fixing the day after which a town shall be.'"
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do not propose to move the next Amendment standing in my name, but I would ask the Government not to insist on preserving the provision that the guardians of the union may stop the operation of the clause. That is one of the chief dangers to be apprehended from this clause. The guardians will always be tempted to step in and prevent its operation. Whatever may be said in favour of allowing one-fourth of the inhabitants to effectively object, I think the right honourable Gentleman will see that there is no justification for giving the same powers to a board of guardians, who may have, I will not say a hostile interest, but an interest which is not the same as that of the inhabitants of the town. As I understand the clause, its whole effect can be nullified by the mere presentation of a petition by any board of guardians. I hope the Government will not insist on that. I beg to move to omit that part of the clause.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 13, lines 32 and 33, to omit the words 'or from the guardians of the unions comprising the town, or any part thereof.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think we can very well leave the guardians out of consideration. The object of adopting the procedure of Provisional Order is really to secure that all sides shall be heard, and certainly I think the boards of guardians, representing the interests of surrounding districts, are entitled to be heard.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I would only suggest that the interests of surrounding districts are not the interests of the town. It is quite right that the guardians should be heard on the question of
    1182
    boundaries, and so forth, but to say that the guardians should be heard on the question whether or not a town should be constituted an urban sanitary district is, I think, to give the guardians a power which they ought not to have.
    MR. TULLY: I hope the Government will give way in this matter, because this part of the clause is contrary to the principle we have already adopted, of giving to a local community the largest possible amount of option. It is quite obvious that this power ought not to be given to guardians representing some district 10 or 12 miles away from the town. Instead of regarding the local feeling of the town itself, they would consult some fancied interest of their own. The inhabitants of a small town would not wish to incur the expense of becoming an urban sanitary district unless they thought it their interest to do so, and it is unjustifiable that their wishes should be permitted to be thwarted by some board having no knowledge of local needs and wishes.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: To omit these words altogether would be to deprive rural districts of any voice whatever in the formation of an urban sanitary district which might affect their interests. I do not think that that would be fair. If honourable Gentlemen prefer it, we might substitute for "guardians of the union" the words "rural district council." Beyond that alteration I am not prepared to go.
    MR. DALY: In many instances guardians may have gone to considerable expense in setting up machinery which would be rendered absolutely useless by a particular town being made an urban sanitary district. Therefore, I think it is only fair that guardians should have a right to be heard.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is a great deal to be said on both sides of this question from a sanitary point of view. While it is, no doubt, desirable to encourage the small towns to take

    1183
    greater interest in matters of sanitation, at the same time there are many of them so situated that the interests, not simply of a particular town, but of a considerable surrounding locality, would be affected by the proposal to make the town an urban sanitary district. Therefore it seems to me desirable that the guardians of the union should be given the right to interfere, so that they may safeguard interests outside those of the town itself. We may take, as an illustration, the question of water supply. Cases may occur in which a small town, if it became an urban sanitary district, might set up a water supply of its own, instead of considering, in a general scheme, the necessities of the localities in its immediate neighbourhood. In such cases the boards of guardians should surely have power to protect the interests of its union. For these reasons I trust the Government will not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 13, line 33, after 'union,' to insert 'or, after the appointed day, from the council of the rural district.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Agreed to.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSruled that the next Amendment, standing in the name of Mr. Maurice Healy (clause 28, page 13, line 41, at end, to add "and such provisions shall have effect accordingly") was unnecessary.
    SIR T. ESMONDEhad on the Paper the following Amendment—
    "Page 13, line 41, at end, to add—
    "'(3) All existing town boards, not sanitary districts prior to the passing of this Act, shall, on the passing thereof, become urban sanitary districts.'"
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I think this Amendment is not within the scope of the clause.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I do not attach much importance to it, and therefore I shall not press it.
    Motion made and question proposed—
    "That clause 28 as amended stand part of the Bill."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I would like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he would give small towns applying for Provisional Orders the same powers with regard to the extension of boundaries that the large councils have. At present, applications for adjustment of boundaries can only be made by the county councils, and they, of course, have not the same local knowledge that is possessed by the town councils. Would it not be possible to amend the Standing Orders so as to enable a town to itself apply for an adjustment of boundaries?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not see how that could be done. It is true that the county council has to move in the first instance, but the Local Government Board has to confirm the Provisional Order, and they would, of course, hear the representatives of the town before making any change.
    Clauses 29, 30, and 31 added to the Bill.

