§ Amendment proposed, in page 84, line 29, to leave out the word "Morley," in order to insert the word "Batley,"—(Mr. Serjeant Simon,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Morley' stand part of the Schedule."
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that yesterday he was in possession of the Committee 1930 when, in accordance with the Rules of the House, Progress was reported. He wished to assure the Committee that he had not been animated by any desire to talk the Bill out; and what occurred was the result of the accident of his only being able to rise two minutes before the proper time for closing the discussion. He preferred to leave the Schedule as it stood, and maintained that the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had made out no case whatever for his proposal.
§ VISCOUNT LEWISHAMsaid, that he knew something of the facts of the case, and it appeared to him that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) was a most extraordinary one, because he proposed to give to the new division, instead of the name of "Morley," the name of a district which at present formed a very important part of the borough of Dewsbury. It was well known that Batley chiefly lay in the Parliamentary borough of Dewsbury, and its population was something like 30,000. That fact might be a strong reason for adding the name of Batley to the borough of Dewsbury; but there was no reason whatever why it should give the name to a new division of the county, seeing that only 1,916 of the population of Batley would reside in the new division. All the rest would continue to reside in the borough of Dewsbury. So far as Morley itself was concerned, it possessed 15,000 inhabitants, and of its commercial importance there could be no doubt. There were 38 important cloth factories in Morley itself, live large colleries, seven stone quarries, and several important buildings. If they turned to the historical associations of Morley, they would find that it possessed much more interesting records than Batley. Therefore, from every point of consideration, its importance in the district, its commercial importance, and its historical associations, if the Committee had paid any attention to the subject, he was satisfied they would unanimously decide that the name of Morley, and not Batley, ought to be attached to the new division. He, therefore, felt bound to oppose most strongly the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought that in the designation of the 1931 constituencies the chief fact which the Committee ought, as far as possible, to consider was the wish of the inhabitants. No fact could be of such great importance as that fact. Hon. Members knew very little about the position of either one place or the other, or of the wish of the large majority of the future electors of the division; but the population of the locality knew a good deal about it, and were much interested in the matter. It was quite true that a large majority of the inhabitants of Batley were already within the borough of Dewsbury; but the reason why he intended to vote for the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend was that he had taken the trouble to ascertain what the wishes of the people generally were, and he was forced to come to the conclusion that the great majority would prefer the name of Batley to that of Morley. Indeed, that was the opinion of almost the whole of them, except the 15,000 who lived in Morley. Their desire was that the new division should be called by the name of Batley; and that was a conclusive argument, in his mind, to induce him to vote for the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided;—Ayes 100; Noes 87: Majority 13.—(Div. List, No. 106.)
§ MR. W. H. LEATHAMmoved an Amendment in line 10, the object of which was to change the "Peniston" to the "Holmfirth" Division. He stated that the population of Holmfirth was 17,000, while that of Peniston was only 10,000, and the size and importance of Holmfirth were very much greater than those of Peniston. Peniston had no importance at all except as the point of junction between the railways for the North and West.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 85, line 10, to leave out the word "Peniston," in order to insert the word "Holmfirth,"—(Mr. W. H. Leatham,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Peniston' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that upon the whole he felt rather disposed to accept this Amendment. Peniston was a large parish, and a Poor Law Union; but it was a very small 1932 Poor Law Union. Indeed, the town of Peniston itself was a very small place, with not more than some 2,000 inhabitants; whereas Holmfirth was a Local Government Board district, with a population of about 9,000 in the town itself. Under these circumstances, he thought it had a very strong claim to give its name to the division. A Petty Sessions Court was held at Holmfirth, and also a County Court; and, seeing that it was a much larger and more important place than Peniston, he had no objection to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he was sorry to find that in consequence of persistent and repeated demands from the other side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill appeared to be disposed to throw over the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners on every conceivable opportunity. Holmfirth might have the advantage in population over Peniston; but it was deficient in the essential element of position. He would ask any hon. Member who was acquainted with the locality whether Peniston or Holmfirth occupied the best known position, and he had no hesitation in saying that everybody would know exactly where Peniston was; whereas there would be a difficulty in finding out the position of Holmfirth without searching the map. As a matter of fact, it would require great industry, and the assistance of someone locally acquainted with the district, to discover Holmfirth, even with the aid of the map which had been presented to Parliament by Her Majesty's Commissioners. But there were other considerations which induced him to come to the conclusion that the question of the name to be given to the new division should be decided by position rather than by population. In the first place, Peniston was an important place, and was growing into greater importance every year. It contained an important railway station, where the trains proceeding to Manchester and the West and those going to the North separated, and it stood at a particular point where the river turned at a sharp angle from the hills. Then, again, Holmfirth stood a great deal further off from the centre of the proposed division than the town of Peniston; and, therefore, on the ground of convenience and position, he hoped the Committee would not accept 1933 the Amendment of the hon. Member for the South-West Biding (Mr. W. H. Leatham).
