ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

during the Debates on the English Bill. | this Measure being introduced. Then, It was then said, in numerous speeches, in May, 1897, my honourable Friend "Deal with the towns," "Deal with wide himself voted in favour of the grant national interests." In Ireland we are being extended to Ireland.

be

*MR. MCKENNA: I must point out to the honourable Member that I am now

supporting an Amendment limiting the grant to five years as in the English Act. *MR. LOUGH: My honourable Friend also dealt with the amount the landlords will get under the Bill, and he raised

ago ment.

now dealing with a great national interest. We are also applying identity of principle, because we are paying half the rates, as in Great Britain. Now I come to the question of time. The Amend ment is that we shall put in some limit, as in the English Bill. This is really the point we have to discuss, and if the Committee will give it some thought they will see there is no case made out for its adop-every question that could be raised against tion. Suppose you did embody this the grant, and my answer is that he Amendment, the grant would not expire himself has voted with the Liberal Party for two years after the English grant for the extension of the grant to Ireland. would terminate that is, if the English For the reasons already given, and also grant terminates. Does anybody suppose the reasons given on the Government it will terminate? There is not the Benches, I think the matter will not bear slightest chance of it. The course likely examination, and I hope that those to be pursued is that some principle will gentlemen who voted in favour of the be adopted with regard to local rates in Government taking this course a year towns, and that an equivalent will will not vote against this Amendmade. If, by chance, any change were made in the law with regard to England MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon): there would be plenty of time after that The honourable Member complains that to make any change in the law with the honourable Member for Monmouth regard to Ireland that might be conconfined himself to the narrow issue of sidered necessary. Apart from the question of time, I think we must also take five years. I think it would be hard into account that our system of taxation on the honourable Member himself to at present is based on the maintenance ask him to confine his attention to the of these grants. We raise something question before the House; but as a like eight or ten millions a year more than we want, and we give it back in these large local grants, and the Committee will see that if the collection of these large grants ceased and a new principle were adopted it would be such a change in the system of the country that we might then very well consider what changes it was necessary to make in any part of the United Kingdom. I think it much more likely that this system of grants will be extended so that any industry neglected up to the present may be included rather than *MR. LOUGH: That is quite untrue, that the grants themselves should be Sir. I do not own any land in Ireland. abandoned. Now, to deal with the I think the suggestion should not be narrow question before us, I think the made. Committee will not have any difficulty

matter of fact the real question raised by the Amendment was not the merits or demerits of making a grant of £750,000, either to Irish landlords or to Irish tenants, but whether that grant was to be confined to five years. That is the whole question at issue. The honourable Member for Islington is one of those who opposed the grant to English landlords and tenants, but I now understand he is an Irish landlord himself, and consequently that rather alters the case.

in deciding it. This is the third dis- MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am very sorry cussion we have had on this question. to hear that my honourable Friend is not The first was in May, 1896, when an Irish landlord, because he will not the Liberal Party-except 16 or 17 get any part of the money provided by Members who did not fully under- the Bill, but as a tenant I believe he may stand the question-voted in favour of benefit.

*MR. LOUGH: No, Sir; I am not a land and Wales that we will consider tenant.

the readjustment of the grant, giving a fairer share to the towns, when we are paying half the burden of taxation for the landlords in Ireland. If we are to have identical treatment now it must be fair identical treatment. If you treat Ireland as well as Britain you must treat Britain as well as Ireland. If you give a different distribution, as between own and country, you must do the same for Ireland as for Great Britain That is one of the reasons why I will vote for the Amendment. Then there is another reason. I think the electors of this country ought to have an oppor

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My honourable Friend supported the Amendment in favour of confining the English grant to five years on the same ground that we now support the Amendment limiting the Irish grant. It is all a question of identical treatment. Other honourable Members are not gifted with the same intelligent comprehension as my honourable Friend. He says they do not understand the question properly, but I think he does not understand it himself. My honourable Friend supported an Amendment in favour of limiting the grant totunity of expressing an opinion on this England; why should he be in favour of making the grant permanent in Ire land? It is not a question of making a grant to Ireland, but whether it is or is not to be a permanent grant. A Royal Commission is at present considering the question of taxation.

grant. I have no doubt whatever it will be one of the questions on which at the next general election. I do not the country will have to express an opinion think the Government ought to ask the Committee to make this grant perma nent. It would be prejudging the issue It is not a ques-and depriving the electors of an oppor tunity of readjusting the distribution of the grant.

tion whether you are about to withdraw a subvention to taxation in England, but the whole question is whether taxation is at present properly adjusted as between town and country. Why should not the same question be considered with regard to Ireland? I do not suppose that any Party in this House would at any future time propose that this sum should be withdrawn from Ireland, but I think it should be open to the House of Commons, or to a Home Rule Parliament, as the case may be, to consider whether towns in Ireland should not get a share in the distribution of this sum. I object from the British point of view to the grant being made permanent. The grant was made to England and Scotland for a terminable period, in order to afford an opportunity to the Government of the day, be it Liberal or Unionist, to consider whether some fresh arrangement should not be made in connection with local taxation. The Commissioners have already discovered that the burden of taxation is now very heavy in the towns, and nobody who read the Report can avoid coming to the conclusion that no Government can possibly avoid facing that issue. If we make this grant permanent we shall be absolutely prejudging the British case for reconsideration. We cannot say to Eng

