MOTION FOR LEAVE. (Hansard, 20 May 1886)

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Londonderry, S.)
Sir, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham) asks leave to bring in a Bill to remove the disabilities of the police in England in respect of Parliamentary Elections; the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) has given Notice of a similar Bill with regard to Ireland, although a Bill of the same nature relating to the two countries has already been brought in by another Member and rejected by the House. I ask, Sir, whether it is in Order for these two hon. Members, by bringing forward their Bills in this way, to act against the Rule of the House?

§ MR. SPEAKER
There is no objection to the Motion of the hon. Member on the ground of Order. The Bill to which the hon. Member refers was not defeated on the Motion that it be referred to any Committee; it was upon the Motion that it be postponed to a very distant day. Of course, it is a matter for the discretion of the House whether there should be more than one Bill before the House dealing with the same subject.

§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
Sir, there is a Bill before the House on which the sense of the House has been taken; these Bills are supposed to do the same thing. As you say, Sir, that it lies within the discretion of the House to grant or refuse the introduction of a Bill, I think we are entitled to ask the House to refuse leave to bring in this measure. I point out that it is a great inconvenience and annoyance to hon. Members, 1632 after spending already much time in dealing with the subject in one Bill, to have two other Bills brought forward precisely the same in principle, and requiring the same amount of discussion.

§ MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
Sir, it was with regret that I felt myself compelled to vote for the postponement to a far-off date of the Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson). I voted against him simply because he proposed, against the wish of the vast majority of Irish Members, to enfranchise the Royal Irish Constabulary; and I trust that Irish Members will not now oppose the giving of the vote to a very deserving class of men in Great Britain.

§ MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S)
Sir, I am sure that we on these Benches desire to observe the wishes of English Members, especially of those who support us; but I wish to point out that there is a difficulty in allowing this Bill to be introduced as a Bill for Great Britain, and then finding that it is to be extended to Ireland. Such a transaction would be distinctly opposed to the law, and certainly to the spirit of Parliamentary Rules. As another argument against the introduction of the Bill, I would point out that there is nothing in the wording of the Bill to prevent this being done here or in "another place," and so, practically, take the consideration of this question out of our hands. We have had such tactics pursued already on this very subject; and I ask the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken to remember that the last Bill was introduced and permitted to pass the second reading on the clear understanding that it would not be extended to Ireland—or that the words "and Ireland" should be struck out, and the operation of the Bill confined to Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman knows very well what is the influence of the Front Opposition Bench in "another place," and what is possible within the Rules of Parliamentary warfare; and I regard the present proceeding as, perhaps, one of those Parliamentary manœuvres which are resorted to more often than they ought to be.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
Sir, I frankly confess that I am against the enfranchisement of the police in England, Ireland, and Wales, 1633 If there be anything in the world prejudicial to the country I think it would be the transformation of the Police Forces into political bodies. I am a most earnest admirer of the Institutions of America; but I think the manner in which offices are given in the police for political reasons is a scandal to that country, and I should be very sorry to see the same principle in operation here. We should find hon. Members constantly getting up in this House and asking the Heads of Departments whether or not it is intended to increase the salary of officials in those Departments. I say that this is a question which should be left entirely to the Heads of Departments themselves, who are the only persons who can fairly judge of the amount of remuneration that should be given to public officials; but if you introduce the other principle you bring suspicion on the working of the Departments and their internal management, and therefore I say that to convert the Police Force of Great Britain into a political body would be the degradation of it. But my opposition to the enfranchisement of the Police Force does not rest on this ground alone. We should, if this Bill were passed, undoubtedly find that the Police Force would be used for Tory purposes. ["No, no!"] Why, every Civil servant knows that extravagance is the cry of the Tory Party. Seeing that they live on the public funds they have naturally a very considerable interest in increasing the establishments of the country. I repeat, that to enfranchise the police of any country, whether of England, Ireland, or Scotland, is, instead of making it an impartial body contented with the remuneration given by the Authorities, to transform it into a political body which will be using its interest at elections to get more salary. If this Motion is put I shall certainly vote against it. I warn my hon. Friend to be a little on his guard against so astute a political hand as the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. We had, with regard to the other Bill, pledges that it would not be extended to Ireland; but it was only by the exercise of Parliamentary adroitness that we escaped from having the police of Ireland changed into a voting body. Exactly the same course would probably be pursued by the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. I feel sure that when the 1634 hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Herman) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham) put down their several Motions with regard to the enfranchisement of the police they were acting in concert, and that their object is to get rid by a side-wind of the decision which this House came to 14 days ago—namely, that the 20th of August would be quite early enough to consider this matter with regard to both England and Ireland. I hope that this House will show its determination to keep the Police Forces of the country entirely as non-political bodies, and confine their action to the preservation of law and order.

§ COLONEL KING-HARMAN (Kent, Isle of Thanet)
Sir, as far as my Bill is concerned, I may say that it is put down without concert with any hon. Member, and without reference to any other measure on the Paper. My advice to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham) was, that he should allow my Bill alone to remain on the Paper; and I can assure the House, so far as my intention and my action are concerned, that I shall be no party to the introduction of anything relating to Ireland into the Bill as suggested by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. With regard to this proposal, I cannot see why a class as capable as any in the country should not be allowed to exercise the franchise in the same way as the rest of Her Majesty's subjects.

§ MR. SEXTON (Sligo, S.)
Sir, our position with regard to the Bill is this—we desire that our opinion should prevail with reference to the police of Ireland. On the other hand, we think that the opinion of English Members—especially those for whom we have high respect—should be allowed to prevail with respect to the preliminary stage of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) has, I think, stated his position with great fairness, and he has said that he will be no party to the extension of this Bill to Ireland; and, therefore, considering that the introduction of a Bill does not involve any assent to its principle, but merely implies that the subject may be considered, I am of opinion that we may waive our opposition in the present instance.