the Irish landlords is an essential part with whom he generally acts; and it of the question of local self-government should be clearly understood that that is for Ireland. Now, Sir, this is the chief not the case. The opposition to the Bill of the Session, I suppose there is financial part of this Bill does not come no denying that. And this, in our from the responsible Leaders of the opinion, is the most important portion of Opposition. If it does If it does come from the Bill. And yet we have the extra- the responsible Leaders or the Opposition, ordinary situation that the Minister in why are they not here? Sir, the question charge of the Bill has not even deigned raised by this Amendment is in all to concede the usual and invariable essentials one which has been raised courtesy of Members in charge of Bills many times over. The only difference by answering the reasonable expressions is this: that the honourable Member who of objections uttered from this side of the moved this Amendment, as I will show House on the subject. Sir, I think that in a very few words, has raised it in a is the most extraordinary position I have peculiarly absurd form. What is it that ever known any Government to take up, the honourable Member suggests? He and it will accentuate and deepen the suggests that the occupier shall be disgust with which this proposal is being entitled to deduct from the rent an received all over the country. That was amount in the pound equal to one-half what the right honourable Gentleman the poor rate and county cess for the said the other day, and since then, on financial year. What is it that the the recent occasions that this very pro- Government are doing? The Government posal has been before the country, the propose to relieve agricultural land of onecountry, so far as it has been consulted, half the poor rate and one-half the county has given no uncertain voice; and I say cess, and then the honourable Member that the refusal of the Government now actually puts on the Paper a proposition to explain what is meant by this proposi- for deducting from the rent due to the tion is deepening the feeling of dissatis- landlord the other half. What it comes faction and disgust which exists in the to is this: that at the very moment when country. the Government are proposing to throw the power in all matters of local adminis tration into the hands of the occupier, the honourable Member takes this moment to propose not only to relieve him of part of the cess, as we propose, but of the rates. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Sir, it would be interesting to know whether the honourable and learned Gentleman who has just spoken expresses the opinions of those who sit on the Front Bench opposite. The honourable and learned Gentleman did not, I think, hold in the late Government the position of a Cabinet Minister, and, so far as I am aware, not a single gentleman sitting on that bench, who was in the position of a Cabinet Minister, has got up and disputed. or opposed the central principle of this Bill-not one. I should like to know, for instance, whether the honourable and learned Member for Dundee represents the views of the Leader of the Opposition; I should like to know whether he represents the views of the right honourable Member for Montrose. No, Sir, the honourable and learned Gentleman speaks from that Front Opposition Dench, but he only represents a handful of Members of this House. It is useless, Sir, for the honourable Member to try to suggest that this part of the Bill is opposed by the honourable and right honourable Gentlemen Mr. E. Robertson. *MR. MCKENNA: The right honourable Gentleman is most extraordinarily unfair. Sir, my Amendment comes in after the beginning of the clause by which the rates are for the first time put upon the occupier. I accept those words, and it is only as a proviso to that new provision which throws upon the occupier a burden he had not borne before that I wish to allow him to deduct the whole amount from the rent. That, under "roper conditions, is in accordance with the provisions adopted by the right honourable Gentleman himself in clause 74. right honourable Gentleman is wrong when he says that this proposal is almost identical with one that has been before the House or the Committee on a previous occasion. It has never been before the House, and it has never been before the Committee. Every preceding The proposition we have had has been to | Well, Sir, I have never obstructed busireduce the amount of the grant from the ness in this House, and I am not going British Exchequer by one-half, and I to discuss this Amendment now, because do appeal to the Committee to see that it has been replied to by the right the money paid by British taxpayers honourable Gentleman. But I should should be used to relieve the distress of advise him, in the interests of this Bill, the tenants, and not go into the pockets not to accept as a leader my honourable of the landlords. and learned Friend behind me; and I would also advise my honourable and learned Friend behind me not to arrogate to himself the Leadership, not only of the Government, but of this House, in this matter, if he wants this Bill to be carried through. He had better allow English Members and other Members from the United Kingdom, who are vitally interested in this matter, and whose constituents are vitally interested in it, without any lecturing on his part, to take a reasonable part in these discussions. MR. S. T. EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid): Sir, I have attended the sittings of this Committee pretty regularly from the first, but I have not up to this moment taken any part in the discussion. I do desire, however, before we go to a Division, to enter a word of protest against the conduct of the right honourable Gentle man the Chief Secretary, and against the remarks of my honourable Friend behind me, with whom on most matters we are delighted to agree. Sir, a great deal of the time of the Committee might have been saved if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary had condescended to get up to reply to my honourable Friend below me, who made a most excellent speech in favour of his proposal, and it is now clearly established to the Committee, first of all, that this is not an Amendment which has been properly discussed before; and, next, that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secre tary for Ireland has not taken the trouble to appreciate the Amendment. Now, Sir, I protest against the doctrine apparently held by the right honourable Gentleman that we upon this side of the House, especially if we happen to sit below what is called the Gangway, however reasonable are the speeches we may make, or however reasonable are the proposals underlying our Amendments, are not even to have the condescension of a reply unless some right honourable Gentleman on the Front Bench on this side of the House asks for it. Now, Sir, we believe very strongly in our Leaders, both exCabinet Ministers and ex-Ministers who have not been in the Cabinet. But the doctrine propounded almost for the first time to-night by the right honourable Gentleman is that unless you are an ex-Minister you are not entitled to a reply at all; and, indeed, it is very doubt ful whether you are entitled to a reply unless you are an ex-Cabinet Minister. MR. LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough): Sir, I do not intend to speak very long, but I do wish to enter my protest against being lectured by the honourable and learned Member for Louth, because,. having conscientiously taken an objection to