HC Deb 28 April 1887 vol 314 cc186-206

Question again proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered.

MR. SEXTON

resumed his speech. The hon. Member said: When the interruption of our proceedings took place I was engaged in summing up the case of the Corporation of Belfast, and I have fortified myself with documents which show that a great body of the ratepayers of Belfast are at present excluded from any voice in the municipal government of the town. When the Bill was before the House last year I pressed the case strongly upon hon. Members, and the House was sensible of the justice of the case I urged—namely, that this large expenditure, amounting to £500,000, should be left in the hands of the people of Belfast themselves, and that the Bill should not be legalized until the householders are admitted to the same franchise as that which prevails in every borough in England and Scotland. The House agreed, at my instance, to insert a clause in the Bill for the purpose of extending the municipal franchise. That clause was Clause 80. When the Bill went up to the House of Lords the Examiners of the Committee of Standing Orders reported that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. The ground upon which they so reported was that there had been no advertisement intimating to the people of Belfast that such a provision would be contained in the measure. The Town Council had not given notice of any intention to insert a provision extending the municipal franchise to the whole of the now excluded householders. How could they have given such notice, seeing that they had no such intention when they introduced the Bill? The Corporation is elected by a very small fraction of the ratepayers, and it is hardly likely that they would consent to any reform which would mean danger to their own power. They do not approve of this clause; they opposed its insertion to the utmost of their power, and the clause, in the end, was inserted altogether against their will. At the time the Examiners reported that the Standing Orders had not been complied with the Committee of Standing Orders took a very extraordinary course. They might have moved that the Standing Orders should be suspended and have allowed the Bill to proceed, or they might have refused to suspend the Standing Orders, and the Bill would have been rejected. The course they took, however, was to insist on the observance of the Standing Orders, and, nevertheless, to declare that the Bill might proceed provided the obnoxious clause was struck out. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Moans (Mr. Courtney) in his place, and I want to know from him whether these Standing Orders are not intended to protect the communities from improper action on the part of the promoters of Private Bills. In this instance the Standing Orders have been applied in order to deny and defeat the right of this House to introduce a special provision into a Private Bill. I maintain, with all humility, but with firmness, that the House of Lords have no Constitutional right to use any Standing Order of theirs to prevent the House of Commons from exercising its undoubted function of making any alteration it may like in a Private Bill. The Standing Orders are directed against the promoters of Private Bills, and were never intended to he exercised against the Privileges of this House. Indeed, the House of Lords, in this very case, have broken their own Standing Orders, because they have inserted a provision in reference to the rating of a Public Company which was not inserted in the Bill originally. In so doing they have violated the Standing Orders of their own House. Now, the clause which has been struck out by the House of Lords was, in my opinion, indispensable to the Bill, and I cannot, as an Irish Representative, and still less as one of the Members for Belfast, assent to the passing of the measure unless the clause is reinstated. The people of Belfast are already taxed most heavily for local purposes. This Bill authorizes the expenditure of £500,000, and it will impose a burden upon the ratepayers of 1s. 6d. in the pound for 35 years to come. I maintain that it is not only unsatisfactory, but intolerable, to throw these burdens upon them until they are admitted to their full share of the municipal franchise which they would enjoy if Belfast were a borough in England or Scotland. I, therefore, ask the House to agree to postpone the consideration of the Lords' Amendments, and especially of that which relates to the striking out of this clause, until the House has had an opportunity of considering the question of the extension of the municipal franchise. There are already three Bills before the House which have that object in view. One of them stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Kildare (Mr. Carew), another is in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry), and there is a third in the name of the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart). Each of these proposes to effect the purpose I have in view, although the last of the three is for the extension of the municipal franchise in Belfast alone. Now, I claim that I am only making a reason- able demand when I ask that this Bill should be put back until Parliament has decided whether it will pass any of these three Bills. I have never heard before in this country that the House of Lords has used its Standing Orders in order to limit the rights and Privileges of this House. I challenge any hon. Member to cite a case, and I should be surprised to hear it seriously maintained that the House of Lords possesses this power. Moreover, I would point out that all Parties in this House are now vieing with each other to promote a rational system of local self-government. If this clause is to be rejected, what becomes of all the protestations we have heard? The House has now before it the demand of two of the Members for Belfast; for I believe I am correct in saying that I am supported by the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain). There have been Petitions presented from public meetings and the inhabitants, and a great majority of the Irish Representatives, without distinction of Party, are in favour of the principle of this clause. What becomes of the protestations which have been made by hon. Members on all sides of the House as to their desire to extend a system of local self-government, if they insist on saddling the expenditure of £500,000 upon the ratepayers of Belfast, and refuse them any share in the control of their own affairs? There is another ground also why the consideration of the Lords' Amendments should be postponed. Since the Bill came before the House a Royal Commission has sat and considered the social condition of Belfast. That Commission has made several recommendations which, I believe, have been adopted in their main principles by the Government. One of them is that the Law of Compensation for Malicious Injury in the town of Belfast shall be amended. By a cunning contrivance of the Town Council, in a former year, a person maliciously injured can claim no compensation. The Royal Commissioners recommended that Belfast should be placed, in this respect, on the same footing as the rest of Ireland, and that a person maliciously injured should have the right of claiming compensation out of what is called the General Purposes Rate. That, however, is the very rate which will have to provide the money for executing the drainage works autho- rized by this Bill. The General Purposes Rate will be saddled with the payment of £25,000 a-year; and I warn the Government that if they allow this Bill to pass in its present shape, they will find that the General Purposes Rate will be mortgaged beyond the power to provide for any other object, and no funds will be left out of which compensation can be paid for malicious injury to persons or property. I, therefore, think that before the Bill is allowed to pass the Government should formulate their proposals in this respect. There is also another point. The Royal Commissioners have recommended a large increase of the local police force of Belfast. I assume from what I have heard that the increase will be something like 200 or 300 constables. The local contribution for that purpose will have to be paid out of the General Purposes Rate; but if the General Purposes Rate be mortgaged for the purposes of this Bill, there will be nothing left for the support of au additional police force. Every hon. Member knows that the maintenance of a proper police force in Belfast—a town where the peace has been so often disturbed—is a matter of much wider importance than the passing of this Bill. Therefore, I contend that we ought not to consent to pass the Bill, or to consider the Amendments introduced into it in the House of Lords, until we have before us the proposals of the Government for an increase of the police force of Belfast, and until we see in what manner and from what funds the cost of that additional force is to be defrayed. To-day the only proposal I make is that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments shall be postponed until the people of Belfast have been consulted, and, in the meantime, I hope and expect that we may have before us the recommendations of the Government in regard to the Law of Malicious Injury and the increase of the police force. I trust that the Government will agree that this measure shall not be pressed forward until we are in complete possession of that information. I am supported, as I have said, by the public opinion of the town of Belfast. No Petition has been presented in favour of the Bill; no public meeting has been held in favour of it. On the contrary, the Bill has been pushed through by contrivance and stealth; and I am here to say that if the House of Commons, in the face of its protestations that it desires the people of Ireland to have a full and rational local self-government, decides upon pressing this Bill forward, much difficulty may be experienced in collecting the rates levied under it. For my own part, I should advise my constituents not to pay the increased rates until they have been admitted to a share in the municipal government of the town, so as to prevent in the future the jobbery which has been committed in the past. I beg to move that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments be postponed until the 28th of July.

