which the individual voter cannot pos- | MR. G. W. WOLFF (Belfast, E.): I sibly be acquainted with, so that there merely rise to say that until I saw the is this complicated process: First there Amendment of the honourable Gentleis the meeting of the council, then from man opposite I was not aware that it that you go to the whole constituency and issue a voting paper to every voter in would be necessary for county boroughs, the constituency, and that is not voting who wished to oppose a Bill, to obtain by ballot, but by open voting-a relic a vote from every one of their voters. of 1858. I quite concede that the Govern- It seems to me to be very absurd. ment are treating Ireland and England Hitherto in large boroughs we have been on the same lines, but there is a universal able to bring forward a Bill or to oppose outcry against this state of things. I a Bill without that cumbersome pro have in my hands a very elaborate re- cedure. port, prepared by English town clerks. of the Association of Municipal Corpora tions, and there is in that a very strong LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE protest against this system as applied (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): to England a system, as I have stated, We do not propose in this Bill to originally devised in the year 1858, when the conditions of municipal life were alter the existing law, but simply quite different from those which exist to leave it as it is. The Comnow. What I submit to the Government mittee will remember that this question is this: let them be content with the arose some time ago, and on that power which the Local Government Board occasion we undertook to consult can exercise in these matters. Before a the authorities in England, and to ascer borough council can incur costs in the tain whether they would be willing to promotion or opposition of a Bill it has see such changes as proposed by the got to get the sanction of the Locai honourable Member opposite in the Government Board. I think that is a English law. I took the precaution of satisfactory state of things, because there doing the same thing beforehand with is no doubt a tendency on the part of regard to this proposal. I must say that these bodies to embark in expensive the answers I have received are not litigation of this kind, when perhaps favourable to the Amendment. Such an it would be as well if they had not done Amendment could not, at all events as Any tendency of that kind will be it stands, in the opinion of the Local amply checked by the Local Government Government Board, be applied in the Board, and to compel а corpora- case of England. Under these circumition, which, after all, whatever its stances I think the Committee will see character may be, must know more of municipal affairs and of the management of a borough than the individual voter, to have a sort of referendum is an absurdity. The Government have most properly, in the case of county councils, provided that there should be no refereudum of this kind. The county council, under this Act, is to have a power of opposing a Bill in Parliament without going to the individual voter, and, of course, in counties that would be absolutely impossible, and what I want is that in the case of a county borough the same law should prevail, and that the check of the Local Government Board and the necessity for obtaining their consent should be considered sufficie Mr. M. Healy. that it will be impossible for us to tak the step of introducing it into this Bill, and I think the honourable Member himself will admit that if you were to do away with the Borough Funds Act, so far as regards the appeal to the ratepayersthe referendum-it will be necessary to substitute some other precaution in its place. I do not think that the mere inquiry of the Local Government Board will be sufficient. All that the Local Government Board has to do is to inquire into the merits of the scheme. MR. MAURICE HEALY: They do that at present. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: But the expenditure of money which may be in the promotion of the scheme matter in which the Local "The provisions of this Act relating to main roads, coroners, by-laws, or the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888, shall not apply." What does "shall not apply" refer to as far as the Borough Funds Act is concerned? It does not seem to me to be quite clear, and I should be glad to have it explained. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that the question of the honourable Gentleman is at all necessary, because the provisions of this Act, with respect to the Borough Funds Act, are those which are contained in sub-section 15— "The council of a county shall have the same powers of opposing Bills in Parliament, and of prosecuting and defending legal proceedings necessary for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of the county as are conferred on the governing body in any district by the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888; and that Act shall extend to a county council as if they were a governing body and the county were their district coun cil, provided that (a) no approval of voters shall be required for any proceedings under this section; and (b) this section shall not empower a county council to promote any Bill in Parliament or to incur or raise any expenses in relation thereto." *SIR JAMES T. WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield): This Amendment is one which the right honourable Gentleman has felt to be of importance in Ireland, and it raises a question of importance also to the municipal corporations of England, with which body I have the honour to be connected. That body has repeatedly pressed upon the Government that some Amendment should be made in the Borough Funds Act as applied to England. It is of equal importance that this opportunity ought not to be lost of making some Amendment in the law relating to Ireland as it affects Irish local government. I do not know whether the honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is aware that this law is extremely difficult to put effectively in operation. After the public meeting is held a plebiscite is taken of the voters, but a Bill that is promoted in Parliament refers very frequently to a large number of objects. Some of these