Sitting of 17 May 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read second time.
  POWELL DUFFRYN STEAM COAL COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  GLOUCESTER GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND MIDLAND AND GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAYS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  GREAT ORME TRAMWAY AND TRAM-ROAD BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  ILFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL,
  Queen's Consent signified.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  HOLMES'S PATENT BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  MUMBLES RAILWAY AND PIER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Order [15th February], that the Bill be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  WINDSOR DOCK, CARDIFF, BILL.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken on the Barry Docks and Railways Bill, 1883 and 1884, be referred to the Committee on the Windsor Dock, Cardiff, Bill.—(Mr. James Stuart.)
  HASLEMERE DISTRICT WATER AND GAS BILL.
  Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN BONDHOLDERS' CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTHAMPTON GAS BILL.
  Reported; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Reported; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee—

  1. "That, in the case of the West Ham Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  2. "That, in the case of the Drogheda Gas Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be parties be permitted to introduce their Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  3. "That, in the case of the Norwich Electric Tramways Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  Resolutions agreed to.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Amendments to—
  Edinburgh Merchant Company Bill [H.L.], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to authorise the Great North of Scotland Railway Company to widen, alter, and improve parts of their railway; to buy additional land; and for other purposes." [Great North of Scotland Railway Bill [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act to confer powers upon the Midland Railway Company for the construction of railways from Royston to Bradford, in the West Riding of the County of York; and for other purposes." [Midland Railway (West Riding Lines) Bill.] [H.L.]
  And also a Bill intituled "An Act to confer further powers upon the London and South Western Railway Company; to authorise them to execute further works and acquire additional lands; and to confer upon the Company and the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company further powers for the purchase of lands; and for other purposes." [London and South Western Railway Bill.] [H.L.]

  GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY (WEST RIDING LINES) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the
  1526
  Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Holborn and St. Giles."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 217.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts 1882 and 1888, relating to Bolton (Extension), Kingswinford, Penarth, Prescot (Extension), and Shrewsbury."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 218.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Belfast."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Hanbury.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

PETITIONS.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  For weekly payment: From Shaftesbury; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  Against: From Ickham; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Birmingham, Glasgow (2), Bo'ness, Hyde, Bridge of Allan, and Norwood; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  Against: From Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour: From Dunoon, Edinburgh (3), Glasgow, Leith (2), Paisley (2), Glenalbyn, Ardrishaig, Kilmarnock, Seafield Hall, Beith, Newmilns, Pierowall, East Kilbride, Auchinheath, Anderston, Galashiels, Harthill, Kirk of Shotts, and Airdriehill; to lie upon the Table.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  In favour: From Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  In favour: From Walton, Liverpool, Wavertree, and Bedford; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Argyllshire; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  In favour: From Walsall, Exeter, Worthing, Shrewsbury, Bournemouth, Hanley, and Huddersfield; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Cork; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Preston and Leith; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Against: From Colnbrook; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Darwen, Weardale, Corbridge, Wolverhampton, Lancaster, Winchester, Hawes, St. Leonards, Doncaster, Bedford, Northumberland, Bellfield, Leicester, Bolton, Uffculme, Eardisl'ey, Oswestry, Stockport, Kirklington, Farnley, Leeds, King's Langley, Hampstead, Potter's Bar, New Bridge R. S. O., Sancreed, St. Ives, Lelant, and Marazion; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  In favour, from Kensington; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
  Copy presented of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Glasgow for the year ending 30th September, 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 205.]
  ARMY (MILITIA).
  Copy presented of Further Regulations relating to the Militia (Regulations for the Militia, 1898) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 7, 1898).
  Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and France respecting the Express Delivery of Parcels. Signed at Paris, 13th April, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FLEETS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 3rd March; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 206.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL (LICENCE DUTIES AND LOCAL GRANTS).
  Return ordered, "showing, for each of the ten years ended the 31st day of March, 1898: (1) The amounts received by the Exchequer on account of the Licence Duties proposed to be transferred to County Councils under Clause 42 of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill; (2) The amounts of the Grants heretofore made out of the Exchequer in aid of the Rates in Ireland proposed to be discontinued under Clause 42 of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill; and (3) The amounts received on account of the Licence Duties transferred to County Councils in England and Wales under Section 20 of the Local Government Act, 1888."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) [REMUNERATION].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of remuneration to any Commissioner of the Local Government Board for Ireland, who may be appointed under any Act of the present Session for amending the Law relating to Local Government in Ireland (Queen's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Lord Arthur Hill.)

  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Return ordered, "of Net Public Income and Net Public Expenditure under certain specified heads, as represented by Receipts into and Issues out of the Exchequer from 1869–70 to 1897–8, inclu-
  1530
  sive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 263 of Session 1897)."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. Halsey reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Mr. Lees Knowles; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Ascroft.
  Mr. Halsey further reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following Fifteen Members, in respect of the Vaccination Bill:—Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Sir Charles Cameron, Mr. Channing, Mr. Chaplin, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Hazell, Colonel Long, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Sir William Priestley, General Russell, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Steadman, and Mr. J. W. Wilson.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  CIVIL SERVICE (CANDIDATES).
  Return ordered, "of the total number of candidates who attended the Civil Service Examinations for the year ending the 31st day of December, 1896, also the total number who were successful in the examinations, showing separately the number born in England or Wales, in Scotland, in Ireland, and elsewhere."—(Mr. Provand.)
QUESTIONS.

  TELEGRAPHIC CHARGE ANOMALIES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in counting words in telegrams, "West Derby" is charged

  1531
  as one word, but that an equally important place, "West Kensington" is charged as two words; whether he is aware that by Post Office special order, No. 63 740–94, "corn exchange" and "stock exchange" when written as compound words count as one word each, but "coal exchange" and "wool exchange" count as two words each, however written; and whether he will abolish these distinctions?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): It is only by inadvertence that West Derby has been allowed to pass as one word, the name having been reported as that of a separate village. The privilege haying, however, been given for some time, the Postmaster General does not propose to withdraw it. West Kensington being part of a town is, under the general rule, properly charged as two words. The answer to the second paragraph of the honourable Member's Question is in the affirmative. Both corn exchange and stock exchange are shown as compound words in the dictionary, and appear, therefore, to be recognised as compound words, although the honourable Member has not treated them so in his Question. Coal exchange and wool exchange are not to be found in any dictionary as compound words, and they appear to be usually written as two words, as in the honourable Member's Question. Whenever the usage of the English language sanctions their being treated as compound words the Postmaster General will give instructions for them to be charged for as such in telegrams.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Did the right honourable Gentleman say West Derby was a village?
  MR. HANBURY: NO; I said it had been inadvertently reported as a separate village.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I do not want to ask the right honourable Gentleman a conundrum, but will he say why Chester-le-Street is charged as one word and Chester Street as two?
  MR. HANBURY: One is the name of a separate place and the other is only part of a town.

  ACCESS TO THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will either directly or in conference with the London County Council and the Westminster Vestry take steps to secure greatly improved access to the Houses of Parliament from the Grosvenor Road by extending the Victoria Tower Gardens to Lambeth Bridge and widening Abingdon and Millbank Streets?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. A. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): In reply to the honourable Gentleman, I, have to say that while the Government would look with favour on any scheme for the improved access to the Houses of Parliament from the south, they are unable to admit a liability, such as is suggested in the Question, where the improvement appears to them to be one chiefly of a metropolitan character.

  MAJOR-GENERAL CHICHESTER.
  MR. BEACH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether steps will be taken to remedy the serious losses sustained by Major-General R. B. Chichester from having been compulsorily retired after upwards of 40 years' full pay service under the age clause of the Warrant of 1881?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The case of Major-General R. B. Chichester has been fully and repeatedly considered, and it is held that he has been fully compensated for any loss he incurred by reason of compulsory retirement.
  MR. BEACH: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  EGYPTIAN INDEBTEDNESS TO THE BRITISH EXCHEQUER.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount

  1533
  owing on the 31st March, 1898, by the Egyptian Treasury to the British Exchequer; whether interest is being charged on the indebtedness, and, if so, at what rate; whether any arrangement has been made for the repayment of the sum advanced, and, if so, at what date; and whether advances have been made since the 31st March, or are contemplated, and, if so, of what amount or amounts?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): £798,802 was advanced, and was owing on the 31st March. The Egyptian Government agreed to pay 2¾ per cent. interest, but none has yet been paid. No date was fixed for the repayment of the sum advanced; it was understood that that depended on the condition of the finances of Egypt. Nothing has been advanced since the 31st March. As to the future, I have already stated that I expect to have to make a proposal to the House on the subject.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Can the right honourable Gentleman say about when the proposal will be made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It will not be before Whitsuntide, Sir.

  WORKSHOP CLUBS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the numerous protests from Foresters, Free Gardeners, Hearts of Oak, Rechabites, and other friendly societies in Barrow-in-Furness, and elsewhere throughout the country, against employers of labour compelling workmen, as a condition of employment, to join a shop club and cease their membership of any friendly society to which they may belong; and what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take in this matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY,): I have already answered several Questions on
  1534
  this subject. Numerous resolutions, all in identical terms, have reached me to the effect mentioned in the Question; but I have no power to interfere. If the action of employers is as stated, some hardship will doubtless be caused in individual cases; but the matter can only be dealt with by legislation, which, even if desirable, would be full of difficulty, and under these circumstances I must say I am not prepared to make any promise on behalf of the Government.
  SIR C. CAYZER: Will the right honourable Gentleman give instructions to the inspectors of factories to report to him all cases in which this condition is enforced, in order that there may be a thorough investigation. It greatly concerns the existence and progress of friendly societies.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I do not think that this is a matter on which I can properly consult the inspectors, but I quite agree that it is desirable to obtain reliable information on the subject, and I will endeavour to get it.

  AFFAIRS IN CRETE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Commandant at Candia has allowed the Turkish regular troops to advance and occupy positions hitherto outside the cordon, including the height of Juktuki, which directly dominates the village of Kuri Kasteli; whether the Bashi-Bazouks are allowed to pass freely through the Turkish lines; whether recently they cut down the olives belonging to a Christian village near the British post at Anopolis; whether the servant of an English traveller was recently seized by the Turks in Candia, and thrown into a loathsome dungeon; and whether Colonel Chermside, on being appealed to, refused to interfere, saying that he was there to co-operate with the Turks?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): My right honourable Friend has

  1535
  requested me to answer these Questions in his absence. The honourable Member does not give the source of his information.
  MR. DILLON: The source of my information is a telegram which appeared in the Manchester Guardian the day before yesterday, which I know to be from a thoroughly reliable source.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Whatever the source the allegations contained in that telegram have not yet been brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government. An arrangement has recently been made, with the consent of both parties, for the extension of the cordon outside Candia, and for the occupation of the salient points by British troops in advance of the Turkish regulars, the native irregulars or Bashi-Bazouks, as they are called, being withdrawn to Candia. Colonel Chermside has, however, informed the Christians that if this experiment does not succeed he will revert to the former system.
  MR. DILLON: The noble Lord has answered hardly a single word of the Question. I asked whether the Bashi-Bazouks were allowed to pass freely through the Turkish lines; whether they had cut down the olives of a Christian village; whether the servant of an English traveller had been thrown into a loathsome dungeon; and whether Colonel Chermside refused to interfere, "as he was there to co-operate with the Turks." I will give the name of the English traveller referred to, who is a very distinguished one, privately to the noble Lord.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I stated at the commencement of my answer that the allegations contained in the Question of the honourable Member has not yet been brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and that, therefore, I could not answer it; but, of course, if the honourable Member has information which he thinks is authentic, and upon which he relies, and will give it to me, I will communicate with the proper authorities.
  MR. DILLON: I will give the name of the traveller privately to the noble Lord, and repeat my Question on Monday.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: Will the noble Lord inquire whether these statements are correct or not?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Of course, if any information is brought to the notice of any public Department it is the duty of the head of that Department to make inquiry.
  MR. FLYNN: Is not the action in regard to the extension of the cordon directly in the teeth of the agreement?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered. The noble Lord has said that he has no information in his possession.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: May I ask whether, as a matter of fact, Colonel Chermside is there to co-operate with the Turks?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered by the noble Lord.

  CAHIRCIVEEN FEVER HOSPITAL.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution signed by the 12 priests of the deanery of Cahirciveen, county Kerry, in which it is asserted that on the 9th May there were seven fever patients in the Cahirciveen Union Hospital from Portmagee parish; and whether he would submit to the investigation of a small independent committee the specific issue raised as to the actual number of fever patients in the Cahirciveen Fever Hospital from Portmagee parish on 9th May, with a view to determine the general accuracy of the information supplied to him by his officials on the subject of the present exceptional distress along the west coast of Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The Resolution as published is in the following terms—
  "When Mr. Balfour asserts that on the 9th May there were only two fever patients from

  1537
  Portmagee in the Cahirciveen Fever Hospital, we beg to assure him that there were seven such patients from Portmagee parish in the Fever Hospital at that date."
  It is not the fact that I made the assertion attributed to me in this Resolution. What I said on the 9th instant was that the inspector had reported on the 28th April that only two fever cases from Portmagee were in hospital. I am inquiring whether the number of cases had increased to seven on the 9th instant, and whence they came, and see no reason to delegate inquiry into this very simple question of fact to a small independent committee, as suggested by the honourable Member.

  MEAT SUPPLIES TO BRITISH TROOPS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the firm which has obtained the contract for the supply of meat to the troops in Great Britain, except those stationed at Aldershot, is connected with the firm of the same name carrying on extensive operations in America; whether he can state what saving will be effected by giving the contract to the importers of foreign meat; and whether he has made inquiries if the troops would prefer native or foreign meat?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): I am not aware of the fact to which the honourable Member refers; but it is obvious that anyone undertaking to supply frozen or refrigerated meat must be in direct or indirect connection with persons in the Colonies or elsewhere producing these commodities. The tenders of the firm referred to have been accepted only to a limited extent in five districts, and the saving effected as compared with the prices at which other firms tendered is considerable. No complaints as to the quality of the food supplied have reached me.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Has the honourable Member made any efforts to see whether this meat can be produced in the Colonies?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: In all probability a great proportion of this meat is produced in the Colonies.
  MR. FIELD: Have any inquiries been made of the troops as to whether they were satisfied with and prefer this foreign meat?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: As I understand it, the troops are contented if the meat is good and they get enough of it.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether meat contracts contain any provisions as to penalties for breach of conditions?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! That does not arise out of the Question, and notice should be given of it.

  PROTECTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS IN THE PHILIPPINES.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what measures have been taken by Her Majesty's Government for the protection of British life and property in the Philippine Islands, and especially at Iloilo, where, according to the latest advices, apprehensions were entertained by those concerned in the British mercantile establishments located there, owing to the progress of the insurrection, and the absence of any force for the defence of that place?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (for Mr. CURZON): Her Majesty's ship Immortalité is already at the Philippine Islands, and, in consequence of representations made to me by several honourable Members on behalf of the mercantile community with regard to the possibility of danger at Iloilo, instructions were sent on Saturday to send H.M.S. Pique from Hong-kong to that place.

  INDIAN CURRENCY COMMITTEE.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the terms of reference to the

  1539
  Indian Currency Committee, authorising them to submit any modifications of the proposals of the Indian Government, or any suggestions of their own, for the establishment of a satisfactory system of currency in India, leave the Committee a free hand to deal with the question of the results that have followed the closing of the Mints, and to recommend, if they think fit, the re-opening of the Mints for the coinage of rupees; and, if not, what are the limitations imposed by the terms of reference on the scope of the Committee's inquiry?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am glad of this opportunity of removing any possible doubts as to the object with which I appointed this Committee. The Currency Committee is a body of practical men assembled for a practical purpose, and they are empowered to inquire into any matter which they may think relevant to the subject which has been referred to them. If, therefore, they consider an inquiry into the policy of closing the Indian Mints to be relevant to that subject, and if, having regard to the circumstances of the time and the practical possibilities of the case, they desire to make such inquiry and report upon its results, there is nothing in the terms of reference to prevent them from doing so.

  INDIAN SALT TAX.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if any fresh arrangements have been made for the supply of salt to the tribes on the Northwest Frontier, the excessive dearness of the Kohat salt, which they cannot do without, having been alleged by the Afridis as one of the chief grievances which led them to take up arms against the British Government?
  MR. H. LEWIS: Before the noble Lord replies may I ask whether the duty on Kohat salt up to 1883 was not 4 annas; whether it was not then raised to 8 annas, and again raised in 1896 to 2 rupees, or 32 times the natural price of salt? Do the Government contemplate a reduction of the duty?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: As to the supplementary Question of the honourable Member for the Flint Boroughs, there is no doubt that in the last 15 years there has been a great increase in the duty on Kohat salt to bring it up to the level of the duty on internal salt, but I cannot say offhand what the increase has been. As regards the Question on the Paper, I have to say that so far as I know at present no fresh arrangements have yet been made respecting the duty on Kohat salt; but, as I stated in answer to a question on the 11th February, the subject is engaging the attention of the Indian Government, and I expect to receive a further report on the matter when the trade has been for some time resumed.

  DISTURBANCES AT BALLINAHINCH.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Belfast Irish News of the disorderly proceedings in Ballinahinch, county Down, on the day and night of the 12th instant; whether he can state how many houses were attacked, and how many windows were broken by the stones thrown on the occasion; is he aware that among the houses so assailed was the residence of one of the most popular magistrates of the county; whether he can state under what circumstances and by what parties the attacks were made; if he will make inquiry to ascertain the full particulars of the damage done; and whether he can give the number of arrests made from the disorderly crowd?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to the disturbances at Ballinahinch on the 12th inst. It appears that a large mob, accompanied by some bands, assembled to meet two men of the Orange party, who had been convicted, at petty sessions on the 20th April, of drunkenness and disorderly conduct, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment. These two men, on arrival at Ballinahinch at 9 o'clock on the night of the 12th inst., were carried round the town by the mob, who threw stones at the houses of nine residents, all of whom,

  1541
  with one exception, were Roman Catholics. Windows were smashed in each of these houses, but I cannot say, without further inquiry, which is now being made, how many windows in all were broken, or what is the estimated value of the damage done. I am informed, however, that in the case of Mr. Murray, a Roman Catholic justice of the peace, whose property seems to have suffered most at the hands of the mob, a claim for compensation amounting to £55 will be lodged. One arrest was made by the police on the occasion, and several of the mob have been identified as having taken part in the riot. Proceedings will be taken against these persons at petty sessions to-morrow, and the Crown solicitor has been instructed to conduct the prosecution.
  MR. DILLON: I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he can explain to the House why such proceedings are allowed to go on at Ballinahinch, when peaceable meetings in county Mayo are dispersed by baton charges?
  [No Reply.]
  MR. W. REDMOND: Can the right honourable Gentleman say if it is the fact that Mr. Campbell, a newly-appointed magistrate, was present with the rioters? If so, will he be required to explain his conduct?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no information to that effect.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right honourable Gentleman inquire?
  [No Reply.]

  CHARGE AGAINST DRUM (MONAGHAN) CONSTABULARY.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, at what time and in what place the inquiry was held into the charge made by a man named Hugh M'Cabe against the constabulary of Drum, county Monaghan; how many witnesses were examined, and was the inquiry conducted on oath; and what was the name of the officer who presided at the inquiry?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The charge referred to was made to the Inspector General in March, and was at once inquired into. No investigation on oath was made, or called for, inasmuch as the personal inquiries, conducted by the District Inspector, clearly showed that the charge was preferred in a spirit of vindictiveness, and was without foundation.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT.
  MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the loss to the country on capital account through the recent depreciation of the Consols held on the Post Office Savings Bank Account; what has been the annual loss to the country during the last three years, as represented by the differenec of the income received from the investments in Consols on this account and the 2½ per cent. paid to depositors; and will he, in order to mitigate this loss to the nation at large and to equalise the benefit thus conferred on one section of the community, consider the desirability of advancing a portion of these funds to corporations, county councils, urban district councils, and landowners, by way of mortgage on the rates and land, on terminable annuities at 2½ per cent., plus an additional half per cent. to cover the sinking fund?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The last definite figures in my possession show that on 31st December, 1896, the capital account of the Post Office Savings Bank showed a surplus of £11,900,000. I do not think there has been any recent depreciation which would reduce this. The annual loss to the country in respect of Post Office Savings Banks income account is represented by the amounts which Parliament has been asked to vote. There was so voted in 1896 and 1897, £15,493, but in 1895 there was a surplus of £16,983; so that the three years show a net surplus of £1,490. Under the Act of last year advances are being freely made to local authorities on very reasonable terms, through the Local Loans Fund; and any fresh capital of that Fund required to be raised is being borrowed from the Savings Banks Fund.

  VACCINATION ACTS.
  MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, as a large number of boards of guardians have been elected on their pledge not to put the compulsory clauses of the Act into operatin, will he extend the time before the new Act comes into force to at least three years, so that there may be an opportunity for electing boards of guardians who will undertake the duties imposed upon them by this Act and the regulations which have been indicated as to come into force at the same time?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): The honourable Member has not specified in his Question what Act he refers to, but I presume he means the Vaccination Act.
  MR. BRIGG: Yes.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I can only say that the suggestion of the honourable Member is not one I can accept.

  CHINESE CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Chinese and French Governments in regard to British interests in Southern China will be presented to the House before the Whitsuntide recess?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (for Mr. CURZON): I am informed that communications with the Chinese Government are still proceeding on the subject, and I am not, therefore, in a position to state whether any Papers will be laid.

  CONVICTIONS FOR ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in the case of convictions for illegal trawl-
  1544
  ing, or for infringement of the regulations for the lettering, numbering, and lighting, he will arrange for the name and address of the owners of the offending trawler to be inserted in the Fishery Board Report as well as the name of the master?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Fishery Board's Report for 1897 is now completed, and has been submitted to the Secretary for Scotland for presentation to Parliament. As regards the publication of the owners' names, the Board are not of opinion that it would be desirable to publish in the annual Report a list of the names of owners against whom no conviction has been obtained.
  MR. WEIR: I only ask for the publication of the names of the owners of the offending trawlers. Why this tendency to shield the rich trawler and not the poorer one?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I think the honourable Member's Question tends in the contrary direction. He wishes us to publish the names of the owners where convictions are obtained against the masters?
  MR. WEIR: And the owner?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Question does not say so.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Is not the master usually one of the owners?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: Where a conviction has been obtained the name is given. I do not think it fair to insinuate, as honourable Members are doing, that in all cases of illegal trawling there is collusion between master and owner.

  ESTATE DUTY.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that for a period of nearly a year after the 2nd August, 1894, when the Finance Act came into operation, the Inland Revenue authorities neither exacted nor claimed

  1545
  Estate Duty on settled property in which the deceased's life interest had been transferred to the reversioner more than 12 months prior to death; whether he can state the date upon which the duty was first claimed and exacted in such cases; and whether, since the doubt as to the legality of such a claim was first raised in 1896, the persons from whom duty has in such cases been exacted have been informed by the Department of Inland Revenue that if the contention of the Crown failed any over-payment would be refunded?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: A claim for Estate Duty was first made in cases such as that mentioned by the honourable Member in July, 1895, on the advice of the Law Officers. In certain cases the parties have paid the duty on condition that if within a given time the point at issue should be finally decided against the Crown, any duty overpaid would be refunded.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right honourable Gentleman speaks of "certain cases." What about the other cases have they been informed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Why not?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have already answered that Question; I have told my honourable Friend I do not intend to answer hypothetical questions on details of the duties.

  WEI-HAI-WEI.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the efficient working of the Army system being dependent upon equality of the number of battalions at home and abroad, the nature and composition of any armed force which may be required for service at Wei-hai-Wei has been, or will be, referred to the Defence Committee of the Cabinet to decide whether the Army or the Marine Forces would best provide
  1546
  for such requirements; and whether that Committee has considered the importance of placing at the disposal of our admirals on the China and other distant stations in war a force of Marines for operations on shore irrespective of those forming part complement of Her Majesty's ships; and, if not, whether, having regard to the teachings of history, and to the experience afforded at Alexandria in 1882, and now by war operations at Manila, of the military requirements necessary to supplement the exercise of naval power, he can give an assurance that this imperial requirement will receive the most careful consideration of that Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I assure my honourable and gallant Friend that all the problems he has suggested in his Question, and any others that may arise, will receive the most careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  PRIME MINISTER.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLANI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the advisability of bringing in a Bill to enable the Prime Minister to speak in both Houses of Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think there is a great deal in theory to be said in favour of the plan suggested by the honourable Gentleman, but it is so absolutely alien to the Parliamentary traditions and practice of this country that I certainly shall not make myself responsible for any such proposal.

  ARMY RESERVE BILL.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to proceed with the Army Reserve Bill; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to bring a certain number of corps to a strength prepared for occasional emergencies, so that when a brigade or a division is required for

  1547
  active service it may be commanded in the field by officers under whom it has been trained?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Of the two alternatives suggested by my right honourable Friend, the first is the one which commends itself to the Government, and we are extremely anxious to make progress with the Bill in question.

  COLONIAL SECRETARY'S BIRMINGHAM SPEECH ON FOREIGN POLICY.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to make any statement to this House in respect to the important speech relating to the condition of our relations with Foreign Powers delivered by the Secretary to the Colonies on Friday last at Birmingham?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The answer to my honourable Friend's question is in the negative.

  SPECULATION IN FOOD STUFFS.
  MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the serious position created in this and other countries by the sudden and abnormal rise in the price of bread, he will consider the advisability of taking measures, in conjunction with other Governments, to stop the speculation which is carried on in the corn trade, thus hindering the operation of the natural law of supply and demand, whereby the world at large is prevented from arriving at any true estimate as to its real position on this all-important point?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I confess I look with some scepticism at endeavours to check by legislation the discretion of those engaged in any particular branch of commerce, and I greatly doubt
  1548
  whether such interference would, in the long run, have the effect of giving freer play to the natural operations of supply and demand. As regards the last paragraph, I believe the available information as to stocks of wheat in the world is greater now than it has been at any previous period.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Governments of America, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, Russia, and Switzerland have initiated inquiries respecting prospective legislation, or have passed Laws regarding gambling operations in food stuffs; whether he will inquire into the results of those inquiries and legislation; and whether he will suggest to them the desirability of Governmental co-operation to prevent corners in grain and artificial prices, obtained by corn exchange speculators in options?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Reports have been obtained from Her Majesty's representatives in all the Foreign countries referred to with regard to the subject to which the Question relates, and were circulated on Saturday last. Reports have also been received from Canada. It is impossible for me to give within the limits of an answer to a Question the effect of these Reports, but I may say that the one received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin concludes with these words—
  "It is considered by some people to be most probable that the abolition of this law will eventually be sought for by the very persons who urged its adoption."
  I have no intention of taking such action as is indicated in the last paragraph of the Question.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that an Act was passed in 1867 prohibiting fictitious sales and purchases of shares in joint-stock banking companies, he will introduce a Bill prohibiting gambling in food stuffs?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: There is no intention to propose legislation on the subject.

  FLOGGING A BRITISH SOLDIER AT MARITZBURG.
  COLONEL A. M. LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the corporal punishment inflicted on the private soldier of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers at Maritzburg was carried out in the presence of coloured men, and by whom it was administered; also if he can see his way to abolish the power of administering corporal punishment to Her Majesty's soldiers and sailors at present possessed by colonial authorities?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I will ask the Acting-Governor of the Colony to furnish me with a Report upon the incident, and if this Report confirms the statement of facts in the Question I propose to communicate with the Natal Government on the subject.

