The argument so often and so plausibly presented in favour of Home Rule,
which urges that the Imperial Parliament is overburdened with local
affairs, contains an element of truth. It would, however, be more in
accordance with the facts to put the case the other way round: for
localities are much more seriously inconvenienced in certain respects by
the necessity of referring local business to the Imperial Parliament,
than the Imperial Parliament is inconvenienced by the transaction of
such business, which, if we are to believe the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, it neglects (vide _Nash's Magazine_, February, 1912). At the
same time, to affirm that, in order to remedy what is no more than a
defect in administration, it is necessary to overturn the British
Constitution, and to build on its ruins four semi-independent
Legislatures and one supreme Parliament, is merely to exemplify the
cynical imposture of partisan misrepresentation: what Mr. Balfour
described as "the dream of political idiots."
There is no impartial person who does not clearly recognise that to
constitute a separate Parliament for Ireland (to say nothing of England,
Wales, and Scotland) must necessarily result, not in the more efficient
despatch of legislative and administrative business, but in perpetual
friction, clogging the mechanism alike of the subordinate and the
predominate body. Ireland enjoyed--or endured--an independent Parliament
during eighteen years, from 1782 to 1800; and, in the result, the
greatest statesmen both in Ireland and in England were forced to
acknowledge that the system had in practice failed utterly; and that
there remained no alternative but the Union. To that view of the
situation the great majority of the Irish people, irrespective of race
or creed, were converted within a year before the passing of the Act, an
event which was hailed with rejoicing. The experience of 112 years,
fraught as they have been with occasional calamity and burdened with
many blunders, has not produced a single valid objection to the
principle of the Union, unless the survival among a diminishing section
of the population of the old, bad tradition of hatred towards England,
and its deliberate exploitation by pledge-bound politicians, is to be
regarded as a reason for sacrificing the welfare and the prosperity of
both countries.
The framers of the Act of Union did not, and indeed could not, provide
for every contingency. It is therefore the business of those who are
determined to maintain the Union, to adjust its machinery to modern
requirements. An omission of capital import was the failure to provide
for the efficient promotion of private Bills. The matter was, indeed,
actually considered by the authors of the Act of Union. The Duke of
Portland wrote to Lord Cornwallis, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, under
date December 24, 1798, as follows:--
"One of the greatest difficulties, however, which has been
supposed to attend the project of union between the two kingdoms,
is that of the expense and trouble which will be occasioned by the
attendance of witnesses in trials of contested elections, or in
matters of private business requiring Parliamentary interposition.
It would, therefore, be very desirable to devise a plan (which
does not appear impossible) for empowering the Speaker of either
House of the United Parliament to issue his warrant to the
Chairman of the Quarter Sessions in Ireland, or to such other
person as may be thought more proper for the purpose, requiring
him to appoint a time and a place within the County for his being
attended by the agents of the respective parties, and reducing to
writing in their presence the testimony (for the consents or
dissents, as the case may be) of such persons as, by the said
agents, may be summoned to attend, being resident within the
County (if not there resident a similar proceeding should take
place in the County where they reside), and such testimony so
taken and reduced into writing may, by such Chairman or by the
Sheriff of the County, be certified to the Speaker of either
House, as the case may be. It seems difficult to provide a
detailed Article of the Union for the various regulations which
such a proceeding may require, but the principle might perhaps be
stated there, and the provisions left to be settled by the United
Parliament."
According to Lord Ashbourne's "Life of Pitt," the Prime Minister himself
framed a scheme for constituting a Court of Appeal in Ireland, with
power to examine evidence and certify all preliminaries and other
matters respecting private Bills. Why the provision was not included in
the Act of Union is not clear. The fact of its omission, however, proves
that the necessity of resorting to the Imperial Parliament for the
transaction of private business was not an objection that hindered the
passage of the Act of Union, although to-day the same omission is
absurdly used as an argument in favour of the repeal of that measure. At
the same time, it is true that the requirements have immensely increased
in proportion as the resources of the country have been developed since
1800. The introduction of railways, telegraphs, telephones and electric
appliances, together with the grant of compulsory powers to
municipalities, has involved the promotion of numerous private Bills at
vast expense to Ireland. Mr. A. W. Samuels, K.C., who contributed a
paper on the subject to the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of
Ireland in November, 1899, quoted some instances of the cost of private
Bill legislation in Ireland:--
"The ratepayers of Dublin, of Rathmines, of Pembroke, of Clontarf,
and other suburbs of the city, long will feel the burden added to
their rates by the London litigation of the Session that has
passed. The Dublin Boundaries Extension Bill of 1899 has cost the
city, as I am informed on reliable authority, between £12,000 and
£13,000. There were twenty-four separate sets of opponents. The
cost to Rathmines of its opposition approaches, I am informed,
£8,000. To meet it about one shilling in the pound must be added
to the taxation of that township. The costs of Pembroke cannot be
far short of the same sum. If we add those of the oppositions of
Kilmainham, Drumcondra, Clontarf, and of the County of Dublin, and
of private persons and public bodies, the total expense to the
inhabitants and ratepayers of the city and its suburbs will not
fall short of £45,000.
