Sitting of 20 May 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BLACKPOOL AND FLEETWOOD TRAMROAD (TRAMWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  WIRRAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  NEWHAVEN HARBOUR AND OUSE LOWER NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table a Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, "That, in the case of the Petition for additional provision in the above Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with."
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (PENSIONS) BILL.
  Reported; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (SEWAGE, ETC.) BILL.
  Reported; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  PLYMOUTH AND STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
  Reported; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LONDON, TILBURY AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LONDON BUILDING ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CARMARTHEN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  HOLMES'S PATENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  MARIANAO AND HAVANA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  MORLEY CORPORATION (GAS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments
  MUMBLES RAILWAY AND PIER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  WIGAN CORPORATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
  As amended, considered; a clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  As amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW WORKS) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND EAST COAST RAILWAY BILL.
  Petition for additional provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (PROVISIONAL ORDER) BILL.
  MR. SPICER: I am anxious to ask for an explanation from the Government to some of these clauses. Under this Bill the Receiver General is empowered to take certain lands which belong to the Bishopsgate Foundation, a very important Foundation which is doing magnificent work at the present time in its reorganised condition. As the Bill stands, that Foundation will have to part with its property, which is on a very favourable lease, and they lose the reversion.
  MR. SPEAKER: This will stand over till Monday.

  LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table; Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table; Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table; Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  COMMONS REGULATION (RUNCORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order, under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, relating to Runcorn Heath and Runcorn Hill, in the county of Chester."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Walter Long and Mr. Hanbury.
  Presented, and read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the borough of Devonport."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  Presented, and read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]

  TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) (LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY) BILL.
  "To confirm an Order in Council of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council in Ireland relating to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.
  Presented, and read the first time, referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]

PETITIONS.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  For weekly payment: From Poplar, and Forden, to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Leeds, Glasgow (2), and Pontefract, to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour: From Ayr, Tain, Kirrie-muir, Haddington, West Calder, Berwick-on-Tweed, North Queensferry, Wishaw, and Conan Bridge, to lie upon the Table.

  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  In favour: From Farnworth, Guildford, Canterbury, Lavender Hill, Stopham, New Moston, Bodmin, Fulham and Hammersmith, Wigton, Blackpool, Gordon Branch of Women's Guild, Wallsend, Bristol (3), Harrogate, Stowmarket, Bexhill, Rotherhithe, Plumstead, Plymouth, Burgh-by-Sands, Roby, Ambleside, Shotley Bridge, Derby, Wotton-under-Edge, Eccles, Storrington, Oxford, Brampton, Heaton and Newcastle, Nottingham, Bolton, Louth, Gunnislake Stratford-on-Avon and Snitterfield, Warwick, Long Eaton, Lancashire and Cheshire, Clifton, Gateshead, Poplar, Brighton, Cornwall, Scarborough, Mary-port, Aberystwyth, Wells, Winscombe, Wickham Market, Berkhampstead, Stockport, Rothwell, Tottington, Gannow, St. Ives, Wigan, Sheerness, Kingston-on-Thames, Liverpool (5), Sawston, Swansea, Honiton, Totterdown, Leicester, Aylesbury, Haslingden, Lincoln, Halifax, Harrogate, Nottingham, Stoke Newington, Eccles, East Grinstead, Banbury (2), Darlington (2), Enfield, Carlton (2), Wednesbury, Bristol, Stafford, Huddersfield (2), Chelsea, Lewes, Sullington, London (9), Croydon (2), Alresford, Manchester (2), Farnley, St. Thomas, Sheffield (4), Beverley, West Hartlepool, Midhurst, West Bowling, Kensington, Oxford, Lydbrook, Colchester, Macclesfield, Rotherham (2), Eastleigh, Sunderland, Bedford, Norwich, Southend-on-Sea, Gainsborough, Wallsend, Stairfoot, St. Helens (2), Leicester, Little Lever, Gloucester, Hornsey, Nottingham (3), Doncaster, Oswald-twistle, Ramsgate, Glasgow (2), Hayward's Heath, Preston, Henley, Leather-head, Darlington, Oldham, Chichester (2),

  115
  Bocking, Newport, Winchester, Exeter, West Derby, Middleton, Sutton (3), Llandaff, Aberdeen, Cornwall (2), Epsom (2), Luddendenfoot, Bratton, Petworth (2), Midhurst, Sutton Bridge, Harwich, Tamworth, Hornsey, Wisborough Green, Bletchley, Bignor, New Brompton (2), Queensbury, Lewes, Guildford, Newton Abbot, Calstock, Hanley, Yeovil, Eaton Socon, Bexhill, Altrincham, Heywood, Ashstead, Maldon, South Kensington, Lynchmere, Horsham, Brighton (2), Grays, Cheltenham, Wellingborough, Erith, Brampton, Mansfield, Manchester, Devonport, Didsbury, Warrington, Horsham, Wallington, Great Yarmouth, Leicester, Llanelly, St. Annes-by-the-Sea, Newport, Rochester, Southsea, Golborne, Callington, Maidenhead, Ewell, Brentwood, Yarmouth, Windsor, Milland, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Smethwick, Hornsey, Bury, Colchester, Ovenden, Cardiff, Combs, Camberwell, Worsley, Berwick, Tring, Earlstown, Loxwood, Truro, Halton Lea Gate, Exeter, Horncastle, Sevenoaks, Littlehampton and Garston, to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  For alteration: From Galashiels, to lie upon the Table.
  In favour: From Tillicoultry, Wishaw, and Edinburgh, to lie upon the Table.

  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  In favour: From Halifax, to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Holywell, to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Brighton, Leeds, Barry, New Barnet (2), Middlesbrough, Walkley, Staveley, Hempstead, New
  116
  Barnet, South Monmouth, Swansea, New Brompton, Pickhill, Thirsk, Cheltenham, Sutton, Gayton, Ticehurst, Chatham (2), Gillingham, Old Brompton, Melton Mowbray, Pett, Dudley Colliery, Woodstock, Radcliffe, Middlesbrough, Bolton, and Hartlepool, to lie upon the Table.

  VACCINATION BILL.
  Against: From Hackney, to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented of 16th Annual Report, being for 1897, Part I. (General Report), Part II. (Report on Salmon Fisheries), and Part III. (Scientific Investigations) (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented of 37th Annual Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries (England and Wales), for 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented of 12th Annual Report of the Inspectors, for 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2,092 to 2,099 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (PENAL CODE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AMENDMENT) ACTS.
  Copy presented of Papers relating to amendments in the law relating to sedition and defamation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDTA (POST OFFICE ACT, 1898).
  Copy presented of Papers referring to amendments in the law relating to the Post Office in India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented of Return of the number of evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st March, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Copy presented of statistical tables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police for the year 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  RESERVE AND DISCHARGED SOLDIERS CIVIL EMPLOYMENT (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Return relative thereto [ordered 5th May; Mr. Brookfield]; to be printed. [No. 209.]
  LOAN SOCIETIES.
  Abstract of Accounts of loan societies in England and Wales to 31st December, 1896, furnished to the Central Office for the registry of friendly societies [by Act].
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  SOUTHEND-ON-SEA GAS BILL.
  With Amendments.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Without Amendment.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Without Amendment.
  QUESTIONS.
  MR. SPEAKERcalled upon Sir CHARLES DILKE to ask the first question of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The right honourable Gentleman rose to reply, but was met with cries of "No Questions" from all parts of the House. The right honourable Gentleman at once resumed his seat, and the Questions were not proceeded with.
DEATH OF MR. GLADSTONE.

  COMMUNICATIONS TO THE HOUSE.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to acquaint the House that I have received this morning, in my capacity as Speaker of the House, two telegraphic messages which I think it my duty to read to the House. The first is dated this day from Christiania, and is from the President of the Storthing, to the following effect—
  "To the Speaker of the House of Commons, "London.
  "Norwegian Storthing, learning with profound regret the news of Mr. Gladstone's death, beg to express their heartfelt sympathy.

  ULLMANN,
  "The President of the Storthing."
  The other is from the President of the Chamber of Deputies of Italy, dated Rome, this day—
  "To the Right; Honourable the Speaker of the "House of Commons. London.
  "The news of the death of William Gladstone has been received with profound sorrow by the Italian Nation. Ever mindful of the interest constantly shown by that great statesman in the cause of our national resurrection, his death has awakened a heartfelt and solemn echo of grief in the hearts of my colleagnes of the Chamber of Deputies. As the Chamber is now prorogued, it falls upon me, in virtue of my office as President, to interpret their sentiments, and to assure the House of Commons of our lively participation in its

  119
  grief at the loss of so eminent a member, whose whole life was one constant devotion to the service of his country.

  BIANCHERI,
  "President of the Chamber of Deputies."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will be the unanimous desire of the House that these messages, for which we are very grateful, should be entered on the Journal of the House, and that you, Sir, should make an appropriate answer. I believe no Motion is necessary.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MR. GLADSTONE (FUNERAL AND MONUMENT).
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Mr. Lowther, it is now 17 years and more since a Minister rose in his place to discharge the melancholy duty which now devolves upon me. It then fell to the survivor of two great contemporaries, divided in political opinion, opposed to each other for more than a generation, separated it may be even more conclusively by differences of temperament, to propose a national memorial of the other. The task which then fell to Mr. Gladstone was one of infinite difficulty, for he had to propose an Address similar to that which you, Sir, will shortly read from the Chair, at a time when the controversies which had just been ended by death were still living in the immediate recollection of his audience, before the dust of battle had had time to sink, and when the noise of it was still in every ear. How Mr. Gladstone performed that delicate duty is in the memory of all who heard him, and
  120
  I am only glad to think that, difficult as is the task which I have to perform to-day, impossible, indeed, from certain aspects, at all events the difficulties with which he had to contend do not beset my path. No persuasion need be exercised by me in inducing even the most scrupulous to join in an Address which we shall, I believe, unanimously vote this afternoon, for all feel that the great career which has just drawn to its close is a career already in large part a matter of history, and none of us will find even a momentary difficulty in forgetting any of the controversial aspects of his life, even though we ourselves may to some extent have been involved in them. I have said that Mr. Gladstone's great career is already in large part and to the vast majority of this House a matter of history; and is it not so? He was a Cabinet Minister before most of us were born; I believe there is in this House at the present time but one man who served under Mr. Gladstone in the first Cabinet over which he presided as Prime Minister; and even Members of the House not colleagues of Mr. Gladstone who were Members of the Parliament of 1868 to 1874—even those form now but a small and ever-dwindling band. This is not the place, nor this the occasion, on which to attempt any estimate of such a career; a career which began on the morrow of the first Reform Bill, which lasted for two generations, and which, so far as politics were concerned, was brought to a close a few years ago, during a fourth tenure of office as Prime Minister. But, Sir, during those two generations—during those 60 years—this country went through a series of changes, revolutionary in amount, if not by procedure, changes scientific, changes theological, changes social, changes political. In all these phases of contemporary evolution Mr. Gladstone took the liveliest interest. All of them he watched closely; in many of them he took a part—in some of them the part he took was supreme, that of a governing and guiding influence. Sir, how is it possible for us on the present occasion to form an estimate of a life so complex—a life so little to be measured by a purely political standard, a life so rich in results outside the work of this House, the work of Party

  121
  politics, the work of Imperial Administration—how is it possible, I say, for any man to pretend to exhaust the many-sided aspects of such a life even on such an occasion as this? Sir, I feel myself unequal even to dealing with what is perhaps more strictly germane to this Address—I mean, Mr. Gladstone as a politician, as a Minister, as a leader of public thought, as an eminent servant of the Queen; and if I venture to say anything to the House, it is rather of Mr. Gladstone as the greatest member of the greatest deliberative assembly which, so far, the world has seen, that I would wish to speak. Sir, I think it is the language of sober and of unexaggerated truth to say that there is no gift which would enable a man to move, to influence, to adorn an assembly like this that Mr. Gladstone did not possess in a supereminent degree. Debaters as ready there may have been, orators as finished. It may have been given to others to sway as skilfully this critical assembly, or to appeal with as much directness and force to the simple instincts of the great masses of our countrymen; but, Sir, it has been given to no man to combine all those great gifts as they were combined in the person of Mr. Gladstone. From the conversational discussion appropriate to our work in Committee, to the most sustained eloquence befitting some high argument and some great historic occasion, every weapon of Parliamentary warfare was wielded by him with the sureness and the ease of perfect, absolute, and complete mastery. I would not venture myself to pronounce an opinion as to whether he was most excellent in the exposition of some complicated project of finance or legislation, or whether he shone most in the heat of extemporary debate. At least this we may say, that from the humbler ants of ridicule or invective to the subtlest dialectic, the most persuasive eloquence, the most moving appeals to everything that was highest and best in the audience he was addressing—every instrument which could find place in the armoury of a Member of this House he had at his command without premeditation, without forethought, at the moment, and in the form which was best suited to carry out his purpose. I suppose each one of us who has had the good fortune to be
  122
  able to watch any part of that wonderful career must have in mind some particular example which seems to him to embody the greatest excellences of this most excellent Member of Parliament. Sir, the scene which comes back to my mind is one relating to an outworn and half-forgotten controversy now more than 20 years past, in which, as it happened, Mr. Gladstone was placed in the most difficult position which it is possible for a man to occupy—a position in which he finds himself opposed to the united and vigorous forces of his ordinary opponents, but does not happen at the moment to have behind him more than the hesitating sympathy or the veiled opposition of his friends. On this particular occasion I remember there occurred one of those preliminary debates—I ought to say series of debates—which preceded the main business of the evening. In these Mr. Gladstone had to speak, not once, nor twice only, but several times, and it was not until hour after hour had passed in this preliminary skirmishing that, to a House hostile, impatient, and utterly weary, he rose to present his case with that unhesitating conviction in the righteousness of his cause which was his great strength as a speaker in and out of this House. I never, Sir, shall forget the impression that that scene left on my mind. As a mere feat of physical endurance it was unsurpassed; as a feat of Parliamentary courage, of Parliamentary skill, of Parliamentary endurance, and Parliamentary eloquence, I believe that it was almost unique! Alas! let no man hope to be able to reconstruct from our records any living likeness of these great works of genius. The words, indeed, are there, lying side by side with the words of lesser men in an equality as if of death; but the spirit, the fire, the inspiration has gone, and he who could alone revive them, he who could alone show us what these works really were, by reproducing their like—he, alas! has now gone from us for ever. Posterity must take it on our testimony what he was to those, friends or foes, whose fortune it was to be able to hear him. We who thus heard him know that, though our days be prolonged, and though it may be our fortune to see the dawn or even the

  123
  meridian of other men destined to illustrate this House and do great and glorious service to their Sovereign and their country, we shall never again in this Assembly see any man who can reproduce for us what Mr. Gladstone was—who can show to those who never heard him how much they have lost. It may, perhaps, Sir, be asked whether I have nothing to say about Mr. Gladstone's work as a statesman, about the judgment we ought to pass upon the part which he has played in the history of his country and the history of the world during the many years in which he held the foremost place in this Assembly. These questions are legitimate questions. But they are not to be discussed by me to-day. Nor, indeed, do I think that the final answer can be given to them—the final judgment pronounced—in the course of this generation. But one service he did—in my opinion incalculable—which is altogether apart from the verdicts which we may be disposed to pass upon particular opinions or particular linen of policy which Mr. Gladstone may from time to time have adopted. Sir, he added a disunity, and he added a weight, to the deliberations of this House by his genius, for which I think it is impossible to be sufficiently grateful. It is not enough for us simply to keep up a level, though it be a high level, of probity and of patriotism. The mere average of civic virtue is not sufficient to preserve this assembly from the fate which has overtaken so many other assemblies like us—the products of democratic forces. More than this is required, more than this was given to us by Mr. Gladstone. He brought to our debates a genius which raised in the general estimation the whole level of our proceedings; and they will be the most ready to admit the infinite value of this service who realise how much of public well-being is involved in maintaining the dignity and interest of public life, how perilously difficult most democracies apparently find it to avoid the opposite dangers into which so many of them have fallen. Sir, that is a consideration which, perhaps, has not occurred to persons unfamiliar with our debates, or unwatchful of the course of contemporary thought; but to me it seems that it places the services of Mr.
  124
  Gladstone to this Assembly, which he loved so well, and of which he was so great an ornament, in as clear a light and on as firm a basis as it is perhaps possible to place them. In drawing the terms of the Address which will shortly be read from the Chair we have thought it our duty—and in that, at all events, we know that we are pursuing the course which Mr. Gladstone himself would most earnestly have approved—to adhere closely to former precedent. Not one phrase in this address is there which has not at least on one occasion been employed by this House when it was doing honour to some of the greatest of Mr. Gladstone's predecessors. But surely these consecrated phrases never have received a happier application than they have in the case of the great statesman whose loss we are lamenting. We talk of the "admiration" and of the "attachment" of the country. These words have, Sir, perhaps been used with some slight stretch of their meaning with regard to politicians who, falling in the very midst of party contests, can hardly be described as having commanded the universal admiration and attachment of their fellow-countrymen. But I think these words applied to Mr. Gladstone at the present; time are words wholly and absolutely appropriate, without a tingo of exaggeration. Then we go on to speak of the "high sense entertained of his rare and splendid gifts," of his "devoted labours in Parliament and in the great offices of State." We cast our eyes back over those sixty years which divided his first tenure of office from his last, and we feel that in those two generations he did indeed, if any man ever did, make full display of rare and splendid gifts, and did with ungrudging devotion give his labours to Parliament and to great offices of State. Therefore, Sir, it is with an absolute confidence that the Address is one which, not merely in its general purport, but in its particular terms, will meet with the sympathy and approval of every man in all parts of the House, whatever be Ills opinions, that I now venture to move:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions that the remains of the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone be interred at the public charge, and that a monu-

  125
  ment be erected in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter's, Westminster, with an inscription expressive of the public admiration and attachment, and of the high sense entertained of his rare and splendid gifts, and his devoted labours in Parliament and in great offices of State, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same."
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Sir, I am sure the House of Commons has heard with emotion, with admiration, and with approval the noble tribute which has been paid by the Leader of the House of Commons to the greatest of its members. I think it is a remarkable circumstance that in the opening years of the 19th century was witnessed the eclipse of the two greatest lights of the House of Commons of that day, when Pitt and Fox were interred in what may almost be called a common tomb, and that, in the very closing years of the century, the greatest figure who has adorned the annals of the House of Commons should now be laid in his grave. The House of Commons, as the nation of which it is the representative, is deeply conscious of the vast void that is left in its national life; and a striking spectacle was presented yesterday, and is offered today, when we are addressing the Queen in the name of her people to bestow upon his memory the highest honour which is reserved for her greatest sons. In his life Mr. Gladstone declined all distinctions, and it is for the nation in his death to bestow upon him the highest tribute which it has at its disposal. It is in that venerable shrine which, for 500 years, has garnered the memory of those who have built up the renown of the race to which we belong—it is in that glorious pile of accumulated fame that will be added a name, I think, as noble as any which is commemorated there. It will be the record of a great life, greatly spent in the service of a great nation. Sir, no one can forget at this moment—indeed, we are all reminded—of the celebrated saying of the great Athenian in the most celebrated of all funeral orations, "Of famous men the whole earth is the tomb." And the voice of general mourning is coining to us to-day from the remotest quarters of the civilised globe. As the
  126
  right honourable Gentleman has said, and has truly said, it is hardly for us to-day—certainly for no individual amongst us—to endeavour to measure the proportions of so great a character. It is appraised by the public opinion of Great Britain to-day; it will be adjudged in history, as Bacon left his reputation In foreign nations, and future times. We have lately celebrated the sixtieth rear of the reign of the Queen—an epoch memorable for the growth of the prosperity, the happiness, and greatness of this land. But the public life of Mr. Gladstone, as the right honourable Gentleman has reminded us, was commenced before the accession of the Queen. The bright promise of his earlier years has boon fulfilled beyond the expectation even of those who knew him best and admired him most. Far beyond the age allotted to man, he has actively pursued and employed the inexhaustible resources of his genius and his experience in the service of his country. At no period probably has greater progress been made in the history of this or any country, and in that progress it may be said, I think, Para maxima fuit. It is just 30 years since I myself entered the House of Commons, at that election which placed Mr. Gladstone, at the head of affairs. During half of that period he has been First Minister four times in succession. This is not the occasion, as the right honourable Gentleman has justly said, on which we can canvass the policy or the measures for which he is responsible. I am aware that I speak in offering to-day a merited tribute to his political opponents, who are generously offering to-day a merited tribute to his memory. No word shall fall from me which shall jar upon their ears. But I hope I may be permitted for a short time to follow the example of the right honourable Gentleman, and refer to some of those qualities which have commanded the respect and admiration of us all. What inspires confidence and sympathy in the midst of conflicting opinion is the belief that a man is acting from sincere conviction, that what he is doing is that which he honestly believes to be for the advantage of his country. How many characters in history are there which we may admire, though we do not share their opinions! The sincerity of Mr.

  127
  Gladstone no man ewer doubted. What he believed he intensely believed, what he wished he greatly wished, what he wrought he strenuously wrought. These are the constituents of a great character, and these are the qualities which the judgment of history will crown with deserved fame, however people may differ as to the objects to which they were devoted. Mr. Gladstone came into public life fresh from the honours of the University, which, to the last days of his existence, he dearly loved; the University in which (to borrow the fine phrase of Mr. Canning) he "slaked the first thirst of an early ambition"; he entered the House of Commons armed cap-â-pie with all the weapons fitted for the Parliamentary lists—a Parliament which had only just become truly representative of the people. He came into this famous Chamber with a mind stored with various knowledge, ancient and modern, sacred and profane, literary and political; a finished intellect inspired by a native genius. Till the last he was ever looking for fresh materials to feed his inquiring mind in every department of human thought. He had never occasion to exclaim, "I would that my tongue could utter the thoughts that arise in me!" His "thoughts that breathed" were clothed at will in "words that burned," and all who witnessed the displays of those rare and splendid gifts of which the Resolution speaks will remember how he was endowed with that natural eloquence which is the most potent instrument by which in free countries the popular mind is stirred. Who that has ever listened to it can have forgotten the rich harmony of that melodious voice, which had a charm almost of physical persuasion; who will have forgotten the dignified presence, the lucid statement, the resources of reasoning, the high tone of passionate conviction, the vehement appeals to conscience and to truth? The memories to which the right honourable Gentleman has eloquently referred recall the famous extempore translation by Pitt of the passage from Tacitus on oratory, "Eloquence is a flame which requires fuel to feed it, material to excite it, and which brightens as it burns." Is that not an accurate description of the eloquence of Mr. Gladstone,
  128
  which transfused into others the enthusiasm by which he was himself inspired, which delighted the cultivated by its unconscious art, and which carried away the people by the force of its stream? As the right honourable Gentleman has said, he was equally master of the lighter mood. We can recollect how on fitting occasions his humour played like the summer lightning around his theme, and how he exposed his opponents without a wound. And no man can say that these divine gifts were ever employed for mean or vulgar uses. They were exercised on high matters and for noble ends. It gave him a power over the hearts of the British people which, I believe, no other orator has ever possessed. I concur in the appropriate and eloquent words in which the right honourable Gentleman has testified to what the House of Commons owes to the life of Mr. Gladstone. To the matchless powers of his genius he added qualities of great value. He greatly reverenced the House of Commons. He desired to maintain its reputation as the great organ of the will of a free people. No one who has seen it will ever forget the stately dignity, the old world courtesy, which he ever extended to foe and to friend alike. His conduct in the House of Commons, whether in Government or in Opposition, bore all the marks of a lofty spirit. He respected others as he respected himself, and he controlled both by his magnanimity. He was strong, but he was also gentle; he was to us not only a great Statesman, but a great Gentleman. We felt, as the right honourable Gentleman has said, that he exalted the spirit of the Assembly in which he was the undisputed chief; he raised it in its own estimation, and in the estimation of the world; and we recognised that the House of Commons was greater by his presence, as it is greater by his memory. What he did for this House he did for the Nation, too. I think it is impossible to over-value the influence which the purity and the piety of his public and private life has had upon the national life of this country. It has exercised a lasting influence upon the moral sense of the people at large. They have watched him through all the trials of a long

  129
  career passed under the fierce light of political controversy, and they have found in it an example which has permanently raised the standard of public life in this nation. What many have preached he practised. His life has been a lesson which is not and will not be forgotten. There is not a hamlet in this land where his virtues are not known and felt. It is known that his heart was ever with the weak, the miserable, and the poor. They remember how much of his life was spent in labours to alleviate their lot. They know that to him they were always his "flesh and blood." His sympathies were not confined to narrow bounds. The ruling passions of his heart were freedom and peace—freedom not only for his own, but for every race; peace with every people, good-will towards all men, glad tidings of great joy—the gospel of that religion to which, he was devoutly attached. His voice went forth to all who were desolate and oppressed, wherever they might dwell. What was said on the death of Grattan, of his services to the Irish nation, was true in the first degree of Mr. Gladstone—"As it had been the object of his life, so was it his dying prayer, that all classes of men might be united in amity and peace." That was the spirit of Grattan, that was the spirit of Gladstone. In conclusion, may I say a few words of what he was to those who had the privilege of his intimacy in private friendship and in the life of official colleagues. I speak with an experience, I think, longer than that of any man present, and in the recollection of the constant and gracious kindness of 45 years. I have heard men who knew him not at all, who have asserted that the supremacy of his genius and the weight of his authority oppressed and overbore those who lived and worked with him. Nothing could be more untrue. Of all chiefs he was the least exacting, the most kind, and the most tolerant. He was the most placable of men. How seldom in this House was the voice of personal anger heard from his lips! These are true marks of greatness. I read the other day a passage in the life of Pitt by a man who knew him from his youth upwards, and who was his most intimate friend through life,
  130
  which I will ask leave to read, because there is not a line which is not as true of Mr. Gladstone as it was of Pitt—
  "With the most playful vivacity he assumed no superiority in conversation, nor ever oppressed any man with the strength of his talents or the brilliancy of his wit. It was matter of surprise how so much fire could be mitigated, and yet not enfeebled, by so much gentleness, and how so much power could be so delightful. Modesty was the striking feature of his character. He was attentive to the humblest, and kindly patient to the weakest opinion. No man was more beloved by his friends, or inspired those who had the happiness to live in his society with a more sincere and affectionate attachment."
  Such, Mr. Lowther, was the great man, whom we shall attend to the grave amidst the mourning of a grateful people at the noble close of a long and honourable life spent in the service of his Queen and his country. He has deserved well of us and of our race, he has left us an undying memory and the precious inheritance of an enduring example.
  MR. DILLON: Sir, as an Irishman I feel that I have a special right to join in paying a tribute to the great Englishman who died yesterday, because the last and, as all men will agree, the most glorious years of his strenuous and splendid life were dominated by the love which he bore to our nation, and by the eager and even passionate desire to serve Ireland and give her liberty and peace. By virtue of the splendid quality of his nature, which seemed to give him perpetual youth, Mr. Gladstone's faith in a cause to which he had once devoted himself never wavered, nor did his enthusiasm grow cold. Difficulties and the weight of advancing years were alike ineffectual to blunt the edge of his purpose, or to daunt his splendid courage, and even when racked with pain, and when the shadow of death was darkening over him, his heart still yearned towards the people of Ireland, and his last public utterance was a message of sympathy for Ireland, and of hope for her future. His was a great and deep nature. He loved the people with a wise and persevering love. His love of the people and his abiding faith in the efficacy of liberty and of government based on the consent of the

  131
  people, as an instrument of human progress, was not the outcome of youthful enthusiasm, but the deep-rooted growth of long years, and drew its vigour from an almost unparalleled experience of men and of affairs. Above all men I have ever known or read of, in his case the lapse of years seemed to have no influence to narrow his sympathies or to contract his heart. Young men felt old beside him. And to the last no generous cause, no suffering people, appealed to him in vain, and that glorious voice which had so often inspirited the friends of freedom and guided them to victory was to the last at the service of the weak and the oppressed of whatever race or nation. Mr. Gladstone was the greatest Englishman of his time. He loved his own people as much as any Englishman that ever lived. But through communion with the hearts of his own people he acquired that wider and greater gift, the power of understanding and sympathising with other peoples. He entered into their sorrows and felt for their oppressions. And with splendid courage he did not hesitate, even in the case of his much-loved England, to condemn her when he thought she was wronging others, and in so doing he fearlessly faced odium and unpopularity amongst his own people, which it must have been bitter for him to bear; and so he became something far greater than a British statesman, and took a place amidst the greatest leaders of the human race. Amidst the obstructions and the cynicism of a materialistic age he never lost his hold on the "ideal." And so it came to pass that wherever throughout the civilised world a race or nation of men were suffering from oppression, their thoughts turned towards Gladstone, and when that mighty voice was raised in their behalf, Europe and the civilised world listened, and the breathing of new hopes entered into the hearts of men made desperate by long despair. In the years that have gone by England has lost many men who served their country splendidly, and round whose graves the British people deeply mourned; but round the deathbed of Gladstone the people of this island are joined in their sorrow by many peoples, and to-day throughout the Christian world—in many lands and in many tongues—prayers will be offered to that
  132
  God on whom in his last supreme hour of trial Mr. Gladstone humbly placed his firm reliance, begging that He will remember to His great servant how ardently he loved his fellow-men, without distinction of race, while he lived amongst them, and how mightily he laboured for their good.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS: On behalf of the Members representing Welsh constituencies with whom I am associated I desire to add our tribute to those so feelingly expressed by the gentlemen who have preceded me. For upwards of half a century Mr. Gladstone was connected, both by marriage and residence, with the Principality. Indeed, he spoke of Wales with pride as his adopted country, and henceforth it will be among her proudest traditions that the home of the most illustrious statesman of the century was in the Principality. He won the loyalty and confidence of the people, which remained and strengthened up to the end of his days. And, undoubtedly, he was the great factor in bringing about that marvellous change for the better in the social position of the Welsh people, and in giving the impetus to the educational movement that will soon place the Principality on an equality with the most favoured country. No other resident of that country ever wielded so powerful an influence upon its people—an influence manifested by the sacrifices they made to support him in his life's mission. But what impressed them most of all was his deep religious convictions, which called forth a universal feeling of veneration and affection for this friend of humanity and champion of oppressed peoples. We heartily concur in the Motion moved by the First Lord of the Treasury, and we trust that a Memorial will be erected worthy of the nation and of its greatest citizen.
  Motion for Address put, and agreed to.
  Ordered that it be reported to the House.
  House resumed.
  Report stage fixed for Monday next at 3.30.

  TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg to move—
  "That the proceedings on the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, if under discussion at 12 o'clock this night, be not interrupted, under Standing Order Sittings of the House."
  Question put and agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) REMUNERATION.
  Resolution (18th May) reported.