MR. SPEAKER

Does any hon. Member second that Motion?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

It very rarely happens that I am able to agree with the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) in public affairs; but feeling, as I do, that the general case, not against this Bill, but for the adjournment, is exceedingly strong, I very cordially second the Amendment he has moved Now, I do not presume the merits or the demerits of the Belfast Main Drainage Bill. It may be a very good Bill; it may be one that is entirely necessary for the welfare of the town. I do not presume to settle that question; but I say most emphatically that, at this time of day, it is absolutely absurd for a town of 250,000 inhabitants to be governed by 5,000 or 6,000 ratepayers. That is the case I make against going further with this Bill at present. I shall be told, no doubt, that there is a Bill before the House for the purpose of extending the municipal franchise in Belfast. Well, there are a good many Bills before the House for one purpose or another, which I am afraid will not get much further than this House, and I have some idea that the Municipal Franchise Bill is not being pressed forward with so much and our as to insure its being passed this Session. If this Bill is allowed to pass, I am not sure that the prospect of carrying a Municipal Franchise Bill will not be very much impeded. Holding, as I do, that this House ought not to commit the town of Belfast to the expenditure of £500,000 without the inhabitants of that town being consulted, I think we shall do wisely if we refuse to go further with this Bill at present and adopt the Motion of the hon. Mem- ber for West Belfast. Fortunately, we have had some indication of what the feeling of that town is. The hon. Member for West Belfast read out from a Circular "which most hon. Members received to-day the result of a municipal election in the town, which was fought upon this single issue—the result being that a highly popular Member of the Town Council was ousted from the Corporation and from the Aldermanship which he filled by a gentleman who stood on this issue alone. That shows, I think, how strong the public feeling is. As the hon. Member for West Belfast has pointed out, there has been no public meeting in favour of this Bill. There have, however, been several against it; and I hold in my hand a Petition, signed by more than 1,000 of the most respected inhabitants of Belfast, for presentation at the proper time to-day. In view of these facts, and having regard to the enormous expenditure which is contemplated under this Bill, I think the House will act wisely in giving the people of Belfast a chance of settling these important questions for themselves.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. EWART (Belfast, N.)

