insulted by its being supposed that if MR. T. D. SULLIVAN (Donegal, W.):

authorities.

I observe that there is a

penalty attached to any person who omits to perform any duty, make any return, give any information, or "do any other thing." This reminds me of the Coercion Acts of former years. I do not understand the phrase "doing any other thing." Where penalties are being im posed we should have some more definite phraseology than that contained in this clause which is now before the House.

some official omitted to make a return It seems to me that this clause is of a within a given time, or omitted for some very sweeping character. It puts extrareason or other to perform some trifling ordinary powers in the hands of the service, he should be subjected to be prosecuted before the petty sessions, and subjected furthermore to a fine not exceeding 40s., or, in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding 40s. a day during the continuance of the offence. Now, the unfortunate chaplain or the unfortunate medical officer might find himself fined to the extent of £100 for the most trifling thing. But I do not think the county councils would get any one to undertake the office of chaplain or the office of medical officer if this clause were to remain as it now stands. For that reason, and at the instance of the Irish Medical Association, I have put down this Amendment, though I was anticipated by the honourable and learned Member for St. Stephen's Green. I trust that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will accept it.

MR. DALY: The right honourable Gentleman who has just spoken says that he has moved his Amendment at the instigation of the Irish Medical Association. I put Amendments down at the instigation of nobody. If I put an Amendment on the Paper I put it down because I think it is right.

MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the Government are right in resisting the Amendment, but at the same time it seems to me to be a question whether the operation of the clause should not be confined to "wilful" neglect of duty. I am always interested to hear gentlemen say that a clause is a "good thing.” Nearly all the Acts that have been passed by this House have been "good things," but when they come to be administered in Ireland they become very bad things. I will tell you what will happen under this clause. There will be a prosecution at petty sessions; if a man is "true blue" the magistrates will let him off; if he is not he will be convicted. Practically, therefore, the operation of this clause

*MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I have not will depend solely upon the political colour such a good opinion of myself.

MR. DALY: I should be very sorry to say anything that would offend the right honourable Gentleman, but at the same time I think this is a very useful clause. Any person who does his duty need not fear it. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will stick to the clause, because, as I have said, I think it is one of the most useful clauses of the whole Bill.

MR. ATKINSON: This clause has been introduced mainly because all through the Bill several officers have been given duties to perform for bodies which neither appointed them nor were required to dismiss them. There need be no apprehension that persons will not be ready to take up these duties.

Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.

of the bench of magistrates having the execution of the clause. We all know you can never get a conviction against any gentleman of a particular colour in Ire land. I think it would be sufficient if the word "wilful" were inserted in the

clause, but it is entirely too strong as it is. I move as an Amendment the substitution of the word "wilfully."

MR. ATKINSON: I have no objection to insert the word wilfully" before the word "fail" in the clause.

of the Disestablished Church and Roman Catholic priests, but also the "regular ministers of any religious denomination." I very much doubt whether it is possible to define exactly what "regular minis ters" would be included under these words. I am told that in Ireland there are many of the Roman Catholic priests who would not themselves desire to be

*MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I confess | with any long speech. This sub-section that I am not at all satisfied with the is one that disqualifies not only the clergy Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. My objection to this clause will not be met by merely inserting the word "wilful." The Attorney General seems to think that if a medical officer or a chaplain is ordered to do some duty, and he disregards that duty, there would be no means of enforcing the performance of the duty. I apprehend that, upon either the chaplain or the medical officer refusing to obey the reasonable directions of the council who appointed him, that council would be at liberty to dismiss him, and that that would be better a way of punishing him for that dereliction of duty than the very contumacious way of summoning him before the petty sessions. What is to prevent the county council dismissing either the chaplain or the medical officer who has refused to obey reasonable orders? I submit that there is nothing.

The Amendment was negatived, and Mr. HEALY'S Amendment to insert "wilfully" before "fail" was agreed to.

Amendment proposed

"To insert the power of suing for the penalties to the county council or the Local Government Board.'"-(Dr. Clark.)

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.

elected as members of these local govern-
ing bodies; but, however that may be, I
object to the principle of this exclusion.
My view, I am bound to say, is that in
England the very best members that we
have at the present time of boards of
guardians and district councils, and in
some cases county councils, are clergy-
men, priests of the Roman Catholic
Church, and ministers of Nonconformist
bodies. I can speak of them from a rather
long experience of them as colleagues
on different local governing bodies.
view is that all these exclusions by law
are impossible to justify, and that, having
given an extended franchise, the eles-
torate should be trusted absolutely.

My

DR. RENTOUL (Down, E.): This subaction is clearly aimed at the priests of the Roman Catholic Church, although in terms it also excludes Nonconformist ministers. The Nonconformist ministers of Ireland take less part in

LAND: I cannot accept the Amendment. political matters than their colleagues in England do, but I fail to see why the same liberty should not be extended to Nonconformist ministers in Ireland as that which is enjoyed by their brethren in England and Scotland. The point, however, is that this sub-section could not possibly affect any large part of the Protestant clergymen in Ireland, and, therefore, it must be deliberately aimed.