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

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 42.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 23, line 41, after 'council' insert 'and council of a county borough.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALY: Do I understand that I have the assurance of the right honourable Gentleman that the section includes the council of a county borough?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 24, line 6, leave out from the second 'of' to end of sub-section, and insert 'four shillings a week, or one half of such net charge whichever is most.'" (Mr. Macaleese.)
    MR. MACALEESE: The object of this Amendment is to make the section run, "of four shillings a week,
    134
    or one hall of such net charge, whichever is most," instead of "one half of such net charge, or four shillings a week, whichever is least."
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
    Question put.
    Amendment negatived without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 24, line 7, leave out from 'charge' to end of sub-section."—(Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.)
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman approves of this Amendment. Its object is to leave out from the word "charge." to the end of the sub-section, which would then run thus: "throughout the period of maintenance for which the sum is calculated, and one half of such net charge."
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think I can accept this Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Then I withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 24, line 12, leave out 'poor rate made and levied,' and insert 'amount required to be raised.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The object of this Amendment is to secure that a grant of this kind shall be payable, not merely where the poor rate is insufficient for the purposes of the contributions to any railway or harbour, guarantee one half the excess of over 6d., but that it shall extend to the whole sum required for the purpose.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I was going to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether there is any reason for excluding Bray from this section.

    135
    The expense of building Bray harbour did not fall on the county cess, because the local Act compelled them to make a special harbour rate. This harbour rate has nothing whatever to do with any other township rate. It is kept apart from the accounts of the council, and is entirely a separate transaction, and, therefore, it appears to me to be rather severe upon the township that it should be excluded from the benefit of this clause 42. If the right honourable Gentleman insists upon its exclusion from the benefit of this clause it will lose the 3d. in the £, which, under the clause, it would have received on the excess harbour charge of over 6d. This town will then be brought under the union rating system which is proposed in this Bill, but it must be remembered that the rating of Bray is the lowest in the union in which it is situated. I believe it was last year 7d. in the £, and this year it is 8d.; while in some other parts of the union it is 1s. 6d. in the £. The loss of this 3d. in the £ will be a very considerable sum of money for a town like Bray on a valuation of several thousand pounds, and if it is insisted upon excluding Bray, I think it will be treating that township rather badly. This harbour should not have been built by the people of the town of Bray, but it ought to have been built by the Government. The Fishery Inspector and Harbour Commissioners recommended that a harbour should be built at Bray for the protection of life and property. For a great number of years, prior to its being built, there were a considerable number of lives lost. Since the time I have referred to, there has been no harbour to which the fishermen could escape from the fury of the storm, so that evidently this is a harbour which ought to have been built in the public interest and for the sake of safety along this coast of Ireland. It is objected that Bray has no claim in this respect to a share of the grant under this Bill, but I think we ought to get a further explanation from the Chief Secretary, and some reason why this harbour and this town should be placed in a worse position than the town of Wicklow. The harbour of Wicklow will have a right to the grant under this Bill, and I do not see why Bray should be excluded.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Sir, this harbour of Bray has been referred to on several occasions as one of the harbours which ought to enjoy the benefit of the grant under this clause, and if it were on the same footing is the other harbours to which my Amendment refers, it would be included of course in those which are to receive a grant under this clause. But the fact is, that it is not of that class of harbour works in respect of which we intended to give assistance under this Bill. Bray harbour is not a harbour within the meaning of clause 41, which we have already passed, and even if the Amendment which stands in the name of the honourable Member were accepted, I do not think it would apply to Bray harbour. The fact is that we never contemplated that harbour charges, hitherto paid out of the poor rate or the county cess in connection with a general improvement scheme, should receive assistance from a grant of public money given under the Public Acts mentioned in section 41, Acts of a similar character which would include Wicklow, but not Bray. As I understand, Bray harbour was constructed not under a public Act, but under a private Act.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: So was Wicklow.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I hold that Bray harbour really must be regarded as being under the Towns Improvements Act in the same way as certain other harbours to which I have referred.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I really regret that the right honourable Gentleman should have drawn such a microscopic distinction. I think, if you were to analyse this Bill from top to bottom, you would find that nothing more microscopic has been drawn as to distinctions of areas than the distinction which the right honourable Gentleman has just made. It is so narrow that I could not have recognised it, and even with the aid of the light which the right honourable Gentleman has brought, to bear upon it, I can barely estimate its value. As far as I can see, Mr.

    137
    Lowther, this is the ground of the distinction drawn by the right honourable Gentleman. If you make a harbour to save the lives of sailors and to save shipping craft, you will get a certain amount of relief under this Hill; but if you build a harbour for those purposes, and in addition have in your mind the facilities it will give to the town as a tourist resort, then you are excluded from the benefits of this Bill. It is the same sea, it is the same stone, they are the same ships in all these cases; but it is the hinterland of the town that makes the distinction. If the hinterland of the harbour happens to be picturesque, then the right honourable Gentleman says it is to be excluded from the benefits of the grant. What a remarkable distinction! What a blessed system to live under! Let us recognise how slender is the distinction on which relief is given. A beautiful place gets no relief, but a squalid place will get relief, and that is the position taken up by the Government. So after all, as I gather. Mr. Lowther, Wicklow may be thankful that it is not a beautiful harbour, and Arklow may rejoice that it is not picturesque, but Bray must remain in sorrowfulness because it is a tourist resort, as well as a harbour of refuge. Now, what are the facts? Again and again unhappy fishermen have found refuge in this harbour of Bray, which was the only place along the whole coastline available to them. The people of Bray, with great, public spirit, undertook the cost of this work, which, to them, was considerable, because it is only a little town, with seven or eight thousand inhabitants, largely dependent upon the summer tourist season. Bray built this harbour. What occurred in a similar case in this country? When the Dover Improvement Act was being passed through this House you actually put into it a provision that Dover might levy a toll of 1s. upon every traveller from London to France; and, although I have no interest in Dover, when I am going to France, which is seldom, I have to pay 1s. for the benefit of Dover Harbour. But the Chief Secretary says this Bill is being passed for the benefit of Ireland as a whole, and this little town of Bray cannot be included. Let me show an additional injustice. What is the fund from which this grant comes? Sir, I
    138
    have always taken the view that this Measure in many cases was not fair to towns, and it turns out that the fund out of which these charges come is really levied in the towns. Do we not know that most of the retailers of spirits, beer, and sweets live in towns, as do auctioneers, hawkers, house agents, pawnbrokers, and dealers in tobacco, so that the local taxation, with the exception of the taxes of guns and game, is levied upon the towns? It is the money of the towns that you are employing, but when a town like Bray desires to get something of its own—something of its thousands—the right honourable Gentleman says, "Oh, yours is a tourist resort, and you are not entitled to the grant!" I should like to know how the right honourable Gentleman, if he were in a yacht off Bray Head in stress of weather, or during a gale, would like to have the gates of Bray Harbour closed upon him, and to be told he had better lie off, or go down to Wicklow or Arklow, or some other place that will receive grants under this Act. How would the captain of any merchant ship passing by in stress of weather like to be told, "You cannot come into Bray, for this is a place of tourist resort"? Now, Sir, hitherto we have had some sort of argument offered in opposition to our proposed Amendment of this Bill, but this miserable definition which has been drawn as against Bray is the most comical that I think I have ever heard, and it carries the limitation of the grant to a point which I never expected would be reached.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I should like to support the Amendment which my honourable Friend has proposed on behalf of Bray, and I think Bray is being hardly treated. I do not know whether there are many harbours in the same circumstances as Bray, but I think that probably there are not, and the right honourable Gentleman would do well to consider whether it would not be possible to enable Bray to obtain the benefit of this Act. Now, the harbour of Bray is just as much a fishing harbour as any other which has been mentioned, and there is no single place, you may say, from Dublin to Waterford, in which

    139
    there is a convenient place where a yacht might anchor, except Bray and Wicklow. I think, therefore, that it is very hard that the ratepayers of Bray should be taxed for what is really a public harbour. I do not know how much money they have raised, but after all it is a small township, and not one of those wealthy places that can afford to dispense with relief under the grant. I hope, therefore, that the right honourable Gentleman will consider the possibility of making a change in the Bill to enable Bray to get the advantage of the grant under this Act.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I am sorry to say that I think the Chief Secretary has really given a very inadequate explanation of his reason for excluding this harbour of Bray from the benefit of this clause. I remember that when he was replying with reference to this distress in the West of Ireland his usual argument was that the people in the west should be taught self-help and self-reliance. Here is a township which raises a considerable amount of money, to the extent of £100,000, for the purpose of improving the town, to which it invites visitors from all parts of Ireland, and the right honourable Gentleman seems to think that that is the very thing that should cut the town out of this Bill. This is what they get for acting on the principle of self-help and trying to improve the town of Bray, so as to bring it up-to-date as an advanced watering-place, equal to many of those upon the coast of England. That is the most extraordinary way of encouraging self-help that I ever heard of, and I really think that the Chief Secretary should reconsider this matter. I think reason and justice and fair-play will incline him to make some provision for including in the Bill this township of Bray. I see the honourable Member for Belfast opposite, and I am very glad he is in his place, because I think he has considerable knowledge of this township since the time when he was in an official position to know the facts, and I believe he is fully aware of the recommendations which the inspectors of fisheries have made to the effect that this harbour should be supported by
    140
    public money, and not out of the local rates. Sir, I do not know whether there is another harbour in Ireland which, after spending £100,000, is to be excluded from this grant, but it will be very strange if the Government make this fine-drawn distinction between Bray and Wicklow, and other harbours, and I should be very glad if the Chief Secretary would promise to reconsider the matter.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already pointed out that this harbour was constructed as part of a general scheme for improving the town of Bray, and that, therefore, it was very different from the other harbours which are entitled to a portion of the grant out of a public Act.
    MR. W. FIELD: May I point out to the right honourable Gentleman that this is no speculation in any sense? The harbour of Bray was made as a public necessity, and, therefore, I trust the right honourable Gentleman will reconsider the matter. I happen to know the locality exceedingly well, and I am aware of the necessity that some such harbour should be provided, in order that there might be some refuge on that coast for the fishing industry. The right honourable Gentleman suggests that this was a private speculation. On the contrary, it was a work undertaken, after the most serious consideration, by the town commissioners as an absolute necessity for the locality. Really, the argument of the right honourable Gentleman is a most extraordinary one, and I trust the contrary arguments brought forward from both sides of the House will induce him to give Bray the benefit of this Act.
    MR. PLUNKETT: I do not think the right honourable Gentleman is right in his view that this harbour has been constructed as part of a general improvement scheme, by which, I understand, he means that it was to be constructed partly for harbour purposes and partly in connection with an esplanade and pier. As a matter of fact nothing but the harbour pure and simple was constructed; or, at any rate,

    141
    that is all that was charged upon the poor rates or the town rates. The town rates are very high, and they will now be considerably increased, and if the town is to derive no advantage from this Bill it will suffer very considerable financial loss. There is no doubt that this harbour was constructed in response to a very widespread public desire for the prevention of loss of life around the coast, and also that it was recommended by the Fishery Commissioners. I think the right honourable Gentleman, if he has seen the Report of the Fishery Commission, will acknowledge that the fishery inspectors recommended that a harbour should be constructed hero for public purposes, and I do think that the case of Bray ought to be reconsidered.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I listened with great attention to the right honourable Gentleman's explanation. He knows all about this matter. He comes down to this House with his mind made up. Amongst the Irish Members there is no difference of opinion, but that does not concern his mathematical mind. He sees some small point to some fine distinction, and if the whole Irish race, at home and abroad, could unite in particular views and in one logical demand, it would have no effect on the mind of the right honourable Gentleman. Our only resource is to put our views on record. The right honourable Gentleman refuses every Amendment for no reasons except such as are apparent to his superior British mind, and we can get nothing in answer to our appeals.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I do not quite agree in the view that the right honourable Gentleman had his mind made up, but I think he has not had an opportunity of examining the whole case, and if we now withdraw the Amendment, I hope he will consider the matter before the Report.
    MR. W. FIELD: I would like to point out publicly to the right honourable Gentleman the fact that in the Report on the sea and inland fisheries of Ireland we find that Bray is absolutely one of the first places mentioned. The Report says, "There is great need for a harbour and fishery pier," and that being the case, I respectfully
    142
    submit that the right honourable Gentleman is not correct in his statement that this is a private speculation. I repeat that it is a public necessity, required for the use of the fishery and for the safety of those who go to sea, and I beg to press this matter on the right honourable Gentleman's consideration.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I should like to join my voice with Irish Members on the other side of the House, although I am not now an inspector of Irish fisheries, thanks to the action of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I have always been sorry for having done so.
    MR. JOHNSTON: Nevertheless, I remember, when I was an inspector of Irish fisheries, taking a great interest in the subject of Bray Harbour, and thinking it was exceedingly desirable. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will reconsider the matter, but I trust we shall not adopt the tone of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth, for if what he wanted was to set the right honourable Gentleman's back up I think he has taken the right way to do it.
    MR. J. H. CAMPBELL: I also should like to appeal to the right honourable Gentleman on behalf of Bray Harbour, for its creation has fulfilled a want that had long been felt, as anybody who knows anything of the dangers to which the fishermen and boatmen of Bray were exposed for a great number of yeans would admit. The testimony given before the fishery inspectors satisfied them that it was not a mere local want, but that for the purpose of preserving the lives of those whose business at sea brought them into proximity to the dangerous coast of Bray it was essential that this harbour should be created. It has now been created, and I think it would be a mistake, when we are dealing with other harbours in Ireland, that this exception should be made as against Bray, and I hope the Chief Secretary will say he will again consider the matter.
    MR. CLANCY: I wish to say just one word upon this

    143
    matter. I have not the least doubt that if Brighton or any other similar place in England were in question the Government would give way; and really their attitude on these questions suggests that, as has been already said, they must have a cast-iron programme which cannot be altered even for the sake of shortening our proceedings. It looks very much as if they had no reason to give, for no reason has so far been given for excluding Bray from this Act. It seems to me that the right honourable Gentleman should give an explanation.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think I have already explained that this harbour has been constructed as part of a general scheme for the purpose of increasing the general attractions of Bray, and that it was not constructed under a public Act as other harbours which are included in this Bill were constructed. The honourable Gentleman opposite has just asked what would be done in the case of Brighton. Well, Brighton was an example which had occurred to my mind, and if a harbour had been constructed at Brighton, forming part of a general scheme for a sea-wall or other improvements, it would be very much in the same position as Bray is in regard to this matter. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of giving way in this matter, and I may remind the Committee that when honourable Members from Ireland on both sides of the House get up to press upon me suggestions of this kind they have, of course, been pressed in their turn by those whom they represent, while I have to consider the general question of the disposal of the money which we propose to apply under this Act, and to decide whether it could be better applied than in paying off the expenses incurred by Bray, or any other place, in respect of a town improvement scheme.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that I have not been pressed on this subject, but that I was impressed a number of years ago with the necessity for having a harbour at Bray.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I do not wish to detain the Committee for any length of time, but as I live near Bray, I desire to join in
    144
    the appeal to the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I cannot help inferring from the last observations he has made that the right honourable Gentleman is under a mistake as to the nature of the harbour at Bray. I can say this, that it is not intended merely to add to the attractions of Bray as a watering-place, but that it is used for commercial purposes, and I frequently see colliers coming into the harbour for the purpose of bringing coal in the merchants and other inhabitants of Bray. It is quite a mistake to suppose that it is purely an ornamental or pleasure harbour. It is there for the purpose of improving a thriving and rising town, and I trust the right honourable Gentleman will give way upon this point. Every Member from Ireland, I believe, is anxious that he should do so, and I can assure him that the construction of this harbour has been a great improvement, to Bray.
    SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD: Mr. Lowther, I have not the good fortune like the right honourable Gentleman to live near Bray, but I have the good fortune of not having had any pressure whatever brought upon me to advocate the claims of Bray, and I would point out to the Chief Secretary, or any person in his place, that I have no interest, in the harbour, good, bad, or indifferent. However, I know the harbour pretty well, and I run aware that it is used to land cargoes of coal and of timber, and other articles of commerce. It is hardly of use for yachts, because it is frequently dry at low water. At high water steamboats can run in, but not at low water. In my opinion it is one of the most necessary high-water shelters along the whole of the coast, where there is no other place to run into except Wicklow. I have known in my experience that in heavy gales fishing boats have found a harbour refuge at Bray, which is in very great and frequent use. I think, if I may venture to say so, that it would be wise for the right honourable Gentleman to consider the matter a little further before coming to a final determination. On one occasion I was sailing from Belfast Lough round to the coast of Wicklow, and there was a well-known Secretary to the Treasurer with

    145
    one or two Irishmen on board the vessel. I remember that when he was in the throes of agony from the undulating motion of the vessel we called him on deck to look at various places on the coast where a harbour would be advisable, and extracted from him some promises on that account, but owing to his imbecile state at the time we did not bind him to them afterwards. I think that if the Chief Secretary would ask that honourable Member he would tell the right honourable Gentleman that Bray was one of the important places pointed our to him at which a harbour would be useful.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman has just given the Committee an exact view of the state of his mind on this question. He thinks that Irish Members as a whole are persons who are subjected to political pressure and bound in order to catch votes to advocate this particular claim—
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, no, I did not say that
    MR. T. M. HEALY: But I understand that he, in the serene atmosphere of the Irish Office, where it is very difficult to see him, settles this and other Irish questions in racuo, and having surveyed the whole of this question from east to west, and from north to south, has made up his mind that all Ireland is completely wrong in this matter; so that if it were not for the saving grace of having an independent English Irish Secretary the whole country might go to the dogs to-morrow. Apparently he is not under any pressure, but we, being mere slaves to political wire-pullers, are, of course, entirely in the wrong, while he,
    having weighed the matter in his golden scales, is absolutely right. Now, I have always understood that in this House, when appeals were made to a Minister—at any rate English appeals—from both sides of the House, it was unusual for the Minister to continue to hold to his own opinion, even although he might feel that he was right, unless there was some point of principle involved. Four Irish Conservative Members have got up on that side of the House and have made appeals to him, and a number of Members of all parties on this side of the House, have got up and appealed to him, but the right honourable Gentleman remains immovable and impregnable. I venture to say that if this were an English Bill, or a Bill dealing with the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, or any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, English opinion would be able to make itself felt, and no Minister would venture upon any ground to take up the attitude which the right honourable Gentleman has done, in this matter. But it is because he conceives himself as a human being superior—having been born in England or Scotland—to any Irishman, and having more knowledge of these subjects than any of us, that be is determined as a sort of political Pope to lay down the doctrine of his own infallibility, which, is practically involved in the statement he has just made to the Committee, and Irish opinion, so far as it goes, is only to be treated with contempt.
    Question put—
    "That the words "poor rate made and lavied stand part of the clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 240.—(Division List No. 112.)

    AYES.

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

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

    Burns, John

    Collery, Beroard

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Burt, Thomas

    Colville, John

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Caldwell, James

    Commins, Andrew

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Crean, Eugene

    Bayley, Thos, (Derbyshire)

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Crombie, John William

    Billson, Alfred

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Carew, James Laurence

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Blake, Edward

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Daly, James

    Brigg, John

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Davitt, Michael

    Brunner, Sir. J. Tomlinson

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

    Dillon, John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Doogan, P. C.

    Leng, Sir John

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Doughty, George

    Lough, Thomas

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Duckworth, James

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn.'sCo.)

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

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    MacNeill, John G. Swift

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

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

    Saunderson, Col. Edw. James

    Fenwick, Charles

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

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Field, William (Dublin)

    McCartan, Michael

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    McDermott, Patrick

    Shee, James John

    Fitmaurice, Lord Edmond

    McEwan, William

    Sheehy, David

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

    McLaren, Charles Benjamin

    Spicer, Albert

    Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

    Maden, John Henry

    Steadman, William Charles

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Strachey, Edward

    Gourley, Sir Edward T.

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

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

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murnaghan, George

    Tuily, Jasper

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Scale-

    Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Hazell, Walter

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Wayman, Thomas

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

    Weir, James Galloway

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    O'Kelly, James

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    O'Malley, William

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

    Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Owen, Thomas

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

    Woodall, William

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Pease, Alf. E. (Cleveland)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Younger, William

    Kay-Shuttlewortk, RtHnSir U.

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

    Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

    Mr. James O'Connor and

    Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

    Price, Robert John

    Mr. Maurice Healy.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

    Aird, John

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx.)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

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

    Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Brassey, Albert

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Arnold, Alfred

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

    Arrol, Sir William

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Brown, Alexander H.

    Cox, Robert

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Butcher, John George

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Balcarres, Lord

    Carlile, William Walter

    Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton)

    Baldwin, Alfred

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

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

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

    Currie, Sir Donald

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

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Curzon, St. Hn. G. N. (Lanc.)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

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

    Dalbiac. Col. Philip Hugh

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Denny, Colonel

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H. (Brist'l)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

    Bethell, Commander

    Coddington, Sir William

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Biddulph, Michael

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Bigwood, James

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Drucker, A.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    148

    149

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

    Purvis, Robert

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Kimber, Henry

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Knowles, Lees

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

    Lafone, Alfred

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Finch, George H.

    Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

    Ritchie, Rt, Hon. Chas. T.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Robinson, Brooke

    Firbank, Thomas Joseph

    Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltm.)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Legh. Hon. Thos. W. (Lancs)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Fison, Frederick William

    Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Forster, Henry William

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

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

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Fry, Lewis

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lowe, Francis William

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Garfit, William

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

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

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Spencer, Ernest

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

    Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    McIver, Sir Lewis

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    McKillop, James

    Strauss, Arthur

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

    Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Marks, Henry Hananel

    Sutherland, Sir Thomas

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs)

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Gretton, John

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Greville, Captain

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Thorburn, Walter

    Gull, Sir C.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Monk, Charles James

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

    Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Waring, Col. Thomas

    Heath, James

    More, Robert Jasper

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Helder, Augustus

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

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

    Henderson, Alexander

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Verson-

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

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

    Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

    Muntz. Philip A.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

    Murdoch, Charles Townshend

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

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

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

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

    Hornby, William Henry

    Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

    Myers, William Henry

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Howell, William Tudor

    Newark, Viscount

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

    Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wyie, Alexander

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

    Young, Com. (Berks., E.)

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

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Jebb. Richard Claverhouse

    Pierpoint, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Sir William Walrond and

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Kenrick, William

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman has stated that these words have been selected with reference to clause 41. But how does he justify the distinction he has laid down in his speech? In that clause he will find the words—
    "The Piers and Harbours Act, and the Public Loans Act, 1887, and under any special Act, whether public or local."
    150
    Bray Harbour was undoubtedly made under a local special Act, and I ask the right honourable, Gentleman why he draws a distinction adverse to the case of Bray?
    MR. VESEY KNOX: This is a charge for a harbour built under a special Act, and I have no doubt that, if it were levied by a rural district, relief would

    151
    be given under clause 41. In this case the charge is a harbour charge, and is made for the purposes of a harbour only. Therefore, I think there can be no doubt as a matter of construction that if a part of this charge fell a certain distance outside Bray relief would be given under section 41. The distinction, therefore, is under section 42. A charge which would be relieved in a rural district under clause 41 would be kept beyond the area of relief unless the rating authority is a county council, not an urban district council. Really I do not see what is to happen. I fancy there will be many such cases in Ireland, and the Government may land themselves in difficulties in other places as well as in Bray.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: We really cannot any longer tolerate the kind of replies we are getting. The right honourable Gentleman first asks us to go to a Division on the last Amendment on the ground that harbours and piers will get relief under section 41. He smiled because we were in favour of maintaining the words of the Bill, and he thought that with our usual Irish stupidity we were making another of our numerous blunders. We then refer him back to clause 41, and we ask—What is the distinction? He says that clause 41 may now be wrong, and that if it is wrong it is to be amended, forsooth, by inserting "under any special Act of a similar character." But that is no reply to the arguments made. He originally refused to give relief to Bray on the ground that it was a harbour made under sub-section 3, clause 41. We point out to him that that sub-section would govern the case of Bray, and now he turns round and says he will amend sub-section 3, clause 41, on the Report stage. And yet Irish Members, who are united and unanimous on the point, are not to be heard. This is not a question, as some English Members originally thought, of increasing the grant and taking more money out of English pockets. It only concerns the distribution of the money. But the right honourable Gentleman says that Irish opinion, whether it be Unionist o>r Nationalist, is not to prevail, and that the only opinion that is to prevail is that of the Irish Office at Westminster. The right honourable Gentleman will not be
    152
    always Irish Secretary. He will pass away, and will take his promotion after he has made his fame in connection with the Irish office. Irish opinion, which is the opinion to be consulted, is unanimous in this matter. The right honourable Gentleman may be superior to us, but we will have to live in the country when he is gone, and I think we are entitled to some better reply than he has yet given us.
    MR. SHEE: I would ask the Chief Secretary for an explanation with regard to this clause. There is at present in the town of Dunyarvan a charge, of 1s. 3d. in the £ levied by the Town Commissioners as the urban sanitary authority in connection with the guarantee of the county railway line. As I apprehend it, we are only dealing now with the amount to be raised by the county councils. Therefore, the relief which this clause gives would not apply where the railway charge is raised by the urban district council. The rate to which I refer is now levied by the Dungarvan Town Commissioners, and is not, of course, n poor rate. But the fact still remains that, as far as I can see, under this sub-section no relief would accrue in the case of such a rate, as the sub-section deals only with the amounts to be raised by county councils. That is a very clear case, and I am sure there are a number of similar cases throughout Ireland.
    DR. COMMINS: There are a number of other cases in Ireland, among them being one peculiarly hard case;—the case of Kinsale Harbour in my constituency. The harbour authority and the town commissioners at Kinsale got a private Act passed under which they undertook to construct a harbour, not for the benefit of Kinsale, but for the benefit of the fishing industry on the coast, and for the benefit of the Isle of Man, Cornish and Devonshire men who come there in the season. It was a matter generally affecting the whole country; but the people of Kinsale were public-spirited, and charged themselves with the expense of making this harbour and pier in order to render the harbour commodious and convenient. Through the blundering of the Board of Works—

    153
    and I use that word without any exaggeration—this work, which the Board of Works estimated to cost £18,000, cost £'25,000 or £26,000, and an additional burden of £6,000, which the people had never calculated on, was put upon them; and instead of paying 6d. in the £ they are paying 1s. or a little more for this particular work. I trust that some relief will be given to these poor people. This charge is ruining this poor, decaying borough. Its fisheries are gone. The trade that the people calculated on is entirely gone, not through their own fault, but through one of those changes that will occur in the migration of fish and the places to which they resort. They have now only a tenth of the trade they had when they undertook, this harbour and pier, and they should get some relief from the crushing burden they have put upon their own shoulders for the public benefit rather than for the individual or specific benefit of Kinsale. I am only asking for a share of the county grant, and I do not think there is a single person in the county who would grudge Kinsale having a part or it. I am sorry the Secretary to the Treasury in not here, as he knows all the circumstances of this very sad case, and he will be able to inform the right honourable Gentleman regarding it if it has not yet been brought under his notice. Kinsale has a peculiar claim on a share of this grant. It is overburdened—almost bankrupt—and I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to take the opinion of the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who has been constantly worried by me on the matter, as he will have all the facts fresh in his mind.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The case of Kinsale has been brought before me, but I am not aware that it would be excluded under this clause.
    DR. COMMINS: Might I ask the right honourable Gentleman to look into it?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Oh, yes, of course I will; certainly.
    DR. COMMINS: And if the facts are as stated, will the right honourable Gentleman undertake to bring it within this clause?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot undertake to give a promise of that sort.
    MR. M. HEALY: Kinsale and other similar cases would be excluded from the grant by this clause, which states—
    "Where the poor rate made and levied in my area by a county council in any local financial year, in order to meet any railway a harbour charge," etc.
    I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman if he intends to maintain the words "by a county council"? for if he does his alteration will not improve the clause from our point of view. As I understand it, the clause as it stands refers to poor rates made and levied by a county council, but it has been pointed out to him that there are railway charges which are paid by urban areas, and that these railway charges, though raised by the county council from the urban areas, might be raised under this Act by a levy from the county council on the urban authorities, and not by direct collection of the tax. The clause as it originally stood would only deal with cases where the rate was directly collected by the county council. This Amendment, as I understand it, would cover the cases where the county council, instead of issuing the rate, issue a precept, the tax being raised by the urban authority. No doubt there are many cases in which railway charges, instead of being directly collected by the county council, will be raised not by direct levy, but by precept. But that is not the object of the right, honourable Gentleman's Amendment. Our view in this part of the House is that his Amendment is not applicable, and that he should, cover not merely the rate collected by the county council by direct levy and the rate raised by precept, but also the cases—and there are a number of such cases all over Ireland—where the local authorities themselves collect the tax for this purpose. Kinsale has been referred to by my honourable Friend. In Kinsale the tax is not levied by the grand jury, but by the urban authority. I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman how can he distinguish between the merits of the two cases, in one of which a pier is constructed under the Piers and Harbours Act by the Board of Works, and

    155
    handed over to the grand jury, and in the other where the pier is constructed by the Board of Works, but instead of being handed over to the grand jury is handed over to the local authority? My honourable Friend the Member for East Waterford has included the case of Dungarvan, where he says this rate is levied, not by the county council, but by the urban sanitary authority. I gather from the reply of the right honourable Gentleman that he himself sees no distinction in principle between a rate of this kind levied by the county council and one levied by the local authority under similar circumstances. I say that if you amend this clause as suggested you ought to amend it by striking out the words "by a county council," which will enable the right honourable Gentleman in that way to cover such cases as that of Dungarvan and others which have been mentioned. I therefore move the omission of the word's "by a county council."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The only class that will be benefited by this clause when the grand jury levy this monstrous tax will be the English speculator; and the local Irishmen, who put their hands in their pockets in Dungarvan and a number of other places, are not to get a penny out of the clause. The position is this: if your rate is struck by the county authorities you get benefited, but if it is struck by the district authorities you get no benefit at all. The right honourable Gentleman, whose arguments we have just listened to, and who has tried to meet the wishes of Irishmen so much, seems to quarrel with what I have just said; but here is the clause—
    "Where the poor rate made and levied in any area by a county council in any local financial year."
    Now, Sir, these words, I presume, are either superfluous or intentionally useful and operative. If they are operative, my argument, I submit, is good; if superfluous, then let them go out. The Government say these words have no effect whatever, and if that is so then let them go out, and we shall be quite content.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The intention of the Government on this question
    156
    is expressed by clause 41. Of course if there is any case—arising from the clause as it stands—of hardship brought under my notice I will consider it.
    MR. M. HEALY: Having regard to the assurances the right honourable Gentleman has given that he will see into the cases of these piers where hardship is involved, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. J. H. CAMPBELL: Does this also extend to the case of Bray?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid it will not extend to the case of Bray.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 24, line 17, after 'exceed,' insert 'a sum equal to.'"
    'Page 24, line 18, after 'pound,' insert 'on the rateable value of the area.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Agreed to without a Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 24, line 11, at end, insert—
    "'(4) Where the Local Government Board certifies to the Lord Lieutenant that the amount required to be raised by poor rates and other local rates and county cess in any urban sanitary district during the standard financial year would, if this Act had been in force, have exceeded the amount which under the existing law was required to be raised, the Lord Lieutenant may pay to the urban sanitary authority out of the sum paid under this section to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account a sum equal to such excess.'"—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
    MR. VESEY KNOX: The object of the Amendment is to secure that you will not have, as I think you may have under the Bill as it now stands, cases of really grave injustice to urban sanitary authorities which will find their rates raised as a direct result of the provisions of this Bill without receiving any measure of relief from the agricultural grant. I think it best not to quote the figures, because it is almost impossible to obtain absolute accuracy in this matter; but I am convinced myself that there are some cases where there will be a considerable increase of rates as a consequence of the provisions of the Bill. I do not think that was the intention

