GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL. SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS In favour, from Perth, Aberfeloy, In favour, from Bradford (2), HaliDundee, Reston, St. Abb, Nitshill, Glas- fax, Bushmills, Coxhoe, Shrewsbury, gow, Dunfermline, Aberdeen, Banchory, Colyton, Sidmouth, Hurworth-on-Tees, Gourdon, Dalbeattie, Renfrew, Edin- Loughborough, South Shields, Kirk burgh (3), Mary Street, Grand Lodge Langley, Bolam, Hawick, Sheffield, of Scotland Independent Order of Good Melton Mowbray, East London, GlastonTemplars, St. Andrews, Dumbarton, and bury, Ledbury, and Bradford Moor; to Airdrie; to lie upon the Table. lie upon the Table. SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 17th May; Mr. Dillon]; to lie In favour, from Bristol; to lie upon upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. the Table. 207.] DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 Copy presented, of Order, dated THE TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE. present Session for amending the Law relating to Local Government in Ireland." MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon): I think we ought to have some explanation of this Resolution, because it was placed on the Paper without, notice. I do not know if it has reference to the Bill we are discussing in Committee. THE CHIEF SECRETARY ΤΟ THE THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND SURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): E.) I have to give notice that at the Yes, Sir, it has reference to the Bill we commencement of public business to- are now discussing. morrow, I shall move the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule for the Irish Bill, as there is still a large amount of business to be got through before Whitsun. I trust that it will be found to be for the general convenience of Members on both sides of the House. MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What is its object? MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is to enable the Local Government Board to appoint Commissioners for the purposes of the Local Government Act. Question agreed to. Resolution to be reported to-morrow. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) (In the Committee.) CLAUSE 41. Question put "That clause 41 stand part of the Bill." Amendment proposed "Page 22, line 4, leave out sub-section (a)." Mr. Vesey Knox.) MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry): I venture to raise this question and press it on the attention of the Government. I believe it is one to which considerable importance is attached by all sections in Ireland. In drawing the line of exclusions under this section, the Government have drawn it too hard and fast, and considerable injustice may be caused in the poorer districts in Ireland, which are chiefly concerned. I do not say that the whole of Sub-section (a) is unreasonable. Some of these special charges may fairly be omitted, but I desire to dwell specially on the charges under the Tram- vantage from either the Great Northern ways and Public Companies Act, and the or the Midland, to both of whichRelief of Distress Act. Under the Tram- especially to the Great Northern-it acts ways Act of 1883, Parliament allowed as a valuable feeder. This railway is a railway guarantees to be imposed on heavy charge on Leitrim and Cavan, and some of the 'poorest districts in Ireland it furnishes a good example of how the in the most reckless fashion. When the proposals of the Government under this question came before Parliament whether Bill will work out. In the case of Leitrim the rich city of Manchester should be there will be paid out of the sum allowed to take on itself the liability of specially allocated half the cess over the Manchester Ship Canal, extending to sixpence. Leitrim will accordingly get about 1s. in the rates, it was considered some substantial relief, but Cavan will most carefully, and all its pros and cons practically get no relief. As a matter of were gone into with great care. But fact, although the charge is larger in Parliament has allowed poor districts in Leitrim than in Cavan, Leitrim gets more Ireland, possessing no representative for it. In the case of Leitrim the effect local authority to become subject to of the railway has been to facilitate the charges amounting in some districts to carriage of agricultural produce, and to five times the maximum charge which affect the price of stock; but Cavan, Manchester has had to undergo in con- being already fairly well served, got pracnection with the Manchester Ship Canal. tically no advantage. The result is that It may be said that the people of the Cavan will remain subject to this heavy districts in each case clamoured for a charge with no prospect whatever of rerailway, and asked that it should be lief. Now the injustice is increased by made. In most cases, probably, that is the fact that the rate of interest guarantrue. But they had no representative teed in the case of these railways is 5 authorities. Although they might have per cent., secured on the rates, which, signed petitions, they had no means of having regard to the security, is really going into the question in such a way an absurd guarantee. If