    On CLAUSE 32.
    Motion made and question proposed—
    "That clause 32 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to enter my most earnest protest against the use of the expression "poor rate" in this clause. The Government are creating a Parliamentary revolution of the most important kind by this clause. Many objections have been taken on the opposite side of the House to the resolutions of grand juries, for several reasons which no doubt honourable Members opposite consider sound. I will state reasons of a different kind, although I hope that the fact that I object will not induce honourable Members opposite

    1185
    to withdraw their objections. My objection to these words, as used in this clause, is that they create a revolution as regards the Parliamentary franchise in this way: the payment of poor rate is an essential to entitle to the Parliamentary franchise, and for the first time you are now making it more difficult to get a vote in Ireland, because, whereas previously you did not have to pay other rates than the poor rate to pet the Parliamentary vote, now, by dubbing all the rates "poor rates," you provide that the payment of a number of charges which previously had not to be paid by the voter have to be paid as a condition precedent to his obtaining the Parliamentary franchise. Therefore, I feel inclined to put it to you, Sir, as a question of order, whether, in a Bill dealing with local government in Ireland, it is in order to make a provision which really trenches upon the Parliamentary franchise, with which this Bill has nothing whatever to do. Now, I make no doubt that as regards three-fourths of Ireland it is a matter of small importance, because the occupier will have to pay this rate, whether you call it consolidated rate, poor rate, or anything else. With regard to the city of Dublin, I acknowledge the very valuable concession the Government have made in giving the corporation the collection of its own rates. But, by calling the police rate the poor rate, and making the payment of 8d. in the £ under the Act of 1836 applicable over the whole of South Dublin, from the city right down to that part of the county of Wicklow which is in the Dublin metropolitan area, you make the non-payment of that police rate affect the Parliamentary franchise. South Dublin is the only police constituency except St. Stephen's Green, which is also affected by it, in the three southern provinces; and now in this way you are going to affect the franchise in this unheard-of and most unreasonable manner. Is that a fair thing to the people of the county or the people of the town? I must say that if this is persisted in the result will be that we shall have to put down an
    1186
    Amendment to the Bill, to which I think the Government will be unable to offer any resistance—namely, that the basis of the Parliamentary franchise, at least, shall be payment of the poor rate, in the same way as before the passing of this Act. I do not see how the Government can refuse an Amendment of that kind. Let me put this case. Under the Towns Improvement Act of 1854, in order to secure the vote in towns you had to pay the town rate and the poor rate; but years after that Act was passed the Government brought in a Bill making it sufficient to pay only the poor rate. That will be altered under this Bill. This Bill affects the Parliamentary franchise in a retroactive and reactionary sense; it is putting back the hands of the clock. It is now over a quarter of a century since Parliament made the payment of the poor rate the only essential, in the matter of rate qualification, to the franchise. The theory, of course, was that the upkeep of the poor was a burden which everybody ought to share. The towns rate is on a different footing altogether. Sir, the use of the expression "poor rate" in this clause is an Irish bull. The police rate has nothing to do with the poor rate, and therefore this would work a startling invasion of the Parliamentary franchise. Really, the pitfalls of this Bill become more evident the farther we get into it; in my opinion, we are only beginning to discover them. The landlord party are making a great outcry against this Bill.
    SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, we are not.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Well, we shall hear the music in the House of Lords. But this Bill in many respects gives them not only financial privileges, but it will have the effect in constituencies like Derry, South Dublin, and St. Stephen's Green, of affecting by a side wind the Parliamentary franchise. Now that we have come to this clause, which is the first one in which the expression "poor rate" is used in