    157
    of the Chief Secretary; and I feel sure that it will cause a great deal of heart-burning if, in the operation of the Bill, we find that as a direct result of some provisions of the Bill the rates in some of the urban districts are largely increased. Of course, the Chief Secretary has relied, in arguing against the extension of the agricultural grant to these districts, upon the fact that the urban areas in Ireland will receive relief from union rating. Well, no doubt that is so, and I believe in Cork it will receive very large relief. But there are towns, especially in the North of Ireland, which will not receive relief from union rating, but where, on the contrary, the poor rate, strictly so called, will be increased. The Chief Secretary said that there was no compensation given in England when union rating was proposed. But when it was proposed in England it was imposed in connection with such changes of the poor law as rendered the rate in almost all cases, if not in all, smaller than it had been before. The rates were enormously reduced every where when applied to England; and I venture to doubt whether there was really an area, or any large number, where, as a consequence of union rating, with the other changes made at the same time, the rates were not reduced. That makes a very great difference, and if we find that, as a direct consequence of Imperial legislation making changes which are not asked for by these authorities in the general public interest, the rates in those areas are raised, I venture to think that there is a strong case for compensation out of the Imperial funds. I should have been glad to have put down my Amendment in another form, so as to make it one of the things to come out of the limited sum of money; but, of course, I could not, make such a proposal according to the rules. I do not think myself it need be a very large sum. I think, as a rule, the areas affected will be small towns in the North of Ireland, and I do not think that altogether it will come to very much; but still I believe it is a kind of increase that will cause heart-burning altogether out of proportion to the actual money lost to the locality, and for that reason, having at heart the smooth working of the Bill, I
    158
    beg to press this Amendment on the Chief Secretary.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand in the constituency which the honourable Member represents the rates will be somewhat raised by this clause, and he asks that compensation should be given out of the Imperial funds in order to make this loss good. Sir, after we once begin, in exceptional cases of this kind, to compensate out of the Imperial funds, wherever there is a loss, I do not know where we are to end. The honourable Member seems to forget that union rating in England—although no compensation was given, or even thought of, when the change to union rating and other changes were made—had the indirect effect of producing economy in the poor law administration, and I am by no means certain that a similar result will not follow from union rating in Ireland, and that in most cases the expenditure will be diminished, instead of being increased. Hut, even if it were otherwise, I could not possibly entertain compensation where the operation of union rating turns out unfavourably. The principle would be a most dangerous one, and I could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I do not, of course, wish to press the Amendment, if the right honourable Gentleman does not seem inclined to yield to it, and I do not know that I shall be justified in putting the House to a Division. I do, however, think the case is a hard one, especially having regard to the fact that these urban sanitary areas receive no help whatever under the provisions of the Bill. The Chief Secretary has, I think, undertaken to reconsider the question whether he will yield some relief to these areas from the agricultural grant. That would not, of course, be anything like sufficient compensation, bur I think he promised, upon a previous occasion, to consider whether, in some measure, relief cannot be given under the agricultural grant to urban areas.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I promised to consider the whole subject, but I do not, however, hold out any hopes that I shall be able to do anything in the direc-

    159
    tion the honourable Member speaks of. I may remind the honourable Member that we cannot make this grant to rural districts without benefiting indirectly the towns surrounding them. There is no doubt that, indirectly, they will receive some benefit.
    MR. VEREY KNOX: I do not dispute at all that there will be some indirect benefit. Under the circumstances, I feel that it is no use pressing the Amendment, but I do ask the Chief Secretary to take into account this case, and look into the figures again on the point, when he reconsiders the whole question of the financial relations between the urban and the rural areas. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 24, line 26, leave out from 'be' to end of sub-section, and insert—
    Distributed amongst the county boroughs according to their respective valuations, and shall be paid by them into the borough fund.'"—(Mr. Carew.)
    MR. CAREW: This is one of the Amendments prepared by the Corporation of Dublin. The income derived from the local taxation from any particular district in Ireland is handed over, and put into a common fund, and distributed all over the country. This amounts in the case of cities like Dublin and Belfast to a levy for the benefit of the smaller towns in Ireland. These cities do not derive any benefit from the agricultural grant, and they have to contribute enormous charges for lunatics and other matters quite equal to the charges for all the other scheduled places in Ireland. All we ask for is this: that in case of a surplus, instead of going to Parliament, the money should be given back to those cities according to their respective valuations.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The suggestion is not one which I am prepared to entertain, and the Government is unable to grant any special advantage to county boroughs.
    MR. M. HEALY: This does not primarily deal with the mode as to how
    160
    the money is to be distributed, and I have an Amendment on the Paper which deals with it in a somewhat different manner. I think the right honourable Gentleman must be aware that all over Ireland the county councils and the grand jurors, in the suggestions they have made for the improvement of this Bill, have all fastened upon this particular proposal in this section, that the excess should be accumulated, and applied to meet any future deficiency, as being a special blot upon it, and have made suggestions tending in the direction of this Amendment. The real facts about this matter, Mr. Lowther, are these: the Treasury are perfectly conscious that the grant they are making under this clause is one which will not be permanently adequate for the purpose intended. The right honourable Gentleman has said that it will not be adequate in the first year, and the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that "sufficient for the day is the evil thereof," and that when the occasion arises he will consider the needs of the future. But, Mr. Lowther, the Treasury have in this proposal carefully fenced this round with one protection, at any rate, to prevent any future demand, and the form of protection which they have devised is this: that, knowing that this grant will, in the first year or two at any rate, be more than adequate for the purpose to which it is allocated by this clause, have carefully accumulated the excess for future use as protection against, the demand of the authorities when the fund becomes insufficient. Well, Mr. Lowther, I do not think that is a very large matter. I daresay that under this clause the excess will continue for many years, having regard to what we know in the past as regards the continual increase in the charges for lunatics, and taking special note of the fact that the number of lunatics to be transferred from workhouses is necessarily very large—I think the number in the workhouses at the present time is something like 4,000. If you consider, Mr. Lowther, the excess; if you consider the amount which is likely to be required for the cost of maintaining these unhappy people, transferred from workhouses to lunatic asylums, I do not myself believe that there will be

    161
    any excess in three or four years' time on this clause. I do not believe that in five years' time the grant made under this section will be adequate for the purpose, much less that there will be any excess; and, while I agree with the view of the local bodies that the proposal of the Treasury in this clause is a somewhat shabby one, I view the matter as not being of much importance, because I believe that in a few years' time, instead of the grants under this clause being in any sense in excess of the requirements, they will be found insufficient.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I believe that the Chief Secretary will find that the urban authorities are not relieved at all directly, and he will find that in some places burdens will be put upon them. I agree that the amount to be gained under this particular Amendment is not very much. I think that probably, in a very short space of time, the money will cease to accumulate under this clause, but still, I do support this Amendment in the same sense that I do my own, because I think some injustice has been done to the urban authorities in Ireland, which are not as well off in any case as Belfast, or the counties of the same size in England. It must be remembered that urban authorities in Ireland have to deal with a larger number of poor people than the urban authorities in England; and it must also be remembered that the average wages of unskilled labour are much lower in every town in Ireland, including Belfast, than they are in similar towns in England and Scotland, and that the sanitary expenses, necessarily, it the same service is given, in towns would be very greater than they are. Having regard to all these facts, I do say that the Chief Secretary, in the interests of local government, would have done well if he had tried in the Bill to give some relief to urban, as well as rural, authorities.
    Amendment negatived, without Division.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 24, line 29, leave out sub-section 6."—(Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.)
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I beg leave to move that the following subsection (6) in clause 42 be struck out—
    "All sums paid to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account under this section shall form part of the contingent portion of the guarantee fund under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891."
    This section, I presume, is meant to be of use, but the only use it can have, in my opinion, is to diminish the fund, in case at any time there is a deficiency in the existing contingent portion of the guarantee fund under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act. Why do the accumulations created under this Local Government Act for Ireland go in any way to secure the Government in case of a deficiency on the contingent portion of the guarantee fund. The time, possibly, might come, if there was a great famine in Ireland, when the guarantee fund might be deficient, and then, in this sub-section, the Government could fall back, and take away the accumulations which otherwise would have been paid to the general relief of the ratepayers under the operation of this sub-section. Now, I might use such, arguments as that so often put forward in the course of this Committee by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that there is nothing like this in the English Act, and, therefore, that clause cannot be relied on, because it is altogether new and strange, nor is it at all necessary to maintain the symmetry or unanimity of this Bill. It is put in here at the instance of the Treasury in order to further, if possible, secure them against what may turn out some day to be a deficit in the guarantee fund, under the Purchase Act of 1891, which might possibly prove insufficient.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The right honourable Gentleman appears to desire to put into this Bill, absolutely gratuitously, this Amendment, and he does not appear to be aware that the grants proposed are in substitution—of which Ireland is to receive the proceeds of local

    163
    licences and fixed amounts—are already part of the contingent portion of the guarantee fund. This sub-clause is absolutely germane to the Bill. If we had not done this we should have been drawing a certain amount from the guarantee fund, and it is in order to avoid this that it was put in, and the only effect will be to diminish the amount of stock under the Land Purchase Act. The right honourable Gentleman has made another serious error. This provision was not inserted in the Bill for the protection of the Treasury, but for the protection, in the first instance, of the ratepayers, who would have to suffer if the guarantee fund were depleted before any demand could be made on the Treasury. I think the right honourable Gentleman will himself see why this sub-clause is necessary.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I was quite aware that the early part of the section dealt with the licence, but I understood when this Bill was introduced that it was to be a boon to Ireland, both by way of the agricultural grant, and also of these licences. That was to be compensation in return for the grants in aid which up to this time had been granted, and which amounted to a very large sum.
    MR. DILLON: First of all, I wish to direct the attention of the right honourable Gentleman to the fact that under this clause he is giving an addition to the grants in aid. I do not know why he should pass that over as a security. However, I attach very little importance to the question, because I entirely agree with the honourable Member for Cork that in a very short time these particular grants will exceed very much the sum provided, and that, instead of having a surplus, we shall have to consider how to meet the deficit. That is my contention with regard to this particular clause. But the reason I rose to support this Amendment was that I wanted to ask the right honourable Gentleman to inform the House what the amount is of the cash security under the Land Act of 1891. I should like to know what is the amount.
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: £200,000.
    MR. DILLON: I should like to know also how much of that cash security the Land Commissioners have had to issue. I do think there is a great deal to be said in this respect, for when the Land Act of 1891 was passed there was no cash security. It took some years to accumulate that cash security that has now assumed a large proportion and come to be a large sum, and it is now available as a guarantee. Now, in order to accumulate that large guarantee that grant was given to Ireland as an Exchequer contribution, and was withheld from the Irish people for the purpose of forming this large cash guarantee. I argue that the situation has greatly changed since these grants in aid were made. In the first place, there is actually in. existence this large guarantee; and, secondly, if I am right, but I have not got the exact figures, I believe that the amount which the Government have taken under that cash guarantee is very large. Therefore we have the experience of eight years to show that the cash guarantee is quite sufficient. That being so, I think it is a case of making this the occasion of releasing it from being a contingent security for these particular grants.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government are by this clause capturing an additional sum for the guarantee fund, and yet the right honourable Gentleman in his reply twits the honourable Member for Tyrone with supposed ignorance when my right honourable Friend was endeavouring to show that an additional sum was being taken by the Treasury. But there is this additional argument, and I beg to point it out, that the whole of the sum which you are now hypothecating for this purpose comes, practically, out of the towns, and you are seizing this under section 42 in respect of a Measure passed for the benefit of the country. When you were dealing with section 34 you did not hypothecate a single penny of the agricultural grant made for the benefit of the farmers in respect of land purchase, and surely the fair thing to have done would have been to hypothecate some sum out of the agricultural grant for purely agricultural purposes. As I showed, about an hour ago, in the case of these public-house

    165
    licences, they mostly come oat of town revenue, and it would only be fair, in my judgment, if any provision whatever is to be made in this Act in reference to these guarantees, to have hypothecated the amount out of the agricultural grant and not out of the licences from the towns. It appears to me that there is no argument as to the £35,000, which is the sum which ought to be free from this liability, especially, Sir, as since the time when this fund was established you have kept something like a quarter of a million of money, I suppose with interest, from the purposes for which it was originally intended. There is a clear case as to the £35,000.
    MR. DILLONWill the right honourable Gentleman say how much of the cash guarantee has been issued by the Land Commissioners?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I could not say offhand, but it is very small.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I think the contrast has been somewhat spoiled by the fact that in this Bill the agricultural grant is to be appropriated. I remember, when the Bill of 1891 was under discussion, the First Lord of the Treasury explained that the best of all guarantees was that under this Bill the whole countryside would be interested in making every man happy. I think, from that point of view, if there was a charge that would be an excellent guarantee, surely it would be the agricultural grant rather than this charge under the Act. Surely it would be a better course to take in the event of that being necessary. Does it not occur to the right honourable Gentleman that it would be more harmful to let loose these pauper lunatics, and to leave the unions without trained nurses, than it would be if for a short space of time the agricultural grant were stopped? I venture to press that point of view upon the Chief Secretary as one that he might consider in order to ascertain whether it would be better if he has to make a change as to these guarantees to substitute the agricultural grant for the guarantees mentioned in this section. One of the worst features of the guarantees under the Act of 1891 was that, in order to carry them into operation, you would have had to reduce the
    166
    country almost to a state of barbarism, and if he could find any other source of revenue which, could be applied to this purpose, surely it is his duty in the public interest to do so.
    MR. SHEE: The Treasury appear to have, lost sight of the fact in this Local Government Bill for Ireland that we have not got any means at present of applying the grant that is made in respect of medical appliances or in aid of salaries for medical officers and dispensers, and we have not got any power at present of applying that particular grant.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We are merely substituting in all these grants.
    MR. SHEE: What about the £35,000?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That goes in substitution. It does seem unreasonable first of all to accept a sum in sum in substitution for the pauper lunatics and then turn round and ask for this. Surely it ought not to come under the same rule.
    MR. SHEE: How does the right honourable Gentleman propose to carry out the principle by the hypothecation of the public funds in this manner? It is only right that Members of this House should avail themselves of this opportunity to dispute that principle, and that is the reason, I presume, that the right honourable Gentleman has put down this Amendment proposing to omit this sub-section. That is the principle in the matter, and therefore it is our duty to protest against that principle which is now being carried, and, therefore, I desire to join in this protest against pushing this principle any further than it has been pushed.
    Question proposed—
    Amendment negatived without a Division.
    Question proposed—
    "That clause 42 as amended stand part of the Bill."
    MR. DILLON: Before this clause is passed I desire to say that in my opinion the benefit will rapidly disappear, and in a very short time we shall be struggling with an ever-increasing

    167
    debt. Although I had an Amendment down earlier, I desire to raise this question, which, to my mind, is one of the largest questions under this Bill. Provision has been made in this clause for gradually increasing the expenses, and they have been gradually increasing in the past and must increase in the near future. I do not think that there is anything to be gained by delaying the progress of the Bill, and therefore I simply desire to place on record my regret that the Government have not treated Ireland fairly, and have not made any provision for the charges which are now being transferred from the Imperial Exchequer to the Irish ratepayers. I believe, and I am sorry to be obliged to say it, that the Government are taking advantage of the position in which we are placed, and our natural anxiety to see this Bill passed, to shove on the ratepayers in Ireland a burden for which, at the same time, an entirely insufficient provision has been made to meet that burden; and, Sir, I think it would be unjust and unfair to ourselves and unjust to those whom we represent in this House, if this clause were allowed to pass without fair warning being given to the Government that we do not accept it as a fair provision, and that we reserve our right in the future to come to this House in case our prophecy is fulfilled, and a deficit results, and demand that that deficit should be made good.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We have in this case followed the course adopted in England and Scotland in 1888, and we have supplied a corresponding margin because England and Scotland at that time received a certain amount from the transfer of local licences. I do not share the contention expressed by the honourable Member that there will be a large deficit. At all events, in several years—say five or six years—I think there will be an accumulation under this clause of a balance. I also do not share his gloomy view of the future as to the expenditure. Sir, there is no doubt the expenditure on lunatics at the present time is very large, and is an increasing amount, but that increase arises not from the fact that lunacy is increasing in Ireland, but it arises from the
    168
    fact that lunatics are accumulating in the workhouses. The figures show that for a good many years past the number of fresh cases has remained practically the same. The amount of admissions is what really tests the number, and that rate is very low. I think the point will certainly be reached when the admissions on the one side and the cases of death or dismissal on the other will come equal, and ultimately I myself am looking forward to an actual diminution in the expenditure on lunatic asylums in Ireland. For this reason, I think there can be no doubt that a diminution in the expenditure will take place. Ireland has been the subject of constant emigration during the last 50 years of the best and strongest of her population, and the feebler part of the community have been left behind or have actually returned to Ireland: so that Ireland is now suffering from having to support a number of lunatics representing a larger population. I believe that ultimately the number of lunatics will sink to a number which will be a more permanent proportion to the actual population of Ireland. That, of course, will mean a great saving in the rates.
    MR. DILLON: I must say that I cannot agree with the contention of the right honourable Gentleman; although, at the same time, I have allowed the Bill to go on, and I have abstained from speaking on this subject, I feel very strongly indeed upon it. I believe the right honourable Gentleman has correctly stated that one of the great sources of trouble in Ireland is that the wretched poor ratepayers have got to support the lunatics of a population of about ten millions, of which there are only about four and a half millions now left. Ireland is now supporting and maintaining the lunatics which, in a normal condition of things, would be spread over a population of ten millions, owing to the outflow of the youngest and best part of the population from Ireland, and that still continues. That does not show any signs of diminishing, and my impression is that the increase, which the right honourable Gentleman has correctly stated, has been increasing in quite recent years, will go on increasing for

    169
    some years to come, probably, and two years of that increase would entirely wipe out this surplus. And there is another point which the right honourable Gentleman has omitted to deal with. There is the improved treatment under this Bill for the 4,000 lunatics who are now in the workhouses of Ireland, and who are in a most miserable condition, which is a disgrace to humanity, and which must, under this new system, be rapidly improved. But this cannot be improved without great initial expense, and no provision has been made under the Bill for that additional expenditure. I daresay we may have a surplus for a couple of years perhaps, but my conviction is that before many years pass over we shall be face to face, and practically all local bodies all over Ireland will be face to face, with an increasing deficit. I only speak, now for the purpose of establishing our claim that we have protested against this arrangement, which has been forced upon us, and to say that when the time comes we shall appear before this House again and demand that this deficit should be recouped.
    LORD E. FITZMAURICE: I am anxious to say one or two words in favour of this Amendment, because I think the argument which the Chief Secretary has used with regard to the probable diminution of lunacy in Ireland is in direct contradiction to our actual experience of what we know is the case in England in regard to lunacy, and there is nothing special, so far as I am aware, in the position of Ireland which in the least is calculated to diminish lunacy; on the contrary, the whole of the circumstances rather tend to increase it, and the reasons for an increase are not different from those under which we suffer in England. If the Chief Secretary will refer to certain documents which are now in possession of the House he will find a most interesting and important Report from the Commissioners of Lunacy in England, pointing out certain general reasons relating to the number of lunatics in asylums. He has touched upon some of these reasons, and quite correctly, but I cannot follow him that the reports justify us in
    170
    looking forward to any marked diminution of lunacy in English life. Sir, what are the reasons, and what is the cause? The right honourable Gentleman has indicated quite correctly that the improvement in asylums causes the population to have far greater confidence in them, and, therefore, induces them to send in—and no longer object, as they formerly did—to send in their relatives to these asylums. And, in addition to this, the improved treatment of this distress will cause a very great diminution in the rate of mortality. It is a well known fact that the rate of mortality in asylums is very low. Therefore, I say that if asylums are going to be improved, you will find the same improvement, if I may so call it, in the rate of mortality. And so all circumstances point to the fact that you will have for a long time to come not only the same amount of lunacy, but, in all probability, an increased charge upon the rates and upon the public funds.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I entirely agree with what the honourable Member for East Mayo has said. The fact is that 10 years ago we had in Ireland a number of lunacy inspectors. These start certain improvements and create certain extra expenses. They have new ideas, and, like all new officials, they do all sorts of things. The new inspectors say this and that on the principle, I suppose that the new broom sweeps clean. The result inevitably will be increased rates. The result will also be, and more particularly feelings of humanity will make people think it necessary more and more, that no lunatics shall be allowed to be at large, however harmless they may be. I certainly do think that the British Treasury has made a very good bargain indeed in getting a fixed sum, even though it be a slightly increased one, in place of the various sums which were constantly being given before. I was somewhat amused to find that, although the Treasury would be parading this £30,000 as a perfectly free gift and a benefit conferred upon us, when we came to discuss what this £30,000 really was, the Chief Secretary strongly argued, and rightly argued, in my opinion, that these

    171
    contingent grants would not be increased, but, on the other hand, would be rather diminished under this Bill.
    Clause agreed to.

    CLAUSE 43.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 24, line 42, after 'accumulation,' insert 'and investment.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I should very much like to know whether it would not be possible in some way to make a few provisions with regard to the nature of the securities in which these funds should be invested. Of course, I do not suppose that honourable Gentlemen are going to take a very wide power, and an investment clause would be a very long thing; but I quite conceive that the Treasury may require to invest this money in some other securities than Government stock. I know that while there are a great many ways of getting money into the Treasury, there are a very great many methods by which the Treasury can hang it up without its producing very much interest. I also know that where they desire to make a good show they can invest it in such a manner that it will produce a great amount of interest. For instance, supposing the Government desire to make a good show, they proceed to invest the money in Irish securities, bearing considerable interest; or if they do not—it is absolutely in their own power—they can put it for investment in special funds which can never under any circumstances depreciate in value, and where, in consequence the interest is correspondingly low. There was a sum of under £200,000 under the Irish Lands Act. When that £200,000 commenced to accumulate Consols were at £94, and if that money had been invested in Consols with the compound interest it would be 30 per cent. more value than it is in these seven or eight years. I venture to hazard a guess—I have never been able to find out what it was invested in—but I venture to hazard a guess that that money was invested in stocks that never depreciate, and consequently the interest is small. Upon the other hand, where stocks rise and fall, like the local loan stocks, it is
    172
    always pointed out as a reason that they cannot pay off except at an enormous premium. Therefore I think that specific instructions should be given in the laying down the way in which these moneys should be invested. I cannot myself conceive why there should not be specific instructions put into the Act as to the investment of these funds. The terms ought to be dictated by the Act itself. Invest them in the public funds of the United Kingdom, and then if there is a rise we shall get the benefit of it. But if it is left in the hands of the Treasury we do not know what becomes of the money.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We should invest these moneys in Government securities, which is exactly what this Amendment is moved to do; but what the honourable Gentleman wants is that a clause shall be so worded that we can only invest them in certain securities. Really, Sir, I think that might be left to our discretion. Honourable Gentlemen opposite must not always suppose that the Treasury is plotting for their destruction.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: May I ask what the £200,000 is invested in? That will illustrate whether we can trust the Treasury. There are many things in which it can be invested which do not give the same advantages as Government funds. There are several works which are constantly creating special stocks, and those stocks are constantly being depreciated in value.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is obviously impossible to say at the moment.
    Amendment agreed to without a Division.
    MR. DILLON: I do not know whether the Amendment I have put down here is necessary or not, but if it be, no doubt, the Government will accept it.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will accept the honourable Member's Amendment slightly corrected. It is obvious that you cannot lay the accounts upon the Table of the House, you can only lay the audit of the same.
    Agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 43 as amended be part of the Bill."
    Clause agreed to.

    CLAUSE 44.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 25, line 11, leave out 'and in the case of Cork to divide the same into two ridings.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I accept the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman, although, as I understand, it is the Gentleman's opinion that the county should be divided.
    SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything now, since the Amendment is agreed to.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I do not think that a single public body in the whole of the East Riding of Cork has passed or adopted any resolution upon this matter. So far as I am aware, they have not done so. All the resolutions have come from the West Riding of the county. Now, I do not desire in any way to oppose this Amendment, but I really do think that there is a good deal to be said for the provision in this clause with, reference to the period of six months being allowed to elapse, in order that information may be gathered as to the desire of the people upon this point. There are one or two questions which I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary before I made up my mind upon this Amendment. For instance, there are 17 poor-law unions in the city of Cork, the chairman of each of which will, as I understand it, be entitled, ex-officio, to a seat on the city councils. That would give 17 ex-officio members to the county council of Cork. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary upon this matter gave it as his opinion that there would be about 30 members in the county council. Now the reason I ask this question is, if Cork is represented by only 30 county councillors, the chairmen of the rural poor-law unions would always be a majority.
    174
    Now, I think that is a point for consideration. I quite agree that Cork is the natural centre for the county councils to meet in, and I think, if the county were divided into two counties, that in all probability Cork would be selected by both counties as the centre in which, the councils should meet; but I do think, so far as my constituency goes, at all events, there is a very strong opinion upon this subject. There is a very considerable difference of opinion upon this subject in the different ridings. I have not received any resolutions from the East Riding upon the subject, but from the West Riding I have. I am quite sure it is the desire of the West Riding that the county should be one.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The county council of Cork would, of course, extend beyond 30 in number. I gave that merely as a conjecture of what the average number of members would be of the county councils of Ireland. So far as the county of Cork is concerned, all I can say is, that no question of principle is involved, but representations have reached me, and they seem to be greatly in favour of the county being treated as a whole.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: The right honourable Gentleman has stated that he has received a great many representations in this matter from Cork. What I should very much like to hear is who are the public bodies who have put forward those representations. So far as I have ascertained, we have received representations from three poor-law unions out of the 17, one from one board of town commissioners, one from the harbour commissioners, and from other boards, who call themselves presentment associations. I should like the right honourable Gentleman to explain to the Committee what the principal bodies are who gave these opinions, because I, as representing one in the eastern portion of the county, can state that, in my belief, there is only one opinion among them, and that is that the county should be divided into two. I do not wish to trespass on the time of the Committee further, but I do say this: if a preponderating majority is in favour of the preserving of Cork as a whole, then do it; but, so far

    175
    as the constituency I represent is concerned, the opinion is the other way about. I think we have not got sufficient evidence on the subject. The right honourable Gentleman says he accepts this Amendment. I hope he does not intend to do so without any explanations as to what public bodies have made these representations.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I could not answer that question without examining my papers, but what I have to say is, that this particular question has excited a great deal of interest, and I think I was fully entitled to draw the conclusion I did, from the fact that I have not had one single request to do otherwise. I have not carefully looked into the matter and ascertained from what part of Cork these various representations came, but if the honourable Gentleman thinks that East Cork is hardly treated, I think he can test the matter between now and the Report stage.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: But the right honourable Gentleman has taken care to say in this Bill, "within six months of the passing of this Act, may alter for the purposes of the election of such council the boundaries of any existing judicial county, and, in the case of Cork, divide the same into two ridings." With regard to the division of Cork, I want to know what figures he has got which he has told the Committee to-night he has not taken the trouble to analyse. The right honourable Gentleman surely might, without any harm to the Bill, take care to exercise the provision he has put in the Bill. Instead of accepting this Amendment, he might adhere to the text of his Bill. Take the six months and let the local bodies analyse the feeling and opinion of the county upon this question, and, having ascertained what the public feeling is on the matter, let the right honourable Gentleman act. If the division of Cork is found to be desired, let it be divided. But is it perfectly fair to do so without analysing these representations which have been made to the right honourable Gentleman? I declare that those expressions of opinion are machined, and do not represent the true opinion of the county. I
    176
    say the right honourable Gentleman has taken no pains to ascertain what was the opinion of a certain part of Cork, and if he accepts this Amendment now he is doing so without having ascertained the true opinion of the county on the matter.
    MR. M. HEALY: I rise to move this Amendment. I think my honourable Friends behind me are under a misapprehension as to the objects that the Government had in view in introducing this proposal into their Bill, that the county councils might divide the county of Cork. It was put into the Bill because it was conceded that the West Riding of Cork was entitled to have a county council of its own. It was proposed that the Local Government Board might divide the county if it is divided. The only object in making the division is the cost. The West Riding of Cork is so remote from the East Riding, and it might desire to have a sort of Home Rule, and set up a county council of its own. Well, naturally, under those circumstances, all the expressions of opinion would come from the West Riding, because it is the West Riding which is most interested. Every public body in the West Riding is of this opinion. My honourable Friend says the opinion is machined; if that is so, I am not aware of how it has been machined. When the figures were first investigated it was suggested that the West Riding would be hampered by any division at all, but that if any division took place it ought to be upon the basis of equal rating. When the Chief Secretary announced publicly that if there was a division it would be upon the lines of the ridings, and not upon equal ratings, public opinion of the West Riding declared against the division. Everybody in the county of Cork knows it would be impossible to make a division upon those lines. You could make no divisions in the county Cork which would not make it extremely inconvenient for the remote parts of the districts. From Skibbereen, or Bantry, and all that district, it would be extremely inconvenient to make an effective representation, if not impossible. The county has, at an enormous expense, erected a building for the use of the county council of the whole county, and if the county is now divided all that expense will have to be incurred

