§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Interpretation Clause).
§ MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)Mr. Courtney, I beg to move to insert, after "respectively," in line 15, page 1, the words "and the expressions 'rural sanitary district' and 'rural authority' respectively." The object of this and the other Amendments which stand in my name is simply to extend the powers of the rural sanitary districts as well as the urban sanitary districts.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 15, after "respectively," insert" and the expressions 'rural sanitary district' and 'rural authority 'respectively."—(Mr. Channing.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)At this point I should like to say that some time since I put a block on the Books against this Bill. I removed the block on the distinct understanding that the progress of a similar Bill relating to Ireland would not be interfered with. I find that the understanding has not been kept; and, therefore, I shall certainly put down a number of Amendments against this Bill.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Words inserted.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)I beg to move, Mr. Chairman, that you do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and I do so upon the ground that we took our block off this Bill upon the distinct understanding that the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) would put down Amendments making the Bill applicable to Ireland. We had brought in a similar Bill dealing with Ireland, and two Ulster Members had blocked it. It is impossible to expect us to keep faith with you if faith is not kept with us. We distinctly understood that the opposition to the Dublin Open Spaces Bill would not be persisted in, and 1731 that the hon. Baronet would apply some of the provisions he proposes to Ireland. I have looked through the Amendments of the hon. Baronet; but I do not see any to that effect. I have no desire that this Bill should not be proceeded with; indeed, I have a strong desire it should be passed; but what I want to know is why our Open Spaces Bill should be blocked while yours is proceeded with? Under the circumstances, I shall certainly object to the English Bill being proceeded with, unless our Bill on similar lines is also allowed to be proceeded with.
§ Motion made, and Question -proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)I am very sorry there should have been any misunderstanding on this point. I think hon. Members around me will bear me out when I say that what I said when the Bill was last before the House was that I would put off the Bill for a few days, in order that hon. Members below the Gangway should have an opportunity of putting down whatever Amendments they thought fit. Certainly I have no objection to the Bill being extended to Ireland; but that might be done on Report. I hope the Committee will now proceed with the Bill.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)I am bound to say, in support of my hon. Friends (Mr. Healy and Dr. Tanner), that the impression left on my mind was that there was an understanding between the other side and this that fair play should be given to the Irish Members in respect to what they proposed in reference to open spaces in their own country. I understood at the time that a Bill had been introduced relating to open spaces in Ireland; but I do not know in what way the understanding was to be carried out—whether by the amalgamation of the Irish Bill with this, or otherwise.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)It is perfectly evident that the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) misunderstood me on the last occasion the Bill was brought forward. I laid it down as a matter of agreement that I would remove my opposition to his Bill if the opposition to the Irish Bill wore removed. The hon. 1732 Baronet came to me and expressed astonishment that, as we had a Bill on the Paper proceeding on exactly similar lines to his, I should enter a Notice of opposition to tills Bill. I must say I never made any such agreement as the hon. Baronet appears to think. I never said anything about putting down Amendments to this Bill, and never had any intention of doing so. What I suggest is that the further consideration of this Bill in Committee should be deferred until some arrangement is arrived at with respect to the Irish Bill. I do not care in what way a modus vivendi is arrived at. Perhaps the hon. Baronet's Friends who sit upon the Ministerial Benches will yield to his remonstrances, and withdraw their opposition to our Bill; or, possibly, the hon. Baronet will propose Amendments making this Bill applicable to Ireland.
§ MR. W. H. JAMES (Gateshead)I have often observed that agreements made outside break down when matters come to be discussed in the House. The reason in nine cases out of 10 is that no two Members can be expected, in a private agreement made in the Lobby or Library, to bind all the other Members of the House. I do not know anything about the difficulty which has arisen; but I hope my hon. Friends below the Gangway will allow this Bill to be proceeded with to-night. Several Members, including the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), who are deeply interested in the question of open spaces, have remained to assist in the passing of the Bill. At present, the Preamble relates to England and Wales only; the difficulty which has occurred could be surmounted by the insertion of the word "Ireland."
§ MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)As I have put down a block to the Irish Bill, I wish to explain that I shall be very glad to withdraw it. I think the system of blocking has been carried on to too great an extent; but the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) certainly set me the example. If he will remove some of the blocks to the Bills brought in by hon. Members on this side of the House, I shall be very happy to remove mine.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)My recollection of what took place on the former occasion is that hon. Gentle- 1733 men below the Gangway complained of the blocking of the Irish Bill, and said that what they would have to do, under the circumstances, would be to endeavour to engraft on the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) the provisions of the Irish Bill. Personally, I am very much interested in the Dublin Bill. I consider both Bills to be of great utility.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)After what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) I will not press the Motion to report Progress. Perhaps it is as well that some progress should be made with the Bill, but that we should not altogether lose our grip of the Bill. Under the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion; but I shall renew it before you, Mr. Courtney, absolutely leave the Chair, so that we shall reserve to ourselves the opportunity of amending the Preamble and title of the Bill.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. W. H. JAMES (Gateshead)I beg to propose the omission of all the words from "the expression 'burial ground,' "in line 16, to the end of the clause. The object of this Amendment is to provide that the definition of a burial ground shall be that in the Act of 1881.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, leave out from "the expression 'burial ground'" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. W. H. James.)
§
Question,
That the words 'the expression "burial ground" shall mean a burial ground, whether consecrated or not, which has been at any time set apart for purposes of 'stand part of the Clause,
put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Extension of provisions of Metropolitan Open Spaces Act to urban sanitary districts).
§ MR. HOULDSWORTH (Manchester, N.W.)The Amendment which stands in my name is rather a consequential than a substantial one. It is to prepare the way for introducing some words which will bring in the Act of 1877 as well as the Act of 1881. The Act of 1877 was the first Act which gave these powers to the Metropolitan Board of 1734 Works; and it is very desirable that, in extending the powers to rural or urban authorities, the powers contained in the Act of 1877 should be conferred, as well as those contained in the Act of 1881. I beg to move my Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, leave out "Act," and insert" Acts."—(Mr. Houldsworth.)
§ Question, "That the word 'Act stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That the word 'Acts' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ On the Motion of Mr. W. H. JAMES, Amendment made, in page 1, line 23, after "Act," by inserting" as amended by this Act."
§ On the Motion of Mr. HOULDSWORTH, Amendment made, in page 1, line 23, after "except," by inserting "Sections four, five, six, seven, and eight of the Metropolitan Open Spaces Act of 1877, and of the Act of 1881."
§ On the Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Amendment made, in page 1, line 25, by leaving out "1885," and inserting "1855."
§
On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendments made, in page 1, line 26, after "thirteen," by inserting "of the last mentioned Act; "and in page 1, line 27, after "district," by inserting—
And any and every rural sanitary district in respect to which the sanitary authority shall have been vested by the order of the Local Government Board.
§ On the Motion of Mr. CHANNING, Amendment made, in page 2, line 2, after "authority," by inserting "and every such rural authority."
§ On the Motion of Mr. W. H. JAMES, Amendment made, in page 2, line 6, after "Act," by inserting "as amended by this Act."
§ On the Motion of Mr. CHANNING, Amendments made, in page 2, line 10, by leaving out "urban," and inserting "such; "and in page 2, line 10, at end, by leaving out "urban," and inserting "such."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Expenses).
§
On the Motion of Mr. LONG, Amendments made, in page 2, line 17, by leaving out "defrayed as if they had," and in-
1735
serting "deemed to have; "and in page 2, line 18, at end, by adding—
And shall be defrayed accordingly, and the purposes of this Act shall be deemed to be the purposes of 'The Public Health Act, l875.'
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Extent of Act).
§ On the Motion of Mr. LONG, Amendment made, in page 2, line 10, by leaving out "to the Metropolis or."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Bye-laws) struck out.
§ Clause 6 (Short title) agreed to.
§ MR. W. H. JAMES (Gateshead)I beg to move the insertion of the following clause after Clause 1:—
§ (Amendment of "The Metropolitan Open Spaces Act. 1881.")
§ "(1.) The principal Act is hereby repealed to the extent in the first column of the Schedule to this Act mentioned.
§ "(2.) In any licence or faculty granted by a Bishop under the principal Act or this Act in relation to any consecrated ground, there may be specified such conditions as to the mode in which such ground may be used for purposes of recreation as to the Bishop may seem lit."
§ New Clause (Mr. W. H. James) brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ MR. W. H. JAMES (Gateshead)I now beg to move the following clause:—
§ (Amendment of "The Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884.")
§ " In 'The Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884,'—
§ " The expression 'burial ground' shall have the same meaning as in the principal Act as amended by this Act, and the expression 'disused burial ground' shall mean any burial ground which is no longer used for interments, whether or not such ground shall have been wholly or partially closed for burials under the provisions of any.Statute or Order in Council."
§ New Clause (Mr. W. H. James) brought up, and read the first time
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)I am afraid I cannot accept this clause, because it leads hereafter to a clause getting rid of the prohibition against the playing of games in these disused churchyards. I 1736 am perfectly well aware I shall be told that the Act of 1881 expressly imposed on the Metropolitan Board of Works the duty of forbidding games in open spaces as well as in disused burial grounds. If it were only a question of allowing games in open spaces, I should have no objection to the clause. The public have had no notice of such a provision as this, and therefore it would scarcely be wise to adopt it.
§ MR. W. H. JAMESI cannot hold that any acts of desecration would be permitted by the Local Authorities.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)No games are allowed to be played in churchyards, and I think that if a provision were imported into this Bill which would allow games of all kinds to be played in burial grounds, there would be a certain shock to public feeling. Not only so; but many of these churchyards are so situated that games could only be indulged in to the danger of the buildings and the windows of the buildings surrounding. The Government cannot consent to the insertion of this clause.
§ MR. HOULDSWORTH (Manchester, N.W.)I am sure we all share the view of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie), that no games should be allowed in burial grounds. At the same time, it would be very undesirable to prevent games being played on other open spaces.
§ MR. RITCHIEI propose to move an Amendment which will enable Local Authorities to allow games to be played on open spaces other than churchyards.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)I sympathize with the object of my hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. James); but, in view of the understanding arrived at on the second reading, I feel bound to support the Government upon this occasion.
§ SIR CHARLES FORSTER (Walsall)I also fully sympathize with the view of the hon. Member for Gateshead; but I trust he will not endanger the passing of the Bill, which I regard of much importance, by pressing the clause to a Division.
§ MR. W. H. JAMESI fear I must yield to the appeal of my hon. Friend (Sir Charles Forster).
§ Question put, and negatived.
1737§ THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG) (Wilts, Devizes)I beg to move the insertion of the following clause:—
§ (Bye-laws.)
§ "All the provisions with respect to bye-laws contained in sections one hundred and eighty-two to one hundred and eighty-six (both inclusive) of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall apply to all bye-laws from time to time made by a Sanitary Authority under the powers of this Act, and the penalties imposed by any such bye-laws may be recovered in a summary manner."
§ New Clause (Mr. Long) brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause added to the Bill,
§ MR. W. H. JAMESAs a point of Order, Sir, I should like to know whether it is not competent for me to proceed with my Amendments in regard to the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884?
THE CHAIRMANthe hon. Member, in putting his Amendments on the Paper, has proposed to "insert the following Clauses 1 and 2." Well, those have been incorporated in the Bill, and all the rest of the ground is covered.
§ MR. HOULDSWORTHThe next Amendment I have placed on the Paper is one of considerable importance in large, populous towns where there is property of the kind dealt with in this Bill, especially property held by Ecclesiastical Corporations. It is for the purpose of enabling such Corporations to make gifts of land for the recreation and exercise of the public. Many cases in the country exist where Ecclesiastical Corporations have land which they would gladly dispose of in this way if they were not prevented by the present state of the law. I propose to insert the following new clause:—
§ (Power to Corporations to make free gift of land.)
§ "Any Corporation or Corporations, person or persons, having power to sell and convey land under any Act, charter, letters patent, or otherwise, may, in like manner, voluntarily give and convey any open space, as defined in the principal Acts, to any Urban Sanitary Authority, and such Urban Sanitary Authority may accept the ownership thereof, and hold the same in trust for the perpetual use thereof by the public for exercise and recreation, and may from time to time make bye-laws for the regulation of such open spaces."
1738§ New Clause (Mr. Houldsworth) brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)I agree to accept this clause; but as it has been decided to extend the operation of the Bill, it will be necessary to make some alterations. It will be necessary to leave out, after "bye-laws," the words "for the regulation of such open spaces," in order to insert other words which I shall propose.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Liverpool, Everton)Corporations cannot convey land without the consent of the Lords of the Treasury.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)This is an extremely wide clause to insert in a Bill of this character on the Motion of a private Member. It seems to me a very objectionable thing to give permission to a Corporation to give away its land for this purpose without laying down definite restrictions, and I do not think the clause is drawn at all in a workmanlike manner. It seems to me highly objectionable and reprehensible to allow a clause of this nature to be put in a non-contentious Bill like this without its having been carefully considered, and I would take leave to suggest that the proper course to adopt would be this—namely, for the Government, before they attempt to amend the clause, to put down upon the Paper the alterations they propose, so that hon. Members may have an opportunity of considering them. They should be printed, so that we can see them and discuss them on Report. In some Corporations you have a great deal of jobbery, and you can never tell how a clause of this kind will work unless you take the precaution to lay down distinct limitations. I think the clause as it stands at present is open to very grave objection. I should like to know if the Government have considered the matter in all its bearings?
§ MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down that this is a most startling proposition to put before the House in a Bill of this kind. The hon. Member, in moving the clause, 1739 says that Ecclesiastical Corporations are prepared to make use of land for open spaces. Yes; but we have to ask whether the lands that these Ecclesiastical Corporations are prepared to give away so freely are really theirs to give? Then lauds of this kind might be given away in a most improper manner, and in a most improper spirit. The property may really belong to a large area, and yet may be given away for the benefit of a very small area. I would ask the Government to give us more time to consider the matter before requiring us to give Ecclesiastical Corporations, or any other Corporations, such powers as these.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N. E.)My own constituency is very much interested in this clause. In a very poor suburb of Manchester that forms part of my constituency there is a large amount of unutilized land. It is the only land out of which a recreation ground can be obtained for an especially poor population—factory workpeople, and so forth. This land belongs to the Bean and Canons of Manchester. They are willing to give a sufficient amount of this land to form recreation grounds, none of which at present exist, for this population. But they cannot now do it without the leave of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. As the law now stands, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners do not feel justified in allowing any of this land to be given away for this or any other purpose. They only allow it to be sold. This clause will enable the authorities to give it away for the purpose of exercise and recreation grounds. All parties are desirous that this power should be conferred on Ecclesiastical Corporations, and it is only required that this House shall give the necessary legal authority. I would entreat the Committee not to throw any obstruction in the way of this clause, because I assure hon. Members that it is the only way these poor people can obtain recreation grounds. the passing of this clause will not injure anyone in the country.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI rather suspected, from the quarter from which this clause came, that there was some political move at the bottom of it. I am convinced of it now. Since the Redistribution Act you have towns divided 1740 into different constituencies. Some of those are of a Liberal character and some are of a Conservative character, and the Ecclesiastical Corporations that exist in connection with these constituencies may have a majority on them that may be Liberal or Tory. You may have gilts made under such a clause as this by a political majority to a constituency of the same shade of politics for the purpose of preserving it, or to one of a different shade of politics for the purpose of converting it. I maintain that you would open the door to some extent to most improper practices; and I submit that it would be well for us to see what the Government propose as an Amendment before giving an opinion upon such a clause. What are the suggestions the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has to make? Whatever they are, I think it desirable that we should have further time to consider them.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONthe Amendments my right hon. Friend is proposing are only to bring the clause into harmony with other clauses which have been agreed to. Without them the clause would be inconsistent with those other parts of the measure. The Amendments are only of a verbal character. I can inform the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, in reply to observations he has just made, that there are a great many poor Irish people in the district to which I have referred, and in which the Dean and Chapter desire to present land for recreation grounds. These poor Irish people will be greatly benefited by these recreation grounds, for at the present moment they have no places of the kind to avail themselves of.
§ MR. FINCH-HATTON (Lincolnshire, Spalding)I would point out that it is not proposed, by the powers contained in the clause, to hand over land to irresponsible persons. They will be exercised in favour of properly appointed, responsible persons, and I think that is a sufficient safeguard.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)It may be as well to remind the Committee of what is the law as regards the Metropolis. According to the Act of 1881, owners of open spaces are allowed to avail themselves of the powers of the measure, and the 1741 Interpretation Clause says that owners may be Corporations.
MR. ILLLNGWORTH (Bradford, W.)I am not at all satisfied with the explanation given by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. This land, which we are told is vested in the Dean and Chapter of Manchester, really belongs to the whole of the diocese, like the Cathedral. It may be situated in the district which the right hon. Gentleman represents, as also may the Cathedral; but that does not alter the fact that it belongs to the whole diocese, and that it would be a misapplication of public property to give it to a single locality. I say, as my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) has stated, that there is a deal of jobbery in matters of this kind on the part of Corporations. I suppose, if the people of Manchester want open spaces, they can obtain them as the people of other towns do. If the Dean and Chapter have open spaces in the right hon. Gentleman's district, I suppose they have not got them in other localities. What, then, are those other localities to do? I object to this probable action of the Dean and Chapter in giving away public property to a particular district, and I hold it to be a total misapplication of trust funds. This land is public property, and I maintain that it is quite contrary to the functions of such a body as the Dean and Chapter to act this part, and to come forward and distribute, after their own fancy, particular parts of property within a small area. I feel bound to add that it is altogether unworthy of a place like Manchester to come hero begging in this way for land for recreation grounds. The town I represent has gone to work in this matter in a legitimate manner. They have made themselves liable for the cost of these recreation grounds out of the rates of the community. Open spaces are required as much in other places as in Manchester. I would urge the Committee to insist on some time being afforded us to consider the clause and the proposed Amendments before any attempt is made to advance them.
§ MR. RITCHIEThe hon. Gentleman loses sight of the fact that the clause will not put an obligation on these Corporations in any way. It will merely give power to the Corporations to sell and convey. I think the clause is of too 1742 much importance to be discussed and decided now; it would occupy too much time at this hour of the morning (1.55 A.M.); therefore, I would suggest to the hon. Member (Mr. Houldsworth) that he should withdraw it now and bring it up again on Report.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHThe clause says, "voluntarily give and convey any open space;" and I object to public property being given away in this eleemosynary manner to a place like Manchester, particularly under the circumstances described.
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONThe hon. Gentleman's insinuations are perfectly gratuitous. He is speaking from his own inner consciousness, without the slightest knowledge of the facts of the case to which I referred. The open space I alluded to is not in Manchester at all, but in a poor suburban district which can get no assistance at all from the wealthy Corporation of Manchester. There is no district in the United Kingdom more dependent as this on a free gift of land for recreation purposes.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHI based my statement entirely on what fell from the right hon. Gentleman himself. What he said was that the Dean and Chapter of Manchester were willing to give for the benefit of these poor people land which they hold in trust, and I say they have no right to do so. I base my whole case on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI should like to know whether it is really competent for a private Member to propose a clause of this kind? It would be contrary to all the Rules of the House to allow such a thing as this to be done. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) is to be allowed to postpone the clause I cannot help it.
§ MR. HOULDSWORTHAs there is so much objection to the clause I will withdraw it now, and will bring it up again on Report.
THE CHAIRMANOn the point of Order, I may say I had serious doubts whether this clause could be proposed by the hon. Member; but, on referring to the principal Act, I saw that it empowers trustees to make these gifts, therefore I thought the Motion might be made.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
1743§ THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG) (Wilts, Devizes)I do not know if I am in Order, but I should like to propose to alter the title of the Bill.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI think I am correct in saying that it will not be contrary to the understanding which seemed to be arrived at a short time ago if the Chairman now reports Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ MR. LONGI was about to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would be desirable to reprint the Bill. He will see the necessity of this when he considers that both the title and the Preamble have to be amended. The hon. and learned Gentleman will not lose control over the measure by allowing the present stage to pass.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIf we can adopt that course and be in Order I should be glad; but I understand you, Sir, to offer a negative nod. The promise of the hon. Member (Mr. Johnston) is somewhat militated against by the fact that the Dublin Bill is also blocked by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald).
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT) (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)It is very desirable that this Bill should be reprinted.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIf the Government will re-commit the Bill, I will consent to withdraw my Motion.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)I am afraid I cannot come to any absolute engagement, because the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) will see that the provisions of this Bill apply to Local Authorities in England, and are not at all applicable to Local Authorities in Ireland.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIt is rather unusual for the right hon. Gentleman to throw over his own Under Secretary. I merely fell in with the suggestion. If the 1744 Government will agree to re-commit the Bill, it will enable us to take the course now suggested of amending the Preamble. The Government will not be bound to accept our Bill. All we want is discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) will consent to the course suggested by one of the Members of his own Government, we, or I at least, will repudiate anything like an agreement on the part of the Government to accept the principle of any Amendment we may propose.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) would lose anything by allowing us to take the Preamble and to have the Bill reprinted.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThere is a favourite saying in Ireland, "Keep a firm grip while you have a hold of it."
§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)I cannot see what objection there can be to deferring the further consideration of the Bill until Thursday. One Bill comes on a Wednesday, and if hon. Gentlemen do not behave in the way they are expected to behave, and carry out the arrangement entered into, we shall be perfectly free to take whatever course suggests itself to us. I trust the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) will now allow us to report Progress.
§ MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)I should like to say I have already re-quested the Clerk at the Table to remove the block which stood in my name, and I have no doubt the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald) will do the same.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.