Parliament had, as to feel a sense of the responsibility in 1883, instead of passing the Act it they were incurring. They did not know did, passed a Local Government Act for what they were doing; they acted Ireland, empowering the Irish local auwithout expert advice, and I do not thorities to issue stock, there is no doubt think it can be said that they ought to whatever that they would be able to raise be considered morally bound as against money, even as the market then was, at the Imperial Parliament by these charges, something like 3 per cent. Of course, or bound to the same extent as Parlia- they could raise it on very much better ment, which allowed the Act to pass terms now; but owing to the absurd and under which they were imposed. In inconvenient way Parliament arranged some cases these charges are enormous. the matter, the money could only be In Kerry, owing to an accident on one raised at 5 per cent., and I therefore say of the lines, as well as the cost of making that these charges are due to the finan it, that charge is a serious burden. On cial stupidity of Parliament in framing the Leitrim and Cavan Railway, into the Act of 1883. But this is not all. which at one time I inquired very care Since the passing of the Act of 1883 Parfully, there has been no accident, and liament has recognised how fatal was its nothing special to make the charge go mistake, and a most notable new deparup beyond the normal. In Leitrim it is ture in light railways was carried out by 18. 9d., and in Cavan 9d. in the £. the First Lord of the Treasury, who pracThe arrangement was made in tically abolished all these heavy guaransuch 8 form that the company tees for the cost of construction except gets practically no advantage from the some small guarantees, and guarantees big railways to which it acts as a valu- to secure the working of the railways in able feeder. The Board of Works allowed some cases. The First Lord of the Trea the arrangements to be carried out in sury and the honourable Member for Leeds, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, went on the wiser an extraordinary way that the Leitrim and Cavan Railway gets no ad COLONEL WARING (Down, N.): I appeal to the Chief Secretary to consider whether it is not possible, in some way principle of trying to get these light rail- | aroused deep feeling in the parts of Ireways worked by the big railways, and land affected. It is the worst of the thereby preventing any heavy liability abuses of Irish local taxation at the prefalling on the localities. The legislation sent time. But Parliament is responby which these charges were imposed sible, and I think the time has come when was merely foolish, but Parliament has Parliament ought to step in and relieve recognised that, and I think the time has the people, at least, to the extent of onecome in connection with this Act for haif, from the evil effects of a singularly Parliament to step in and relieve the badly designed Act of Parliament. localities to a large extent of the burdens thrown upon them. There are many ways in which this can be done. The Government has chosen only to relieve the liability in cases where it is over 6d. in the £. That would work very unfairly. Compare Clare with Kerry In the case of Kerry the railway guaran: tee was put on a small area, and it may be taken generally that the people who pay one guarantee do get some more or less direct benefit from the railway. In Clare the guarantee was spread over almost the entire county, and it falls, no doubt, not as severely on any one person, but it also falls on a number of people who practically never can use the railway at all. That is an illustration of the justice of the Chief Secretary's proposal. Kerry will get some relief, Clare will get none at all. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Oh, no. be or other, to meet this demand, if not in tary. MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.): I have a very strong argument in support of this Amendment. It is perfectly well understood by those acquainted with local government in Ireland that the construction of the light railways, guaranteed under the Act, has very materially reduced the maintenance charges on main roads on the districts through which they run. A leaflet, furnished by a conference of chairmen and deputy chairmen of light railways, shows that in one instance the contract for a road before the opening of a railway in the district was 4s. 9d., per perch; afterwards it was taken at 1s. 6d. a perch. In my own constituency there is a case similar to that referred to by the honourable and learned Member which illustrates the hardship of excluding these guarantees. I refer to the Kanturk and Newmarket railway, constructed on a guarantee given by the grand jury, for which the cesspayers And MR. KNOX: The relief will very small. There are very few districts in which the guarantee is much over 6d. in the £, and if any relief is given at all it must be very small. That illustrates the injustice and unsuitability of the Chief Secretary's proposal. In some of the districts in the west of Ireland the construction of railways was practically as necessary as the maintenance of reads, and I cannot see why the agricultural grant