    177
    again. No one who has examined the matter and gone into the figures can come to the conclusion that the West Riding would be at all benefited by the division; and I do say where the West Riding is unanimously opposed to the proposal that the Government are reasonably safe in accepting this Amendment. I, personally, have not the slightest interest in what is done in this matter, but I do think that the interests of the district should be considered in a matter of this kind.
    MR. FLYNN: The opinion has not been well developed in the different districts of the county of Cork. The opinion in the East Riding is, no doubt, in favour of the proposal of the Bill, but obviously the best way out of the difficulty would be that the Members representing the county of Cork should come together and discuss this matter fully, in all its bearings, and then communicate their views upon the subject to the right honourable Gentleman. But, incontestably, if there is a well-founded opinion in the county of Cork that the proposal of the Bill should not be adopted, and there is a strong opinion in favour of the Amendment, then the Amendment should be accepted.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: I should like to point out to the Chief Secretary that public opinion in the West Riding was unanimously in favour of a division of the county, provided that the county could be divided on the basis of equal rating. It was only in reply to the suggestion that the county should be divided on the present lines of the ridings that I stated the West Riding was opposed to it. The East Riding is double the size, and certainly double the valuation, of the West Riding. The East Riding is £700 on the valuation; the West Riding is £300; and certainly, under the circumstances, the East Riding is entitled to a more weighty consideration than the West Riding; but as the West Riding is practically unanimous upon this subject, though I feel we should prefer a division of the county, I do not myself propose to stand in the way of this Amendment.
    DR. TANNER: I must say, with all due deference to the opinions which have been expressed by honourable Members of this House upon this subject, that, from the information which has come to me from the county of Cork, with reference to the division of the county, it appears to me that the opinions of both Nationalists and Conservatives, and others belonging to the county, is that there should be only one county of Cork, that there should be only one centre, and only one method of dealing with matters material to the county. The centre naturally should be the city of Cork, and I think some little time should be given to the consideration of this matter.
    Amendment put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 25, line 23, leave out 'or any Order in Council made under Part 6 of this Act.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALY: I think the right honourable Gentleman will see the connection between this and another Amendment I put on the Paper, but what I have to say now is this, that I should be quite satisfied to leave the clause as it stands as regards boundaries if the right honourable Gentleman will omit these words. I think he has not fully appreciated the effect which those words if retained will have upon Orders in Council made under Part 6, the whole purpose of which would be destroyed.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should like to adopt the suggestion, because I think it is desirable that some general principle should be laid down, and if the honourable Member will leave this question to me I will see what is the best way of giving effect to what is the intention of the Bill on this matter.
    MR. M. HEALY: I think the right honourable Gentleman might make an addition to the Order in Council which would give county boroughs the power of extending their boundaries so as to get the benefit of the Act.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, if there is nothing to prevent it.
    MR. M. HEALY: On that understanding, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 25, line 28, leave out sub-section (b)."
    MR. DILLON: I do not find that the Government in the Act absolutely tie the hands of the Local Government Board with regard to this question of unions being divided, and if my Amendment is accepted it will not in the least degree compel the Local Government Board to divide unions between more than two counties if they do not wish to do so. But representations have been made to me that in some cases it would be desirable to divide certain unions between more than two counties, and that it would be better in that respect to have no cast-iron rule. Of course, I do not now wish to obtain the judgment of the Committee on the merits of that question; all I seek now is that the right honourable Gentleman should leave the Local Government Board with their hands free to make the division as they may think best after full inquiry. The inquiries which the right honourable Gentleman has been making have caused the greatest possible anxiety and alarm. The whole question will have to be considered with the utmost care, and I think full opportunity ought to be given to the inhabitants and ratepayers of a district which it is proposed to transfer from one union or county to another to state their views fully before anything is done.
    MR. JORDAN: I do not propose to say more than a few words in support of the Amendment of my honourable Friend the Member for Mayo. We have one division in Tyrone, eight in Cavan, and the remainder in Fermanagh, and I know that none of the divisions in Tyrone or Cavan wish to be disconnected from the divisions in Fermanagh. On that ground I protest against the right honourable Gentleman leaving the matter entirely to the decision of the Local Government Board. Only yesterday evening I wrote a letter to the Secretary
    180
    to the Local Government Board in relation to the same subject, and the inhabitants of the division in county Cavan got up a memorial, and sent it to the Local Government Board praying not to be severed from the union of the county Fermanagh. I hope, therefore, that the right honourable Gentleman will accept this Amendment.
    MR. CREAN: I have an Amendment down at line 29, proposing to leave out "two" and insert "three," but I have been requested not to press it now. I asked the right honourable Gentleman a question as to whether he had received a memorial requesting him to enable unions to remain as they are. Under the clause it will be in the power of the Local Government Board to divide them into two if they so think fit, contrary to their expressed wish, but I do not conceive that the right honourable Gentleman can have much objection to accept the Amendment now proposed. I know perfectly well that if the arrangements now proposed are carried out, as may be seen by reference to the union map in the Tea Room, a great number of my constituents will be very much inconvenienced by being put away from the central meeting-place of the guardians of the union. They told me it would be almost impossible for them to give regular attendance to their duties if that were done. This Amendment will be only extending the powers of the Local Government Board so as to enable them to meet the views of particular unions, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will accept it.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: This is a matter of great interest, and anyone who has considered it for several years past will not at all wonder at the decision at which the Government have arrived. But at the same time one cannot ignore the fact that there is intense local feeling upon the subject. In some cases the proposals of the Local Government Board might involve not only changing a division from one county to another, but from one province to another. I see that a Sligo union might be brought into Donegal. It is not only that there

    181
    might be considerable feeling, both racial and local, but there are financial questions of importance involved. The Amendment of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Mayo would not, I think, in any way restrict the powers of the Local Government Board. But, while I think the Government will do well to accept this Amendment, I should not at all find fault, from the point of view of the central authorities, if some such proposal as that in the Bill were carried. The present system is most inconvenient, and it is most desirable that some approximation towards the system suggested in the Bill should be brought about. But really, Sir, I think the opposition which this scheme has undoubtedly aroused has been generated because of the natural distrust, of the localities of the body which is to do this work. In regard to England, observe the anxiety and care which the Government have shown. Before the Act of 1888 was brought forward they passed an Act in 1887, appointing a Royal Commission, consisting of a number of people of great dignity and importance, to consider these boundary questions. Then, again, when the Bill of 1888 was passed, another Commission, composed of men of considerable weight and experience, was appointed, in order to deal with questions of adjustment, whereas these matters had to be left under the control of the Local Government Board, two out of the three members of which body are at the present moment absolutely new to its work. I do not wish to say anything more about that, and nobody will think I am hinting at any job, but I must express profound regret as to the disappearance of Sir George Morris from the Local Government Board. He was a man of great common sense, and he understood the prejudices of the people, as it is necessary to do in these cases. He did not pretend to govern the country without understanding the prejudices of the people. I do not know the gentleman who took his place, but I can speak with approval of the new appointment made by the right honourable Gentleman, which I believe will be received with satisfaction. Therefore we do not complain of the composition of the Local Government Board, as it is now constituted, but we cannot ignore the fact that two out of the three members are
    182
    new men, neither can we ignore the fact that it is not to be strengthened, so far as we know, in any way from outside. Now, I think it would be a reasonable thing if the Government were to announce that some gentleman connected with this House—I do not care what Party he might belong to—should have something to say in these matters. There are questions of considerable nicety to be dealt with, and I do think that the Local Government Board might be assisted, as assessors, by some Members, drawn from all Parties, in this House, to do the work in an honorary capacity, the paid men doing the drudgery, leaving to what I may call the honorary members outside questions of principle where local feeling arose, and of which there might thus be brought about considerable abatement. The Government, I think, on the whole would lose nothing by accepting this Amendment. They could, in spite of its acceptance, if they thought fit, carry out departmentally what they wish now to carry out legislatively. There is undoubtedly a strong feeling about the Bill, and the Government would do well, in view of local prejudices, to consider whether they could not meet them by appointing some persons in an honorary capacity to assist the Local Government Board.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I think the Government will act wisely in accepting this Amendment. In different localities strong feeling is likely to arise about the alteration of boundaries. There may be some unions in which certain divisions would be satisfied to join other unions, but, on the other hand, there are divisions which would view such a change with dissatisfaction. My honourable Friend the Member for Mayo proposes to leave the matter more open, and I think the Government might, without great risk, agree to his proposal.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not say that I am not able to accept the Amendment. I think that in two or three cases, probably not more, it might be more convenient to adopt a threefold rather than a twofold arrangement. I must confess that I think simplification

    183
    of areas is a very important object, but it might be carried to an extent that would prevent what might be very valuable arrangements. I would rather the honourable Member would not press his Amendment. I can assure him I am prepared to consider the matter, but, at the same time, it might be awkward to take out of the Bill the power of the Local Government Board to divide unions between two instead of three counties.
    MR. DILLON: My point is that if the Bill remains as it now stands, unions could not in any case be divided between more than two counties, and the right honourable Gentleman admits that, for reasons present to his own mind, in two or three cases, at any rate, it would be found more convenient to make the division between three counties. All I ask him to do is to leave himself free to make the change if he should think it best to do so.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Without wishing to contest what the honourable Member has said, I do not think he understands my point, which is that if I simply accepted the Amendment there would be nothing but divisions between three counties under the provision of the Bill. I would, therefore, rather leave some direction, at all events, in the Bill to indicate what should be done. The honourable Member says, leave the Local Government Board free to make what arrangements they think best, but in the absence of any directions great pressure may be brought to bear upon them to make arrangements which it would not be wise to make, and it is desirable that their hands should be strengthened to resist pressure to multiply divisions.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Are not you the Local Governnent Board? You do not want your hands strengthened.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The presence of this or some similar provision in the Bill against multiplying divisions would be useful in strengthening their hands should pressure be brought to bear. However, if the honourable Gentleman will be satisfied with what I
    184
    say, I will further consider the matter before the Report, in order to make up my mind definitely as to the cases in which such a division would be desirable, and if I think it really is desirable in certain cases, I will accept this Amendment, or some similar Amendment, to make a threefold division possible.
    MR. DILLON: I will be content with that, but I hope the right honourable Gentleman will place something on the Paper expressing his views. I now understand his object, but I think it will be universally admitted that the statement he has made shows that in some cases it would be undesirable to put a cast-iron limitation on the action of the Board. I will not press my Amendment now, but I expect the right honourable Gentleman will put upon the Paper some proposal before the Report stage, to show whether he will carry out my proposal. I should like to say a word or two, before I withdraw the Amendment, on the general question of boundaries, because some of us who sit on these Benches are in a position of difficulty in the matter. I myself have been troubled because of the proposal made to two divisions in my constituency, with, as it were, a pistol placed at their heads. They are put in the dilemma of either joining the Swineford Union, or leaving the county of Mayo and joining Roscommon. They do not want to do that. They belong to county Mayo in the Parliamentary sense, and they belong to Roscommon in the county council sense. Well, now, there may be, from the point of view of the right honourable Gentleman, no justification for the prejudices of these local people, but there is something more than prejudice in the matter. These two divisions are up in arms against the change, and there is something more than a sentimental objection to it. They have a serious objection to sending their representatives into a strange council, where they are likely to form a small and despised faction, whose voice would not be likely to be listened to. That may appear to some honourable Gentlemen a rather too far-fetched objection, but I can assure them that to those who go much about amongst the people and understand the condition of county

    185
    society, it is by no means a fanciful objection, for such a compulsory change might be very cruel. Therefore, what I want to impress upon the right honourable Gentleman is this: I should like him before the Bill passes to give us some indication of what precautions are to be taken to ascertain the wishes of the people in a division before forcing it to remove to another county or union, and what weight is to be given to the unanimous feeling of the body of the ratepayers. Although I fully sympathise with the object of the right honourable Gentleman as to simplification, still I think you will meet with great difficulties and create great discontent unless you move slowly and cautiously in the matter.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps I may be allowed to state that this question of boundaries has been anxiously considered by the Government, and in every case we have tried to ascertain what was the local feeling. As to the suggestion of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth, that it might be possible, in the event of dissatisfaction with a decision, to give an appeal to the Local Government Board with the assistance of assessors, I do not wish to offer any opinion now, but I shall certainly consider all the suggestions that have been made.
    MR. M. AUSTIN: In my own constituency there are four electoral divisions, which it is proposed to attach permanently to the Listowel Union, and I wish to call attention to the fact that the distance from Listowel is very considerable, and to suggest also that the feelings of those four electoral divisions should be taken into consideration. A meeting was held a fortnight ago, at which resolutions were adopted protesting against alteration in this direction. The decision on a former occasion was, unfortunately, come to rather hastily, and the people of the district had no opportunity of expressing an opinion at the time, but they have that opportunity now.
    MR. CREAN: In my opinion, Mr. Lowther, strange results will follow if this clause is retained in the Bill in its
    186
    present form, especially in the union of which Kilkenny, Tipperary, and Waterford form part. The Local Government Board have addressed a letter to the board of guardians, stating that inasmuch as this Bill provides that no union shall be divided between more than two counties, it will be necessary to transfer certain portions of the union, but this is provided for in such a manner as to involve intersection of boundaries, and more than intersection, with the result that when jurors are summoned to assizes or to sessions they will, in certain cases, have to travel distances of from 20 to 30 Irish miles, to the great prejudice of legal proceedings. The board of guardians of the Carrick-on-Suir Union have unanimously passed a resolution, which has been sent to the Local Government Board, asking the latter body not to pass the scheme in that form, which, however, will be absolutely necessary if this clause is carried as it stands.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I fear that in a matter of this sort there is scarcely a case in which difficulties cannot be made apparent with the assistance of the map, but I do recognise that there are special cases to which it is necessary to give consideration, and I hope honourable Gentlemen will be satisfied with the assurance that such consideration shall be given.
    MR. JORDAN: Will the right honourable Gentleman permit me to make a suggestion? Before the Local Government Board arrive at a decision, will it not be better to hold an inquiry on the spot, where the parties interested may be heard? That, I think, may save a good deal of trouble hereafter.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see no objection to that, in doubtful cases.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DALY: I move an Amendment that a union shall extend over one county. I think this would save a good deal of amalgamation, which would otherwise take place.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We have for the last half-hour been discussing Amendments on this point, and I am forced to admit there seems to be sufficient doubt about the matter to make me look into it.
    MR. DALY: I do not wish to press this to a division, but in the county I represent there is a good deal of soreness about this business, and I have been inundated with petitions on the subject from county Monaghan.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 25, line 29, after 'counties,' insert 'or two counties and one county borough.'"—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
    MR. VESEY KNOX: There is a particular case I would like to call attention to—that of the union of Derry, which will form part of two counties and one county borough. It is of a convenient size, and the city of Derry will be in the centre. As the Bill stands, it will be necessary to take either the Derry part of the union or the Donegal part and throw it into another union. I quite admit that where parts of unions are not sufficiently large in themselves, there is a strong case for amalgamation and alteration of boundaries, but in this case the part of the union of the county of Derry is, I submit, large enough, and so is the part of the county of Donegal, and I can see no obstacle to these parts forming rural district councils. I have no information as to what it is proposed to do in this particular case, for it rather seems to have beer, overlooked; but it certainly seems to me that a county borough is for these purposes somewhat different from an ordinary county, and I venture to press this matter on the attention of the Chief Secretary.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I fear that if I were to adopt the suggestion of the honourable Member for East Mayo, or to make one of my own, it would not meet the proposal of this Amendment.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I am not going to press this to a division, but it would be an inconceivable hardship if the proposal I apprehend were carried into effect, and I cannot think such a course is contemplated as that either the Derry or the Donegal part of the union shall be amalgamated with any other union. I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to give a clearer answer on this question, because this is a far different case from those which have been spoken of, of a union forming more than two rural counties. If I withdraw the Amendment I hope the right honourable Gentleman will give an assurance that the case will be dealt with.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My strong impression is that the case of this union was not considered by us when we used this form of words. I press the right honourable Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment, in order that we may consider the whole case.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to point out the word "area" appears to be hardly sufficient in this clause. There are places in which the proportions of unions vary considerably in point of size, and are of but little consequence, and I beg to move an Amendment to insert after the word "size," the words "and rateable value."
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I think that, as far as valuation goes, the Local Government Board might be of opinion that they would be able to form separate districts, and I do not think it is desirable to put in a word which might hinder the Local Government Board. My view is that the poorer a place is the harder it is for the people to send their district councillors to distant places. In the union I have in my mind, in West Cavan, the people are very poor—in fact, it ought to be scheduled as a congested district—and to send them to a distant place to transact their local business, would be a very great hardship. It

    189
    must be remembered that in Ireland there will be no parish councils; the district councils will be the authorities for all local purposes, including the village pump. I, therefore, think the Amendment might well be held over.
    MR. CREAN: There is nothing in the clause which prescribes in any way any rules which the Local Government Board will follow. I think some regulation should be made as to where rural district councils shall or shall not be set up, and I think also the English precedent might well be followed.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I have heard my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Derry city, and, while holding my own opinion, I ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am rather sorry the honourable Gentleman has withdrawn his Amendment, because I think some other points should be considered besides size.
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 26, line 1, leave out subsection 5."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALY: It appears to me that the words inserted in clause 18 of the Bill, which enables an electoral division, when divided into wards, to combine for the purpose of election, are inconsistent with the clause which is before us. Clause 18, section 4, is most necessary in view of the fact that some electoral divisions in Irish constituencies are small, and it would be most unfair to give them on the district council a representation equal to that of a larger area.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will accept the Amendment, subject to the reservation that, as the matter is complicated, it may be necessary to reconsider it.
    MR. M. HEALY: I thank you. I will mention it on the Report stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 26, line 5, add as a new sub-section—
    "If the Local Government Board amalgamate two unions they may, after communication with the county council and rural district councils concerned, either amalgamate the rural districts in the same county which are comprised in the amalgamated unions, or direct that those districts shall continue as separate rural districts, and in either case may make such arrangements as may be necessary for protecting the interests of the officers of the district councils holding office at the time of the amalgamation, and for that purpose the Union Officers (Ireland) Act, 1885, shall apply to officers of the district councils in like manner as it applies to the officers of boards of guardians."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 44 as amended added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 15.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 26, line 10, leave out 'coroner.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALY: This clause is a supplement to clause 27, section 3, which preserves the right of the council of a borough to appoint its coroner as heretofore. If this clause stands, it would appear as if the urban district came under the jurisdiction of the county council even when the urban district comprises a borough. I do not know whether I have made myself quite clear.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): It was never the intention of the clause to deprive any borough, absorbed in an administrative county, of its existing right to appoint a coroner.
    MR. M. HEALY: But, I think, there would be a danger as the clause stands. However, I withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 26, line 11, leave out 'a sheriff and,'"
    "Page 26, line 13, after 'county' insert—
    "'And a sheriff may be appointed by the Corporation of Belfast and Londonderry, as if these cities were named in the fourth section of the Municipal Privileges (Ireland) Act, and in the manner as in said Act provided.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The question which I have raised is one, I think, of considerable importance, and I do not know how the Government can resist the Amendment. By Act of Parliament every borough has the right to appoint a sheriff. Now, for the first time, the right honourable Gentleman proposes in this Bill, greatly to my regret, to make Londonderry into a separate county borough. I would like to ask this question: Suppose somebody were to move that a writ be issued for the city of Londonderry, would the intelligent Gentlemen who sit at the Table send the writ to the mayor, or would they send it to the sheriff, or whom would they send it to? At present the mayor gets the writ, but by this Act you will create a sheriff for Londonderry and you will create a sheriff for Belfast. It is true that, as regards Belfast, though I am bound to say that I speak with some hesitation, I believe the mayor in all cases executes the writ; but now you make a sheriff for the first time where he never existed before—namely, Londonderry. I deplore the action of the Government in destroying the old and the historic venue of the county and city of Londonderry, for the first time, without rhyme or reason. You are setting up a new venue, and beyond the fact that it gets this election of the sheriff, I am bound to say I do not see what advantages Londonderry is likely to secure under this clause.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We propose to accept the second of the honourable and learned Member's Amendments in a modified form.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Very well, then; I withdraw the first Amendment but I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General a question. The right honourable Gentleman said, on a former occasion, that he would still allow the direction of the writ, in the case of
    192
    merged boroughs, to go to the mayor. I would suggest to him that the proper thing would be to give the borough of Galway some provision of this kind. I thank the Government for having accepted the Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The form in which I propose to accept the Amendment is this—
    "In line 13, page 26, after the word 'county,' insert these words, 'of a city named in section 4 of the Municipal Privileges (Ireland) Act, 1875.'"
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 26, line 16, at end, insert—
    "'(a) A justice of the peace for a county, or for a city or town, which, by virtue of this Act, becomes part of the administrative county which it adjoins, shall be a justice of the peace for that county.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALY: I understood the Attorney General to admit that this clause was necessary. I am sure he does not desire that Kilkenny, Galway, and Drogheda should lose their status as counties of cities, and that justices of the peace of those counties shall lose their power in the areas over which their jurisdiction has been exercised, because those areas will no longer exist as a separate judicial entity, and become portions of the larger area.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Our object is to preserve all existing rights, and I think that they might still continue to act under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1840. But at present I am not quite certain as to the position of Galway and Carrickfergus. Perhaps, if the honourable Member will allow these questions to be reserved for the present, he may be content by my saying that our general policy is that all existing rights shall be preserved, and that justices of the peace shall continue to exercise their functions as hitherto.
    MR. M. HEALY: I am quite satisfied, but I do think it would be a shabby thing if the Government were to restrict the powers of those magistrates

    193
    just because they chose to destroy the area over which they acted, and to create a sort of hybrid magistracy, the like of which has never existed before in the judicial history of the country. I repeat that it would be very shabby.
    MR. ATKINSON: As I understand, the honourable Member wishes that the justices of the peace out of those areas which are destroyed shall be appointed justices for the whole county?
    MR. M. HEALY: Hear, hear!
    MR. SHEEHY: Inasmuch as the section only affects two localities and a few gentlemen, I think the right honourable Gentleman might well make this small concession, unless there should be some concealed objection to these gentlemen being on the commission of the peace.
    MR. JORDAN: I think this is a concession which the Government might reasonably make.
    MR. M. HEALY: Subject to my right to raise the question again, I withdraw the Amendment now.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 26, line 19, after 'Act' insert—
    "'(b) The court-houses and other county buildings hitherto used for the purposes of the county Antrim and the city of Belfast, and for the purposes of the county and city of Londonderry, shall continue to be so used, subject to the prescribed conditions."—(Mr. Vesey Knox.)
    MR. VESEY KNOX: This Amendment is one which I think can be readily accepted. The object of the Amendment that I wish to move is to secure that there shall not be any necessity to build a new court-house either for county Antrim or for Londonderry. At present there is a court-house at Belfast, and there is another at Londonderry, each of which is amply sufficient for judicial purposes, and I venture to say that nobody wants to see a new court-house built there. There is no necessity at Belfast for erecting another court, and in Derry they are improving
    194
    their present court-house, and certainly it will be quite sufficient for the purposes of the city and county.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it intended to hold assizes in Limavady, which, I believe, is the right honourable Gentleman's stronghold, or can he suggest where the duties of the county are to be performed? It seems to me that the Government, in making this novel proposal, have, for all assize purposes, separated the city of Derry absolutely from the county. There is no power to hold a court in another county. If a prisoner is to be tried, he is tried in the county of Derry, unless the right honourable Gentleman resorts to the Crimes Act. The city of Derry is as widely removed from the county of Derry as if it were the city of London.
    MR. ATKINSON: There is scarcely a city in Ireland—
    MR. M. HEALY: What about Cork?
    MR. ATKINSON: Where the prisoners of an adjoining county are not tried in the county situated next to it. The county of Derry is separated for county purposes from the county of the city, but prisoners in the county will still be tried in the courthouse, which, for assize purposes, will be considered as in the county of Derry, just as they are tried in the county of the city of Limerick, Cork, Kilkenny, and Waterford.
    MR. M. HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman has referred to the city of Cork, and he has said that prisoners from the county of Cork are tried in the city of Cork because there is an expressed enactment for that, and when the court-house was burned down ten years ago and a temporary court had to be held elsewhere, a special enactment had to be brought forward. I do think that without some expressed enactment the city of Derry court-house will be deemed to be in the county of Derry, and there might be some awkward inquiries made by the judges. What I rise to say is this: that the Order in Council does not explicitly deal with this question. It is a general clause,

    195
    designed, no doubt, to carry out the Act, but it is dangerous to have a general clause when you want a specific one. All it says is that the county council will hold the court-house in trust for the same purpose as the prison. At present it is held in trust for one county alone. It appears to me that not only in the case of Derry but in other cases there will want to be an expressed provision made for the apportionment of counties, and I think my honourable Friend was quite right to raise this question.
    MR. ATKINSONwas understood to say that the Cork Act to which the honourable Member referred was not an Act dealing with court-houses.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the clause should be left as it is.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: There would be an interesting problem as to what would happen in the case of prisoners. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to look into the question of the maintenance of these court-houses, and make some provision as to the powers of the authorities. Of course, I suppose it will be a matter for adjustment. In the case of Belfast there is a case which arises quite apart from the case of Derry. In the case of Belfast the courthouse will be used for an area which contains some 60,000 people.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right honourable Gentleman say what will become of the property of the court-house merged?
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: This, of course, is a very serious section, and we Irish lawyers are rather in an unfortunate position, because, when Bills are discussed in this House, and passed, and afterwards criticised, the Irish lawyers who are present at the time are taunted for not having called attention to the defects in the Bill. That is the case in the Land Bill of 1896, which has come to be regarded as a laughingstock in the Four Courts of Dublin. Now, I quite agree with the honourable and learned Member for North Louth that
    196
    some change is needed in this Bill. It is a question affecting the criminal jurisdiction of the county, and when prisoners are brought up, counsel will at once get up and say, "My Lords, You have no jurisdiction to try this prisoner in this particular court-house." I trust, before the Bill passes through this House, it will be abundantly clear that no question of jurisdiction will arise.
    MR. ATKINSON: My right honourable Friend need have no fear; it will be abundantly clear.
    MR. DILLONwas understood to say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had promised to receive a deputation from Drogheda on this question. He himself waited some time to introduce that deputation, when an official came and presented a letter saying that, inasmuch as the Chief Secretary had written saying he would only receive the Mayor and Town Clerk of Drogheda, he could not see him [Mr. Dillon]. He would not trouble the right honourable Gentleman again. What occurred was that these gentlemen who comprised the deputation desired to be present, in order to impress the Chief Secretary with the fact that all were at one on the question, but in order to convenience the Chief Secretary they arranged that only two should speak. He (Mr. Dillon) must say these gentlemen had gone back to Drogheda with a very extraordinary idea as to the disposition of the right honourable Gentleman.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that, unless he thought he had made quite a different arrangement from that referred to by Mr. Dillon, he would not have taken the course he did. Although the honourable Member said that only two members of the deputation had intended to speak, he [Mr. Balfour] was sorry to say that his experience of deputations was that there was a desire for each one to speak.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I accept that statement of the right honourable Gentleman, but he will make some allowance for the feelings of those who are con-

    197
    strained to cross the Channel, in order to see the Chief Secretary, and then find that they cannot do so.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 26, lines 22 and 23, leave out 'Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885,' and insert—
    "'Representation of the People Acts as defined by the Representation of the People Act, 1884.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALY: I do not think the Parliamentary Registration Act contains any provision as to "borough" or "county."
    MR. ATKINSONwas understood to refer to the Redistribution of Seats Act.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: The Redistribution of Seats Act only defines new boundaries—the right honourable Gentleman will find I am right.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 26, line 23, at end, add—
    "'Or confer any right to vote at the election of a member to serve in Parliament in any Parliamentary borough where such right did not previously exist.'"—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. T. M. HEALYthought the words should be inserted.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURaccepted the Amendment.
    Clause 45, as amended, added to Bill.

    CLAUSE 46.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 27, line 10, leave out sub-section 2."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALY: I wish to ask if the Government have considered the case of a county surveyor. He is compelled to give certain certificates that work is done. The words of this section seem to suggest that it is the county council that should give the certificate,
    198
    but I think that certain powers vested in the county surveyor at present ought not to be vested in the county council as a body.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Act transfers to the county council not only he powers of the grand jury but also the powers of their officers. However, I will consider the point raised by the honourable Member.
    MR. M. HEALY: If the right honourable Gentleman says he will consider this, I will not persist.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 27, line 13, at end, add—
    "'Except so far as the sheriff or the justices may require for the administration of justice the use of any court-house, sessions house, or other county building under his or their custody or control, the county council may use the same for the purpose of the execution of their duties, and if any difference arises between the sheriff or justices and the county councils as to such use, or as to the remuneration of any court keeper or other officer, such difference shall be determined by the Lord Lieutenant,'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Further Amendment proposed—
    "In line 3 of proposed Amendment after word 'use' insert 'control and manage.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
    MR. CLANCYsaid those court-houses were really the property of the county, and had been erected at the cost of the ratepayers.
    Question put—
    "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. ATKINSONsaid the primary purpose of the court-houses was the administration of justice, and therefore it was necessary to place them under the control of the sheriff and not of the county council, which was not responsible for the administration of justice.
    MR. CLANCYsaid the right honourable and learned Gentleman had only just explained the grievance of which he

    199
    complained. The sheriff would control and manage the court-houses, and would be able to keep them under his charge. They admitted at once that the sheriff ought to have control of the court-house when it was required for business of the court, and, if necessary, he would be willing to accept any words which would give them that control; but when control was not required for business purposes it was monstrous that the county council should not have control. It was a moot question whether the grand jury should have the right to manage and control these court-houses, but he believed there was a judicial decision to the effect that the sheriff had the control. This would now be perpetuated.
    MR. ATKINSONsaid he had explained that the officer who had to make all the necessary arrangements was the high sheriff. The primary object was that justice should be administered in these buildings.
    MR. CLANCYsaid the Amendment provided—
    Except so far as the sheriff or justices might require for the administration of justice the use of any county building under his or their control, the county council might use the same," etc.
    The county council were under no obligation to provide for the administration of justice.
    MR. TULLYsaid that in the smaller towns of Ireland the sub-sheriff was the gentleman who controlled the use of the court-house, and when people wanted it they applied for the use of the building. He knew cases where, when they wanted the courthouse for entertainments for charitable purposes they had been refused, while the building was always at the disposal of the local freemason lodge. They wanted the county or district council to have power in this matter, and he hoped it would be closely looked into.
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELLsaid he would like the Attorney General for Ireland to explain how the question was likely to apply in the case of county
    200
    boroughs. For instance, would the sheriff of the city of Belfast or the sheriff of the county of Antrim have control? In the case of the city of Dublin also, he would like to know how the authority was to be divided in the event of a conflict between the county and city sheriff.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Dublin Corporation had to provide every year £1,600 for salaries for officials of the Green Street court-house, not one of whom they could appoint. They had not the right to appoint any officer; it was entirely in charge of the sheriff of the city.
    MR. ATKINSON: Part of the building is under the jurisdiction of the High Sheriff of the county of Cork, and part is under the jurisdiction of the city of Cork, although both buildings are under the same roof. The only question that might arise would be between the city and the county.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I should like to say the Recorder of Dublin has a distinct court, and that it is necessary for this court to make some provision, because, when it was desired that the Recorder should go down to the other court and try civil cases there, he decided that he had no jurisdiction outside his own particular court.
    MR. M. HEALY: I have carefully read this Amendment of the Government, and it seems to me to be a most insidious proposal. At first I did not quite understand it, and I am not quite sure that I understand it now; but after giving it the best examination that I can, it appears to me that its operation will be to cut down the rights of the county council. Now, Sir, as this Bill was originally drawn, it did not contain one word upon the subject of the county proper. All that was to be done by an Order in Council. There is a clause in the Bill to enable an Order in Council to be made, but in the Bill as it stood originally there is no reference whatever to the county proper. In the Order of Council there is a most elaborate Order as to the county proper,