I hope that the House will reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and will allow the measure, which is one of the utmost importance to the health and prosperity of the inhabitants of Belfast, to proceed. I cannot help thinking that the course which is taken in regard to this Bill is one which is almost unprecedented. I think I am not overstating the case when I say that this Bill has been discussed, as mentioned, during the last and present Parliament no less than ten times, and on every occasion the hon. Member for West Belfast has opposed it, both in season and out of season, with the result of keeping back most useful and beneficial improvements connected with Belfast. Not only has he done so, but he has repeated that course on the present occasion. The reasons which the hon. Member has given for objecting to the Bill are not accurate. He has told the House that if the Bill is passed it will involve the expenditure of £500,000. In that statement the hon. Member is inaccurate.

MR. SEXTON

Not at all.

MR. EWART

The cost will be £300,000 and not £500,000, as has been stated, and the charge for interest and the Sinking Fund will not exceed £12,000 a-year. Perhaps I may be allowed to supplement the statement of the hon. Member by giving the history of this Bill. The Bill was introduced in the last Parliament, and upon the second reading the hon. Member proposed an instruction to the Committee, directing them to assimilate the Irish franchise to that which exists in England. The Motion of the hon. Member was rejected by the House, and the Bill was referred to a Special Committee on police and sanitary Bills, of which the hon. Member himself and an hon. Member sitting near him were Members. The Bill passed through that Committee, and came down again to this House. Upon the Report the hon. Member again proposed that the House should deal with the question of the franchise, and on the 21st of June last the Motion was brought before the the House, when most hon. Members had not returned from the holidays, and a clause was carried which had the effect of staying the further progress of the Bill. Ultimately the Bill was carried over until this Session, and it was passed with the clause proposed by the hon. Member. It then went to the House of Lords, and in a Committee of that House the Bill was opposed by certain ratepayers of Belfast. Their opposition was fully heard there; but, nevertheless, the Bill comes down here without the clause originally inserted in it at the instance of the hon. Member for West Belfast. The hon. Member has referred to the small number of municipal voters in Belfast as compared with those upon the Parliamentary register. I do not dispute the fact; but one would suppose, from the speech of the hon. Member, that the blame for that condition of things is attributable to the Town Council of Belfast. Now, they are in no way whatever to blame- for it; they have their existence under the Irish Municipal Corporations Act, and the franchise is the same in the borough of Belfast as it is in all other boroughs in Ireland.

MR. SEXTON

No; it is not the same in Dublin.

MR. EWART

I say the same as in all other boroughs in Ireland. Dublin, the metropolis, is no doubt an exception. I also admit that the franchise is higher than it is in England, although I am unable to say why the distinction was drawn by Parliament. It is beyond my recollection; but the Corporation of Belfast are in no way responsible for the franchise as it is. The hon. Member is very impatient to have the franchise altered; but I would remind the House that, although the hon. Member has been for a good many years a Member of this House, he has not on any single occasion, that I can remember, proposed to make an alteration in the existing franchise.

MR. SEXTON

Yes; every year.

