To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Central Welsh Board will continue to exist after the passing of the Education Bill; if so, will the powers and duties of the Board remain as heretofore. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Neither the existence, nor the powers and duties, of the Central Welsh Board, are directly affected by the Education Bill.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, whether, having regard to the fact that Clause 18, sub-Section (8), of the Education Bill transfer the powers of the joint education committees under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889, to the education committees under the Education Bill, and to the fact that the Intermediate Education Act, which is not repealed, provides in Section 6, sub-Section (1), that the proceedings of education committees under it need not be submitted to the County Council for approval, it will be competent in future for any education committee in Wales acting under the Education Bill to transact any of its proceedings without duly reporting those proceedings to the education authority on behalf of which it is acting; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirableness of repealing that part of the Act of 1889 which would enable such a course to be adopted. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Clause 18, sub-Section (8), of the Education Bill does not transfer the powers of the joint education committees to the education committees under the Bill. The powers transferred are not the powers of the joint education committees, but those of the county governing bodies; and these are not transferred to the education committees, but to the new local education authorities.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the custom to make money allowances to the gunnery staffs of ships in His Majesty's Navy for empty cylinders of one-inch practice ammunition, he will grant a Return of the ammunition sup plied for practice to the flagships of every squadron in 1901, and the number of cylinders returned from this ammunition for the purpose of obtaining the cash premium. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) This information can be given without much difficulty if there is any general desire that it should be furnished. Such a Return, however, will have no practical value, as it is obvious that the cylinders returned to store on repayment in any particular year are not necessarily those belonging to the ammunition used in practice during the same year, nor would the two sets of figures bear any real relation to each other. To prevent misunderstanding, it would be desirable to append a note to this effect to the Return, if issued.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the expediency of adding to the Board of Admiralty a naval constructor and mechanical engineer. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Government contemplate no changes in the composition of the Board of Admiralty.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of the Isle of Axholme Light Railway, to be constructed by the North Eastern Railway Company, he will consider the advisability of requiring the building of a bridge over the main street of the village of Haxey, as desired by the inhabitants of that place, instead of permitting the railway to cross the street on the level. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am not aware that any representations have been received from the inhabitants of Haxey in this matter, but if such representations are made they shall be brought to the notice of the officer who may be appointed to inspect the line prior to the opening thereof for passenger traffic.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any Russian sugar comes to this country via Hamburg or any other non-Russian port, and if he can ascertain what is the amount of such sugar. (Answered by Mr. (Gerald Balfour.) I cannot say how much Russian sugar, if any, comes to the United Kingdom from non-Russian ports. The total importation of Russian sugar into this country has in recent years been inconsiderable, the average of the past three years having been less than 4,000 tons per annum.

To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the exports of sugar from British Guiana have increased or decreased during the past five years. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) Starting from 1897-8, the quantity of sugar exported shows a decrease for the next two years, and an increase since then; the quantity exported in 1901-2 being rather more than that for 1897-8, while the value is rather less.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a proposal has been received from the United States Government for the appointment of a judicial tribunal of arbitration to settle the question of the Alaska boundary; and, if so, will he state what reply has been sent. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) There has recently been a renewal of the discussions upon this subject, but no useful purpose would be served by making any statement with regard to it at present.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state upon what grounds the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary has refused to grant a widow's allowance to Mrs. Gardiner, of Allendale, Baltinglass, county Wicklow, relict of the late Joshua Gardiner, District Inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Payment of a grant was withheld in this case on the ground that the conditions under which the grant is payable were not fulfilled.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to give the Return regarding the revising officers engaged in the revaluation of Belfast. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Return has been sent to the hon. Member.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Field Force Canteen is being wound up and remodelled under the official title of the Garrison Institutes in South Africa; and, if so, whether he will publish its accounts and state in what way the profits that have been earned will be made use of. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)With the cessation of hostilities the Field Force Canteen system is in process of being remodelled to suit the requirements of the force remaining in South Africa. With regard to balance in hand no decision has as yet been made as to its disposal, and therefore it would be-premature to consider the question of publication of the accounts.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the result of his inquiries as to the bread contract given to a firm of chemists for the Victoria Barracks, Belfast, and the Hollywood Barracks, county Down. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) From the full inquiries which have been made, it appears that this bread contract in not technically sub-let; but I do not consider the present arrangement satisfactory, and propose to terminate it shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the former canteen stewards of the 9th Regimental District at Norwich, and the garrison canteen at Fleetwood, have been given contracts as tenants of these place; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to prevent a reversion to the condition of canteen management which the regimental system was introduced to put an end to. (Answered by Mr, Secretary Brodrick.) The general officers commanding Army corps and districts have, under existing arrangements, full powers of deciding whether their canteens are to be conducted on the tenant or regimental system; and, so long as this discretion is entrusted to them, it is not proposed to interfere with the measures they may take.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the grounds on which officers of the Household Cavalry are excepted from the provisions of recent regulations which allow a free issue of two chargers to each Cavalry officer; and whether, in the event of it not being found possible to supply officers of the Household Cavalry with Government chargers, a sum equivalent to that granted to Cavalry officers of the Line will be placed at their disposal for the purpose. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Household Cavalry are a special corps requiring special horses for parade purposes, and it is therefore not held desirable to include them in the proposed arrangements for the Cavalry.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will explain the reasons for the delay in filling up the vacancy in the office of Deputy Master of the Royal Mint; and whether it is intended to abolish the office. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour) It is not intended to abolish the office in question. I expect to be able to make the appointment in the course of a few days.

