§ Message to attend the Lords Commissioners by Black Rod;—
§ The House went;—and, having returned;—
§ SIR JAMES HASLETT,
resuming his speech, said, the main features of this Bill were to provide an extended area under the municipal Government in connection with Belfast. He thought Members of that House would surely see the necessity of that when he told them that since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1843 Belfast had risen from a valuation of £135,000 to £915,000 at the present time, a progress without parallel in the United Kingdom. It had risen in that time from being a comparative village to be the third town in the Empire in respect to its contributions to Imperial Revenue. Therefore, Belfast needed to look very carefully not only to the machinery by which it should be guided in the general management of its city affairs, but that such surroundings should not be created as would involve loss to the Corporation hereafter, when they were obliged to extend their area. They must look beforehand in order to give Belfast its proper provision and supervision. The extended area, with only one very small exception, covered the Parliamentary area, and that small exception was towards the village of Newtonbreda, and in that direction, owing to very large buildings, they had been obliged to depart to some extent from the Parliamentary area. With regard to the point that had been raised by the hon. Member for Derry, that Roman Catholics had no representation on the Corporation, he was quite free to say that Roman Catholics did not form any portion of the Corporation, but to say they were deprived of their rights was a mistake. They had the same Franchise—and that 318 the lowest in Ireland—as their Protestant fellow-citizens, and if they were not able to return Members it was because of the paucity of their numbers. The Franchise was not to blame, neither was their religion. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Gerrymandering!"] There was no gerrymandering, but there was in the fixing of the Parliamentary area, and it took eight years to rectify that. With regard to the question of representation, the votes under the Parliamentary Franchise were 40,189, and under the Municipal Franchise 39,814.
§ SIR JAMES HASLETT
Yes, including women, and they hoped that the Parliamentary Franchise would also include them in the future. They were not, therefore, at all in the position pictured by the hon. Member for Derry, as not having given the smallest occupants in Belfast a reasonable interest in the Franchise. There had been no objection to the value of the Bill or its merits, and he took it, therefore, the Second Reading was practically without opposition. [Cries of "No!"] Then the opposition would come upon the instructions, and upon those instructions he would be prepared to give the House the information of which they had been deprived by the circular quoted by the hon. Member for Derry. The only point that had been made bearing upon the Second Reading to which he thought it necessary to reply was that Protestant Home Rulers had been elected to the Corporation, and that therefore, as a necessary conclusion, the opposition was to Catholics as Catholics. It was just a pity that the premises of the hon. Gentleman were wrong, because his conclusions consequently fell to the ground. There were no Protestant Home Rulers in the Corporation. There were Liberal Unionists, and they were delighted to see them, but there were no Protestant Home Ruler members of the Corporation. Indeed the quantity of that particular article in Belfast would not fill a very large room. There were some it was true, but when they got such an article hon. Members opposite were prepared to deify and canonise them. He claimed that the Bill, if read carefully by hon. Members, would be found to 319 supply a needed want so far as the growth of the city of Belfast was concerned.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
said, he should like to say one or two words on the general principle of the Bill. The hon. Member opposite (Sir James Haslett) said that there was gerrymandering in 1885. This Bill in its essence sprang out of gerrymandering, and it was the result of the compact of 1885—the unfortunate compact between Lord Salisbury and the hon. Baronet below the Gangway, the Member for the Forest of Dean, and the Bill, so far from being a reasonable Bill in its general essence, was the result of the unfortunate abortion of ten years ago. This was a Bill that proposed to extend the Municipal boundary of Belfast to the Parliamentary area—the sham Parliamentary area which was invented by Lord Salisbury in 1885 for the purpose of securing four Members for Belfast to which it was not entitled at the time, and for the purpose of putting it upon a level with Dublin, which was entitled to four Members. Let anyone turn to the Parliamentary Franchise Bill of 1885, and what did he find? There was then a combination between, the Tory Party and the House of Lords, led by Lord Salisbury, and the Liberal Party of that day. The whole proposal of Lord Salisbury was that under his scheme Dublin would be entitled to four Members, so Belfast should get four Members, and everybody then asked, ''But how?'' Upon what scheme of representation of figures would Belfast in 1885—the real Belfast—be entitled to four Members? Lord Salisbury, having called over the astute Gentleman who still manipulated affairs in Belfast, his (Mr. Healy's) friend, the distinguished Orange Coroner for the borough, who managed the affairs of the North of Ireland at that time with great success and astuteness for the Tory Party—having called Mr. Finnegan into council, they decided to invent an area with a certain population which would entitle Belfast to four Members, and accordingly made the compact of that day. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who was then in charge of the Parliamentary Distribution Bill, forced this scheme of Ulster representation down the throats of the Irish Members, 320 and refused to assent to any compromise or condition whatever, so as to give the Nationalists their fair representation in the North of Ireland; and having done that, they appointed three or four gentlemen to revise the lists in the North of Ireland, which gave the Tory Party something like three Members more than they were actually entitled to; and it was therefore out of this abortion, out of which originally sprang four Members for the Borough of Belfast, that they were afflicted there that day with this Bill, which was a proposal to extend the Municipal area to the confines of the Parliamentary Borough as settled in 1885. It was natural, when the House proposed to give a Parliamentary area to the borough of Belfast, those gerrymandered out of their rights in a Parliamentary sense should see that this Bill did not put into the hands of the Orange Party in Belfast more power than they were entitled to. The Member for North Belfast had stated that there was no opposition to the main principles of the Bill. But he himself held that the Bill in its main principles was a vicious Bill, and he would tell the House why. It was vicious because it proposed to do by means of private Bill legislation what had hitherto been the part of public Bill legislation. There were remarkable facts in connection with private Bill legislation in Belfast which he had never been able to account for. In 1887, a Bill was brought in to give the Municipal Franchise to the whole of Ireland. The late Sir James Corry moved to confine it to Belfast, and this was adopted by the Tory Party of the day. The Act, instead of being placed with public Acts in the records of the House, was placed among the local and personal Acts of Belfast. Having got that into the category of local and personal Acts, it was proposed to extend the principle of local and personal Statutes relating to public improvements to other objects. The criminal jurisdiction of the City of Belfast was affected by this Bill. Belfast was not a county but a city. Its jurisdiction had been divided between Antrim and Down, but this Bill actually proposed to alter the juries, and the places where criminals should be tried. A man who committed crime might be tried in Down or Antrim, but under this Bill the venue was changed. It was a 321 strange thing to make a change of venue by a private Act, and he believed it had been ruled in this House in former days that an attempt to change criminal venue was fatal to a private Bill, and he believed this had been the means of procuring the rejection of a private Bill. The Recorder of Belfast was formerly an officer of the Corporation. Now he was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant. There was a separate County Court district for Down and Antrim. The County Court Judge for Antrim was a Catholic, and his district was by this Bill curtailed, and part of his jurisdiction conferred on the Protestant Recorder of Belfast. In London, the extension by the County Council of its jurisdiction into the ancient jurisdiction of the City of London had often been before the public. The Members from Ireland were just as jealous of proposed extensions of jurisdiction in regard to Belfast. In the City of London the people were largely of one denomination and one way of thinking in politics; but in Belfast there were wide differences in both respects. If a Bill like this were once carried and criminal jurisdiction could be extended by means of a private Bill, the whole of the powers of the City of London might be swept away by a private Bill. Either the present Speaker or his predecessor ruled only a year ago that the Bill introduced by the County Council as a private Bill was so wide in its terms that he could not put it as a private Bill. [Nationalist cheers.] What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. He would not liken Belfast to a goose; he would rather liken it to a more astute bird. He asked for precedents to be produced for carrying out the objects he had described in a private Bill. On what ground had the Irish Office consented to this Bill? In Dublin they had tried for many years to get a Bill to extend the city boundaries by taking in Rathmines, Rathgar, Kilmainham, Pembroke, and the surrounding districts. Who opposed the Bill but the Orange Members in the House? The City of Dublin had to spend half a million of money on main drainage. The taxpayers of Dublin were compelled to bear the burden of this, while the benefit of it would be reaped by the surrounding townships, while not a shilling of taxation 322 would fall upon them. The taxpayers of Dublin had to submit to this sort of thing, while the rates of Belfast were extended into the surrounding county. Extensions of city boundaries should be considered by a duly-authorised body. Reforms for Orange towns were assisted, but refused to Nationalist towns in Ireland. He asked for some explanation of the 55th Clause of the Bill, which provided that the resident magistrate for the City of Belfast should have all the powers and jurisdiction which by any Acts of Parliament were conferred upon stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. Why had no explanation been given for this proposal? He denounced it as a deliberate return to the viciousness of old times. It had been found necessary after the riots of 1864 to take away the control of the police of Belfast out of the hands of the Corporation, and now he saw that they proposed in the Bill before the House to bribe the officers of the police force in Belfast by augmenting their salaries. A sum of £500 was to be set apart for the purpose every year. If the Town Inspector of