DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL. (Hansard, 31 July 1896)

§ MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)
said he desired to ask Mr. Speaker's ruling on some points of order. The first was whether the Committee which had charge of the Bill had gone outside the Instructions of the House? On July 13th the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) moved the following Instruction:— That it he an Instruction to the Committee to inquire into the advisability of extending the municipal franchise to all Parliamentary voters except lodgers, and of providing that the burgess lists shall be revised and made up by the same persons and at the same time as the Parliamentary Register, before the increased powers proposed to be given by the Bill are conferred upon the Corporation, and if they think fit to make provision in the Bill for the same. On that Instruction Mr. Speaker said— It seemed to him that it was somewhat doubtful whether the Instruction was in order or not, and if it had been objected to be should have liked some further time to consider it in connection with the terms of the Bill. As, however, it appeared to be accepted by general consent, he did not think it necessary to raise any objection. That was an Instruction to the Committee to extend the franchise, and not to deprive any class of the citizens of the franchise which they at present possessed and exercised. Clause 15, which the Committee embodied in the Bill, dealt with the franchise. The clause included on the list of 1235 burgesses, all persons on the Parliamentary register, omitting lodgers and persons qualified to appear on the register in respect of premises not situate within the municipal boundary. There was in Dublin a considerable body of persons entitled to vote in respect of the occupation of warehouses, shops, or offices, whose residence was not within the city but within seven miles of the boundary. The clause would disfranchise those persons, and he submitted that the Committee therein exceeded their powers. His second point of order was with respect to Clauses 19 and 20, which provided for minority representation. The hon. Member for Londonderry had an Instruction down specifically relating to minority representation, but on objection being taken by the Chief Secretary it was withdrawn, and he submitted that after that it was not competent for the Committee to deal with minority representation under another Instruction not specifically mentioning that subject. His next point of order related to the Instruction of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, which was:— that the Committee have power to make provision for an amendment of the law as to the election and tenure of office of aldermen, councillors, and assessors, and as to the employment and tenure of office of any officers annually elected by the corporation, or appointed by any persons nominated by the corporation. The Committee had not confined themselves to the officers elected by the corporation; because the borough assessors were elected by the burgesses at large. Moreover, this clause relating to the borough assessors involved an additional burden on the Imperial revenue, and on that ground would be out of order.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
On the point of order, Sir, is it not the fact that the guardian of order in Committee is the Chairman, and that it has always been held to be most inconvenient for Mr. Speaker to engage himself with what went on in Committee when he did not hear the arguments?

§ MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)
said that when he withdrew his Instruction, which referred merely to one form of minority representation, he withdrew it in favour of the other Instruction.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for North Louth, it is quite true that in all Com- 1236 mittees the Chairman is the guardian of order, and decides all points which arise in Committee. But when there is an Instruction from the House, and the Bill comes back from the Committee with matters in it which are outside that Instruction, then the whole matter is before the House, and it would be my duty to give my opinion as to whether or not the clauses of the Bill did go beyond the Instruction. Therefore, the hon. Member for the Harbour Division is entitled to my opinion on that point. As to the first clause to which the hon. Member has taken objection. The Instruction with regard to the franchise was to inquire into the advisability of extending the municipal franchise to all Parliamentary voters except lodgers. That was the material part of the Instruction; and it only gives powers to extend the franchise. As far as I have been able to make myself acquainted with the Act, the hon. Member for the Harbour Division is right in saying that the present municipal franchise includes persons living within seven miles of the boundaries who occupy tenements within the city. That franchise has been taken away by the clause, which is clearly beyond the Instruction. To take away a franchise is a serious matter, which no Committee have a right to do unless authorised to do it by the nature of the Bill itself or by an Instruction. If it be by an Instruction it ought to be by an express Instruction, or at least one drawn in terms clearly wide enough to empower the Committee to take away that franchise. In this Instruction there was no authority given to disfranchise, and to the extent to which it does so the clause is beyond the powers of the Committee. As to the point upon Sections 19 and 20, the Instruction of the hon. Member for North Monaghan was:— That the Committee have power to make provision for an amendment of the law as to the election of aldermen, councillors, and assessors. Those are general words, and would, I think, include the power to give a minority vote. But then the point is taken that because the hon. Member for Londonderry put an Instruction on the Paper specifically referring to the minority vote, which was withdrawn, that the Committee could have no power to deal with the subject of minority 1237 representation under the Instruction of the hon. Member for North Monaghan. I think that is not so. An Instruction brought forward and withdrawn is as if it had never existed. All that the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees have to look to is the Instruction actually given to the Committee. With regard to Clause 23, the hon. Member for the Harbour Division is mistaken in supposing that the only offices which there was power for the Committee to deal with were offices held by officers annually elected by the Corporation. They were entitled, quite apart from those offices, to inquire into the election of assessors who are specifically named. But in that clause the Committee have also gone beyond their powers, because they have not only dealt with the offices of the assessors, but they have created two new officers—namely, two additional revising barristers—who are to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant under the 20th & 21st Vict., chap 58. On referring to that Act I find that the powers of the Lord Lieutenant to appoint revising barristers are accompanied by the provision that their salaries are to be paid out of moneys to be voted by Parliament. It is quite clear that the Committee had no power to authorise the appointment of officers whose salaries are to be paid out of moneys to be voted by Parliament; and, therefore, that section is also out of order. Of course, the whole of the clauses from 15 to 26 are clauses which were put into the Bill only under the powers of these two Instructions; and the usual course where a Committee have only in part exceeded their instructions, is to refer back to the Committee those parts of the Bill in which they have exceeded their instructions. It is a matter entirely for the House and not for me, but I would suggest that, inasmuch as these sections from 15 to 26 form a code as it were, the proper course would be to refer the whole of these sections back to the Committee to deal with them, because it is impossible for the House to know exactly how far the Committee were influenced in framing one section by the form which they have adopted for other sections. That would seem to be the most reasonable course.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
I understand, Sir, you have 1238 recommended the House to refer back to the Committee certain portions of the Bill. At what stage will a Motion carrying out that suggestion be appropriate?

