§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
§ MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)I rise to protest against this important Bill being taken at this hour of the morning. It is a Bill affecting the internal government of the great City of Belfast, and it is a Bill to some of the provisions of 2003 which, the authorities take very considerable objection. It was understood that it would not be taken to-night; but the hon. Member for West Belfast threatened if the Government would not move it he would. I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the debate.
§ SIR JAMES CORRY (Armagh, Mid)I beg to second that.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Johnston.)
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)In reply to the hon. Member opposite, who accused me of threatening the House, I would say I never threaten, though I often make strong representations to this House; and I certainly did represent at Question Time that if the Bill were not taken by the Government to-night I should move it. It was then understood that it should be taken, yet the hon. Member protests, and with inconceivable hardihood, on the 25th of July—the very verge of the end of the Session—contends it is improper to proceed with a Bill which intimately concerns the preservation of social order in the town of which he is a Representative. It is a Bill which proposes to put an end to a state of affairs most disastrous. Does the hon. Member forget that in last year's riots 40 lives were lost, 60 houses wrecked, and that for three months 6,000 armed men had to be kept there to preserve order? Yet he has the hardihood to object to this Bill being taken, although, unless we get it through, riots may break out again. I warn the Government that they will incur a fearful responsibility if they do not get this Bill through, for unless they do no legislation of this kind can be got through till next year; and if in the course of the autumn or winter disorder again breaks out in Belfast the responsibility will be on their heads for any loss of life that may ensue.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet)I think the last few words of the hon. Member partake of the nature of a threat, although he says he never uses threats to this House. I rise to ask my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast not to press his Motion for Adjournment. I think the hon. Member who last spoke is much mistaken as to the 2004 attitude of the Government on this Bill. This is the first time we have had a chance of dealing with it; it has always been blocked until to night. The intention of the Government is to take the Bill whenever possible, and to insist on enforcing obedience to the law. The hon. Member speaks of the authorities of Belfast not being satisfied with the Bill; but then, I think, he speaks somewhat without book. I have been in communication with the Mayor and Town Council, and I can say there are few points upon which we have not arrived at an agreement. On those points upon which we differ the Municipal Authorities have made the best stand they could—they opposed the Bill on Standing Orders, and we were able to resist their attacks, and the Bill has been allowed to proceed to this second reading stage, which now, I hope, the House will allow us to take.
§ MR. EWART (Belfast, N.)I think it is unreasonable to proceed with a Bill of this importance at this hour. It has been fairly enough stated that, under a misapprehension, we were informed the Bill would not be taken to-night, and it is both inconvenient to ourselves and unfair to the people of Belfast, to enter upon a discussion now.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)Before the Bill is read a second time, I think we should know what is the intention of the Government with regard to the Motion on the Paper.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)I think it is desirable we should know if the Government seriously intend to proceed with the Bill this Session. The Motion standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman opposite is obviously intended to defeat the Bill by referring it to a Select Committee of five. A Royal Commission sat for three months and examined some 200 witnesses, and the Commissioners issued two Reports, one of which can be bought for 3d., and the other by the dissentient Commissioner, perhaps on consideration of its superior value and importance, is to be had for 13d. These documents, together with the evidence of magistrates, clergymen, police, and witnesses from every rack and section of opinion in Belfast, are comprised in a Blue Book of some 600 2005 pages; and yet in the face of this the hon. Gentleman opposite proposes to relegate this Bill, the outcome of this inquiry, to a Select Committee for the collection of more evidence. I ask, will the Bill be allowed to proceed in the ordinary way, and here say that after the second reading is taken it will be my duty to oppose the appointment of the proposed Watch Committee for the discharge of functions which, in my opinion, should lie with the Commissioner of Police.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANFor once I find myself in harmony with the hon. Gentleman, and desire to get through the second reading at once, though when we get to the Committee stage we shall probably differ upon the point he has referred to. My hon. Friend behind me is aware that we cannot agree to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, for it would, by loss of time, have the effect simply of destroying the Bill for the Session. Now, after the exhaustive Report of the Royal Commission, is such an inquiry necessary? I will not weary the House with our proposals now; but the gist of them is that the general powers for the preservation of the peace will be vested in the police magistrates, as is the case in almost every large borough in Ireland. The change is rather a recognition of the importance of the town. We also propose the appointment of a Watch Committee, and here we shall meet with opposition from the hon. Member for West Belfast. We think it a matter of importance; but we shall be happy to receive suggestions, for, while adhering to the principle of the Bill, we desire to consult the views and wishes of all who are concerned in the prosperity and welfare of Belfast.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.
§ MR. JOHNSTONI beg to give Notice that I shall move, on the Motion for going into Committee, that the House go into Committee three months hence.