    1187
    this artificial sense, I hope that we shall have a satisfactory statement from the Government as to what their intentions are. If they mean, by a side wind like this to affect the Parliamentary franchise, I can only say that at a later stage we shall have to meet them with an Amendment, in the shape of a new clause such as I have described, to which I cannot see that they could offer any resistance.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable and learned Gentleman suggests that in consolidating the rate in this way we have almost outstretched the limits of order, inasmuch as it would be necessary, in order to obtain the Parliamentary franchise, to pay not only the poor rate, hitherto known by that name, but also the county cess. I submit that there can be no question about this being in order, because Act of Parliament after Act of Parliament has added a particular rate to the poor rate, and in this Bill we are only following precedent. But now, Sir, let me say what the object of this is. In the first place, we considered that it was desirable, instead of paying separate demand notes for this, that, and the other rate, that they should all be consolidated and paid in one lump sum. That plan has, at all events, the merit of simplicity. Then there is this consideration, which, I think, the Committee will see has considerable force. We have based our local franchise on the Parliamentary register. Now, if in towns it were possible to consolidate all the rates and call them poor rate, I should prefer it, but that is not possible, having regard to the variety of rates levied in towns. In rural districts it is possible, because there is no special distinction between the county cess and the poor rate, and they can be consolidated with enormous advantage from the point of view of economy and convenience. If they are to be consolidated under one rate, that rate must obviously be the poor rate. And there is this advantage: that in a county it will be necessary for anybody, in order to qualify
    1188
    for the local vote, to bear the whole of the rate burden. If that were not done, you would have to have some special provision that the local taxes should be paid first, which would lead to great complication, and would not be at all economical. Lastly, let me remind the Committee of this: the honourable and learned Member seems to think that grievous injustice will be done to Irish Parliamentary electors by requiring them to pay rates which they have not hitherto been required to pay, in order to exercise the Parliamentary franchise. But in England these rates are all—or almost all—included already under the poor rate; and therefore we are, practically, only assimilating the state of things in Ireland to that existing in England.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I did not anticipate that clause 32 would have been reached so early, and, although, of course, I am very glad that we have made so much progress, I am not prepared to reply to the right honourable Gentleman on the English analogy. But I am disinclined, with great deference to the right honourable Gentleman, to accept his statement without some investigation. According to my reading of the Act of 1857, I think that if I had the Act here I could satisfy the right honourable Gentleman that his view is not the correct one. I am not prepared with any sufficient knowledge of the English law to contradict him flatly, and I would not like to do so, but this I will say: this matter cannot rest where it is. There is another objection to the clause which occurs to me, and it is a very serious one. In a subsequent clause the poor rate is made payable in a lump sum once a year—
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Twice a year!
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Twice a year; very well. I quite recognise that there are many conveniences in the course the Government have taken, from the point of view of the draftsman—that is to say,

    1189
    it spares the well-paid officials, who do the Government drafting, from spending a little more time and covering a little more paper, and it saves a little expense in printing. But it is a purely drafting problem, and, for the sake of sparing the draftsman trouble, the Government are going to impose this new obligation on the Parliamentary voter which never previously existed. Look at the great hardship which will be worked in the case of the two contested divisions I have referred to—South Dublin and St. Stephen's Green. They are the only two divisions in Ireland which pay this police rate of 8d. in the £. It is a peculiar rate confined to Dublin; and now you are going, for the first time, to make the payment of that rate a condition precedent to the Parliamentary franchise. Actually, in two of the most contested divisions in Ireland, you are going, by a side wind, to put the Parliamentary franchise on a new basis, and impose an obligation which never existed before. The right honourable Gentleman has taken his stand on the score of convenience, but I repeat that this is only a drafting problem, and one that could be got over with a very little trouble. If I were drafting the clause from the point of view of popular rights, what I should do is this: my demand-note should be segregated—
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is done.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: No doubt there is a provision of that kind in the Bill, and that only strengthens my argument. Then you could put your poor rate proper under sub-head A, B, or C, and it would only be under that particular subhead that the question of qualification for the Parliamentary vote should arise. But this clause as it now stands is building up a bulwark, a laager, round these two divisions, and making them Tory preserves, possibly for all time. It is an excrescence on the Bill; it is entirely out of place in a Bill of this character. Let me take, by way of illustration, the Amendment which the right honourable Gentleman has put on the Paper, dealing with the Collector General of Rates in
    1190
    Dublin. That is an Amendment which I have described as an admirable one, though I must say that the right honourable Gentleman always manages to water his wine. All through this Bill it is a most remarkable fact that there is not a single clause which confers a popular right, which does not at the same time give something to the landlord and Conservative Party. Where you give with one hand you take away with the other. You may give, perhaps, a little more than you take, but I say these clauses are so balanced that they give to the landlord party in every case considerable advantages. Now, the right honourable Gentleman has put down on the Paper the following Amendment—
    "On and after the first day of October, One thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, or such other day, not more than six months earlier or later, as may be fixed by the Local Government Board, the following provisions shall apply with respect to the Dublin Collector General of Rates and to the poor rate, police rate, bridge tax, and bridge rate:—(1) The poor rate shall be levied in the city of Dublin in like manner as in the rest of Ireland."
    Then he goes on to provide that this police rate shall be collected and treated in every way as if it were poor rate. Now, there is no necessity whatever for the right honourable Gentleman making that provision; he might have said that it should be treated as if it were the grand jury cess. The two cesses will be struck in Dublin. But no; the exceedingly deft and able draftsmen who are advising the right honourable Gentleman had their eye on St. Stephen's Green and South Dublin, and accordingly they name this with a name which is loaded with disfranchisement and disqualification. I can only say that unless I get a better answer from the right honourable Gentleman on this matter, I shall put down an Amendment raising the whole question of the Parliamentary franchise, and I hope that when that Amendment is reached I shall not be told that the question of the Parliamentary franchise is not relevant to the Bill. But undoubtedly this is a matter which the Government must grapple with. I certainly say that no sufficient answer has been given to me