MR. EWART

Personally, I am in favour of the assimilation of the municipal franchise in Ireland to the municipal franchise in England, and there are two Bills before the House, at this moment, which deal with that subject. I should be very happy to give my support to any measure which proposes to extend the municipal franchise in the sense I have spoken of. With regard to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry), I must say that the Friends of the hon. Member for West Belfast have not dealt very fairly with that measure, because I find that it is blocked by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). I think that fact throws some light on the proceedings which I need not further enter into. The hon. Member for West Belfast has referred to the fact that the Municipal Corporation of Belfast is one sided. I do not know why the hon. Member should find fault with the Town Council of Belfast for that. It is, I believe, the case that in every borough and city in England the majority try to get their own members returned. The very same thing has happened in the City of Dublin and the City of Cork, and the municipal elections which take place at the close of the year in England are looked upon as being quite as much a political index as a General Election. I regret very much that that should be so, because I should like to see the Town Council representing the opinion of the inhabitants free and unfettered of both Parties in the Irish boroughs and in the Irish cities. The hon. Member has, on more than one occasion, referred to the misdeeds of the Corporation of Belfast. Well, I have been for 35 years more or less intimately acquainted with the working of the Belfast Corporation, and for 24 or 25 years I was a member of it. I can bear my testimony that a more exemplary, a more economical, a more earnest, and a more painstaking Corporation does not exist in the United Kingdom; and their management of the municipal affairs of Belfast has been a credit to the town. And now, Sir, with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member. He proposes that the consideration of the Bill shall be further postponed. The works which it contemplates are most important to the health and prosperity of Belfast. The course pursued by the hon. Member has already had the effect of delaying the execution of these works for one year, and if the Motion he now makes is carried, it will still further delay those works for another year. It is necessary to commence the first operations by making an outfall into the harbour, and that can only be done during the summer. Therefore, if this Motion is carried, the execution of the works will be practically delayed for another year. I think the constituents of the hon. Gentleman will be in no way obliged to him for the efforts he has made to obstruct the execution of works so very much desired. The hon. Member complains of the burden of taxation in Belfast. Let me tell the House that as regards the small class of houses—the workmen's houses —the rating comes to 5s. 4d. in the pound, and upon the larger description of houses to 6s. 6d., while in regard to the model Corporation, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member—the Corporation of Dublin—the taxation is no less than 9s. 7d. in the pound.

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

I rise for the purpose of supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart), who has just sat down, says that he is extremely anxious to see the municipal franchise extended in the town of Belfast. It is somewhat strange, I think, that he should be so very anxious to have the franchise for municipal purposes extended in that borough, and yet that he should always have voted against the Motions which have been made by my hon. Friend for the extension of the municipal franchise. The real fact is that that Motion has invariably been opposed by hon. Members opposite when it has been brought forward in this House, and the hon. Gentlemen who have opposed my hon. Friend have continually protested against the extension of the municipal franchise. The hon. Member for North Belfast does not seem to remember that year after year the Irish Party have brought forward Bills in this House in favour of the extension of the municipal franchise in the Irish boroughs, and that he himself and others who act with him have uniformly voted against them. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can reconcile his conduct with the statement he has just made to the House; but, even on the merits of the Bill, I very much doubt whether it would be of advantage to the people of Belfast to pass it in its present shape. That, however, is not the question now before the House; but the question is that the consideration of the Lord's Amendments be postponed until the 28th of July in order to give full time for the passing of a Bill for the extension of the municipal franchise. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman and his Friends to give facilities for the progress of that Bill, and if that is done I will promise them, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that this Bill will get through its remaining stages without the slightest trouble or difficulty, and those in charge of the Bill will have ample opportunity of getting the costs they have incurred charged upon the ratepayers. The hon. Member has made reference to the fact that the municipal franchise in Belfast is an exceedingly narrow one; but he overlooked the fact that no public meeting has been held in the borough of Belfast in favour of this Bill. Nor did he allude to the fact that Dr. Graham, who belongs to the Tory Party, recently fought one of the wards of Belfast on the single issue whether this Bill should pass, and carried his election by a majority of three to one. Under these circumstances, I think it comes with a very bad grace from one of the Representatives of Belfast that he should get up in his place in this House to oppose a Motion, especially when the Motion is not directed against the Bill, but simply asks that its consideration shall be postponed until an opportunity has been afforded for carrying out such reforms as these Gentlemen themselves profess to have at heart.