I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it will be in order for me, on this Motion, to submit a statement as to the condition of the unemployed with the object of inducing the Government to take action in order to prevent the people from dying of starvation.

I think that such a, statement would not be in order. I understand that the hon. Member, in making the suggestion, is referring to the experience of last Friday, when the hon. Member for King's Lynn claimed on this Motion to discuss a subject which was irrelevant to it. At that time, I had no-notice of the Motion, and had no opportunity of looking into any of the precedents on the subject, and therefore I thought it better not to interfere with the observations which the hon. Member for King's Lynn proposed to make without further examination. I have since made examination of the question, and I find that since 1856 there has been no question of any debate on this Motion; and, as far as I know, debates must have been extremely rare before that. In 1861 a Standing Order was made dealing with this question of adjournment from Friday to Monday, and from that day onwards the Motion has been frequently put when the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne was being, discussed, and during Autumn Sessions,

† See page 131.

May I ask whether the prohibition of discussion indicated applies to all Motions for the adjournment of the House, or only to those for adjourning from Friday to Monday.

This Friday to Monday Motions is on quite a different footing from the Motion upon which observations can be, and frequently are, made at the close of the evening, observations which, from the time and the nature of the case, are short—such as Questions put to Ministers, or short observations made on some particular subject of immediate interest. But if this practice suggested by the hon. Member were permitted it would enable any hon. Member to raise a discussion which might—subject, of course, to the Closure—last nearly interfere with the other business which had been set down for discussion.

In view of your ruling, Sir may I appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to give this subject of the unemployed prompt, immediate, and sympathetic consideration?

The hon. Member has given private notice of his intention to put a Question in the course of a few days. perhaps the hon. Gentleman will carry out the suggestion he has made, and then a full answer will be given by my right hon. friend or by myself.

I have to move a new Clause dealing with the Amendment of the law relating to the acceptance of tenders. Since the Clauses were discussed in Committee a general agreement has been arrived at as to the new Clauses. I have made a careful study of the new Clauses, and there are one or two standing in the names of Irish Members which have suggested that we should revert to the practice which obtained under the old Grand Juries in respect of contract and tenders. I have been unable, however, to go the whole length which hon. Members suggest. I have often said that I am opposed to keeping popular bodies in leading strings and to binding them to accept the lowest tender. But many representations have reached me which, I think, have made out a case in favour of doing the business in a more businesslike way, so that the ratepayers shall not be defrauded of the remedies provided by law. The Amendment which I suggest is a modest one, conducing to good order, economy, and protection of the ratepayers. It provides that where a Rural District Council or a proposed committee accept a tender for that work, a minute shall be made stating the reasons for the non-acceptance of the tender, or, in case of more than one, of each tender, which is lower than the accepted tender. The minute is to be produced at any audit of accounts, and if the auditor thinks that any tender was accepted for any fraudulent or improper purpose he may declare the contract to be illegal, and the contract will become void. New Clause (Amendment of law relating to acceptance of tenders)—(Mr. Wyndham)—brought up, and read the first time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

said this Cause raised a very important question in regard to surcharging the members of local authorities. He thought the House had just cause for complaint that the Clause had been placed on the Paper only on Wednesday, although the right hon. Gentleman had had the Bill before him for months past.

The hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension. I have had a similar Clause on the Paper for weeks.

said that was an entirely thing to the Government putting the Clause down. This was the first indication the House had had that the Government intended to press such a Clause. There had been no opportunity for the Irish people to consider the merits of the new Clause, which was too important to be considered on the Report stage without proper notice. He protested against the Government, in the absence of the bulk of the Irish Members, taking an important Clause of this kind. Had such a proposal been made in an English or Scotch Bill, an opportunity of discussing it on the Committee Stage would certainly have been insisted upon, and it was not right, even as a matter of procedure, that such an important Clause should be pressed under these circumstances.

suggested the omission of Sections 4 and 7. The right to surcharge was an important question, and it was desirable to proceed as gently as possible in that matter. Surely the object of the right hon. Gentleman would be obtained without, at any rate, embodying Section 4.