  CASE OF JOHN AND STEPHEN ARRIGAN.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent action of the county court judge of Tipperary, and of the justices of Clonmel Petty Sessions, in refusing to sign warrants for the committal of John and Stephen Arrigan in default of payment of the fines imposed on them for a breach of the Fishery Laws by the said county court judge upon an appeal heard by him at Clonmel Quarter Sessions, on 23rd October last; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to remedy such a miscarriage of justice?
  MR. MACNEILL: I wish, Sir, before this Question is put to draw your attention to the last paragraph, which, I submit, is a violation of Parliamentary rule. It speaks of "a miscarriage of justice." It is a matter of opinion whether or not it is a miscarriage of justice, and the paragraph in consequence improperly reflects discredit on the magistrates referred to.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The words "miscarriage of justice" should
  1550
  not be used unless it is beyond all possibility of doubt there has been one. It would have been safer, perhaps, to have interpolated the word "apparent."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,): Both the county court judge and the magistrates were of opinion that they had no jurisdiction to issue a warrant. The matter is under the consideration of the Government, with a view of having the question of law authoritatively determined.

  GLENGARRY CAPS FOR THE MILITIA.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the authorities still intend to issue glengarry caps to the Militia, and are continuing to manufacture them?
  MR. BRODRICK: The question of issuing field caps to the Militia is postponed till the result of its use by other troops at the forthcoming manœuvres is known. Meanwhile, it is necessary to maintain a sufficient supply of glengarries, but as soon as a field cap is approved it will be largely manufactured.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Did not the right honourable Gentleman say last Session that no more glengarry caps would be issued?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, and at that moment it was hoped a decision on the field cap would at once be come to.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: When will the War Office arrive at their decision?
  MR. BRODRICK: I hope it will be arrived at at the conclusion of the manœuvres, in which I hope the noble Lord will take part.

  EARL OF RANFURLY AND THE ORANGEMEN OF NEW ZEALAND.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the

  1551
  Colonies whether he has now received a Report of the presentation of an address by the Orange body in Dunedin to the Earl of Ranfurly, the Governor of New Zealand, and his Excellency's reply, in which the Orangemen are congratulated on having carried their old traditions to New Zealand and other Colonies; and whether, having regard to the constitutional obligations of Governors of Colonies with responsible Governments to abstain, as the Representatives of the Queen, from participating in party politics, the Colonial Office will require an explanation from Lord Ranfurly with reference to this departure from established practice?
  MR. JOHNSTON: Before the right honourable Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask if it is not the fact that Her Majesty the Queen, on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question is very specific, and has no relation to anything said or done by Her Majesty.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I have informed the Secretary for the Colonies that I wish to ask a Question in connection with an address to the Queen, and also to her Viceroy in New Zealand, by arrangement—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must interrupt the honourable Member. A question asked about a specific act of a certain Colonial Governor does not legitimately give rise to a question of the kind the honourable Gentleman wishes to ask.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I have not received any Report on the subject, but the honourable Member has been good enough to refer me to a New Zealand newspaper containing a report of the reception of Lord Ranfurly at Dunedin, and the presentation on that occasion of an address by the Orangemen of that city and the Governor's reply. If that report is correct, I find nothing in it which appears to me to call for explanation, or to furnish any ground for the suggestion that Lord Ranfurly, in the remarks with which he received the loyal address, participated in party politics, or identified himself with a political party.

  AMENDED INDIAN ACTS.
  MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether authentic copies of the amended Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, and Post Office Act, will be in the hands of Members before the House rises for the Whitsuntide Recess; and whether he will postpone for a reasonable time his decision on the question of disallowing these Acts, under section 21 of 24 and 25 Vic., cap. 67, until the House has had an opportunity of considering and discussing their provisions?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I hope that the Papers relating to the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code Acts will be ready for presentation this week; those relating to the Post Office Act will be presented separately. I have decided to leave these Acts to their operation; and copies of dispatches informing the Government of India of my decision will be found in the collections which are about to be presented.
  MR. J. H. ROBERTS: How long will we have to wait for the Post Office Act? Will it be a long time?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: No, Sir; I hope not.

  HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION IN ARRAN ISLAND.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the harbour accommodation at Kilrossan, Arran Island, is entirely inadequate for the number of boats at present engaged there in the fishing industry, and that the development of the industry is also greatly retarded, he will urge on the Board of Works to take immediate steps to carry out the necessary extension of the Kilmore Pier?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Question of extending the pier at Kilrossan in the North Island of Arran is engaging

  1553
  the attention of the Government, but I am unable to make any further statement in the matter at present.

  ADULTERATED FOREIGN MILK.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board with regard to the fact that an English purveyor of milk was convicted on 11th May, at the Marylebone Police Court, and fined £2, with £2 2s. costs, for selling milk adulterated with boracic acid, which was injurious to infants and invalids, whether he is aware that all foreign imported milk is adulterated in the same way; and whether any action has been taken against these foreign importers?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I am afraid there is nothing which I can add to the replies which I have recently given to two similar Questions on the same subject; but I can assure my honourable Friend that the matter is being carefully watched, and I shall not hesitate to take whatever action may be necessary if the examinations now proceeding should show that the milk in question is injurious to public health.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES CONFERENCE.
  MR. THORNTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the date for the Brussels Conference on Sugar Bounties has been fixed; and, if so, whether he will give the date; and whether the British delegates have been appointed; and, if so, whether he will give their names?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (for Mr. CURZON): The date has been fixed for 7th June, but it seems likely that there may be a postponement. The appointment of the delegates to represent Her Majesty's Government is under consideration, but has not yet been completed.

  GAELIC IN HIGHLAND SCHOOLS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state in how many schools in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland Gaelic is taught during the ordinary school hours, either by the certificated teacher or by some person specially employed for the purpose?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: There are 25 schools in which Gaelic is taught as a specific subject, and 43 schools in which payment is made in respect of the employment of a Gaelic-speaking pupil-teacher. These numbers do not include all those where Gaelic is used as a medium of explanation, as to which no Return is possible.

  SCOTCH EDUCATION REPORT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Report on Education (Scotland) for 1896–7 was issued on the 8th May, 1897, will he explain why the Report for 1897–8 is not yet in the hands of Members; and can he say when it will be published?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Report was issued last year at an unusually early date. It has not been possible to issue it as soon this year, but it is in progress and will be issued as soon as possible.
  MR. WEIR: Will it be in the hands of Members before the Estimate is taken?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have already said I have no doubt my right honourable Friend will try and arrange that.
  MR. WEIR: Then I will ask the First Lord of the Treasury.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Before making any pledge, I should like to know when the Report is likely to be out. I will consult my right honourable Friend.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MOUNTMELLICK AND CLONASLEE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as

  1555
  representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why, although the new wires from Mountmellick to Clonaslee pass the Rosenallis post office, yet a telegraphic connection is refused the latter place; and seeing that the Mountmellick guardians are willing to guarantee the Department against loss, will directions be given for the opening of a telegraph station at Rosenallis?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware that a telegraphic connection at the Rosenallis post office has been refused. The Mountmellick guardians having now entered into the necessary guarantee agreement, arrangements are being made for the office to be opened as soon as possible.

  LARNE WORKHOUSE.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the deficient nursing arrangements in connection with the workhouse at Larne, county Antrim, and if any steps will be taken with reference to the want of proper classification of the inmates of this workhouse?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: For some time past the Local Government Board have been urging the Larne Board of Guardians to make better arrangements for the nursing of the sick in the workhouse infirmary, which are both inadequate and unsatisfactory, and for the due observance of the classification of inmates. The matters referred to will be considered at a special meeting of the guardians to be held to-morrow.

  TURNER ROOM AT THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the iron roof shutters on the north side of the Turner Room of the National Gallery, which is
  1556
  in actual contact with the canteen end of St. George's Barracks, have been removed, and the risk of danger by fire largely increased?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The fixed shutters referred to in the honourable Member's Question have been removed because, when turned back in the daytime, they obscured some new glazed lights formed in the lead flats by desire of the trustees. It has been proposed, should the trustees approve, to provide detachable shutters, to be removed and replaced daily over these skylights. I find that the Turner Room is not in actual contact with the barracks, there being a space of about two feet between the walls of the two buildings; and further, that the canteen has been removed to the other end of the barracks.

  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to take the Dogs Regulation Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will consult with my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture on the point.

NEW BILL.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Wild Birds Protection Acts as applying to Ireland"; ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sydney Buxton, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. William Redmond, Sir Herbert Maxwell, and Sir Edward Grey; Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]
ORDERS 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 35.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 16, line 33, leave out, 'Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained with respect to excluded charges.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
    MR. DILLON: The words which I propose to leave out are laid down by the Government at the commencement of clause 35, and refer to certain excluded charges subsequently described. My object in moving this Amendment is to challenge, at the earliest possible moment, the general policy of the Government in reference to these excluded charges. On subsequent Amendments these charges can be challenged each on its merits, if necessary, but I would now ask the right honourable Gentleman responsible for the Bill to compare the wording of this clause and the wording of clause 4 of the Agricultural Rating Act. The first sub-section of clause 4 runs—
    "The Local Government Board shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, certify the amount."
    There are no words in that clause which correspond to clause 35 of this Bill, such as the words to which I now object. Clause 35 begins—
    "Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained with respect to excluded charges, the Local Government Board, on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation, shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, certify," etc.
    Now I cannot see why clause 35 should not commence in the same way as clause 4 of the Agricultural Railing Act.
    1558
    That would not bind the Government against exempting in any subsequent clauses certain charges if they thought fit. It would not tie their hands. As a matter of fact there are, of course, certain rates exempted in the English Act, but, as I shall show, the principle on which these rates have been exempted is totally different from the principle applied in the Irish Bill. The only rates that are excluded under the English Act are those specified in clause 1, sub-section 2, as follows—
    "(a) Which the occupier of agricultural land is liable, as compared with the occupier of buildings or other hereditaments, to be assessed to or to pay in the proportion of one-half or less than one-half, or (b) which is assessed under any commission of sewers, or in respect of any drainage, wall, embankment, or other work for the benefit of the land."
    Therefore, in the case of the English Act, relief was extended to all kinds of agricultural land, and in respect to all rates except a rate in which land was assessed in lower proportion than buildings, or a rate in respect of work specially constructed for the purpose of benefiting the land, such as drainage work or an embankment, or some other work specially directed to the improvement of the land in question. Now, Sir, I would not object to that being applied to the Irish Bill, but the priciple of exclusion in the case of that Bill is far more extensive than in the English Act. It may be said that under the Irish Bill certain new rates and a number of new Acts are specially exempted. But, in the case of England, the relief was not confined to the old standard rates, such as those levied for county boroughs and for the poor, because we know that relief was given in the case of the school rate—quite a modern rate—and I fancy it was given in the case of several other rates excluded from the Irish Bill. When we turn to the clause we find that the rates to be excluded are, first, expenses in relation to additional constabulary; and, second, compensation for criminal injuries; in addition to which there is a long list of Acts, including the Tramways and Public Companies Act, the Light Railways Act, 1890, the Piers and Harbours Act, the Public Loans Act, and the Relief of Distress Act,

    1559
    1880, and Acts amending the same. The Relief of Distress Act is one of the most outrageous of the exclusions, but I do not intend at this portion of the Bill to argue on the merits of particular exclusions, which can be raised subsequently. All I desire is to get some declaration from the Government as to their policy on this matter, and to urge them to assimilate the wording of clause 35 to that of clause 4 of the English Act.
    Question put.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The honourable Member for East Mayo has asked me to give the general views of the Government with respect to these excluded charges. But may I point out that the system of taxation in Ireland is altogether so different from that in England that it would not have been easy to follow the terms of the English Act. For instance, in England police and school board charges are paid by the local rates; in Ireland they are paid out of the Exchequer. Then, again, in England the grant is not given to burial boards, or for the expenses of Parliamentary registration, or for overseers in connection with the collection of rates, whereas in Ireland it will apply. The parish councils' rate in England is also excluded. I mention these to show the difference in the conditions of the two countries. The honourable Member has given a list of the excluded charges, which are as follow:—Expenses in relation to additional constabulary, compensation for criminal injuries, and any amounts raised in connection with any railway or tramway under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, the Light Railways Acts, the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1846, the Piers and Harbour (Ireland) Act, the Public Works Loans Act, the Relief of Distress Act, navigation works under the Drainage and Navigation Act, and special expenses under the Public Health Acts. A number of those rates are not levied in England at all, and, therefore, it was for the Government to consider whether they were to be included or excluded. Speaking generally, I might say there are
    1560
    obvious reasons why the rates for extra police and for malicious injuries should not be included in the agricultural grant. The county guarantees for railways are peculiarly Irish charges, and the same may be said of harbour loans. As regards the Relief of Distress Act, which the honourable Member seems to think extraordinary that it should be excluded, I think, perhaps, he is not aware of the particular nature of the expenditure under this Act. As a matter of fact, most of these excluded charges will expire within the next two years, and, if they were included, would constitute a permanent charge on the Exchequer. There is only one of these charges that will last, and that is the charge for the inspection of piers. Drainage and navigation loans are peculiar to Ireland. I have stated generally the views of the Government with reference to excluded charges, and later I will be able to give the reasons which have determined the Government in each particular case; but I think the honourable Member will not deny that some charges must be excluded, and accordingly it will be necessary to retain the words in the clause.
    MR. FLYNN: It is obvious that the excluded charges will be discussed in detail on clause 40, but it appears to me we are now prejudging the merits or demerits of that clause by inserting these words when they are not necessary. The clause we are now discussing begins, "Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in respect to excluded charges." Now, that is more or less anticipating the fact that the Committee will more or less agree with the proposal of the Government, that all these excluded charges should be retained in clause 40. We are not at all agreed as to that. We maintain that several of these charges should be included. But by putting the words objected to by the honourable Member into this clause, it appears to some extent to prejudge the decision of the Committee with regard to clause 40.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is necessary that the words should be retained in their present position.
    MR. DILLON: I do not see the use of discussing the matter further in this stage. I believe the phrase is unneces-

    1561
    sary and objectionable, but if the Government will not give way I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 16, line 38, leave out 'taken,' and insert 'deemed.'"—(Mr. Hemphill.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): We have followed exactly the English Act.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: The word "deemed" is more familiar.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I shall certainly accept that word with the greatest of pleasure if it is more usual than "taken."
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 17, line 19, after 'raised,' insert 'or expended.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the Government will see their way to make this clause clear. The right honourable Gentleman admitted, in answer to a question, that under the English Act the amount which had been expended in the standard year was the amount of the grant. In the section as it stands the gum to be taken under the new Act is estimated as having been raised. I wish to insert the words "or expended." In the case of the Millstreet and other unions the guardians were compelled by the Local Government Board to raise a larger sum than they required, with the result that they started the standard year with a larger sum in hand, and accordingly struck a smaller rate. It was the Local Government Board that compelled these unions to raise these large sums, and it appears to me, therefore, that it is absolutely necessary to insert the words "or expended," or else these unions will not receive the grant to which they are justly entitled.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With all due respect, Sir, I submit this Amendment is out of order, as, if adopted, it
    1562
    might carry us beyond the scope of the financial resolution. I may say, however, that such exceptional cases as those to which the honourable Member refers would undoubtedly, in my judgment, come up for consideration.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: That is the funniest explanation I have ever heard. Either my Amendment is right or it is not; either it covers the ground or it does not. If it covers the ground it must be within the resolution, and if it is within the resolution now is the proper time to carry it out. The right honourable Gentleman states that these cases will be considered, and that it is competent for the Government to take them into account. Of course, if they went beyond the resolution the Government would be incompetent to deal with them.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The clause as now drafted would enable the Government to take into consideration the cases referred to by the honourable Member.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: That is only fair play. I submit, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman has hardly treated the Committee with candour. He was asked a question on this point several weeks ago, and it was pointed out that these unions were, by the coercion of the Local Government Board, compelled to raise larger sums than they required, and he replied that the matter would be dealt with in the Bill, and that it was possible to deal with it. Accordingly we assumed that justice was to be done, but now it seems we are not to get justice as an abstract commodity, but we are to get it as it appears to the right honourable Gentleman. In other words, it will be competent for him to include or exclude these balances as he thinks fit. That is a latitude we do not like to allow to the right honourable Gentleman. It is a matter of absolute justice, and it can be argued on that ground, and on no other. Let us take a given union: it can meet its poor law expenses by raising £10,000. In steps the Local Government Board and says, "Your estimate is too low; it must be for £12,000"; and the union, with reluctance, and under pressure of the

    1563
    Local Government Board, raises the larger sum. Then it turns out that the guardians were right and the Local Government Board was wrong, and accordingly they start the next year with a credit of £2,000. Of the people who paid this money, many of them are dead, others have emigrated; but what we desire is that the question shall not be left to the discretion of the Government, or to that penurious institution, the British Treasury, whether credit shall be allowed for these balances. What we desire is that the Act should positively require the Government to base the grant on what would have been the normal amount raised had not the Local Government Board foolishly interfered. In reply to that demand, the right honourable Gentleman starts a point unworthy of him. He first tries to bowl me over on a barren point of order, by saying that my Amendment is not within the ambit of the resolution. If it is not it is the intention of the Government to swindle unions in the position of Mill-street, and get the benefit for the Treasury of the credit balances. Does the right honourable Gentleman think we move these Amendments for fun? What we are striving for is absolute justice, and to prevent the injustice which will arise owing to the action of the Department of which he is the head, if the clause is not amended. And, being the head, he should be the very first man to remedy the injustice caused by his own act, for he has stated that he does not allow the Local Government Board to take any step without his sanction; and, therefore, every act of the Board must be taken as the personal act of the Chief Secretary. He ought to be the first man to accept an Amendment of this kind, instead of which he says to these unions: "According to my good judgment and benevolence you shall have this bonus if you are good boys, if you attend to law and order, and if you pass resolutions of a particular kind; but if you misbehave you shall not have it." And this is the hard-earned money which the ratepayers were compelled to raise in 1896 by the Local Government Board. We acquiesced in the view of the right honourable Gentleman regarding the adoption of a
    1564
    standard year, because he told us it would be modified, and now he tells us that that modification is not to be a matter of absolute right, but of British justice, as administered by himself.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable and learned Member has made a very extraordinary attack on me for having exactly followed the English Measure. The same words appear in the English Act, but the interpretation put upon it by the English Local Government Board is explained in the following memorandum—
    "(1) For the purpose of certifying the share of the annual grant payable to each spending authority the Board had to determine the amount which was to be taken to have been raised for the expenditure of each spending authority, by rates to which the Act applies during the last financial year before the passing of the Act. In order to enable the Board to arrive at the amount to be so determined, it was provided by the regulations issued under the Act that Returns should be made by the spending authorities as to the rates raised by them during 1895 and 1896, and that the amount included in the precepts made payable during the financial year, or in the case of a rate collected by the authorities, the amount collected during the year should be taken as the amount realised during the year. The Board were to take into consideration any sums raised during the year by the predecessors of the spending authority, constituted after the commencement of the year, and were empowered also to take into consideration any alteration of area and any special circumstances."
    "(2) The Return prescribed by the Board should be not only the sums called by the precepts or raised by rates during the prescribed year, but also like particulars prior to the commencement of that year and subsequent to that year. The Returns were carefully examined by the Board, and were compared with the financial statistics of local taxation returns and other substantial information in the possession of the Board, with the view of testing the accuracy of the Returns, and at the same time ascertaining how far the amount of rates raised in the year 1895–96 might fairly be taken as a test of a fixed grant."
    For my part, we shall exactly follow the English procedure, and even if the words which the honourable and learned Member now desires to put in were accepted they would compel us to leave out considerations which were taken into account in estimating the English grants. The Local Government Board in Ireland will

    1565
    be prepared to do what the English Local Government Board did.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Are there in England any boards of guardians compelled by order of the Local Government Board to raise a larger sum in a given year than they otherwise would have raised? There is not one such case in England where a board of guardians is compelled by authority to raise £3,000 or £4,000 more than they required. What I complain of is that the course of the Government is hardly candid. I was not considering the words in the Bill, but I was considering the difference between the answer given by the right honourable Gentleman to-day and that given by him a few weeks ago. We raised this point in the case of given unions, and we showed that the standard year would be unfair to them. I am in favour of the standard year myself, taking it all round, but it is undoubtedly just that the case of these unions should, as a matter of course, be taken into account.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly. What I object to is being asked to state beforehand what, on consideration, the Local Government Board may decide in any particular case. It is true that the Amendment was out of order, because it might compel us to increase the agricultural grant as a result of taking such matters as this into consideration. In extreme cases, such as have been mentioned by the honourable and learned Member, it is very probable that the Local Government Board would take into favourable consideration the claims of such unions; but I cannot undertake that the Local Government Board should decide every case in that manner, which would be the effect of accepting the Amendment. I really think I must have been entirely misunderstood.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: As I understand the right honourable Gentleman, if any local authority starts the standard year with a large credit balance, that fact will be taken into account when the Local Government Board has to determine the standard rate; and the converse case will also be taken
    1566
    into account, namely, where a local authority starts the standard year with a large indebtedness, and has raised in that year a rate to meet that indebtedness.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is so.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think that is quite fair. The unions cannot have it both ways. If it is to be the law that a union starting with a large credit balance is to have it taken as having been raised in the standard year, then I think, on the other hand, if a union starts with a large debit balance and raises it in the standard year, that that also should be considered in estimating the standard rate. The fair thing is to calculate what the normal rate ought to be; that is, fair to the unions and fair to the individual, whose deduction ought not to be calculated on any abnormal figure. In listening to the statement read by the right honourable Gentleman as regards the principle which regulated the practice of the Local Government Board in England, I heard nothing with reference to unions which started the standard year with large debit balances.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The only reason I did not read further was that I was dealing with the particular point raised by the honourable and learned Member for Louth. With reference to the last-mentioned point, the Memorandum states—
    "If the comparison showed that the rates received in the year were abnormally high, inquiry was made of the local authority as to the cause of the increase. Among the causes of increase thus ascertained were the following:—The raising of rates in 1895–96 to wipe off adverse balances from previous years, or to increase the existing balance; the raising in 1895–96 of rates to meet expenditure ordinarily defrayed out of capital moneys—e.g., for the erection of hospital and other buildings; the raising of rates to meet exceptional cost in connection with law suits; the raising of rates to meet extra expenditure on highways, or expenditure of an unusual character."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I thank the right honourable Gentleman. I did not at all pretend to have mastered the document. As he read it, it struck me it did not cover the case I had in my mind, but I now recognise that it does. As

    1567
    this is an important matter, and has been agitating boards of guardians all over Ireland for the past three or four months, may I ask if these regulations have been published?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: As they stand, these rules are not applicable to the Irish case; and as the right honourable gentleman has already gone to a great deal of trouble, in some cases, in setting out Orders in Council, and what Government Departments would do in these cases, I would ask him, for the enlightenment of the public, and to enable us to judge them, if he could have the rules which the Local Government Board will put in force drawn up, so that we may have an opportunity of considering them before the Report stage.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not know whether I shall be able to have the rules drawn up before the Report stage. When they are drawn up they will be laid on the Table of the House, but something must be left to the discretion of the Local Government Board.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am sorry I cannot agree with my honourable Friend the Member for Cork. The statement read by the right honourable Gentleman is the most important he has yet made in connection with this Bill, because it is a revelation to us that there is to be no standard year. There is only to be an average of years, with the Treasury and the Local Government Board presiding over the investigations to our disadvantage. That is exactly the answer the right honourable Gentleman has given. What we previously understood was that everything raised in the standard year was to be taken into account. Now the confession is made that, if a union starts with a debit balance of £5,000, the Local Government Board will have the right to inquire into it, and if it finds that the year is above the normal by reason of the union having to erect a hospital, or having paid off some bill incurred through litigation, or something of that kind, to have the right to strike these items out of the account. That is a stupendous revelation, because I understood that what the Government said
    1568
    was: "We have not taken the year 1897–98, because, after the announcement of the First Lord of the Treasury, the guardians would at once commence to strike a higher rate in order to diddle the British Government." Now the suggestion of the Government is that although a rate is struck in 1896–97 in the normal and natural manner, having regard to the requirements of the union at a given moment, it is open to investigation. That is the circular we have heard read. Let us have one of two things. Are you to give us the whole of the rates raised in Ireland in 1896–97, or are you not? That is a plain question. It is open to a plain answer. Otherwise the rates will be jerrymandered as against the unions. That is the plain construction of the statement just read. It is no answer to me to say that this circular was issued for English Unions. In England the valuation on land and buildings may vary from year to year. We have a uniform valuation. One of the explanations of the defeat of the Unionist candidate at South Norfolk was that he took the rates off land and put them on buildings. Such a condition of affairs is impossible in Ireland, and accordingly it is most essential that we should insist on getting the benefit of the entire sum raised in 1896–97. The answer given us is that we get the advantage in cases such as Mill-street, but for every union in Ireland that started the standard year with a credit balance a hundred unions started with debit balances. Accordingly it is the essence of our case that the standard year shall not be subject to variation or jerrymandering. You selected it yourselves as being of advantage to us. The Government said: "Take the standard year; it is fairer to Ireland. Rates are rising mechanically, and the last rate unaffected by political considerations will be the highest rate struck." We thought we were on velvet, and we thought it was the fairest thing to take the last rate raised, which was unaffected by the statement of the first Lord of the Treasury. Now we are not to get it at all. The Government are to pick and choose, and in all cases the Treasury is to have the right to preside over the inquiries, and say what is to be struck

    1569
    out. Here are the opening words of the clause—
    "Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in respect to excluded charges, the Local Government Board, on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation, shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, certify."
    And again—
    "The sum payable to each county out of the agricultural grant shall be equal to half the amounts so certified."
    And further—
    "For the purpose of certificates under this section the Local Government Board, on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation, shall determine in the prescribed manner the adjustments which are to be made in consequence of any difference."
    And finally—
    "The Local Government Board, on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation, may in the case of error amend."
    Now, Sir, all this really means that Mr. Holmes, the Treasury Remembrancer in Dublin, will be strolling round to the Local Government Board every afternoon to see what union accounts have been made up. He will find that a particular union in the county of Cork has built an additional wing to a hospital. "Oh," says Mr. Holmes, "that is not fair to the British Treasury; out it goes." Then he may find in another union something in respect to another charge. They may have got in a water supply, and he will act in the same way. We will be delivered over to the enemies of Ireland, who will preside over the settlement of the account between the two nations without anyone representing Ireland being present to see fair play. That is the substance of this sub-section. Do not tell me that English Members could be in this position. The Government depends on the votes of English Members, and if they had a complaint they would only go to the Local Government Board and say, "Our votes keep the Government in office." What chance has Ireland of getting fair play? We are always in a minority in this House, and we never can bring pressure to bear on the Government, and therefore. I say that the substitution now made instead of the standard year—the picking and choosing of the Government—
    1570
    will spread alarm and dismay among the unions of Ireland.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): I can assure the honourable and learned Member that there is really no ground whatever for his suspicion that Ireland will suffer at the hands of the Treasury in this matter. The Treasury did not interfere in the smallest degree in England between the Local Government Board and the various spending authorities concerned as to the manner in which the amount of the grant in each case should be settled, and the Treasury will take precisely the same course now in regard to Ireland. It will be a matter left to the Local Government Board on the one side and the spending authorities on the other. There is really no ground for this suspicion, that the action of the Treasury will be in any way unfavourable to Ireland. For what happened in England? These accounts were sent in, and considered by the Local Government Board, according to the terms of the memorandum read by my right honourable Friend. There was a correspondence in many cases between the Local Government Board and the officials of the various spending authorities as to what should be allowed and what should not be allowed. Not in one single case did the local authorities question the eventual decision of the Local Government Board, and all was settled in the end in a reasonable time without the smallest friction on either side. And why? Because, as the honourable Member for Cork has seen, after listening to the memorandum, justice was always done. In some cases more was allowed than had been actually received from rates, and in other cases less was allowed. Does the honourable and learned Member really think that a local authority in England is less anxious to get a sufficient Treasury grant for their own purposes than a local authority is in Ireland? I can assure him that if the local authorities in England thought they were not fairly treated they would be the first to complain, and raise their voices through their representatives in this House. Precisely the same opportunity remains in regard to