    1191
    except that the right honourable Gentleman has referred to the question of convenience, and I have pointed out a very easy way in which that could be got over.
    MR. KNOX: There is, one way in which I think the right honourable Gentleman could largely remove the mischief which has been pointed out. This clause provides that in county boroughs—
    "The expenses of the council of an urban district, if incurred in meeting the expenses of guardians, shall be defrayed out of the poor rate, and if incurred in meeting the expenses of the county council, shall be defrayed out of any rate heretofore levied by the urban sanitary authority of the district to meet presentments of the grand jury, and, where no such rate was levied, out of the poor rate."
    I think that means that the boroughs are to go on levying for the mass of their ordinary expenses out of the rate sometimes called the local expenses rate and sometimes called the improvement rate—it has a different name in different boroughs according to their local Acts—and that the balance shall be levied out of the poor rate. At present the money is raised precisely for the same purposes as it will be under this Bill, and it is levied partly under the improvement rate and partly under the grand jury cess. There is no distinction between the two expenditures. The reason why some boroughs levy an urban sanitary rate, while others do not, is that some have exceeded the limit under their local Act for their improvement rate, and others have not. Now, what I suggest is this: if this clause provided that any limitation on the amount of the improvement rate should for this purpose be removed, and that the whole of the expenses to be levied by the council, which have not hitherto affected the franchise, should be—
    "defrayed out of any rate heretofore levied by the urban sanitary authority of the district to meet presentments of the grand jury"—
    I think that would meet the point. A concrete example is sometimes the best method of explaining a proposal. Let me take, for instance, the case of Derry. Up to now I believe there has not been
    1192
    an urban sanitary rate, because they have been within their limit, and therefore this would not have any application. Still, it is very probable that there would be an urban sanitary rate levied in Derry so soon as they exceed their limit, as is pretty certain to happen. Immediately upon that, under this Bill, the balance would affect the Parliamentary franchise. A much simpler thing would be to remove this limitation, and allow the borough rate to be separated from the poor rate, and provide that all the borough expenses which do not affect the franchise now shall not affect it in the future. I see difficulties in framing an, Amendment, owing to the fact that so many local Acts have to be dealt with, and it is very difficult to frame any general words to apply to all cases. But I venture to hope that the Chief Secretary will consider whether some such method as I have indicated cannot be planned out, so as to mitigate a result which I am quite sure he does not wish to achieve.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I would point out to honourable Members that in clause 39 we have a provision for keeping distinct items raised on the same basis as the poor rate, but which are not to be subject to the provisions of this Act as to rent and so forth. Therefore I do not see that it can fairly be said that we are imposing any hardship in Ireland that does not exist in England.
    MR. KNOX: I do not think I have made my meaning quite clear. There are three things to be considered. First, the improvement rate, or the rate that is referred to in this Bill as—
    "the rate heretofore levied by the urban sanitary authority of the district to meet presentments of the grand jury."
    There is, secondly, a rate which is in practice now distinct from the poor rate, namely, the urban sanitary rate, levied by the town council, for their purposes. The improvement rate is in almost every town now limited by law—there is an arbitrary limit. The urban sanitary rate is levied by the town council for the balance of expenditure which they cannot meet out of the improvement rate. At present neither of those rates affects the franchise, Then there is a third rate—the poor rate—which at present does