pointed out that the auditor at present had the right to surcharge for making illegal payments, and the new Clause added from the decision of the auditor to the Local Government Board, which had the power to deal with the question on principles of equity rather than in strict law. Then there was an appeal to the courts of law; so that in the result there was nothing new in this proposal.

moved a new Clause enabling the Local Government Board to make general regulations for the audit of the accounts of public bodies and their officers. He explained that there was originally in the Bill a Clause which went a great deal further and took away the right of local appeal in certain cases arising out of an audit, but strong exception was taken to that, and it was removed from the Bill. Since they discussed the matter on the 31st July a number of representations had been made to him and to the Irish Local Government Board to the effect that the audits should be put on a different footing, more particularly in respect of the asylum account. It was desirable to have some form of procedure, but there was no provision for that in the existing Act, and he had therefore put down this new Clause, reserving to all parties the rights they now had of bringing an issue before the courts of law.

thought that if the auditors were to be entrusted with these very considerable powers it was desirable that they should be appointed by Civil Service examination and competition, so that it could not be pretended that officers were appointed in any partisan manner. In the course of a previous debate he obtained from the Government an undertaking that the appointments of auditors should be made from the general body of Chartered Accountants, and that to a great extent had been done. He thought the question of throwing them open to Civil Service examination was now worth consideration.

thought the Clause a very useful one. At the request of the Nationalists of Belfast he recently put a question showing how the people of that city suffered because the audit was not duly notified, either to the public or to the Corporation. Another grave scandal had occurred in Westmeath by which the ratepayers were swindled out of thousands of pounds. Hence the necessity for some such Clause as this.

pointed out that candidates for the Civil Service had to enter at a very early age, and if the appointments were made subject to Civil Service examination they would not get men of considerable experience in other walks of life, which it was their great object to secure in dealing with this question.

explained his interposition in a discussion on an Irish Bill by saying that he did not so much object to the Clause, but it seemed to him the whole debate had been arranged with one section of the Irish Party.

Why not?

said he was not finding fault with that, but it was obvious to him that the Bill was being passed through a House which had been "squared."

protested that this observation was not in order. Personally, he had not seen the Clauses until he arrived at the House this morning.

said that the great bulk of the Irish Members were absent [NATIONALIST cries of "Why?"] He did not see why he should be asked to give reasons for the absence of other people. But equally with other hon. Members he had a responsibilities for all legislation, whether English, Scotch, or Irish. Although, as a rule, he did not interfere with Irish Bills, under the present circumstances he felt bound to say a word or two, because, in his opinion, it was a dangerous principle to introduce surcharging, and if it was enforced it was more than likely that the whole fabric of local government in Ireland would tumble about the ears of the Government.

said, as a matter of personal explanation, he must impugn the statement that this Clause was being passed in some clandestine form arranged between himself and a certain section of the Irish Members. He might say that on the Second Reading the hon. Member for Waterford stated that he must not be taken as anxious to throw any obstruction in the way of the Bill, and the Committee stage, largely owing to the exertions of the hon. Member, having got through in one night, he (the hon. Member) suggested that the Report stage might be taken the same night. That was an almost unprecedented suggestion coming from the source it did. Since that time he had not heard that the hon. Member had changed his views, and if he had changed his views it was for him to be in his place to say so.

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the hon. Member for Waterford wished the Report stage taken at the evening sitting of the day on which the Committee stage was taken. Was that the case?

According to the Hansard report, the hon. Member said—

"We are very uncertain as to what time we shall have for the Report stages, and we are prepared to proceed with its consideration now."

Everybody knows quite well that those words mean an early day. It could not mean that night.

Order, order ! This is not material to the Motion before the House. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the hon. Member's challenge, has read what occurred, but this cannot form the subject of a debate.

I speak from memory. I know perfectly well what took place.

Order, order ! The hon. Member will allow me to remind him that the only question before the House is whether this Clause shall be added to the Bill.

said the County Councils and the Rural District Councils of Ireland had, without exception, demanded the Local Government (Ireland) No. 2 Bill. When the Chief Secretary had declared that there was no understanding between him and the Nationalist Members present as to the acceptance of the Clause, the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark might have given the House a similar assurance with reference to the absent Irish Members.

Order, order ! This irrelevant debate must not be extended. The statement made has been answered, and there the matter must end.

next moved a new Clause embodying an Amendment of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. He admitted that this Clause was not in every sense of the word a new Clause, but he would remind hon. Members that some action in this direction was foreshadowed by him in the debate which took place on the Committee stage.

On a point of order. This Clause provides that certain payments shall not be made out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account. The effect of that will be that certain authorities will not get so much as they otherwise would. This would involve a deficit which would have to be made up out of the rates, and I submit, therefore, that such a proposal cannot be made on the Report stage.