§ MR. FIRTHsupported the Amendment, and hoped that the Committee would accept it. Respecting the geographical position of the two places, he did not at all agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley). The River Don, in the neighbourhood of Peniston, which had been alluded to by the hon. Member, was a stream which it would not be difficult to jump across without coming into contact with the water. The railway station was merely a junction for Huddersfield on the main line between Sheffield and Manchester, and lines running to Huddersfield, Halifax, Leeds, and other centres.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYremarked, that it was also the junction for Barnsley.
§ MR. FIRTHsaid, that, so far as a choice between the two places was concerned, Holmfirth might not be more central than Peniston; but it was a good deal larger, and much more important. He knew very well that if any traveller was asked which place he would prefer to stay at he would go at once to Holmfirth rather than stop at Peniston, because he would find in the former all the accommodation which modern civilization provided, but would not be able to do so at Peniston.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 125: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 107.)
§ On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, the following Amendment made:—In page 85, line 37, leave out "hundred" and insert "Wapentake."
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, his reason for moving the next Amendment on the Paper in his name was to give the right hon. Baronet an opportunity of explaining certain curious points in the scheme of the Commissioners relating to the Otley Division of the county. In the first place, in the matter of the parish which was the subject of his Amendment, they had departed from their own original scheme, which had been supported by a large section of the inhabitants; secondly, they had departed from the principle of population; thirdly, they had departed from 1934 their Instructions with regard to the pursuits of the people in forming their schemes, Yeadon, which was a manufacturing district, having been placed by the Commissioners in an agricultural district. He understood that the whole proceeding on the part of the Commissioners had been followed by an enthusiastic telegram sent from the Liberal Party in Yeadon to the hon. Baronet who now represented that division of the county. He should be glad to hear from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) an explanation of what had taken place; and in the event of that explanation not being satisfactory he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee on his Amendment, which he begged to move.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 86, line 9, after the word "Otley," to insert the words "less the parish of Yeadon."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would disabuse his mind of the idea that the Commissioners had acted with any want of impartiality in this matter. The hon. Member would recollect that the Commissioners were unanimous in their decision; and he thought, from that fact alone, it would be seen that their proposal was entitled to consideration. After the local inquiry the Commissioners considered that Yeadon was more associated with Otley than any other division, and after careful deliberation they had placed it in the Otley Division—that was to say, after first placing it in the other division.
§ SIR ANDREW FAIRBAIRNpointed out that as Yeadon was connected with the Otley Division in respect of Union, Petty Sessions, County Court, and other arrangements, it was a great hardship that it should be separated from that division. He might remark that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) was quite wrong as to Yeadon being an urban constituency, and therefore not rightly placed in the Otley Division, inasmuch as there were several other urban localities in the same division. Recently a poll had been taken, at which 904 householders voted in favour of Yeadon being in the Otley Division, and only 16 against it, from 1935 which he thought the Committee would perceive that Yeadon ought to remain in the position assigned to it by the Commissioners.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, having lived at Yeadon for some years he could confirm the opinion which his hon. Friend had just expressed, that there was an overpowering feeling in the district In favour of Yeadon being placed in the Otley Division. There was the strongest objection on the part of the inhabitants to their having to cross a railway and river to get to a place with which they had no connection whatever.