    1193
    affect the franchise. Now, the proposition on the Bill as it stands is that, in cases where clause 39 does not apply, the urban sanitary rate shall be levied as part of the poor rate rather than as part of the improvement rate. My contention is that, if you are going to consolidate that urban sanitary rate with anything, you ought to consolidate it with the rate which does not affect the franchise rather than with a rate which does affect the franchise. I venture to think that that is a reasonable ground to take, and I will support it further on this ground: you have at present the improvement rate and the urban sanitary rate, levied under the same precepts, in the same way, and at the same time. They have always been regarded as practically one. It is true people could find out how much was one and how much the other, but they pay the two together, and they regard them as practically one. Though I do not say that we ought to consolidate them for all purposes. I see no reason why it should be provided that the urban sanitary rate, which has always been levied with the improvement rate, should now be consolidated with the poor rate and begin to affect the franchise, which it has never done before. The point is really one of substance and importance, and I think it deserves the consideration of the Government.
    MR. TULLY: I desire to ask for some explanation as to the meaning of sub-section (b). That section provides that the expenses of an urban district council—
    "if the district is not a county borough, shall be defrayed out of the fund or rate out of which the costs of paving and cleansing the streets in such district are or can be defrayed."
    I think there is a very important point involved in that provision, which will affect townspeople very seriously. At present, in the towns, the whole rate is put on owners of houses, and only one-fourth or the owners of land. If the expenses of an urban district council are to be levied in that proportion in the future, so that the whole rate is to fall on the shopkeepers and only one-fourth on the gentry, I think that will be very unfair. Take the case of towns that
    1194
    have not adopted the Towns Commissioners Act. Under this section, if they become urban districts, is it intended that only one-fourth of the rate shall be put upon the owners of land, or will the incidence of the rate remain as at present? In the case of Limerick the Towns Improvement Act is not at present in force. If their population is strong enough to become an urban district under this clause, the result will be, as I read the clause, that the landlords and the county officials who own the land, or have their residences outside the town on the banks of the Shannon, will only pay one-fourth of the rate, and the balance will have to be put on the shoulders of the struggling shopkeepers and traders of the town. I think it will be most unfair that the well-to-do people, who have their splendid residences outside the town, should be exempted from three-fourths of the rate, and that that three-fourths should be put on the shoulders of the traders, who already have enough to do to make both ends meet under their present circumstances. Then there is a further point. Under the Towns Commissioners Act the rate to be levied is limited to one shilling in the £. This clause says—
    "The expenses incurred by the council of an urban district in relation to the business transferred to the council by or in pursuance of this Act, or otherwise, in the execution of this Act."
    are to be met by a rate of one shilling in the £, which is the limit fixed by the present Towns Improvement Act. Now, this is a matter that is causing a good deal of anxiety in the towns. They feel very anxious about it. They certainly do not like the prospect that the landowners should be relieved of three-fourths of the rate, and that that three-fourths should be put on the shoulders of the shopkeepers and others, who will get no benefit in the matter of the agricultural grant. I do not wish to take any technical point, but I think we are entitled to some explanation as to the precise meaning of this section.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member raises two points. I will take the second point first. He says there is a limit on the rate, out of which we propose that the expenses which are