I have considered this matter. I think the Clause is in order, although it is very near the line. There is a statute which says that certain grants to the extent of one half shall be made in aid of salaries. This Clause deals with future appointments and increases only, and does not affect existing ones, and, therefore, I think it is in order.

said that during the Committee stage in July he mentioned that he would have to look in the Autumn very closely into the Local Taxation Account to see for what it could be allocated. Many questions had been put to him by hon. Members for Irish constituencies—not merely hon. Members present but others who were not present. Parliament had provided that certain revenues should go into the Local Taxation Account, and had also declared that any balance that might remain after certain claims by local bodies had been satisfied, should be devoted to such purposes as Parliament might direct. It was well known throughout Ireland that there was a considerable balance in this Local Taxation fund; but it was impossible for him to advise Parliament to take any action with respect to that balance, so long as the fund was open to varying charges which could not be estimated in advance. He would put this argument to hon. Members, and especially to those Irish Members who were present—for he had not had any conversation with them, collectively or individually, with regard to this Clause—that it was one which he believed was necessary if the Local Taxation fund was not to be frittered away, and if they were to do anything to relieve the burdens of the ratepayers of Ireland. It involved no departure from the principle of Section 58 of the Local Government Act. Its sole object was to say that that principle was to be equitably carried out. The Local Government Act said that a certain sum, which was to be estimated, would be ample to pay half the salaries of certain officers. They now found that unless they could go further and secure to each local body the amount it was entitled to, the wealthy, growing cities, which could embark on sanitary schemes of great magnitude without unduly burdening their ratepayers, would absorb so much of the Local Taxation fund that the rest of Ireland would not receive the one half of the payments to which it was entitled. Another principle of the Local Government Act was that these local bodies should have the fullest possible discretion in regard to the administration, with the minimum of central control from the Local Government Board. So long as the Local Government Board was in the position of trustee of this Local Taxation fund it had to exercise control in Ireland. The richer cities—Belfast, Waterford, or Limerick—might, if they chose, and quite properly, start some big sanitary institution, and the Local Government Board had to step in and say—" You cannot do that, because it would put a charge on the Local Taxation fund which would affect the poorer unions in the West of Ireland. "Any one who had read that portion of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation which dealt with Ireland, and who had observed the present inequalities of local taxation in Ireland, would, he thought, support the Government in its effort to prevent these inequalities being emphasised in the wrong direction. Undoubtedly they would have to deal with the whole question of local taxation in Ireland, as in England, in some future session; but, meantime, it should not be prejudiced in any way, and it would be prejudiced if the richer districts to the detriment of the poorer.

suggested that as only half of the scheme of the Government for dealing with this matter had been developed it would be wise to postpone dealing with this Clause until the right hon. Gentleman could present his proposal in a complete form. He was moving to stop certain payments, and meantime the fund would go on accumulating. In one year a balance of £76,000 remained undistributed, and considerable amounts had been added to the unallocated total in the last two years. The effect of the Clause would be to increase the balance at the expense of the counties as well as of the richer cities, and seeing that the right hon. Gentleman had promised to bring in his proposal next year, surely, instead of dealing now with one half of it, they had better await its full development.

This is a growing evil. The danger which now exists of the increasing demands on the Local Taxation Account will be emphasised by this Bill, and this Clause is merely a protective measure in the interest of the poor parts of Ireland. If the fund were unduly depleted by the larger cities, the poorer parts would not even get sufficient to pay the half of the salaries to which they are entitled.

said the right hon. Gentleman had admitted his case. He still felt they ought to see the whole scheme, but still he would not press the objection.

said he represented a very poor constituency, and he cordially approved the Clause. The hon. Member who last spoke had always been a good friend to Ireland, and he would appeal to him to bear in mind the fact that in the new Under Secretary for Ireland they had a thorough Irishman, who fully understood his business, and was helping the Chief Secretary in every possible way to do good for their unfortunate country.

ruled that it was not in order for these Clauses to be moved by other hon. Members.

moved a new Clause for the purpose of enabling ministers of religion to become members of local boards in Ireland. He said he regretted the action which was being taken by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. He would like to remind him that he largely owed his seat in the House to the Nationalist vote, and when that was trembling in the balance he had gone down to help the hon. Member. He was not acting in a way calculated o retain that vote. As to this new Clause, he desired to bring about equality between the law of Ireland and the law of England and Scotland. In England and Scotland ministers of religion were entitled to be members of local boards, but in Ireland the Government had set up a barrier against them. He had always regarded that as one of the great defects of the Local Government Act. It was extremely hard that clergymen, who were often among the largest ratepayers in the district, should be disqualified, and that where corruption and jobbery went on the conservative forces of the clergy could not be employed. It ought to be borne in mind that in Irish districts the landlords, as a rule, held aloof from interference in local matters; the lawyers and the doctors were usually disqualified by the fact that they held public officers, and tradesmen could not always spare the time. The choice before the electors was consequently very limited, and it would be well not to prevent the clergyman coming forward if he thought fit. He believed that his Clause would operate in the best interests of local government. No doubt Ireland was mainly a Catholic country, and he hoped it would ever remain so. The Lord Lieutenant, in a remarkable speech in Dublin the other day, seemed to indicate an entirely new departure in dealing with Irish local affairs.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is going from the Question before the House.

