[BILL 107.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 29 April 1887)

§ MR. CRAIG SELLAR (Lanarkshire, Partick),
in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said: The opposition to this Bill has, I believe, been withdrawn; and I believe that the principle of the measure is approved by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the two Front Benches, and supported by the vast majority of hon. 491 Members on both sides of the House, It deals with an old question. The subject has been for nearly 50 years before this House, and this Bill for more than two years. What I wish to do to-night is to ask the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time and then referred to a Select Committee. I shall be willing, if that course be followed, to undertake not to proceed with the consideration of the Bill during this Session. The proposals of the measure would, however, be thrashed out upstairs, and we should know what the House really thought on the subject. I should then be prepared, in another Session, to bring in the Bill as amended by the Select Committee. The object of the measure is to carry out the recommendations of the Committee upon Procedure of last Session, which Committee recommended that arrangements should be made to relieve the House of the work done by the Private Bill Committees. I need not, at this hour, enter more minutely into the matter; but I hope the House will consent to read the Bill a second time, and then refer it to a Select Committee. I beg to move the second reading.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)
Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised at what I may call the superb hardihood of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Craig Sellar) in proposing, at this hour of the morning, to take the second reading of a Bill of more far-reaching importance than, perhaps, any measure, except the Criminal Law Amendment(Ireland) Bill, introduced this Session. I observe, on the back of the Bill, the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. John Morley). Of course, I am very sorry to have to oppose any measure to which he lends the high sanction of his name; but, for my part, Sir, to use an expression of the late Mr. Henley, who said that when he could no longer oppose a Bill he would lie on his back and cry "Fudge," I will give my most strenuous opposition to this Bill, even to ejaculating "Fudge." It is proposed to refer Irish Private Bills to a Committee of Irish Judges. Why, we would die fighting that proposal. We say this of the tribunals of 492 the House of Commons—that as long as we are compelled to come to Westminster, there is not a fairer body for dealing with Private Bills than a Committee upstairs. We think that great injustice was done lately in proposing to destroy our best buildings in Dublin by carrying out a certain undertaking; but, as far as fair play and impartiality go, we have the fullest confidence in the integrity of the Private Bill Committees upstairs. But I would rather give authority in these matters to the most corrupt body in the most corrupt constituency in this country than give it to a committee of Irish Judges. We have had bitter experience of such a tribunal under the Labourers' Act and the Tramways Act. To compel us to go before them, to compel the Irish advocates to go before them, to be sneered at and insulted by them, is a thing to which I, for one, will never give my consent. I tell the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Craig Sellar) that, if he were to practise before these men, he would be the last in the world to make such a proposal as this. We can go to the Committees upstairs, and our arguments will be listened to. Politics are not con-corned there as they are in the House. I am not speaking of political matters, but of waterworks, gasworks, and things of that kind. But to give the Irish Judges the powers of a Select Committee! I think that no one who has lived in Ireland, except a Liberal Unionist, would venture to propose such, a thing. To my sorrow, I have been before three Judges, in the miserable matter of providing a labourer's cottage, and I will tell the House what was said by Lord Ashbourne. It was proved before him, by the Local Government Board Inspector, that a stream ran. through the house of the unfortunate labourer. What did Lord Ashbourne say to him? "Oh, my poor man," he said, "you appear to be enjoying very good health." When the Inspector proved that a stream was running through the house, the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland sneered at the unfortunate official, and attempted to brow-beat him. We made a great mistake when we changed the Labourers' Act, so as to have cases arising under it hoard before the Judges. We have been taught a very severe lesson by that mistake, and one which will not be lost 493 on us. I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

§ Mr. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)
Mr. Speaker, this Bill applies also to Scotland, and contains provisions which are of a most extraordinary character. I second the Motion for Adjournment. I must protest, as I have protested before and shall always continue to do, against important Business of this kind being brought on at so late an hour. I shall not detain the House by making a speech; but I think, under the circumstances, everyone will admit the reasonableness of the Motion.

§ SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)
I agree very cordially with what has fallen from the hon. Member who has just sat down. Whatever this Bill may be, it is an important measure, and it is too late to be taken up at this time of the night. But my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill (Mr. Craig Sellar) has entirely misrepresented—although most unintentionally on his part—the position of the House towards this Bill. I had the honour of opposing the measure two years ago, and the House agreed with me in condemning its principle. I think that the numbers who voted were 58 for the Bill and 150 against it, so that there was a majority of nearly three to one against the principle it contains. The Bill proposes to send to three Commissioners, to be paid £3,000 a year each, all the Private Business that now goes before Select Committees. There are other provisions of a similar character that require the utmost consideration. The measure, of course, would apply to Gas Works, Water Works, and Railways, and all Private Bills, and it raises questions of the utmost importance. And it is proposed that the Bill shall be, after the second reading, referred to a Select Committee, as if the principle was agreed to. I should not mind referring the whole question of Private Bill legislation to a Select Committee; but I cannot agree to the Motion for the second reading, and shall certainly oppose it.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
I venture to ask the hon. 494 Gentleman opposite (Mr. Craig Sellar) whether he will not, under all the circumstances of the case, consent to the adjournment of the debate? It is obvious that considerable difference of opinion prevails as to the principle of the Bill; and, looking at the lateness of the hour we have now reached, it does not seem advisable that we should go on discussing the question. I shall remain, however, of opinion that the measure itself is one that ought to be considered very carefully by the House, and that it could be very advantageously threshed out by a Select Committee. I am sure that the hon. Baronet who has just spoken (Sir Joseph Pease) fully admits the importance of the question. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has objected to the jurisdiction of the Irish Judges; but that is a question which would be very properly considered by a Committee. However, under all the circumstances, I trust the hon. Member for Partick will consent to the adjournment of the debate until a day when sufficient consideration can be given to the Bill.

§ MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-on-Tyne)
I entirely concur in the observations which have just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury; I hope my hon. Friend will consent to the adjournment of the debate. I may say that I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Longford as to the undesirable-ness of submitting these questions to a tribunal of Irish Judges; but not entirely for the reasons which my hon. Friend stated. I think that many advantages could be gained if the proposal, which is one of great importance, were previously threshed out in a Select Committee, and I wonder—I merely throw this out as a suggestion for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman—whether it would not be worth while for the Government, independently of the action of my hon. Friend (Mr. Craig Sellar), to move for the appointment of a Select Committee. A Committee so appointed would be able to do all that my hon. Friend's proposal could effect. In the meantime, whilst cordially approving of the principle of the Bill, I hope my hon. Friend will consent to the adjournment.

§ MR. CRAIG SELLAR
I thank my hon, and right hon. Friends for the kind way in which they have spoken of my proposal, and shall act as they suggest. in reference to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-on-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), I may say that if the Government would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee on this subject, I should be glad to move that the Order for the second reading of my Bill be discharged. I propose to adjourn the second reading until next Friday.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)
I think that as a general principle we are entitled to protest against any attempt on the part of hon. Members at getting through the second reading of Bills of the first magnitude and of the most far-reaching importance, by giving undertakings that they will behave in the best manner when they get their proposal before a Select Committee. Whenever this question of Private Bill legislation is dealt with, it must be by a responsible Government. I protest against the attempt which has been made to smuggle through the second reading stage, without discussion, a Bill of the first magnitude, and the very principles of which are not understood by many Members of the present House of Commons.