objects the people but they are compelled to vote on the approve of, and some they disapprove of, whole Bill "Ave" or No." They have no power of saying, "We approve of parts one to three, and we disapprove of parts four to six." Now, I do venture to suggest that the right honourable Gentleman should afford to the Irish people that opportunity which English corporations have over and over again desired to obtain for England, and have brought Bills into this House to amend the exist ing law. I think some facility ought to be afforded of enabling voters to express -which they cannot do now-what is their real opinion at the poll, so that if a Bill relating to a town or city in Ireland covers a large number of objects embodied in one Bill in order to save expense, and the ratepayers approve of some portions of it and disapprove of others, they may have an opportunity of expressing their real opinions. I think the right honourable Gentleman might very well consider this suggestion with a view to amending the law. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The speech of the honourable Member affords the very strongest possible argument against the Amendment. We do not profess that the Borough Funds Act is perfect, but the speech shows the difficulties which are necessarily involved when this question comes to be considered. It is quite clear, from what the honourable Member has said, that any alteration in the law must necessarily include some device for taking the opinion of the ratepayers as regards particular parts of a Bill; it is, therefore, evidently a matter that cannot be settled by an Amendment. It would require an elaborate clause to provide for it. The Committee will observe that we are simply assimilating the law of Ireland to the law of England. If the subject is to be dealt with, let it be dealt with as a whole. dum of the citizens, is acting illegally, and they ought not to be at all repre sented on this Committee, which is, at this very moment making vital changes with reference to the harbour authority of the port of Dublin. There MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.): The may be something to be said from the right honourable Gentleman has spoken point of view of not allowing the Corporaas if this were solely the case of promottion to promote a Bill without having ing Bills. Now, I will give him a reason previously got the direct assent of the from his own Bill why this Amendment different question as to whether a corratepayers, but surely it is an entirely should be accepted. By this Bill the poration should not be able to oppose a corporations of Cork, Kilkenny, and Bill. Two years ago, without any referenWaterford are, for the first time, to come dum whatever to the taxpayers, the Corunder audit. To-day the council of Cork poration of Dublin secured the most can appear in this House and pass a Bill, valuable concession that has ever been and no auditor can check its action; ditto made to them from a public companythe Corporation of Waterford, and also namely, £10,000 a year for wayleaves the Corporation of Kilkenny. By this paid by the Dublin Tramway Company. Bill, the right honourable Gentleman That concession was obtained by Dublin places these three ancient corporations merely through opposing the Bill in Parunder a totally different system. Why, liament. Yet that action of the Corpora Sir, to show you the freedom which tion was illegal, and every penny exhitherto existed in these boroughs, the pended in this House in looking after the Cork council sent its mayor over to Rome interests of the Dublin Corporation, and to congratulate his Holiness upon his of the Dublin citizens, was illegal, jubilee! That was not in the least ob- because there was no referendum; and jected to by the local Protestant party, now the right honourable Gentleman and maybe that was a very proper exsays: You shan't come to this House. penditure of funds, but, at all events, IA Bill may be sprung upon you, clauses would say that promoting a Bill in Par- may be suddenly inserted-as we know liament affecting the interests of a franchise clauses have been frequently borough was rather a more relevant and inserted-but you cannot fee counsel or proper expenditure of the ratepayers' solicitors to look after your interests, money. What the right honourable because in the month of November you Gentleman proposes to do is this: for did not take a referendum. the first time these three boroughs are gest to the right honourable Gentleto come under audit, they will no longer man, that it is one thing to provide for have the power of coming to this House the promotion of a Bill; it is a wholly and being represented by counsel. What different thing to provide for the oppois happening now upstairs? A most tre- sition to a Bill. As I said, by its vigimendous struggle is going on as to lance in opposing the Tramways Bill, the whether the Dublin Corporation shall Dublin Corporation obtained £10,000 a have three members or seven, on the year, but, according to the right honourPort and Docks Board. The Corporation able Gentleman, Westminster is not far is there represented by counsel, and, enough off, and before the Dublin Coraccording to the statement of the right poration can come here, they must go honourable Gentleman, not having had to the trouble of asking 40,000 taxa referendum, they are acting illegally. payers, at a cost of some hundreds of So that it comes to this: that the Cor- pounds, in order to get a right to appear poration of Dublin, which is incurring before the Committee. I must say that I great expense in feeing English counsel am rather surprised that this "assimito look after its interests on the Port and lating the law of Ireland to the law of Docks Board, which interests are being England " is raised every time any attempt seriously threatened from her made to insert some useful Amendfailed to submit the question to Mr. Gerald Balfour. I sug Either it is, "This is the law of England, and you must have it," or grievance are clever able Gentleman's auditors honourable Gentleman. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I admit that there is a difference between opposing a Bill and promoting one, so far as the referendum is concerned, and I am prepared, without pledging myself, to consider the matter, and, if necessary, to bring up an Amendment on the Report. MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right honourable Gentleman will consider the desirability of amending the law with regard to the case of opposing Bills? MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes. MR. MAURICE HEALY: I thank the right honourable Gentleman, and will withdraw my Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. MR. P. A. M'HUGH (Leitrim, N.): Do I understand, Mr. Lowther, that you rule my Amendment out of order? Irish in connection with municipal boroughs. Let me mention a contrast which prevails in Cork City at present. There is 3 Board of Guardians consisting of over a hundred members, the quorum of which is three members. Three guardians can hold a legal meeting, and pass. resolutions binding on the whole board. In the Municipal Corporation of Cork, which has only 56 members, the quorum is a third of the members; that is to say, there must be at least 19 members of the Town Council to constitute a legal meeting. That is an absurd state of things. Three members can hold a legal meeting of a body consisting of over a hundred, legal meeting of a body of 56 members. while 19 members are necessary for a legal meeting of a body of 56 members. of course, nothing like a third, but if the In this House our quorum is 40, which is, quorum were to be the same as in the Cork Corporation it would require over Orders of Council issued under this Bill 200 Members to make a House. In the it is proposed to change the quorum in the case of urban sanitary authorities: not being county boroughs, which the right honourable Gentleman proposes to make a fourth. Of course, a fourth is better than a third, but I think it is too high for the county councils, as the members may have to come from the ends of the county, and it may not be possible to collect so large a number. The larger you make the body the smaller you must make the quorum. If you have a small body of nine or ten, it is reasonable enough that you should make the quorum a third or a fourth, because it only involves the attendance of three or four members; but in a body of 40 or 50 members you would require a small quorum, because it would mean a comparatively large attendance. I understand that the Royal Commission which reported on local government in Ireland in 1878 recommended that the quorum should be fixed at one-sixth. I think that when three out of a hundred members of a board of guardians can hold a legal meeting a sixth of a town council should have the power also. Of course, every member will have an opportunity of attending. The law, curiously enough, about borough councils is more stringent than about boards of guardians. Every member of a corporation gets notice of a meeting; no member of a board of Question put. guardians gets notice except for special apply—that is, that the power of dealing business, and every guardian must with malicious injuries is to be taken remember for himself the hour and day away from the corporations in Ireland. of the meeting. And yet, with that state of In a Bill dealing with local government, things, three guardians out of a hundred I think it is extremely inadvisable to can hold a legal meeting, whereas 19 out restrict the local government powers of 56 members of the corporation are already in existence, except in so far as required for that purpose. I do not may be necessary and useful. I think know whether the Government would this would be a mischievous change. think it convenient to make this change There has been no complaint as to the within the Bill, but either in the Bill or action taken by the corporations in this by Order of Council it ought to be dealt matter-certainly very few. The prowith. My present opinion is that a sixth cedure at present in Dublin and Cork, of the members would be a quorum large and in the other boroughs, is as follows. enough. I beg to move, Sir. The application, when made, comes before the corporation, and they decide it. They can decide as to the amount to be paid, and if they reject the application, the applicant has, I understand, the power of appealing to the Recorder of the borough. Surely that is protection enough, and why this power under a local government Bill. should be taken from the boroughs. I cannot understand. Unquestionably, the council of any borough is not only the proper but the very best tribunal to adjudicate on claims of this kind. They have local knowledge of the circumstances and the restriction of this kind should not be amount of the damage, and I think a included in the Bill. I beg to move. MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.): I beg to support the proposal of the honourable and learned Member, which is a very reasonable one, and which I hope the Government will accept. The only difference it will be necessary to make is that all members of the county councils shall have notice of the business to be brought forward, in order that if they do not attend the business need not stand still. Question put. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable and learned Member for Cork has based his Amendment on the contrast between a legal quorum of three out of a hundred guardians and a legal quorum of 19 out of 56 members of a town council. I quite agree that there is a great contrast, and as to this particular proposal I do not feel very strongly in the why we propose this addition is that, matter. I would suggest, however, that having, as regards counties, entirely as one-fourth is the legal quorum for changed the system of procedure as urban districts it should also apply to regards malicious injuries, and subcounty boroughs. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reason stituted a judicial procedure for what I think is a judicial matter, it is only reasonable we should make the procedure uniform, and apply it to boroughs as well. I think myself that this change will be a good one. The question of malicious injuries is eminently one for judicial decision. MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): If the ques tion of malicious injuries is eminently one for judicial decision, why is it not made so in England? Why is it not sent to a court of law? When this question was raised on clause 5, the answer of the right honourable Gentleman was that in Ireland it is well known and |