"Mr. Pope, Q.C., stated before the Committee which considered the
Irish Railways Amalgamation Scheme of last Session, that the Bill
at hearing was costing £5 per minute. A high authority conversant
with the proceedings in this case has informed me that this was an
under-estimate rather than an over-estimate, having regard to the
fact that there were twenty-seven separate oppositions. The Bill
occupied twenty-seven working days of four hours each, and its
cost to the shareholders of the promoting Company were calculated
to amount to about £400 per day. What the loss was to the
shareholders of other Companies, and to the ratepayers represented
by public bodies, it would be impossible to say. The Bill probably
cost at least £50,000. There was a Belfast Corporation Bill. There
was an Armagh and Keady Railway Bill. There were several other
Irish Bills before the Houses, exhausting thousands more of Irish
capital, and diverting it from the material development of the
country. So abnormal was the waste of Irish money on the Railway
Bill that it excited general attention even in England, and became
the subject of comment in Parliament. Mr. J. H. Lewis, the member
for Flint Burghs, speaking on the 24th July, 1899, on the third
reading of the Scotch Private Legislation Procedure Bill, said, 'I
am sure everybody must have regarded with great dissatisfaction
the enormous expenditure to which certain Irish Railway Companies
were put during the last few weeks within the walls of the House.
Surely a better system can be devised than that which drags over
from different parts of the United Kingdom a host of witnesses,
who could be examined on the spot. I am sure all honourable
members deeply regret this great waste of public money.'"
These disabilities have been the subject of frequent representations.
Resolutions advocating reform have been repeatedly passed by the Irish
Chambers of Commerce, by the Incorporated Law Society, and by local
bodies. Leaders of the Unionist party have constantly urged the
necessity of a provision for expediting and cheapening Private Bill
procedure. In 1896 a deputation from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce
laid the matter before Mr. Gerald Balfour, who was then Chief Secretary
for Ireland. He expressed a hope that the Government would introduce a
reform. In the Queen's speech of February, 1897, it was announced that
Bills for amending the procedure with respect to Private Bills coming
from Scotland and Ireland had been prepared. The opportunity for laying
these measures before Parliament did not arise.
But in 1899 a Bill amending the procedure of Scottish Private Bill
Legislation was passed into law. The measure forms the precedent for
future legislation. In the year 1900, Mr. Atkinson (now Lord Atkinson),
speaking for the Government, said that the Government were--
"most favourable to the introduction and passing of a Bill dealing
with private Bill legislation for Ireland. He thought the real and
substantial difficulty was the creation of the tribunal which was
to sit locally and to inquire into these matters. The Irish
Government thought it wise to wait until they should see what
would be the effect of the operation of the Scotch Act."
Subsequent experience has proved that the Private Legislation Procedure
(Scotland) Act of 1899 may well be taken for the model of a similar
measure designed to apply to Ireland. The Scottish Act substituted for
procedure by means of a Private Bill, procedure in the first instance by
means of a Provisional Order. Instead of applying to Parliament by a
petition for leave to bring in a Private Bill, any public authority or
persons desirous of obtaining parliamentary powers now proceed by
presenting a petition to the Secretary for Scotland,
"praying him to issue a Provisional Order in accordance with the
terms of a draft Order submitted to him, or with such
modifications as shall be necessary."
Before the Secretary for Scotland proceeds with the Provisional Order,
the draft Order is considered by the Chairman of Committee of the House
of Lords, and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons;
and they report to the Secretary for Scotland whether or not the
matters proposed to be dealt with by the draft Order, or any of them,
should be dealt with by Provisional Order or by Private Bill. Should the
Chairmen report that these matters, or any of them, should be dealt with
by a Private Bill, the Secretary for Scotland, without further inquiry,
refuses to issue the Provisional Order so far as it is objected to by
the Chairmen; but the advertisements and notices already given by the
promoters of the scheme are regarded as fulfilling (subject to Standing
Orders) the necessary conditions to be observed prior to the
introduction of a Private Bill. Should the Chairmen report that the
Provisional Order, or a part of it, may proceed, the procedure is as
follows. If there is no opposition, the Secretary for Scotland may at
once issue the Provisional Order, which is then embodied in a
Confirmation Bill for the assent of Parliament. If there is opposition,
or in any case where he thinks inquiry necessary, the Secretary for
Scotland directs an inquiry, and the Order is then considered by the
tribunal described below; and if passed by that tribunal, with or
without modifications, it is brought up in a Confirmation Bill for the
assent of Parliament.
It follows that in the case of unopposed schemes brought in under the
Act, there is a great saving of time and expense as compared with the
former system.