SIR JAMES CORRY (Armagh, Mid)

The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) has taken very good care, in the remarks he has made, not to support the suggestion which the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has thrown out, the reason being that he fully understands the question, and that he is more intimately acquainted with it than the hon. Member for West Belfast. The hon. Member for West Belfast has stated that if the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners are carried out the expense will have to be defrayed out of the General Purposes Rate. That is not so; because if it is necessary to levy a rate in order to carry out the recommendation of the Commissioners for the extension of the police force, the expense will fall upon the Police Rate, and not upon the General Purposes Rate. The hon. Member for West Belfast has been informed by a Member of the Corporation that he was elected upon this question; but, as far as I am aware, the election took place upon a totally different question. As a matter of fact, it was a personal question between the Gentleman who was elected and another gentleman, and the provisions of this Bill had nothing to do with the contest. The hon. Member says that, as regards the ratepayers, they have not had a sufficient opportunity for expressing their opinion on this question. My hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) has referred to the taxation of Belfast, and contrasted it with that of Dublin. I look upon that as a question of considerable importance. The small householders I may say, who include the artizans, pay a less rate than those who occupy a larger house property, and the result is that, so far as the taxation of the artizans of Belfast is concerned, they only pay 5s. 4d. in the pound, while those of Dublin pay 9s. 7d. in the pound. I think that shows that the Corporation of Belfast have been much more economical in the public works they have carried out than the Corporation of Dublin. Indeed, I am happy to say, that the works they have executed will compare most favourable with any which have been carried out in Dublin. The House has been reminded that there is down upon the Paper a Bill, with which my name is associated for the extension of the municipal franchise. I have the fullest intention of carrying out the proposals contained in that Bill, and if the measure itself had not been blocked by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), I might have obtained the second reading of it before now. If the right hon. Member for Mid Cork will remove the block I will avail myself of every opportunity of pressing the Bill forward. It is impossible, however, under the half-past 12 o'clock Rule to bring forward the Bill so long as the block remains. With regard to the present measure, hope the House will proceed at once to consider the Lords' Amendments, because the Bill is of a most pressing nature, and it is felt that it will be impossible to continue much longer the existing sanitary arrangements.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)

I have risen thus early in the debate in order to make a suggestion, The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has, however, touched upon one point which it is necessary I should refer to. He has stated that the House of Lords, acting under their Standing Orders, refused to permit the insertion of a clause which had been included by this House in the Bill. He has, consequently, condemned the action of the House of Lords, as an interference with the liberty of the House of Commons. May I remind the hon. Member, that I urged at the time that clause was introduced here, that it was totally irregular, and contrary to the spirit, even if not the letter, of our own Standing Orders. For my part, I cannot see that that there is any ground for the accusation which has been made by the hon. Member against the House of Lords, who have simply defended the interests of outside persons who had received no notice of the intention of the promoters of the Bill to make such a provision. But I think we may altogether put aside the hon. Member's ground for complaint, because I find that the hon. Gentleman himself does not attach very much weight to it. As I understand, he admits that if the Municipal Franchise Bill should become law, so that the ratepayers of Belfast would be included in it, he would then have no objection to the Bill going forward which contemplates the execution of these works. The way in which the matter stands is this—the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) has introduced a Bill which he declares his desire to push forward with due celerity, and the hon. Member for West Belfast has expressed his intention to support the Bill. It is now blocked by what I am afraid I must call the indiscriminate action of the hon. Member for Mid Cork.

MR. SEXTON

That has simply been done in order to insure the discussion of the Bill at a reasonable hour.

MR. COURTNEY

Yes; but it is impossible to insure the discussion at a reasonable hour, and really no discussion is necessary. I am sure the hon. Member for West Belfast will agree with me in that remark, seeing that the question is one which has been discussed in this House over and over again, and which is now accepted in principle by both sides of the House. I would, therefore, suggest that, instead of deferring the consideration of this Bill for three months, the hon. Member should allow the present Motion to be withdrawn, and move that the further consideration of the Bill be deferred until the 24th of May. In the meantime, the block which now stands against the Municipal Franchise Bill might be withdrawn, and that Bill could be passed through this House with the full hope that it may receive the assent of the other House, and there would then remain no obstacle to the progress of this Bill, In that ease, these drainage works would be able to go forward, and the summer would not be lost. Therefore, I trust that the Motion will be withdrawn, and the Bill be postponed until the 24th of May, the hon. Member for West Belfast using his influence, in the meantime, to secure the withdrawal of the block against the Municipal Franchise Bill. If that course is pursued, the whole question with regard to both Bills might be satisfactorily disposed of.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