said his only object was his point about the clergy. It should be the object of the Government to develop the special characteristics of the Irish people and to use them as an asset in the government of the country. Why out of a feeling of bigotry should Irish clergymen be placed on a different footing to English and Scotch clergymen? Why should such a proscription be enforced against them?

hoped the Government would give way on this matter. He believed that the adoption of the Clause would remove a rankling feeling in the country. He did not believe that the clergy of any denomination would avail themselves of the power in any numbers; but it was felt that a special disability had been created as against Ireland, and if the Government could see their way to accept the suggestion, he believed it would be regarded as a sort of Emancipation Act. It would remove a very unfair disability from one of the most useful classes of the community.

said he was entirely in sympathy with the proposal of the hon. Member. He would like to point out that under existing circumstances the priest was often the adviser of members of local authorities in circumstances of difficulty, and it would be far better that those who were willing to serve a district should not merely give advice but should be saddled with the responsibility of taking the necessary action on that advice. On that ground he supported the proposed Clause.

said that he felt that he owed it to hon. Members from Ireland to announce the decision of the Government at once upon this question. He did not propose to go into the merits of this proposal, although he confessed that he had been much influenced by the arguments he had heard. This was a very big change to introduce at this period of the session, for it altered the constitution of local bodies. By entertaining this proposal now they would be embarking upon a very considerable discussion. If he were speaking in a debating society he should support this Amendment, but as he was speaking with the earnest desire of saving this Bill, and passing it this session, he felt that he could not accept the Amendment. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not feel if necessary to press his proposal.

Will the Chief Secretary leave it to the House to decide?

said he could not take that course, because, if he did, every hon. Member would feel disposed to address the House upon it. He thought that the House would do well not to pronounce any opinion upon the merits of the proposal now, but allow it to stand over until a better opportunity occurred to discuss constitutional changes of this kind.

said after the sympathetic reply he had received from the Chief Secretary, he would withdraw the Clause.

ruled the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, relating to the disqualification of Justices of the Peace to act as solicitors, was out of order.

contended that his Amendment was really to remove a disqualification imposed by the Local Government Act.

But practising as a solicitor does not arise under the Local Government Act.

There is nothing in the Local Government Act which disqualifies a solicitor in practice.

The Clause is out of order.

moved an Amendment to Clause 2. He said that upon this matter he was bound by what he said in Committee, and this Amendment would carry out the pledge he gave them.

did not think the right hon. Gentleman's present proposal gave effect to what they understood was the promise he made. This was a matter in which his hon. and learned friend the Member for North Dublin was very much interested, and in his absence he had himself intended to propose an Amendment in case the Government had not put this one down. The only doubt in his mind was whether the words proposed by the Government were sufficiently wide. He took it that the Government had considered them. There had been a whole mass of these claims, which were most just, because of the very severe provisions of the Local Government Act. He might say, in regard to some of the claims rejected, that there were English decisions which, if followed, would have kept these claims alive. He thought the Government Amendment ought to be accepted, but he hoped, if the Government found in another year that the words were too narrow, they would undertake to amend the Clause.

said the hon. and learned Member raised some doubt in his mind as to whether this Amendment was quite a proper one. He thought a better Clause could have been put in, but he would let this one stand at present. It would be a simple matter to amend it, and it could be put right in another place. Everybody was in favour of something being done in this direction.

Perhaps the Government will have time to amend it in the Lords.

Yes, certainly.

moved to insert in page 1, line 23, after "practitioner,"the words"or a trained nurse."

said he would accept the Amendment.

hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment. The occasions for such action must be very few, and the doctor would have in that case to be paid. It was a small matter.

moved to insert, after "loan," in Clause 3, the following words, "for payment of any debt or discharge of any obligation existing at the time such loan was contracted." He was not to be taken as in the least degree opposing the Clause as it stood lent itself slightly to irregularities in the matter of loans. What he suggested by his Amendment was that the Clause should not apply to any general system of borrowing money. Otherwise the result would be to allow these bodies to spend money in respect of duties other than those for which the loan was absolutely contracted. It appeared to him that that would be an undesirable thing to do.