    1571
    the local authorities in Ireland, and precisely the same course is to be taken by the Government, and that is the only possible course.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Mr. Lowther, I think the Committee, before deciding upon this sub-section, ought to have from the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary some clear statement of what the precise effect of the section is as it stands. For my part, I think it is impossible to try and understand this very long and this very complicated Act or Bill that we are dealing with, and I want to deal with the section apart altogether from the English Bill. We are now legislating for Ireland, and, though the ground of that legislation may be to assimilate the English and the Irish law, what we are dealing with is a Measure which is to pronounce what the Irish law is. Now, I confess that I thought I understood, until I heard this Debate and heard the arguments raised, the meaning of the standard year, and I am quite sure that many right honourable Gentlemen and honourable Gentlemen who have listened to the Debate thought it meant this: if in any given county not overlapping another county consisting of a certain number of electors between 1896 and 1897—that is the standard year—a certain sum was raised in the whole of that county for the purposes of the poor rate and county cess, that was to be the standard basis on which a certain sum of this agricultural grant was to be awarded to that county. As I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, the Local Government Board have by some rule, or otherwise, the power to modify that. Now, the section we are dealing with does not contemplate the Local Government Board giving any certificate with regard to sub-section 2. The certificate of the Local Government Board is confined to subjection 1, clause 35, because it says—
    "Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, with respect to excluded charges, the Local Government Board, on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation, shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, certify as respects the standard financial report."
    1572
    Now we come to sub-section 2. There is nothing here about the certificate of the Local Government Board at all. It runs thus—
    "In estimating the sums to be taken for the purpose of this Act, as having been raised in any county, or district, or union, or in estimating the standard rate, all sums raised to meet expenses which, if this Act had been in force in the standard financial year, would have been raised equally over the whole country, or district, or union, shall be treated as having been so raised."
    What does this mean? If in, say, the county of Cork, several thousand pounds were raised for the county rate—the poor rate and the county cess—in the standard year, is that to be the estimate—I am leaving out of sight altogether the excluded charges, because we are not dealing with them here—is that to be the measure of what is to be granted out of the agricultural grant for that particular county? That seems to me to be the meaning of this particular section. If that is so, I do not know what is to become of the argument of the right honourable Gentleman in which he referred to the rules of the Local Government Board. And now, as I understand it, it is suggested that if a union is in debt at that date, before the commencement of the standard year, and if the poor rate is raised for the purpose of paying off that debt, that is not to be taken into account in estimating the sum to be allocated to a particular county. I certainly think that the Committee are entitled to a clear explanation of what is the meaning of this subsection, and not leave the matter, when it afterwards becomes law, to be a burning question, dragging people in Ireland from the various courts of justice to the House of Lords. Let us clearly understand now what it is that the right honourable Gentleman wishes the Committee to pass.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think the right honourable Gentleman has omitted to notice, or to take into account, clauses 29, 30, and 31, which deal with the expenses to be distributed over the union. With regard to the other point raised in the vast majority of cases, the exact figures are given by

    1573
    the Commissioner of Valuation with regard to the raising of the rates in the standard year. It is only in cases of exceptional circumstances to be taken into consideration on the one hand, so as to raise the amount received, and in another case, possibly, to diminish it. I imagine that in 19 cases out of 20 the amount fixed will not be altered. Really, I do not think that there is anything to justify the fears of honourable Gentlemen upon these points.
    MR. CLANCY: I merely wish to ask the question of the right honourable Gentleman, whether the language of the English Act under which the Local Government Board propose to make this valuation is the same as that in this Bill, because I think that that is really an important point? May I also suggest that the regulations which the right honourable Gentleman proposed to issue might be laid on the Table?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will do that.
    MR. CLANCY: Is there anything in the English Act analogous to this? Is the language of the Bill the same?
    MR. ATKINSON: It is practically the same, but it is not word for word.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: After the assurance that has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    MR. FLYNN: I do not think that this Amendment would place the Local Government in any difficult position whatever. The honourable and learned Gentleman has referred to the Mill-street Union, which is in my constituency, or, at least, the larger portion of it. I will not go over the same ground again, but let me give to the Committee the amount of the rates a few years prior to this particular year in the Mill-street Union. I have got the returns, and here they are, and they vary very much. Now, the poor rate in this union for 1890–91 was 3s. 5d. in the £; in 1894–95 it was 3s. 4d.; in 1895–96
    1574
    2s. 2d.; but owing to the action of the Local Government Board the rate in 1896–97, the standard year, was only 1s. 5d. in the £, as compared with 3s. 5d. seven years previously. There is a case, surely, in which the Government should not be unreasonable. Even supposing they adopt the words of the Order in Council as regards the English Bill, they should have the option of dealing with a union like this. The right honourable Gentleman will remember that he read only the first portion of the Order in Council—
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have explained in general terms what I read out to-day in the general discussion that took place on the standard year. I really think that it is not legitimate that imputations of that kind should be made.
    MR. FLYNN: Then I withdraw the imputation. Most Members, I think, however, are not aware of the proposals in the latter portion of the Order in Council, and the right honourable Gentleman will perceive the apprehension with which we regard these particular cases, because of the manner in which the Local Government Board will deal under this clause with a union like the one I represent, where the disproportion of rating is so great. As the representative of that union, I thought it was my duty to bring the matter forward.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My honourable Friend the Member for Louth has presupposed a case starting with a surplus. Might I be allowed to suggest another case, that of a union which starts without a surplus, but with a debt in which its expenditure exceeds its estimate? This is a very usual case, not only in Ireland, but in this country as well. I should like the right honourable Gentleman's interpretation of the word "raised" in that case. Would it be raised by rates? If not, that would not be the current expenditure of the year. I will take £10,000 as the estimated expenditure. Now, owing to no exceptional circumstances, but owing to the fact that they have under-estimated certain small items in different parishes, the expenditure reaches £11,000. What

    1575
    they do in those cases is this: they do not issue a supplementary rate, but they overdraw their account, and then the next year, when they have another rate to levy, they meet that extra expenditure. I want to know in that case what will be the sum raised within the meaning of this section. Will it be exactly the same as the estimated, or as the actual expenditure?
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: In consequence of the pledge given that the whole question of the agricultural land in urban areas will be reconsidered, I do not propose to go further into that question, but I wish to point out one thing which is, perhaps, not relevant to this particular Amendment. I allude to the absurdity to which the system of the Government leads us, as illustrated by the final words of this clause. Take the instance of the city of Cork. Suppose, within the next five years, the city of Cork extends its boundaries and takes in certain agricultural land. Until that agricultural land became included within the city of Cork the grant was paid in respect of it. The moment the land becomes included in the city of Cork the grant continues to be paid; but how is it paid? Half of it is paid into the local taxation account, and the other half, Mr. Lowther, does not go to the county to which the agricultural land has been newly added, but goes to the benefit of the county from which the agricultural land has been taken away. I think the right honourable Gentleman will see that that is a great absurdity to follow in the framing of his Bill in dealing with agricultural land in urban areas. Of course, it can only arise where there is a change of county. The moment these urban areas extend their boundaries and take in agricultural land, the absurdity which I have pointed out will continue, that the portion of the agricultural grant applicable to county charges in respect of agricultural land taken into the county borough remains payable to the county from which the land is taken away. That, I think, is a great absurdity, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will bear this in mind when he comes to consider the whole question of agricultural land within urban areas.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will consider those questions.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 17, line 40, leave out sub-section 5."—(Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.)
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: The point of my Amendment is quite independent of the 12 months, and it is to strike out the whole of the sub-section upon a different ground altogether. The 12 months was only in case of section 28 being put into operation within 12 months, but now it stands—
    "Where, by virtue of any order respecting the constitution of an urban district, any agricultural land in a rural district becomes included within the boundaries of that urban district."
    Then it goes on to provide what is to be done with the—
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: It has just been decided to insert the words, "where by virtue of any" in this clause, and, therefore, we cannot go back upon that.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: My Amendment does not question the section as amended. The point of my Amendment is equally good, whether the clause is as it originally was or as it is now amended, because the point of my objection is this: it reads now—
    "Where, by virtue of any order respecting the constitution of an urban district, any agricultural land in a rural district becomes included within the boundaries of that urban district, the sum payable out of the agricultural grant in respect of union and district charges raised over such rural district shall be reduced by a sum proportionate to the rateable value in the standard financial year of that agricultural land, and the amount of such reduction shall be accumulated in the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, and be applied in such manner as Parliament directs; but the amount of agricultural grant payable to the council of the county in respect of county-at-large charges shall not be diminished."
    My objection stands good to the sub-section which I have just read as amended, just as it did to the original.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The right honourable Gentleman has permitted the insertion of the words, "where by virtue of any," and they now form part of the sub-section. Therefore, he cannot now move to omit those words. The Committee have just decided to insert those words, and, therefore, he cannot go back upon that. If the right honourable Gentleman has any other Amendment to move he is entitled to move it.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Am I now at liberty to move that the sub-section as it stands be struck out?
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: No, for the Committee have just decided to retain it. They have decided what the words shall be. The question now is—
    "That clause 35 as amended stand part of the Bill."
    MR. JOHN DILLON: I want to make a few suggestions to the right honourable Gentleman. With reference to the Return showing the sums estimated to have been raised in the standard year, I think that in that Return, wherever the Local Government Board departs from the sum actually raised, there should be a short memorandum stating the grounds of it. I think it will be only fair that the boards of guardians should know that, and there should be some brief explanation of the grounds on which they have departed from the ordinary course. In connection with this, the right honourable Gentleman said that in nine cases out of ten the sum estimated to be raised will be the sum actually raised, and it will only be in exceptional cases that a departure will be made, but I think there should be a short memorandum of the difference. That is one of the suggestions I have to make. My other suggestion is this: there are certain unions—of course, I am more particularly interested in the west of Ireland—in which the circumstances may be entirely different. Take the case of a union with a debt. They may be gradually working off this debt, and if they strike a higher rate in this particular year for the express purpose of work-
    1578
    ing off this debt, I do not think it would be fair to take that as the estimated expenditure. I think the right honourable Gentleman ought to take into consideration all these circumstances.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I may remind the honourable Member that the circumstances he has mentioned will be taken into consideration.
    Clause 35 as amended agreed to.

  On CLAUSE 36.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 18, line 35, leave out 'or of a board of guardians.'"
  "Page 18, line 37, leave out 'or board.'"
  "Page 18, line 38, at end, insert—
  "'The money required to meet the expenses of a board of guardians shall be supplied by the county council, borough council, or urban district council in the proportions in which they may be liable for the same upon the prescribed demand of the board, and shall be paid out of the consolidated rate.'"—(Mr. Flynn.)
  MR. FLYNN: The object of my Amendment is not so much to alter the section as to elucidate it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member's Amendment will have the effect of making boards of guardians apply practically for money to the urban district council, which would be taking it out of the hands of the county council. If the honourable Member will look at the last sub-section he will see that his other objections are there provided for. Upon these grounds, I am not prepared to accept the Amendment.
  MR. FLYNN: After that explanation, I will not move this Amendment, or the two following ones.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 23, after 'amount,' insert—
  "Provided that in a county borough the council may, if they think fit, make one poor

  1579
  rate for the whole financial year, and collect the same in equal moieties, one moiety for each half-year."—(Mr. Hemphill.)
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: In the city of Dublin the object of this Amendment has been brought very much under my notice, for a very great inconvenience would arise if they had to alter their system, which has continued to work satisfactorily now for a great number of years. My Amendment provides that they may make one poor rate for the whole financial year, if they think fit, and that practice has been adopted now for a great number of years in the city of Dublin. The rate there is struck for the whole financial year, but it is collected in two instalments—two half-yearly instalments. The continuance of this system has been very strongly urged by the advisers of the corporation, and it will involve great additional expense if this clause is made to apply to Dublin. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman would like to consider it when he brings forward his clause about the Collector General.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The only difference between the procedure proposed and the clause as it stands is that a county borough may provide for the total poor rate by striking one rate, instead of making the poor rate twice a year. Of course, if the guardians, in striking their estimate, required a larger amount, the county council would have to supply that, I suppose, from the borough fund.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Yes, from the borough fund.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see no serious objection to the Amendment, and if it is a matter of great convenience that it should be added I will accept it. We originally provided that sub-section on the supposition that the service of the half-year was incorrect as applied to the guardians. I believe, however, that that is not so, and I have no objection to the Amendment if it is a matter of convenience that the system suggested should be followed.
  Question put—
  "That the proposed words be added to the section."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 31, leave out from the second 'and' to 'shall' in line 32."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If this Amendment is carried the section will run thus—
  "Such poor rate shall be made either immediately prior to, or at the beginning of, the first six months of the local financial year and the second six months of that year, and shall be made in respect of the service of such first six months or second six months, as the case may be."
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Will not some consequential change be necessary if that Amendment is adopted? This clause we are now discussing is based on the supposition that there shall be two poor rates.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think, perhaps, that had better be left till the Report stage.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 34, leave out from 'be' to the end of line 37."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 38, leave out from 'that' to the end of line 39."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Amendment raises the question as to whether the poor rate made to meet expenses other than guardians' expenses should come under the restriction that they shall not be retrospective. The clause, as it stood, might have been read as meaning that the guardians' expenses could in no case be raised by a retrospective rate, or as meaning that the provision as to a retrospective rate should not apply to them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 5, leave out from 'period' to 'and,' in line 7."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. Proceedings against boards of guardians, and other local bodies, as regards the Statute of Limitations are now covered by the ordinary law. When you sue a board of guardians proceedings are not barred any more than they are against a private individual. But the effect of this clause is to provide a new Statute of Limitations applying to boards of guardians and other public bodies. That seems to me to be a most mischievous proceeding, and, furthermore, instead of doing that in a plain way which every lawyer and layman could understand, it is done in a curious and indirect way, which really throws the law in doubt every time you sue a board of guardians. If the board of guardians owes a man a debt, the same Statute of Limitations shall not apply as applies in a case where a debt is due by an ordinary individual. Why should a man be debarred from suing a board of guardians within the ordinary six years' term? Is there any reason or principle for it? Of course, it is introduced here in consequence of these complicated provisions as to what rates are to be retrospective and what rates are not to be retrospective. I have very little sympathy with these restrictions of local bodies at all. If money is honestly expended by a board of guardians, or by a local body of any kind, in discharging its duties, I think the fact as to whether the money was spent in respect of work done, or materials supplied twelve months before, or two or three years before, is utterly immaterial. What will be the state of things which will arise every time you sue a board of guardians? We will suppose that you sue a board of guardians for £500. You supply the goods, but delay in sending in your bill, and when you do send it in it is not within the six months. Forthwith it becomes the duty of the court to inquire whether or not you have used due diligence in enforcing your claim; and if the court considers that you have failed
  1582
  to use due diligence in forcing the claim—in other words, if the court considers that you have given the board indulgence, your right to sue is barred altogether. I cannot conceive on what principle the Government advocates such a proposal. Any difficulty as to whether the matter is retrospective or not ought to be finally settled by the judge. If the court gives judgment for you, then the board ought to pay the money. Apparently this clause is full of difficulties, because it seems that if you obtain judgment you may go in and take the goods and chattels of the board; you may seize the furniture that is in the workhouse, whether you have used due diligence or not. But if you fail to use proper diligence, then the local board are to be placed in this position: that they cannot raise the money out of the rate, and they must let you seize their goods and sell them in order to realise your money. I am entirely at a loss to know on what grounds the Government defend this proposition. If the debt is lawful, and if judgment is recovered, it ought to be in the power of a local body to pay that money, no matter how far off the liability was incurred. I do not know whether this proposal takes cognisance of the payment of a bond. Supposing a board of guardians raises money on a bond or a mortgage: you can at present sue for 20 years on a bond or mortgage, and, apparently, the proposal of the Government is that in that case it is to be the duty of the court to see whether or not you have used due diligence to sue on your bond, or of raising the money under mortgage, and if the court thinks you have not, the local body is debarred from raising the rate to pay it. I think that is a perfectly monstrous proposal, and I hope that my Amendment will be carried.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right honourable Gentleman explain, when he is answering, what the exact bearing of this section is on unions that have for a long time past been heavily in debt?
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I think that this clause is an attempt to do what is a good thing in a wrong way. I venture to differ from my honourable and learned Friend in this, and do think

  1583
  that there ought to be a short period for action against local authorities. There is such a provision in the English Public Health Act, and I can see myself no reason why there should not be a similar provision in the Irish Act; but it is clear that this is an attempt to do it in a roundabout way, which will cause all sorts of difficulty. The limitation ought to be a limit of action and not of execution. The question as to whether a creditor had taken steps against the local authority in proper time ought to be determined on the occasion when the action is tried, and not left to be determined afterwards by some other and, perhaps, more expensive proceeding. A creditor's advisers ought to be able to tell him the law when he begins to sue, and not afterwards. I think it is quite clear that a mistake has been made in this section. What I venture to suggest is, that the Government should leave out all the words after the word "sum" in line 4, or, perhaps, make it "any sum" instead of "a sum," and then leave out the rest of the section, and devise some general limitation as to actions against local bodies. On that point I do take somewhat strong views that there ought to be a period of limitation, and my opinion is that that period of limitation, as against individuals ought to be shorter, because I think that the more we do to prevent creditors who do not sue in a reasonable time taking proceedings the better all round. As a rule, people who give long credit are not philanthropists, and the reason that they give it is that they do not want to have the details of their debt too deeply Inquired into. I should, therefore, very much like to see the period of limitation short in every case, but especially in the case of local bodies. I think in their case there ought to be the same limitations as apply to local bodies in England, but this clause does not seem to me to be the right way of doing it.
  MR. ATKINSON: The object of this section is perfectly plain. It seems desirable that boards of guardians or local authorities should let each half-year provide for the expenditure of that half-year, so that money provided for a par-
  1584
  ticular half-year should not be expended on debts incurred many years previous. Consequently, we think that in future when a debt is incurred it must be paid six months after it has been incurred, in order to prevent boards of guardians and other local anthorities running into arrear, and not raising sufficient money to meet their liabilities, so as to throw upon ratepayers in succeeding years the debts that ought to have been borne by ratepayers in past years. The judgment can be obtained six months after the debt became payable subject to one condition, that might bear hardly upon creditors occasionally. It may be that they did use due diligence, and yet that they were not able to recover the judgment within the six months, and for that reason we have provided that it shall be competent to the court in which the judgment is recovered, notwithstanding the lapse of that period of six months, to certify that the creditor has used all due diligence, and, if the court so certifies, the creditor should be entitled to recover. The honourable Member for the City of Londonderry said that he thought it would be a bad law. He admitted that it would be desirable to have a statute of limitations, but he said that it had better be done by a hard and fast rule or statute preventing anyone recovering a debt after a certain period had elapsed. That would be wanting in elasticity. It would shut out the man who had used due diligence. I want to secure a greater amount of elasticity so that those who have used diligence, even if they do not get judgment in six months, shall yet be paid. The man who deliberately holds back without any excuse or reason, is the man who by this provision will not be paid. Therefore, instead of having a hard and fast rule to disentitle a man who has used due diligence, we have provided a rule which, while it does not disentitle the diligent, certainly does disentitle the creditor who is not diligent.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I am in favour of the clause as it stands rather than the Amendment. My reason for that is that we must recollect that rates will now, or very shortly, be very much increased, and the whole burden of these rates will fall upon the

  1585
  occupying tenant. I do not think it is at all unreasonable that a person who has a demand against a board of guardians should insert his claim within six months, and I think it very desirable that he should do so, especially as this section provides that, in case of a creditor being ill, or for some other reason which might possibly allow the six months to elapse, and thus Work injustice by shuting him out altogether, he can submit his reasons to the court. I think this section is an improvement on the ordinary plea of the statute of limitations for six months, because it gives the judge before whom the case comes a power to say that there was good cause for the creditor not having brought forward his action within the limits of the time; and I would further point out that this section is an ease to the ratepayer, because he will be sure that the money spent in the six months is for food supplied and work done during that period; whereas to allow a man to sue under the existing statute, at the end of six years, is a great hardship on and an unreasonable one upon the ratepayers, who may be paying for things the benefits of which had been received by other persons. Holding as I do the opinion that this is an improvement on the existing law, I am decidedly in favour of the clause as it stands.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman opposite has made as flimsy an argument in defence of this proposal as ever I heard.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the same as the English Act.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Then the English Act is very bad. This is a clause for the encouragement of litigation. Limitation is a good thing in its way; but whether there ought to be a limitation of the expense of local bodies or not is quite another question. I myself would have no objection to a short period of limitation, if the same thing were applied to private individuals. But I say that this clause has all the vices which a proposal of the kind can have, and has none of its advantages. What is the nature of the ordinary limitation in an action? It is this: that the party knows before he
  1586
  begins the suit whether he is entitled to get his judgment or not. If a man owes me money, and I allow six years to pass without getting any acknowledgment, I know that judgment will be given against me; but in this case, in order to know whether I have a right to recover or not, I must bring my action—I must litigate—I must argue it out before the court, and it is only when the court has said, "Oh, this debt has been a long time about, and I do not think you ought to get your judgment," it is only at the very last minute, when all the costs have been incurred and the judge has given his decision, that you know whether you have a right of action. Is that a satisfactory state of things? I think it is an incentive to litigation. I can quite understand it if you think it is desirable to put a clause into this Bill that no action should be brought against a local authority unless within three years after the cause of action has arisen—or 12 months, or what not—but let us know where we stand. Let a man know when he begins his action whether he is entitled to recover or not. Supposing a man in Cork comes to me and says, "The board of guardians owes me money; what am I to do?" How can I advise him? Is it a proper position to put me in? It may all, and does all, depend upon who the judge is and who the litigant is. One judge might think that the proceedings had been taken in time, and another judge would not. One litigant may be obnoxious to the judge, another litigant would not. A hundred considerations might arise. The ordinary Statute of Limitations depends, in the first place, on the date when and where the debt accrued. It depends, further, on the question whether or not you have any acknowledgment of it. Will the right honourable Gentleman tell me the meaning of this clause?—
  "Where a person recovers judgment or obtains a decree in any court for a sum which originally became payable six months or more before the said period."
  Supposing a debt is due to me, and at the end of six months I take a promissory note. Does that renew my right? And supposing at the end of that six

  1587
  months I take another promissory note. Does that renew my right?
  MR. ATKINSON: Certainly not.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman says certainly not. Then, as I understand, it is the proper thing always to go back to the beginning of the transaction, and there you have a series of negotiable instruments. You may have a bond for your debt, and if the board are sued on the bond they can say it is true that we gave you a bond, but the debt in respect of which we gave it was two years ago; therefore we decline to pay it. Is that rational? I see that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Trinity College is here. Does he understand it? It seems to me we ought to have one equal law, whether for corporations, for local bodies, or for private individuals. The Attorney General says that this provision is to prevent local bodies throwing on future generations debts which they have incurred. The answer to that is that the ordinary creditor may be trusted to sue in time, and recover his debt within a reasonable period. To make the argument of the right honourable Gentleman of any value it would involve the necessity of there being a sort of conspiracy between the local body and the creditor to postpone the payment of the debt for an indefinite period. Does the right honourable Gentleman suggest that the ordinary shopkeeper who supplies goods to the board of guardians is going to wait to sue for his debt? It is impossible. The tendency which future ratepayers have against that is the tendency of creditors to get paid as soon as possible. It is an inherent tendency in the nature of creditors which may be very well relied upon to protect the ratepayers. If, out of the average creditors, you have an occasional one who is not very diligent in suing the county council or the district council, I really do not see that any great hardship is inflicted upon the locality in an odd case of that kind. But, if you do want to provide for such an odd case, provide for it by a formal Statute of Limitations—provide that a man shall not sue
  1588
  for a debt payable by the county council unless within three years after the original cause of action accrued. Exclude whom you will, but, at any rate, let the lawyer whom the creditor consults be able to answer "Yes" or "No." Has the client got a cause of action or not? That is the vice of the right honourable Gentleman's proposal. It compels litigation before you can find out whether or not you are entitled to sue. I do press the right honourable Gentleman to consider the matter. He has said this is in the English Act. I am told it is not. Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will refer us to the clause of the English Act, if it exists. But, English Act or no English Act, I want, at any rate, that the Statute of Limitations shall take that form, so that every man may know what his rights are, and not leave it to the discretion of a particular judge as to whether he shall recover a debt or not.
  MR. ATKINSON: A three years' limit would leave every one of the vices you are anxious to guard against. The honourable Member again and again asserts that it is entirely absurd to suppose that a creditor will give three years' credit to the board of guardians.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The average creditor.
  MR. ATKINSON: The point is that they have done so. There is hardly a board of guardians at this moment in Ireland which has not had large debts hanging over their heads from time to time. That is exactly the sort of thing we desire to guard against. We desire to insist on boards of guardians making each half-year pay for the half-year's debts, and we can only effect that by this means, and we take a very short limit. By taking a short limit, it is possible to inflict injustice, and therefore we have inserted the provision that if the creditor, notwithstanding that the debt has gone over six months, shows that he has used due diligence in prosecuting his claim, he shall not be debarred. I cannot conceive any difficulty whatever in his not knowing whether he has postponed taking action under circumstances

  1589
  which would disentitle him to get a certificate that he has used due diligence. There can be no conceivable objection to the proposals we make, safeguarded as they are.
  MR. CARSON: I understand that the point of the Attorney General is that the guardians should be compelled to pay within six months all debts which are properly applicable to those six months. If that is the object of this section, I do not see that it will in the slightest degree be carried out by this provision, and I will tell you why. This provision only relates to cases where judgments are recovered with regard to debts six months old. But, supposing a creditor recovers his judgment, he can have that judgment without enforcing it. He can wait one, two, three, four, five, or even six years after obtaining his judgment without levying execution, without any consideration for any person at all. Really, so far as I can see, the only effect of this section will be that every creditor will be bound at once to proceed and take an action and obtain judgment, and then wait as he could wait previous to the passing of this section, before he proceeds to enforce it. So far as I can see, this section will be absolutely nugatory, and it will only lead, in cases where parties are willing to give credit to boards of guardians—and it is often very necessary to do so—to their obtaining judgment against the boards, and their leaving their judgments there unexecuted as long as they like, thus getting rid of the whole question of this statute of limitation. I must say I do not at all think that it is such an easy matter to determine beforehand whether a judge will hold that due diligence has been shown or not. I think it will leave the law in a state of great uncertainty. There is one other point I think to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee. When the section enacts that the judge is to decide whether due diligence has been used, does that affect the enforcing of the claim before or after judgment has been obtained? Because if it only relates to the time before judgment, this question of due diligence in enforcing the claim may not arise until several years after a particular judgment has been obtained. I do think it would be
  1590
  much better to enact a reasonable statute of limitations which would be applicable to all debts. If you like to make an exception in the case of public bodies, and say, instead of six years, it shall be two, there will be no objection to your doing so. But it is quite plain to me that this section, in the way it is explained here, will lead to nothing in the way of paying a particular debt out of a particular rate every six months. And, having regard to the fact that it has been usual to give credit in Ireland, in some cases necessarily for some time, because very often, by reason of excessive distress arising, it is only with the greatest difficulty that the rates can be got in at all, I would press upon the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General that they should reconsider this section.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: It does appear to me in the interest of the ratepayers this is a very necessary clause. I do not think that the fact that creditors delay a long time before sending in their bills to local authorities is altogether an unmixed blessing. That is my experience. I know one instance where the attorney to a board of guardians delayed several years in sending in his bill, and when at last he eventually delivered it, it was of such dimensions that it was only with the greatest of difficulty that the board of guardians were able to strike a rate sufficiently large to meet that charge. I do not think these feelings are imaginary at all. I think they are very real and solemn, and I think it is only right that the boards of guardians should be made to pay their debts regularly, and conduct their business in a business-like and straightforward manner, and not have bills hanging over from year's end to year's end in this very unbusinesslike way. I think the Government is right in sticking to this section. I know one case where I was a sufferer, where I had to pay £30 arrears of back rates on some property. I acquired, simply because there was no provision made for collecting them. I am rather instructed to see that the lawyers are so anxious to insure that there is to be no more work for themselves in this matter. It is a revelation to me to see them trying so to deal with