§ MR. JACKSONsaid, he thought there must be some misconception as to the state of local feeling in this matter. His hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) had, in his opinion, correctly described Yeadon as an urban constituency. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Andrew Fairbairn) had stated that about 900 householders out of 1,000 had voted in favour of joining Yeadon with Otley; but he would point out to the Committee that he had had the honour of presenting a Petition from Yeadon signed by about 300 persons in favour of its being attached to the other division. He thought, therefore, there must be some mistake in the figures which had been given; and if his hon. Friend went to a division he should feel it his duty to support him.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had in various clauses of the Bill introduced an Amendment substituting for the word "exclusively" the word "except," which had been used generally throughout the Bill. A similar point arose in relation to the Amendment before the Committee, which he proposed to amend by substituting the word "except" for the word "less," in order to bring the wording into conformity with the rest of the Bill.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word, "less," in order to insert the word "except."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, there was a perfectly good answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Andrew Fairbairn). He was not surprised at the great desire of the inhabitants of Yeadon 1936 to belong to the district of Otley, which was due to the fact that if they were taken out of that division they would be transferred to a district with a singularly ineuphonious name. He believed that everyone would object to be included in the "Pudsey" Division. He had risen, however, to obtain an explanation of the reasons which had induced the Commissioners to depart from the instructions laid down for them, and from the provisional scheme which had met with general approval. He thought that some explanation ought to be given; but, under the circumstances, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), who probably did not expect that this part of the Bill would have been reached so soon, he would take the responsibility of moving the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 86, line 13, to leave out the words "Barkston Ash," and insert the word "Tadcaster."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Barkston Ash' stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that "Barkston Ash" was certainly not a pretty name; but it was the name of a district, and Tadcaster was on the very border of the division. He would suggest that "Selby," or some other suitable name, might be given to the division; but he was not prepared to accept the name of "Tadcaster."
§ COLONEL GUNTERsaid, as a resident in the neighbourhood in question, he considered that the name of "Barkston Ash" was far more fitted to represent the division than any other of the small towns in the district, such as Tadcaster and Selby. He had not heard anything of weight urged against the name Barkston Ash, and he was bound to say there was nothing in favour of the other names.
§ SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that the name "Barkston Ash" had been adopted by the Boundary Commissioner on the joint recommendation of the representa- 1937 tives of both political Parties; and he hoped the Committee would not agree to the proposed alteration.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYthought that perhaps the best designation for the division would be that of Lower Wharfdale; but he would not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, before the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) moved his Amendment in line 34 he wished to raise the question as to whether it would not be well to substitute the designation of "Calverley" for that of "Pudsey" in respect of the 25th division of the county.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that "Pudsey" was not a euphonious name for the division, and he was willing to follow the general wish with regard to it.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHpointed out that, although "Pudsey" might not be a very nice name, the place itself was a very important centre of trade.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought it was not desirable to agree to the proposed alteration without Notice being given, and therefore the question must be raised on the Report.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 86, leave out line 34, and insert "the parishes of Drighlington, Hunsworth, and Tong, and so much of the parishes of Calverley with Farsley and Pudsey, as is not included in the municipal borough of Bradford."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that Birstall was a town having only one-eighth of the population of the division, whereas Spen Valley represented a series of important townships. His proposal was to substitute the name of Spen Valley for that of Birstall as the designation of the 26th division of the county. His proposal, he believed, commanded by far the largest amount of approval in the district.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 86, line 37, to leave out the word "Birstall, "in order to insert the words "Spen Valley,"—(Mr. Illingworth,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Birstall' stand part of the Schedule.',
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was true that Birstall was not the 1938 largest town of the division, but it was the name of an ancient parish which covered the greater part of the division. There had been considerable difficulty with regard to naming the division, as no one town would on this question yield to another. Spen Valley was the name given to a district formed for drainage purposes by the Local Government Board, and it was well known in the neighbourhood. Under the circumstances, he was willing to consider the question between then and Report.