CLAUSE 59.

Amendment proposed

Page 32, line 42, leave out sub-section 1." at the Roman Catholic priests. Why, (Sir C. Dilke.)

I ask, should you exclude from local *SIR C. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of government matters a particular body of Dean): The Amendment I rise to men who can exercise an enormous inmove that sub-section 1 be omitted fluence among the electors? If the clause -is one of very considerable impor- were so drawn that it simply prohibited tance, but there is no necessity I ministers of religion from any interventhink for my troubling the Committee tion whatever in elections, I could see

some reason in it; but it does not refer to that at all. It leaves them free to support any candidate they like, but they must not themselves sit as county or district councillors. I agree with the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean that ministers of various denominations make excellent and useful members of the English bodies, and there is no reason to doubt that that would be the experience in Ireland. It is very important that there should be nothing in this Act which will create friction, and I am convinced that nothing is better calculated to create friction than this exclusion. For these reasons I support the Amendment.

was that the priests of Ireland would not, to any great extent at all events, seek to be elected on these county and district councils. Undoubtedly they are very well qualified to look after th interests of the poor, but I feel certain that they will not be anxious for election on the councils. When the Govern ment, however, most unwisely, as I think, put the priests of Ireland into the same category as uncertificated bankrupts and men who have been sentenced for disgraceful crimes, we feel bound to protest against such a slur being cast upon them. True, the provision applies to ministers of all religious denominations, but I agree with the honourable and learned Member who has just sat down that the

MR. DILLON: The conduct of Roman sub-section is especially pointed at Catholic priests at Parliamentary elections is quite foreign to the issue we

Roman Catholic priests. Whether that be so or not, it is a very serious thing to lay down the proposition that because his rights as a citizen, and especially so a man is a minister of religion he forfeits when you are just establishing these new local governing bodies. What is the object of this exclusion? Believe me, no more foolish, fatuous idea ever entered into the mind of a statesman than to suppose that you are going to diminish the influence of ministers of religion in politics if they choose to enter into politics by imposing disabilities of this kind. It is not by becoming members of these bodies, or even by becoming members of this House, that ministers of religion exercise that influence in political matters which is thought by some to be undesirable. My conviction, therefore, is that if the Government have any such end in view they are making an egre.

have to deal with. The whole question is this-whether the Government can justify their position in departing in an exceedingly important matter from the law of England. Had it been proposed in this House to apply this principle in an Act extending to the whole kingdom the issue would have been still a debatable issue; but in this case the Government are departing from the principle of the English Acts, and that departure involves an insult of the grossest character to the Irish people. On the First Reading of the Bill the Chief Secretary, in dealing with this clause, said that he held the opinion that the election of ministers of religion to the county councils would not tend to economy of administration or the smooth working of the new bodies. That is the only justification that the Govern-gious mistake. If that is not the object, ment have so far advanced for this sub- what is it? The right honourable Gentlesection. The Government apparently from which I have quoted, spoke only man the Chief Secretary, in the speech were under the impression, at least one of county councils; he did not refer to so gathers from that statement, that this provision would be accepted, or at boards of guardians. He thought that any rate tacitly acquiesced in, by the economy would not be promoted by clergy in Ireland; but a fortnight or having ministers of religion on the three weeks ago, at a meeting of the county councils. On what ground does he base that? If the interests of economy Standing Committee of the Catholic demand the exclusion of ministers from Bishops of Ireland, a resolution was passed protesting against the proposal, interests of economy are to continue to the county councils, how is it that the although the resolution was prefaced by the statement that it was not likely, so be neglected in the case of boards of far as the committee could foresee, that guardians? And, again, take the case of clergymen would seek election on these the visiting committees for lunatic asybodies. My own view from the beginning | lums. At present those committees are Mr. Rentoul.

MR. DILLON: I said nothing of the kind.

MR. J. REDMOND: I have no desire Member said. I understood him to say to misrepresent what the honourable that if the influence of the clergy in Ireland were would not be here in this House to reprea paramount influence he sent that influence.

MR. DILLON: What I said was that

if I thought it was necessary to seek protection for the Irish people from their own priests I should wish not to be here.

MR. J. REDMOND: I quite accept that explanation of the honourable Gentle man's position. My own opinion is that from the point of view of the clergy themselves, and the mission they have before them in Ireland and in every country, it is unwise for them to take part in the public life of the country in the way they would have to do if they were members of these assemblies.

