McEwan, William Power, Patrick Joseph Smith, Samuel (Flint) Steadman, William Charles Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) Wedderburn, Sir William Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Cohea, Benjamin Louis Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton) VOL. LVIII. NOES. Fisher, William Hayes Galloway, William Johnson Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans) Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down) Holland, Hon. Lionel R. [FOURTH SERIES.] L Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall) Martin, Richard Biddulph Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Robinson, Brooke Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm.) Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Saunderson, Col. Edw. James Original Amendment agreed to. MR. CLANCY: I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General whether he has considered the position of Dublin. I have referred him to the statutes by which Dublin granted certain rights. I trust the right honourable Gentleman will accept the Amendment I have put down upon this point. was *MR. ATKINSON: We shall be prepared to consider that later. The provision in this clause leaves the city of Dublin as at present. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm TELLERS FOR THE having been broken, the Government propose to make the rate apply as in this section. I do not intend to do more than make a protest against this undoubted breach of understanding on the part of the right honourable Gentleman. It may be that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds himself was not sufficiently long in office to have enabled him to carry out his pledge, but he was followed on two occasions by subsequent Chief Secretaries, and, whether they were Liberals or Conservatives, I protest against the failure to carry out this pledge. Now, I venture to say that, although compulsory education is sup MR. CLANCY: I will leave it to the posed to exist in Ireland, there are not sufficient schools for the children to go to, except the Christian Brothers schools, Government to draft a clause. Clause 46, as amended, added to the and the result is that you will have no Bill. Clause 47 added to the Bill. CLAUSE 48. schools for the children to go to. There is no compulsion on the Christian Brothers to take these children into their schools, and the Government promised, if we would allow the Education Bill of Motion made, and Question proposed- 1892 to go through, that they would "That clause 48 stand part of the Bill." make provision for the Christian Brothers. They have not done that. The Government are now curing one mistake or slip in the Act, but they are doing nothing whatever towards carrying out the pledge of the right honourable Gentleman the Menber for Leeds. Though I do not propose to divide the Committee on this clause, I will not allow it to pass without protest. When some honourable Gentlemen opposite demand that nobody should be allowed to vote unless he can read or write, you must remember that we have pressed again and again upon you the necessity of making adequate provision for teaching in our country, and that you, against the pledges of your Now, that pledge own Ministers, have refused to do so. MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to enter my protest against the breach of faith by the Government in not keeping the promise made to us by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds when the Irish Education Act of 1892 was being passed. A distinct pledge was given by the right honourable Gentleman a few days before the Government went out of office that if the Irish Members allowed the Act of 1892 to pass the Government would provide for the case of the Christian Brothers. That pledge has never been carried out. The Government promised at the time that they would give facilities to the Christian Brothers and give them a grant. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am | Government introducing the subject into not certain that this discussion is the Bill, and to state that we shall take altogether relevant to the Bill, but an early opportunity of raising this I cannot accept the accuracy of the statement made by the honourable and learned Member as to the pledges that were given either in the time of my predecessor or since. It will be remembered that two years ago I made the offer of legislation, which would have enabled the Christian Brothers to get assistance from the State, while allowing them to carry on their own system of education in their own way, but that offer was not accepted by honourable Members opposite. question. MR. VESEY KNOX: I venture to hope that the Chief Secretary will not consider that he has done all that it is necessary for him to do, as head of the Irish Administration, when he made that offer two years ago of 10s. a head to the Irish Voluntary schools. He must not forget that since that offer was made legislation has been enacted for England which has raised the grant to English Voluntary schools to a figure very much beyond what he proposes now for Ireland. I admit that the two things are not absolutely identical; but still, having regard to the difficulties of the two countries, case of the Voluntary schools in England, there is a grave similarity between the which have got four-fifths of their funds now supported by the State, and the Voluntary schools in Ireland, which get nothing at all from the State. It shows how different influences control a Conservative Government in dealing with English affairs and Irish affairs. THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND this clause. MR. VESEY KNOX: Of course, this *MR. DILLON: The right honourable Gentleman says that this discussion is not relevant to the Bill. Then why does he introduce into the Bill this most contentious subject? He will probably remember that it was attempted to be introduced into the House in two or three Sessions, and was abandoned on the opposition of the Irish Members. The right honourable Gentleman says that his proposal two years ago was not accepted by this side. Sir, that proposal was condemned by the unanimous resolution of the Irish Roman Catholic bishops as entirely unworthy of acceptance. Ithink MEANS: I do not think the honourable it was hardly candid for the right honour- Member's observations are relevant to able Gentleman to state that his proposal was not accepted by honourable Members on this side, when the fact is that it was dropped by him after it had been unani-matter is only relevant in this way: this mously condemned by by the Roman clause introduces something into Irish Catholic bishops. The truth is the education that has never been before. posal was preposterous. The amount of [No, no!"] Taking into consideration assistance offered was ludicrously inade- the Act of 1892, that is the effect of the quate, and they would have been worse clause. Compulsory education was only off than they were before, because the introduced into the towns of Ireland after result would have conveyed to the people we had received an explicit promise from a false impression that they were receiv- the right honourable Gentleman the Meming a large amount of assistance from the ber for Leeds, who was then Chief SecreGovernment. At all events, I desire to tary, that he would take steps to ensure join in the protest of the honourable and that the Christian Brothers should get learned Member for North Louth. This efficient financial assistance. The scheme is an extremely contentious subject, and was outlined between the right honourwere it not for the lateness of the hourable Gentleman and Mr. Sexton, and and the position in which this Bill is I there has never been any conflict as bethink the discussion of this sub-section would be continued for a very long time indeed. However, possibly our best course is to content ourselves for the present with a strong protest against the pro tween him and Mr. Sexton as to it, as I understand the Bill was allowed to go through on that understanding. But the fact remains that the Act, which this clause applies to the whole of Ireland, country as well as towns, was only allowed to go through in the case of the towns on a promise which has not been kept. There was an offer of 10s. a head. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Sir, I must ask your ruling as to whether the honourable Member is in order in discussing this point, especially in going into these details. THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I have already informed the honourable Member that I thought he was going beyond the clause. MR. VESEY KNOX: I have no wish, MR. M. HEALY: The Towns Sir, to transgress your ruling, and I will Improvement Act of 1888 is one of confine myself entirely to the situation the Acts capable of being adopted under this clause, and, as I understand, the in a case which might arise under this clause in one of the rural parts of Ireland people to decide whether that Act shall be adopted are to be the Parliamentary -I do not say that there are many cases -where the Christian Brothers have now electors, but when they have adopted their schools. The effect of this clause it, the people will be the town commiswill be in most rural places to apply com- sioners. It does seem to me that the pulsion. The effect will be in those people who are to decide whether the rural places to compel a new school to be Act is to be adopted should be Parliastarted, or else to compel the Christian mentary electors. At present you have Brothers to take in every child who pre- the same franchise to decide whether the sents himself. It will, therefore, increase Act shall be adopted which will destroy the expenses and obligations of the the franchise. I challenge the right society. They have taken upon them- honourable Gentleman to explain the selves voluntarily a heavy burden, and difference between the two franchises. the State will increase that burden by Now, what I point out to the right this clause. The Chief Secretary makes honourable Gentleman is that he has no reasonable proposal as to the State altered the law already in the towns. bearing any similar part of the cost to When we were dealing with an earlier that which it bears in similar cases in clause in this Bill, namely, clause 39, England. I therefore think we have great that clause only dealt with urban disground to protest against the way in trict councils. It was a clause changing which neither Party in the State has the incidence of the rates, and providing thought it their duty to carry into effect that, whereas at present the rates under the arrangement made when that Act £4 are paid by the landlords, they shall was passed into law. in future be paid by the occupier. In that clause the right honourable Gentleman deliberately altered the law, and the clause will in future apply to these towns having town commissioners, although they are not sanitary authorities. Now, as I understand it, he has altered the franchise, and he has altered incidence of the rates within urban areas, because he conceives that that ought to follow from the extension of the franchise. But he does not apparently think it at all necessary that a change in the franchise should follow from the alteration of the incidence of the rates. I ask Question put, and agreed to. CLAUSE 49. Amendment proposed "Page 27, line 32, after 'entitled,' insert"To vote at the election of commissioners under the Lighting of Towns (Ireland) Act. 1828, or the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or under any local Act or."(Mr. M. Healy.) Mr. Knox. the right honourable Gentleman, first of all, whether that is his intention; and, secondly, if he did not intend to make any change in the franchise in these towns, why did he make any change in the incidence of the rates? MR. TULLY: In the case of a borough that has town commissioners and wishes to become a rural district authority, will the rural district authority have the powers that the town commissioners have of lighting and paving? MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No; but as regards sanitary powers, those sanitary powers are not exercised by the town commissioners. We are practically dealing in this case with the power of the Local Government electors to secure the adoption of Acts of that description. MR. TULLY: There are a great many towns that might not wish to be urban sanitary authorities that might like to have their powers merged in the rural district councils. MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have an Amendment down on the Paper already that will meet that case. MR. TULLY: I think we are entitled to some better explanation of this clause. I think the right honourable Gentleman should explain more clearly what is intended by the clause. At present, under the Towns Improvement Act, people rated under £4 have a vote, and a number of people who live within five miles of the town and have a certain valuation in the town, have also a vote. That has operated very oppressively, because it enables people who have no connection with the towns to put themselves forward as candidates. In the previous clause the right honourable Gentleman made it imperative that the person elected for a town should be MR. T. M. HEALY: Let the House resident in the town. I would like to imagine what the position is going to know whether by this clause the right be. In all towns in Ireland, as I honourable Gentleman intends that understand it, which do not become people who live five miles away from the urban sanitary authorities, the proposed town, who are entitled under the Towns extension of the franchise will not Improvement Act, 1854, to vote and be elected, will be eligible for election as apply. This is the Bill which we were town commissioners under this clause. teld was going to give to Ireland subThen I would like to know whether he stantially the same measure of liberty intends that these town commissioners which is given in England and Scotland. who are elected on a £4 franchise should In England you have parish councils, the still be so elected. Why should the members of which are elected on the people who are rated under £4 be Parliamentary franchise; but in Ireland, deprived of votes? Why is the franchise while refusing those parish councils altoto be limited to people rated at £41 I gether, you absolutely refuse to give think the right honourable Gentleman the franchise to all towns that do not ought to make it clear to the House adopt the Act. We consider that that whether the franchise, as it will be con- ia falsifying the pledge given by the ferred by this clause, will be limited to First Lord of the Treasury, that substanpeople rated at £4, or whether it will tially the same liberty would be given be given to every Parliamentary elector. to Ireland as is enjoyed by England and Scotland. Let the House remember MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The town this: that the House of Commons in commissioners of these towns are really 1895 unanimously passed the Bill which outside this Bill altogether. There is I introduced, extending the franchise for no change of the franchise made by the all purposes and for all Irish towns, and Bill. But I admit that in this clause it was only because the House of Lords rejected it on the plea of want of time, there ought to be inserted the words, and forsooth-that that is not now the law I will move an Amendment presently of the land. The argument of the right to insert the words after the word honourable Gentleman is founded upon"Petition" in the second line, "For a what? He says we do not touch these provisional order or." towns by this Bill. But does it touch |