§ * MR. SPEAKER
It might be made now.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
said that was the Motion he intended to make, of which he had given notice. It was in these terms, "That the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee." The hon. Member said he wished to put the House in possession of certain facts in regard to this Bill. It was a Bill of exceedingly narrow scope. It was promoted by the Dublin Corporation, and the exception he took to the clauses mentioned had reference to the permanent appointment of certain officers who came here from Dublin to promote the Bill, who appeared to have made a bargain with a certain Member of the House, and who, as the result of their visit to London, went home to Dublin with permanent appointments in their pockets, and their salaries increased. One of the assessors of the City of Dublin was a counsel who appeared before the Select Committee. No more scandalous use was ever made of private Bill legislation than that the very counsel who appeared before the Select Committee should, without notice to the citizens or Corporation, without the question ever being raised at meetings of the citizens, simply because he came in contact with the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, be enabled to go home with a permanent appointment, and his salary increased by £350 a year, while the citizens of Dublin who had the power of annually electing him, were deprived by this Bill of the power for ever electing him hereafter. The other case to which he referred was that of the Sub-Sheriff of Dublin. That gentleman never was an official of the Dublin Corporation, the Corporation never had anything to do with his appointment. Like all Sheriffs he was the mere nominee of the High Sheriff, who was appointed for the year. Now, the Sub-Sheriff was a personal friend of his own. Probably, in the course he was now taking he would incur the Sub-Sheriff's enmity for ever, but he would be unworthy of the position he occupied as a Member of Parliament, if he allowed this House to make 1239 itself the instrument of a corrupt bargain and a corrupt job. Why should the Sub-Sheriff of Dublin be made a permanent official when no other Sub-Sheriff enjoyed a permanent tenure? Why, because he was sent over by the citizens to promote this Bill, being Chairman of the Waterworks Committee, and in order to secure his sanction to fanciful provisions with regard to minority re presentation, that the other safeguards by which the hon. Member for Louth was showing his zeal for the Conservative Party in Dublin for the first time—why should the Sub-Sheriff be favoured in this way? He should be amazed if the English House of Commons would allow themselves to be made the instrument of a corrupt bargain of that kind, and if it did, all he could say was that the lesson it taught to the citizens of Dublin would be learnt by the people of Ireland. The citizens of Dublin had paid £8,000 for the promotion of this little Bill, and the result was that their own officers, elected annually, subject to the control of the Corporation and the citizens, now obtained a permanent appointment in order to square them to accept the fanciful provisions of this Bill. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said it was a curious fact that the hon. Member should have spoken with so much heat. He claimed to have some slight knowledge of the question of the assessors. The question stood thus. Every Bill that had been brought in to extend the municipal franchise had abolished the office of assessor. That was felt to be a hardship, and when his Bill was going through Grand Committee last year, complaint was made of the abolition of the offices. He thought that the Solicitor General for Ireland was a Member of the Committee. When the complaint was made to the Grand Committee he asked the then Liberal Solicitor General (Sir F. Lockwood) to give these gentlemen a guarantee that they would be appointed Parliamentary Revising Barristers. He obtained that pledge, and it was in fulfilment of this pledge that the so-called corrupt bargain was entered into. The hon. Member who had just spoken and the hon. Member for Water-ford sat on the Committee, and they had 1240 not a word to say about the so-called corrupt bargain. That was the story with regard to the assessor. As to the Sub-Sheriff, he said that he was a man to whom he had not spoken for six years. [Laughter.] He was the strongest Parnellite in Dublin, and in a recent speech about him that gentleman announced that his action against Mr. Parnell would be remembered, not only for himself, but for his children's children—an eventuality which had scarcely yet arisen. [Laughter.] This gentleman held his office under an annual tenure, and when his Franchise Bill was going through the House of Commons, he was naturally alarmed at the possible loss of his office, and letters appeared in the paper which he believed were written by this gentleman. The Sub-Sheriff appeared to be of opinion that he was promoting a Franchise Bill for the purpose of hustling him as a political opponent. Accordingly, as Her Majesty's Government had acted in the case of Armagh when they extended the Franchise to Armagh, providing that the existing officials should not be dismissed except with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, he thought it was only fair, when dealing with political opponents, that those gentlemen should hold office as in the past and during good behaviour. If this be Tammany Hall work, he was proud of it. Who were the gentlemen who objected to this annual tenure of the Sub-Sheriff? There was a Motion on the Paper of the hon. Member for North Dublin, who was in sympathy with the hon. Member for the Harbour Division. Was this a corrupt bargain? It followed his clause word for word, and if he was corrupt what was the position of the hon. Member for North Dublin? He provided a permanent tenure for his political enemy, the Sub-Sheriff; the hon. Member provided a permanent tenure for his political friend, the President of the Court of Conscience.

§ MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)
rose to order.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
said that both hon. Members were travelling a little outside the question before the House.

§ MR. CLANCY
I put down this Notice of Motion, and intended to propose it only in the event of the hon. Member's clause being passed.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said that the only point was as to the corrupt bargain. There was not a friend of his provided for by these Instructions, not a man who was not a bitter political enemy. He asked leave to move an Amendment to confine the Instruction to recommit certain clauses of the Bill on this ground. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division wanted to recommit the whole Bill; in other words, he agreed with the hon. Member for South Dublin, and wanted to fight over again all the question about the Water Clauses. As the Committee had considered this matter throughout, and as only two minute points were practically challenged, he thought it would only be a fair thing to refer the Bill back on the two clauses on which the action of the Committee had been challenged in the House. The clause he proposed gave the Conservatives of Dublin twice the representation they now enjoyed. The hon. Member for West Belfast, on the Derry Minority Clause and the Belfast Minority Clause, said that when passing Franchise Bills elsewhere, the Nationalists never provided for the Conservatives of Dublin. The Conservatives had now 11 seats on the corporation, and his clause would give them 15 to 20 seats. It was this which had roused the indignation of the hon. Member who knew so much about the "bosses" of Tammany Hall.