§ COLONEL GUNTERsaid, he should strongly object to the name of Spen Valley being substituted for that of Old Birstall; and although he had little to do with the district now, he had no doubt that his view was shared by a large number of the inhabitants.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 102: Majority 4.—(Div. List, No. 108.)
§ Question put, "That the words 'Spen Valley' be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 78: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 109.)
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcomplained of the waste of time occasioned by challenging a second division, and moved to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the Government had obtained priority for this Bill; and it had been understood, therefore, that on the nights on which it was taken it would be pushed on to a reasonable hour with the view of making substantial progress. There were several contested Bills down on the Paper, either of which might be taken if this Motion were adopted; and if either of them were taken it would be unfair to hon. Members who were absent. The first subject on the Paper had somewhat abruptly terminated. Many hon. Members had thereupon gone away, believing that the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would occupy the remainder of the Sitting. He thought that before reporting Progress they should make some further advance with the Committee stage.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought they would have finished the part of the Schedules dealing with Scotland that night; but the second division which had just been taken had shown a disposition on the part of some hon. Members to waste time. It was absolutely essential that the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill should be accompanied by Registration Bills. It would be impossible to take steps for hurrying on the General Election until those Bills had made some progress. As they had read the English Registration Bill a second time it was now proposed to proceed with the Irish Registration Bill, which was the ninth Order on the Paper.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Bill in question was one of the greatest importance to the Irish Conservative Members'; and, though he would not say it would be opposed by them, it would certainly be considerably criticized from their side of the House. It was futile to suggest that the result of putting the Bill off that night would be to delay the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. Delay would be caused by putting off the consideration of the Scotch Amendments. He had no doubt that if the Committee applied itself to the task it would be able to get through the Scotch Amendments that night.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, that to move to report Progress at that hour, and upon such a plea as that they had heard from the right hon. Baronet, was conduct unworthy of the Government. The right hon. Baronet had not given the Opposition credit for their kind intentions in finishing the important debate they had had on the Suez Canal so soon. There was important Business before the Committee, and the Committee—or a large part of it—wished to go on with it. The reason pleaded by the right hon. Baronet for postponing the further consideration of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill was a very small and unsatisfactory one. He had accused hon. Members of wasting time by challenging a second division; but, surely, when the numbers were so close in the first division—the Government only securing a narrow majority of four—it was not unreasonable for Members to try the point again, especially as in so doing they were giving the Government a last opportunity of considering whe- 1940 ther they could not find a better name than "Spen Valley." The motive of revenge which seemed to guide the right hon. Baronet in his Motion to report Progress was a most unworthy one.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENKY JAMES)said, he was sure the Committee would acquit the Government of any desire to waste time, and would readily believe that their anxiety, on the contrary, was to economize time as much as possible. The Government, on their part, gratefully acknowledged the consideration shown by the Opposition for those who had charge of the measure. At the present moment the position of affairs was this—the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill and the Registration Bills must, to some extent, proceed pari passu. It would be useless to proceed with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, if, at the same time, they did not make progress with the Registration Bills. They had made progress with the English Registration Bill. They had read it a second time and had referred it to a Select Committee, and now they desired to make progress with the Irish Bill. That was the whole position they found themselves in; and the Government, he thought, had taken the wisest course open to them for the purpose of making the best of their time. However hon. Members might differ from the opinion of the Government, he hoped they would not think the Government had neglected to do what they could to economize time.