thought the hon. and learned Member would see that these words were unnecessary, and that the addition of them would cause very great embarrassment. There were boards in Ireland which had overdrawn their accounts, and they had contracted loans in almost every case to meet the current bank accounts. They ought not to have done that. They ought to have raised sufficient by the rates. This Clause was introduced to enable them to raise money to pay off these overdrafts. The hon. and learned Member wished to provide that the Local Government Board should inquire whether the advance from the bank or the lender was obtained in the bona fide discharge of a local debt. That would involve an inquiry in almost every case as to the time when the loan was raised and the nature of the debt it was to discharge. If the hon. and learned Member would look at the Clause, he would see that they could not raise these loans except with the consent of the Local Government Board. Therefore, he might safely trust the Local Government Board that they would not permit local bodies to raise money to discharge loans which had been contracted for any improper purpose. He thought all danger was guarded against by the power which was conferred on the Local Government Board.

said he would not press the Amendment. He must, however, say for himself that he had not that confidence in the action of the Local Government Board which the Attorney General possessed. His opinion was that they might allow improper loans to some persons because of their political complexion, and disallow them in other cases.

Will this not allow the indiscriminate raising of overdrafts?

said the object of the Clause was to stop that.

moved the addition of the following at the end of Clause 5:

"(3) Nothing in this or the last preceding section shall prejudice or affect any legal proceedings pending at the passing of this Act or commenced before the first day of August, one thousand nine hundred and two."

said the date should be 24th June, when the Bill was read a first time.

hoped the Chief Secretary would accept the date stated in the Amendment. The mere introduction of the Bill was not known throughout Ireland, and, therefore, the parties could not be notified.

said it was not a very big point, and he would accept the Amendment.

moved to leave out Clause 6. He made the Motion for the rejection of the Clause on this basis. The Government, when this Clause was introduced, were really not aware of the compact, so to speak, of 1898, when the Local Government Bill was passed. They had not that in their mind, because the then Chief Secretary had been removed to the Board of Trade. The present Chief Secretary was not aware of the distinct bargain which existed between the Government and the Irish Members at that date in respect of these financial Clauses. He would point out that two very substantial concessions had been made on this question. The right hon. Gentleman, very late at night, when he pointed out to him that the city of Dublin was getting absolutely nothing through the Local Government Act, agreed to give him £5,000 a year, which the Government obtained from the pawnbrokers' licenses. Having obtained that concession, he pointed out, in regard to the police rate, which was collected by the local authority, that it would be unjust if they were bound by the very drastic mandamus system. He had put the wastage at 10 per cent., but after a long fight and wrangling he obtained for the County Council of Dublin and the Corporation of the city of Dublin a concession of 5 per cent. commission. He could not complain of the right hon. Gentleman being new to his office. The right hon. Gentleman was then at the War Department, and the Boer War was on, and he could not expect that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to attend to all these debates; but he regarded this Clause as a distinct breach of faith, and if the right hon. Gentleman knew all the facts of the case he was certain he would agree with him. That being so, there was an old saying that the King could not derogate from his own grant; and yet the right hon. Gentleman by this Bill proposed now to deprive the County Council of Dublin of £800 of the rates due to the old grand jury, and to take away, without any reason or argument, £600 a year more from them in regard to Phoenix Park, and to deprive them of the right of meeting in the Four Courts, where the grand jury had sat from time immemorial, and which would involve them spending £5,000 or £6,000 in building offices of their own. He would point out that the County Council of Dublin had had practically taken from them the rich urban districts, with the result that they could only rate a few towns like Balbriggan. The County Council of Dublin were compelled to maintain a slip for the coastguard on Lambay Island, which was four or five miles away from Dublin, which no citizen of Dublin ever visited, and which the farmers of the county could hardly see through a telescope. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the way in which they had been treated in this Bill. He himself had allowed two Clauses to pass which he had had no time to read, on which he might have had something to say; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should meet him in regard to this question. The vast majority of the Irish Members had already divided against this Clause, and it would be some little solatium, at the end of this discussion, if the right hon. Gentleman would give some concession on this point, especially when it was recognised that his own Government had treated the County Council of Dublin in a very wretched way since the establishment of the Local Government Act.

said that the hon. and learned Member for North Louth possessed, perhaps in a greater degree than any other Member of the House, the powers of persuasive speech, and he had a far more intimate knowledge than he could pretend to have of the debates on this question in 1898. He had stated quite truly that the Irish Members had done their best to get this Bill position of being left to the persuasive tongue of the hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the compact entered into when the parent Act was passed. His impression was that the hon. Member for Dublin County North argued on that occasion that the Clause ought to be omitted, and that the hon. Member for Dublin County North was wrong. In the division which took place, thirty-one Irish Members voted in the sense which the hon. Member argued and only eleven against it. He thought that that being the case, the hon. and learned Member was entitled to ask him to drop the Clause out of the Bill; and so, as he would sooner have the Bill than the Clause, he agreed to drop it.

proposed to move—

"In Clause 8, page 3, line 14, to leave out from 'in,' to 'which,' in line 15, and insert 'any Act.' "

said that this Amendment would add to the burden of the rates, and could not possibly be accepted.

said that the effect of the Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, would be to take away the limit of rating which now existed, and therefore it was out of order.

said that even if his Amendment were out of order, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a sympathetic consideration to his proposal and bring up some Amendment at a later stage.