  1591
  this matter as to take out of their own hands all work they might have to do. They evidently do not want any more work in Ireland. I look upon this provision with suspicion, and to the non-legal mind certainly there is something very uncertain in the way in which the legal gentlemen are attempting to assist it.
  MR. TULLY: In my opinion this is a very important point, and I think we should take into account the proceedings of the boards of guardians in dealing with the accounts. Take, for instance, tenders. In inviting tenders they still put in a clause that payments shall be made quarterly; when the quarter when the money is due comes round they generally appoint a finance committee to consider the bills sent in and to investigate the items. That committee sits a few days before the board of guardians meets. Perhaps the contractor has not sent his account in at the time the finance committee meets, but a day or two after, and he is informed that his account cannot be considered until the next quarter. When the next quarter comes the finance committee may not have met, and the six months' limit which you put in this Bill is up. Is it fair, under those circumstances, that the creditor should have no right to take proceedings for the recovery of his money? I think it would be very hard upon him if a creditor were debarred from proceeding under circumstances like those. The effect of this will be that there will be no finance committee appointed, and the accounts will not be properly checked. There is also the possibility of the unions' accounts being overdrawn. I know several cases where, in the case of poor unions, that is the fact. There is also another possibility: that of the rate collector having neglected his duties, and not having got the rate in time to pay, and in those cases where there is no money, and the account at the bank is overdrawn, the creditor is to be left without his bill and without a right to proceed for the recovery of the same. I think that there ought to be no hard and fast line in this matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think, if anything were necessary to prove the humbug of the contention as to the large ratepayers it is this provision. It was said that the small ratepayers would elect these boards of guardians, and that they would elect men of their own class, and now we are told that the boards, when elected, are going to be foolish enough to delay paying their bills for the sake of the large ratepayers. That is the suggestion of the Government. This has been treated all the way through as if it were a question of a demand by the boards of guardians. The honorable Member for Mid Tyrone thinks it will militate against the rates. This is a demand, not by the guardians but against the guardians.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: May I be permitted to say—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When I have finished, Sir. Now, in my opinion, the suggestion of the Government ought to be carried out to its true logical conclusion. I see no objection to the making of a six months' statute of limitation Make it, by all means. What I object to is the discretion given to the judge. One judge may exercise a discretion which is not followed by another. One man may make a claim, and have it allowed, whilst another man, because he is of a different religion, or from other circumstances, may be refused. Make your limitation six months, or, if that is found to be unjust, make it 12 months, but let us have the law in its entirety; let it be certain, and do not let us be dependent upon the will or the discretion of any particular judge. And you must remember other interests in Ireland will be affected in this matter. In this clause there is a stoppage of credit in the case of the unions and all local bodies. It may be good or bad. I do not say that it is bad at all, and I would not object to a provision which made it impossible for them to have a day's credit. Let us get down to that, but let us have a hard and fast line. Let it be six years, six months, six weeks, six days, or six minutes, but let us know what it is. What we object to is that when a man consults us as to whether

  1593
  he can recover his debt we cannot assist him. You must look up the circuit, and if it happens to be that a generous and kindly judge is going the circuit, you may advise him that he has a chance of recovering his money; but if it be a canny northern judge who is taking the circuit he will allow no liberty whatever, and you cannot recover. Let us have any limit you please, but do not leave it to the discretion of the judge.
  MR. ATKINSON: If I understand the objection of the honorable and learned Member for Dublin University, it is that the creditor will not be bound to have judgment satisfied, and he proposes to substitute for the clause a short period of limitation; but it is certainly news to me that any period of limitation is fixed there. The judgment must go on and be satisfied, and a judgment under this clause would be in the same position as any other summons under the statute.
  MR. CARSON: That is exactly what I say.
  MR. ATKINSON: The objection taken by the honorable and learned Member for North Louth in reference to this clause is that it leaves some discretion to the judge, which enables him to exercise an option, and he objects to the discretion being left to the judge. I do not know that the provisions of the English Act would satisfy him better, because there the discretion is left to the Local Government Board, under 22 and 23 Vic, cap. 49.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does that section extend to the county councils?
  MR. ATKINSON: No; but it is equally important that they should endeavor to deal with their payments for six months in six months. It will enable the boards of guardians to get legitimate credit, and will compel them to abstain from doing that which they ought not to do.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: It appears to me that here the limitation is confined to action. The action must be brought
  1594
  within six months, and you must get your judgment in six months. I never heard of any provision in any Act where you have to adopt a procedure of that kind or lose your money. There was some limitation in the Public Health Act, but that was a limitation of action Here you must obtain judgment in six months, and if you do not get it you must get a certificate that you have exercised due diligence, and that the reason of your not having got it is through no fault of your own, but owing to the council not being ready, or something of that sort. As I read it, it does not merely apply to boards of guardians, but to county councils and corporations like Belfast and Dublin, and I think it is a matter which ought to be very carefully considered. It would place them in a great difficulty, in the case of a long running contract, were the payments not to be made from day to day. I think this matter ought to be reconsidered.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I have endeavored to follow this clause, which I believe to be an honest and sincere attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Government to do some injury to the common enemy, the creditor, and confer some benefit on the common friend, the debtor. I cannot understand why the Government have thought fit to bring in a limit for the benefit of these bodies Why should they be treated differently from the ordinary debtor? They have put down a statute of limitation here, which does not seem to have a limit. I am not sure, as I read the clause that there is any period during which the creditor is bound to obtain his judgment. The judgment is to be one for money, which has accrued during a certain period—that is to say, the same period as the rate; but I very much doubt whether, by this section, any limit is put to the time in which you may obtain judgment. The intention clearly is that there should be a limitation, but I do say the intention is not carried out, because it is defeated by the creditor getting indulgence if he can show he has exercised due diligence, and the point of doubt in my mind still remains as to whether there is, under those circumstances, any limitation of the period by this clause.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Our object is to secure that the liabilities incurred by the boards of guardians within a period of six months shall be discharged not later than within the succeeding period of six months and if the honorable and learned Member's Amendment is carried it will entirely defeat that object, because the creditor would still be able to obtain judgment at any time within the Statute of Limitations. There are difficulties in the clause as it stands. I quite admit that if honorable Members opposite Perfer it, we should take the exact words of the English Act and give the Local Government Board discretion as to an extension of time. I am quite satisfied, and am prepared to consider that between now and the Report stage.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I am thankful to the right honorable Gentleman. I now understand him to promise that he will reconsider the whole matter. I agree with him that, so far as possible, boards of guardians and county councils and all local bodies should discharge their debts within a period. I think there is something to be said for the principle that a debt should be discharged within a reasonable period. What I understand the right honorable Gentleman to say now is that he pledges himself to consider the whole matter, and to put upon the Paper some liberal concession.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: So long as the object of the clause, which is that boards of guardians and county councils shall pay their way as they go, and not allow debts to be left over for an indefinite period, is secured, I am perfectly indifferent as to the precise machinery by which it is done; but it must not be said that I am prepared to give up the object of the clause altogether.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I am quite satisfied with the assurance of the right honorable Gentleman, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 36, as amended, added to the Bill.

  On CLAUSE 37.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 20, leave out all after 'hereditament,' and insert—
  "'But the occupier of a hereditameht shall be entitled to deduct from his rent an amount in the pound equal to one-half of the poor rate and county cess in the standard financial year.'"—(Mr. McKenna.)
  MR. MCKENNA: The Amendment which I rise to propose does not in any way diminish the total grant from the British Exchequer to Ireland. I wish to state this from the outset, because my honorable Friend had a certain amount of suspicion as to the action of some of us with regard to this Bill. Nor does this Amendment in any way infringe the doctrine laid down by the honorable and learned Member for Louth. The purpose of the Amendment is very simple. There is a certain grant given in relief of Irish rates. I propose that the whole of that grant shall be paid to the tenants, and none of it to the landlords. I do not diminish by one single farthing the amount of the grant, but I do ask the Committee to accept the principle that the whole of the amount shall go to the relief of the rates now paid by the tenants—or where they pay nothing it shall go to the relief of their rent—and that no part of the grant shall be used for the relief of the rates now paid by the landlord. The method I have pursued is the exact procedure laid down in the Bill. I am quite aware that certain consequential Amendments will be necessary if this Amendment is accepted. I have not yet put them down on the Paper, until the principle of the Amendment is accepted. I have taken a standard case just as is done by the right honorable Gentleman in his Bill; the standard case I have taken is that of a tenant under a tenancy created under the Act of 1870—that is to say, a tenancy in which a tenant is entitled to get half the cess from his landlord. Taking that as a standard case the Amendment, subject to certain Amendments in clause 38 and in clause 74, will follow the exact procedure adopted in the Bill, and carry out a principle I have asked the House to

  1597
  accept—that the whole of the relief shall go to the tenant and none to the landlord. The right honorable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated that the fiscal arrangements in his Bill are essential to the existence of the Measure. Those arrangements consist of two parts. The first part consists of the transfer of liabilities for all fluctuations in expenditure—for all increases of expenditure—from the shoulders of the landlords, who now pay part of the rates, to the shoulders of the tenants. The second part of the fiscal arrangements is a grant for the relief of the existing burdens. I agree with him that the responsibility for the expenditure ought to be put upon those who have the votes; and, inasmuch as the occupiers in a great measure will have the control of the policy of these public authorities, to my mind it is most reasonable that the responsibility should fall upon those occupiers, or, if they can economies, that the benefit of the economy should fall upon them. My Amendment does not touch that part of the right honorable Gentleman's fiscal arrangements, because all I proposed to touch is a portion of the standard rate. All fluctuations of expenditure will fall upon the tenant under my Amendment, exactly as in the Bill. I have, it is true, in the Amendment, asked the Committee to accept the principle that the deductions should be made from the rent instead of the procedure in the Bill, that the rent should be increased by the amount of the deduction under clause 74; but we will come to that later on. There is a provision for increasing the rent in certain cases to an amount equivalent to the standard rate. I propose to put it on record that the standard rate is in the nature of a rent charge, that it should be stereotyped once for all as an existing burden on the land, and that we should recognize as a fact that land has been bought and sold subject to that burden, and that that burden, whatever it may be, ought to continue settled in amount. I would put it to the Committee that this method—which I suggest has this enormous advantage, that we once and for all get rid of the principle of making the burden on land vary with the expenditure—will open a way to ourselves for making burdens upon land vary with the increase or
  1598
  decrease of the value of land. The poundage should not fluctuate with expenditure, but with the value of land. When we come to the second part of the right honorable Gentleman's fiscal arrangements, the only question we have to consider is, to whom shall the relief under the proposed grant-in-aid go? The right honorable Gentleman the other day made it very clear that he did not consider it desirable that tenants who are now in a great state of distress should be relieved at the public expense in such a manner as to put champagne within their resources. I do not wish to raise controversial matters; I only wish to appeal, in the same way, that he should not pass a Measure which will facilitate the enjoyment of champagne by the landlords. The issue we have to meet is a very simple issue. We have to pay out of the British Exchequer at the expense of the taxpayers a large sum of money. We have to inquire strictly into whose pockets that sum of money shall go. Now that we have agreed that we will pay, shall we pay that money in the relief of the owner's burden on land, or shall we pay it in relief of the tenant's rent? That is the very simple issue—an issue the answer to which I do not think there can be any doubt about. We must not forget that the English Act on which this part of the Bill is based was introduced on the ground of the desirability of relieving agricultural distress. That was the ground—or the occasion, at any rate—of the English Rating Act. The agricultural distress in Ireland we may take to be a permanent factor; it requires relief far more than agricultural distress in England. The persons who are concerned in this distress in Ireland are mainly the tenants and not the landlords. I quits agree that the landlords have suffered in the matter of reduced rents, but their suffering is only a suffering in the reduction of luxuries. That is my view, at any rate. Theirs is, after all, a gilded poverty. We have had evidence over and over again that the suffering of the Irish tenant is such as to lead up to actual starvation. In relieving agricultural distress we ought to see that public money flows without fail directly into the pockets of those who are suffering distress, and are on the point of starvation, and not into the pockets of those whose finances are merely strained, and

  1599
  whose resources for luxuries are not what they have been in the past. One would ask what principle the right honorable Gentleman adopted in his Bill—the system or dividing the relief into two portions, half and half, giving the lion's half to the landlord, what reason is there for that division? He cannot show, upon his own principle that the burdens have fallen in this proportion on the different classes of the community. He has accepted that as a convenient division which will grease the wheels for the Measure in another place. Is that a reason why Members who represent Irish constituencies, and why we, who ought to safeguard the interests of the British taxpayers, should accept it? It is said that the burden on the land is an unfair burden. A burden by any increase of taxation may become an unfair burden, but it does not in the very least prove that the existing burden is unfair. I put it to the right honorable Gentleman that if I bought land last year in Ireland subject to a rate of 3s. 6d. in the pound, I bought it cheaper on account of the existence of this rate. It must appear clear to every honorable Member that, at any rate, so far as the amount of land that has been recently bought is concerned, the burden of the rates does not form a burden on the landowner, inasmuch as he has acquired the property at a reduced price on account of that burden. I would only appeal to honorable Members from Ireland on one other ground. It has been put forward that this Measure is giving to Ireland exactly what the English have got under the Agricultural Rating Act, and that they are, more or less, bound to accept this Measure as it stands as a compromise. It has often been pointed out that this is a righteous and just Measure, because it carries out exactly that which the English Act did. Now, in one very important particular, this Bill does not do what the English Act did. Two years ago it was thought righteous and just by the honorable and learned Member for Stroud to fix the Irish equivalent grant at £150,000. It is now thought righteous and just to fix the equivalent grant at upwards of £700,000. Does he propose to put the Irish on exactly an equal
  1600
  footing by paying them the arrears of the last two years? That is an illustration of the righteousness and justice laid down by the honorable and learned Member for the Stroud Division.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not know if this is relevant to the Amendment.
  MR. MCKENNA: I was dealing with a point raised in the preceding Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is that in order?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: No.
  MR. MCKENNA: I wish to make an appeal to the right honorable Gentleman to lay before us, if he can, clearly and definitely any reason why the Irish landlords, as a class, should receive this money, why it should not be paid wholly and entirely for the benefit of the occupiers of the land, because to those occupiers it is of far greater importance than it is to the landlords? I appeal to him and to honorable Members for Ireland to remember this other point: that, to a very large extent, this money, paid to the landlords out of the British Treasury, goes into British pockets, being largely spent in Great Britain. So far as it is paid to occupiers every penny will go to Ireland, and will be spent in Ireland. If you really and honestly wish to do equal justice as between Great Britain and Ireland, I ask the right honorable Gentleman to accept this Amendment and pay the whole of this money into Irish pockets.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to make an appeal to honorable Members that they will not lend themselves to this waste of time. Irish Members have a practical interest in this Bill, and have some hope that the matters of detail may be successfully dealt with, or they will find the Twelve o'clock Rule suspended, and will be compelled to stay here till two or three in the morning in order that full justice may be done to speeches of the character of that to which we have

  1601
  just listened, delivered for the nineteenth time. We debated this on the First Reading, at the Committee stage, and yesterday, and, in a way, to-day: it is the old game. I, for my part, on other occasions, have taken a considerable part in delivering speeches of that character. But in regard to the Bill everybody agrees that it is desirable to rise on Tuesday next, and as there Is no hope whatever of these speeches having any effect upon that clause you are simply driving us to sit till two or three in the morning, and all through academic speeches such as have just been delivered.
  MR. BROADHURST: I will not venture to occupy the time of the House a moment with regard to this Bill; but it was impossible to sit and listen to the speech which has just been made, which seeks to place the responsibility for the length of the Debate upon my honorable Friend who sits below me, without saying something. Surely, if anyone is responsible for the time occupied in debating this Bill, it is those in charge of it. It is the incapacity of the Government to deal with points of contention. In the last subject debated, after something like an hour and 20 minutes' discussion, they perceived that which any reasonable person could have seen at the commencement: In 10 minutes an ordinary person could have dealt with it. For that the Government was entirely responsible. My honorable Friend below me represents some English taxpayers, and he rises and declares it to be his opinion that if you are taking money out of the pocket of the English laborer to be paid to the people of Ireland it ought to go to the poor section of the people of Ireland, and not to the rich—not to the men who reside in England, in Monte Carlo, or in Venice.
  An HONOURABLE MEMBER: Or in Cromer.
  MR. BROADHURST: Yes, or in Cromer, decidedly. My honorable Friend, as an English Member, is perfectly entitled to make this protest, and English Members are perfectly entitled to support him in making that protest.
  1602
  You are apportioning poor law relief to a special industry. There are two sections engaged in that industry. One is the class that takes most of the profits and does none of the work; the other is the class that gets the least share of the profits, takes all the responsibility, and does all the work. Surely, that is the class that ought to receive this poor law relief, if any class receives it. For it to be said that my honorable Friend has obstructed the Bill, because he makes this claim and supports a sound principle, is a monstrous charge, and I sincerely regret that it has ever been made. If my honorable Friend, after this attack that has been made on him, thinks it proper to take the sense of the Committee—
  An HONOURABLE MEMBER: Certainly.
  MR. BROADHURST: I am delighted to hear it; if he thinks it proper to take the sense of the Committee I shall certainly have great pleasure in supporting him in the Lobby. I may say further, that we, who sit and listen and do our best to support the claims of the needy for assistance, do not think that our support will be facilitated by such attacks. I do not think the progress of the Bill will be facilitated by such a proceeding as this. I certainly had no intention and no desire to assist in prolonging the Debate beyond Tuesday night. You can finish it on Monday night if you like; so far as I am concerned you can have it to-morrow. If delay is caused the charge will be at your own doors Every Member of this House is entitled, by the fact of his election, to take any part he thinks proper in the discussion of any Bill, or any clause of it, or any subject that may be introduced. I sincerely trust my honorable Friend will insist upon his full rights, and that we shall not be beaten out of our rights by such proceedings as these. I hope the Government will not lend itself to this beating down of a man by cheering those who oppose him as they have done. I support my honorable Friend.
  MR. LAMBERT: If there was one thing the Government said when they passed the Rating Act for England it was this: that

  1603
  that relief would go to the tenant. My honourable Friend proposes that this relief should go to the tenant, and now the Government do not venture to answer the necessary argument he has addressed to the Committee. I have always spoken in this House on behalf of the working farmer, whether it is in Ireland or in England, and I shall continue to pursue that course. But to tell us, as English Members, when we vote this money, that we are to have no voice—that we must not speak as to its destination—is a proceeding to which I most strongly object. Even at the risk of offending the honourable Member for Louth, I shall continue to do what I have done in regard to the Rating Act, and support every proposal that will give this money to the tenant. Who are the people who ought to benefit—the Irish nation or the Irish artisans from whom this money will be taken? It is the tenant; it is not the absentee landlord who lives in England or elsewhere. We have the additional argument that we are going to relieve the landlords of the whole of any future increase of rate. If all the future increase of rate falls upon the tenant, why should not the relief go to the tenant, in Older that he might better bear that increase of rating which must fall on him? If the Local Government Act is to be a success in Ireland—and I defy them to apply local government properly unless they spend money—that rate will fall upon the tenant, and that money should be given to the tenant in order to enable him to pay the rates. In the arguments used by the honorable Member for Stroud he said that the Land Act of 1881 had kept up rents in Ireland. If it has kept up rents it is all the more reason why tenants should receive relief rather than the landlords, who have their rents kept up by the Land Act. Another point I think is most important to this Amendment. We in this country were told that the Eating Act of 1896 was a rating reform—that it rated land at half. We know that; but in Ireland you are going to introduce that reform, and you have 22,000 fanners in Ireland, farming over a hundred a year and they will have to bear any increased expenditure that falls upon them through any extravagance that may take place through the action
  1604
  of these county councils and district councils. That being so, these large Irish tenants, for whom the Government seem to have no consideration whatever—though they are entitled to as large consideration as the rich landlords—will bear an increase in the rate. Therefore they are more entitled to this grant, which it is endeavoured to put into their pockets by the Amendment of my honourable Friend, which I certainly shall support.
  MR. MENDL: I beg to protest most emphatically against the conspiracy of silence between the Government and certain of the Irish Members on this Amendment. The only speech made in reply has been that of the honourable Member for Louth. The leadership of the honourable and learned Member for Louth may be satisfactory to honourable Members on that side of the House, but it is not satisfactory to us This is a question which concerns us who represent British constituencies, and we desire it threshed out at this stage. We have had argument after argument put before the Committee, and there has not been any answer from the Chief Secretary or any Member of the Government. That being so, unless the right honourable Gentleman replies, I think it is the duty of some of us on this side of the House to move to report Progress. I will do it if nobody else will. I beg to move that Progress be reported.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I decline to accept it.
  MR. LLOYD - GEORGE: I am surprised at the attitude of the Government with respect to honourable Members on this side of the House. My honourable Friend very fairly criticised the action of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I do complain of his attempt to monopolise the right of discussion to one side of the House. Whenever any Member on this side of the House, who does not happen to agree with the Chief Secretary, ventures to make suggestions to the Government, the right honourable Gentleman says he is trifling with the time of the House, and the Government cannot take any

  1605
  notice of his proposal. For one, I protest most strongly against that attitude. When an Amendment was made on the Agricultural Rating Bill for England and Wales, an answer was given by the Member of the Government in charge of that Bill, and I will say this for the President of the Local Government Board on that occasion, that he treated Members on this side of the House with proper respect. Will the Chief Secretary for Ireland lay down the proposition that no one is entitled to make any observations on this Bill unless he happens to be an Irish Member? We have taken no part in the Debate at all so far as it relates to the machinery of local government in Ireland. We have left that entirely to Irish Members, not because we have no right to enter into the discussion of local subjects, but because we fully recognised that that was a matter with which Irish Members were more conversant than we were We have not, therefore, so far taken any part in the discussion of this Bill. We have not discussed it, and I will ask honourable Members sitting on the other side of the House if they seriously countenance the charge Thought against us by the honourable Member for Louth that we have at all obstructed this Bill even with regard to its financial clauses. In the course of two or three hours to-night we have already gone through two or three pages dealing with the grant of £750,000, and anyone conversant with the practice of obstruction in this House must have come to the conclusion that, however impotent the Liberal Party may have been to criticise the action of the Government in other matters, it has not been due to the fact that we are not able to keep up a discussion for two or three hours. I therefore say that we ought to have some answer from the Government. They are perfectly willing to depute the defence of their action in this matter to the Member for Louth. Very well; then what is the complaint of the honourable Member for Louth against this proposal? The proposal is that the money once voted should go into the pockets of the Irish tenants and not of the Irish landlords; and what is the answer made to that proposition? The only answer is that we want to rise on Tuesday next. Our action has been called contemptible
  1606
  waste of time; but surely, if there is any argument which is contemptible, it is such an argument as that because we want to rise on Tuesday next we are to vote £750,000 a year permanently out of the revenue of this country to go into the pockets of the Irish landlords. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland is prepared to go to a Division on that, and to rest the whole case for this permanent charge on the Treasury of this country on a defence of that character, I for one shall be perfectly satisfied.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I have not troubled the House or the Committee with any remarks at any previous stage of this Bill, and I should not have ventured to rise now except that I wish to say that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government—supported as it is by a certain section of the Irish Members opposite—is most unfair to those who sit on this side of the House and oppose this portion of the Bill. Now, in my view, at all events, and that of many other Members in this House, the portion of the clause we are now dealing with is the crucial part of the Bill, and the only clause this side of the House cares anything about. When once you have this part of the Bill settled, you may, if you like, take the whole Bill to-morrow or the next day. I say this is the crucial portion of the Bill. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary told us the other day that the money to be paid to the landlords was what he called a fiscal safeguard which was necessary to the introduction of local self-government for Ireland; and he told us that this fiscal safeguard was associated with the grant of local self-government to Ireland. That is the sum and substance of the only answer he gave when a similar question to that now before the Committee was raised on a previous occasion in this House. But why is the grant of money to the landlords being made an essential part of the question of local self-government for Ireland? The right honourable Gentleman has not explained it; he has not defended it. He is bound to explain and defend it. He is bound to tell us; but, in my hearing, he has not told us as yet why it is that this grant of money to

  1607
  the Irish landlords is an essential part of the question of local self-government for Ireland. Now, Sir, this is the chief Bill of the Session, I suppose there is no denying that. And this, in our opinion, is the most important portion of the Bill. And yet we have the extraordinary situation that the Minister in charge of the Bill has not even deigned to concede the usual and invariable courtesy of Members in charge of Bills by answering the reasonable expressions of objections uttered from this side of the House on the subject. Sir, I think that is the most extraordinary position I have ever known any Government to take up, and it will accentuate and deepen the disgust with which this proposal is being received all over the country. That was what the right honourable Gentleman Said the other day, and since then, on the recent occasions that this very proposal has been before the country, the country, so far as it has been consulted, has given no uncertain voice; and I say that the refusal of the Government now to explain what is meant by this proposition is deepening the feeling of dissatisfaction and disgust which exists in the country.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Sir, it would be interesting to know whether the honourable and learned Gentleman who has just spoken expresses the opinions of those who sit on the Front Bench opposite. The honourable and learned Gentleman did not, I think, hold in the late Government the position of a Cabinet Minister, and, so far as I am aware, not a single gentleman sitting on that bench, who was in the position of a Cabinet Minister, has got up and disputed. or opposed the Central principle of this Bill—not one. I should like to know, for instance, whether the honourable and learned Member for Dundee represents the views of the Leader of the Opposition; I should like to know whether he represents the views of the right honourable Member for Montrose. No, Sir, the honourable and learned Gentleman speaks from that Front Opposition Bench, but he only represents a handful of Members of this House. It is useless, Sir, for the honourable Member to try to suggest that this part of the Bill is opposed by the honourable and right honourable Gentlemen
  1608
  with whom he generally acts; and it should be clearly understood that that is not the case. The opposition to the financial part of this Bill does not come from the responsible Leaders of the Opposition. If it does come from the responsible Leaders or the Opposition, why are they not here? Sir, the question raised by this Amendment is in all essentials one which has been raised many times over. The only difference is this: that the honourable Member who moved this Amendment, as I will show in a very few words, has raised it in a peculiarly absurd form. What is it that the honourable Member suggests? He suggests that the occupier shall be entitled to deduct from the rent air amount in the pound equal to one-half the poor rate and county cess for the financial year. What is it that the Government are doing? The Government Propose to relieve agricultural land of one-half the poor rate and one-half the county cess, and then the honourable Member actually puts on the Paper a proposition for deducting from the rent due to the landlord the other half. What it comes to is this: that at the very moment when the Government are proposing to throw the power in all matters of local administration into the hands of the occupier, the honourable Member takes this moment to propose not only to relieve him of part of the cess, as we propose, but of the rates.
  MR. MCKENNA: The right honourable Gentleman is most extraordinarily unfair Sir, my Amendment comes in after the beginning of the clause by which the rates are for the first time put upon the occupier. I accept those words, and it is only as a proviso to that new provision which throws upon the occupier a burden he had not borne before that I wish to allow him to deduct the whole amount from the rent. That, under proper conditions, is in accordance with the provisions adopted by the right honourable Gentleman himself in clause 74. The right honourable Gentleman is wrong when he says that this proposal is almost identical with one that has been before the House or the Committee on a previous occasion. It has never been before the House, and it has never been before the Committee. Every preceding