    1195
    transferred to the urban districts shall be met. Apparently, he has not read the last words of the sub-section (b), which provide that this allowance—
    "shall be excluded in ascertaining any limit imposed by law upon any such rate."
    The precise meaning of that is that where additional expense under the Act is thrown on the urban district councils the limit of one shilling in the £, or whatever it may be, shall not be held to apply to that additional expense. That disposes of one of the points raised by the honourable Member. The other point is with regard to the exemption of agricultural lands. Where, under the existing law, a town already being an urban sanitary district has applied to the Local Government Board to become its own road authority, it has been the invariable practice for agricultural lands to be excluded from the burden of expenses. If it is not the universal practice, it is almost universal. Therefore, as it appears that in the past the towns have always been willing to undertake the powers and duties of presentment sessions in connection with roads, coupled with a provision which throws only one-fourth of the rates ensuing from that upon agricultural land, I cannot see that there is any harm in continuing that precedent.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I confess that I think there is real substance in the point raised by the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. The title of this Bill is—
    "A Bill for amending the law relating to Local Government in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith."
    But, according to this clause that we are now dealing with, it will really operate as a disfranchising Bill. As the law stands at present, certain rates must be paid before the 1st January in every year in order to qualify an occupier to be put on the Parliamentary register. Those rates are restricted to the poor rates; but, according to what we have just been told by the Chief Secretary, that law is now to be altogether altered, and the occupier will not only have to
    1196
    produce his receipt for the poor rate which accrues up to the 1st January in every year, but he must also show that he has paid what was formerly called the county cess. As the law stands, there is no necessity at all for proving payment of the county cess in order to have a place on the Parliamentary register. Therefore you are doubling the necessary burden for the Parliamentary franchise by using the expression "poor rate," or the whole of the clause will be nullified by the courts deciding that "poor rate," as used in the clause, cannot refer to the poor rate contemplated by the Parliamentary code. That would be an extraordinary state of things, and it appears to me that there would be no difficulty in introducing words in some part of this or some other section to make the matter clear. In Dublin the right honourable Gentleman is aware that there is a consolidated rate, including the poor rate of North Dublin and the South Dublin Union, and including also several other rates. All you have to show is that you have paid the poor rate. It would be quite easy to frame the clause so that a receipt should be given discriminating what is poor rate proper and what is now the substitute for the old county cess. That would leave the Parliamentary franchise as it was before, and would not involve the difficulty that has been pointed out. This difficulty would not be confined to Dublin. In my opinion, it might involve, to a great extent, the disfranchisement of every rated occupier throughout the whole of Ireland.
    Question put—
    "That clause 32 stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to.
    Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday.

  SHERIFFS-DEPUTE TENURE OF OFFICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.
  House adjourned at 12.5.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at Four of the clock.
NEW PEER.
WILBRAHAM BARON EGERTON having been created VISCOUNT SALFORD in the county palatine of Lancaster and EARL EGERTON OF TATTON in the county palatine of Chester was (in the usual manner) introduced.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON). [H.L.]
  Ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.). [H.L.]
  Ordered to lie on the Table.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  SWANSEA GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
  WATERFORD CITY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
  CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  HEYWOOD CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Orders made on the 28th of February and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.
  SEAHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Orders made on the 21st of March and Monday last discharged; and Bill committed.
  YORK UNITED GAS BILL.
  Read the second time, and committed.
  CORPORATION OF LONDON (FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET, DEPTFORD) BILL.
  Read the second time, and committed.
  POWELL DUFFRYN STEAM COAL COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, passed, and sent to the Commons.
  WIRRAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, passed, and sent to the Commons.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, passed, and sent to the Commons.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, passed, and sent to the Commons.

  SELECT COMMITTEE.
  City and Brixton Railway Bill; Great Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill; London, Walthamstow and Epping Forest Railway Bill; Thanet Gas Bill; Knott End Railway Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill; Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.—

  E. Chesterfield,

  E. Gainsborough,

  L. Churchill,

  L. Ormonde (M. Ormonde),

  L. Herries (Chairman).

  Agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  Correspondence relative to a contract for the sale of the Government Railway, and for other purposes.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MISCELLANEOUS (1898), No. 1.
  Law respecting nationality and naturalisation in Denmark.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:

  No. 2080. Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul and Porto Algere);

  No. 2081. United States (New York);

  No. 2082. United States (Baltimore);

  No. 2083. Turkey (Aleppo and Adana);

  No. 2084. Portugal (Marmagao);

  No. 2085. United States (Chicago);

  No. 2086. China (Shashih);

  No. 2087. Belgium (Ghent);

  No. 2088. Colombia (Panama);

  No. 2089. Portugal (Madeira);

  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION.
  Convention of Washington, 15th June 1897.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA.
  1. Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government of India for the year 1897–98; compared with the results of 1896–97.

  2. Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India for the year 1896–97.