appointed by the grand juries, and almost the clergy of Ireland, and he disclaimed invariably include some ministers of any desire to sit in this House by means religion. Now, the powers of the grand of their overweening influence. juries are to be taken over by the county councils. Clause 9 of the Bill contains the provision that one-fourth of the members of the visiting committees may be "persons not members, of the council." How is it that the Government have now provided that no minister of religion shall be a member of these committees ? Sir, I think that this sub-section is put in by the Government without any sufficient justification. I object to it because it is an insult to a respected section of the Irish people, but it is more than that it is an insult to the whole people of Ireland. Why do you put this sub-section into the Bill? It is because you wish to proclaim to the world that we are a priest-ridden.people, and that we cannot conduct our local affairs unless we are protected against our own clergy. I repudiate with indignation that charge on behalf of the people of Ireland. If that view were correct, then you would indeed be justified in refusing us the claim we make to a Parliament of our own, and I for one would not be here in this House to ask for Home Rule. If I believed that to secure freedom of election we required your protection against our own clergy I would never appear in this House again. MR. J. REDMOND (Waterford): Be- said, I should have preferred taking no part in the discussion, but I felt that I fore the right honourable Gentleman could not give a silent vote in this replies I should like to trouble the Com-matter, seeing that I have spoken upon it mittee with a few observations, because in Ireland. I believe it to be in the inI think that after the speeches to which we have listened I ought not to content myself with a silent vote. In the first place, I am not impressed at all by the argument that has been based on what has been done in the English Bill. I think that is a fallacious argument. MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): These proposals are to be judged by I am going to oppose this provision in what is suited for Ireland, and not by the interest of the Protestant Church. I what is or is not right in an English Bill. It would be a great pleasure to me to be able to say nothing at all on this Bill, but I think that for me to take that course would be to act a cowardly part. It is my duty to state the views I entertain and the reasons why I propose to vote against the Amendment that has been proposed. The honourable Member for East Mayo spoke about the views of VOL. LVIII. [FOURTH SERIES.]

MR. DILLON: Let them say that for themselves.

MR. J. REDMOND: I do not wish to enter into any controversy. As I have

terest of the country, and of the smooth working of the new bodies that are to be set up, that the provision of this subsection should be maintained, and I shall therefore vote against the Amendment.

have a better right to speak about the interests of the Protestant Church in Ireland than any other Member of this House. I could not write my own name without remembering that I come from a Protestant family. I would not for any consideration support a clause of this kind, which is, I say, a deliberate insult to all the clerical cloth, and purposely meant to be. I see the right honourable T

Gentleman the Member for Dublin University dissents from that. He knows perfectly well that he is returned by a constituency three-fourths of whom are Protestants.

MR. LECKY: This sub-section does not propose to take away the franchise.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The honour able Member says that he can claim to speak on behalf of the Protestant clergy of Ireland.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am the son of one of them.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I am surprised at it. I think I know as much about the clergy of the Church of Ireland as the honourable Member for South Donegal, and I can say that they have no desire to be members of the county councils, and they do not consider the provision in this sub-section to cast the slightest slur upon them. I think I am in closer connection with the clergy of the Church of Ireland than the honourable Gentleman, and if they had thought that I am sure they would have let me know. The honourable Member referred to the fact that the bishops have seats in the House of Lords. That is true of the English bishops, but the Irish bishops have not.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I think Lord Plunkett had a seat in the House of Lords.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But it tells the people that they shall not elect a clergyman for the mere reason that he is a clergyman. It says that because a man is devoted to piety and religion he is unfit to have a place on a local government body. Now, if the right honourable Gentleman who is a philosopher-holds this view with regard to the clergy, why does he not turn his attention to the House of Lords; why does he not begin with the bishops? Why does he not go still further and disfranchise Dublin University altogether? Sir, not one argument has been addressed to the Committee to show that the clergy of Ireland are unfitted to serve on the councils. I do not say whether they would wish to be members of these bodies, but I do say that there are no persons more competent to represent the views and needs of their particular localities. From the COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I think the point of view of the Catholic clergy of Ireland, I think that this clause aimed at honourable Member fails to appreciate the them is one of the most malignant and enormous power that the Roman Cathobigoted creations that could possibly lio priests possess. They possess a power emanate from an English Government. over the consciences and the actions of I do not say that they in any way wish election to these bodies, but it would be a very great outrage to disqualify any of them who might desire election. There are remote districts in Ireland in which the Catholic clergyman is the administrator and the guardian of his parish. He really superintends the work of the parish, he is the protector and guide of the poor in a way that is almost inconceivable to people who do not know the country; and I ask, why should such a man be excluded from a seat on his local council if the electors see fit to place him there? I ask the right honourable Gentleman, why should a priest, because he is a priest, or a Protestant clergyman, because he is a Protestant clergyman, be excluded? All I can say is, this provision is most absurd and most unjust, and I trust it will be struck out of the Bill.

Mr. MacNeill.

the Irish people which no other clergy When you find that every altar in a possess in any other country in the world. Roman Catholic chapel is a political platform, when the people are directed to vote for a particular candidate under all sorts of pains and penalties, it is impossible to deny that the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland rightly or wrongly possess a power over the mind and conscience and actions of the people which no other ministry possess. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean says that in England clergymen make excellent members of boards of guardians, district councils, and county councils. I dare say that is so, but you might just as well draw an analogy in these matters between Eng land and China as between England and Ireland. I do not know that ministers