  1609
  proposition we have had has been to reduce the amount of the grant from the British Exchequer by one-half, and I do appeal to the Committee to see that the money paid by British taxpayers should be used to relieve the distress of the tenants, and not go into the pockets of the landlords.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Sir, I have attended the sittings of this Committee pretty regularly from the first, but I have not up to this moment taken any part in the discussion. I do desire, however, before we go to a Division, to enter a word of protest against the conduct of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and against the remarks of my honourable Friend behind me, with whom on most matters we are delighted to agree. Sir, a great deal of the time of the Committee might have been saved if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary had condescended to get up to reply to my honourable Friend below me, who made a most excellent speech in favour of his proposal, and it is now clearly established to the Committee, first of all, that this is not an Amendment which has been properly discussed before; and, next, that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has not taken the trouble to appreciate the Amendment. Now, Sir, I protest against the doctrine apparently held by the right honourable Gentleman that we upon this side of the House, especially if we happen to sit below what is called the Gangway, however reasonable are the speeches we may make, or however reasonable are the proposals underlying our Amendments, are not even to have the condescension of a reply unless some right honourable Gentleman on the Front Bench on this side of the House asks for it. Now, Sir, we believe very strongly in our Leaders, both ex-Cabinet Ministers and ex-Ministers who have not been in the Cabinet. But the doctrine propounded almost for the first time to-night by the right honourable Gentleman is that unless you are an ex-Minister you are not entitled to a reply at all; and, indeed, it is very doubtful whether you are entitled to a reply unless you are an ex-Cabinet Minister.
  1610
  Well, Sir, I have never obstructed business in this House, and I am not going to discuss this Amendment now, because it has been replied to by the right honourable Gentleman. But I should advise him, in the interests of this Bill, not to accept as a leader my honourable and learned Friend behind me; and I would also advise my honourable and learned Friend behind me not to arrogate to himself the Leadership, not only of the Government, but of this House, in this matter, if he wants this Bill to be carried through. He had better allow English Members and other Members from the United Kingdom, who are vitally interested in this matter, and whose constituents are vitally interested in it, without any lecturing on his part, to take a reasonable part in these discussions.
  MR. LOGAN: Sir, I do not intend to speak very long, but I do wish to enter my protest against being lectured by the honourable and learned Member for Louth, because, having conscientiously taken an objection to this money being paid under this Bill into the pockets of the Irish landlords, we have raised a protest. I listened to the speech of the honourable Member for Louth, and his anxiety to close this discussion at once led me to believe that he was rather afraid of what the result of the discussion might be. I think there is a great deal of truth in my impression, because I feel sure that the honourable Member's supporters in Ireland will fail to understand his action in this matter. What is the proposal before the Committee? The proposal before the Committee is, Sir, that this large sum of money, which is to be found principally, not only by the poor people in England and in Scotland and in Wales, but also by the poor people in Ireland, who wilt have to pay their share of it—that this money which is to be found, as I say, by the poorest portions of the community in England and Ireland, because the poorer a man is in these countries the larger is the share of the taxation he pays in proportion to his income—is to be paid over direct to the landlords of Ireland. My honourable Friend the mover of this Amendment simply asks

  1611
  that the money proposed to be given to the landlords should be paid to the poorest people in the world, the Irish peasantry. I need only say this, that, after the few years that I have been in this House, I am certain that I am not exaggerating when I say that honourable Members opposite, whenever they held as strong objections as we do to the proposition before the Committee, would not have been satisfied with making one or two speeches as we have done, but would have kept this Committee sitting for days and days whilst they were protesting against what they considered to be unjust. Speaking for myself, I believe this to be one of the most unjust proposals ever made in the British House of Commons. If I followed the example set us over and over again to-night by right honourable Gentlemen and by honourable Gentlemen opposite, I should take up the time of the Committee in explaining the kind of people to whom this money is to be given. Who is answerable for the condition of Ireland? The Irish landlord. And what does this clause propose to do, Sir? It proposes to shift from the shoulders of the Irish landlords the first charge upon any land which is for the maintenance of the poor people. If there is any such charge, it should be maintained for ever upon the land. It is that charge which provides for the maintenance of the poor people; and, Sir, I am speaking now on behalf of the poorest community in the world, the Irish peasantry. That they are in the condition in which they are at the present moment is largely due to the landlords of Ireland. The fact is written
  large and plain upon the history of this country. They have depopulated the country, until to-day it can be said of Ireland, what cannot be said of any other country in the civilised world—namely, that the population has greatly decreased and is decreasing. "France!;" says an honourable Member, but in France the population is stationary, because the people are well-to-do. But, Sir, the condition of Ireland is a disgrace to this country. The Irish landlords are mainly responsible for that, and it is on that account that I for one shall protest to the end against this money being paid over to them. The Amendment of my honourable Friend suggests that if this money is to be sent to Ireland it should be sent to relieve the necessities of the poorest people there. Sir, in the name of the poor people who have sent me here, who will contribute a much larger share in proportion to their income than the share of the honourable Member on the other side who interrupts me—on behalf of those poor people I protest against either the Government or the Irish Members suggesting that we have no right in this House to protest against this iniquitous squandering of the taxpayers' money in this country, and loading the shoulders of the poorest people in this country with taxation which, in days to come, they will find it exceedingly difficult to bear.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 251.—(Division List No. 103.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Arnold, Alfred

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Butcher, John George

  Ascroft, Robert

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

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Carew, James Laurence

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bethell, Commander

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

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

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

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

  Bowles, Major H. F. (Mdsx.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Banbury, Frederick George

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

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Brassey, Albert

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

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)

  Bucknill, Thos Townsend

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Heaton, John Henniker

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henderson, Alexander

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

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

  Pender, James

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Collery, Bernard

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Houston, R. P.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Commins, Andrew

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cox, Robert

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kemp, George

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Currie, Sir Donald

  Kimber, Henry

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

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Knowles, Lees

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Rutherford, John

  Daly, James

  Lafone, Alfred

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. James

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Drage, Geoffrey

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

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

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

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Spencer, Ernest

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Lowles, John

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'T.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Strauss, Arthur

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  FitzWygram, Gen. Sir F.

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Flannery, Fortescue

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Folkestone, Viscount

  McKillop, James

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Forster, Henry William

  Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

  Usborne, Thomas

  Fry, Lewis

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gedge, Sydney

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Waring, Col. Thomas

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Warkworth, Lord

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Godson, Augustus Frederick

  Milward, Colonel Victor

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

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Monckton, Edward Philip

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Monk, Charles James

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

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

  More, Robert Jasper

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mount, William George

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

  Gretton, John

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Murnaghan, George

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

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

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

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Wyndham, George

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Myers, William Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sir William Walrond and

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

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  1614

  1615

  NOES.

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

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Price, Robert John

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Billson, Alfred

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kitson, Sir James

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Brigg, John

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Burt, Thomas

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Steadman, William Charles

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Strachey, Edward

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Colville, John

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Logan, John William

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Crombie, John William

  Lough, Thomas

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  McLaren, Charles Benjamin

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Doughty, George

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Maden, John Henry

  Ellis, T. E. (Merionethsh.)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Woodall, William

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

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'ld)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Woods, Samuel

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Moss, Samuel

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. C. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gold, Charles

  Owen, Thomas

  Mr. McKenna and Mr.

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Broadhurst.

  Holburn, J. G.

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 25, after 'rate,' insert—
  "Except so much thereof as is raised as a separate item in respect of the excluded charges hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. Hemphill.)
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Mr. Lowther, the Amendment which I now beg to move appears to me to be a very important one. It involves a different principle from that on which the Committee has just divided, and I may at once say that in moving this Amendment I speak only for myself. I was not a Cabinet Minister in the late Government, and I do not understand that there is in this House any distinction between Cabinet Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must ask the honourable Member to confine himself to the Amendment.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I was just coming back to the point. If my Amendment is agreed to the clause will read—
  "The occupier of a hereditament shall not be entitled to deduct from his rent any part of the poor rate, except so much there of as is raised as a separate item in respect of the
  1616
  excluded charges hereinafter mentioned, and any contract to the contrary respecting such deduction shall be void," etc.
  Now that, of course, does not at all trench on the principle which the Committee have adopted. They have adopted this principle, that the tenant is not entitled to deduct any portion of the rate in respect of such of that rate on the agricultural land as in covered by the agricultural grant in this Bill; but you are aware, Mr. Lowther, that under Section 40 there are a very great number of charges excluded, which will not be covered at all by the agricultural grant. Those charges are the expenses in relation to additional constabulary, which in some counties amounts to a very serious sum. A large grant is made from the Consolidated Fund to pay for the constabulary of Ireland generally; but where in certain counties, from the condition of the counties, additional constabulary is necessary beyond a certain limit, that is provided for out of the county rate, but is not covered by the agricultural grant. Another charge not covered by the agricultural grant is compensation for criminal injuries—for all the malicious injuries to property, such as the burning of haystacks, houses, etc.,

  1617
  that may occur in bad times in various parts of the country, and will, no doubt, amount to a very heavy item. Besides, that, in section 41, the Bill provides that in estimating the sums raised by poor rate and county cess, and in estimating the standard rate the Local Government Board, on the Report of the Commissioner of Valuation, shall exclude such amount as they determine is to be taken as having been raised during the standard financial year for the purpose of any railway, tramway, harbour, pier, quay, or for any charge in connection with any work under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880, or any navigation or public health charge. Now the amount so excluded will come to a very considerable sum, and will be in no way covered by the agricultural grant. The tenant will, unless my Amendment is carried, have to pay the whole of the burden in respect of these excluded charges. That is the way I read the clause. It says—
  "The poor rate shall be made upon the occupier, and not the landlord of a hereditament … The occupier of a hereditament shall not be entitled to deduct from his rent any part of the poor rate."
  The poor rate covers these excluded charges as well as the other charges, and I should like to know on what principle the old law, under which the rate was borne hand in hand by the landlord and the tenant, is not allowed to continue. Putting the burden entirely upon the tenant will, in my opinion, lead to such a state of things that I confess I approach this Bill with fear and trembling, because I apprehend that the increased burden which the struggling ratepayer of Ireland will have to bear as the general effect of this Bill, and more particularly of this clause, will be far greater and far heavier than any Member of this Committee appears to me to have at all realised. I beg to move my Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Mr. Lowther, I think there are two matters which have escaped the notice of the honourable Member. The first is that most of these charges are borne by the tenants already, and the second is that, so far as existing tenancies are concerned, section 74, sub-section (a), provides that—
  "Where the occupier is entitled to deduct from his rent one-half of the county cess, the rent shall be reduced by half the appropriate standard amount."
  1618
  If he will turn to page 46 of the Bill, section 74, he will see that the clause provides that—
  "An occupier of any holding under an existing tenancy shall, until the tenancy is determined, or a new statutory term in the tenancy begins, be entitled, notwithstanding any provision of this Act, to deduct from his rent the like proportion of any sum paid by him for poor rate, on account of any railway, harbour, navigation, or public health charge, as he would have been entitled to deduct from his rent on account of any cess or rate to meet the charge, if the provisions of this Act with reference to the deduction of poor rate from his rent had not been enacted, and in the case of existing charges as if the charge had continued to be raised by the same cess or rate as previously."
  Until the tenancy is determined, therefore, and a new rent fixed, the tenant is not affected. As regards rent fixed in the future there is a provision in section 41, sub-section 3, to the following effect—
  "The provisions of this Act, with reference to the fixing of fair rents, shall not apply in the case of any item of the poor rate under this section."
  In other words, although the tenant will have to pay the poor rate raised under that section, the amount he will have to pay has to be taken into consideration by the Land Commission in fixing the rent.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived without a Division.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 28, at end, add—
  "Provided that this section shall not apply to any city, borough, or town as defined in this Act."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. DILLONsaid the Amendment had for its object to secure that the change in the incidence of rating proposed by the clause—namely, that the entire burden of the poor rate should be borne by the occupier—should be confined to rural districts and not applied to any city, borough, or town. It was the custom in the towns and cities of Ireland for half the rates to be paid by the landlord; but if the Bill passed in its

  1619
  present form, the whole of the burden of any increase of the rates would fall upon the occupier, in spite of the fact that that was not a condition of his contract of tenancy. That was his first complaint, and he could not understand how the Government could defend that provision of the Bill. In addition to that, he strongly objected to the Government using this Bill for the purpose of overturning and completely revolutionising the whole system of rating in towns in Ireland, and especially at a time when a Royal Commission was sitting to investigate the question of rating. He was strongly opposed to the system of throwing the whole of the burden of the rates on the occupier. The incidence of rating should be left as at present until the Royal Commission had reported.
  SIR C. DILKE: Some of us had intended on the clause to raise the question which has been raised by the honourable Member on this Amendment. But, Sir, as the honourable Member has stated, it may be more convenient to mention it on the Amendment than on the clause itself. The clause gives up for the first time the principle of the division of rates in Ireland between owner and occupier. It has been the policy not only of the Liberal Party for as long as I can remember, but also of the Conservative Party, as I understand it, on several occasions to look forward to the day when the rates in England would be divided between owners and occupiers. On one occasion, when I made that statement in the House on behalf of the Liberal Party, it was accepted by the Conservative Party, who stated that, although the manner in which it was carried out would have to be very carefully watched, they saw no objection to the general principle of the division of rates. It exists in Scotland in some degree; it exists in Ireland in a different degree; but it does not exist in England. I am quite sure that the right honourable Gentleman who has charge of this Bill must know that the policy of the Local Government Board, under both Parties an the State, has always been in favour of the principle of the division of
  1620
  rates in England, but in this clause we are giving up that principle. We cannot look upon this as an Irish question only. We are, I am afraid, parting with the chance in the future of dividing the rate in England between owner and occupier. This is not a matter which ought to pass without notice or remark in this House, especially when so great a change is being proposed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I illustrate the hardship which, this clause will bring about by giving my own case? I have a modest house in Dublin, the whole of the rates of which I contracted with the landlord that he should pay. The custom, so far as Dublin is concerned, is that the interior of the house should be maintained by the tenant, and the exterior by the landlord; but, in return for the landlord paying the whole of the rates, I undertook to keep up and maintain not only the interior but the exterior of the house. If this clause passes the landlord will be no longer bound to pay the entire rates, but I shall be compelled by my lease to repair the exterior as well as the interior of the house. What do I get in return? Absolutely nothing. There, for the first time, there is a Violent invasion of non-agricultural contracts, and the invasion is without any pretence of necessity. I understand that many honourable Members of the Government, including Lord Salisbury, are owners of house property in London. I put the question to them, either in their capacity of landlords or of tenants, "How would they like it if Parliament stepped in and made a provision in regard to rates such as is here proposed?" What makes this matter the more serious is the mysterious and mystic way in which this thing is done by clause 74 of the Bill. I venture to say there is not a layman in this House, and not half-a-dozen lawyers, who would understand clause 74, so mysteriously has the draftsman wrapped it up. It really is an attempt, if I may use a vulgar expression, to "blindfold the devil in the dark." Here is clause 74, sub-section 3, and I put it to any man in this House if it has any meaning—
  "A person entitled, whether by law or contract, to deduct a sum from his rent, shall be deemed entitled to deduct within the meaning

  1621
  of this section; and where a person under the law existing at the time of his contract of tenancy, or under his contract of tenancy, is not liable to any cess or rate, he shall be in the same position under this section as if he were entitled to deduct the whole of that cess or rate from his rent."
  It is playing with us, it is playing with legislation, to bring in a proviso, and pretend that, of the 670 Members of Parliament, anybody can understand it, except two or three Members of the Government Front Bench, and two or three others. How can the effect of this section be ascertained? By turning to section 2, which says that—
  "Where the occupier is entitled to deduct from his rent a sum less than one-half of the county cess or of the poor rate, as the case may be, the foregoing provisions shall apply, with the exception that a sum, bearing such proportion to half the appropriate standard amount as the amount he was entitled to deduct bore to half the county cess or poor rate, shall be substituted for a sum equal to half the appropriate standard amount."
  Consequently, when you come to sub-section 3, you must read it in this way—
  "A person entitled, whether by law or contract, to deduct a sum from his rent, shall be entitled to deduct, not within the meaning of this section, but half the standard amount."
  When we assented to the Government's proposal, we assented to it only as regards agricultural land; we made no condition that we should be bound in the case of town houses, because we were dealing with conditions which had relation to agricultural land only. The answer to us is that the Government is reducing the franchise in the city of Dublin. Yes; but I passed a Bill in this House, five years ago, reducing the franchise all over Ireland, and is it not monstrous that the Government should bring in a Bill, and, with regard to Dublin and some other cities, say, "Oh, in regard to these cities, we will make this vital change in the incidence of taxation also"? But the Government have another answer. They say, "It is true you will be liable, but only if the rates go up: if the rates go down, you will be entitled to deduct from rent the appropriate standard amount." Really, it is foolish to give an answer like that when everybody knows the rates have increased, and will increase. To give us
  1622
  that cold comfort is only trifling with the time of this House. I am glad we have had in this matter the support of the honourable Member for the Forest of Dean. Our compact with the Government was solely confined to agricultural land: we made no suggestion, express or implied, with regard to tenancies in towns, and I repeat it is monstrous that we should be asked to pay this pries for an extension of the franchise.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The proposal of the Bill is one which, I admit, requires careful consideration by the Committee. The honourable Member for Louth has referred to what he called an agreement come to as regards the incidence of rates in agricultural districts not applying to towns, but the object of the Government in introducing these provisions has been simply to give to towns all over Ireland a very wide and extended franchise, and we considered that it was desirable to provide in the circumstances some kind of safeguard that the rates should not be unduly run up by the new electors.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Deny and Belfast have the franchise.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes; but if we studied every peculiarity of every locality it would be impossible to arrive alt the general principles of the Bill The course we have adopted seemed to us preferable to introducing the principle of minority representation; but when the tenancy has come to an end, and a new contract entered into, there will be no very serious hardship, as the tenant will be allowed a reduction which will depend upon the rate of the standard year.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to know why the ground landlords of Dublin should be more protected than the ground landlords of London? The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary appears to think that, because trouble exists in the rural districts of Ireland, he is entitled to give some protection to the landlords of house property in Dublin, Cork, and other cities, which he never dreams of extending to landlords similarly situated in English towns. But

  1623
  there is a stronger argument; for, in spite of the obstruction of the House of Lords, the franchise was lowered in Deny and Belfast; and these cities at present enjoy the same franchise, practically speaking, that you are now giving to all other districts in Ireland. I do not admit the proposition of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that there is no mischief done where tenancies expire and new contracts are entered into, because you are setting free the landlords from all liability. In this, I think you are doing a great wrong. They ought to bear a fair share of liability—I should say the whole of the expense which, in, a great measure, is really for the permanent improvement of their property. It is a monstrous proposition that any increase on the rates should, in these circumstances, be thrown upon the shoulders of the occupiers during the currency of the tenancy. When we see the landlord being thus set free from the burden he has contracted to bear, we recognise that we are face to face with a monstrous injustice for which there has been not a single shred of reason given by the Government.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I should like to point out that we have division of rates in Scotland. This principle was Introduced by the present Conservative Government, and was agreed to by the Liberal party. But here we are sweeping away the whole principle—
  MR. DILLON: For no reason.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: For no reason, so far as the towns are concerned. I appeal to the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, to reconsider the proposals of the Government, and to retain some shred of the principle of the division of rates in Ireland in order that we may some day have the opportunity of applying it to England. The reason given by the Government for their proposal seems to me to be no reason at all.
  MR. FLYNN: I should like to point out that the first sub-section of this clause excludes the very people from whom the increase of rates is supposed to come. The first sub-section of clause 37 says—
  "The poor rate shall be made upon the occupier, and not the landlord of a hereditament,
  1624
  except where under section four of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1843, it is made on the landlord as the immediate lessor of a house let in separate apartments or lodgings."
  Of course it is those who have separate apartments and lodgings who will form the bulk of the new franchise. The proposal of the Government is not only reactionary and indefensible, but it is absurd, and we ought to have some more reasonable explanation from the Government than has yet been given.
  MR. JAMES CALDWELL: I desire to remind the First Lord of the Treasury of the discussion which took place upon the English Rating Bill, when the question of the division of rates was raised. On that occasion the question of the equal division of rates was raised, and the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said the principle was accepted, and there was no dispute regarding it. The Debate did not take any lengthened form in consequence of that declaration of the First Lord of the Treasury. The First Lord of the Treasury is, no doubt, aware that the whole tendency of modern legislation, whether by Liberal Government or Conservative Government, has been in recognition of the principle of equal division of ratings. I do not know how far the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will feel justified in proceeding in this matter, but I think we have shown sufficient reason why this question should be seriously considered before the Report stage is reached.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would appeal to the Government for some answer to the questions we have raised. For the sake of three or four towns, in regard to the extension of whose franchise there is absolutely no controversy, the whole of the law as between landlord and tenant, is to be broken up. This is an anti-Conservative and revolutionary proposal, and it will come home to roost against the Conservative Party; it is, indeed, so revolutionary as to be absolutely unintelligible. It cannot be defended at all. Belfast and Deny have the franchise, and why should the citizens of these two town have contract protection because the franchise is being extended to the

  1625
  rest of Ireland? This is not a Party or sectional matter, and yet the Government are rudely closing the door against us in this way. We are not blaming the Government. There were various courses open to them, and they have considered the question under various aspects, some of which were not present to our mind. But when we point out objections to them the least we can expect is that our arguments should receive some attention.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I should not hesitate to accept the suggestion thrown out by the honourable Member for Louth to consider this question between now and the Report stage, if it were not that this kind of pledge is rather apt to be pressed too far. I quite admit that this is a difficult point. The argument of Scotland has been brought forward by several other honourable Members, and the honourable Member for Mid Lanark has referred to a speech of mine on that point. I do not remember the speech myself, but, of course, the whole framework of the Bill indicates that in several aspects we do not consider the case of Ireland precisely parallel to that of Scotland; and, therefore, I do not think the analogy of Scotland ought to be pressed too far. We shall give this matter our serious consideration, but I hope that pledge will not be unduly stretched should it unfortunately turn out that, in our judgment, our first thoughts were, after all, our best thoughts.
  MR. DILLON: After the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury I am disposed to withdraw the Amendment. I do not think we ought, without sufficient reason, to be called upon to give up our old custom of dividing the rates between the owner and the occupier. That is a principle to which I am very much attached, and, therefore, I wish the First Lord of the Treasury to keep that in mind when considering the Question. I am not prepared to go to a Division, seeing that the First Lord of the Treasury has promised to give the matter careful consideration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Upon the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,
  Amendment proposed—
  "To omit the whole of clause 37."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I propose now to move the omission of the whole of this clause, and I shall do my very utmost to steer clear of the discussions that we have already had upon the question of finance, and confine myself to the proposals embodied in this particular clause. I admit that it is rather difficult to do so because it is so much interwoven with things which have preceded it. But, as I understand the present law, it is different in this clause to the law in England, but there is a similar law in Scotland. The poor rate, as I understand it in Ireland, is—
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg leave to call your attention, Mr. Lowther, to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
  [After a count, 40 Members being present, the honourable Member resumed.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: When I was interrupted I was saying that, as I understand the Poor Law in Ireland, the tenant pays only half and the landlord pays the other half. With regard to county cess, as I understand it, the whole of it is paid by the tenant. Now, it is proposed by this Bill to alter this, and it will be a revolution in two or three respects. The first alteration is this: that the half, gauged upon the basis of what is known as the standard year, is to be borne by the State. Not only this, but any increase for the future in the poor rate is to be borne exclusively by the tenant. Now those are two very revolutionary proposals, and I think we are entitled to call attention to them because the money is to be found out of Imperial sources, and I think, therefore, that we are at any rate entitled to say that we are no parties to any bargain of that kind. That is how the Bill proposes to deal with the matter. There is a third proposal in the Bill, which I think is a very extraordinary one. It proposes not merely that the whole of the present burden of the poor

  1627
  rate borne by the landlord shall in future be discharged by the State, it not only proposes that in future increases in the poor rate shall be borne by the tenant, but it goes to the extent of providing that in any contract altering the present arrangement between landlord and tenant, the landlord is to be treated as a person who requires protection at the hand of the State. Hitherto the tenant is not to be a free agent. Now, that is a complete change. It is a new principle introduced into this clause which is not embodied in any legislation introduced in this House either by a Conservative or a Liberal Government. This law says that no contract which the landlord enters into with his tenant—although it may form part of an equitable bargain—no contract of that kind is to be treated as valid. Now these are three very important changes in the law, and I think we are entitled to raise some objection to them on these grounds: In the first place, Mr. Lowther, because it is a breach of the principle laid down by the Government of identity of treatment. Now, we have heard a good deal about identity of treatment. That is a point which the Chief Secretary has, time after time, defended, but I observe in the criticisms on these financial proposals the principle of identity of treatment has gradually broken down. I am glad that my honourable Friend opposite is agreed upon that point, because it is really a very important point. It has broken down completely in regard to a very important matter which I simply alluded to in order to show how the Government have departed from the principle of identity of treatment. It has broken down with regard to the permanency of the grant which has tainted the whole of the operation of the Act. Now, with regard to this particular clause, it has broken down in two or three very material respects. With regard to Scotland, there all the rates are supposed to be divided between the landlord and the tenant. In Scotland, if the rates were paid by the State, and there was any increase for the future in the rateability of a district, or in the rating of a district, it was to be borne equally between the landlord and the tenant. Both had an equal share in the administration, and equal responsi-
  1628
  bility in the increase or decrease of the rates. Consequently the Government very naturally and reasonably said "if there is going to be an increase in the rates you must divide the responsibility, as you are jointly responsible. Therefore, we offer no inducements to any class to encourage the community to incur reckless and needless expenditure." That is a perfectly fair proposal. There was no class legislation as far as that was concerned, but it was holding the balance even between one class and another. What is the case in England? Why, the whole burden of the poor rate is borne by the occupier, nominally and ostensibly, as the President of the Local Government Board reminded us some years ago, when he had to support a proposal rather different to this in this House. He said that the ultimate burden of the poor rate falls upon the shoulders of the landlord. That is no doubt true in the long run, but, still, whether it falls upon the shoulders of the landlord or tenant, or, to some extent, falls pretty evenly upon both, at any rate, the Government did not propose to make any justification as far as the future was concerned, as far as the operation of the agricultural grant in England was concerned. If there was an increase, whoever the burden ultimately fell upon, the increase would fall upon those shoulders, and upon those shoulders alone. There was no attempt to discriminate between landlord and tenant, and so, if you increase the burden of the rates, the burden must fall upon one class, and one class alone. We go to Ireland, and for the first time in the history of rating, and in the history of finance, you have a proposal to discriminate between two classes, which also says that in future the whole burden of a particular rate shall fall upon the shoulders of one particular class, and one particular class of the community is to be exempt for ever from that burden. Now I question the right honourable and learned Gentleman, who, I assume, is in charge of this clause, whether he can point out a single precedent for any proposal of this character in the past; and if not, whether he can defend it upon its merits. There is one class which the Government propose to say to, as far as one rate is