With regard to schemes which are opposed, the judicial functions of a
Parliamentary Committee dealing with Private Bills were transferred by
the Act of 1899 to a special tribunal, composed of two Panels, a
Parliamentary Panel and an Extra-Parliamentary Panel, whose members
shall have no local or personal interest in the questions at issue. From
these is formed a Commission of four members.
Mr. A. W. Samuels, K.C., thus describes the constitution of the
Commission:--
"In the first instance it is provided that the members shall be
taken--two from the Lords and two from the Commons. In the event
of that being found impossible, three may be taken from one House
and one from the other. In the next resort all may be from the
same House. Finally--if members cannot be procured to serve--the
extra Parliamentary Panel can be called upon, and the Commission
manned from it.
"The next great reform introduced by the measure is, that the
inquiry is to be held at such place, in Scotland, as may be
convenient. The inquiry is to be localised as far as possible. It
is to be held in public. The Commissioners are to settle questions
of _locus standi_--they can decide upon the preamble before
discussing clauses--and persons having a _locus standi_ can appear
before them in person or by counsel or agent.
"When they have heard the evidence the Commissioners are to report
to the Secretary of Scotland, and they can recommend that the
Provisional Order should be issued as prayed for, or with such
modifications as they may make. If there is no opposition to the
Provisional Order as finally settled by the Commissioners, it is
embodied in a Confirmation Bill by the Secretary of Scotland and
passed through Parliament.
"If there is opposition a petition must be presented to Parliament
against the Order, and then, on the second reading of the
Confirmation Bill, a member can move that the Bill be referred to
a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and if the motion
is carried in the House a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons
shall sit, at the peril of costs to the opponents, to hear and
take evidence and decide upon the measure in the same way as in
the case of a Private Bill." (Private Bill Procedure, pp. 9 and
10.)
In 1904, the Select Committee appointed to consider the provisions of a
similar measure to be applied to Wales, reported that in practice the
Scottish Act had proved a success, which they attributed largely to the
supervision of the Provisional Orders conducted by the Scottish Office.
There would seem, then, every reason to believe that a measure framed
upon the lines of the Scottish Act, to apply to Ireland, would be
equally successful.
The remarkable increase in the prosperity of Ireland, which has occurred
during the last twenty years, demonstrates the necessity for providing
every means of encouraging the further development of the country.
All the available statistics amply confirm and corroborate the evidence
of this prosperity, which is known to every man with the smallest direct
acquaintance of Ireland in recent years. The figures of savings, bank
deposits, external trade, all alike show the exceptional advances in
prosperity now enjoyed by Ireland.
The progress of Ireland under the Union thus indicated, was inaugurated
by Mr. Balfour, the best Chief Secretary Ireland ever had; to this day
his name is always mentioned with respect and gratitude by the people of
Ireland, especially by the residents in the South and West, where his
policy produced splendid and lasting results. Insufficient credit has
been given to the work of agricultural and commercial development
steadily pursued by Mr. Gerald Balfour; the results upon which we
rejoice to-day are mainly due to the policy adopted by Mr. Balfour and
his brother. This policy, coupled with the restitution of sales under
the Land Act of 1903, is the one which Unionists intend resolutely to
pursue.
The figures on the next page show that the increase of population in
some important centres in the south and west is very small, and that in
other centres there is a decrease. Ireland being mainly an agricultural
country, the population tends to decrease owing to emigration, although
of late years, owing to the rise in prosperity, the tendency is rather
to remain stationary. At the same time, the increase of the population
in the provincial towns is not commensurate with the increase of
material wealth in the country.
With regard, for instance, to the increase in the number of tourists
visiting Ireland, both private persons and local bodies desire to extend
existing inducements and to improve the means of transit and to raise
the standard of accommodation. It is clear that, under a reformed method
of procedure in respect of Private Bill Legislation, enterprise would be
freed from the restrictions which at present hinder its free exercise,
and a substantial and a steadily increasing benefit would accrue to
Ireland.
INCREASE AND DECREASE OF POPULATION OF CITIES AND TOWNS
IN IRELAND HAVING IN 1901 A POPULATION EXCEEDING 10,000.
(_Census of Ireland_ 1911.)
Cities, towns, etc. Percentage of increase since 1901.
Rathmines and Rathgar 17·1
Portadown 16·2
Pembroke 13·4
Belfast 10·4
Belfast[A] 10·1
Dublin 6·4
Lisburn 6·2
Ballymena 4·5
Lurgan 3·0
Sligo 2·7
Dublin[A] 2·6
Wexford 2·6
Waterford 2·5
Cork[A] 2·3
Londonderry[A] 2·3
Limerick[A] 1·2
Clonmel 1·1
Cork 0·7
Limerick 0·7
Dundalk 0·4
Newry[A] 5·2
Newry 3·6
Drogheda 2·6
Galway[A] 2·0
Galway 1·3
Kilkenny[A] 1·0
Kingstown 0·9
Kilkenny 0·9
Waterford[A] 0·4
Those marked [A] are Parliamentary Boroughs.