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the Government could not certainly accuse the Opposition with a desire to delay the Registration Bill. He and his hon. Friends had endeavoured to do all they could to insure the rapid progress of that measure. They had considered with the Government the best means of facilitating its passing, and of so amending it as to meet any reasonable suggestions that might be made. But on the present occasion, as he understood it, hon. Members had come down to discuss the Egyptian Financial Arrangement, and it was arranged that when that was over they were to go on with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. He personally was aware of the fact that many hon. Members who had been in the House earlier in the evening had gone away under the impression that after 1941 the discussion on the Anglo-Egyptian Arrangement the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would be proceeded with; and it certainly seemed to him that, as the Government bad monopolized almost the whole time of the House in order to enable them to make progress with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, it was extremely odd that they should not avail themselves of the opportunity of proceeding with it when they could.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill had so far been conducted with a certain amount of mutual agreement between the two sides of the House; and he considered it a great pity that anything should happen that night to lead to a controversy upon a question of procedure. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board seemed to suggest that he had adopted the course of proposing to report Progress in consequence of a second division having taken place upon a subject upon which the Committee was supposed a few minutes before to have pronounced a decided opinion. The right hon. Baronet seemed to resent the loss of time. That loss of time, however, seemed to him (Lord John Manners) a very strong argument against the course the right hon. Baronet now proposed to take, for it amounted to this—they had lost a few minutes on a second division, therefore! they should lose the rest of the night. I Having lost a few minutes the best; course would seem to be to endeavour I to make more rapid progress in the time remaining. The Government must admit that the first division had been a very close one, the majority having been only some three or four, and that, therefore, there was some ground for again challenging the opinion of the Committee. But admitting that it was an unnecessary division, and that some minutes had been wasted in it, that was certainly no reason why they should not proceed to a reasonable limit of time to deal with the Scotch case. When the Scotch part of the Schedule was finished everyone, he thought, would admit that the right hon. Baronet could fairly close the Committee for the evening, and that the House should meet again to-morrow to proceed with it. If that was not the view of the right hon. Baronet he would point out that to travel over six or eight 1942 Bills on the Paper and then to say—"We will deal with this ninth Order" was not a satisfactory way of conducting Business. No one in the House had expected Order No. 9 to be taken after midnight; and he thought that under the circumstances it would be much better to go on with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. At any rate, it was not the proper time to proceed with the Registration Bill.
§ MR. MONKsaid, he was sure the right hon. Baronet would see that there was a good deal of force in what had fallen from the noble Lord who had just sat down. To take the ninth Order of the Day for discussion after 12 o'clock at night, when it had been announced earlier in the day that if the Egyptian Loan Bill was disposed of in sufficient time the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would be taken, was, to say the least of it, springing a mine upon hon. Members. ["Question!"] He saw the House was impatient, and he did not wish to waste any further time. He would appeal to the right hon. Baronet.
§ MR. MONKsaid, it was very evident ill-feeling was likely to arise if this debate were further continued; be, therefore, appealed to the President of the Local Government Board to withdraw the Motion to report Progress.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, there seemed to be great danger in the course the Government were taking. It was obvious they were setting a precedent which might be used to the great disadvantage of Public Business, and which might expose the Government to charges, he would not say of breaches of faith, but unquestionably of unfair surprise. When the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was interrogated that afternoon as to the course of Business he had given an answer which, coming as it did from a person in his position, was bound to be received. In that answer the right hon. Gentleman had not given the slightest intimation that after the Egyptian Loan discussion, and the further consideration of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, if there was time to bring it on, the Registration Bill would be taken up. Taking the right hon. Baronet's own language, it was understood that the 1943 Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill would be dealt with, and that it would be considered until that part affecting Ireland was reached, and that part affecting Scotland was disposed of. Now, however, a different course was suggested, or rather two different courses. When the right hon. Baronet had commenced his observations, he had partly implied, and by his manner had seemed to hint, that the reason operating upon his mind, and inducing him so suddenly to break off the Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, was the challenge of a second division by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) on