  1629
  concerned—a very necessary and a very just rate, a very equitable and a very beneficial rate, which everybody capable of bearing ought, as a matter of duty, to take their share in paying, and I think it ought to be their honest pride to contribute towards the support of the poor of the community—the Government propose to say to the landlords "For the future we will not allow you to bear any portion of the burden of the maintenance of the poor." Not merely do they say this, but should there be any well-disposed landlord in any part of Ireland who would like to contribute his fair share for the future, if the rates go up, if he says "I prefer to bear my share," the Government say "We shall not allow you to do it." Was there ever such a monstrous proposal introduced into this House as that which is proposed to be embodied in this clause? Why should this special exemption be made in favour of one particular class, and why should the House of Commons go out of its way to protect itself against its own generosity, and against any deviation from the path of justice and liberality into which it may be diverted in the future? Why should the House of Commons do that? Do the landlords desire this at our hands? Now, I do not wish to say anything severe about the landlords in Ireland. Everybody knows perfectly well that whatever their sins may have been in the past they have very patiently borne their iniquities during the last 20 years, and those who have rack-rented the Irish tenants have been punished very severely during the last 50 years. Well, this is the first time I have ever attempted to defend the Irish landlords, and I do not receive much encouragement from my friends behind me to repeat the effort. I think they were encouraged, because it is rather pertinent to the issues which you propose to bring before the House. They were encouraged undoubtedly by the high rent in Ireland, and to reckless expenditure. They mortgaged their estates upon the assumption that there would be a fair margin, and they found rack-renting encouraged them to make these charges. Had they not done so they would not have charged their estates, because they would have provided for a certain mortgage
  1630
  whether the rents were just or unjust. But when the Land Acts came the margins were swept away and the landlords were left in a state of poverty and distress. Undoubtedly, whatever their sins may have been in the past, a good many of them have suffered severely. Therefore it is that I say I do not wish to enter into anything in the nature of a diatribe against the Irish landlords. But I think there is no man in this House who will not admit that, to a very large extent, the poverty and distress of Ireland has been attributable to the landlords of that country—the absentee landlord, the rack-renting landlord. I know perfectly well that there are good landlords there, but the poverty which exists in certain parts of Ireland is due to the policy which the landlords have pursued in the past with regard to their tenantry. Is there a single class in Ireland whom the Committee would point out as a source of Irish poverty more than the Irish landlords; is there a class more responsible than the Irish landlords for the policy which has been pursued?
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Yes, the public!
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think that I will quarrel with my honourable Friend about that assertion, because, whether in Ireland or in any other country, it is equally applicable. But here is a class which is responsible to a very large extent; they, together with the publicans, are responsible for the distress in Ireland, and the Government singles out that class of all classes and says: "In future, not merely are you not to be liable for any portion of the burden of maintaining the poor, but we will not allow you to enter into a contract to undertake any portion of that burden." There is absolutely no precedent, and certainly no justification, for a proposal of this character, and therefore I propose that it be omitted from this clause. There is a second part of this proposal which I would ask honourable Members opposite how they possibly can defend: that portion which says that every contract entered into for the payment of the poor rate by the landlords shall be regarded

  1631
  as void. During the few years I have been in this House I have observed that if you want a proposal which trenches upon freedom of contract you may expect that proposal from a Conservative Government. We had it with regard to the Tithe Bill. Every contract between landlord and tenant for the payment of tithes—and, of course, the tenants in Wales are exceedingly anxious to do so—is to be perfectly void. The same thing was done with regard to the workmen, and now we have a proposal incorporated in a Bill emanating from a Conservative Government to render void any contract entered into by the landlords for the payment of rent. That is a very serious impingement upon the principle of freedom of contract of which I understand honourable Members opposite regard themselves as sole custodians in this House and out of it. How is this clause justified? We have heard no justification from the Government. I heard the speeches delivered to-night by the Chief Secretary, but he did not attempt any justification. He talked about Whitsuntide as if that were relevant. I beg the right honourable Gentleman's pardon, it was his leader, on this side of the House, and, of course, the right honourable Gentleman adopted and followed his lead loyally. But what is the defence of the Government? I venture to say that the Chief Secretary has not attempted any defence of this proposal, and we are entitled to have that defence. The only word of defence we have heard so far is that this is a bargain—a bargain in these terms: if you want an Irish Local Government Bill you must be prepared to pay the whole of the poor rates of the Irish landlords for all time to come. That is the only defence, but I should like to know the exact terms of that bargain, and who has entered into it. I am not at all surprised at the attitude of honourable Members for Ireland, but I should like to ask them whether they have entered into it, and, if so, whether they are free agents, and whether they are prepared to defend this proposal upon its merits?
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: No, we are not.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Of course, I knew they were not, and I would ask the honourable Member for Louth, who has so loyally supported the Government throughout, and whom I am sorry not to see in his place, whether he would be prepared to defend this proposal upon its merits if he were a free agent? But he does not, and cannot, pretend to do so. He says a bargain is a bargain. Quite so, and the honourable Member opposite, who is perfectly straightforward in his Conservative views, says of course it is part of the bargain. But what is the bargain? It is this: if you wish to receive the same measure of self-government that has been granted to England, Scotland, and Wales, you are only to receive it on a condition which you your self refer to as unfair, and which the Government themselves do not defend. Upon what principle is that defended? It is taking a mean advantage of a weak nation. It is taking a mean advantage of the Irish Members, and of the Irish people. They are not in a position to make terms with the Government. They know perfectly well that the Government are all-powerful. Honourable Members opposite say it is right and joist to give self-government to Ireland, but—
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The honourable Member is making a Second Reading speech. I must remind him that the arguments which he is now using have been used repeatedly on previous occasions. I must, therefore, ask him to address some fresh arguments to the Committee, otherwise I shall have to call on him to resume his seat.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Probably I did not hear these arguments before, and honourable Members around me say that nobody else did. Of course, Sir, I accept your ruling upon the point, although it appeared to me to be perfectly germane to the subject at issue. This clause is a bad clause, and has not been defended by the Government. I was present throughout, the whole Debate, and not a single word was said by the Chief Secretary in defence of it. The only defence offered was in defence of the bargain, and it

  1633
  seems to be out of order to refer to the only defence which the Government makes. Still, if you rule any allusion to that bargain to be out of order, I am bound to accept it, but I still ask the Chief Secretary whether he has any defence to offer with regard to this clause, which is not out of order. He cannot defend it upon the ground that he is exempting one class of the community from payment of poor rate; he cannot defend it upon the ground of any principle with regard to freedom of contract; he cannot defend it on the ground that he is imposing upon the Irish people unfair terms, because that is what it comes to; he is using his power as the representative of the most powerful Government we have had for many years—a Government with a majority of 140—to force these unfair terms upon the Irish people. In conclusion, I say that this Bill confers no favour upon the Irish people; they are simply conceding what is an elementary right. We are willing to assist in conceding that elementary right, a right which belongs to every citizen of this kingdom, but we strongly object to this imposition of an iniquitous condition upon a nation too weak to withstand it.
  MR. STRACHEY: I should like to ask the Committee to consider this matter from a different point of view—from the point of view which has been urged upon both sides of the House—and I think it has also been urged by the Chief Secretary, but certainly it has fallen from the Treasury Bench—that it is most desirable that Irish landlords should take a prominent part in the future local government of Ireland. If that be so, and if Irish landlords take the same part in local government that English landlords take—if they are willing to face a popular election, then I venture to point out to the Committee that this proposal of the Government to set up a privileged class in Ireland—the landlord class—which is to pay no rates in future, will form a dangerous precedent. I cannot help thinking that when the Irish landlords appeal in the same way as English landlords appeal—and, I am glad to say, appeal successfully to the ratepayers of a country district, they will be met with
  1634
  the rebuke, "You are a separate class. You are not like an ordinary ratepayer. It does not matter to you whether the rates go up or down. Why should we return you as our representative when it will be of no consequence whatever whether our rates are increased or decreased." It seems to me that will be an argument which will be urged by every man who is opposing a landlord in Ireland. I know very well that those who are landlords in England would receive that rebuke, and they would have very little chance of successfully beating an opponent who opposed us on the grounds that they paid no rates and that they, therefore, belonged to a privileged class. The Chief Secretary dissents that there are some cases where English landlords do bear their share, but there are a number of landlords who do share the rates. And the right honourable Gentleman must know that all Scotch landlords do, and there is no doubt about it that there is no English County Member in this House who will get up and say that he would object to a Bill being passed in this House by which every landlord had to pay part of his tenant's rates.
  MR. BANBURY: Certainly, I would.
  MR. STRACHEY: But the honourable Member sits for Peckham—the honourable Member sits for a London constituency. I challenge any honourable Gentleman who sits for any county constituency to get up and say he would vote against a Government Bill to divide rates between owner and occupier. Gentlemen who sit for London constituencies may very well say that, but I challenge any agricultural Member to say he would object.
  MR. JOHNSTONE: I shall be happy to answer the honourable Gentleman's challenge. I live in the neighbourhood of a great estate where the landlord pays part of the rates, but I never heard it suggested that that is an example which should be followed generally, or which would be generally beneficial.
  MR. STRACHEY: I think my honourable Friend opposite rather misunderstood

  1635
  me. Will any honourable Member get up in this House, representing an agricultural constituency, and say that, if a Bill were introduced to divide the rates between landlord and tenant, he would vote against such a Bill?
  MR. JOHNSTONE: It would be rather difficult to grasp the circumstances of such a situation at a moment's notice. I was merely speaking from my own experience.
  MR. STRACHEY: I hope and believe the landlords in this House, on whichever side they sit, would be ready to vote for such a Measure as I have, indicated. I think the right honourable Gentleman said that one of the reasons why originally landlords in Ireland had to pay the whole of the poor rate in the case of tenancies under £4 a year, and why they had to pay half of the poor rate in other cases, was for this reason: As a matter of public policy in Ireland it was very desirable that Irish landlords should have an interest in giving employment to the peasantry upon their estates, and thereby keep people off the poor rate. It appears to me that, if this clause is carried, every inducement to the landlords for doing that would be taken away. There will be no inducement to give employment on their estates, and the poor rates will be increased by men unable to find employment. Under the old system, the landlord being a large ratepayer, it was a very great inducement for him to give employment and to improve his property. On these grounds, I beg to support my honourable Friend's Amendment for the rejection of this clause.
  MR. GODDARD: I protest against this clause in the Bill. The Debate upon this clause seems to me to be rather strange. We have seen some of those who supported the English Act who are now opposing this Bill; we have seen those who strongly opposed, in every part and in every particular, the English Act now supporting this Bill; and, strangest thing of all, this Debate has seen honourable Members of this House, whose whole existence may be said to have been taken up in opposing the landlords in Ireland, from such organisa-
  1636
  tions as the Land League, now advocating the giving of this enormous grant of money to the landlords.
  MR. DAVITT: The Land League have done nothing of the kind.
  MR. GODDARD: In order to buy off their opposition. We have been taunted on this side of the House by the right honourable Gentleman opposite for being nothing more than "a mere handful of Radicals." If we are only that, at least it is to be remembered that we are here representing constituencies, and that we have just as much right to speak on behalf of those constituencies as if we had seats in the Cabinet or on the Front Bench.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Gentleman has paraphrased my words. What I intended to convey was that the Liberal Party, as a whole, has supported us in the financial portion of this Bill on the First and Second Reading, if not in any other way, by abstaining from voting.
  MR. GODDARD: I will not go into the question. I am not answerable for the consciences of those who sit upon the Front Bench. I am here to speak what is in my own mind and in my own conscience to speak, and I remember the words of the taunt that was hurled at us from the opposite side of the House—that this opposition was only supported by a mere handful of Radicals. Fortunately for us, we have memories that go a little farther back, and we can recollect that it was a "mere handful of Radicals" which started the avalanche which swept away the old franchise and extended the vote. And we can also remember that it was a mere "handful of Radicals" who protested against certain religious disabilities which prevented men of certain religious opinions from sitting in this House, and which caused those disabilities to be removed. I ask, how were these things done? How was it that "a mere handful of Radicals" achieved these results? It was not done by truckling to the House of Lords."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The honourable Member is now travelling outside the limits of the discussion.
  MR. GODDARD: I wish, Sir, to do everything perfectly in order in this House. I was simply trying to point out that the relief of the landlords from the poor rate was merely paying them a sum of money in order to buy off their opposition to this Bill. There are two distinct reasons why I support this Amendment which is now before the Committee. One is because I honestly believe that the day will come when the people of Ireland will resent this Act—when the growing burdens which will be thrown on the poor people of Ireland will cause them to regret that this Act was passed, and that their representatives supported it. Another reason is that many of these people have an ambition to buy their holdings. They live in the hope that one day they may become the freeholders of their holdings. Now, I appreciate that ambition, and I ask what will be the result and the effect of this Act if it becomes law? The effect will be that, when those tenants who wish to purchase their holdings come to buy, undoubtedly the price they will have to pay will be very largely enhanced.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Oh, no!
  MR. GODDARD: And, in the interest of the tenants of Ireland, I say it will be a mistake. If you remove a charge upon the land, it must and will enhance the price which will have to be paid by the tenant when he wants to buy his holding; whilst, at the same time, it relieves the landlords from a tax which they have paid in the past, and in common justice, ought to pay now. Upon those grounds I support the Amendment.
  MR. BROADHURST: I think the main objection brought against this clause is the fact that the Government has made it perpetual. In the case of two years back there was a limit put to it, and provided that the Liberal Government be in power at that time, and the House of Lords
  1638
  abolished, as we hope they will be long before then, why, of course, we shall repeal the Act without any hesitation. In this case it is made perpetual, and there is no similar prospect of relief to the toiling, starving poor from the burdens laid upon them to maintain the rich. That is the sum-total of our objection to this clause. The right honourable Gentleman has charged us with having acquiesced in this financial proposal by our having allowed the First and Second Reading of this Bill. We agreed with the Bill in the main, but we always said we disagreed with the financial portion of it, and we do so now, and that is the cause of the objection and the Amendment of my honourable Friend on my left. The Chief Secretary says, as I understand him, that he has made a bargain with certain Cabinet Ministers that there should be no opposition to this Bill.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, no!
  MR. BROADHURST: What is it, then? I should like to have this matter thoroughly explained. There is an air of mystery about this bargain which we cannot fathom, and we, being free-born British representatives, have a right to know the terms of this bargain, when it was made, and with whom it was made. It certainly was not made with a number of my friends who are now here. This is the first time we have heard of the bargain and if it is a bargain we all know, subject to correction from my honourable and learned Friend, that the common law—at least, so I have always understood—protects the weak person against the strong in the making of a bargain, and if a bargain has been made by any undue influence and superior power the aggrieved party, who takes the matter into court, is generally relieved from his bargain for the reasons I have stated. What is the reason of this bargain of which we have heard so much, but about which we know nothing? I will ask the right honourable Gentleman to give us the chapter and verse of the terms of this bargain which he secretly entered into for the purpose of this Act. That will help us to understand

  1639
  how we stand in this matter. I am not an opponent of this Bill except so far as it dips the hand of the Government into my pocket to maintain unworthy Irish landlords. This is not a Conservative Measure in the highest sense of the word. A Conservative policy would pass such a Measure as would be best calculated to retain Irish landlords in their own country, and would keep them living among their own people, and take a share of the local government of their own country. This is a policy which only further induces them to take all they can get from their struggling tenantry, and to absent themselves from the country that they ought to dwell in. What would become of this country if the landlords here did the same? They are none too good, but they do take their share in the administration of the local government of the country, and by the fact of so doing they do—and it makes them do so—reside, to a large extent, upon their own estates among their own people. This is a direct invitation to pursue a contrary course; therefore it is not a Conservative policy, it is a revolutionary and misguided policy. There is too much bribery and robbing those who work hard to maintain themselves for the purpose of supporting those who do not, and who take no share of the responsibilities of the administration of their own country. Therefore I shall oppose this clause.
  MR. COLVILLEchallenged the Government to point to a precedent in former legislation. The clause was absolutely without a precedent, and what made it more intolerable from the standpoint of those who had regard for equity was that the proposal, instead of being for a term of years, was intended by the Government to be perpetual. He protested against the clause, and he would vote against it.
  MR. M'LAREN: I rise with considerable diffidence to take part in this discussion. It has been suggested by the Front Bench opposite that only Irish Members and the Chief Secretary are to be allowed to participate in this Debate. My only justification for breaking in on that comfortable theory
  1640
  of the honourable Gentlemen opposite is that I represent a hard-working English constituency, which has to find the money with which this clause deals, and I do humbly submit that it is not out of place that I should approach it on behalf of my constituents. I do not quite understand the theory of the bargain that has been struck between a certain section of the Irish Members and what used to be known in former days as Dublin Castle. Dublin Castle, which, once upon a time, was looked upon as a kind of ogre's den, has now become a beneficent instrument for shedding the blessings of social and political amity upon Ireland. If would be interesting to many of us to know what has been the cause of this extraordinary transformation of Irish opinion. The honourable Member on my left has suggested "money"; and the old principle of Irish politics which has prevailed since 1815 is still to the fore—as long as they can have their hands in the pockets of English taxpayers it does not matter which Government is in power. As a representative of English ratepayers, I claim to have some voice in asking—what has to become of this money we are voting? As a Liberal and a supporter of the Irish Nationalist Party in all their political reforms, I have a right to ask why, on this occasion, they are deserting the Irish tenant in favour of the Irish landlord. That, as I understand, is the point we are discussing on this clause. As I understand it, the position is this: this Committee are voting a large sum which will be payable in perpetuity for Irish local government purposes. I would have imagined that the Irish Nationalist Members, elected by a suffering people, by the poorest class we have in the United Kingdom, would have made some effort to arrange the Bill in such a way that the Irish tenant would have the benefit of the money that Parliament is voting?. Instead of that we have seen Irish Members watching, with apparent satisfaction, a Tory Government voting money in support of the landlords in Ireland, and not only voting money, but adding improvements which make it impossible for the Bill to apply to the tenants. I have no doubt the Irish constituencies will inquire into the matter, and we may hear something more of this in the Irish newspapers. I have the

  1641
  right to say that English working men, English tradesmen, and English manufacturers, who are now asked for this money, and who are willing enough to facilitate Irish local government, are within their right in objecting to handing over, bound hand and foot, the Irish tenant to the tender mercies of the Irish landlord. I have nothing more to say except this: that that is a principle which deserves a full Debate in this Committee. I hope the Committee will not allow itself to be threatened and browbeaten by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I have noticed during all these days in which we have been discussing this Bill that if any Irish Member gets up the Chief Secretary is only too anxious to listen to him and answer him in the most courteous and convincing manner; but if 20 or 30 English Members get up to discuss a matter which affects their constituents he maintains a contemptuous silence, only broken by the sotto voce interruptions of my honourable Friends. I do not know what justification he has, except that we are not represented on the Front Opposition Bench by any of our natural leaders. That is, no doubt, a misfortune which the Liberal Party have to endure, but I venture to think that the interests of our constituents are paramount to the interests of our so-called leaders. I cannot see why the absence of five ex-Cabinet Ministers affects in the least the principle we are discussing. No doubt it gives the Light honourable Gentleman a technical advantage. He may say, "Because your leaders take no part in this Debtae, it is not my duty to descend so low as to answer a common private Member who sits behind." That does not affect the question of the principle. Our constituents have to pay this money, and our constituents look to our votes and to our speeches in this House. It does not matter whether the Member for Monmouth is in his place or not. The right honourable Gentleman has a duty to perform, and that is to deal with the arguments advanced by the honourable Members who have sat down.
  MR. LOGAN: I intend to oppose this clause. I regret that the Chief Secretary has not seen it fit and proper to give us something in the
  1642
  way of argument for passing this particular clause we are now discussing. I oppose it on behalf of the people of England and on behalf of the people of Ireland, too. Honourable Gentlemen opposite forget that the last time the people of England were appealed to—in South Norfolk—they were not on the side of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The principle contained in the clause now under discussion is class legislation pure and simple. It is class legislation of the very worst possible description, which relieves the just liabilities of the rich at the expense of the poor. What will be the effect of this clause in Ireland? The effect of it, first of all, on the Irish landlords, will be that in future they will be relieved of the burdens that they ought to bear on the land, and with this result: that should these local bodies which are now to be set up in Ireland develop in particular districts at the expense of those who occupy the land in Ireland, the land itself will be improved in value, because you cannot better the condition of the community without improving the value of the land upon which the commumunity lives. Therefore these Irish landlords, to whom it is proposed under this clause to make a present of a large sum of money, will not only be relieved of a large share of the burdens on Ireland, but will in addition have the capital value of their land increased to an enormous extent—first of all, by the relief from the burden of rating, and then by the prospective increase in the value of that land, owing to the improved condition of the people. My honourable Friend who spoke from this bench a few minutes ago was absolutely right when he said that a direct effect of the passing of this clause will fall upon those men who are wanting to buy land in Ireland. Personally, I am not strongly in favour of creating any more landlords. We have far too many of them. I wish to see the nation resume possession of the land. That is my opinion, and I am entitled to hold it. The direct effect of this clause, I say, upon intending purchasers in Ireland will be that they will have to pay an increased purchase money—the capitalised value of the relief which the landlord will receive under this

  1643
  Bill. What are the ostensible reasons which have been given to us for the passing of this clause? It has been hinted that it was to carry out some arrangement that was made with regard to English land. In the case of English land the relief given there was because there was supposed to be agricultural depression in England. Well, now, if the reason for giving this grant in Ireland is on account of agricultural depression, I maintain that the clause should not be passed in its present form. The most necessitous portion of the community engaged in the industry of agriculture—namely, the small tenant farmers and the peasantry—should get most of the relief under this Bill. Some honourable Gentlemen opposite suggested a short time ago that there was no serious depression, and laughed at the idea; but it seems to me that there is far less justification for passing a Measure of relief for Irish landlords than there was for passing one for the relief of the English landlords. The rents of the English landlords have gone down considerably indeed, but I should be interested to be informed whether the rents of the Irish landlords have gone down in anything like the same proportion. My impression is that Irish rents have scarcely decreased at all during the last 12 or 15 years.
  MR. JOHNSTON: They have been reduced 30 or 40 per cent.
  MR. LOGAN: The honourable Member says they have been reduced by 30 or 40 per cent. The only authority I can go to is the Statistical Abstract, and that gives the rents in Ireland during the last 15 years, and the amount paid under Schedule B, which I do not suppose anybody will deny, represents the amount of rent paid by the tenants both in England and Ireland. Now, Sir, on referring to Schedule B, and the return for the 15 years ending in 1896, which I am told is the last return, I find that whereas the rental of land in England in 1882 was fifty-one millions and in 1896 thirty-nine millions—I am dealing in round figures—and in Scotland 7½ millions in 1882 and six millions in 1895, the amount upon which income tax was paid in Ireland was within £100,000
  1644
  of ten millions in the year 1882, while in the year 1896 it was only reduced by about £100,000. That is to say that during the last 15 years, while English rental has fallen some 25 per cent., there has been only the smallest reduction in the Irish rental, according to this Government return, upon which I believe honourable and right honourable Gentlemen opposite pay their income tax. However, Sir, this goes to prove what I have long thought, that there has been no serious reduction in the gross rental of landlords in Ireland, and it is the gross rental that we must deal with here. This grant is not to be given to any particular landlords. I have no doubt that there are some oases in which particular landlords have suffered very considerably during the last few years; but taking the whole of the rents together I maintain that there is far less justification whatever in Ireland for a Measure of outdoor relief to landlords than there was in the case of England. Well, Sir, so much for the question of agricultural depression. Then, Sir, the other reason, and I believe the reason which the Chief Secretary favours, why this Measure has been introduced into this House in its present form, is the particular clause which has been described as a bribe. If it is a bribe to Irish landlords in this House, I believe it was unnecessary, because the Government, by using their full strength in this House, at any rate, might have overridden any opposition from Irish landlords. It really is a bribe to be paid for passing this Bill through the other Chamber. Sir, I object entirely, apart from the question of who pays the money, to introducing into legislation of this sort a commercial bargain. The English Rating Bill, I suppose, was passed as a sop or bargain to the English landlords to assent to the Compensation of Workmen Bill. If the Government are disposed to carry out the whole of their legislation upon this commercial bargaining principle, I would suggest to them—and I wish the Colonial Secretary had been here, for I should have liked to make the suggestion to him—that for the abolition of the Veto of the House of Lords, they would be able to charge a very considerable price, for it would be worth a good deal, and we should be

  1645
  prepared to pay it. But we are not prepared to see the taxes on the poor people of this country increased for the purpose of providing money for Irish landlords as the price of this Bill; and therefore, Mr. Lowther, I protest against this clause, and shall have great pleasure in supporting my honourable Friend in the Division Lobby.
  MR. BIRRELL: Mr. Lowther, in the absence of my natural leaders, whose absence from this House has been frequently commented upon, I can, as a Scotch Member, look upon the Lord Advocate as my leader in this matter, because when the English Bill was under discussion the one thing we prided ourselves upon was that in Scotland there existed an ideal system of rating, equal as between the occupier and the landlord, and one which was referred to as the ultima ratio in such matters. But here we have the Government introducing this Measure which proposes to take away from the landlords in the future the obligation to pay poor rates which, almost from the time of Elizabeth, have been cast upon the land. Well, all I can say is this—that if a country is not fit to legitimately and fairly raise the money necessary to provide for its poor, it is not fit to be entrusted with the powers which this Bill proposes to give to the local authorities in Ireland. I will not speak of a bribe, or use any offensive term of that sort; but everybody seems to be agreed that the landlords could not have justice done to them if local government was to be established in Ireland, which would leave them exposed to the same obligation that landlords bear in Scotland. Well, I confess that I think, if that is so, the Government are hypocritical in introducing a Measure of this sort at all, and in conferring upon a country these powers which they think can only be entrusted to them if the landlords are relieved from an obligation which from time immemorial has been cast upon them. We have always been taught by those to whose opinions we attach importance in these matters—and I am sure the Lord Advocate agrees with me so far as Scotland is concerned—that that old system is the proper way of managing the rating of a country; and I am sorry that Her
  1646
  Majesty's Government should have thought it necessary, once and for ever to depart from that salutary principle. The only consolation will be that the land, relieved from this natural burden, will command greater prices in the market; but even if we see, as we hope to see in Ireland, a greater number of occupiers who will also be owners, they will only obtain the privilege of being owners by being compelled to pay an enormously increased price for the land which they desire to obtain. This departure from the ancient principle of rating—which, I am sure, does not commend itself to any person in this House apart from the Government and some of their supporters on the other side of the House—leads to the inference that the Irish people are not fit to be entrusted with the powers which this Bill proposes to confer upon them.
  MR. SHARPE: I welcome this clause for the very reason urged against it by the honourable and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. It is a step in the direction of affirming the principle which many of us on this side of the House regarded as the basis of the Agricultural Rating Act that agriculture ought to be relieved of the burden, thrown upon it alone of all capital, of having the annual outturn of its whole raw material assessed for the relief of the poor. This was done by the Act of Elizabeth at a time when real property was the only property which could be got at, and when personalty formed an insignificant part of the wealth of the country. The Agricultural Rating Act commended itself chiefly to many on this side because it was a first step—a rude and rough one, it must be confessed, but still a step—in the direction of redressing a gross injustice by relieving the land in England and Wales of half the burden of a poor rate. I further object to the confusion of rates with taxes. Rates are local, and imposed by a local authority; taxes are Imperial, and to be imposed by Parliament alone. By the long-established custom of this country—save, and except in the anomalous case of the relief of the poor—rating is based on occupancy, not on ownership. My honourable Friend the Member for Carnarvon urged against this clause the argument that it conflicted with the

  1647
  doctrine of identity of treatment, or uniformity; and the honourable and learned Member for West Fife enforced that argument by the instance of Scotland, where rates are divided between landlord and tenant. The danger of legislating on this principle of uniformity was well illustrated by my late distinguished friend Sir William Gregory in a story which I will venture to repeat to the Committee. I was discussing with him the question of local government for Ireland, and the probability of Ireland being treated exactly as England had been. He said that he, some years before, had gone down to Devonshire on a holiday with Mr. Charles Buller, then also a distinguished Member of this House, and that on the Sunday morning, as they walked to the parish church, they passed two men in the stocks. Mr. Buller turned to the parish beadle, who was at the church gate, and asked "What is this man there for?" "Oh, sir," was the reply, "it is a bad case of wife-beat-
  ing." "And what is the other man in for?" asked Mr. Buller, pointing to the second. "Well, sir," was the reply, "I can't say there was much against him, but we ran him in for the sake of uniformity." "There," said Mr. Buller to Sir William Gregory, "is shown the danger of acting for the sake of uniformity, without regard to the circumstances of the case." The Government have, in this clause, avoided that danger, and I congratulate them on affirming the principle that poor rate should be made upon the occupier, and not the landlord of an hereditament.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the Question be now put."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 68.—(Division List No. 104.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Arnold, Alfred

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Ascroft, Robert

  Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

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

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

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

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hornby, William Henry

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howell, William Tudor

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Daly, James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Denny, Colonel

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

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

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Bethell, Commander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Bond, Edward

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kimber, Henry

  Brassey, Albert

  Fison, Frederick William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flower, Ernest

  Knowles, Lees

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lafone, Alfred

  Butcher, John George

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks.)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Carlile, William Walter

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

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

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

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

  Lorne, Marquess of

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

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gretton, John

  Lowles, John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Collery, Bernard

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Maclure, Sir John William

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  McKillop, James

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Purvis, Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Milton, Viscount

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  More, Robert Jasper

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Warkworth, Lord

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Morrison, Walter

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

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

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

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

  Mount, William George

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Murdoch, Chas. Townshend

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Murnaghan, George

  Rutherford, John

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. James

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Myers, William Henry

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Younger, William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Spencer, Ernest

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

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'T.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Strauss, Arthur

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

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

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Birrell, Augustine

  Holburn, J. G.