The suggestion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) renders it unnecessary for me to refer at all to the particular merits or demerits of the Bill now before the House. I think I may state that, acting on the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) will be prepared to modify his Motion in the direction indicated, and will take measures, so far as the Members of our Party are concerned, to secure that no further opposition shall be offered to the passage through the House of the Bill for the extension of the Municipal Franchise in Ireland. I may say, however, as an extenuation of this proceeding, that at the end of last year we had a Bill for the extension of the Municipal Franchise of Ireland before the House; but it was blocked all through the Session by the hon. Member who now sits for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) and some other hon. Members on that side of the House. The result was that it was virtually defeated. We are prepared, in compliance with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, to take a very different course as far as we are concerned, and we will promise to give every assistance in our power to the passage through this House of the Municipal Franchise Bill. At the same time we are in this position that we have no guarantee that there may not be an adverse decision in "another place." If we allow the proposed Main Drainage Bill to go through without this clause, the Municipal Franchise Bill may be defeated in the House of Lords, and the defeat itself may be procured by the negotiations of hon. Members here. If that should be the case, we should then be placed in a worse position than that which we now occupy. All we are anxious for is that when the Main Drainage Bill comes into operation in Belfast the whole of the ratepayers of the Town of Belfast should have a voice in the control of the works. That is our only object, and this clause was inserted in the Bill in order to secure that the people of Belfast should have the right of exercising the municipal franchise. Under the circumstances, I think it was a reasonable and fair clause to insert in the Bill now under discussion; and I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means whether a clause may not be put in this Bill to delay its operation. until such time as the ratepayers of Belfast may obtain the right of exercising municipal votes.

SIR CHARLES LEWIS (Antrim, N.)

I have only risen for the purpose of distinctly stating to the House, after the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney), that if nobody else moves the rejection of the Municipal Franchise Bill, I shall do so.

MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

I may say that the promoters of this Bill, having carefully considered the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney), find themselves unable to accept it. A very great delay has already taken place in carrying out these very necessary improvements in Belfast, and the unsanitary condition of the River Lagan at the present time is such that even The Northern Whig, in a recent issue, calls upon the promoters of the Bill to ask the House to pass the measure through all its remaining stages without further delay. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has referred to the municipal franchise as it already exists in Ireland. If the friends of the hon. Gentleman had not already blocked the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry), that measure would probably have passed through this House, and would only have awaited the sanction of "another place." I think I ought to mention that the Bill for the extension of the municipal franchise in Ireland, which stands in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh was brought in at the suggestion of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland — the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). It was impossible, as the right hon. Gentleman told the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, that the Government, in addition to all their other public engagements, could take charge of a Bill for the extension of the municipal franchise. But the right hon. Gentleman added that he was prepared to give it the support of the Government, in order that the inequality which at present exists between England and Ireland in regard to the municipal franchise, so far as the Parliamentary boroughs are concerned, should be remedied and done away with. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I state to the House that I myself have always been an earnest advocate for the extension of the municipal franchise in Ireland. At all the various elections I have had the honour of contesting and of always winning in Belfast, I have ever advocated that measure. Belfast, I think, will compare favourably in regard to the character of its government, the nature of its improvements, and its present financial and mercantile position, with the Metropolis of Ireland, which has a very peculiar Corporation ruling its affairs at the present moment. I venture to ask the House to resist any further delay in the progress of the Main Drain-ago Bill, and not to allow the summer to pass without the commencement of these most necessary works, which have been proved to be so much needed in the great and important town of which I have the honour to be one of the Members.