grounds which the right hon. Baronet had probably thought insufficient. That had been unquestionably the first ground the right hon. Baronet had put forward, and he had desired the House to adopt that as the reason. The right hon. Baronet appeared, however, to have abandoned that ground. It could not have been submitted altogether for the purpose of argument, because, having put it forward, the right hon. Baronet had now abandoned it. Later on he had given an altogether different ground—namely, that it was so desirable, so important, and so necessary to make progress with the Registration Bill, that the Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill must be interrupted. Surely if the Prime Minister had seen the importance of this arrangement, and had had it in his mind when he was addressing the House, he would have ventured to make a statement similar to that of the right hon. Baronet. Surely he would, have seen the fairness and reasonableness of taking the House into his confidence. The precedent, if persisted in by Her Majesty's Government, would, no doubt, lead to surprise, and possibly to retaliation.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was not a party to the arrangement that the Registration Bill should be taken that evening; but he was informed that it would be taken. He thought, however, it would be useless, in the face of the opposition which had been raised, to attempt to proceed with it. There were a considerable number of Bills which it was essential to pass—the English Registration Bill, the Scotch Registration Bill, the Bill in connection with the expenses of the Returning 1944 Officers, and possibly a separate Bill in regard to the expenses of the elections. There were, he thought, five Bills which depended upon the passing of this Bill, which would have to be pushed on; but he might point out to hon. Members that nothing would be gained by hurrying this Bill unless the other Bills which would have to be taken were pushed on also. He felt, however, that there was considerable force in the argument of hon. Members opposite that there might be hon. Gentlemen interested in the Registration Bill who were not aware that the Bill was coming on that night, and he thought he ought to yield to it.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it was hard, as it only wanted a quarter of an hour to half-past 12, that the other right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had not had an opportunity of distinguishing himself. It was a pity that all the talent of the Opposition had not been employed in wasting the other quarter of an hour; and it was much to be regretted that the President of the Local Government Board had interposed, seeing that the matter would then have been settled by the efflux of time. There was no intention of discussing the merits of the question, but simply of getting over the next 15 minutes; and he was sorry that the Government had felt it necessary to waste any argument whatever upon the Front Opposition Bench. The Irish Members sitting below the Gangway had sometimes been charged with Obstruction. [Mr. WARTON: No, no!] The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) said "No." Certainly, no one ever dreamt of accusing the hon. and learned Member of Obstruction—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—but the Irish Members were often charged with entering into that last department of Parliamentary resource; but whenever they did, they acted fairly, openly, and avowedly, and did not conceal their real object by wasting an additional quarter of an hour after midnight. He would tell the Tory Party that if they thought for a moment that the Irish Members would allow themselves, on occasions of this kind, to be treated with contempt, they were very much mistaken.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. and learned Member that the Question 1945 before the Committee was the Motion to report Progress.
§ MR. HEALYadmitted that he had been travelling slightly outside the Motion for reporting Progress; but he hoped, with the general assent of the Committee, to be permitted to make one further remark. If the Tory Party imagined for one moment that the Irish Members could be humbugged by the Front Opposition Bench, they would fall into a grievous error; and when, upon other occasions, negotiations were entered into to secure their votes, and the Irish Members were consulted with the object of bringing the Tory Party into Office, if it were imagined that they were any longer to be fooled, right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House would find themselves very much out of their reckoning. For his part, he thought the Irish Members had seen enough of the tactics of the Tory Party; and, as far as he could see, their policy was this—["Question!"] Well, perhaps he was a little out of Order, and, therefore, to quote words that were once used on a memorable occasion, he would withdraw what he was going to say. He regretted that the Government were not allowed to bring on the Irish Registration Bill that night. They had allowed the Committee on the English Registration Bill to be appointed. That Committee was now sitting, and, as the House had expressed an intense desire to see 700,000 Irish labourers in the enjoyment of the franchise, he failed to see what the object of this Obstruction was. He would tell the Tory Party that when the General Election came, the Nationalists would give them a great deal more trouble than they would be able to give the Nationalists.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.