    201
    which hands it all over to the county councils, and leaves it to them to do anything they like, so long as they keep within the law. Now come in those insidious words—
    "The county council may use, the same for the purposes of the execution of their duties."
    But supposing, Sir, the county council wished, as the honourable Member pointed out might very well occur, to let the court-house for a party or for a concert for charitable purposes—in many of the Irish towns the only public building where public entertainments can be held is the court-house. That is the only building available that can be used for concerts, parties, and the like, and by these words the right honourable Gentleman practically suppresses that, and he prevents the county council from allowing the court-house to be used for such a harmless and proper purpose. Is that the deliberate attempt of this Amendment? Is it intended to take away from the county councils what the Order in Council deliberately gave to them? The right honourable Gentleman says that these words are not put in for such a reason; but, unless he can give me any explanation to the contrary, I must suppose that he conceived that the powers given by the Order in Council were too large, and he wants to cut those powers down.
    MR. FIELD: Before the right honourable Gentleman replies, I wish it to be made quite clear what position he intends shall be taken up under this clause, what the position of the corporations and the county councils will be in connection with the control of these courthouses. I entirely agree with what has fallen from the honourable and learned Member for St. Stephen's Green. I do not understand what power this clause is intended to exercise in the future. My own experience of Dublin is that the corporation is the proper party to have control over the work of these court-houses.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I do not go into the question of counties and cities, because I am not so much concerned in that matter; but, so far as the ordinary
    202
    county council goes, I think this is a most extraordinary proposal on the part of the Government. Heretofore the high sheriff and the grand jury had the control of the court-house, and the question I desire to ask is, Why should not the county councils, who are to have the use of these court-houses for their duties, have the control of them, subject, of course, to the use of the judges for the purposes of justice? It seems to me, from the wording of this Amendment of the Chief Secretary, that the county council may use the same, but the right of the county councils to do so is merely subject to the goodwill and pleasure of the sheriff. It says here, "They may use it." It seems to me that it is a very curious Amendment. I think the Government ought to allow the county councils to have a determining voice in their administration and their occupation. The honourable Member opposite was anxious that the various leagues should be able to have their meetings in the courthouse, but I have never yet heard of an Irish court-house being used for the purposes of an Irish Nationalist league. Of course, I am aware they have been used for the purposes of the Primrose League, and if they are used for the Primrose League I cannot, for my own part, see why they cannot be used by the National League, or any other organisation which ought to be given similar facilities. When the Government are about to bring in a reform in the administration of local affairs in Ireland, I should have thought that the least which they could do would be to give the county councils, who pay the larger amount for the maintenance of the court-houses and for the building of them, the supreme power of administering them. That is the right of the county council, and I think the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman is inexpedient.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member seems to be under the impression that we are endeavouring to take away from the county councils powers which would, as successors of the grand juries of Ireland, devolve upon them. That is not quite so. What we are doing is to give them

    203
    the management of the court-houses in exactly the same manner as the grand juries managed them. The grand juries paid exactly the same amount as the county council will have to pay hereafter, but the grand juries were not supreme in the management of the courthouses. That control remained with the sheriff. I am not of opinion that a power not possessed by the grand juries of Ireland should be possessed by the county councils. Somebody must have control, and I still think the control ought to remain with the sheriff. If a building was required for some of these other purposes which have been referred to, then a proper application would be made to the sheriff, and the sheriff would naturally grant the necessary leave. [Loud cries of "No, no!"] Well, I think he would; but, in any case, it would not be a right thing, having regard to the primary uses for which they were built, and to which they would be put, that they should be taken out of the control of the sheriff. Therefore, he will have the control.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: The Chief Secretary says the primary use of the court is for the administration of justice. That is so, but it appears to me that he could easily meet the views of both sides by giving the control to the county council, adding something in the form of a proviso which would provide that the sheriff or the justices "may use any court sessions house of county buildings when required for the administration of justice." Subject to that, he might leave the control with the county council; give them the control, with the right of usor on the part of the sheriff or justices.
    SIR THOMAS LEA: I do not clearly understand whether the county council of county Londonderry would be allowed the use of the city offices of the county council only, with the permission of the City of Londonderry Council, or whether they would be able to meet in any other part of the county that they please. The Attorney General's constituents are equally interested in this matter with mine, and I should like to know whether
    204
    they would be able to meet in the city court-house.
    MR. ATKINSON: They would never require to meet in the court-house, because there is a very fine Corporation Hall in which they would be able to meet; but at the same time they would be able to meet in the city court-house if they pleased.
    MR. DILLON: I cannot see any reason why the county council should not have the control and the management of the court-houses, subject to the right of the sheriff, to make use of them when the needs of justice required their use. As I understand, the point that has been raised by the honourable Member for North Dublin would be met by such a concession, and it would, in my opinion, be very expedient. What the Chief Secretary admitted in his speech was that this Amendment modifies the powers which we thought were given to us by the Order in Council—that is, the control and management of the court-houses, etc. What was said in response to the honourable Member for North Dublin. He said that if the county council, who paid for these buildings, and whose property they are, desired to have the use of them for a charitable concert, or a political or non-political meeting, so far as that goes they could apply to the high sheriff, and presumably the high sheriff would grant the application. Now, that is what we have no right to presume, and, unfortunately, our experience is totally the other way. We heard from one honourable Member that sometimes under the present state of things the court-houses were placed at the disposal of the people for political meetings. Among the friends of the high sheriff we know that is so; but when we ask for a court-house for the purpose of holding a Nationalist meeting, of course it is refused. There is not the slightest chance for us. I think the evidence in the case is absolutely overwhelming. The proposal is this: that inasmuch as the use of the court-houses is required once a year for three or four days for the purposes of the administration of justice, the high sheriff shall have the control of them for ever, and he gives

    205
    the county councils the right to use them for their own business when they want them. The very wording of this Amendment points to the fact that the county councils have no right to use these buildings except for the purpose of transacting their own business. Now I believe it would be perfectly easy to construct a clause that would entirely safeguard the administration of justice, whilst, at the same time, it would give the control and management of the court-house to the county council throughout the year, provided that when the sheriff made a requisition for a court he could have it for the administration of justice.
    MR. ATKINSON: The honourable Gentleman says that the court-houses are only required for the administration of justice once or twice a year, but they are always required once, and sometimes twice, a week, and certainly once a week or once a fortnight. What the honourable Member suggests is that the control of the court-house should be vested in a body which is under no obligation whatever to make any provision for the administration of justice?
    MR. DILLON: No, no; not at all.
    MR. ATKINSON: No obligation to make any provision for the administration of justice save to provide the money to build the fabric. To-morrow, if a judge came in and found the court-house shut up, he has no power to have it opened.
    MR. DILLON: What I say is that that should be the sheriff's duty, and he should be invested with power to do his duty.
    MR. ATKINSON: How is he to perform it if the county council does not choose to open the court-house for the judge? If the sheriff neglects to make provision for the judge he can be fined £100 or £500. It is a wrong principle to give the control of these buildings to any people save those who have regard to the main purposes for which they were built. The grand juries provided the money for the buildings, but they never had supreme control of them.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I think that the object of this Bill, when it becomes law, is that unnecessary friction shall cease in Ireland. Now, I should be extremely glad if some words could be introduced into this Bill to prevent court-houses in Ireland from being used for any political purposes whatever. The honourable Member for East Mayo has pointed out that friction might arise if it were decided to hold a Nationalist meeting in the court-house. Another honourable Member said that the wording of this Amendment might exclude a concert being held for charitable purposes. It does not require much acumen to see that charitable concerts were not the purposes for which these court-houses were built. We know that all the county councils in the constituencies which return honourable Members on the opposite side of the House will vote for a Home Rule Bill, but it is a very different thing if these court-houses in the whole of Ireland—except, perhaps, in a few counties in the north—are turned into political meeting-places. I entirely object to that idea, and I think it is extremely wise to leave it to the high sheriff to decide as to who shall retain the use of the court-houses. So far as I know, the high sheriffs in Ireland I do not think there is one in the whole of Ireland who would refuse to grant the use of the court-house for the purposes of a charitable concert. That has never happened yet, nor do I think it ever will; but I do think the high sheriff would refuse most properly to allow the court-house to be used for a political meeting for the purpose of intimidating the neighbourhood. I hope that will always be the case. The grand jury has never had any authority whatever to allow the use of the court-house; that has always lain entirely in the hands of the high sheriff, and he is responsible for the court-houses in Ireland being at the disposal of the judge whenever they have been required for the purpose of the administration of justice. We know that it has been said over and over again in this House that the law is unpopular with the majority of the Irish people, and if it is so hateful without doubt we know what might arise. The court-house might be required for the purposes of the

    207
    commission of the peace, and we might conceive a county council sharing the views of the honourable Gentlemen opposite administering the law in all its forms, and modes; and how would the judge get on then? You would have the judge knocking at the door, and the high sheriff demanding admittance, and the county council inside refusing to open the door; and I should like to know by what legal means the high sheriff is going to obtain, an entry. I can only say, in conclusion, that if they agree with me, and if they see their way to do it, it would materially affect the good feeling of parties of all kinds if the Government, by means of some provision, prevented the courthouses in Ireland from being used for any political purposes whatever.
    MR. J. REDMOND: It seems to me that everybody is agreed that the primary object of these buildings is to facilitate the administration of justice, and nobody would suggest for a moment that anything should prevent justice being properly administered. Now, what is suggested here is that the high sheriff should have complete control over the building whenever it is necessary for the administration of justice. The only thing in dispute is as to what is to be done with regard to the control and management of these buildings at other times, when they are not required for that purpose. The right honourable Gentleman has taken up the position that the person to whom the control and management at other times is to be given should be the high sheriff, whereas we are of opinion that the persons who should have that discretion should be the county council—the persons who have created these buildings, and who pay for their maintenance. Now, it seems to me that there ought to be no difficulty at all in carrying out this double purpose. We desire that the sheriff should have complete control of the buildings, whenever required, for the administration of justice, but when not so required we claim that that power should be vested in the county council. Now, there is a new clause which has been put forward by the honourable Member for Roscommon,
    208
    which would meet the case, and if the Government would come to an agreement with us as to the substance of our contention, there would be no difficulty in framing the necessary words. With regard to the observations of the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite as to the use of these buildings for political purposes, I might say it is not the habit of the high sheriff to allow them to be used for political meetings, still less to allow them to be used for political meetings all on one side, but I have not in my mind the question of political meetings, but take the organisations with which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin is connected; if he wishes to hold a meeting in connection with his co-operative society, why should that power be vested in the high sheriff and not in the county council? Our contention is a reasonable one, and I hope the Government will meet it.
    MR. PLUNKETT: I have wished to hold meetings in court-houses in Ireland for economic purposes, and I have been refused on the ground that private meetings were the thin end of the wedge, and that if they were encouraged, God only knew what would happen next. I do not very much fear their being required to be used for political meetings, as we know on those occasions the people always assemble in their thousands, and I do not think there would be a court house in the country which would contain them. I do not think it is worth while putting in any special form of words to deal with a question of this kind. I think it would do more harm than good. I think if a proper provision were made for the use of these buildings for the administration of justice, it would be quite safe to leave them to the county council for the other portion of the time.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Usually an Amendment is introduced with a few remarks, especially if it is a long one; this is introduced by the Government without any remarks whatever. Hitherto, when we have pressed the Government for anything, or against anything, we have been always told that that particular thing was or was not in the English Act, that that was the great Charta to which

    209
    we had to look. If it was in the English Act it was all right It is like the fable story of the library at Alexandria; if the books there were like the Koran, then they should be burnt, because they were useless, but if the books there were not like the Koran, then they should be burnt, because they were mischievous. Now, the court-houses of England are dealt with not once but three times in the English Act, and what I wish to ask the Chief Secretary and the Government is whether they will stand or fall by the English Act in this matter. Section 3 is the first section dealing with this matter, and it says, not merely court-house, but—
    "There shall be transferred to the council of each county on and after the appointed day the administrative business of the justices of the county in quarter sessions assembled—that is to say, all business done by the quarter sessions, or any committee appointed by the quarter sessions,"
    and—
    "shire halls, county halls, assize courts, judges' lodgings, lock-up houses, court-houses, justices' rooms, police-stations, and county buildings, works, and property subject as to the use of buildings by the quarter sessions, and the justices to the provisions of the Act respecting the joint committee of quarter sessions and the county council."
    Now, somebody in France said, in the time of Louis Napoleon, "give us liberty as in Austria," Austria being in rather a parlous condition as to liberty at that time, and I ask in this case, give us liberty as in the English Act, and I turn to clause 47, and I find—
    "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the courts of assize at Manchester"—
    Manchester, of course, being in the jurisdiction and a part of the county palatine of Lancaster—
    "notwithstanding anything in this Act, the courts of assize at Manchester, with the lodgings of Her Majesty's judges, offices, lock-ups, and all other property vested in the justices of the peace of the county palatine of Lancaster by the Manchester Assize Courts Act, 1858, shall be vested in the county council of the said county palatine, and shall be under the control and management of a joint committee of members of the said county council, and of the council of every county borough locally situate in the hundred of Salford, and that joint committee shall have and exercise all such powers and rights (except the power of
    210
    levying, imposing, and assessing a rate for borrowing money) as are conferred on the said justices by the said Act."
    Then there is another section—section 64—and an additional section upon which, I regret to say, I cannot at this moment put my hand. The words of section 64 are—
    "On and after the appointed day all property of the quarter sessions of a county, or held by the clerk of the peace, or any justice, or justices of a county, or treasurer, or commissioners, or otherwise, for any public uses and purposes of a county, or any division thereof, shall pass to and vest in and be held in trust for the council of the county, subject to all debts and liabilities affecting it, and shall be held by the county council for the same estate interest and purposes, and subject in the same covenants, conditions, and restrictions for, and subject to, which that property is, or would have been, held if this Act had not passed."
    And then there is that remarkable provision which the Government have put into the English Order of Council, instead of which you provide, that any differences shall be settled by the Lord Lieutenant. Now, we are all agreed that the administration should be the first consideration. There is no controversy about that. With reference to what the honourable Member for North Armagh has said—supposing, when that gentleman got his commission, he went down to the assizes in some district of Ireland and found that a contumacious county council had closed the doors of the court in his face—he would have a squadron of cavalry with him, and I would like to know what he would do under the circumstances? Why, he would merely give orders to take the county council and the county court; and he would have no other regard to the county council except for the purpose of sentencing them. It is admitted that the county council is there for the administration of justice; and does anyone believe that if a judge finds himself obstructed, backed as he is by the whole of the British nation, with its Army and Navy and Volunteers, and he holding Her Majesty's commission, a county council will be allowed to oust him out of his position? The idea is not to be thought of. It is grotesque. That being so, and it being conceded that the sheriff should have legal control for legal

    211
    purposes, why not leave us the control for our own purposes for the balance of the period? The honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh said he was in favour of having a provision, inserted in the clause that a court shall not be used for the purposes of any meeting; but, if this Bill passes, the sheriff's powers will not be cut down, they will remain exactly the same. I was very glad to hear the suggestion of the honourable Member for Belfast that court-houses should be used for their own purposes. I do not in the least degree object to a meeting of Orangemen in the court-house here, but I might object to the Orangemen of Cork having a meeting in the court-house there, because it would probably be adverse to public sentiment. But it is idle to pretend that we want these court-houses for the purpose of holding mere political gatherings. The land not being rich there are plenty of vacant fields for holding meetings upon. The reason why we want the control of the court-houses is that the people who maintain them think it is very hard that they cannot have them for the use of concerts, and so on. Under a series of English Acts, and by Resolutions passed in this House, the schools of England, where they are created and maintained out of the local rates, are placed under the control of the local boards for various purposes. Of course, we can take a school in Ireland, under the Ballot Act, for holding a Parliamentary election, but England can use her schools for concerts and also other purposes, but you refuse us the use of our schools for any purposes whatever; and we could not in any school in Ireland, throughout the length and breadth of the land, hold a bazaar or charity concert, or anything of the kind. The majority of the people are poor, and the last thing—the only thing—we can have is the court-house. Take every safeguard that the English Act gives you, but give the control to the county councils. Why are they not to have the control?
    MR LECKY: It appears to me that it would not conduce to peace and harmony in Ireland if the court were used for the administra-
    212
    tion of justice in the morning and for meetings denouncing the administration, of justice in the evening. I have never yet heard that any sheriff has refused to allow the court-house to be used, for concerts and bazaars; but I agree with my honourable and gallant Friend who sits behind me that it would be much better not to allow any political leagues to use the courts which are intended for the administration of justice. The concerts and bazaars will no doubt go on in them as at present; but I should be very glad to see this Bill strengthened by the direct prohibition of meetings of a political character being held in them.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I do not agree with the honourable Gentleman that the court-houses should not be available for any meetings at all. The county councils have to build the courthouses and maintain them, and they are bound to raise their expenses by half-yearly instalments. They are obliged to employ an architect and pay him 50 guineas for the plans of the court-house. The grand juries have been obliged to pay rent for these court-houses; in other words, the grand juries, as the representatives of the ratepayers of Ireland, were given, practically, the control of these court-houses. They had to pay for them, and there is no reason to doubt that they had the control of them, because, under the Act, they had to appoint the persons employed in the court-houses, and pay the officers, and that was quite control enough. ["No, no!"] Honourable Gentlemen say "No, no!" but I go further—the high sheriff has the control of the court-house, and the high sheriff is, practically, the grand jury; he is appointed by the grand jury. ["No, no!"] Is not that so? Well, I am very sorry; the Irish administration is so complicated that perhaps it is not so. As a matter of fact, the grand jury send in the three names—the sheriff submits three names from the members of the grand jury, and they are sent to the judge, and he takes the first name and appoints that Gentleman to the position. ["No, no!"] Well, I am only talking of how the thing works out in practice; there may be some legal formalities, but, as a matter of fact, it

    213
    works out just as I say—the grand jury and the high sheriff are one and the same thing. The grand juries erect the court-houses and pay for them out of the money of the ratepayers, and I think it is only fair that the county councils, who are the natural successors of the grand juries, should have the control. If the county councils are going to take over the liabilities and labours of the grand juries, and are to have the administration of the money of the ratepayers, then they ought to have the control in this matter of the courthouses.
    SIR W. FOSTER: I think we ought to make this Bill like the English Act; and if you trust a borough of England to look after a place for the judges, and see after their lodgings and take charge of the place in which the administration of justice takes place, then, I think, the same thing ought to be done in Ireland, and we ought to give the Irish people that control which they ought to have over the building when it is not wanted for the purpose of administering justice. On the other hand the Attorney General says we might have difficulties arising, because the county council might object to the use of the building for the administration of justice. If there is any truth in that contention, then it necessarily follows that you ought not to have county councils in Ireland at all. If you believe that the county councils are capable of interfering with the administration of justice, then there ought to be no county councils at all. But if you are to trust to these people to raise the money to build the court-house and keep it in proper repair for the administration of justice, surely they have a right to have control. If they erect the building and maintain it in proper repair they are entitled to have the use of and control over it at other times when it is not required for the purposes of administering justice. It appears to me if you do not trust the people all in all in this matter, you should not trust them at all.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is impossible to follow the precedent of the English Bill to which reference has been made, because in England the courthouse is vested, not in the county council, but in a joint committee, and in Ireland a joint committee does not exist, and will not exist under this Bill.
    MR. T. HEALY: You create a joint committee whenever you want one, and you could put it into the Bill.
    MR. CLANCY: I think this Amendment is of such importance to us that I shall certainly divide the House upon it. I am surprised that upon a point which, so far as the Government is concerned, must be of very small importance, and to which we attach so much, that there should be any hesitation whatever in their conceding that point to us. I take the opposite view to that which is taken by honourable Gentlemen on the opposite side. They would abolish all political meetings from the court-houses. I confess, for my part, the question of political meetings was not in my mind at all when I moved the Amendment, because I really believe that if anybody wanted to hold an effective meeting he would certainly hold it outside, and state that it would be far better far the administration to have the courthouse free, and to have the monster meeting outside. It is a very antiquated idea to think that you cannot get peace and harmony in Ireland without shutting up the people's mouths. The proper idea to act upon is that everybody should say what he likes, and for my part I would not have any hesitation in allowing any Irish meeting to take place in a courts house; but obviously the desire is to prevent these political meetings, and that is the only thing that stands in the way of these concessions being made by the Government. I think that that must be a second thought, because I notice in the draft Order in Council, sub-section 7 says that the county council shall have power to manage any land or buildings whatever, by virtue of this Act, or otherwise vested in the council. It is a fair Amendment which I wish to introduce; and if this Amendment is resisted I would

    215
    ask the right honourable Gentleman what would be the value of this Order in Council—it would simply be ultra vires—therefore I say again it is a second thought on the part of the Government. They have taken fright at the idea of a political meeting being held in a courthouse, and they change their proposal in order to avoid its taking place. Such childish fears never haunted the imagination of any British Minister. The right honourable Gentleman said Ins only idea was the desire to preserve to the county council the powers possessed by the grand juries. Now, it is perfectly true that every grand jury but one have not the control and management of the court-houses. That control was vested in the sheriff, but there was one grand jury—that for the County of Dublin, which I represent—which has that control, and if this Amendment now before the Committee is rejected, I shall undoubtedly bring another Amendment before the Committee that this clause shall not apply to the County of Dublin. Section 131 of the Grand Juries Act empowers the grand jury to appoint a committee to superintend and have charge of the court-house belonging to the county; and if this Amendment is rejected I shall certainly bring in that Amendment, in order that Dublin should still retain the control of the court-house. I think this proceeding on the part of the Government is most characteristic. There is not a Bill, not a land Bill, introduced but some miserable restriction has been incorporated in it. There is not a Bill passed in which you do not keep something behind, and then a few years afterwards you bring in an amending Act, and do that which you refuse to do in the first instance. Here is a thing in this Bill which will have to be rectified, and in a few years hence it will be seen that the county council do not interfere with the administration of justice, and that the people have some common-sense, and that the people do not make fools and asses of themselves; and you will be bringing in a Bill in a few years to do that which you will not do at our request. I regard this Amendment as a matter of great importance, which is considered of very small importance by the Government, and if it is not conceded by them I shall certainly divide the House upon it.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: I venture to think that we have now come to a clause and to a point where a little consideration might be desirable. I agree with my honourable and gallant Friend behind me that it would be very much better if a clause were inserted by which political meetings of any kind were prohibited. On the other hand, I think I ought to say that in Ireland there are really no buildings where entertainments quite apart from politics could be held except the court-houses, and I do not altogether agree with what has been said by honourable Friends behind me, that no high sheriff would ever refuse to grant the use of the court-house for the purposes of entertainments; I don't agree with that for one reason, that I have refused to grant them myself, and I have done it on the ground that unless the parties who give the entertainments were prepared to insure the court-houses I would not permit it to be used, because I was not prepared to run the risk of having a fire and having to build up the court-house again. I would ask my right honourable Friend that a clause might be drafted which might provide that, while the sheriff on the one hand should have thorough and paramount right to the court-house for the purpose of the administration of justice, the county council, on the other, should have the use of the court-house for their own administrative business; and then I think it would be desirable that some arrangement should be made by which, through the joint act of the sheriff and the chairman of the county council, where they agree that the court-house should be allowed to be used for the purposes of entertainment, they should have power to allow them to be used for that purpose. Therefore, on the whole—and I am one of those who very strongly desire that in the working of the county council harmonious relations should exist—I would suggest to my right honourable Friend whether it would not be possible to postpone this question for the moment, and to consider my suggestion between this and the Report stage.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: As the clause strikes at the principle of popular control, I think we ought to

    217
    offer it our most strenuous opposition. The effect of this is to take away from the bodies responsible for the upkeep of the buildings the power to control them, and it goes directly opposite to the principles of the Bill. We have been told that the county councils of the future will have the same power over these buildings as was vested in the grand juries of the past. The grand juries of the past had no more control over these buildings than that which the county councils will have in the future; but I do venture to tell the Committee that the grand juries in the past always had their wishes carried out by the high sheriff. When the grand jury presented an application to the high sheriff he never failed to grant it; that being the case, will he in the future give the county council the same consideration which he gave to the grand juries in the past. I do not think so, and therefore I say this Amendment proposed by the Government is one which every person who believes in popular administration, who believes in giving the people a voice in the management of their affairs, must oppose, find we on this side of the House shall oppose to the utmost in our power.
    MR. T. HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary made a great point of the fact that he could not give us the English Act because in this country the union is managed by a joint committee. Possibly the right honourable Gentleman is correct, but his Bill makes a ridiculous distinction between itself and the English Act. Section 64 of the English Act deals with the property which shall be vested in the county council. Here the property is dealt with in an Order in Council, section 14. Now, section 14 of the Order in Council is practically in the words of the 64th section of the English Act, but nowhere in the Bill does the right honourable Gentleman mention court-houses, which is specifically done in the English Act. Now, in Lancaster, whilst it is managed by a joint committee—I do not pretend to be acquainted with the law of Lancaster—while there is a joint committee there, it is not a joint committee of quarter sessions at all. These are the words of the Act, section 47—
    "The courts of assize at Manchester, with the lodgings for Her Majesty's judges, offices,
    218
    lockups, and all other property rested in the justices of the peace of the county palatine of Lancaster, by the Manchester Assize Act of 1858, shall be vested in the county council of the said county palatine, shall be under the control and management of a joint committee of members of the said county council, and of the council of every county borough locally situate in the Hundred of Salford."
    Now, that joint committee is entirely different from the one suggested by the right honourable Gentleman, that it was a joint committee of the quarter sessions and the county council. It is nothing of the sort. Section 3 provides that—
    "Shire halls, county halls, assize courts, judges' lodgings, lockup houses, court-houses, justices' rooms, police-stations, and county buildings, works, and property, subject as to the use of buildings by the quarter sessions and the justices to the provisions of this Act respecting the joint committee of quarter sessions and the county council, shall be transferred to, and shall vest in, the county council."
    Then, turning to section 30, we find—
    "For the purposes of the police and the clerk of the peace, and of the clerk of the justices and joint officers, and of matters required to be determined jointly by the quarter sessions and the council of a county, there shall a joint committee of the quarter sessions and the county council."
    Now observe that, while in England the county councils have an absolute vesting in them of the buildings and the fee simple of these institutions, there is no such vesting in the Irish county councils. Now, I say that it is a very curious thing. In England they deal with this matter differently; they vest all these things in the county councils, and there is this general section, clause 64, vesting everything in the county council. The reason why they specifically mentioned courthouses was because of section 30, which says—
    "Any matters arising under this Act with respect to the police, or to the clerk of the peace, or to the clerks of the justices, or to officers who serve both the quarter sessions of justices and the county council, or to the provision of accommodation for the quarter sessions, or justices out of session, or to the use by them or the police or the said clerks of any building, rooms, or premises,"
    etc., etc.—
    "And any other matter requiring to be determined jointly by the quarter sessions and the county council shall be referred to and determined by the joint committee."

    219
    Observe the enormous distinction. All that the joint committee can do in England is to provide for their own user, for the purposes of the administration of justice, whereas it is suggested by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary that in Ireland there is a joint vesting and a joint control for all purposes. I deny that, and when he gets up with such disdain to attack the right honourable Baronet upon his ignorance of the law he must be taken to know the law of England, and if he did he deliberately misled the Committee. I say that when he got up and twitted the honourable Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire and the right honourable Gentleman upon their ignorance of the Irish and English law, and when, with a great show of learning, he said that in England the control was vested in a joint committee, he had not the slightest foundation for that statement, not a shadow, not a tittle of foundation. The only thing the joint committee can do is this: the buildings being vested absolutely in the county council the joint committee can provide for the user of them for the purpose of the administration of justice. Yet the right honourable Gentleman thinks it becomes one in his position when he has taken up the position he has. He told the honourable Member for Wiltshire that when he came to the end of this Bill he know his business better than anybody else. He has a great mastery over the Bill, but the greater the mastery the greater the necessity for accuracy, especially in this case, and it is, therefore, that I say it is untrue to state that in England—["Order, order!"] I do say so—I say it is untrue to state that in England there is a joint vesting with a joint committee. I challenge contradiction upon the point. All the joint committee can do is to provide for the user of the county property, and in Lancaster there is no joint committee of quarter sessions, but only of the county borough and the county council, and upon this we are to be treated differently from the English Act.
    DR. RENTOUL: I think this Debate has gone on long enough, and if the honourable Member for Down goes to a Division upon it I shall vote
    220
    with him; but I think it is a very small matter indeed whether these buildings are in the hands of the county council or in the hands of the sheriff. With regard to the observations made about concerts and so forth, I think it would be better not to allow them to be used for concerts at all. I do not think it adds to the dignity of the buildings to use them for such purposes. With regard to political meetings, it takes a long time to find out what a political meeting is. Suppose a meeting were called to discuss, the financial relations with England, would that be a political meeting or not? Under the circumstances it seems to me that, as we have to finish this Bill in a very short time, we are wasting a great deal of valuable time upon a very trifling and unimportant matter. I should be glad if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary could see his way to agree with this Amendment, because if the county councils are not to be trusted in this small and unimportant matter, then I fail to see how you are going to trust them at all. At the same time, I am totally unable to understand the importance which this matter has for Gentlemen opposite. I should like to see a clause introduced by which these buildings should be left in the hands of the county councils to keep them up and use them for their meetings, and at the same time they should be used for no other kind of meeting whatsoever. One of the last things the people of London would desire to see would be concerts held at Spring Gardens, or at the Old Bailey, where justice is administered. I think we ought to use these buildings in Ireland for the administration of the law, and make the county councils the custodians of them. If we are to go to a Division, I would suggest that we ought to go to a Division at once, because there are yet a great many weighty and important Measures to deal with.
    MR. P. A. McHUGH: The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down considers this matter of very little importance. I consider it is a matter of the greatest importance, because there is underlying it the principle for which we are fighting—namely, that those who pay for the public buildings in Ireland shall have the control and the use of them for any purposes when they

    221
    are not required for the purposes of the administration of justice. The honourable Gentleman said in his opinion it would be undignified to see the courthouses in Ireland used for the purposes of concerts or public meetings. I say in many towns in Ireland it is impossible to get a concert hall at all except you go to the court-house, and I say the people who engage to pay for the keep of the court, who build the court, and pay for its maintenance, should have the control of it, and should be entitled to use it for any purposes that they think fit—either concerts or bazaars, and public meetings, political or otherwise. So far as I can understand, the proposal the Chief Secretary makes is this: that the same principle which already prevails in Ireland shall continue—namely, that a person called the High Sheriff—any responsible person, a man who may not pay a shilling of the rates—will have complete control of buildings in Ireland, erected at the expense of the ratepayers of the country. It very frequently happens that a man is made a High Sheriff in Ireland for a county for which he has never stood. I recollect a case where it was proposed to elect in Leitrim a man unknown in the county, and it was only when I drew attention to the fact that he was not known that his election was dropped. What is the High Sheriff of Ireland? A man who is elected by the grand jury. [Cries of "No, no!"] He is, I say so again—he is a man who is nominated by the grand jury, and a man who is so nominated is invariably elected. ["No, no!"] It is so. I speak with a knowledge of what takes place in Ireland. I am a member of the Grand Jury of Sligo, and have been for the last 25 years, and I say the sheriff is selected invariably by the grand jury. ["No, no!"] Yes, they are; and the sheriff selects the grand jurors. The thing goes the round like that. The honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite laughs at my statement. He himself is, as I understand, a foreman of a grand jury, and I do not believe there could be a better foreman of a grand jury than the honourable and gallant Member; but, Mr. Lowther, I ask him, with all his knowledge of the working of the grand juries in Ireland, is it not a fact that the
    222
    nomination for the position of High Sheriff is in the grand jury, and the nomination of the grand jury is invariably acted upon by the Lord Lieutenant?
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The grand jury never select anybody.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I am absolutely astonished that the honourable and gallant Gentleman should stand up in his place and make such a statement as that—a statement which, in my judgment, is calculated to lead us to the belief that he does not know what is the procedure of the grand jury in the election, of the High Sheriff of Ireland. The grand jury select three names. [Cries of "No, no!"] They do. They send up three names to the Judge of Assize. ["No, no!"] Yes, they do, and the first man, the first name upon the list, is invariably selected as High Sheriff. ["No, no!"] That is the procedure, Mr. Lowther, and that man may have no interest in the county. He may be a man who is unable to get a carriage and pair to take the judge from the railway station to the place at which he is going to lodge during the assizes, and we have had instances in Leitrim where the men nominated by the grand jury were of such standing that they could not pay for the carriage and pair, and they had to be allowed to decline to act. But, apart altogether from that, there is underlying all the great principle of this Amendment, and I say the people who build these court-houses, and maintain them at their own expense, have a right to predominate, so far as regards the management of those buildings. Let me take a concrete case—the court-house in the town and city of Sligo. The proposal of the Chief Secretary is that the control of the building should vest in the High Sheriff. Who is the High Sheriff? Is he responsible for this court-house; is he responsible to the people? Does he pay rates? What right has he to have the control of a building which cost the town and county of Sligo £17,000? I say it is absurd. It is worse than absurd. It is an insult to the people of the county and town of Sligo, for this reason: that, although we pay 90 per

    223
    cent. of the rates—[Uproar.] I must say, Mr. Lowther, that this disorderly interruption is not calculated to hasten these proceedings or this discussion. So far as I am concerned, I am speaking for my constituents in Ireland, and I am not going to be put down by clamour and disorderly interruptions of this character. I say it is a monstrous proceeding, and I shall stop until this interruption ceases. It is a monstrous thing for the Chief Secretary of Ireland, who went over to kill Home Rule with kindness, to bring forward this Measure, and to tell us that the town-hall, built by the town and county of Sligo, at an expense of £17,000, is not to be under the control of the people of Sligo, who pay 90 per cent, of the rates, but is to be put under the control of a man who is not in any way responsible to the ratepayers. So far as I personally am concerned, I. will decline to believe that the right honourable Gentleman opposite will attempt to persevere with it.
    SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD: It Is as well that this House should not be led away by any erroneous idea as to the appointment of sheriffs. I have for many years been a member of a grand jury. I have never been made sheriff, and I have never had my opinion asked about the pricking for the name of the High Sheriff, and for the last 36 years I do not think the question of the appointment has ever been put before the grand jury.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Would somebody throw a little light upon this very great mystery? How is the High Sheriff elected? We are all in a fog upon this matter. Is there anyone who can enlighten us?
    SIR J. COLOMB: Let me say exactly how the case stands. The sheriff having been appointed—
    MR. DILLON: By whom?
    SIR J. COLOMB: In succession to the previous sheriff.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: By whom, Sir, by whom?
    SIR J. COLOMB: The process is this: the court of assize has three names submitted to them by the outgoing sheriff.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: By whom, please?
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: By the grand jury
    SIR J. COLOMB: No, no! On the personal responsibility of the outgoing High Sheriff the judge can take any name he chooses, or he can tell the High Sheriff to take the list away, and give him some fresh ones. The names go out, and upon those names the Lord Lieutenant says who the sheriff is to be.
    The Committee divided on Mr. CLANCY'S Amendment to Mr. GERALD BALFOUR'S Amendment:—Ayes 102; Noes 175.—(Division List No. 113.)