§ COLONEL GUNTER (York, W. R., Barkston Ash)
asked that the word "former" be omitted, and the Bill transferred to another Committee. He had now been eight weeks on the Committee.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
I should accept the Motion to omit the word "former" and to have "a Committee" substituted.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
asked whether he would be in order in moving that the Clauses 15 to 26 inclusive be recommitted if the Amendment was put first?

§ * MR. SPEAKER
said that the hon. Member had already moved.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said that he had understood Mr. Speaker to say that it would not be possible to limit the Committee to a discussion of those portions of the Bill with reference to which they had exceeded their powers.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
I move, Sir——

§ * MR. SPEAKER
The proper course will be to deal with the Amendment now before the House. When that has been dealt with another Amendment can be moved.

§ MR. CLANCY
Supposing that I desire to recommit the Bill in respect of clauses before Clause 15, could I make a Motion to that effect if this Amendment was carried?

§ * MR. SPEAKER
Yes; if these words are struck out, then it will be open to the hon. Member to move to insert other words.

§ MR. CLANCY
If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth is carried—namely, the Amendment to recommit the Bill in respect of certain clauses beginning with Clause 15, should I be in order in moving that previous clauses be also recommitted?

§ * MR. SPEAKER
Supposing that this Amendment is defeated, then the main question will remain, "That this Bill be recommitted," and on that it will be open to the hon. Member to move that the recommittal shall be in respect of certain clauses.

§ MR. CLANCY
But supposing this Amendment is carried?

§ * MR. SPEAKER
I think the proper course to adopt will be to insert the word "only" after the words "Clause 23," in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. Will the hon. Member for Louth consent to that?

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Yes, Sir.

§ MR. CLANCY
, on a point of order, pointed out that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had a Notice of Motion on the Paper to recommit the Bill in respect of some earlier clauses.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
The Motion of the hon. Member for South Dublin is to recommit the Bill generally.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
said that this Amendment was merely an endeavour to shut out from the consideration of the Committee every other question except the question of order raised by Mr. Speaker. The Chairman of the Committee was opposed to the inclusion of any of these clauses, and if this Amendment was carried, he could simply preclude the Committee from the consideration of any other question except the question of bringing these clauses in order. He appealed to the House to reject the Amendment.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said that the whole position taken up by the hon. Gentleman was that the Committee had acted ultra vires with regard to Clause 15.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
said his Motion was for the recommittal of the Bill in respect to one or two clauses. It was only on the point of order that the question of ultra vires arose.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said that Mr. Speaker had ruled that Clause 15 was ultra vires. He moved an Amendment to recommit Clause 15 and other clauses, but Mr. Speaker decided that Clause 15 was ultra vires. The Government held the view that the whole of the clauses should be brought into harmony with the Instruction, and that was the effect of the Motion now made. The whole object of the proceedings of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin was to kill the Franchise Clauses, and he now asked that if this Bill was sent back to the Committee, the House should not allow the clauses which had not incurred the objection of the Chairman to be dealt with again. The Committee having dealt with these clauses, no exception should be taken to them. He asked the 1244 House to agree to the Motion now made, that the clauses should be reconsidered only with a view to bringing them into harmony with the Instruction carried by the House.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
was understood to say that he could only put the words "in respect to Clauses 15 to 26." If he put the remainder, "to reconsider the same, and bring them within the scope of the Instruction of the House," it would really be reviving the proposal which the House had already rejected on a Division.

§ MR. KNOX
said he understood that Mr. Speaker had advised the House that there might he a difficulty in the Committee bringing the two clauses into harmony with the Instruction of the House, without altering others. He did not understand that it was the intention of the House in its last vote that the whole question of the Bill should be reopened.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said that as the clauses were to be recommitted, it was necessary that the Committee should know on what grounds. He submitted that the Committee ought to know on what Instruction they were to act.

§ MR. KNOX
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.