[blocks in formation]

creating a new system of local government in Ireland, and as an essential condition of the change, we are altering the system of taxation in connection with the agricultural grant. If the agricul

tural grant were to be a temporary grant the basis of our entire scheme would be rendered absolutely unsafe. What would the representatives of the grand jury class, who have accepted this Bill, say of the action of the Government if we were now to insert a provision of this sort, the result of which would be that all the arrangements which we have carefully provided for the protection of the large cesspayers should automatically come to an end? The matter is really too clear for argument. It might have been urged as an objection to our entire scheme, but the House decided that point when it passed the Second Reading, and I think it is wasting the time of the Committee to continue the discussion. I earnestly ask the Committee to come to a decision.

.

*MR. DAVITT (Mayo, S.): It is obvious | and then institute an inquiry as to that this money will be granted, but whether that system is right or wrong, why should it be necessary in giving and as to whether the system of local county government to Ireland to give a taxation is or is not fair? Either this perpetual subsidy to Irish landlords? Commission is a fraud or it is not. If The honourable Member for Islington is not a fraud, then, Sir, let this grant said he supported this clause, because the money would go to the benefit of a wide national interest in Ireland. Possibly he will agree with me that I am in a position to form as good an opinion as to what has a wide national interest as he is. My conception of it is that relief or assistance should not be given to one particular industry or interest, but to all the industries of the country, including the linen and woollen industries, the fishing industry, and the mechanics and artisans. Can my honourable Friend tell me of any of these classes which will be one penny the better when this Bill becomes law?

*MR. LOUGH: I think all of them will.

*MR. DAVITT: This proposal is supposed to be of national interest, but it is anti-national, and that is why I shall not support it.

MR. D. H. COGHILL (Stoke-uponTrent): I do not think that honourable Members quite realise that this grant was to be perpetual, for I understood that Ireland was to be treated in the same manner as England and Scotland. I certainly do not feel inclined to vote for this grant being given to Ireland as proposed, because in case the question comes up for reconsideration at the end of five years in England it would be obstacle in the way of impartially considering the question when it comes before the House of Commons again.

an

MR. G. LAMBERT (Devon, South Molton): I am glad to notice that the arguments of the Chief Secretary have been sufficient to convince one at least of the supporters of the Government that this proposal is absolutely wrong, and that he intends supporting the Amendment. I asked the Leader of the House if the Royal Commission would visit Ireland and report upon it, and he said it would. I want to know, if the Government are going to make this large permanent grant, why do they do this

be for five years, and then we shall know perfectly well whether the Government intend to pay any attention to the findings of the Royal Commission. If they do not do this what is the good of appointing a Commission to inquire into a state of affairs which you intend to make permanent in Ireland? It does seem to be putting the Commission to a great deal of inconvenience to visit Ireland if the Government have already settled the matter. It is for this reason that you should have identical treatment—although I am not so sure that identical treatment is so necessary in Ireland as in England -that I shall support the Amendment, because the Government have appointed a Commission to inquire into local taxation in Ireland, and they ought not to prejudge the matter before that Commission has reported.

We have

MR. J. C. FLYNN (Cork, N.): In putting in this clause it has been so altered that there are practically the proposals of three Bills in one. been entitled to this Measure of local government ever since the declaration of the Leader of the Conservative Party, twelve years ago; but honourable Gentlemen above the Gangway will have to recognise at the same time that a change of this kind has been made by which the whole superstructure of the county councils has been altered. Why, the whole thing is useless. The Government, in my opinion, should have brought in a Bill giving Ireland local self-government for her own affairs, as in England and Scot land, without any consideration of this kind.

MR. G. WHITELEY (Stockport): Although some honourable Members may agree with the Chief Secretary that the Government could not possibly accept this Amendment, I certainly cannot agree with him at all when he states that all those who voted for the Second Reading of this Bill are bound by the principle