Order, order! There is no Question before the House.

said that he could not accept the Amendment; but the Bill would have to be recommitted in respect of this Clause, and if the hon. and gallant Member liked to discuss the matter then, he would not object.

This Amendment comes under the same category as the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Clare, inasmuch as it proposes to enlarge the powers of rating.

proposed to move—

"In Clause 13, page 4, line 37, after '1900,' insert 'The Employers' Liability Act, 1880, and at Common Law.' "

That is open to the same objection. What is proposed by the Amendment is to enlarge the powers of rating.

asked whether ho might respectfully challenge Mr. Speaker's ruling on this matter. As he understood the Clause, it enabled the District Council to insure in cases arising out of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and his hon. friend simply desired to add "The Employers' Liability Act of 1880, and at Common Law," which was practically the same subject. This was, it was true, a matter affecting the local rates. It was to prevent the local rates being needlessly expended by a system of insurance. Though, for a moment, the rate might be increased by the amount of the insurance policy, yet, in the end, the rates might be saved by the amount of the insurance. He ventured to think that that raised rather a different issue.

It might be suggested that the purchase of a steam roller would be an economical proceeding, but it would still be a charge on the rates. The matter must be dealt with in Committee and not on the Report stage.

said it was a very important matter that the insurances should be effected. There were two other matters which also ought to be considered, and they would be prepared to pass the Bill before three o'clock if the Government would afford an opportunity of discussing them. There was not a great amount of business on the Paper, although, of course, their old friend the Uganda railway was entitled, he freely admitted, to a larger section of the time of the House than the Irish measure.

said he had no objection to the Bill being re-committed in respect of Clause 8, Clause 13, and the new Clause to be moved by the hon. Member for North Monaghan.

in the Chair.]

said that Clause 8 savoured too much of favouritism. There was an opinion, he did not himself say whether it was well-founded, that it was only a certain class of urban gentlemen in close touch with the Local Government Board who had been able to influence the Board with reference to those appointments. That was undoubtedly the feeling that prevailed. He confessed that the Clause had the appearance of class legislation, and he would therefore move to omit the Clause.

said he understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman would move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper.

said he was opposed to the Clause as a whole, as it threw an undue burden on the rates in favour of a particular class. His idea was that it should be a complete instead of being a partial Clause.

said he would appeal to his hon. and learned friend not to oppose this Clause, which was a very useful one, and would benefit a small number of officers.

said he would prefer to accept the Amendment of the hon, and learned Member for North Louth rather than omit the Clause.

said he had an Amendment on the Paper extending the Clause.

said he could not accept the Amendment of the hon, and gallant Gentleman.

said as he was under an obligation not to waste time, he would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, although he objected to the Clause as a whole. He would, therefore, move his Amendment instead of moving to omit the Clause.

moved the following new Clause:—

"In addition to the annual amount which may be contributed by the County Council or the Council of a County Borough to any county infirmary or fever hospital under sub-section 9 of section 15 of the principal Act, any County Council or Council of a County Borough may, if they think tit, contribute in any year the whole or any part of such further amount as may be certified by an auditor of the Local Government Board to be necessary to meet any deficiency in the funds of such infirmary or hospital during that year."

said he would accept the Clause.

drew the Attorney General's attention to the fact that infirmaries were not audited by the Local Government Board, but by local auditors.

pointed out that the Bill at the present moment was in a rather curious position. Many of the new Clauses put down during the Committee stage were not moved, upon the understanding that ample opportunity would be given to consider them on Report, and that proper notice should be given of when the Report stage would be taken. It was now being proceeded with at a time when only a section, although not an unimportant section, of the Irish Members were in the House. The Chief Secretary would bear him out when he said that in order to facilitate the progress of the Bill the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said, when this Bill was before the House on the Committee stage, that they would forego the moving of those Clauses then, in the hope that the Chief Secretary would afford them an ample opportunity of considering them on Report. As for taking the Report stage of the Bill at that time, no one knew better, than the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that the House was not competent to take it then. The fear of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was that, owing to the Education Bill and other matters then before the House, he would not get sufficient time to discuss this Bill, and it was with the hope that the Government would bring on the Report at such a tie that they could discuss these Clauses, that he took the action he did.