this money being paid under this Bill into the pockets of the Irish landlords, we have raised a protest. I listened to the speech of the honourable Member for Louth, and his anxiety to close this discussion at once led me to believe that he was rather afraid of what the result of the discussion might be. I think there is a great deal of truth in my impression, because I feel sure that the honourable Member's supporters in Ireland will fail to understand his action in this matter. What is the proposal before the Committee? The proposal before the Committee is, Sir, that this large sum of money, which is to be found principally, not only by the poor people in England and in Scotland and in Wales, but also by the poor people in Ireland, who will have to pay their share of it-that this money which is to be found, as I say, by the poorest portions of the community in England and Ireland, because the poorer a man is in these countries the larger is the share of the taxation he pays in proportion to his income-is to be paid over direct to the landlords of Ireland. My honourable Friend the mover of this Amendment simply asks . that the money proposed to be given to the landlords should be paid to the poorest people in the world, the Irish peasantry. I need only say this, that, after the few years that I have been in this House, I am certain that I am not exaggerating when I say that honourable Members opposite, whenever they held as strong objections as we do to the proposition before the Committee, would not have been satisfied with making one or two speeches as we have done, but would have kept this Committee sitting for days and days whilst they were protesting against what they considered to be unjust. Speaking for myself, I believe this to be one of the most unjust proposals ever made in the British House of Commons. If I followed the example set us over and over again to-night by right honourable Gentlemen and by honourable Gentlemen opposite, I should take up the time of the Committee in explaining the kind of people to whom this money is to be given. Who is answerable for the condition of Ireland? The Irish landlord. And what does this clause propose to do, Sir? It proposes to shift from the shoulders of the Irish landlords the first charge upon any land which is for the maintenance of the poor people. If there is any such charge, it should be maintained for ever upon the land. It is that charge which provides for the maintenance of the poor people; and, Sir, I am speaking now on behalf of the poorest community in the world, the Irish peasantry. That they are in the condition in which they are at the present moment is largely due to the landlords of Ireland. The fact is written 66 large and plain upon the history of this country. They have depopulated the country, until to-day it can be said of Ireland, what cannot be said of any other country in the civilised world-namely, that the population has greatly decreased and is decreasing. France!" says an honourable Member, but in France the population is stationary, because the people are well-to-do. But, Sir, the condition of Ireland is a disgrace to this country. The Irish landlords are mainly responsible for that, and it is on that account that I for one shall protest to the end against this money being paid over to them. The Amendment of my honourable Friend suggests that if this money is to be sent to Ireland it should be sent to relieve the necessities of the poorest people there. Sir, in the name of the poor people who have sent me here, who will contribute a much larger share in proportion to their income than the share of the honourable Member on the other side who interrupts me behalf of those poor people I protest against either the Government or the Irish Members suggesting that we have no right in this House to protest against this iniquitous squandering of the taxpayers' money in this country, and loading the shoulders of the poorest people in this country with taxation which, in days to come, they will find it exceedingly difficult to bear. Question put. on The Committee divided:-Ayes 78; Noes 251.-(Division List No. 103.) Chelsea, Viscount Clancy, John Joseph Clare, Octavius Leigh Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Coghill, Douglas Harry Cohen, Benjamin Louis Collery, Bernard Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole Commins, Andrew Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth) Cranborne, Viscount Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Davenport, W. Bromley- Dickson-Poynder, Doogan, P. C. Sir J. P. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Gedge, Sydney Gull, Sir Cameron Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Heaton, John Henniker Howell, William Tudor King, Sir Henry Seymour Knox, Edmund F. Vesey Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John Macartney, W. G. Ellison Manners, Lord Edward W. J. O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) O'Neill, Hon. Robert T. Pender, James Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Pym, C. Guy Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) Sharpe, William Edward T. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley TELLERS FOR THE AYES- Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Cameron, Robert (Durham) Condon, Thomas Joseph Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Ellis, T. E. (Merionethsh.) Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. 66 66 Amendment proposed NOES. Holden, Sir Angus Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Leuty, Thomas Richmond Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Norton, Capt. C. W. Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) 'Page 20, line 25, after 'rate,' insert'Except so much thereof as is raised as a separate item in respect of the excluded charges hereinafter mentioned."(Mr. Hemphill.) *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Mr. Lowther, the Amendment which I now beg to move appears to me to be a very important one. It involves a different principle from that on which the Committee has just divided, and I may at once say that in moving this Amendment I speak only for myself. I was not a Cabinet Minister in the late Government, and I do not understand that there is in this House any distinction between Cabinet Ministers and exCabinet Ministers. Price, Robert John Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES- excluded charges hereinafter mentioned, and any contract to the contrary respecting such deduction shall be void," etc. Now that, of course, does not at all trench on the principle which the Committee have adopted. They have adopted this principle, that the tenant is not entitled to deduct any portion of the rate in respect of such of that rate on the agricultural land as in covered by the agricultural grant in this Bill; but you are aware, Mr. Lowther, that under Section 40 there are a very great number of charges excluded, which will not be covered at all by the agricultural grant. Those charges are the expenses in relation to additional constabulary, which in some counties amounts to a very serious sum. A large grant is made from the Consolidated Fund to pay for the constabulary of Ireland generally; but where in certain counties, from the condition of the counties, additional constabulary is necessary beyond a certain limit, that is provided for out of the county rate, but is not covered by the agricultural grant. Another charge not covered by the agricultural grant is compensation for criminal injuries for all the malicious injuries to property, such as the burning of haystacks, houses, etc., |