should apply to the cost of main roads and not apply to light rail ways. As a matter of fact, the railways relieved the road expenditure in many cases, and they were regarded as substitutes for roads to a large extent by the local authorities when they allowed them to be guaranteed. I have figures here which I need not read, with reference to are paying 10d. in the £. the Clogher Valley railway, which illusthere is general dissatisfactrates how this is. The result is that the tion because on the fringe of the construction of the railway has actually area selected there is a large class who decreased the amount of the agricultural pay nothing at all, although they are to grant. This is a matter which has have their county cess reduced. Then, Mr. Vesey Knox. way to make this concession. Otherwise a serious grievance will be perpetuated on a large number of cesspayers, and very great dissatisfaction will be occasioned. again, the analogy between the construc- | these railways were constructed. It is tion of light railways and main roads is an obvious grievance on cesspayers, and I perfect. They come before the present- do hope the Government will see their ment sessions, afterwards before the grand jury, who levy charges on the cesspayers without consultation, just as in the case of main roads. It will work out in this way, that certain cesspayers in certain districts will be relieved of half their rates and will have no guarantee to pay, while other cesspayers will be very dissatisfied at having to pay 10d. or 13. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In connection with light railways, and other charges which the Government are asked to sup port, in the first place, it must be remembered that in this grant we are following, in the £ for secula seculorum. There is no doubt that in the vast majority of cases so far as conveniently can be done, the the promoters came before the present- the English Act there is nothing_corre precedent of the English grant, and in ment sessions and gave the cesspayers sponding to this charge at all. In the to understand that the guarantee was second place, these railways must be more or less nominal, that the scheme would pay, and that they would not be carried on, more or less, in the nature regarded as having been started and called upon to contribute anything, and of commercial undertakings, and in that so on, but it has not turned out that way. respect they are different from roads. Very few light railways pay expenses, It is perfectly true that the promoters even those which deal with large traffic, sought assistance from the baronies, but such as the Cork and Blarney line. The assistance is also given by the Treasury. honourable and learned Member gave Sir, the honourable and learned Member some illustrations from his constituency; for Londonderry appears to think that I give one from mine-the Kanturk and because these lines have not turned out Newmarket line. If there is any fault in connection with it I must take some Parliament should bear the cost of as successful as was expected at the time share of the responsibility, for I myself the mistakes of the grand jury, but I worked very hard for the promoters am unable to take that view. I cannot 12 years ago in getting the Bill passed through its various stages, and I did so because everybody in the district was led to believe that the traffic would be so great, and the expenses so reasonable, that the guarantee would be merely nominal, or something very small, whereas, after 10 years' working, the cess- been incurred by the grand jury. But, payers in the parishes between Kanturk Sir, in estimating the value of these light and Newmarket have to pay 10d. in the railways to the localities, we must regard £, and others 5d. or 6d., in accordance these charges, in a certain sense, with the manner in which the charges improvement charges, and the honourare levied. That is a very great griev-able and learned Member for Londonance, because as I understand there is no likelihood of the cesspayers being relieved for a very long time to come. They must continue to pay this additional charge, whereas other cesspayers in the neighbourhood will have their rates very much reduced. Honourable Members who have large experience of grand juries will bear me out when I state that the maintenance charges on main roads have been very considerably reduced, because, owing to less traffic, they have been taken at very much lower prices than before see that anybody can complain, because what was believed by the grand jury would turn out to be a successful undertaking did not turn out successful; and I cannot understand why on that ground Parliament should take over upon its own shoulders the burdens which have derry and those who followed him can, I think, hardly have taken into consideration the benefit such railways are to the individual agriculturist and the facilities they offer him to reach the markets. Then, Sir, it is only fair to remember that a considerable number of these charges are of 2 temporary character. But even if these railways do not confer a benefit on the locality fully equivalent to the charges I still hold that they must be regarded, in some sense, as improvement charges. What |