  Perks, Robert William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Price, Robert John

  Brigg, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Colville, John

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Commins, Andrew

  Leng, Sir John

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Steadman, William Charles

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Logan, John William

  Strachey, Edward

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  McCartan, Michael

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Davitt, Michael

  McDermott, Patrick

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

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire)

  McKenna, Reginald

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  McLaren, Charles Benjamin

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Woodall, William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Mr. Edward Morton and

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

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Mr. Lloyd-George.

  Question put—
  "That clause 37 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 200; Noes 57.—(Division List No. 105.)

  AYES

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Arnold, Alfred

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Ascroft, Robert

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Butcher, John George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Carew, James Laurence

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bethell, Commander

  Carlile, William Walter

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

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

  Bond, Edward

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Brassey, Albert

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Howell, William Tudor

  O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Collery, Bernard

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Purvis, Robert

  Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Kimber, Henry

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Knowles, Lees

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Daly, James

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

  Rutherford, John

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. James

  Denny, Colonel

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lowles, John

  Spencer, Ernest

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'T.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Strauss, Arthur

  Flower, Ernest

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Folkestone, Viscount

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Forster, Henry William

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

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

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gedge, Sydney

  McDermott, Patrick

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  McKillop, James

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Milton, Viscount

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Waring, Col. Thomas

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

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Warkworth, Lord

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Gretton, John

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Morrison, Walter

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

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Mount, William George

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Murdoch, Chas. Townshend

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murnaghan, George

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

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

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

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Henderson, Alexander

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Myers, William Henry

  Young, Com. (Berks., E.)

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

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Younger, William

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hogan, James Francis

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Hornby, William Henry

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

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

  Colville, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Commins, Andrew

  Harwood, George

  Birrell, Augustine

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Crean, Eugene

  Holburn, J. G.

  Brigg, John

  Doughty, George

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Burt, Thomas

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Caldwell, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Kilbride, Denis

  1652

  1653

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Steadman, William Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Strachey, Edward

  Logan, John William

  Perks, Robert William

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  McCartan, Michael

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  McKenna Reginald

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Woodall, William

  McLaren, Charles Benjamin

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr.

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Davitt.

  Clause added to the Bill.

  CLAUSE 38.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 29, leave out from the second 'the,' to 'on,' in line 30, and insert 'fair rent for a holding shall be fixed under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
  Agreed to.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpointed out that by the words of the clause as amended, the amount to be paid under the agricultural grant in respect of poor rates was to be excluded from the consideration of the Land Commissioners, when they were fixing the rent. He proposed an Amendment extending to the Irish Land Commissioners, not merely the consideration of the rent for a holding, but the amount of the purchase money under the Land Purchase Act.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That is going outside the scope of the Act. The Amendment is not in order.
  Amendment ruled out of order.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 37, at end, add 'and that any work giving increased value to the holding which has been made out of the poor rate or out of any loan on the security of the poor rate, after the passing of this Act, is an improvement made by the tenant.'"—(Mr. Knox.)
  MR. KNOX: I think it is only just that, if the value of a holding is directly increased, as a consequence of an improvement made by the tenant that the value of that improvement should not be given to the landlord in assessing the value of the farm. I think this Amendment bears out the general intentions of the Bill,
  1654
  it is fair in principle, and one which, I hope the Government will see their way to accept.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURpointed out that this was an Amendment of the Land Law, and was consequently outside the scope of the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think it is most unjust that the whole cost of an improvement should be given to the landlord in fixing the rent. Take a case where a road is laid at considerable expense by a tenant. Supposing, as is often the case in Ireland, that the landlord is non-resident, and pays nothing to the cess. Under the law as it now is, it is true, the whole benefit of the improvement is given to the landlord; but it is also true that, when the next rents come to be fixed, the extra cess is deducted from the gross value of the holding before you bring one the fair rent. Therefore, the landlord gets the benefit, and the landlord indirectly pays part of the cost. For the future the landlord will not pay any part of the cost, and I hope when the landlord ceases to pay any part of the cost he will cease to get any part of the benefit. That, surely, is a just principle. As it is, the tenant pays part of the improvement and the landlord will get the benefit.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that this would be an Amendment of the land law, which was outside the scope of the Bill.
  MR. DILLONsaid he opposed the Amendment on the ground that this was part of the price for the Local Government Bill.
  Question put—
  "That those words be there added."
  Committee divided:—Ayea 89; Noes 175.—(Division List No. 106.)

  AYES.

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

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

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murnaghan, George

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Haldane Richard Burdon

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Billson, Alfred

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Birrell, Augustine

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Blake, Edward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Brigg, John

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

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Burt, Thomas

  Holburn, J. G.

  O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

  Caldwell, James

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Price, Robert John

  Carew, James Laurence

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Collery, Bernard

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Colville, John

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Commins, Andrew

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Crean, Eugene

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Steadman, William Charles

  Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

  Lough, Thomas

  Strachey, Edward

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Daly, James

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

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

  Dillon, John

  McCartan, Michael

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McDermott, Patrick

  Tully, Jasper

  Doogan, P. C.

  McEwan, William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Doughty, George

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Duckworth, James

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire)

  McLaren, Charles Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Herbert Lewis.

  NOES.

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Ascroft, Robert

  Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

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

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

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

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

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

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

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Howell, William Tudor

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Denny, Colonel

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

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

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Bethell, Commander

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Bigwood, James

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

  Bond, Edward

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kimber, Henry

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fisher, William Hayes

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Brassey, Albert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Knowles, Lees

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flower, Ernest

  Lafone, Alfred

  Butcher, John George

  Forster, Henry William

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Garfit, William

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gedge, Sydney

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

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

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

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

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

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gretton, John

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Maclure, Sir J. W.

  1656

  1657

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Purvis, Robert

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

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

  Pym, C. Guy

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  McKillop, James

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Valentia, Viscount

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Milton, Viscount

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Warkworth, Lord

  More, Robert Jasper

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Six M. W.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

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

  Morrison, Walter

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Rutherford, John

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Mount, William George

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. James

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Murdoch, Charles Townshend

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Myers, William Henry

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Spencer, Ernest

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Young, Com. (Berks., E.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'T.

  Younger, William

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Stranss, Arthur

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Tollemache, Henry James

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not propose to take a Division against this clause, because the only objection I have to it is that the Act will be inoperative. I do not believe it will do any harm, but it cannot possibly do any good. It asserts a principle which cannot be strictly enforced. It declares that in future, whenever you fix a fair rent in Ireland you are not to take into account the amount of the Government grant on that particular holding, and that you are not to make any deduction in respect of it. I say that a declaration of that kind is perfectly futile, and will have no real effect upon the Commissioners. I ask you—what will the functions of the Commissioners be? What are their functions at the present time? They have got to ascertain what the lettable value of a farm is to a tenant. Well, now, when you are fixing a fair rentable value you must take into account the permanent charges upon the land, whether private or public. Let us assume for a moment that a farm is subject to a perpetual rent charge of £10. Whenever you let that farm to a tenant, if he has to bear the burden of the £10, it must be taken into account that that sum will have to be deducted in order to arrive at a fair lettable value. The same principle would apply in the case of the poor rate. If your £10 poor rate should be reduced to £5, whether
  1658
  you insert a provision in an Act of Parliament or not, it must necessarily be taken into account, and I therefore say the clause will be perfectly inoperative, I will put it in another way. Suppose you have to ascertain the value of this farm for purchase purposes under the Land Purchase Acts? If you assume a charge upon the land of £5, £10, or £100, necessarily the purchase value will go up, and the clause must necessarily be inoperative. As a matter of fact, the tenants at present pay a certain amount of county cess, and part of that cess will be reduced for this grant.
  Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 39.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 38, leave out 'an urban district council,' and insert 'the council of any borough or town.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. DILLON: I should like to ask what is the exact object of this Amendment. Is it to extend the principle of throwing the burden of all rates upon the occupier? Is it a further extension of clause 37?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The object of the first Amendment which stands in my name is to substitute any council in a borough or town for "urban district council." "Urban district council" is not sufficiently wide, because there are a number of other bodies which it is desired to include. I cannot see that there is any extension of the principle of clause 37.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Is the right honourable Gentleman satisfied that "urban district council" will cover all the cases he wishes to meet? Would it cover the intended authority in the case of small towns?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: "Council" will, I think, cover every body that is contemplated. If necessary, we will make it clear in the definition clause.
  MR. FLYNN: What about the district councils?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: "The council of any borough" would, I think, include a district council.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I confess that I think this requires a little more explanation. I fail to understand why "urban district council" should be changed into "the council of any borough or town." No light is thrown on it even by the interpretation clause. As this clause stands—
  "Where an urban district council independently of this Act (a) can make any rate in respect of any hereditament upon the landlord or immediate lessor, and not on the occupier of the hereditament, such rate shall be made on the occupier of the hereditament, except it is a house let in separate apartments or lodgings."
  That is the first branch; then there is this, which is still more abstruse—
  "(b) Can raise a sum by a rate upon the same basis as the poor rate, that sum may be raised by means of the poor rate, but as a separate item thereof, and the provisions of this Act with reference to the deduction of any part of the poor rate for rent, or to the fixing of fair rents, shall not apply as respects that item."
  1660
  Now, why narrow the district council to the council of a borough or town? When we come to the definition in clause 67, it says—
  "The expression 'borough' means a municipal borough having a town council."
  And again—
  "The expression 'town' means the area comprised in any town or township having Commissioners under the Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act, 1828, or the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854."
  Either of these may be as large as an urban district council. I should really like to know what is the object of the change suggested by this Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The right honourable and learned Gentleman is in error in supposing that the Amendment would narrow the clause; on the contrary, it will extend it. "The council of any borough or town" includes all councils established under this Act, and also, under the definition clause, it will include town commissioners. That is the object of the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, to omit sub-section (a)."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. DILLON: Before the next Amendment is taken I want to move to omit sub-section (a). I only move that in order that I may be in order in asking the Chief Secretary for some few words of explanation as to the effect of this subsection. The words are—
  "Where the council of any borough or town independently of this Act can make any rate in respect of any hereditament upon the landlord or immediate lessor, and not on the occupier of the hereditament, such rate shall be made on the occupier of the hereditament, except where it is a house let in separate apartments or lodgings."
  I wish to ask to what rate that applies.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This sub-section is perfectly plain. It says, "any rate."
  MR. DILLON: But in regard to what rate is this necessary in addition to clause 37?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Clause: 37 only applies to poor rate.
  MR. FLYNN: Are we to understand that if a rate is made in a town—say for the maintenance of some technical school, or some such object as that—that rate is to be put on the occupier, even although he may have contracted out of it under the terms of his lease?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If any additional burden of that kind is thrown on the occupier, he will be entitled to have it deducted.
  MR. DILLON: I do not pretend to be well versed as to the incidence of these particular rates, but it certainly seems to me that the effect of this clause will be to extend the principle of clause 37 to other rates. I trust that when the right honourable Gentleman is reconsidering the amended Bill as a whole he will bear this point in mind, so that, if necessary, the clause may be so altered as to put the matter beyond doubt. I shall not press the Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The only observation I would make on this subsection is that it necessarily carries with it a similar alteration of the franchise in the small towns as we pointed out would result from the clause we were discussing the other night.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, line 3, leave out the second 'or,' and insert 'where an urban district council independently of this Act.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 40.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, line 23, leave out sub-section (a)."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  MR. CLANCY: The next Amendment that stands in my name is one of a series that I propose to move, and I think that, of all the charges that are not to be taken into account under this clause this particular item has about the least justification for its exclusion. As I understand the present law as to the constabulary in Ireland, it is this: each county has what is called a free force of police; and the curious—I might almost say the extraordinary—thing is this: that although each county is supposed to have this free force of police, I do not think there is a single county in Ireland that has it. And the strangest thing is that, although a county has no free force of police, there is an additional or extra force of police, for which the county is called upon to pay. This is a matter which has been brought up in previous Sessions of Parliament, and returns furnished on the authority of the Government have been referred to in the course of discussion, and the Government, in my hearing, and in the hearing of every Irish Member every Session, have been challenged on the basis of those returns to justify the existence of those extra forces of police in counties which have not had a free force of police, and I never, in the course of all those years, have heard any answer whatever given to the challenge upon that subject. What justification can there possibly be for the state of things that has existed in the past? This is a matter, by the way, in which I think the landlord party, who are simply rated as landowners and not as occupiers in the towns, are as much interested as the tenants, and I hope on this occasion we shall have their support in trying to exclude this item. I ask what justification can there be for the state of things that has existed in the past? You profess to give a certain

  1663
  quota of police paid for out of Imperial funds. I am not speaking from the last returns, but I imagine they do not differ materially from the previous returns. You profess to give a free force of police in every county in Ireland. You do not do so. There is scarcely a county that has a free force of police. Nevertheless, whether the county be in a disturbed condition or not, whether it needs a free force of police or not, you run into the county from time to time, under the most extraordinary pretences, an addition of an extra force of police under this name. You run it into these counties and you charge the expenses on the cesspayers of those counties, although you hold out to those cesspayers by law the right to have those police for nothing. I cannot understand what justification there can be for that state of things, and, if there be no justification for it, why should we seek to perpetuate it by putting a provision into this Bill which will have the most serious consequences? If this clause is carried, what is there to prevent the Government from year by year decreasing the free force of police and supplying their place with additional constabulary for which the cesspayers will have to pay? If that process be gone on with there is no reason why the agricultural grant should not eventually disappear, and why this £700,000 should not in time go altogether towards the support of the constabulary in Ireland, for which the Imperial Exchequer is supposed to pay. I have heard a great many comments in the course of the last couple of days upon the benefits conferred upon Ireland by the large grant that is made for the police, and in the course of the Debate one of my honourable Friends beside me made the pertinent remark that we did not want the force. But, Sir, there is another answer. When the famous Sir Robert Peel took off the constabulary charge from the counties of Ireland he did so in express recognition of Ireland's right to that concession. He took into account the state of the
  1664
  country after the famine. He took into account the special charges that had been imposed on the country, and he thought it fair and just that the Imperial Government should bear the expense of the constabulary in Ireland. Of course, if no such case could be made for it, a sufficient ground would exist in the minds of every Irish Member, in the fact that the Irish people have no control over their police. If you in England pay for your police—if you have to pay anything for an increased force of police—you also control the force. We in Ire land have nothing whatever to do with the police. But it seems to me that in addition to having no control over our police, in a short time we shall be paying the whole cost of having them. As I said before, this is not a matter in which the tenants alone are interested. I say that every resident landlord in the country is interested in keeping down this expense and in preventing this addition to the rates. I am sorry that I have come into the House to-night leaving behind me some statistics which go to show that the expense of this extra force of police has actually been increasing during the peaceful years, which is a most extraordinary thing, and really, to my mind, deserves some explanation from the Government. We have again and again asked the Government to explain why the counties which are entitled to a free force of police, and do not get it, are really saddled with an additional force of police for which the ratepayers have to pay. I do not think the subject requires much elucidation, and I simply content myself with moving the Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member appears to imagine that the Government, of their own free will, can increase or diminish the free force of police. That is absolutely at variance with the facts. The amount of the free quota is, I believe, something over £10,000—I have not got

  1665
  the precise figures here, but it is something of that kind. Of course, that force has to be distributed according to certain general principles. A redistribution takes place every fifth year, and as long as that force is sufficient there is no extra force to pay for at all. Where there is necessity for an extra force a charge of this kind must be regarded as a kind of penal charge on the county, and I think the Committee will agree that it would not be right that the Imperial Exchequer should bear that charge. Then the honourable Member maintains—on the faith of some statistics he has left behind—that the charge for extra police has actually increased instead of diminished during these latter peaceful years. The contrary is the case. The charge in the standard year for extra police amounted to £16,077 altogether, of which about £11,700 is estimated to have been levied off the land. That was very considerably reduced last year, and if we continue during the next few years to make the same progress that we have made during the past few years there will very shortly be no charge for extra police in any part of Ireland.
  MR. DAVITT: I have no sympathy whatever with this Amendment. The Irish police are maintained for the sole purpose of protecting the property and the interests of the landlords. They are the body-guard of the rack-renters of Ireland, and therefore the Irish landlords should pay the whole cost of the maintenance of this anti-Irish and anti-national force. For my part, I should be very glad to see every policeman and every landlord leave Ireland tomorrow. If that emigration only took place, we should then have a peaceful, prosperous, and contented Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think we must look at this as a practical matter. I am a transactionalist, if I may say so. I cannot take up the splendid position of my honourable Friend. I desire to get as many concessions as I can out of the condition of things that we have to face. At the same time, if the Government
  1666
  will make some statement as regards these charges, and will mitigate the severity of them, I think that will facilitate the passage of the clause. The right honourable Gentleman shakes his head; I beg he will not do so so soon. There are a very large number of these charges with which we might have to deal at great length, but of course, the night is late, and I do think that some statement by the right honourable Gentleman might assuage the position, and I trust he may see his way to making some general statement. I would like to point out to the Committee one disadvantage that really is most unfortunate, namely, the making of these police charges poor rate. I protest against that. It is unconstitutional. These charges have nothing to do with the poor rate, and yet their non-payment will operate to narrow down the franchise. It this to be tolerated? Sub-section 2 of this clause reads thus—
  "The amount required to meet any charge in connection with such expenses or compensation shall be separately estimated, and raised by means of the poor rate, but as a separate item thereof, and the provisions of this Act with respect to raising expenses, and to the poor rate, shall apply with the necessary modifications."
  Now, is not it a monstrous thing if a man in County Clare has not paid his police rate, that that should be counted against him as regards his Parliamentary franchise, and as regards his Local Government franchise. I do protest that this is most unreasonable, and whatever may be said by my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo, surely the right honourable Gentleman has some consideration for those of us who have supported this Bill up to the present moment, and he might concede that these questions should be regarded as not affecting the franchise. On the whole I do think that the Government might make us some concession. We have restricted ourselves in many cases in regard to this Bill. I am voting as I think in favour of local liberty. I am prepared to pay the price. I do not say that it is dirt cheap, but whatever it is

  1667
  I am prepared to pay it. I go no further than that. I do say that the Government might make some further concession regarding the minor details of this clause.
  MR. DILLON: The difficulty with regard to these extra policemen is that it is not the landlords under the present system who pay for them, but the people. If I thought the landlords paid for them I should support the view of my honourable Friend and colleague the Member for South Mayo, but it is not the landlords that pay for them. There was one expression used by the right honourable Gentleman opposite in his speech in opposing this Amendment, which struck me very forcibly. He said that this must be regarded as a penal charge. It is undoubtedly a penal charge. You have these police constables poured into your county without any reference to local wishes at all. In England if there were a disturbance in a particular district, until the local authorities demanded assistance the central Government of the country would not think of sending in extra police, but in our country, without asking "by your leave" from any local authority at all, we have a couple of hundred constables marched in like a military force, to take possession of the county. I say that that is monstrous and unjust, that we should have these extra police coming and batoning innocent and unoffending people, just to show that they are doing something for their money. That is bad enough, but it is infinitely worse when we are told that we must pay for this constabulary whom we have not asked for. It frequently happens that the main cause of the disturbance is the very fact of the presence of these extra police who are sent in against the wishes of the orderly and respected inhabitants of the district. I say it is intolerable that we should have to put up with the divergations, and the pranks of hordes of police, tramping
  1668
  about the country and brandishing their batons where they are not wanted. I wish to Heaven some of them would hit the right honourable Gentleman over the head. Well, they might just as well serve the right honourable Gentleman as they served me on one occasion.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not think the expression the honourable Member has used is a proper expression.
  MR. DILLON: I gladly withdraw the expression and apologise, but I was somewhat irritated by the jeers of the right honourable Gentleman when I remembered the fact which came out and was admitted at Question time to-day, that at a recent Orange celebration in the north of Ireland there was a lot of drunken rioting, but that no extra police were considered necessary there. The "loyal" population of that place will not be saddled with this penal charge; but in West Mayo, where the people are starving, if they dare to come together to try to call the attention of the right honourable Gentleman to their starving condition, instantly a couple of hundred constables are launched at them, and this "penal charge" is placed on the unfortunate ratepayers. That was the expression which aroused me to take part in this discussion. This is a "penal charge," which is generally inflicted on the most distressed, and very often starving, districts in the whole country. Sir, I regret to find myself at variance with the view of the honourable Member for South Mayo, but I maintain that this charge is thrown upon the occupiers, whereas this charge for extra police being the direct result of the mismanagement of the unpopular and corrupt Government under which we live, I say that, if the Government insist on the luxury of thrusting extra police on the country at their own sweet will, they ought to bear the cost, and it is a monstrous injustice to tell the ratepayers of Ireland, who have no voice in the

  1669
  matter, that they are to pay this penal charge whenever it pleases any of the gentlemen who are sent over from Scotland or England to practise statesmanship on the unfortunate corpus vile of the Irish people, to employ an extra body of constabulary. If the right honourable Gentleman would give us the control of the police, there would, no doubt, be a very strong case for imposing this charge; that is to say, if the extra police were only brought into the county on the requisition of the county council; but so long as Dublin Castle insists on retaining the right of sending extra police, whether the representatives of the people demand them or not, and in face even of the protest of the county council, then I say that, on all principles of justice, the Castle ought to pay the extra cost, or a portion of it.
  MR. KNOX: I venture also to join in the expression of surprise at the phrase used by the right honourable Gentleman—"a penal charge." I drew his attention the other day to the fact that the city of Dublin and the city of Belfast are both subject to a large charge for extra police.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Dublin and Belfast are not normally in a disturbed condition.
  MR. KNOX: It is some satisfaction to know that; but, if that is so, I fail to see why they should have to pay for extra police.
  MR. ATKINSON: The extra police force in Dublin and Belfast has nothing whatever to do with the extra police referred to in this clause. In those cities the local authorities have their own arrangements with the central authorities.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right honourable Gentleman explain on what principle counties which have, in fact, no free police force should be charged for an extra police force?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not know that there are such cases.
  MR. CLANCY: Some years ago I examined the returns, and I found there was scarcely a county in Ireland in which there was a free force of police, and there were about half a dozen in which there were extra police.
  Amendment put and negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, line 25, leave out sub-section (b)."—(Mr. Flynn.)
  MR. FLYNN: I hope the Amendment which I now rise to move will meet with somewhat better luck from the Government than the last Amendment. The right honourable Gentleman stated that the charge for extra police was in the nature of a penal charge. Now, the charge referred to in sub-section (b), "compensation for criminal injuries," is certainly in the nature of a penal charge, and one of a most unjust character, a charge in which the innocent and the guilty are indiscriminately involved. Take the case of a locality in which the landlords set out upon a campaign of evictions. We know that evictions bring all sorts of consequences in their train, and often malicious injuries, or alleged malicious injuries. But it is absurd to say that the whole people of the locality are implicated in those injuries, and to impose this class of charge upon innocent and guilty alike violates all the canons and principles of justice. It is a charge which very often falls in a very small and trifling degree on the real transgressor, and to a very large extent on those who are quite innocent and have no complicity whatever in the transactions complained of. During the discussion on this Bill a great many arguments have been used with regard to the large ratepayers. This is a class of charge which falls with particular hardship on the large ratepayers. Take the case of the eviction of a small tenant

  1671
  from his holding, resulting in malicious injury. Is it on the small tenant, or the sympathisers of the tenant, that the burden of payment falls? Not at all; it is on the cesspayers, and the larger cesspayers have to bear the larger share, although they are utterly blameless in the matter. It would be quite as fair to penalise, or put a money charge upon a farmer in Essex for an outrage committed in Wiltshire. I think this is really one of the matters which the Government might well reconsider, and I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I agree with the honourable Gentleman opposite, that the burden of compensation for malicious injuries does not fall upon those who are really responsible. The real perpetrators of these outrages are the politicians who come down to recommend the Irish tenants to "make a man's life unhappy"—that is the phrase—and that method of political pressure in Ireland means that the luckless individual will find his cows with their tails cut off, his cattle hocked, and so forth. I am sorry that these fines, or "penal charges," do not find out the real culprits. If the Irish people were left to themselves these disgraceful and barbarous acts would never be committed. At the same time, as this is the way in which on former occasions political crusades have been carried on in Ireland, there is no indication in the future that any change will take place, but the "landgrabbers" are to be visited in the same way as of old. I must say I think it would be an act of madness on the part of the Government to alter their Bill by removing the only practical means of punishing those who adopt methods which have brought disgrace both on themselves and on the country to which they belong.
  MR. FLYNN: If the burden of compensation for these outrages is to fall on the shoulders of those who are really responsible, it will be a hard day for the
  1672
  landlords of Ireland. They are the sole original and only cause of all this trouble, and they ought to be made to pay for it. That is exactly the basis of my Amendment. Instead of inflicting on them, as we ought to do, if justice is to be done—which is the last thing one can expect from this wise House of Commons—a proper punishment for their long series of misdeeds, we are now actually voting them a grant-in-aid. If the honourable and gallant Member really desires to see those who are responsible for all these outrages brought to book, he would so alter the law as to inflict a fine on the landlords in every county where malicious injury is inflicted. I do not go so far as that, but I say that the British Government ought to bear their share of payment for these criminal injuries, if they persist in maintaining this iniquitous system of levying compensation, a system which has been condemned over and over again by three-fourths of the Irish representatives.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no doubt, unfortunately, that under the system of giving compensation for malicious injury in Ireland, it must often happen that a charge is thrown on the cesspayers who are perfectly innocent; but the system is adopted because we find in Ireland what does not occur in England or Scotland—popular sympathy with various forms of agrarian crime, and unwillingness to aid in bringing the real offenders to justice. The only means by which we can punish the real, but frequently unknown, culprits, and at the same time quicken the public sense in regard to these outrages, is to levy this general charge. I fail to see that the honourable Member has made out any sufficient case for his Amendment.
  Question put—
  "That sub-section (b) stand part of the clause."
  Committee divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 69.—(Division List No. 107.)
  And it being after midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
  House adjourned at 12.10.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (ACTON SEWAGE) BILL.
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  KETTERING WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  ST. ANNE'S-ON-THE-SEA GAS BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  ENFIELD GAS BILL.
  Reported without Amendment.
  FOLKESTONE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  KNOTT END RAILWAY BILL.
  Orders made on the 5th instant and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed for Friday next.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
  Orders made on the 26th of April and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed for Friday next.
  THANET GAS BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  STAINES RESERVOIRS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
  Read the second time, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  SOUTHEND-ON-SEA GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, with the Amendments; passed, and returned to the Commons.
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners.
  SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners.
  HART'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  NORTON AND HALTON ROADS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; afterwards read the first time; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. [No. 73.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read the third time on Friday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read the third time on Friday next.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order).
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order).
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES (1898), No. 7.
  Agreement between the United Kingdom and France respecting the express delivery of parcels; signed at Paris, 13th April, 1898: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ARMY (MILITIA).
  Further regulations relating to the Militia.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  Abstract of accounts of the University of Glasgow for the year ended 30th September, 1897, being the annual Report on the state of the finances of the University, under the provisions of section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  LICENSING (DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read the second time on Friday next.
  PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 72.)
  ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT SCHOOL (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read the third time on Friday next.
  LUNACY BILL. [H.L.]
  Committee of the whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Friday next.
  COPYRIGHT BILL. [H.L.]
  Select Committee to meet on Monday next at a quarter before Four o'clock.