  3. Home Accounts of the Government of India.

  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PHARMACY ACTS (IRELAND) 1875 AND 1890.
  Order in Council, dated 9th May 1898, approving of regulations made by the Pharmaceutical Society.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS.
  Scheme for the management of the following foundations in parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate, partly in the city and partly in the county of London—

  1. The parochial schools;

  2. The Charity of Henry Petter, for the charity school in the said parish founded by will dated 7th November 1735;

  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. [No. 69.]

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT SCHOOL (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, in presenting this Bill, and asking your Lordships to give it a Second Reading, I do not think I shall have much difficulty in making out a good case for legislation upon some such lines as is here proposed. Under the rules which at present exist in Scotland as to school attendance, it is matter of common remark, and of as common regret, that many of those who attend the public elementary schools give up attendance at an unduly early age, and at a time of their life and after an attainment of such a standard that the efforts which they have previously made and the money which has been spent upon them fail to produce any permanent effect. I am sure your Lordships will agree that any serious inconsistency between the statutes compelling school attendance and those which regulate employment necessarily produces considerable inconvenience and disadvantage, and it is part of my case that such a discrepancy as I have indicated does really exist at the present time and is productive of very serious evil. My Lords, I need not go through all the steps by which the result has been
  1042
  attained, but so far as the Education Acts at present in force in Scotland are concerned the position to which we have now got is this: efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic must be provided for every child between the ages of 5 and 14. No child under 10 can be taken into regular employment as defined by the Factory Acts, and in respect of what is called "casual employment" can only be engaged in the limited amount which is prescribed in two sections of the Act of 1878. Thirdly, a child between 10 and 14 cannot be employed half time unless he has passed in all the subjects of the Third Standard, and cannot be totally exempted from the obligation to attend school unless he has passed in all the three subjects of Standard 5. Now, my Lords, taking the figures of the last three or four years, and taking them upon the question of age, in the first instance we find that there were, three years ago, between the ages of 11 and 12, 88,000 children in attendance in the public elementary schools; in the following year there were, between the ages of 12 and 13, only 68,000 children, and between the ages of 13 and 14, only 39,000 children in attendance. Taking it by standards, and comparing the standards, which are nearly equivalent to the ages which I have just given, I find that three years ago there were, in Standard 4, 80,000 children; in Standard 5, 68,000 children; and in Standard 6, 30,000. These figures abundantly prove that both by age and standard a large proportion of the population do not extend their education beyond the subjects which are embraced in Standard 5. Now, my Lords, a clever child could quite easily pass that standard on reaching the age of 12—some of them can pass it before—and when they have passed it, under the existing state of the law, they are entitled to leave school, if they have got their labour certificate, although they could not be taken into any regular employment, and even though they do not intend to attempt it. I venture to turn aside a moment to say that part of the administrative regulations which I find in existence at the present time seem really to lead up to this very result, and actually to persuade parents and children that