    AYES.

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

    Crean, Eugene

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

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

    Crilly, Daniel

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

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Daly, James

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Dillon, John

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Billson, Alfred

    Doughty, George

    Joicey, Sir James

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Duckworth, James

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Brigg, John

    Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire)

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Burt, Thomas

    Fenwick, Charles

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Caldwell, James

    Field, William (Dublin)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Carew, James Laurence

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Lough, Thomas

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Collery, Bernard

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn.'sCo.)

    Colville, John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    MacNeill, John G. Swift

    Commins, Andrew

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    McCartan, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hazell, Walter

    McDermott, Patrick

    McEwan, William

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Price, Robert John

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Spicer, Albert

    M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Steadman, William Charles

    Maden, John Henry

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Mandeville, .J. Francis

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Strachey, Edward

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Murnaghan, George

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

    Tully, Jasper

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

    Shee, James John

    Mr. Clancy and Sir Thomas

    Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

    Sheehy, David

    Esmonde.

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

    Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

    Fison, Frederick William

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Arnold, Alfred

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Lawson, John G. (Yorks.)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Folkestone, Viscount

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

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs.)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Fry, Lewis

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)

    Galloway, William Johnson

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

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Garfit, William

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

    Gedge, Sydney

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Lowe, Francis William

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Bethell, Commander

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Bigwood, James

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Brassey, Albert

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

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

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

    McKillop, James

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Butcher, John George

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Carlile, William Walter

    Gretton, John

    Monckton, Edward Philip

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

    Greville, Captain

    Monk, Charles James

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

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

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    More, Robert Jasper

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

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

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Morrell, George Herbert

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

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Heath, James

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

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Helder, Augustus

    Myers, William Henry

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Henderson, Alexander

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

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

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Hobhouse, Henry

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

    Cox, Robert

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton)

    Hornby, William Henry

    Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Purvis, Robert

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Kenrick, William

    Robinson, Brooke

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Kimber, Henry

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Lafone, Alfred

    Saunderson, Col. Edw. James

    226

    227

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Waring, Col. Thomas

    Wylie, Alexander

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Young, Com. (Berks., E.)

    Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

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

    Younger, William

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Original Amendment agreed to.
    MR. CLANCY: I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General whether he has considered the position of Dublin. I have referred him to the statutes by which Dublin was granted certain rights. I trust the right honourable Gentleman will accept the Amendment I have put down upon this point.
    MR. ATKINSON: We shall be prepared to consider that later. The provision in this clause leaves the city of Dublin as at present.
    MR. CLANCY: I will leave it to the Government to draft a clause.
    Clause 46, as amended, added to the Bill.
    Clause 47 added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 48.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That clause 48 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to enter my protest against the breach of faith by the Government in not keeping the promise made to us by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds when the Irish Education Act of 1892 was being passed. A distinct pledge was given by the right honourable Gentleman a few days before the Government went out of office that if the Irish Members allowed the Act of 1892 to pass the Government would provide for the case of the Christian Brothers. That pledge has never been carried out. The Government promised at the time that they would give facilities to the Christian Brothers and give them a grant. Now, that pledge
    228
    having been broken, the Government propose to make the rate apply as in this section. I do not intend to do more than make a protest against this undoubted breach of understanding on the part of the right honourable Gentleman. It may be that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds himself was not sufficiently long in office to have enabled him to carry out his pledge, but he was followed on two occasions by subsequent Chief Secretaries, and, whether they were Liberals or Conservatives, I protest against the failure to carry out this pledge. Now, I venture to say that, although compulsory education is supposed to exist in Ireland, there are not sufficient schools for the children to go to, except the Christian Brothers schools, and the result is that you will have no schools for the children to go to. There is no compulsion on the Christian Brothers to take these children into their schools, and the Government promised, if we would allow the Education Bill of 1892 to go through, that they would make provision for the Christian Brothers. They have not done that. The Government are now curing one mistake or slip in the Act, but they are doing nothing whatever towards carrying out the pledge of the right honourable Gendeman the Member for Leeds. Though I do not propose to divide the Committee on this clause, I will not allow it to pass without protest. When some honourable Gentlemen opposite demand that nobody should be allowed to vote unless he can read or write, you must remember that we have pressed again and again upon you the necessity of making adequate provision for teaching in our country, and that you, against the pledges of your own Ministers, have refused to do so.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not certain that this discussion is altogether relevant to the Bill, but I cannot accept the accuracy of the statement made by the honourable and learned Member as to the pledges that were given either in the time of my predecessor or since. It will be remembered that two years ago I made the offer of legislation, which would have enabled the Christian Brothers to get assistance from the State, while allowing them to carry on their own system of education in their own way, but that offer was not accepted by honourable Members opposite.
    MR. DILLON: The right honourable Gentleman says that this discussion is not relevant to the Bill. Then why does he introduce into the Bill this most contentious subject? He will probably remember that it was attempted to be introduced into the House in two or three Sessions, and was abandoned on the opposition of the Irish Members. The right honourable Gentleman says that his proposal two years ago was not accepted by this side. Sir, that proposal was condemned by the unanimous resolution of the Irish Roman Catholic bishops as entirely unworthy of acceptance. I think it was hardly candid for the right honourable Gentleman to state that his proposal was not accepted by honourable Members on this side, when the fact is that it was dropped by him after it had been unanimously condemned by the Roman Catholic bishops. The truth is the proposal was preposterous. The amount of assistance offered was ludicrously inadequate, and they would have been worse off than they were before, because the result would have conveyed to the people a false impression that they were receiving a large amount of assistance from the Government. At all events, I desire to join in the protest of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. This is an extremely contentious subject, and were it not for the lateness of the hour and the position in which this Bill is I think the discussion of this sub-section would be continued for a very long time indeed. However, possibly our best course is to content ourselves for the present with a strong protest against the
    230
    Government introducing the subject into the Bill, and to state that we shall take an early opportunity of raising this question.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I venture to hope that the Chief Secretary will not consider that he has done all that it is necessary for him to do, as head of the Irish Administration, when he made that offer two years ago of 10s. a head to the Irish Voluntary schools. He must not forget that since that offer was made legislation has been enacted for England which has raised the grant to English Voluntary schools to a figure very much beyond what he proposes now for Ireland. I admit that the two things are not absolutely identical; but still, having regard to the difficulties of the two countries, there is a grave similarity between the case of the Voluntary schools in England, which have got four-fifths of their funds now supported by the State, and the Voluntary schools in Ireland, which get nothing at all from the State. It shows how different influences control a Conservative Government in dealing with English affairs and Irish affairs.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not think the honourable Member's observations are relevant to this clause.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: Of course, this matter is only relevant in this way: this clause introduces something into Irish education that has never been before. ["No, no!"] Taking into consideration the Act of 1892, that is the effect of the clause. Compulsory education was only introduced into the towns of Ireland after we had received an explicit promise from the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds, who was then Chief Secretary, that he would take steps to ensure that the Christian Brothers should get efficient financial assistance. The scheme was outlined between the right honourable Gentleman and Mr. Sexton, and there has never been any conflict as between him and Mr. Sexton as to it, as I urderstand the Bill was allowed to go through on that understanding. But the fact, remains that the Act, which this clause applies to the whole of Ireland,

    231
    country as well as towns, was only allowed to go through in the case of the towns on a promise which has not been kept. There was an offer of 10s. a head.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Sir, I must ask your ruling as to whether the honourable Member is in order in discussing this point, especially in going into these details.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I have already informed the honourable Member that I thought he was going beyond the clause.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: I have no wish, Sir, to transgress your ruling, and I will confine myself entirely to the situation in a case which might arise under this clause in one of the rural parts of Ireland—I do not say that there are many cases—where the Christian Brothers have now their schools. The effect of this clause will be in most rural places to apply compulsion. The effect will be in those rural places to compel a new school to be started, or else to compel the Christian Brothers to take in every child who presents himself. It will, therefore, increase the expenses and obligations of the society. They have taken upon themselves voluntarily a heavy burden, and the State will increase that burden by this clause. The Chief Secretary makes no reasonable proposal as to the State bearing any similar part of the cost to that which it bears in similar cases in England. I therefore think we have great ground to protest against the way in which neither Party in the State has thought it their duty to carry into effect the arrangement made when that Act was passed into law.
    Clause 48 added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 49.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 27, line 32, after 'entitled,' insert—
    "To vote at the election of commissioners under the Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act, 1828, or the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or under any local Act or."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
    MR. M. HEALY: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I do not think the right honourable Gentleman can have intended the-clause to stand as it is at present, because it would affect the franchise for all purposes in every town in Ireland.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable and learned Member must not imagine that this affects the franchise at all so far as the poor rate and so far as the sanitary matters are concerned.
    MR. M. HEALY: The Towns Improvement Act of 1888 is one of the Acts capable of being adopted under this clause, and, as I understand, the people to decide whether that Act shall be adopted are to be the Parliamentary electors, but when they have adopted it, the people will be the town commissioners. It does seem to me that the people who are to decide whether the Act is to be adopted should, be Parliamentary electors. At present you have the same franchise to decide whether the Act shall be adopted which will destroy the franchise. I challenge the right honourable Gentleman to explain the difference between the two franchises. Now, what I point out to the right honourable Gentleman is that he has altered the law already in the towns. When we were dealing with an earlier clause in this Bill, namely, clause 39, that clause only dealt with urban district councils. It was a clause changing the incidence of the rates, and providing that, whereas at present the rates under £4 are paid by the landlords, they shall in future be paid by the occupier. In that clause the right honourable Gentleman deliberately altered the law, and the clause will in future apply to these towns having town commissioners, although they are not sanitary authorities. Now, as I understand it, he has altered the franchise, and he has altered incidence of the rates within urban areas, because he conceives that that ought to follow from the extension of the franchise. But he does not apparently think it at all necessary that a change in the franchise should follow from, the alteration of the incidence of the rates. I ask

    233
    the right honourable Gentleman, first of all, whether that is his intention; and, secondly, if he did not intend to make any change in the franchise in these towns, why did he make any change in the incidence of the rates?
    MR. TULLY: I think we are entitled to some better explanation of this clause. I think the right honourable Gentleman should explain more clearly what is intended by the clause. At present, under the Towns Improvement Act, people rated under £4 have a vote, and a number of people who live within five miles of the town and have a certain valuation in the town, have also a vote. That has operated very oppressively, because it enables people who have no connection with the towns to put themselves forward as candidates. In the previous clause the right honourable Gentleman made it imperative that the person elected for a town should be resident in the town. I would like to know whether by this clause the right honourable Gentleman intends that people who live five miles away from the town, who are entitled under the Towns Improvement Act, 1854, to vote and be elected, will be eligible for election as town commissioners under this clause. Then I would like to know whether he intends that these town commissioners who are elected on a £4 franchise should still be so elected. Why should the people who are rated under £4 be deprived of votes? Why is the franchise to be limited to people rated at £4? I think the right honourable Gentleman ought to make it clear to the House whether the franchise, as it will be conferred by this clause, will be limited to people rated at £4, or whether it will be given to every Parliamentary elector.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The town commissioners of these towns are really outside this Bill altogether. There is no change of the franchise made by the Bill. But I admit that in this clause there ought to be inserted the words, and I will move an Amendment presently to insert the words after the word "Petition" in the second line, "For a provisional order or."
    MR. TULLY: In the case of a borough that has town commissioners and wishes to become a rural district authority, will the rural district authority have the powers that the town commissioners have of lighting and paving?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No; but as regards sanitary powers, those sanitary powers are not exercised by the town commissioners. We are practically dealing in this case with the power of the Local Government electors to secure the adoption of Acts of that description.
    MR. TULLY: There are a great many towns that might not wish to be urban sanitary authorities that might like to have their powers merged in the rural district councils.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have an Amendment down on the Paper already that, will meet that case.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Let the House imagine what the position is going to be. In all towns in Ireland, as I understand it, which do not become urban sanitary authorities, the proposed extension of the franchise will not apply. This is the Bill which we were told was going to give to Ireland substantially the same measure of liberty which is given in England and Scotland. In England you have parish councils, the members of which are elected on the Parliamentary franchise; but in Ireland, while refusing those parish councils altogether, you absolutely refuse to give the franchise to all towns that do not adopt the Act. We consider that that is falsifying the pledge given by the First Lord of the Treasury, that substantially the same liberty would be given to Ireland as is enjoyed by England and Scotland. Let the House remember this: that the House of Commons in 1895 unanimously passed the Bill which I introduced, extending the franchise for all purposes and for all Irish towns, and it was only because the House of Lords rejected it—on the plea of want of time, forsooth—that that is not now the law of the land. The argument of the right honourable Gentleman is founded upon—what? He says we do not touch these towns by this Bill. But does it touch

    235
    the townships of Dublin; does it touch the Corporation of Dublin; does it touch the corporation of any of these places, which, nevertheless, are places where the franchise will be extended under this Bill? And, moreover, although over the extended area you have granted an extended franchise, yet in these towns which do not become urban sanitary authorities you leave the £4 franchise. Now where is the logic of that? And, furthermore, as I understand it, to make the matter more iniquitous, the body which may adopt this Towns Commissioners Act may be the Parliamentary electors themselves; but once the Parliamentary electors have performed the function of adopting the Act and creating the town commissioners, the town commissioners alone are to have the power. Where is the sense of it? And these little bodies are not to have the benefit of the preparation of the Parliamentary Register. They must go to the expense, forsooth, in addition to preparing the Parliamentary Register and the Local Government Register, of preparing a Ballyhooley Register—a register for these little towns themselves. On a £4 suffrage there must be a special register. And again, as to peers and women. Peers, I suppose, are excluded, but women are certainly excluded under the Act of 1854. Now where are all the champions of women's rights—where is the Member for Liskeard, who once went to the length of moving a suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule in order to contend for the rights of women and peers? Women and peers are to have the right to come in, all the peers in the country can flock into these towns, and all the women on the Local Government Register can come in and force this register on the towns, but after that their rights disappear, and it is only the sacred persons who enjoy that franchise who can become town councillors of Ballyhooley. Anything more absurd cannot be conceived. I say if the Bill is to be left with this section in it, it entirely falsifies the pledges given by the right honourable Gentleman as to equality between England and Ireland. What makes the matter worse is this: the right honourable Gentleman, while refusing these people the franchise, has changed the incidence of the rates. Why is the system of rating to be
    236
    wholly changed? Why is the payment in respect of rates to be made different by this Bill? I say this Bill does affect them, because it alters the incidence of the rates in their locality, and while it affects them injuriously for rating purposes, it affects them for other purposes-too. As this is, after all, not a very large matter, I should hope the Government will be better advised even at the eleventh hour, and that they will accept the Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As the honourable and learned Member says, this is not, after all, a very large matter, and although I still think my view of the effect of the clause is right, I do not object to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    A further Amendment made.
    Clause 49 as amended agreed to.

    CLAUSE 50.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 28, line 8, at end, insert—
    "Provided that where, it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Lord Lieutenant that the guardians of a union wholly or partly within a county have allocated and fully equipped a department of their workhouse for the reception of chronic lunatics, certified as aforesaid by the medical officer of the workhouse, and that such department of the workhouse is suitable for the purpose, the Lord Lieutenant may direct that such department of the workhouse shall be utilised as an auxiliary lunatic asylum within the meaning of this section."—(Sir J. Haslett.)
    SIR J. HASLETT: The Amendment which stands in my name I may explain in a word or two. Already some of the workhouses have provided ample accommodation for carrying out the Act relating to chronic lunatics. In Belfast the guardians have expended a sum of something like £14,000 in building a completely separate wing with a separate entrance. I think the section, although it is very excellent in its way, does not go sufficiently far. It would

    237
    necessitate the council taking possession of this wing and administering it, whereas my Amendment would enable the guardians to retain possession of it and to carry it on, receiving the capitation grant provided by this Act.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question is whether part of a workhouse should be taken away from the control of the guardians and handed over to the control of the committee of the county council entrusted with the management of lunatic asylums. I think it is very doubtful indeed whether the Local Government Board ought to give their consent to that. I observe that the Amendment proposes to place the power of deciding whether it should be done in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. I think it is clear that the Local Government Board is the proper Department to exercise that power. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
    SIR J. HASLETT: All I want to ensure is that the city of Belfast shall not be obliged to spend another £14,000 in providing another building for exactly the purposes already satisfactorily fulfilled by the present asylum. Every Report sent in by the inspectors to the Government will show that that asylum will compare favourably with any asylum in the north of Ireland; the imbeciles are better treated there than in any other asylum, and I earnestly ask the Chief Secretary whether he is going to place on the citizens of Belfast the necessity of spending another £14,000 while there is abundant room already for carrying on the work that is required.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the guardians are carrying on this work in a satisfactory manner, there is nothing in the clause which will prevent things going on as heretofore.
    SIR J. HASLETT: That is exactly what I want to make certain about.
    MR. WOLFF: Would it not meet the case pointed out by the honourable Gentleman if, in line 51, after the word "workhouse" were inserted the words "or portion of a workhouse"?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not prepared to accept that, but if it is put down I will consider it before the Report stage.
    MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: I do not think the Chief Secretary has exactly met the difficulty pointed out by the honourable Member for North Belfast. The fact is that in the case of one of these workhouses—namely, at Belfast—a distinct portion of the existing workhouse has been earmarked for pauper lunatics, and an expenditure of £14,000 has been incurred by the ratepayers of Belfast for the purpose of fully equipping a portion of the workhouse for these harmless pauper lunatics. It has been most favourably reported on by the inspectors, and it in every respect fulfils the requirements of the case. But the difficulty is this—and I do not think the right honourable Gentleman has met it—that, notwithstanding this provision, in Belfast power is given to the new county council to entirely ignore that provision, and, notwithstanding the existence of it, to establish at the expense of the ratepayers all over again an independent new building for the purpose of maintaining these new lunatics. Now, I venture to suggest (and I think there can be no conflict on this question) that in the interests of the ratepayers themselves, who have put their hands into their pockets to the tune of £14,000, there ought to be some provision that where accommodation is already provided which has fulfilled every want up to the present day, that accommodation should be maintained in the future. It is not maintained if this clause is passed in its present form, because it gives power to the new county councils, wholly independent of any action of the board of guardians, to ignore the existing accommodation altogether. The only object of the Amendment of my honourable Friend, as I understand it, is to prevent this expenditure being made over again for the same purpose, and I submit there ought to be some provision of that kind. The right honourable Gentleman, I think, has not met the difficulty by saving that you can go on as heretofore, because under the clause

    239
    at present the county council of Belfast may ignore the existing provision if they like, and erect a new asylum for themselves at the expense of the ratepayers.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will consider the matter between this and the Report stage.
    SIR J. HASLETT: The Amendment I shall put down on the Report stage will be that the control and management may still be left with the guardians so long as these imbeciles are retained there, and that the capitation grant shall be given to the guardians.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question proposed—
    "That clause 51 stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 28, line 12, leave out 'two' and insert 'four.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
    MR. DILLON: I would suggest that some additional expense may be thrown on the ratepayers by this clause as it stands at present. I confess I am not very clear about it, but I think we should have a statement from the Government as to the exact effect of the clause. At present, as I understand by the Act of 1875, it is possible to transfer a harmless lunatic from the district asylum to a workhouse, and those lunatics have to be kept on the books of the lunatic asylum. I do not know what amount of grant they draw when transferred to the workhouse, whether it is the; whole capitation grant of 4s. a head. A great body of the lunatics in workhouses at present have not been transferred, and I suppose no capitation grant is drawn. Now, I assume, or at least I hope, that one of the objects of this clause is to provide for the improved treatment of the 4,000 lunatics who are now in workhouses in Ireland. It appears to me, as far as I understand lunacy administration, that the only proper thing to do is to put all lunatics in asylums. I do not think it is possible properly to treat lunatics in wards or portions of workhouses set aside for their treatment. The
    240
    law, as I understand, at present provides that you may keep in workhouses harmless lunatics who are certified to be harmless, and I presume that this clause provides for this same class of lunatics being transferred to what are described as auxiliary asylums. Now, I think that lunatics who are harmless lose their chance of proper treatment by being transferred from lunatic asylums into workhouses. The clause provides—
    "That the sum payable out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account in respect of the net charge for any lunatic therein may be paid when the net charge equals or exceeds three shillings and sixpence a week, but that, sum shall not exceed two shillings a week."
    That appears to contemplate that the fair average of the charge for a harmless lunatic may be taken at 2s. a week. I think that is preposterous. The average cost of maintaining a lunatic at present is nearly 9s. a week, and from all I can gather from the reports of the inspectors the charge will before long be increased to 10s. a week. I think it ought to be. I think probably 10s. is the very lowest on which you can treat these people with humanity. I want to know on what principle are we to set aside a large body of these lunatics, and because they are harmless they are to cost 3s. a week, while dangerous lunatics are to cost 9s. I say that that is a most drastic and monstrous provision. I cannot understand why a harmless lunatic should cost much less than an ordinary lunatic in the district asylums. I can quite understand why there should be a slight additional charge, say perhaps 1s. a week, in a large asylum—conceivably 2s.—for the extra warders who are required to take charge of dangerous lunatics. There may be a slight increase in the proportion of warders necessary to look after these people, but I hold that the only rational and humane system would be that all lunatics should be dealt with by the same administration, and practically in the same asylums; those who are easily managed, and comparatively harmless, to be looked after by their relatives at a reasonable sum. But for any lunatics who are in such a condition as to require constant and laborious attention I say that to provide 3s. 6d. per week as the normal cost of their maintenance is a

    241
    perfect absurdity and an outrage on our lunacy administration.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I may point out that the part of the clause to which the honourable Member objects fixes 2s. a week as the minimum.
    MR. DILLON: No; 2s. is the maximum.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member is correct, but I would point out that the lunatics in Ireland for whom this grant of 2s. per head is to be given are at present entirely supported out of the local rates throughout the kingdom. This grant is only to be given after the committee of the county council establishes institutions of this kind, and therefore it will actually benefit the ratepayers generally. This grant will come out of the local taxation account; that is to say, out of the proceeds of local licences; and as those moneys are devoted to the benefit of the ratepayers in any case, it will be obvious that it is not so much a question of gain to the ratepayers, though it might possibly be a gain to a particular section of the ratepayers. Now, I will just mention to the House that I have had investigations made into this matter, and I find that out of some 4,000 lunatics in Irish workhouses somewhere between 1,500 and 1,600 might properly be treated in those institutions, while the remainder are lunatics who with great advantage might be transferred to the asylums which I hope will be constituted under this clause. I should hope that a certain number—a number difficult to arrive at, but still not inconsiderable—of lunatics who are now in the asylums might be transferred to the auxiliary asylums, and that would also be a gain to the ratepayers. The clause, I think, will not do any harm to the ratepayers, and, on the other hand, it was not my idea that the ratepayers should derive any pecuniary gain from the new arrangement.
    MR. M. HEALY: I put a question some weeks ago to the right honourable Gentleman as to whether he had made any inquiries which justified him in the supposition that lunatics in these proposed auxiliary asylums would not cost more than 3s. 6d. per week. He informed me then that he had based his opinion as regards that figure on a report of Mr. O'Brien and other experts in lunacy, made as far back as 1879. It would occur to me that it would be a prudent thing before fixing this figure if the right honourable Gentleman had taken counsel with the managers and superintendents of lunatic asylums. I have recently been in communication with one of those gentlemen, and he tells me that the notion that a lunatic can be maintained in auxiliary asylums at 4s. a week is absolutely absurd. His view is that a person can be so maintained at something under the ordinary figure, but that 4s. is absurd.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: All we suggest is that the subvention from the State should be 2s.
    MR. M. HEALY: But the subvention was based on the supposition that the total cost of maintenance was 4s. If you go back to the report of Mr. O'Brien and others in 1879, you will find that at that date the Government subsidy in some cases—I think even in the majority of cases—considerably exceeded the amount levied under the county cess.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As a matter of fact the expense has gone down since that date.
    MR. M. HEALY: I am aware that, if you compare the figures of 1879 with the present figures, that is so. The position at present is that, in addition to expense of maintenance, nearly all the counties of Ireland now have to contribute annually large sums to pay for the maintenance of lunatics—I mean maintenance apart from lodgings as we may call it, and perhaps apart from the cost of superintendence. The maintenance of a lunatic in that sense is about 9s. 9½d., but that does not affect my argument. In 1879, in nearly half the counties of

    243
    Ireland, the amount contributed by the State in the form of the 4s. grant exceeded the amount spent on the lunatics.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That cannot possibly be so, because the amount of the grant is regulated by the amount of the expenditure.
    MR. M. HEALY: So far as my knowledge of the matter goes this is the first time it has been proposed that the amount granted by the State should have any relation to the amount expended, and, as a matter of fact, it was made a matter of complaint in 1880 that the amount contributed by the State was more than the amount expended upon the lunatics. Even when the present lunatic inspectors came into office in 1880 they made it a matter of complaint, and I think in some lunatic asylums even in their day—that is to say, in 1880—the amount contributed by the State was in excess of the amount actually spent. However, that is somewhat apart from the point on which I am now addressing the House. I was only pointing out that the Report upon which the right honourable Gentleman fixed his figure of 2s. a week is a very old Report, and for that purpose I think he would have done well before he fixed that figure to have consulted with the medical superintendents and managers with the object of ascertaining what, in their opinion, would be the expense of maintaining these lunatics when they were transferred from the workhouses. If he will look to the exhaustive Report made in 1880 by the present Commissioners of Lunacy, he will see those gentlemen enter into elaborate calculations, and that in no case did they calculate that the cost would be any less than the present cost in lunatic asylums. In fact, they rather throw discredit on the proposals to adapt workhouses for the purpose of lunatic asylums at all, on the ground that, in the long run, it would be cheaper to build a special building than to adapt an old workhouse for the purpose. I do not pretend to have mastered the Report of 1879, because it was a very long document, but my impression of it is this, that even the calculation of 2s. a week does not relate
    244
    to the cost of maintaining a lunatic in a lunatic asylum. In the Report of 1879 there were three categories of lunatics dealt with; one the lunatics maintained in lunatic asylums, then the lunatics maintained in the auxiliary asylums, and then, thirdly, lunatics maintained in some inferior asylum, and it is in relation to the third class that this figure is given. The right honourable Gentleman speaks of auxiliary asylums, but certainly the suggestion of 2s. a week had no relation to the cost of maintenance in an auxiliary asylum as it was recommended by that Report. Of course, the right honourable Gentleman was justified in saying that this grant will come out of the ratepayers' money, and that we should not get any more money if they increased that 2s. a week; but it does occur to me that the suggestion of 2s. a week, which would be generally construed to mean a total expenditure of 4s. a week, greatly minimises the cost which will have to be incurred when these lunatics are ultimately transferred. It is for that reason that I take such a strong view of this clause, because my view is that, if not 8s. a week, certainly not much less than 6s. is required. For that reason the grant which this clause proposes will, in a few years' time, mean a large deficit for the Irish counties, and they will not be getting even 4s. a week.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am far from dogmatising as to what the result would be, but I am rather inclined to think that the superintendents of asylums judge from the asylums of which they have had experience, and I cannot help thinking that it is necessary to bear that in mind in reading their reports. The honourable Gentleman complains of the amount of the grant, but I should remind him that the lunatics that he will find in lunatic asylums, and who will be transferred to the workhouses under this clause, are really lunatics who ought to be transferred. I am convinced that the effect of the clause must be a saving to the ratepayers.
    MR. DILLON: The right honourable Gentleman has entirely failed to answer my question, which has a very important bearing on the subject. He has stated