MR. T. C. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

I will not trespass long upon the time of the House; but it becomes my duty—as the Representative of a Division of the Metropolis of Ireland to which the hon. Member has referred— to defend it from the aspersions he has endeavoured to cast upon it. If the rates of the City of Dublin are higher than the rates of the City of Belfast, the blame must not be attributed to the Nationalist Corporation of Dublin, but to those who, for years, had the government of Dublin in their hands, and who for various purposes voted away the money of the ratepayers. We have at present this anomalous condition of things in regard to that city, that the most valuable property in it has been given away as grants to Tory gentlemen in the past, and that that property is constantly increasing in value without the ratepayers of the city deriving the least benefit from it. If the hon. Gentleman will make an inquiry as to the manner in which the Pembroke Estate was voted away by a Tory Corporation, for the annual present of a goose at Christmas, I think he will get some information as to the manner in which the municipal powers were administered during the time his Party had the administration of the Corporate affairs of Dublin in their hands. As to the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney), I must say that those who are promoting this Bill have absolutely left themselves without any argument whatever in asking the House to consider the Lords' Amendment. They profess to be anxious for the extension of the municipal franchise in Belfast. There are as many as three Bills before the House for that purpose at this moment; but it is notorious that they have themselves been doing all they can to prevent those Bills from coming forward for discussion. They are now, to-day, endeavouring to rely on a mere accidental block which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), in a moment of mistaken zeal, placed against the Bill of the hon. Baronet opposite. They have had full opportunity, time after time, of voting for the extension of the municipal franchise, but, time after time, they have refused to do so. Now, Sir, if the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means were adopted, and the promoters of the Bill are really anxious that the general body of ratepayers should have some control over the extraordinary expenditure upon which the Corporation of Belfast is about to enter, and those hon. Gentlemen will accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, we, on our part, are prepared to assent readily to the adoption of the Lords' Amendments. I cannot say that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means has been at all treated in the most gracious manner by hon. Members opposite, seeing that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) has given Notice that whatever course may be taken in reference to the block which now stands against the Municipal Franchise Bill, he intends to move the rejection of the measure. I repeat, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, that he and his Friends who sit on this side of the House are perfectly prepared to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and if the proposal they are anxious to pass be rejected the citizens of Belfast will then know to whom it is that they are indebted for the delay in proceeding with the Main Drainage Bill.

MR. SEXTON

I wish to say that, with the leave of the House, I am quite willing to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means. Of course, any suggestion coming from the hon. Gentleman occupying the position he does carries with it more than ordinary authority.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment in favour of the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means?

MR. SEXTON

Yes.

Amendment withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

MR. COURTNEY

I beg now to move that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments be postponed until the 24th of May. [An hon. MEMBER: The 24th of May would be a very inconvenient day.]

MR. COURTNEY

Then I will substitute the 20th of May.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be adjourned till the 20th of May."—(Mr. Courtney.)

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

I hope the House will be careful as to the course it takes. I am under the impression that, although a compromise was suggested by the Chairman of Ways and Means, that compromise was not actually accepted. The compromise itself consists of two parts— first, that the block shall be withdrawn from the Bill dealing with the municipal franchise; and next, that the Gentlemen in charge of the Main Drainage Bill should consent to its postponement. Both parts of the compromise will require the assent of hon. Members in this House. The first part requires the assent of those who have blocked the Franchise Bill, and the other requires the consent of hon. Members who are in charge of the present Bill. If I understand correctly what fell from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis), he does intend to oppose the Municipal Franchise Bill, whether the block is withdrawn or not. I gather from the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. Kenny), that he asks the Government to give facilities for taking the Municipal Franchise Bill, in the event of the block being removed. I am afraid I cannot give any pledge of that kind which might involve the delay of Public Business. All I rose for was to remind the House that, while certain hon. Members on that side of the House appear to think that an arrangement has been arrived at, I do not understand that arrangement to have been accepted by the hon. Baronet below the Gangway.

MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.)

I wish to invite the attention of hon. Members to one important consideration, and that is that my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain), who both of them represent working men constituencies, are opposed to the provisions of this Bill. I am informed that a large meeting of the ratepayers of Belfast was held on Monday evening, to condemn the Bill, and that a resolution submitted to that meeting was passed with only three dissentients. I am further informed that the hon. Member for East Belfast, who is deeply interested in the Bill in his representative capacity, and who knows a good deal more of it than most hon. Members in this House, is very anxious to be present in the House when the measure is under discussion. I believe that a second Petition against the Bill has been placed in the hands of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell); and, under these circumstances, especially considering the fact that two out of the four hon. Members who represent Belfast are decide by opposed to the passing of the Bill in its present form, I ask the House to say whether the compromise suggested by the Chairman of Ways and Means is not a reasonable one, and one which hon. Members opposite ought to accede to without the slightest hesitation? In the event of that compromise not being adhered to, I would urge my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast to oppose the Bill in its present stage as far as he possibly can. The action of the Government and of hon. Members opposite is most unreasonable, and it affords a convincing proof, to my mind, that their anxiety for the passing of any Bill for the municipal franchise in Ireland is of a very lukewarm character indeed.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 177: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 96.)

MR. SPEAKER

To what day?

MR. SEXTON

The 20th of May.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 20th May.