You

Ι

we

of these financial clauses. That is quite a | the landlords in the last year. new doctrine which has been sprung upon would then safeguard the interests of the the House, that if you accept a Second landlords, and prevent taxation being Reading of a Measure you must accept heaped upon them, and if that were all its primary clauses. I need hardly done they would be placed in a position say that I shall support the Amendment identical with those in England. of my honourable Friend, because I am believe all sections would agree with opposed in toto to these grants in aid of that. I am very sorry to oppose the any particular industry. Now, what is Government on this question, but I have the position? Owing to the opposition opposed consistently and honestly these of certain Members representing urban grants whenever they have come before constituencies, the clause in the English this House. I am extremely sorry, but Act was limited to five years, and that I must remind the right honourable was done because it was thought to be Gentleman that many of us obtained our an injustice to all the ratepayers of this seats at the last general election upon country to make a permanent grant to our pledges with regard to poor law any section of the ratepayers of this relief, old age pensions, and other country. Although the Government have measures, and I feel that I should be made this proposal for five years, they "diddling" my constituency by supporting have appointed a Commission to inquire this clause. This money will go, if into the whole subject of taxation, and accepted by the House of Commons, in make a Report to Parliament. But the interests of one section of the ratenotwithstanding that fact-notwithstand- payers without benefiting the working ing that the arguments in favour of deferring this question are as powerful and potent to-day as they were two years ago-it is now proposed by the Government to make a permanent grant to the landlords in Ireland, which can never be withdrawn. I believe that is a mistaken step. The interests of urban and rural ratepayers are conflicting, and I believe with my honourable Friend who has just spoken that by this proposal you are entirely prejudging the matter, and you will prejudice it against urban ratepayers if you make an irrevocable grant to any one section of the community, for by doing that you are tying the hands of the Committee. One can imagine members of the Commission asking what is the use of us sitting inquiring as to how this grant should be made when practically it has been agreed upon and disposed of? By this proposition you are practically cutting the ground from under the feet of the Commission, and also injuring the interests of the general community. The Chief Secretary has said that the permanence of this grant is one of its essential conditions, but I cannot agree with that at all. It seems to me that the maximum amount of the rates payable should be the rates payable by Mr. G. Whiteley.

classes of this country. I regret this
very much, and this is the last time I
shall speak upon this question in the
House. I feel myself actually pledged
upon this question, and I think
should face the country with a better
grace and more confidence if we had
acted up to the professions we made at
We ought to have
the last election.
done that instead of distributing the
first money which came into our pockets
among one particular section of the rate
payers in the manner proposed in this

section.

*MR. MENDL (Plymouth): I hope that the Government, after the opinions which have been expressed by two Members on the other side, will be disposed to reconsider this question. We have heard expressed the views of two Members, both representing important boroughs, with regard to this clause. I really cannot see that there has been any ground put forward by the Chief Secretary in support of this clause, except that the members of the grand jury class in Ireland would not be inclined to accept this Bill unless this were made a perpetual clause. However that may be, it is not at all in the interests of the community generally that this grant

should be made perpetual, and I can conceive no better electioneering cry than that of endowing in perpetuity the Irish landlords under this Bill. But on the ground of identity of treatment, which the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary pleaded for in introducing the financial provisions of this Bill, I cannot conceive what reason there is for giving a perpetual grant to Irish landlords which was not given to the English landlords. I have no feeling against Irish landlords, but I think, of the two classes, English landlords are more entitled to consideration. I am surprised to hear my honourable Friend the Member for Islington suggest that, because at the end of five years, the English grant will be made permanent, we should male this permanent now. I think, when it is proposed to make this clause

will have something to say upon it. I do not think it will be suggested that there are any special circumstances that would justify the Government, or make it necessary, that this grant should be made permanent. My honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo has spoken. frankly with regard to blackmailing, but I think that he will find, as a great many other people have found, that the very worst way to deal with a blackmailer is to pay him what he asks for. The House should retain control over these grants, to enable it to deal with. the whole matter when the Report of the Commission has been received.

Question put

"That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:-Ayes 107;

permanent in the English Act, some of us Noes 258.-(Division List No. 98.)

Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)
Allison, Robert Andrew

Asher, Alexander

Ashton, Thomas Gair
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)
Barlow, John Emmott
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.
Billson, Alfred
Birrell, Augustine
Brigg, John

Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn
Burt, Thomas
Caldwell, James

Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)
Cameron, Robert (Durham)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Channing, Francis Allston
Coghill, Douglas Harry
Colville, John

Crombie, John William
Cross, Alex. (Glasgow)

Doughty, George

[blocks in formation]

AYES.

Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.
Holburn, J. G.
Holden, Sir Angus
Horniman, Frederick John
Humphreys-Owen, A. C.
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Jacoby, James Alfred
Joicey, Sir James
Jones, D. B. (Swansea)
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)
Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHnSirU.
Kearley, Hudson E.

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth
Kitson, Sir James
Lambert, George

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)
Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Leng, Sir John

Lewis, John Herbert
Lloyd-George, David
Logan, John William
Lyell, Sir Leonard
McEwan, William
McKenna, Reginald
Maddison, Fred.
Maden, John Henry

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)
Nussey, Thomas Willans
Owen, Thomas

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)
Paulton, James Mellor
Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)
Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)
Perks, Robert William
Philipps, John Wynford

Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Price, Robert John
Reckitt, Harold James
Richardson, J. (Durham)
Rickett, J. Compton
Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Robson, William Snowdon
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)
Shaw, Thos. (Hawick B.)
Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Souttar, Robinson
Spicer, Albert

Steadman, William Charles
Stevenson, Francis S.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen)
Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)
Ure, Alexander

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Wayman, Thomas

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)
Wills, Sir William Henry
Wilson, Charles H. (Hull)
Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)
Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.)
Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Wilson, John (Govan)
Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'ld)
Yoxall, James Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES-
Mr. Strachey and Mr.
Mendl.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »