§
MR. T. B. CURRAN (Donegal, N.) moved:—
That the Order to re-commit this Bill to the Committee of Selection be read and discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
He said that it would be unfair to the promoters of the Bill to compel them to appear before a Committee again; and that the points to which the Speaker had drawn attention could be more cheaply and effectively dealt with in Committee of the Whole House.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)said that the Motion made by the hon. Member for the Harbour Division (Mr. T. Harrington) on Friday last, had placed the promoters of the Bill in a position of great difficulty and anxiety. Their expenses had been between £8,000 and £9,000; and those of the opponents had been almost as much. All the questions relating to gas, water and fire brigade had been thrashed out in the Lords' Committee and the Commons' Committee. Under those circumstances the hon. Member for the Harbour Division moved to recommit the Bill generally and in respect of all its clauses. Now the hon. Member sought to repair his error by limiting the scope of the new Inquiry by a Motion that the Minutes of Evidence before the former Committee be referred to the new Committee, and that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to take no further evidence with respect to parts 1,2 and 4 of the Bill, thereby nullifying practically the Motion he had already carried, and depriving the opponents of the Bill of the opportunity of again stating the case which apparently his first Motion contemplated they should make. Therefore he conceived that an inconsistent position had been assumed. He submitted to the 1330 Government that the true course would be, unless they agreed to the Motion which his hon. Friend had moved, to accept an Amendment somewhat like the following:—That it be an Instruction to the Committee that the preamble be deemed proved, and that the Committee make only such Amendments to Clauses 15 and 23 as will bring them into accordance with the instructions of this House and such consequential Amendments to Part 3 as the said Amendments may render necessary or desirable. That would not in any way conflict with the ruling already given; on the contrary, it would harmonise with it, because it dealt with Part 3 of the Bill as a whole, and enabled the Committee to have seisin of that portion of the Bill. By deeming the preamble proved, they would free the promoters of the expenses they would undoubtedly incur in regard to the water clauses, and would liberate the gentlemen connected with the Select Committee from the arduous and invidious task, at this period of the Session, of considering once more the clauses which another Select Committee had already considered. The Dublin Corporation, he pointed out, had come to a very important conclusion on Saturday, which greatly strengthened the view he put forward. The Committee having charge of this Bill, under the Presidency of Sir R. Sexton, one of the most eminent Conservative members of the Corporation, and respected by all classes in Dublin, met to consider this Bill on Saturday, and arrived at the following unanimous resolution. The hon. Member for the Dublin Harbour Division had posed here as the representative of the Dublin Corporation. He was nothing of the kind.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin Harbour), was understood to say that he did not profess to represent the promoters, but the citizens of Dublin.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that being so, the hon. Member occupied exactly the same position as any other Member of the House, whose arguments had to be considered solely upon their merits. The promoters of the Bill had passed the following resolution:—
That the law agent be instructed to advise counsel and to take all possible means to obtain the passing of the water clauses with or without the franchise clauses.1331 In other words, the Committee having charge of this Bill had arrived at the conclusion that, with the franchise clauses or without them, they were anxious for this Bill. The points raised, therefore, were extremely narrow ones, and he begged to move his Amendment.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid that the Amendment and the Instruction which the hon. Member had just read were ruled out by the decision which the House arrived at on Friday, and the Amendment the hon. Member now sought to introduce was precisely the same Amendment in another form which was negatived by the vote of the House on Friday night.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsubmitted that his Instruction was different in several respects.
§ * MR. SPEAKERIt seems to me that what the hon. and learned Member proposes would be something extending the Instruction which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cork. An Amendment by way of extension would be out of order. I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member whether Instruction No. 6, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division, might not be utilised by him by way of Amendment. That Instruction proposes to admit the evidence given before the former Committee, and that it be an Instruction to the Committee to take no further evidence as to Parts 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill, thus leaving No. 3 untouched, and the Committee entirely at large. Therefore it would be in order for the hon. Member to move as an Amendment to that Instruction some Instruction limiting the authority of the Committee to deal with Part 3, which was not touched.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYthanked Mr. Speaker, and suggested to his hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Motion and take the discussion on the Instruction of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid that the hon. and learned Member had spoken to the House on an Instruction from the Committee of the Dublin Corporation in charge of the Bill, but he was most careful not to inform the House that this Committee consisted of three members, one of them being a species of politician rare in Dublin—a 1332 supporter of the hon. Gentleman himself. The Committee was convened at an hour's notice, and to speak of that Committee as representing in any way the Corporation of Dublin with regard to the Bill was only another endeavour added to the many already made to deceive the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member seemed to be extremely anxious about the fate of this Bill; but it was curious that he spoke with different voices on the Bill, so much so that they found it difficult to find where exactly the hon. Member was. The hon. Member's complaint on Saturday was that the Committee had been formed so speedily that the Chairman was not communicated with, and he assailed the appointment of the Committee, and raised a question of breach of privilege. But there was a safe remedy open to the hon. and learned Member. He invited the hon. Member, if he wished to facilitate the passage of the Bill, to allow the franchise clause to be negatived as well as the other clauses by which he sought to give permanent positions with the right of pensions to officials of the Corporation annually elected, and who did not give evidence with regard to the claim. In the six or seven townships surrounding Dublin not a single Nationalist could get a seat on one of the Boards, but the hon. and learned Member wished to try his experiment of minority representation on Dublin. The hon. Member had misrepresented him by stating that he moved to recommit the Bill as a whole. The House would not be deceived by those tactics. His Motion was followed by an Instruction that the Bill be recommitted with respect to Clauses 20 to 26; but that Instruction he was not permitted to move.
§ * MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the suggestion he made was that the Bill should be recommitted as to Clauses 15 to 26, and the hon. Member moved that the Bill be recommitted generally, though not by any direction of his.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid that in this case he must have misunderstood the directions given by the Chair.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid that the Motion of the hon. Member on the Paper was to recommit the Bill.
§ MR. HARRINGTONFollowed by an Instruction dealing with the clauses 1333 to which he took exception. He understood that it was incompetent for him to move this as one Motion. He appealed to the Government, who must to some extent be responsible for private Bill legislation dealt with in the House, to assist the House in getting out of the difficulty with regard to the Bill. Here was a Bill strictly limited in scope to the one principle of charging townships a price agreed upon with the Corporation, and because there was a technical flaw in the Acts by which the price naturally came to be charged, the extension of the municipal franchise was introduced in a clumsy, unworkable clause without consultation with any body of citizens as to how it might be worked and how it might interfere with any previous rights of the citizens. If the hon. Member was anxious to pass the Bill, let him agree to strike out the franchise and other clauses. They did not want minority representation in Dublin, while the Nationalists were not allowed to get "a look in" in any of the townships around Dublin. Another set of clauses dealt with a number of officers temporarily appointed by the Corporation of Dublin. The City Marshal, for example, was paid by certain fees derived from the pawnbrokers of Ireland; but according to this Bill, without evidence taken, he was to receive a permanent appointment with a right of getting a pension from the Corporation. He submitted that this was a scandalous use to make of the procedure of private Bill legislation, and called upon the Government to take up a strong attitude with regard to it. He spoke for the citizens of Dublin and for the majority of the Corporation, and he appealed to the Government not to allow private Bill legislation to be made the vehicle for the carrying out of a corrupt bargain.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether it was in order to apply the words "corrupt bargain" to Members of the House?
§ * MR. SPEAKERI did not catch the whole of the sentence. If the hon. Member used the words "corrupt bargain" with reference to the conduct of a Member in this House, he would be out of order.
§ MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid he used the words with reference to certain 1334 officials of the Corporation sent over here to promote a Water Bill, and who had no instructions to make a bargain and to allow certain clauses to be introduced in a Bill by which they were to get a permanent appointment.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI understand that the hon. Member did not apply the words "corrupt bargain" to any hon. Member of the House?
§ MR. HARRINGTONNo, Sir.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIn justice to these gentlemen, may I say that I never saw them before the appearance of this clause. The clause was proposed on my own responsibility, without any communication with them
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.did not deny that the House was in some difficulty. He guarded himself from expressing any opinion on the merits of any part of the Bill. He was not acquainted with its provisions, but his observations would be confined to the general principle which ought to guide the House. There was another point on which he guarded himself from expressing a reasoned opinion. This Bill, as originally introduced, was in the main a Water Bill. By an Instruction passed in the House it became possible for the Committee to make the Bill not only a Water Bill but a Franchise Bill. Whether it were expedient on the ground of policy that Bills dealing with small local matters, such as gas and water, should be capable of this abnormal extension after leaving the House was a question which ought to be seriously considered by the House, but as to which he did not at present offer an opinion. There were precedents for the cause without doubt. Nothing irregular had taken place; whether what had taken place was expedient was another matter, and whether, if the Bill went up to the House of Lords in this shape it would be consistent with the Standing Orders of that House to pass the Franchise Clauses he could not say, but a rumour had reached him that in all probability the principles which governed the conduct of private business in the House of Lords would necessitate some material alteration in the Measure in that House. But he merely mentioned these questions in order to put them aside, because he did not think that they were very material. 1335 As a matter of fact, whether it was right or wrong, whether wise or unwise, the House of Commons had, by an Instruction, he would not say compelled the Committee, but more than hinted to the Committee that it might with propriety introduce Franchise Clauses into the Bill, and it was in consequence of that Instruction, after eight weeks' inquiry, that the Committee did introduce these Franchise Clauses.
§ MR. HARRINGTONobserved that the inquiry lasted eight days, not eight weeks, and that no evidence was given in support of the view of the hon. and learned Member for Louth.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the evidence which his hon. Friend said was not given occupied no less than 40 pages of the printed proceedings.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that he was only imperfectly acquainted with what took place in the Committee, and therefore he could not attempt to decide between the two hon. and learned Gentlemen who differed upon that point. The broad fact remained that the Committee, after a prolonged inquiry, did think itself more than justified in converting this Water Bill into a Franchise Bill. He did not think the decision come to last week to recommit the Bill to a private Bill Committee must be supposed to convey a suggestion that the informal Instruction of the House was one that ought to be departed from. The question, it seemed to him, was narrowed down to this—what ought they to do in view of the fact that the Committee in making this a Franchise Bill had in two respects exceeded the powers given to them. They had exceeded their powers in respect of Clauses 15 and 23. What course ought the House to pursue in view of that fact? On Friday they had decided that the Bill should be referred to a Private Bill Committee. To require a Private Bill Committee at this time of the Session to go through again all the evidence which the previous Committee had before it with respect to Parts 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill would be really an absurdity. He hoped that in any case the new Committee, by an exercise of their own native good sense, would absolutely refuse to reconsider all the questions arising upon that part of the Bill, and to hear again all the evidence which, at so much 1336 cost and trouble, was laid before the previous Committee. The question remained, what ought to be done with respect Part 3 of the Bill? On Friday last a Division was taken upon that point, and Mr. Speaker pointed out with unanswerable force that to ask the Committee merely to regularise Clauses 15 and 23, without giving them power to consider the effect which the alterations which they might make might have upon the general scheme of the legislation in the 3rd Part of the Bill would be to impose upon the Committee a duty which could not be properly and adequately fulfilled. The question now was whether they ought to recommit the whole of Part 3 of the Bill, in order to give the Committee power to rehandle the whole question of the Franchise, or whether they ought to limit the Committee to the consideration of clauses 15 and 23, giving them, at the same time, power to introduce into the remaining clauses such Amendments as followed naturally from the alterations which they were directed to make in Clauses 15 and 23. He advised the House to adopt the second of these courses rather than the first. He did not think it possible for the Committee to go with advantage into the question of the Dublin Franchise at this time of the Session. He regretted that that question was ever remitted to a Committee of that House, but it was so remitted and had been examined by the Committee, and he did not think that its labours should be rendered fruitless unnecessarily, or that its decisions should be traversed unnecessarily. Then he thought the House would be well advised to limit as far as possible the labours of this new Committee, so as to give the Bill some chance of becoming law in the course of the present Session.
§ MR. HARRINGTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to recommit the whole question to the Committee, giving them power to amend or to reject the clauses. If so, he should accept the proposal.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid that the best course to take in the circumstances would be to withdraw the Motion before the House, by leave of the House, and then to proceed to the consideration of alternative proposals.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
1337
§
MR. HARRINGTON moved:—
That the minutes of evidence taken before the former Committee on the Dublin Corporation Bill he referred to the Committee to which the Bill is recommitted, and that it he an Instruction to the Committee to take no further evidence nor hear counsel as to Parts 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill.
He said that he understood the speech of the Leader of the House to mean that, when this Bill was recommitted, the Committee were to have power to inquire into the whole question of the inclusion or exclusion of the Franchise provisions. His own object in putting this Instruction upon the Paper was to enable the Committee to reconsider this question. Notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, he could assure the House that the citizens of Dublin would not consent to break up the arrangement of their wards as regulated by charter for a great number of years, for the mere purpose of engrafting this principle of minority representation upon the present procedure. If that principle was to be introduced, it should be applied all round.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYexplained that what he proposed was that the Committee should consider Part 3 of the Bill with the view only of bringing Clauses 15 and 23 into harmony with the Instructions of the House, and of making such alterations in the remaining clauses of Part 3 as might be necessary in consequence.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he would assent to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. He had always been in favour of minority representation. He thought it was a sound principle in dealing with a country like Ireland, and would lead to contentment and peace. It was from that point of view that he had made his proposition. He had never communicated with any member of the Dublin Corporation in this matter. They were all either Parnellite or Conservative, and there was not a single man of them who was a friend of his, and he had neither touch nor contact with any of their views, but he thought it was only reasonable that these gentlemen should not be disquieted in the possession of their offices at the moment when a large extension of the Franchise was granted.
§
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND moved to add at the end of the question the words—
and that they do consider Part 3 of the Bill only with the view of bringing Clauses In and 23 into harmony with the Instruction of the House, and of making such alterations in the remaining clauses of Part 3 as in their opinion these changes may render desirable.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid that the Amendment was precisely the same Amendment as that against which the House voted on Friday night.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid that, as he thought he pointed out at the time, the words proposed before were practically the same words which appeared in Motion No. 9 on the Notice Paper, and strictly confined Amendments to the two points of abrogating any existing Municipal Franchise and of conferring additional powers on the Lord Lieutenant in respect to the appointment of revising barristers. But when the Committee had amended Clauses 15 and 23, they might desire, though it was impossible for the House to say in what respect, to amend the other clauses of Part 3, in consequence of having amended Clauses 15 and 23, and therefore this Amendment proposed that it should be left to a Committee to consider generally what Amendments were in their opinion desirable in consequence of having amended 15 and 23.
§ MR. HARRINGTONcontended that the Amendment proposed by the Government precluded the Committee from considering the whole question of the Franchise. He thought it was rather unfair that all this controversy should have been raised on a narrow question of order. He need not dwell on the speech the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth had made, but he hoped the House would note how dearly he loved his enemies. If the hon. Gentleman would only be as generous and as courteous to his friends as he was to his opponents on the Dublin Corporation, he thought he would find himself more in harmony with them. He regretted that he could not assent to this Amendment, as it would prevent him from raising all that which was most objectionable to the citizens of Dublin. He would point out that the Chairman of the Committee personally was against the introduction of the Franchise at all, and, having regard to the fact that no evidence of any 1339 kind was offered on these clauses, he could not accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ * SIR. JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)said that, having been nominated to act as Chairman of the new Committee, he wished to say a few words. The amended reference was of a very narrow description, and it would have been much more, suitable that the Bill should go to the old Committee. At this time of the Session, however, Members were not always present, and as any hesitation on the part of the new Committee might imperil the Bill, they would of course be very glad to do whatever the House directed. He begged leave to point out to the House what mischief might occur if the House departed from the old and well-established order of Private Bill Committees. If Instructions were constantly moved and the scope of Measures enlarged beyond all proportion to what was intended by the promoters, it would amount to tacking in the worst and most exaggerated form, and against that the House had always set its face. He believed this was the first time a Bill which had been passed by a Private Bill Committee in the usual way had been referred back to an entirely new Committee, and he could not but deprecate the adoption of such a course.
§ MR. HORACE PLUNKETT (Dublin Co., S.)said he understood that on Friday night the Bill was referred without any reservation at all to a new Committee. Consequently, he had received representations from all parts of his constituency—and he believed that the hon. Gentleman who represented the other division of the county had received similar representations—asking him to do his best to take advantage of the opportunity to remedy some very serious grievances that had been inflicted on the county by the Committee. The House would easily understand that the highly-contentious issues that had surrounded the whole conduct of this Bill had inflicted some hardship on those who wished to treat it purely as a business Measure, and to have it discussed on its merits. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division had told the House that this was an attempt on the part of the township he represented to cheat the Dublin Corporation. That he wholly and entirely denied, but he did not wish 1340 to characterise the action of the Corporation in this matter. His constituents thought that, by placing upon them an extravagantly high rate in perpetuity——
§ * MR. SPEAKERThis does not relate to the Amendment before the House.
§ MR. PLUNKETTsubmitted that, if the Amendment was carried, it would not be possible for him to move the Amendment in his own name, and it would be impossible to enlarge the scope of the Committee's inquiry.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid that the remarks of the hon. Gentleman would be in order when he put the main question.
§ MR. PLUNKETTsaid he would reserve what he had to say.
§ Question, "That those words be there added," put and agreed to.
§ On the Question, "That the Instruction as amended be agreed to,"
§ MR. PLUNKETTsaid he was bound to protest in the interest of a large body of his constituents, who would be very seriously injured if they had no further opportunity of resisting the inequitable provisions of the Bill with regard to the water supply.
§ MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)said that he would like to point out that, whatever distinctions might be drawn between what had been suggested by Mr. Speaker and the Amendment now before the House, the substantial question put to the Committee was the reverse of that which was put and carried in the House on Friday last. What was done within the understanding of the House on Friday last was to refer the whole of the Franchise Clauses to the consideration of the Committee for them to deal with as they liked. Now that decision to his mind had been practically reversed at the instance of the Government. He really thought that if the Government intended to take that course they ought to have taken it at the beginning, and not have invited the House to reverse on Monday what was carried on Friday.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL (Cavan, W.), as a Member of the Committee which considered this Bill, desired to explain the position which the Committee actually assumed in dealing with the townships 1341 around Dublin. It was quite true that, as the Bill at present stood, while the Corporation were borrowing an amount of £1,200,000 to be repaid in 1944, a perpetuity payment for water would have to be made by these townships. He and other Members of the Committee considered that that was a grievance, but they did not embody their views in any clause or do anything to alter the Bill which was put before them by the promoters. The reason why they took that course was that they considered that when the year 1944 came, those townships could come to the House and propose an alteration in the Scheme.
§ Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
§ Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the former Committee on the Dublin Corporation Bill [H.L.] be referred to the Committee to which the Bill is re-committed, and that it be an Instruction to the Committee to take no further evidence nor hear Counsel as to Parts I., II. and IV. of the Bill, and that they do consider Part III. of the Bill only with a view of bringing Clauses 15 and 23 into harmony with the Instructions of the House, and of making such alterations in the remaining clauses of Part III. as in their opinion these changes may render desirable.
§ MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)asked whether the Motion would be in order which stood upon the Paper in his name to the following effect:—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to make provision for placing on the Burgess Roll, in respect of any qualification which enables male persons to vote for an alderman or councillor, any person who but for her sex would be entitled so to vote.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid that the remaining Instructions upon the Paper were now out of order.
§ MR. W. JOHNSTONAm I not in order in dealing with the Franchise? I merely propose to give women the same rights as the men.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe Instruction of the hon. Member is not in order after the Resolution which has just been passed by the House.
§ MR. JOHNSTONWhen shall I be in order? [Laughter.] I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question when the Bill comes back to the House.