  COPYRIGHT (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Select Committee to meet on Monday next at a quarter before Four o'clock.
  Report from the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee, That the Committee have added the Earl Russell to the Standing Committee for the consideration of the Lunacy Bill (H.L.); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  OCCUPATION OF WEI-HAI-WEI.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government what were their intentions as to the occupation of Wei-hai-Wei, said: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess opposite will not be surprised that I have placed on the Paper the Notice for to-day about Wei-hai-Wei. There is, no doubt, considerable anxiety as to the course which Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue with regard to the occupation of that port. It seems to me that the occupation must be regarded in two aspects: first, to a considerable extent from the professional aspect of what the precise advantages of the port may be from a naval point of view, and what should be done to make it as valuable for that purpose as possible; and, second, from the point of view of the policy of this country with regard to the Far East, and on what that policy is based. As regards the advantages of the port from a naval point of view, I am, of course, not in any way competent to express an opinion. All I can say is that, having read with great attention a variety of opinions expressed by experts on the subject, I remain no wiser than I was before. Opinions differ very much as to its probable utility; but, my Lords, I conclude that this, at all events, is a point which the Government must have carefully considered—namely, whether it would be necessary to fortify the port and to garrison it with British or Indian troops; and also whether or not it is to be regarded as a second naval base to Hong-kong, or merely as a place where ships can go in from time to time, and

  1507
  from which you can watch what takes place in the neighbourhood of the Gulf of Pechili. For my part, although, as I said, I am no expert, I have consider able doubts whether the advantages are so great as some people represent them to be. At all events, it seems to be quite clear that any advantage which may be derived from the naval point of view must be restricted to the particular quarter of China which adjoins the Gulf of Pechili. For other purposes our base at Hong-kong will be sufficient, as it always has been. Apart from these questions, which are certainly not without their importance, unless some considerable strategic advantage is obtained, it will clearly be a very great burden on this country to have to keep a large garrison at Wei-hai-Wei; nor would it be matter of indifference if you were to attempt to make it a large fortified port. In that case I conclude it would require considerable expenditure of money. If, however, it is really of first-rate importance as a naval base, no one in this country will grudge the expenditure which may be necessary for that purpose. I rather anticipate to hear that it is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as of somewhat Secondary importance. Now, with regard to the policy connected with Wei-hai-Wei. There again I feel consider able doubt from the utterances which we have heard on the subject, and from the Papers—which I, of course, have studied—that have been laid before Parliament. The noble Marquess, I think in February last, said in one of the dispatches addressed to our Minister at Pekin that the interests of this country and Russia were not antagonistic. What I think the noble Marquess said was that he agreed entirely with an observation of Count Muravieff to that effect. The subsequent proceedings of Her Majesty's Government seemed to be based on a different view, because it appeared that it was the occupation of Port Arthur by the Russians which in their view necessitated our occupation of Wei-hai-Wei. There is another thing which has puzzled me. One of the remarks of the noble Marquess was that the occupation of Port Arthur by Russia was a mistake on the part of Russia, or, at all events, it wan balanced by our occupation of
  1508
  Wei-hai-Wei. Well, that, I must say, rather perplexed me, and I was also Unable to understand from the first how it was that the Government did not perceive that, if Russia were to extend her dominion to Manchuria, it was absolutely certain that the ice-free port which she would possess in Manchuria would be occupied by her as a naval base. It was perfectly clear to everyone that Russia would not occupy Manchuria merely for the purpose of having a commercial port, but that she would insist upon having a naval base in Manchuria. I am unable, therefore, to understand why Her Majesty's Government did not from the first base their policy, whatever it might have been, on the knowledge that in all probability the naval base to be selected by Russia in that quarter of the world would be Port Arthur. I suppose it is not unfair to assume that our occupation of Wei-hai-Wei is an answer to the occupation by Russia of Port Arthur. Now what does that imply? It implies clearly a policy of direct antagonism to Russia in that quarter of the world. Now, if we are to place ourselves in this position of direct antagonism, it is necessary to consider how far Wei-hai-Wei will be of avail in enabling us to maintain that position. I must not be understood to say that I desire that we should be placed in antagonism to Russia. I am arguing on the supposition—which, I think, is the only one which can be derived from the course recently pursued by the Government in the occupation of Wei-hai-Wei—that our antagonistic position to Russia in that quarter of the world is regarded by them as inevitable. I think that this is perfectly clear, and Her Majesty's Government have throughout, I think, the later stages of these proceedings clearly perceived and admitted that the power of Russia in the Far East, after these remarkable changes which have taken place, is a power which is derived from her position by land. When Russia has completed her Siberian railway, and that section of the railway which brings her down to the open sea in the Gulf of Pechili, her military power in that quarter of the world will be enormously increased. Although we have been taught by the celebrated work of Captain Mahan that a sea Power has a

  1509
  considerable effect, even with regard to the operations of another Power by land, yet I cannot conceive that the possession of Wei-hai-Wei—while Russia occupied Manchuria, and occupies it, as she pan perfectly do, with a very large military force—can enable us successfully, by that means, to resist the advance of Russia in the direction of Pekin. Therefore I do not see that the occupation of Wei-bai-Wei, looked at from that point of view, will be an advantage to this country. Of course, I will not pass over what I think was pointed out by the noble Marquess himself, and what I admit—namely, the temporary advantage to us of Wei-hai-Wei. After all that took place with regard to the negotiations in the East, to which I do not wish to refer this evening, I can conceive that Her Majesty's Government felt that their influence at Pekin would be seriously diminished unless they in some way indicated that they were by no means abandoning the position of this country in that part of the world. I can conceive that, for a time, the measure of occupying Wei-hai-Wei might assist us in maintaining our position diplomatically at Pekin. But I desire rather to consider the occupation of Wei-hai-Wei from the point of view of what permanent advantage it may be to this country, and what policy is implied by it in the Far East. We have had some remarkable utterances on this subject. The noble Marquess, in a very interesting speech which he made to a very interesting body—the Primrose League—recently said—
  "As long as the Chinese Empire remains upright, I do not think that that power (the power of Russia by land) can be exercised even if Russia desires to exercise it—which I am by no means asserting—to the injury of the rest of the world."
  Now, my Lords, that seems to assume that China is upright. I should have said that "upright" was the last epithet which could describe the present position of China. China is not upright; it is prostrate, and I do not myself at present see by what means she is to be raised to such a position of restored power as to enable her successfully to resist the pressure of her powerful neighbour to the north. I am not the only person who takes that view. I suppose most of us have been, I will not say startled, be-
  1510
  cause I think that may be regarded as a strong expression, but immensely interested in a speech which was made by a distinguished colleague of the noble Marquess a day or two ago. There are many things in that speech which have no connection with the subject-matter I am now bringing forward, but I find there a long reference to our position in China. Now, in the first place, I observe that, far from admitting that China is upright, Mr. Chamberlain, in the speech to which I am referring, after saying that nobody was prepared for the total collapse of China, goes on to say—
  "From the moment that you recognised that fact—namely, the collapse of China—you had to see that China, unless she were assisted from outside, is absolutely at the mercy of the great military empire, with its hundred million inhabitants and its 4,000 miles of land frontier on the boundary of China."
  That declaration is not consistent with the view of the noble Marquess that China is upright, and that as long as China is upright there is no danger from Russia; but if Mr. Chamberlain's view is correct—and I must say I entirely agree with it—China is in such a condition that she is unable to hold her ground against her great neighbour without assistance from without. Now, will the possession of Wei-hai-Wei give us the power of effectively assisting her from without, if ever—I do not wish to anticipate it—Russia should take measures to march southwards, and perhaps occupy Pekin? It seems to me that is an impossible proposition. It is quite impossible to conceive that the mere possession of Wei-hai-Wei could enable us to resist such an advance if it were really undertaken. Well, then, it may naturally be asked, with Mr. Chamberlain, because he made an allusion to the position of affairs when we were in office—did we foresee the position in which China would be placed by its collapse after the war with Japan, and did we take any measures to prevent the consequences which might follow from the collapse? Now, my Lords, I have not much to say on that subject, but I will be quite explicit. We were perfectly alive to the enormous change which must necessarily follow from the collapse of China, in consequence of her defeat by Japan, and we had to consider—Mr. Chamberlain

  1511
  alludes to it—whether or not we should join with the three other Powers—Russia, Germany, and France—who invited us to join in the measures which they took to compel Japan to relinquish possession of Port Arthur. My Lords, knowing, as we did, that that step on the part of those three Powers would have considerable after-results, we came to the conclusion, nevertheless, first, that we were not justified in interfering, as regards a war in which we had taken no part, with the victorious power; and, secondly, we were of opinion, looking to the great change impending in the Far East, that there was nothing more important to this country than to establish a friendly relation with the growing naval Power of Japan. A naval Power will always be of more consequence as a friend to this country in that quarter of the world than any other Power, and I believe that a more seriously mistaken policy could not have been committed than to have joined the other Powers in that action against Japan, thereby alienating her from this country. My Lords, it has been asked by Mr. Chamberlain: "What did we do? Why did we take no steps to come to a timely understanding with Russia?" How was it possible, diplomatically, in the circumstances in which we were placed? The Treaty of Shimonoseki was not signed till nearly the middle of April, and the late Government of which I was a member, was turned out of office in June. I think that anybody will see that between April and June it would have been absolutely impossible for us to establish a fresh understanding with Russia. Far be it from me to say that such an understanding would not be desirable; on the contrary, I think it would have been of great advantage, but I do say that the reproach cast upon us by Mr. Chamberlain is answered simply by this: that the position we were in, whatever we might have intended or thought, rendered our entering into such an understanding absolutely impossible. I am not in the least disposed to indulge in any tu quoque—an argument of little force—but I cannot help remarking that
  1512
  if such an understanding were desirable and possible, Her Majesty's present Government have had two-and-a-half years in which to discuss and consider it. So much for that matter. To return to the question of policy connected with Wei-hai-Wei, and the Far East generally: I must again refer to Mr. Chamberlain's speech, and I refer to it, not for the purpose of going into general questions of foreign policy, which, I think, would not be germane to this occasion, but because he bases the greater part of his rather remarkable utterance upon the position of affairs in China. Towards the close of his speech he laid it down very strongly that our position there is one which must necessarily place us in some difficulty on account of the change of situation, and the conclusion, apparently, at which he arrived was that such was the position and such was the pressure upon us that the time had arrived when we were to make a vast change in our diplomatic attitude—a change which would affect not only our attitude in China—for it could not be confined to China—but throughout the world, and that we were to abandon the principle upon which we have for many years acted with regard to our foreign affairs, of not engaging in what are commonly called entangling alliances with other Powers, but, on the contrary, that it was our duty to seek for alliances. Now by these alliances can only be meant alliances for mutual defence. No other alliances can possibly be pointed at. Now alliances for mutual defence, of course, imply taking a position of antagonism against somebody. An alliance of that nature in the Far East must mean an alliance against Russia. I am by no means saying that we ought to keep out of view the great and growing power of Russia, but when I am told that the moment has come that a warning requires to be given to the nation that the policy pursued for so many years is to be changed, and we are to seek for alliances, I ask myself whether this is the moment—whether the moment has arrived when so great a change should be sought to be brought into effect; and I ask myself this also—can it be (of course I am not in the secrets of

  1513
  the Government) that Her Majesty's Government have so far advanced in that direction that ere long we may hear of the conclusion of some great alliance with a powerful European nation? For although I value as much as any man a good understanding and close friendship with the United States, yet I cannot conceive of an alliance of that kind with the United States, because it is contrary to all policy which the United States has hitherto pursued. The alliance, therefore, must be sought elsewhere—it must be sought in Europe. Can it be that Her Majesty's Government have advanced in that direction so far that the time has arrived when the announcement of a change of policy has to be made by a conspicuous Member of the Cabinet? I cannot conceive that such an announcement would otherwise be made. And for this reason, that, although it is, no doubt, extremely true that in these democratic times you have to carry the country with you, yet, on the other hand, the country will expect that your foreign affairs shall be conducted in such a way as to be likely to be successful, and you will not gain pardon, if you are unsuccessful, merely by saying, "Oh, we thought it was necessary to tell you what we were thinking" Now, it appears to me that unless Her Majesty's Government have given such indications to other Powers on this subject, and those indications have met with such a reception that they are justified in bringing this before the country as a matter which it ought seriously to consider, because the time may not be far distant when an actual alliance may be concluded—unless they have done that no possible step could be taken more likely to prevent the conclusion of such an alliance than such statements as those of Mr. Chamberlain. It is from that point of view that I complain bitterly of such a speech having been made. My Lords, it is not, I imagine, possible for any man who has been connected in any way with the conduct of foreign affairs in this country to shut his eyes to the possible danger which may arise from our isolation, nor can one keep out of mind that it might be possible—I am not saying at this moment it is desirable—for the very safety of
  1514
  this country to enter into an alliance, if it can be found, for mutual defence with other Great Powers. But the crisis of affairs when that should be seriously attempted, in my opinion, has not arrived. Little, indeed, can I see the day when it will arrive. With reference to another part of Mr. Chamberlain's speech—namely, an attack upon our commercial supremacy—I do not think there is the remotest chance of an alliance based upon commercial policy with any nation. What might happen is this—there may be cases where the interests of other nations coincide with ours; and if their interests and ours are the same in any great crisis, it may be necessary, if it be possible, for this nation to enter into such an alliance for mutual defence. I will not believe, until I hear it, that Her Majesty's Government intend to enter into an alliance of mutual defence for the purpose of maintaining our position in China—knowing as I do that such a alliance could not be conducted on the principle of limited liability, but that mutual defence would mean mutual defence in every part of the world. Now, my Lords, I end by saying that I do not precisely see the great advantage that we have derived from Wei-hai-Wei. I am most desirous—and I believe the country is also—clearly to understand what is the basis of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Far East. We wish to know that the Government have some clear view as to the policy which is to be pursued by them, and unless there is something in it which is entirely contrary to the safety of the country, it will receive no obstruction from this side of the House.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, the notice of the noble Earl was to ask what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to the occupation of Wei-hai-Wei. It was impossible for me to foresee in that notice an intention on the part of the noble Earl to enter upon a lengthened examination and refutation of Mr. Chamberlain's speech at Birmingham; and indeed I do not think he could have had that intention, for he put the notice down before the speech was delivered.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Quite true.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: But I do not feel that I ought to enter upon such a discussion without the advantage of notice, and without the still greater advantage of having in my hand the speech of my right honourable Friend. It is evident that the greater part of the argument of the latter portion of the noble Earl's speech turned upon the interpretation to be placed upon various sentences uttered by Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham; and I could not, without adequate opportunity of examining the accuracy of the noble Earl's investigations, undertake to discuss such a matter with him. I will dwell upon one matter only which he referred to, and which has been alluded to by Mr. Chamberlain—namely, the effect on the present state of affairs of the policy pursued by the late Government at the close of the Japanese and Chinese War. I very much concur with the general principles which the noble Earl laid down—that is to say, it was not desirable that we should join in ousting the victor from the results of the victory he had won; and still more, that it was greatly contrary to our policy to do anything that would alienate the rising power of Japan, with whom we had so many grounds for sympathy and co-operation. I entirely concur in that view, and if I were to venture on a criticism of the policy of that time, it would be from a totally different aspect. I should have doubted the wisdom of this country standing by and seeing Russia and her allies driving Japan out of Leaotong peninsula without taking some security that Russia was not doing that with a view to future operations. My impression is that that might have been a condition obtained at the time—that all parties who took a share in that arrangement should have bound themselves not to deprive China in the future of the territory which they were then preserving. That would have been a security which, I think, Japan would have joined with you in welcoming. That is the only point in the noble Earl's criticism on Mr. Chamberlain's speech which I will venture to examine, because it is obvious that it is easy to
  1516
  draw the most general conclusions from isolated sentences taken away from their context; and that without a careful study of the matter that comes before and the matter that follows, it would be impossible to say whether such criticisms are just. I prefer to confine my answer to the question of which the noble Earl gave notice, and to speak merely with respect to Wei-hai-Wei, which was the nominal text of his address. Now I think the noble Earl was somewhat hypercritical in his treatment of the metaphors which had been employed by myself and Mr. Chamberlain. If the noble Earl quoted us rightly—and I do not for a moment doubt it—it does appear that on one occasion I spoke of China in terms which might imply that she was upright, and that on another occasion Mr. Chamberlain spoke of China in terms which might imply that she was prostrate. No doubt those two metaphors are not on all fours with each other. But it does not follow that they cannot, both with perfect justice and truth, be applied to the same subject from different points of view. As far as it was a question of resisting the Powers at the moment, undoubtedly China was prostrate; she had no power at her command to range against the forces which Russia could have brought to bear against her. But if you take a wider view, and look into the future and ask what are the powers of which for future contingencies and difficulties China might dispose, I think you will conclude that, on a wide view of that kind, you never could pronounce that 400,000,000 of men who, whatever else they are, are the bravest of the brave—for they fear death less than any race of men we know of—could ever be absolutely prostrate. I do not in the least believe in the prostration of China in that wider sense. She has got a Government, of whose merits perhaps we will not speak in very enthusiastic terms; but still, it is a Government which enables an enormous commerce to be carried on. She raises a large revenue, and she has traditions of many centuries in the possession of an empire of unequalled compactness and magnitude. And she has this enormous population, who are united at all events by this one sentiment—that the thing which they hate most of all is the

  1517
  domination of the foreigner. What she wants is someone to lead her. Who shall say that these men will not appear, or that China is for ever prostrate, because she cannot give effect to the enormous material and physical forces she possesses? I should say that what China wants is courage, and one of the defences of the occupation of Wei-hai-Wei is that it had a tendency to strengthen China against despair, and to give her courage, if the occasion should arise, to stand up against her enemies. The danger of allowing the occupation of Port Arthur to take place without any corresponding movement on our own side was that China, or, at all events, large classes of Chinamen, would give themselves up to despair, and believe that the domination of one foreign Power was a destiny from which it was impossible for them to escape. It was our business to tell them that, as far as we were able to prevent it, that destiny would not overtake them. I do not know that we could have done anything more effective for restoring their courage, and I am quite sure that there was no more effective method of driving them to despair than, without some corresponding action on our side, allowing the military occupation of Port Arthur by the Power which already stands over such an enormous portion of their frontier, and threatens them with such a large preponderance of military force. My Lords, I think the mistake of the noble Earl's estimate of the policy in the East is that it has been somewhat too material. He has asked whether, on strategic grounds, Wei-hai-Wei would be of such enormous value. I do not care to answer him on that point, not because I doubt it myself, but because it implies for its treatment knowledge of experts which I do not possess. But what is really of importance is the effect which our policy should have upon the opinion of the East; and remember that in alluding to "the opinion of the East" I do not merely speak of the opinion of those 400,000,000 of Chinamen, all-important as they may be. But I recognise the fact that there are other ancient monarchies in the neighbourhood of China which appear now to be on an upward and progressive course, and whose policy and power will weigh
  1518
  heavily in determining the destinies of the future. It was most important that, not only in Chinese opinion but in Corean and Japanese opinion also, we should not be thought to have been throwing up the game in the neighbourhood of those territories which lie near Port Arthur. Therefore, as an agent operating on the opinions of large masses of men, I think the occupation of Wei-hai-Wei was a wise occupation. The noble Earl, I thought, rather intimated or hinted that we had done it lightly, and merely to satisfy a passing political necessity. I entirely repudiate that idea. I cannot understand on what it is based. Our position was simply this: we did not wish to see commenced in any degree the dismemberment of China. We did not wish to encourage it; and, above all, we did not desire to be thought by the Chinese and by the other nations to which I have referred to be ourselves on the look-out for territorial seizures, and to be willing to take part in the division of spoils which other nations might be looking to. Our object was not only to discourage the dismemberment of China, but to repudiate and throw off from ourselves the imputation and opprobrium that we were the persons who began it. For that reason we could say nothing about occupying any of the northern ports so long as no other nation was known to intend doing so. The noble Earl told us it was quite certain that Russia would seize a military port. I do not know where he got the information. I doubt very much whether, at all events as an early and immediate measure, the occupation of Port Arthur was resolved upon very long in the councils of Russia. But be that as it may, with our object of convincing nations in the East that we were not bent on territorial aggrandisement, it was necessary not only that we should believe that Russia was going to take Port Arthur, but that we should have practical, clear, and manifest evidence of her action and her design to justify us in taking a similar measure; and therefore it was that we said nothing about Wei-hai-Wei until we felt certain that Port Arthur was about to be occupied. What we are to do with Wei-hai-Wei is the next question which the noble Earl addressed to me. Well, I must remind the noble

  1519
  Earl that Wei-hai-Wei is at present in the occupation of Japan, and that we clearly can do nothing with Wei-hai-Wei until Japan has surrendered it into our hands. What is more, though we can very easily lay down general principles as to our conduct in this respect, anything like an answer in the nature of detail to that question is impossible until detailed information is obtained. That it will be our duty to garrison and protect it, so far as garrison and protection are necessary, is a truism to assert. That it is our object to improve the harbour and make it better for the purposes it will have to fulfil is, of course, another truism. But until we have minute information—such information as I imagine is yet possessed by no nation—we cannot tell how far operations for its improvement can be carried on with a certainty of sufficient success to justify the expense which would be incurred upon them. There are at present officers both of the Army and Navy on their way to Wei-hai-Wei. We are looking to them for reports, which I have no doubt will be both detailed and very valuable. We shall then be able to form, not only in general but in minute particulars, an idea of the precise extent to which expenditure will have to be incurred, and the precise manner in which that expenditure will be applied. I do not know, however, that, even when we have that information, I could promise to communicate it to the noble Earl across this Table. No doubt, on the other hand, if he has sufficient curiosity to ask me for it privately, I shall be willing to communicate it to him. But it is quite evident that, until we receive those reports, it is impossible for us to give any forecast of the precise nature of the measures we shall take for the defence and improvement of Wei-hai-Wei. There was, as the noble Earl is aware, a survey taken some time ago by the Admiralty, and from it we can clearly see that, even at present, it is a very valuable station in which a very considerable squadron can be harboured with safety; and I think we can also see that no very con-
  1520
  siderable expenditure will make it still more valuable than it is. And though it is perfectly true that we took a lease of Wei-hai-Wei in the first instance as a political measure in order to balance and compensate that which had been done by another Power, the noble Earl must not suppose that in our minds that is the only advantage which attaches to it. The advantage of Wei-hai-Wei is that it is a naval station and base in the midst of a region which is rapidly becoming of importance, and where commercial operations, growing larger and larger year by year, are likely to take place. Since Hong-kong was acquired, Japan has, so to speak, come into existence, and with this great project of carrying a railway across Siberia—which I lament has been diverted apparently to the service of military designs, but which, so far as it is only a commercial project, I hail as a great step in the industrial progress of the world—it is quite clear that the northern province of China and the Chinese Sea are likely to be very much more important in the future that they have been in the past, and will not be served sufficiently by a station so distant as Hong-kong, which was adequate for our purposes so lone as the centre of our interests was in Canton or even in Shanghai. It was necessary that we should have a coaling station and a naval station in those regions, and Wei-hai-Wei will answer that purpose; and I have no doubt that in commercial advantages it will amply secure us, and will mere than compensate us for any expenditure which may be incurred upon it. My Lords, I am sorry that I am unable to give the noble Earl in this matter more exact information; but I think that any impartial person will see that it follows from the necessities of the case that until we have had an opportunity for accurate survey neither the question of expense nor the question of improvements can be settled. As for our general policy, we have not changed, and I imagine we shall not change. We wish to see the Chinese Empire maintained. We do not believe

  1521
  in a European nation at that great distance, undertaking the government of these 400,000,000 of men. We believe that the only hope of the well-being of the population and for the growth of industry and commerce must be a reform in the government of the Chinese people themselves; and that in the prosecution of this reform they must be protected, so far as we can protect them, from any external interference with their destiny. We are anxious, if possible, that the interference of foreign nations shall be limited to that encouragement of domestic improvement which foreign nations have such enormous powers of giving. We earnestly trust that they will agree sufficiently not to hinder each other in carrying that good work forward—that they will not destroy the hopes of raising up a splendid industrial and commercial structure by quarrels over territories which can only end in the destruction of commerce and industries together; and to that end we shall cultivate to the utmost of our abilities the friendship of all Powers with whom we may come into contact. That end is the policy which Her Majesty's Government will pursue.

  NAVAL RESERVE.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask your Lordships' permission to the adjournment until Friday of the following Motion which stands on the Paper in my name for this evening:—
  "To move to resolve that in view of the serious need that exists of insuring in time of war an adequate reserve for our Navy, and also a constant supply of food to this country, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take such measures as may be deemed advisable (1) to encourage and assist the British shipowers in their competition with foreign vessels, to man their vessels exclusively with British subjects; (2) to ensure that men shipping as seamen shall be bonâ fide of the class that their certificates and discharges would show them to be; and (3) to amend the law relating to such certificates and discharges."
  Adjournment agreed to.
  House adjourned at 5.30.