    245
    that with regard to the lunatics now in question there never was under the law in England, Scotland, or Ireland, any grant from the Imperial Exchequer. That is not my impression, and I think the right honourable Gentleman is wrong. Section 9 of the Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Act, 1875, is this—
    "The guardians of any poor law union in Ireland may, with the consent of the Local Government Board and the inspectors of lunatics, and subject to such regulations as they shall respectively prescribe, receive into the workhouse of such union any chronic lunatic, not being dangerous, who may have been received into a district lunatic asylum and selected by the resident medical superintendent thereof, and certified by him to be fit and proper so to be removed upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the said guardians and the board of governors of any such asylum; and thereupon every such lunatic, so long as he shall remain in such workhouse, shall continue a patient on the books of the asylum for, and in respect of, all the provisions of an Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the first and second years of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled 'An Act to make more effectual provision for the establishment of asylums for the lunatic poor, and for the custody of insane persons charged with, offences in Ireland,' and the Acts amending the same, so far as they relate to lunatics and insane persons received into district lunatic asylums; and any expenses incurred by the board of governors in respect of such lunatic in such workhouse shall be deemed part of the expenses of such district lunatic asylum, and shall be paid by the governors out of the moneys applicable to the payment of such expenses."
    The right honourable Gentleman said that there was no grant under the law of Ireland in respect of pauper lunatics. My impression is that a certain number—I do not know how many—are, practically speaking, boarded out by the guardians on terms agreed upon by the governors of asylums, and are still kept on the books of the asylums, and draw a certain amount of the Government grant; but whether they are allowed to continue to draw the whole of the Government grant or not is a point about which I am in some uncertainty, and the Government themselves appeal to be in a similar state of uncertainty. However, the right honourable Gentleman, in meeting my point, which is undoubtedly a very strong point, said he was not bound to make this provision for Irish ratepayers, because it was not the law in England or Scotland. I should like to read a report which appears in the Times of yesterday
    246
    of a meeting of the County Councils Association. I find this passage—
    "On the motion of Mr. E. J. Halsey, seconded by Mr. T. Parry, it was resolved, 'That it is desirable to again urge upon Her Majesty's Government the pressing necessity for legislation in regard to the extension of the 4s. grant in respect of pauper lunatics, and idiots maintained in accordance with the scheme approved by the executive council at their meeting on November 24, 1897.'"
    I cannot be quite certain, but if I am not mistaken that means a demand from the County Councils Association of England, which is declared to be of pressing and urgent importance in the very direction which I am now urging for the ratepayers of Ireland. My contention is greatly strengthened by the fact that in this Bill we are now discussing there are stringent and extreme powers given to the Lord Lieutenant to insist on the local bodies making proper provision for pauper lunatics. If those powers be properly imposed, I contend that you put an immense additional charge on the ratepayers, because it is idle to talk to us of decently maintaining lunatics at 3s. 6d. a week. I say that 8s. a head is the very lowest figure. The whole system of treatment ought to be, and must be, I contend, on a totally different principle to the treatment of the ordinary paupers in workhouses. Whether for good or for evil, a system has been devised in regard to ordinary inmates of workhouses which keeps their expenses of maintenance down to the very lowest point. I think in some places it varies from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It averages 3s. 4½d.
    MR. DILLON: It used to be lower. It may be true, and I believe it to be true after some little experience, that it is slightly more expensive to deal with dangerous lunatics than to deal with harmless lunatics, but the way you deal with harmless pauper lunatics at present is nothing short of a blot on humanity. These degraded creatures require careful nursing, and many of them, by careful nursing and scientific treatment, can be in a great measure cured, or, at any rate, their condition can be vastly improved. They require very careful treatment, and their condition can be greatly improved by care; but if they are treated as they

    247
    are at the present moment in the poor-houses of Ireland—or in many of them—as if they were able-bodied men, and capable of looking after themselves, their condition becomes very disgusting and scandalous. I do seriously impress on the right honourable Gentleman that in dealing with these 4,000 unfortunate creatures who are in the workhouses of Ireland, who ought not to be left there a day longer, any scheme for their better or more humane treatment based on the idea that they can be maintained on 3s. 6d. a week is nothing short of a public scandal.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no statement in the clause that 3s. 6d. is to be the limit. Of course, I anticipate that it will be more than that; how much more I cannot say.
    MR. DILLOX: Seven shillings.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am told that the figure for the lunatic poor is about 3s. 11d.
    MR. DILLON: The treatment of the lunatic poor is most scandalous in Ireland.
    SIR J. HASLETT: The reports as to the condition of the lunatics maintained in the Belfast Workhouse show that everything possible to be done for the humane treatment of the unfortunate lunatics there is done. You cannot hope for any permanent improvement of these unhappy people. All you can do for them is to see that they get reasonably good food and careful treatment. In the Belfast Workhouse the lunatics get the same food which in ordinary asylums costs 6s. 6d. or 6s. 4d. a week.
    MR. DILLON: Does the honourable Gentleman, mean to say that in the Belfast Workhouse the lunatics have the same food as in lunatic asylums would cost 6s. 4d.?
    SIR J. HASLETT: The conditions are different. The means even of giving these people food is different. In asylum you cannot even give them a knife or fork. I would earnestly put this question before the Government. We only want to do what is just and right for all parties, and I am not so sure that, unless we have a very considerable alteration in this Act, lunatics can be detained at all in these asylums. With regard to the other side of the question—namely, the
    248
    lunatic who becomes to some extent harmless in an ordinary asylum, and is then transferred to the workhouse—I think it is only done where there is a necessity for room, such as in the case of the Belfast Asylum, where they are overcrowded. In Belfast, unfortunately, our accommodation is not sufficient, and wherever a doctor can reasonably transfer harmless lunatic to the workhouse it is done in order to provide room for others.
    MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I should like to mention one lunatic asylum near Dublin, which is one of the most important and the largest of all lunatic asylums in Ireland. The governors of that asylum have had this Bill before them since it was printed, and I am quite sure that they must have made some communication to the Chief Secretary as to this clause. The medical superintendent of that asylum, who is one of the most scientific and able medical men in Ireland, especially with reference to the treatment of lunatics, assures me that the expense of maintaining lunatics is increasing instead, of diminishing, because, as civilisation advances, a better standard, both in lunatic asylums and also in workhouses, is expected, and, whether rightly or wrongly, the governors of that asylum are strongly of opinion that this figure of 2s. a week—seeing that the cost of food exceeds, as it always must exceed, 3s. a week—is certainly inadequate. It will certainly be a great pity that a Measure of this sort should impose a limit like this, when it ought above all things, as it appears to me, to keep in view these unhappy lunatics, who are an increasing body, I am afraid, in Ireland; and, notwithstanding the arguments to the contrary, I do not think there is any hope of the number diminishing; on the contrary, I am afraid it is increasing from day to day. I would urge on the Government to raise the amount to be paid for the support of pauper lunatics under this section. If the maintenance of lunatics in workhouses does not amount to the figure inserted in the clause, of course, the grant will not be given to that extent, but if you keep the grant down to 2s. a week, it means that 5s. a week is all you can possibly allow under any circumstances for the maintenance of these wretched

    249
    lunatics in the auxiliary asylums. The regulation of these asylums has for years been a source of great trouble and anxiety to the authorities, no matter to what party they belong, in consequence of the overcrowding and the enormous expense of maintaining the institutions. We know that the frightful disease of beriberi has broken out, and we all know that that is a kind of disease that is almost certain to spread.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: The honourable Member for Belfast spoke about the manner in which the lunatics in the workhouse in Belfast were treated, and he said that nothing could be better than the treatment that was given to these harmless lunatics. Now, I hold in my hand the last Report of the Inspectors of Lunacy in Ireland. After saying that in Belfast only 112 pauper lunatics were kept in the workhouse, the inspectors say—
    "As we have stated in our previous Reports, we cannot report favourably on the condition of the insane inmates transferred under this section."
    I accept the statement of the inspectors in preference to the statement made by the honourable Member who represents, I understand, one of the divisions of Belfast. The inspectors on page 36 of this Report say this, and I would ask the attention of the Chief Secretary to this statement. In the course of his observations, in reply to the honourable Member for East Mayo, he said that the expense of keeping lunatics in workhouses would be very much less than the expense of keeping them in properly equipped asylums. The statement in this Report is as follows—
    "Our Reports on the lunatic wards of the workhouses visited by us will be found in appendix F. Unfortunately we have not hitherto been able to report favourably on the care bestowed on the inmates of these workhouses, some of whom almost need the care and treatment of a fully equipped asylum."
    Now, do those inspectors know what they are talking about? If they do the Chief Secretary is grievously mistaken when he imagines that pauper lunatics can be kept on the wretched pittance of 3s. 6d. or even 5s. 6d. per week. The Act 38th and 39th Victoria, chapter 67, has been a total and absolute failure. I certainly think the Chief Secretary ought to see his way in the interests of these wretched
    250
    people to accede to the Amendment proposed by the honourable Member.
    MR. POWER: My experience is that you find in these unions a number of these poor people who ought to be transferred to lunatic asylums, and I think instead of transferring lunatics from lunatic asylums to the workhouse we ought rather to make provision for transferring a number of the present inmates of workhouses to lunatic asylums. There can be no doubt that the present state of things is a blot on our poor-law administration. My own idea is that there is a number of these lunatics confined in the poor-law unions in Ireland who, if they are sent to lunatic asylums, and properly attended to, would probably be cured. As to the idea that 3s. or 4s. a head will support these people, I think it is preposterous. To do justice to them little short of 7s. would suffice.
    MR. CREAN,speaking as one who has had some experience in the management of lunatic asylums, said that the limitation of the grant to 2s. a week per head was altogether preposterous. He had inquired of doctors and inspectors as to the actual amount it cost to maintain these people in workhouses, and he found that in order to give them proper care and proper medical attendance it would cost practically the same as if they were kept in properly equipped lunatic asylums. It was a disgrace to any civilised country that these unfortunate people who were not able to take care of themselves should be housed in places where they could not be properly attended to. All that was asked from the Government was that the State should pay sufficient to keep these unhappy creatures under proper charge. These poor, harmless imbeciles could not be treated in such a manner as to lead to any improvement in their condition if this limit of 2a. a week were maintained.
    MR. DILLON: There does not appear to me to be much chance of getting anything out of the Government, and therefore I do not desire now to prolong the discussion, but I cannot help saying that I think it is deplorable that the Chief Secretary should take the stand he is taking. The right honourable Gentleman spoke of this sum of 3s. 6d. as being a minimum. Now, I find here in the Report, to which I have already referred,

    251
    that at that time—that is in 1891—the average cost of maintaining a pauper lunaitic in poorhouses in Ireland was slightly over 4s., and while it was slightly over 4s.—and I suppose it has been slightly over 4s. from that day to this—we have the testimony of all inspectors that the condition of these pauper lunatics was a scandal and disgrace. In the face of those reports and the experience of these years the right honourable Gentleman deliberately proposes to limit the Government grant to 2s. a week, and sets up 6s. a week as the minimum, which is put on the face of the Bill as a reasonable minimum for the support of these lunatic poor. On the faith of the Report of these skilled experts appointed by the Government seven years ago the Chief Secretary deliberately ignores all that the Report says, and proposes to stereotype the present bad system. Sir, I think it is a most unfortunate proposal, and I would venture to suggest that it would be better to leave the whole question of the administration of lunacy to be dealt with under another Act. I think the Irish lunacy system is one that involves an immense deal of inhumanity and suffering. However, all our protests seem to be unavailable; it would be useless, I suppose, to press the matter to a Division, and I have nothing to do but withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 50, as amended, added to the Bill.
    Clause 51 added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 52.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: On this clause I wish to ask a question with respect to the words in line 5 "judge of assize." I have handed in a notice to insert after those words "under this Act." You will find in the County Treasurer Act, which this Bill proposes to repeal, there is some provision by which if the grand jury officials decline to sign a presentment the difficulty may be got over. If that is going to be repealed the words of this clause as they stand will not be sufficient. The words are—
    "Where the payment of a sum by any county or district council, or the treasurer of such council, or other officers of the council on behalf of the council, is ordered by a judge of assize."
    252
    That leaves it wholly at large, because it is not limited by the words that come subsequently—
    "Or is required either to comply with any enactment, or to meet either a judgment or decree of any competent court."
    I presume that the judge of assize is "a competent court," so that you can only need the words "judge of assize" by reference to the malicious injury section of the Bill. It appears to me that this is giving the widest power to the judge of assize, such as he never had before. It does not say that he is to act according to any law, but he is to be at large.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 29, line 15, after the word 'is' to insert the words 'legally ascertained by a judgment order on that .behalf to be.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. ATKINSON: It would be necessary, if these words were inserted, to recast the clause altogether, I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 53.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 29, line 24, after the word 'where,' to insert the words 'after due process of law.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. ATKINSON: These words are really not required. A mandamus can only be issued after due process of law.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I want it to be understood that there is not to be a summary process.
    MR. ATKINSON: When one party applies for a mandamus the other party will have whatever right the law gives him.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DILLONinquired what the functions of the office referred to in this clause were intended to be.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that in clause 9 and other clauses power was conferred on the Lord Lieutenant to make certain orders. It was necessary to provide some means to enforce those orders.
    MR. DILLON: Anything more revolutionary than this clause I have never seen. There appears to be no limit to the powers. Take this case. Suppose

    253
    a deadlock occurred, which is not at all an extravagant proposition, between the lord lieutenant and the county council, upon the scale upon which they are to build; the lord lieutenant appoints an officer by virtue of this mandamus, who supersedes the county council, and takes all their powers, and he acts so long as the county council will not submit to the will of the lord lieutenant, and he can ride rough-shod over them. I think it is a monstrous thing, and unless the Government promises to reconsider the matter, I shall certainly claim a Division.
    MR. ATKINSON: Of course, before the lord lieutenant would make such an order there must be a specific case of neglect on the part of the county council—some specific instance where they had failed to do their duty. Then an order would be made by the lord lieutenant that they shall do it, and if they did not, then the lord lieutenant could go to the court for a mandamus to compel them. But no mandamus will allow a man to adopt a general course of conduct. It is to compel him to do a particular thing. If the county council fail to do their duty, and remain obdurate, then an officer will be clothed with power to carry out that particular thing, but no case would arise where he could go on for years.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I rise for the purpose of supporting my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo, and I sincerely hope that he will press for a Division unless the Government gives him a clear explanation as to the meaning of this clause. Now the Attorney General has said that a mandamus must be given in connection with some specific matter. Let me give an instance of a specific
    matter. The lord lieutenant sends down to the city of Sligo an order for more police. The borough of Sligo is to be taxed £200 or £300 for extra police. The borough of Sligo refuse to pay it, the county council refuses to pay. Well, that is a specific case. Then the lord lieutenant sends down to us, and we refuse to do what he thinks is our duty. We refuse to further burden the rates; we refuse to do anything of the kind. So he goes and gets a mandamus, and sends down an officer to collect that money in defiance of the wish of the county council of Sligo and the borough of Sligo. Now, I want to know what is going to happen when the county council of Sligo refuse, as they certainly will, to do what the lord lieutenant calls their duty, I consider their duty is to resist; under those circumstances will the right honourable Gentleman send down an officer to take over the duties of the county council?
    MR. ATKINSON: I am bound to answer this question as it has been put to me. The order or demand would be made, the council refuses, then comes the application for the mandamus, which would be obtained, and if the money was not forthcoming, the honourable Member and other members of the county council would be relieved of their duties, and the officer would collect the rate.
    MR. P. A. M'HUGH: Then I properly interpreted the views of the Government, and I, under the circumstances, press my Friend to go to a Division.
    Question put—
    "That clause 53 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 48.—(Division List No. 114.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Arnold, Alfred

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

    Fellowes, Hon, Ailwyn Edw.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Balcarres, Lord

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Fisher, William Hayes

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

    Chelsea, Viscount

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)

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

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

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

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Gedge, Sydney

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Brassey, Albert

    Cox, Robert

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Carlile, William Walter

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs)

    Gretton, John

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

    Purvis, Robert

    Greville, Captain

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hun. Lord G.

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    McArthur, Chas, (Liverpool)

    Saundersan, Col. Edw. James

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

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

    Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

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

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Heath, James

    McKillop, James

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Helder, Augustus

    Malcolm, Ian

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Thornton, Percy M.

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Waring, Col. Thomas

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

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

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    More, Robert Jasper

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

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

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Kimber, Henry

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

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

    Lafone, Alfred

    Myers, William Henry

    Wylie, Alexander

    Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

    Young, Com. (Berks., E.)

    Lawson, John G. (Yorks.)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

    Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur

    Sir William Walrond and

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

    NOES.

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

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

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    Murnaghan, George

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brigg, John

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

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

    Caldwell, James

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Carew, James Laurence

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jordan, Jeremiah

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

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Collery, Bernard

    Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

    Shee, James John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sheehy, David

    Crean, Eugene

    McDonnell,Dr.M.A.(Qn.'sCo.)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Daly, James

    McCartan, Michael

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

    Dillon, John

    McDermott, Patrick

    Tully, Jasper

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Maden, John Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Sir Thomas Esmonde and

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Captain Donelan.

    Clause 53 added to the Bill.
    Committee report Progress.
    House resumed.

  ROMAN CATHOLICS DISABILITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Upon the Motion for the Second Reading, Mr. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.) objected.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Upon a point of order, Sir, I wish to ask whether the honourable Member for South Belfast is entitled to raise his voice in objection to the Second Rending, having regard to the fact that he has spoken upon the Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Gentleman is not entitled to speak, neither is the honourable Member for Kilkenny.
  MR. M'HUGH: May I appeal to the honourable Member for South Belfast to withdraw his objection, for the simple reason that this is a Bill to establish religious equality in Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg to give notice, on behalf of my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, that he will move on Monday to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule, and on Tuesday that the House do meet at 12 o'clock.
  House adjourned at 2.40.

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 Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5.) BILL. [H.L.]
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
WISHAW WATER BILL.
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  The same were ordered to lie upon the Table.
  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  WATH-UPON-DEARNE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  YORK UNITED GAS BILL.
  Reported without Amendment.
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  NEWTOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  BUENOS AYRES NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  PAISLEY CORPORATION (LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  ILKESTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.
  FILEY WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  CRAWLEY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Orders made on the 3rd and 9th of May last discharged; Bill committed for Monday next.
  BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICK-SHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  Read the second time and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  HAMILTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  BACUP CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  CARMARTHEN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  CRANBROOK DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  MUMBLES RAILWAY AND PIER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  WIGAN CORPORATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  DUBLIN SOUTHERN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  GLOUCESTER GAS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND MIDLAND AND GREAT NORTHERN RAILYAYS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  ILFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
  MARIANAO AND HAVANA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MORLEY CORPORATION GIAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  GREAT ORME TRAMWAY AND TRAMROAD BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  HOLMES'S PATENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  Sixteenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1897; Parts I, II., and III.:
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

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

  No. 2092. France (Dunkirk);

  No. 2093. Germany (The Grand Duchy of Baden);

  No. 2094. Venezuela (Caracas);

  No, 2095. Netherlands (Java);

  No. 2096. Switzerland;

  No. 2097. Uruguay;

  No. 2098. Turkey (Bagdad and Basrah;

  No. 2099. France (Calais):

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

INDIA.

  POST OFFICE ACT, 1898.
  Papers referring to Amendments in the law relating to the Post Office in India.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PENAL CODE AND CRIMINAL PRO- CEDURE CODE AMENDMENT ACTS.
  Papers referring to Amendments in the law relating to sedition and defamation.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SEA FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES.)
  Twelfth Annual Report of the Inspectors, for the year 1897.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SALMON AND FRESH WATER FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Thirty-seventh Annual Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries (England and Wales) for the year 1897.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Order, dated 13th May, 1898, intituled the Foreign Animals (Amendment) Order of 1898.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOAN SOCIETIES.
  Abstract of accounts of loan societies in England and Wales to 31st December, 1896, furnished to the Central Office for the Registry of Friendly Societies.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PROVISIONAL OBDER BILLS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5.) BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read the second time on Monday next.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6.) BILL. [H.L.]
  To be read the second time on Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1.) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2.) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to Order), and passed.
NEW BILL.
  COLONIAL MARRIAGES (DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER) BILL. [H.L.]
  To amend the law as to marriage contracted in the Colonies with a deceased wife's sister; presented by the Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal; read the first time, and to be printed. [No. 74.]

  DEATH OF MR. GLADSTONE.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, before we go to the business of the day, it is our duty to record the occurrence of a great calamity. The most distinguished political name in this century has been withdrawn from the roll of the living. It will be in accordance with tradition, in cases somewhat similar, and I am sure in accordance with the feelings of this House, that we should address the Queen on this sorrowful occasion, and combine our voice with that of the House of Commons in urging that the greatest possible public honour may be bestowed on the memory of him who has been taken away. I propose, therefore, to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions that the remains of the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone be publicly interred in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, and that a monument be there erected, with an inscription expressive of public admiration and attachment, and of the high sense entertained by the House of his rare and splendid gifts and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great offices of State, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will concur in giving effect to Her Majesty's directions."
  My Lords, very few words are necessary, or would be fitting, to commend this Motion to your acceptance, or to dwell upon the great career which yesterday was closed. His history, his merits, his wonderful qualities, have been dwelt on by many tongues and many pens, and I need not repeat them here. But the point which seems to me remarkable,

  81
  and which, I think, will attract the attention of foreign nations and of future generations, perhaps more than any other, is the universal consent of all persons, of all classes, and of all schools of thought in doing honour on this sorrowful occasion to a man who has been more mixed up in political conflict than probably any man that our history records. The conflicts of the past are so far forgotten that there is no difference of feeling or of opinion in the honour which we pay to his great qualities, or in our desire that that honour should be duly displayed before the eyes of all the world. What is the cause of this unanimous opinion? Of course, he had qualities which distinguished him from all other men; and you may say it was his transcendent intellect, his astonishing power of attaching men to him, the great influence he was able to exert upon the thought and the convictions of his contemporaries. But these things would not explain the attachment and the adoration of those whose ideas he represented. They would not explain why it is that feelings almost, if not quite, as fervent are felt and expressed by those whose ideas he has not expressed, and whose policy he has invariably withstood. My Lords, I do not think the reason is to be found in anything so far removed from the common feelings of mankind as the abstruse and controverted questions of the policy of the day. They have nothing to do with it. Whether he was right or whether he was wrong in all the Measures, or in most of the Measures, which he proposed, those are matters of which the discussion has passed by, and would certainly be singularly inappropriate here, but which are really remitted to the judgment of future, generations, who will securely judge by experience what we can only decide by forecast. But it was considerations more common to the mass of human beings, to the general working of the human mind, than any controverted questions of policy—it was that men recognised in him a man guided, whether under mistaken impressions or not it matters not, but guided in all the steps that he took, in all the efforts that he made, by a high moral ideal. What he sought was the achievement of great ideals, and whether they were based upon sound convictions or
  82
  not, they could have issued from nothing but the greatest and the purest moral aspirations; and he is honoured by his countrymen because through so many years, because through so many vicissitudes and conflicts, they have recognised this one characteristic of his action which has never left it, never ceased to colour it. He will leave behind him, especially to those who have followed with deep interest the history of his later years—I might almost say the later months of his life—the memory of a great Christian statesman, set up necessarily on high, from which the sight of his character, his motives, and his intentions was situated so that it could strike all the world. It will have left a deep and most salutary influence on the political thought and the social thought of the generation in which he lived, and he will be long remembered, not so much for the causes in which he was engaged, or the political projects which he favoured, but as a great example of which history hardly furnishes a parallel, of a great Christian man. I beg, my Lords, to move the Motion.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am under no ordinary difficulty in following the noble Marquess, because I do not conceive that anything could be said better, anything more appropriate, anything more touching, than the speech in which he has introduced this Motion. He has undoubtedly struck the keynote of the universal feeling towards the Statesman we have lost. I agree entirely with the noble Marquess that, whatever we on this side, who have acted with him so long, may think of his political career—which naturally we sympathise with in its details far more than the noble Lords who sit opposite—but, whatever we may think of that, we are as much aware as the noble Marquess is that this extraordinary manifestation of public feeling—I suppose such a manifestation is without parallel in this country—is not caused by his splendid political achievements—I speak of his eloquence, his guidance of Ministries, and the high position which he occupied so long in the counsels of the Crown. We are as well aware as the noble Marquess is that that is

  83
  not the cause of this great manifestation of regret. It is, as the noble Marquess said, the appreciation of the moral qualities of the man, of the high-mindedness of his conduct, of the unvarying uprightness of his conduct, and the sense which the nation feels, as the noble Marquess has justly said, that in him we have lost not merely a Statesman of great power and great reputation, but we have lost a man who set an example to all who have occupied high places in this country, and to all the people of this country, whether high or low, of a life nobly spent, pure in its intentions, pure in its conduct, and which, I agree with the noble Marquess, will hereafter be considered a bright example to this nation. My Lords, I can add no more. I need hardly say how strong my personal sympathies are upon such an occasion. It so happens that I am now the only person remaining who sat in all the Cabinets over which Mr. Gladstone presided; but this is not the occasion to enter into any details. I merely wish to repeat that I am sure we on this side of the House warmly acknowledge the manner in which the noble Marquess has proposed this Motion, and I am certain it will meet with the concurrence of the whole House.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: There are some Members of your Lordships' House, some of whom belong to the Government and others who give a general support to the Government, who, however, occupy a position somewhat distinct from that of those in whose name the two noble Lords have just spoken. On behalf of those I desire to associate myself absolutely and unreservedly with what has fallen from the two noble Lords who preceded me. It has been my lot to serve in Parliament as a supporter, a colleague, and an opponent of Mr. Gladstone, and for that reason I and those whom I represent are, perhaps, better able even than any others to appreciate the full force of all that has been said by my noble Friends on both sides of the House. But for the events of 1886 it would have been unnecessary, and it would even have been an impertinence on my part, to add anything to that
  84
  which has been said as to the great qualities of Mr. Gladstone or any of the incidents of his great career. As to those events. I only desire to say this: to be placed in acute opposition to one with whom as a trusted Leader we had been in relations of intimate confidence and warm personal friendship must necessarily have been, and was, to us a most painful position. But, although it was not in the character of Mr. Gladstone to shrink from letting his opponents feel the full weight of his blame or censure when he considered that blame or censure was deserved, I can truly say that I can recall no word of his which added unnecessary bitterness to that position. My Lords, deeply as we regret the difference of opinion which caused the separation between Mr. Gladstone and so many of those who had been his most devoted adherents, we never doubted, and we do not doubt now, that in that, as in every other matter with which during his long public life he had to deal, his action was guided by no other consideration than that of a sense of public duty, and by his conception of that which was in the highest and truest interests of his country. My Lords, I beg, on behalf of some of the noble Lords in this House, to express our sincere concurrence in everything that has been said by the noble Lords who have preceded me.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, there would at first sight appear little left to be said after what has been so eloquently and feelingly put from both sides of the House; but as Mr. Gladstone's last successor in office, and as one who was associated with him in many of the most critical episodes of the last 20 years of his life, your Lordships will perhaps bear with me for a moment while I say what little I can say on such a subject and on such an occasion. My Lords, it has been said by the Prime Minister, and I think truly, that the time has not yet come to fix with any approach to accuracy the place that Mr. Gladstone will fill in history. We are too near him to do more than note the vast space that he filled in the world, the great influence that he exercised, his constant contact with all the great movements of his time. But the sense of

  85
  proportion must necessarily be absent, and it must be left for a later time, and even, perhaps, for a later generation, accurately to appraise and appreciate that relation. My Lords, the same may also be said of his intellect and of his character. They are, at any rate, too vast a subject to be treated on such an occasion as this. But I may at least cite the words, which I shall never forget, which were used by the noble Marquess when Mr. Gladstone resigned the office of Prime Minister, that—
  "his was the most brilliant intellect that had been applied to the service of the State since Parliamentary Government began."
  That seems to me an adequate and a noble appreciation; but there is also this pitiful side, incident to all mortality, but which strikes one more strongly with regard to Mr. Gladstone than with regard to anyone else, and it is this—that intellect, mighty by nature, was fashioned and prepared by the labour of every day and almost every hour until the last day of health—fashioned to be so perfect a machine, only to be stopped for ever by a single touch of the Angel of Death. My Lords, there are two features of Mr. Gladstone's intellect which I cannot help noting on this occasion, for they were so signal and so salient, and distinguished him so much, so far as I know, from all other minds that I have come into contact with, that it would be wanting to this occasion if they were not noted. The first was his enormous power of concentration. There never was a man, I believe, in this world who at any given moment, on any given subject, could so devote every resource and power of his intellect, without the restriction of a single nerve within him, to the immediate purpose of that subject and that object. And the second feature is one which is also rare, but which, I think, has never been united so much with the faculty of concentration, and it is this: the infinite variety and multiplicity of his intellect. There was no man, I suspect, in the history of England—no man, at any rate, in recent centuries—who touched the intellectual life of the country at so many points, and over so great a range of years. But that, in reality, was not merely a part of his
  86
  intellect, but of his character, for the first and most obvious feature of Mr. Gladstone's character was the universality and the humanity of his sympathy. I do not now mean, as we all know, that he sympathised with great causes and with oppressed nations, and with what he believed to be the cause of liberty all over the world; but I do mean his sympathy with all classes of human beings, from the highest to the lowest. That, I believe, was one of the secrets of his almost unparalleled power over his fellow men. May I give two instances of what I mean? The first time he visited Midlothian we were driving away from, I think, his first meeting, and we were followed by a shouting crowd as long as their strength would permit; but there was one man who held on much longer than any of them, who ran, I should think, for two miles, with evidently some word he was anxious to say, and when he dropped away we listened for what it might be. It was this: "I wished to thank you, Sir, for the speech you made to the workhouse people." I dare say not many of your Lordships recollect that speech; for my purpose, it does not particularly matter what its terms may have been. We should think it, however, an almost overwhelming task to speak to a workhouse audience, and to administer words of consolation and sympathy to a mass who, after all, represent in the main exhaustion and failure and destitution. That was the lowest class. Let me take another instance—from the highest. I believe that the last note Mr. Gladstone wrote with his own hand was written to Lady Salisbury, to ask her about a carriage accident in which the noble Marquess had been involved. I think it is pathetic, and characteristic of the man, that in the hour of his sore distress, when he could hardly put pen to paper, he should have written that note of sympathy to the wife of the most prominent, and not the least generous, of his political opponents. My Lords, sympathy was one great feature of Mr. Gladstone's character. There was another with which the noble Marquess has dealt, which I will only touch on in a single word, for it is a subject not for this moment or for this purpose. I mean