  1043
  although the Education Acts state that children are to stay at school until they are 13, they can secure a labour certificate at 12, and even sometimes at 11, whether they are going into regular employment or not. Examinations for labour certificates are sometimes held at the very time the inspector is present to examine the school, and children are presented, the circumstances of whose parents do not really require that they should go to work; and partly from a desire on the part of the children to leave school, partly from indifference so far as the parents are concerned, they get a labour certificate, and are thereby exempted from attendance at school, although they do not require to go to work. I propose, by an alteration of the regulations, to make a change in that respect, and to hold out less inducement to children to take the labour certificate when they really do not require it. I venture to think that it is necessary to pass some such Bill as this in order that more stringent regulations may be provided. It will be agreed by all those who really care about these matters that the standard of attainment represented by the Fifth Standard of the Scotch Code is really the minimum of what is likely to be of any use to children in after life, and then only of use if it is permanently fixed in their minds, and if the work which they have done to pass that standard is really known by them in such a way as to remain permanently in their intelligence. Now, my Lords, unless the mere "pass" of the Fifth Standard is followed by a certain amount of further attendance for the purpose of revising and confirming the work that has already been done, I am afraid many of the results attained will not be useful to the children in after life. I do not say that it is necessary that a child should pass the Sixth Standard for this purpose, but I do say it is most desirable that they should stay some time longer at school, if it is possible for them to do so. Anything which will serve to prevent these children leaving school after merely passing the Fifth Standard, who do not require for other reasons to leave school, should receive the careful consideration of Parliament and those interested in education. I put it, not only on the ground of education, because
  1044
  I think your Lordships will agree with me that education is only one side of the advantages which are obtained by attendance at school. There is also the discipline, which is extremely useful to the children; but, my Lords, the present system, as I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships, does not allow children in all cases who have passed the Fifth Standard to go to work, and therefore, although they may leave school, and the law is powerless to prevent them, they do not pass from one discipline to the other. My Lords, I do not hesitate to say that personally I should like to see a minimum age of 13 before which children should not leave school to go to work, and I should like to extend that time to the age of 14, unless the children concerned have passed the standard for exemption. However, I cordially agree that it would be impossible to do that by Statute at the present time. I cordially agree that in many cases it would be in advance of the public opinion of the localities concerned, and in the long run would not therefore achieve any useful result. I know, too, that there are many cases in which the small earnings of children are necessary to some struggling households, but that argument does not touch the case of those children who do not belong to such households, and who get the labour certificate whether they really require to go to work or not. My Lords, the difficulty which I have tried to explain to your Lordships is widely felt in Scotland, and here I am bound to confess that in this matter I think Scotland can learn a good deal from England. We sometimes think, and it is perhaps too much thought, in Scotland, that we know a great deal more about education than is the case south of the Tweed, but I am obliged to confess, in regard to this particular matter with which my Bill deals, that the state of the law is better in England than it is in Scotland. In England the standard for exemption from labour is settled in different districts upon the initiation of the School Board of the district, and by means of bye-laws approved by the Privy Council. In some cases the standard of exemption is fixed in England lower than the minimum in Scotland, and in others it is very much higher. I find from the Returns of the

  1045
  English Education Department that no less than 12,000,000 of the population in England are under by-laws, which provide that Standard 6 should be the standard of exemption for going to work, and I understand that quite recently the London School Board passed a by-law—whether it has been actually confirmed or not I am not quite sure—making Standard 7 the standard of exemption. Now, my Lords, the Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time does not propose to allow any School Boards in Scotland to lower the minimum which we have had for some years, but it does propose to copy the English provision, and allow any School Board, which thinks it will be in accordance with the public opinion of the locality to do so, to approach the Scotch Education Department and the Privy Council, with the view of having a higher standard than Standard 5 fixed as the standard for obtaining the labour certificate of the district. I quite agree that if this provision were put into force a considerable discretion would have to be allowed to remain with the School Boards. I recognise that there are many families, unfortunately, who must depend, to a large extent, on the earnings of the children; but there are two classes of such families. There are the respectable and hard-working poor, who do all they can to get their children regularly to school; and there are others who, throughout the whole school life of their children, take no real interest in their education. I do not think the latter are entitled to the same consideration as those who, from the other circumstances which I have endeavoured to indicate, really require to depend to some extent upon the earnings of the children. My Lords, this is an enabling Measure; it does not propose to raise the standard in any district compulsorily. I believe many districts are ready for such a provision, and, indeed, many School Boards have, with the full consent of those they represent, passed resolutions in favour of amending the law in some such respect as this. I believe it is a feeling which will largely grow, and, whether this Measure should meet with
  1046
  the sanction of both Houses of Parliament this Session or not, I believe it is one which will have to come, and one which will be more and more asked for as time goes on. I am hopeful that it may pass this Session. At any rate, I beg now to ask your Lordships to read it a second time.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: May I ask my noble Friend whether it is the intention under this Bill to give School Boards power to distinguish between families which are supposed to be entitled to exemption, because they are hard-working people, and other families which are not to be exempted because they are supposed to be of a reckless or careless character? If so, it is placing a very large judicial power into the hands of School Boards which I do not think they ought to possess.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND: Such a dispensing power, or, at any rate, a considerable discretionary power, is exercised in all the districts where the standard has been raised under the English system.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), passed, and sent to the Commons.
  COPYRIGHT BILL. [H.L.]
  The EARL of CREWE named of the Select Committee in the place of the LORD FARRER.

  COPYRIGHT (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  The EARL of CREWE named of the Select Committee in the place of the LORD FARRER.
  House adjourned at 4.50.