And that is the reason the Bill was put down as the first Order today.

said the Bill had been put down for today, and as it could hardly have been expected that the Irish Members would wait for a Bill of this kind when they did not know when it was coming on, when he found it would be taken he claimed on his own account that proper notice should be given to Irish Members, and if they were not here that was their affair, and not his. Further, knowing that no Member could move a new Clause on Report unless it was in his own name, he had taken the precaution of putting down several new Clauses in his own name in case it was desirable to move them, and Irish Members were not in their places to do so. He did not intend to discuss the Bill at all, but he thought it right to make that explanation.

thought that the hon. Member who had just sat down had behaved nobly; he had twenty three new Clauses on the Paper, and had not moved one of them, and he had entered into a generous defence, of absent Irish Members which would no doubt have great weight in their own country. He, personally, regarded the hon. Member as the most serviceable Member of the House, and compared him with the late Mr. Biggar, who was the most valuable, Member who ever sat in the House of Commons. They might, he thought, congratulate themselves on having got this Bill through. It was a Bill that was of exceptional value of Ireland, because it enabled members of County Councils to receive in regard to their travelling expenses a slight indemnity out of the rates, so that the whole question of County Government could now be considered under this Bill by a central county government authority in Dublin. If the Bill had contained nothing else he should have congratulated the Government upon it, because to that extent it had assimilated the law of Ireland with that of England. The omission of Clause 6 had repaid him for his journey across the Channel. He believed the Bill as a whole was a most useful measure, and reflected great credit on the wisdom of the Government. He only regretted the Government had not seen its way to allow the clergy to sit upon these bodies.

thought this Bill could not possibly have been brought under the special notice of the King. He hardly thought the law could have been explained to His Majesty, or he would have been astonished at any such Bill being introduced in his name. It was a Bill of a very objectionable character. It set out the matter as if this was a gift of the Osborne Estate to the nation. when it was perfectly obvious that the interest dealt with was mainly that of a person under age, whose consent could not be set forth in the Bill. So far as the King's right to deal with this estate was concerned, that was a life interest, and he (Mr. Caldwell) had no objection to the King's dealing with that on the terms mentioned in the Bill. This House was being asked, in order to complete a gift which it was not in the power of the King himself to make, to do two things which, he ventured to say, were most objectionable, and which might form very awkward precedents in the future. The first thing he alluded to was that this House was being asked, within a very short time after the death of a person, to lay aside the Will of that person without any change of circum stances to necessitate it, and for this every hon. Member of the House who did not protest would be responsible. He thought that was a dangerous precedent, and it was asking the House too much to pass a Bill giving effect to a precedent of that kind. They were asking the House to consent to the alteration of the Will of a person recently dead, who, if she had wished to leave her estate in this particular manner, had the most ample opportunity for doing so. They were also asked to give effect to the confiscation of the patrimonial rights of another person who was not in a position to give his consent to the change—that was to say, they were to break the entail of a property by Act of Parliament, at the instance of the tenant for life, and without any acknowledgment of the rights of the tenant in tail. These were, in his opinion, very dangerous precedents. These were very serious things for the House to do, for they would form precedents which might give rise to a good deal of future misgivings in regard to the safety of property so far as the House of Commons was concerned. The other point he wished to refer to was this: The only thing the public had got to do, so far as Osborne was concerned, was to bear the expense of the upkeep. A private estate of the nature of the Osborne Estate required an immense amount of money to keep it in repair, and practically had no commercial value. When the Act of 1872 was before the House the Queen was anxious to have her rights secured as regarded her private estates. Mr. Gladstone at that time referred to the Osborne Estate, and he said that the House need not object to the Queen keeping her private estates, and he argued that they ought to give facilities to the Crown to keep those estates as private estates, because if they ever came to put them on the Imperial Treasury it would mean a heavy burden to the ratepayers. What he objected to in this Bill was that the use of the Osborne Estate was to be limited to one particular class of the community. With the exception of the house, which was in the personal occupation of Her Majesty, the whole grounds, by the words of sub-Section 4, were to be retained as a memorial to Her Majesty, but the rest of the estate was to be set aside and used for the purpose of officers, both naval and military, and their wives and families. The buildings and the whole of the grounds were to be used for the benefit of these officers. They could not call that a gift to the nation. If the Osborne Estate was to be kept up at the public expense, he did not see why it should not have been left entirely to the management of the Crown, and he did not see why it should be restricted to officers naval and military. If they were going to make a sort of Chelsea Hospital at Osborne, why not make it eligible to others? When he looked at this supposed gift to the nation, he did not think it was a very generous one. It was only the gift of the King's life interest in it, but His Majesty did not want to occupy it personally, and to that extent only it was a gift. So far as he was concerned, he merely wished to enter a protest against Parliament being asked to sanction by this Bill two principles, firstly, that they should set aside the wishes of the Queen within two yeas of her death without any change of circumstances; and secondly, by this Bill they were confiscating the patrimonial rights and property of those who were not in a position to give their consent to the change.