  87
  the depth of his Christian faith. I have heard, not often, and have seen it made a subject for cavil, for sarcasm, for scoffing remarks. Those remarks were the offspring of ignorance, and not of knowledge. The faith of Mr. Gladstone, obviously to all who knew him, pervaded every act and every part of his life. It was the faith, the pure faith, of a child, confirmed by the experience and the conviction of a man. And that last word brings me to the other, and the only other point of his character, on which I would say a word. There was no expression so frequently on Mr. Gladstone's lips as the word "manhood." Speaking; of anyone—I can appeal to his friends behind me—he would say, with an accent that no one who heard him could ever forget, "So-and-so had the manhood to do this"; "So-and-so had the manhood to do that"; and no one, I think, will, in the converse, ever forget the extremity of scorn which he could put into the negative phrase, "So-and-so had not the manhood to do this"; "So-and-so had not the manhood to say that." It was obvious, from all he said and from all he did, that that virile virtue of manhood, in which he comprehended courage, righteous daring, the disdain of odds against him—that virile virtue of manhood was, perhaps, the one that he put the highest. This country, this nation, loves brave men. Mr. Gladstone was the bravest of the brave. There was no cause so hopeless that he was afraid to undertake it; there was no amount of opposition that would cow him when once he had undertaken it. It was then faith, manhood, and sympathy that formed the triple base of Mr. Gladstone's character. My Lords, this is, as has been pointed out, a unique occasion. Mr. Gladstone always expressed the hope that there might be an interval left to him between the end of his political and of his natural life. That period was given to him, for it is more than four years since he quitted the sphere of politics. Those four years have been with him a special preparation for his death; but have they not also been a preparation for his death with the nation at large? Had he died in the plenitude of his power as Prime Minister would it have been possible for a vigorous and convinced Opposition to allow to
  88
  pass to him, without a word of dissent, the honours which are now universally conceded? My Lords, that has all changed now. Hushed is the voice of criticism, hushed are the controversies in which he took part, hushed for the moment is the very sound of Party conflict. I venture to think that this is a notable fact in our history. It was not so with the elder Pitt. It was not so with the younger Pitt. It was not so with the elder Pitt, in spite of his tragic end, of his unrivalled services, and of his feeble old age. It was not so with the younger Pitt, in spite of his long control of the country and his absolute and absorbed devotion to the State. I think that we should remember this as creditable, not merely to the man, but to the nation. My Lords, there is one deeply melancholy feature of Mr. Gladstone's death, by far the most melancholy, to which, I think, none of my noble Friends have adverted I think that all our thoughts must be turned, now that he has gone, to that solitary and pathetic figure, who for 60 years shared all the sorrows and all the joys of Mr. Gladstone's life; who received his every confidence and every aspiration; who shared his triumphs with him, and cheered him under his defeats; who, by her tender vigilance, I firmly believe, sustained, and prolonged his years. I think that the occasion ought not to pass without letting Mrs. Gladstone know that she is in all our thoughts to-day. And yet, my Lords, putting that one figure aside, to me, at any rate, this is not an occasion for absolute and entire and unreserved lamentation. Were it, indeed, possible so to protract the inexorable limits of human life, that we might have hoped that future years, and even future generations, might see Mr. Gladstone's face and hear his matchless voice, and receive the lessons of his unrivalled experience, we might, perhaps, grieve to-day as those who have no hope. But that is not the case. He had long exceeded the span of mortality, and his latter months had been months of unspeakable pain and distress. He is now in that rest for which he sought and prayed, and which was to give him relief from an existence which had become a burden to him. Surely this should not be an occasion entirely for grief, when a life

  89
  prolonged to such a limit, so full of honour, so crowned with glory, has come to its termination. The nation lives that produced him. The nation that produced him may yet produce others like him; and in the meantime. it is rich, in his memory, rich in his life, and rich, above all, in his animating and inspiring example. Nor do I think that we should regard this heritage as limited to our own country or to our own race. It seems to me—if we may judge by the papers of to-day—that it is shared by, that it is the possession of, all civilised mankind; and that generations yet to come, through many long years, will loot for encouragement in labour, for fortitude in adversity, for the example of a sublime Christianity, with constant hope and constant encouragement, to the pure, the splendid, the dauntless figure of William Ewart Gladstone.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

  RATING OF THE CLERGY.
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is likely that the Royal Commission on Rating will soon be able to make an ad interim Report with respect to the rating of the clergy. I am asking this inquiry of my noble Friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, not in his capacity as Secretary for Scotland, but as chairman of the Royal Commission, on Rating, which, as your Lordships are aware, has been sitting for some time. During the last 10 years the clergy have suffered, heavily owing to the fall of tithes, and there is a strong feeling out of doors that some alleviation with regard to rating should be proposed in the present Session of Parliament. The hardship of the whole matter is that the Act of last Session—the imperfect Act, known as the Agricultural Rating Act—while it gives alleviation to ratepayers, and does give alleviation to clergymen who hold their own land, gives no alleviation to tithes. I think, my Lords, that it is a great
  90
  injustice that clergymen, with their largely diminished incomes, should be rated, not only on their houses and their glebe, but also on their tithes. Moreover, if a clergyman chooses to let his glebe, he receives no abatement whatever. In the Midland counties, especially in Northamptonshire, there are many cases in which land has been allotted in lieu of tithes, and in those cases the clergyman does get relief; but the general rule is that tithes pay rates but get no relief under the Act of last Session. I am sure we all sympathise with the clergy in this matter, and will view with equal sympathy any Measure which might be proposed to alleviate their condition. That is the reason I ask this question. I feel that without legislation it will be difficult to give any considerable relief. I do not know whether it would be possible for the Local Government Board to issue an Order to the1 various Assessment Committees by which, tithes would be exempted from, rating. I trust, however, that if I cannot get a sympathetic answer from my noble Friend as to a Report being shortly laid on the Table, the time will not be far distant when Her Majesty's Government will see their way to bring in a Measure to relieve the heavily-rated clergy.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFQUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords,. I have no hesitation, in expressing my sympathy with many of the views of the noble Earl. I am afraid, however, that this is a matter in which sympathy alone will not be wholly satisfactory. I can assure the noble Earl that the Royal Commission over which I have the honour to preside has given, and is still giving, a great deal of attention to the subject of the rating of tithe rent-charge. We have received a very considerable amount of evidence from various representative organisations. We have also been, I think I may say, almost inundated by the large number of communications from individuals which we have received, and received quite recently. We have also a very considerable amount of documentary information to look through, and I can assure the noble Earl that there are still a very large number of those who have expressed a sincere desire to be

  91
  heard by the Commission for whom we have not yet been able to find a place. My Lords, I do not propose to go on this occasion into the history of the rating of tithe rent-charge, which is intricate and would require a considerable amount of time to explain; but I understand that in the main the case which is put forward by clerical tithe owners at the present time is that tithe rent-charge has been unfairly and unjustly valued, and not assessed in accordance with the Parochial Assessments Act, 1836. I think it must be obvious to everybody that the principle laid down in this Act for ascertaining the rateable value of properties generally was nor very applicable to tithe rent-charge, and although the Court's have decided that tithe rent-charge is to be assessed, like all other property, according to what it might be reasonably expected to let for, a certain amount of hardship has been created by that decision. I may say that I came to the consideration of this matter with a strictly impartial mind, because until I was made a member of this Commission, and heard the evidence which we have taken, I am afraid I must confess that I knew absolutely nothing about the matter; but I have, so far as I am personally concerned, come very distinctly to the conclusion that the tithe rent-charge, as a class of property, is rated nearer to the gross value than any other. I think I am justified in saying that on that ground the clerical tithe-owner at the present time does bear a heavier burden of local rates than any other owner of property. My Lords, we have got to that length that, while it goes to some extent to justify the anxiety of those for whom the noble Earl has spoken, it does not go very far in the direction of deciding what will be the best remedy to apply. I must say that in this matter I find very considerable difficulty. I do not think I should serve any useful purpose if I were to express my own opinion upon it here. I think that it had better be reserved for the Commission. We have not, as a Commission, ventured as yet entirely to close the inquiry. We frankly admit that there is a grievance, and it is quite possible that, when we do come to issue a report, we shall find our-
  92
  selves able to go the whole length of meeting the wishes of those for whom the noble Earl has spoken. I think he will admit—I believe every member, or nearly every member, of the Commission will agree—that, until we see our way clearly in the matter, it will be a dangerous thing for us to announce that the inquiry is wholly closed. I cannot, therefore, make a definite promise that there will be a Report. I do not wish to be understood, on the other hand, to say that there will be no Report in the course of the summer. It is not at present absolutely decided whether we shall find ourselves able to recommend a remedy. Some of the Reports which have been published in the usual channels of information have been entirely premature. I hope that, under all the circumstances in which we are placed as a Commission—the somewhat difficult circumstances—the noble Earl, and those for whom he speaks, will accept my assurance that we are thoroughly alive to the fact that the state of things, as they exist at present, constitutes a real grievance, and that we shall not delay longer than is absolutely necessary in endeavouring to find a solution.

  PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  The Report of the Amendments to this Bill was received.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after 'consent,' insert 'of the heritors, if any, and.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I have an Amendment to this Bill that I desire to ask your Lordships' acceptance of. The object of the Bill is one with which I am entirely in harmony. It is to enable churches and manses to be removed from places where they have ceased to be of use to other parts of the same locality where they are more required; but, in making the provisions for the change of site, it seems to me that one class of persons—the heritors, or the land-holders of the parish—have been somewhat forgotten. In the 5th clause of this Bill the

  93
  liability of heritors is carefully reserved, whereas in the preceding clauses, with regard to the removal of the churches or manses, no reference whatever is made to the heritors. The object of my Amendment is to secure that, when it is proposed that churches and manses should be removed under the Bill, the heritors of the parish should be consulted in the matter, and their consent obtained.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have no hesitation in accepting this Amendment. The Bill will really not come into operation in any town or borough in which heritors are likely to have an interest in the church. I believe that in most cases the churches affected will be churches which are vested in the magistrates and the town councils. The Amendment suggested by the noble Lord was the subject of some discussion in the Standing Committee, and, after full consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the words suggested to be added, if they do not do any good in those cases to which we think the Bill will apply, cannot do any harm. Therefore, I am willing to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT SCHOOL ((SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Bill read the third time and passed.

  LICENSING (DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES REMOVAL) BILL.
  EARL COWPER: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. This is rather a small Bill, but its object is to remedy a practical and a very appreciable grievance. It is recommended by the Society of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, which is composed of the most able local men in the country, who would not be likely to give other than good advice. The Bill has nothing to do with the main question of licensing. It appears, my Lords, that no justice having any interest in the retail sale of liquor is
  94
  allowed to act on the Licensing Committee of the district in which his interest lies, or in the neighbouring district. It has been determined that this applies to any magistrate who has shares in any railway company which has refreshment rooms in the district, or, in other words, shares in any railway which runs through the district in which, or near which, this magistrate resides. It is quite clear that the shares in a railway company would not be appreciably affected—would not be affected in the smallest degree—by the amount of liquor sold at these small refreshment rooms, and that his interest in them is nominal. The present state of the law has been found to deprive the licensing committees of the services of many useful men. The Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time provides that a justice of the peace shall not be disqualified from acting for any purpose under the Licensing Acts, 1872–74, or under any Act for regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors, or the granting of licences for such sale, by reason of his holding any share or being otherwise interested (whether beneficially or otherwise) in any railway company which is a retailer of any intoxicating liquor in the licensing district, or in the district or districts adjoining to that in winch such justice usually acts, or which is wholly or partly the owner, lessee, or occupier of any licensed premises. Care has been taken not to alter the Statute more than is necessary, or to weaken the action of the law in other respects. I hope your Lordships will not object to give this Bill a second reading.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Earl opposite. I know from personal experience that very great inconvenience has been caused by the present state of the law. There are so many disqualifications of magistrates from acting on licensing committees that some of the best men for the duty are excluded. I cordially support the second reading of this Bill.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, as chairman of the Society of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, I highly approve of this Bill. Cases

  95
  have come under my notice where practically there was no magistrate who could act on account of the disabilities imposed. I welcome this Bill as one which will remove these disqualifications.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL of HALSBURY): I had some doubt as to whether the disqualification referred to was ever contemplated to apply in such cases, but, technically, I suppose it does. The disqualification is certainly one that should be removed.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg 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 shipowners in their competition with foreign vessels to man them exclusively with British subjects; (2) to ensure that men shipping as seamen shall be bona 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."
  My Lords, I alluded last week to the subject embodied in this Motion, and I now bring it before your Lordships in a more extended form, in order to call your attention to a very important and a very serious matter—a matter of national importance which requires legislation. My Lords, I spoke of the mercantile marine as the First Reserve of the Empire, and I think, my Lords, I did right in so doing. It is universally acknowledged that the Royal Navy is our first line of defence; it is our first fighting force. The Royal Navy, my Lords, has no Reserve to fall back on, except the mercantile marine. It is on the mercantile marine that we shall have to depend for men to man our ships in time of war, and for the supply of food to this country. Since I mentioned last week that, in my opinion, the true granary of England was her ships, I have
  96
  been informed that England can grow enough corn to supply the country; but at the present time the country seems to, be dependent on the corn brought over the sea. The Reserve I am referring to—the mercantile marine—has been neglected. We have foreigners in command of British ships. We have men of all nations serving in those ships, and there are some British vessels that are not only commanded, but entirely manned by other than British subjects. We have men entering the shipping as seaman who know very little of their duties, and who really are not seamen. This is due, my Lords, to the present practice of granting discharges. It is an utter fallacy, my Lords, to say that in these days of steam you do not require seamen, and that a man can go on board a steamer and learn all that is required of him. So long as you have vessels afloat you must have seamen, whether they are steamers or sailing vessels, and to have those vessels you must have the shipowners. Therefore you must treat the question in its entirety—from the shipowner down to the ship's boy. I recognise that it is a difficult question, but it is one that must be dealt with sooner or later, and the sooner the better for the welfare of this country. It is a subject that must be dealt with in a thoroughly comprehensive manner. It is no time now to take half measures. When there is so much interest taken in the Army Reserve—when the Army Reserve is deemed of such great importance that there is even some talk of conscription—how very much more necessary is it to take in hand the First Reserve, a body to which in a great part England owes its existence as a nation, and which has helped largely to extend the Empire. I speak of the mercantile marine as part and parcel of the Royal Navy, just as you speak of the Militia and the Army Reserve as part and parcel of the Army., In the old days, my Lords, when our power was being built up—in Queen Elizabeth's days—the mercantile marine and the Royal Navy were one and the same; and in Nelson's day a great part of the men who served in his ships were merchant seamen. The merchant service was looked upon then as the nursery of the Royal Navy. We have a

  97
  number of officers and men of the mercantile marine who are embodied in the Naval Reserve, and who, when we go to war, will be required to serve on board Her Majesty's ships. Who, then, will be the Second Reserve? Who will be the men to man the ships conveying food to the United Kingdom? Who will be the men to man the ships required to carry coal to the Fleet, and to man the warships? The Royal Naval Reserve men are presumably picked men from the merchant service. When they are required, who will you have left? Very likely you will have a number of very good men; but I will ask you, my Lords, is it not of vital importance that we should see that the whole of this service is efficient and capable of taking its part in the defence and support of this great Empire? I think, my Lords, you can no longer look on the merchant shipping as a merely private concern. It is a public concern now, and the country must be prepared, my Lords, to assist the shipowners in their competition with foreign vessels, and, if necessary, to give them State aid. You will also require, my Lords, to have a certain number of sailing vessels to train your seamen. You will have to see that the men who ship as seamen are seamen. You will have to revise the whole of the present system of granting discharges. I know, my Lords, that all this will entail trouble and expense; but is it not far better to have that trouble and expense now than have greater trouble and far more expense hereafter? I know that these reforms will take some time, and that they cannot all be effected at once. I am sorry to say that at the present time it would be impossible for us to man all our vessels with British subjects, but I think, my Lords, that in time this could be accomplished. I would strongly urge the necessity of legislation tending in this direction. I now beg to move the Resolution.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Earl of DUDLEY): My Lords, it seems to me that the propositions laid down by my noble Friend rest, to a certain extent, upon the supposition contained in the early part of the Motion, that the present reserve of seamen for our Navy would be inade-
  98
  quate in time of war; and the chief part of my noble Friend's speech has been directed to establishing that contention. My Lords, that, of course, is a very large question, in which the Department that I am connected with is only indirectly concerned. It is, therefore, not for me to argue that point with my noble. Friend. All that I can say on that score is that the Board of Trade fully realises how important it is that the supply of British seamen for the Naval Reserve should be fully maintained, and my noble Friend can rest assured that no means for advancing that object is ever ignored or lost sight of by that Department. Now, my Lords, what does my noble Friend ask the Government to do? In the first place, he desires that encouragement should be given to British shipowners to employ British seamen exclusively upon their ships. Well, if he had omitted the word "exclusively" I should have been prepared to sympathise with him to a great extent.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I said British subjects.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Well, that is much the same thing. Everyone, I suppose, my Lords, deplores the fact that the proportion of foreign seamen in our mercantile marine is excessively large, and I am afraid the proportion tends to increase every year rather than the reverse. If, then, the Government saw any equitable means of discouraging that increase, I think it is perfectly safe to say that they would readily make use of it. The great difficulty, however, is to find a means of discouraging that increase which is equitable. I confess that I listened with great attention to my noble Friend's speech to hear if he suggested any means by which that object could be attained, and I, personally, was not able to gather from his speech any definite plan. I do not know whether my noble Friend contemplates any return, or any partial return, to the Navigation Laws, under which, as your Lordships know, certain proportions, varying in different instances, of British seamen were compelled to be carried on British ships. If that is his opinion, at any rate, it seems

  99
  to me that that would be rather drastic encouragement to the British shipowners, even if it can be carried out; and I confess that in my opinion I do not think it can be. In the first place, it would entail the absolute reversal of our policy during the last 40 or 50 years, by which we have sought to remove restrictions upon trade and commerce; and, in the second place, it would, I think, create such an agitation among shipowners that I doubt if any Government would attempt to persevere with it. Moreover I would point out to my noble Friend that if it is his desire, as he states in his Motion, to encourage the British shipowner and to help the British shipowner against the competition of the foreign shipowner, the last way in the world to set about it would be to place restrictions on his trade, and to hamper him, and prevent him carrying on his business in the way which he considered most advantageous and profitable to himself. As my noble Friend knows very well, this large proportion of foreign seamen that are now in our mercantile marine is not due to any scarcity of British seamen. There are plenty of British seamen in our ports to man our ships if made use of. The large proportion of foreign seamen is due to other causes which I do not care to enter into at the present time. There is no doubt that in many instances the shipowners employ foreign sailors deliberately, in preference to English seamen, and, although I deplore that fact, no doubt as much as my noble Friend does, I confess that I do not see how, by legislation, you can interfere to prevent the shipowners taking advantage of their undoubted rights of discretion in that matter, or go back to a state of things which existed 40 or 50 years ago, under totally different conditions. The next thing my noble Friend wished the Government to do is to take measures to ensure that men shipping as seamen shall be bonâ-fide of the class that their certificates and discharges would show them to be. Well, my Lords, that is by no means a new question; it has been brought before the Board of Trade for many years past. The Royal Commis-
  100
  sion on Loss of Life at Sea reported in 1884 that—
  "With respect to the rating of able seamen it is now the law that no man is entitled to be so rated unless he can prove four years' service at sea before the mast. There is, however, great laxity in this matter. Men are constantly rated as 'A.B.' without any inquiry as to their past service, and without sufficient qualification. Practically it rests with masters of vessels; nor does it appear to us that there is any certain method by which this can be prevented."
  The state of the law as defined in the Report of the Royal Commission is still the state of the law; but since this Report was issued a circular has been sent by the Board of Trade to their superintendents, in which those officers are instructed to add the letters "N.P." (which mean "not proven") to the letters "A.B." in every case where a seaman has failed to produce his discharge showing that he has four years' service. And I am afraid, that although that may seem a very inadequate provision, it is the only thing that can possibly be done under the existing law; for, although the law lays down that a man shall only be entitled to the rating of "A.B." after he has served four years at sea, still, under the Act, there is no penalty against a man rating himself as anything he chooses. There is no penalty on the master for giving him an "A.B." rating, nor is there any power to prevent the superintendents allowing men to sign, themselves as "able seamen," "excellent seamen," or anything they choose. Moreover, my Lords, there is no provision to compel ships to carry able seamen at all. They can carry ordinary seamen or seamen; and therefore, as long as that law exists, I cannot see what use it would be to insist upon any qualifications of able seamen being more fully observed. I daresay my noble Friend will ask, "Why not amend the law in this respect?" In my opinion, although I hesitate to express one on this subject, it would be impossible to amend the law with satisfactory results, for it is obvious that so long as a ship is not required to carry "A.B.'s" at all, it will serve no useful purpose to insist on a certain number of men being rated as "A.B.'s." Moreover, the case is different as regards masters and mates. In that case, of

  101
  course, the law does lay down that every ship in the foreign trade must have a certified master and a certified mate, but the law, so far as I understand it, does not make it necessary for a ship to carry seamen at all.
  LORD MUSKERRY: Not "A.B.'s."?
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: No; they may be boys or landsmen.
  LORD MUSKERRY: Monstrous!
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: The law merely says that no seaman shall have the qualification of "A.B." unless he has served four years at sea, but it does not, as I have already explained, place any penalty either upon the master or the seaman for misrepresentation as to rating. Therefore, as the law at present stands, I am afraid that we have not been able to do anything more than issue the circular to which I have alluded. Now we come to the advisability of amending the law, and I would point out to my noble Friend that if we amended the law we should have, I think, to make the condition that every ship should carry so many "A.B.'s." That would necessitate the introduction of a manning scale; it would entail the classification of every crew; and, in my humble opinion, I do not think it would be possible to do that. I may tell my noble Friend that last year, during the discussion on the Under-manning Bill, it was considered whether it was possible to produce a manning scale, and I think the overpowering preponderance of opinion of the shipowning interest was that it was impossible, taking into consideration the varying circumstances of the shipping industry, to attempt anything like a satisfactory or adequate manning scale. Therefore, so long as you are unable to produce a manning scale, I do not see how you are going to secure the object that you aim at by insisting upon the rating of "A.B." being in all cases observed. Now, my Lords, if the House will bear with me, I will go back to the point which I was alluding to when the noble Lord interrupted me—namely, that the case differs altogether from that of master and mate. In that case the law does lay down that a ship shall
  102
  carry a certified master and a certified mate, and, of course, the superintendents of our mercantile marine are able to prevent a ship going to sea unless she has a certified master and mate, but the superintendents have not the power to detain ships that do not carry a given number of able seamen. There are, however, I think, two safeguards against the evil to which the noble Lord has referred. The first is that, in my opinion, if a master uses adequate care in looking over the discharges which are presented when men "sign on," he can always judge what are the qualifications of the various seamen. That is the first safeguard. The second is that, under the Act of last year, the surveying officers of the Board of Trade have power to prevent a vessel from going to sea if she is not adequately manned, and I think it will be found in practice that in cases where men have "signed on" who are not competent seamen, and who are not fit to take a vessel to sea—that in those cases the surveying officers would consider that the ship is under-manned, and consequently unsafe, and prevent her going to sea in that condition. My Lords, I think I have been able to explain the position, so far as we understand it at the Board of Trade, to my noble Friend. I confess I think that probably the intention of the original framers of the Act of 1880 was to give compulsory power to the superintendents to prevent men "signing on" as "A.B.'s" who have not served for four years, but the law does not give that power, no matter what the framers intended. And I am informed at the Board of Trade that no useful purpose could be served in amending the law unless you can find some means of framing an adequate manning scale.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: My Lords, no noble Lord, I think, in this House can have read the terms of this Motion without being struck with its extraordinary importance, particularly at the present time. I do not think your Lordships can have failed to recognise not only the importance of the Motion, but the admirable purpose for which the noble Lord below me has brought it forward; and I must say that

  103
  I looked, as many of your Lordships probably looked, with, great anxiety, not unmixed with curiosity, to the terms of the answer which would be given on behalf of the Board of Trade by the noble Earl who represents that Board so ably in this House. Now, my Lords, I speak as a landsman, and I do so with due respect to my noble Friend below me [Lord Muskerry], who speaks as a sailor. This question has occupied my attention for more years than I should like to tell your Lordships, and, as I represent, to some extent, the northeast coast of England, I feel justified in troubling your Lordships with a few remarks on this subject. One thing is certain—no Government could possibly attempt to deal with this question except with the full and friendly assistance and co-operation of the shipowners themselves. I have sufficient confidence in our shipowners, and in their ability to conduct their business, to agree entirely with what the noble Earl has said, that the best thing we can possibly do is to let them conduct their business in their own way. This is a very difficult question, and one which I can easily understand the Government is rather nervous about handling. In looking at it, it is very necessary to draw a distinct line between the different trades, and the tendency of different trades to draw different races into them. Now, we will divide the two great trades of this country into two parts—the Western trade and the Eastern trade. In the Western trade you will find a large proportion, I think, of the foreign element, composed of Scandinavians (Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes), some few being Dutchmen and Germans. If you talk to a shipowner on this subject, I apprehend he will tell you that these men are very excellent seamen. Some shipowners, I am almost confident, would tell you that they actually preferred to employ these men; and for this reason—they are obedient, and more easily satisfied than our seamen. They are more amenable to discipline, and above all, they are more temperate in their habits. I do not wish to be understood to say anything against our seamen, but I think I am justified by fact in making that statement. We now come to the Eastern trade. There you find a different class of seamen altogether. The seamen in the Eastern trade
  104
  comprise Orientals of various kinds. I am not for a moment attempting to say that you can compare a Lascar with a trained British seaman, but I would remind the House that in voyages to and from the East—through the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, for instance—the climate is a very serious consideration, and it must be admitted that any Oriental is much more capable of bearing the extremes of heat than a British sailor. I can conceive it possible that even in Eastern ports the presence on board of a certain number of Orientals may not be without its advantage. Therefore, I am quite alive to the hesitation which has been shown by the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade, and which has been aroused by that unfortunate word—if the noble Lord will allow me to say so—"exclusive" employment of British seamen.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I said British subjects.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: Very well, I will accept that. I do not believe—and I say it not without conviction—that it would be possible at the present time to man our ships exclusively with British subjects. It will be necessary to refer, in dealing with this matter, to the larger question—namely, the Royal Naval Reserve. I should always desire to regard the two Navies—the Mercantile Navy and the Royal Navy—as one harmonious whole. It is absolutely necessary that we should do so; and we have gone a long way in the direction of uniting the two services through the personnel of the Royal Naval Reserve. You have got under the control of the Admiralty, by the payment of a retaining fee, the cream of the merchant service—men who are found mainly on the great lines of steamers trading all over the world. There has, however, always appeared to me to be a defect even in that carefully-considered organisation. We are every day learning how suddenly an outbreak of war may occur, and therefore it is impossible to press too strongly upon the attention of the Government the absolute necessity of having something in the shape of a complete organisation of our maritime population. I do not believe that any such organisation exists. I want

  105
  very much to know what will be the position of our great shipping companies when they find a large proportion of their best men transferred into the Royal Navy on the outbreak of a great naval war. I very greatly doubt, indeed, their means of filling the places of these men on an emergency. I am not able to speak with accurate knowledge on that subject. I apprehend that many of our great steamship companies have something in the nature of a Reserve, by means of which they could lay their hands on a certain number of able seamen; but what I want particularly to impress upon the mind of the noble Earl who represents the Board of Trade in this House is that the time has come when the country should possess a firmer grip upon the whole of its maritime population. There are hundreds and thousands of men who have spent the whole of their lives on the sea available, but there is no organisation, as there is in France, by which you can lay your hands upon them. France can command, I think, something like 100,000 men at any time, and they are trained men. We want an organisation of that kind. We want something behind the Merchant Navy—something analogous to the Volunteer Force behind our Army. No doubt that would imply a word which is very offensive, I am afraid, to English ears. It. would imply something in the nature of compulsion; but, my Lords, in my humble judgment the time has come when the country will be forced to look in the face that which is too often considered to be an interference with individual liberty. I deny that any able-bodied subject of Her Majesty ought to be allowed to claim liberty when the safety of the country is in the scale. It is the fashion among a great number of people—well-informed people—to tell you that love of the sea is innate in the British breast. That statement has been based upon the experience of former days, but I do not think it is safe for the Government to rely on the existence of that feeling to the same extent now as formerly. Many noble Lords have had some acquaintance with our school ships, and I think those who
  106
  have had the privilege, and many of them the pleasure, of visiting these vessels will bear me out when I say that nothing could be more perfect than the drill and discipline on board these ships, and the work done by these young boys; but you have no security whatever that those boys will go to sea. A large number of them do not. That is the defect in the excellent system of school ships. As I said before, your great neighbour—friendly neighbour, I trust, but your great rival, your most powerful rival at sea—has got an organisation which, I think, you would do well to imitate. It will imply a certain amount of compulsion, but I think a scheme might be worked out by which you would be able to lay your hand on a larger body of your maritime population. It will cost money, but the people of this country will back you up. They have set their minds upon maintaining the supremacy of the seas, and it is the duty of the Government to leave no step untried, even at the risk of introducing something like compulsion, which would help them to lay their hands on a larger number of their maritime population as a Reserve, not to the Royal Navy, but to the Merchant Navy of this country. The Government should, by judicious steps, forward a movement of that kind. My Lords, every year adds to the responsibilities of this country. I say it with, anxiety; and I want to ask the Government this question: Are you certain that the means at your disposal, that your Army and that your Navy, are able to meet these responsibilities? I have the greatest doubts in my own mind on the subject, and, unless you have some carefully considered scheme by which you will be able to command the services of your maritime population, you will not be in a position to meet these responsibilities. I speak with earnestness, and with the belief that some of the points I have ventured to bring before your Lordships will bear examination, and will be found to be true. The thanks of the House are due to the noble Lord who has brought his experience to bear on the question, and who has pointed out the

  107
  importance of this matter, and the desirability of paying more attention than we do to our Reserves. The noble Lord says it is the duty of the Government to assist British shipowners, in their competition with foreign shipowners, to man their vessels exclusively with British subjects. It is one thing to encourage, but another to assist, and I very much doubt whether the shipowners themselves would say that to debar them from the employment of foreign seamen would assist them largely in their competition with their rivals. I believe it is necessary that they should have some foreign seamen. I will not detain the House longer. I think the country will be grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this question before their minds, and I trust it will be taken up in the country, and that some scheme in the direction of a more complete organisation of our maritime population may be the result.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I do not propose to enter at length into this subject. I rise rather to apologise, or to explain why I do not discuss it at any length. The subject is divided into two parts. The first part relates particularly to the Royal Navy, with which Service I had the honour of recently being connected; and the other part of the subject relates to most important questions connected with the management of the mercantile marine. Now, my Lords, I rather deprecate the discussion of abstract Resolutions of this kind without a concrete proposal being formulated, either by the Government or by a noble Lord, which the House, as a whole, could discuss. My noble Friend who has just spoken has made a most interesting and very able speech. With a great deal of what he has said I concur, but I must at once say I fear he is wrong in supposing this country will be prepared to depart from the voluntary system in connection with the enlistment of sailors for the
  108
  Fleet. During the time I had the honour of being in the Admiralty, I received, on several occasions, deputations on the subject of the manning of the mercantile marine, and I admitted to two deputations that I conceived it to be of the highest importance to the Royal Navy that the Merchant Navy should be well manned and prosperous. The two Services must go together. The happiness and success of the mercantile marine must be bound on to that of the Royal Navy. But, my Lords, the subject is so intricate and so difficult that I really must refrain from going into it on the present occasion. I am quite sure that the question is of great importance, and if, on a later occasion, either Her Majesty's Government, or any individual Member of this House, submits some concrete proposal on this subject, I for one should feel it then my duty to take part in the Debate, and I should do so with the greatest possible pleasure.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, I want to ask a question which fifty years ago I could have answered myself. Is a sailor entitled to the rating of "A.B." if he serves four years at sea, whether on a steamer or a sailing vessel? There is mighty little seamanship about now, and I think it is incumbent on the Board of Trade to see that the ships are better manned.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: In reply to the noble Viscount, I will read the section of the Act of Parliament—
  "A seaman shall not be entitled to the rating of 'A.B.'—i.e., of able-bodied seaman—unless he has served at sea four years before the mast."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord press his Motion?
  LORD MUSKERRY: No, my Lord; I beg to withdraw it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at 6.20.