Belfast and the District Superintendents were entitled to have their salaries raised, let it be done, in the usual way, as the Royal Constabulary were paid everywhere. Why should the Corporation of Belfast seek to earmark every year £500 of the ratepayers' money for the purpose of bribing, if that could be done, the Royal Irish Constabulary? They were perhaps the only police in any country in the world that refused tips of any kind—[laughter]; and he did not think that the Royal Irish Constabulary would favour this special contribution towards giving the Corporation of Belfast a hold upon them in that city. He regarded it as an attempt on the part of the Corporation to nobble the police. The constabulary were the people to whom the Catholics of Belfast looked for fair play on the 12th July and other days, and if the salaries of the inspectors were to be augmented by £100 or £500, according as they had won the favour of the Orange Corporation, then God help the Catholics. ["Hear, hear!"] He was amazed that Her Majesty's Government should have assented to a proposition of that kind. If the Constabulary Inspectors were ill-paid it was the duty 323 of the Government to make provision for the augmentation of their salaries in the Estimates. He observed the remarkable fact that no sooner did the Chief Secretary get into office than he immediately removed the Catholic resident magistrate, Mr. Gerald Griffin, from Antrim, doubtless at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Antrim, who was now Secretary to the Admiralty. [Mr. MACARTNEY laughed.] Such were the shifts and dodges and devices by which the Orange party hoped to smuggle a private Bill of this kind through the House. There was one other proposal in the Bill which had no business to appear in a private Measure, and that was the abolition of the two assessors who hitherto—with the Mayor, who did not interfere except in a division of opinion—prepared the burgess list. Now the Lord Mayor was to do it alone, without assessors, and so the Catholics of Belfast would have no representative when the burgess lists were being made out. In fact, the brand of the Orange lodges was in every clause of the Bill. Then there was a proposal to regulate the traffic of bicycles, which he thought should be dealt with by the public general law. There were two other provisions to which he objected as proposals that ought not to be embodied in a private Bill. Under the pretence of stopping street betting, the Bill would confer powers that might be used against persons who were obnoxious but were not betting. It was provided that persons assembled in a street for the purpose of betting were to be deemed to be causing an obstruction, and they were to be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s.; and, further, a policeman might arrest, without a warrant, a person who committed the offence in view of such officer. That was a most discreditable imputation on the intelligence of Belfast sportsmen. [Laughter.] It was desirable that betting should be put down, particularly betting in the streets, and also at the Jockey Club and places of that kind. ["Hear hear!" and laughter.] Yet he thought this provision was an infringement of the rights of the public which ought not to find place not only in a private Bill but in a public Bill. Another provision of the Bill to which he objected was one referring to the use 324 and regulation of cycles, and preventing any nuisance or danger caused by the same. If the use of cycles was to be dealt with, he maintained it should be in a public Bill. He strongly objected to this system of smuggling into a private Bill provisions which might be used obnoxiously, and which would probably be followed by other Corporations. Taking the Bill as a whole, he asserted that what was good in it should have a place in a public Act, and that what was bad in it should not find a place in any kind of Act. [Irish cheers.]
§ MR. G. MURNAGHAN (Tyrone, Mid)
said that, as a Member coming from the very heart of Ulster he desired to say a few words. They had been told by one of the promoters of this Bill that no opposition to it came from the Catholics of Belfast. Did the hon. Member remember the opposition of the Catholic Bishop of the Diocese and the thousands who gathered round him to protest against it? Did he count it no opposition that the Catholics all over the city strongly protested against it? Perhaps hon. Members opposite thought that the opposition came only from the hewers of wood and drawers of water, and that, therefore, it was not worth taking into account. But he might tell them that the Catholic people of Belfast generally were strongly opposed to this Bill, and these included many men of substance, influence and high standing. He asserted there, in the presence of Englishmen, that his co-religionists were not the despicable set they were represented to be. He thought the Government should have watched the Bill with greater care, and should not have allowed a Corporation like that of Belfast to have proceeded even so far with the Bill—a Corporation with a record that had made it notorious all over the world for its intolerance and bigotry. ["No, no!" and Nationalist cheers.] He protested against this Bill on behalf of the Catholics of Belfast, who were most industrious people, who tried to get along, but were crushed at every step, and kept out of representative positions. The Catholics wanted to see fair play and fair treatment meted out to all classes, and he would be anxious to see now whether the promises of fair treatment made in many quarters at the last General 325 Election would be kept. The Catholics of Belfast viewed this Bill with alarm, and looked upon it as an attempt to seriously encroach on their privileges, if, indeed, they ever had any privileges.
§ MR. S. YOUNG (Cavan, E.)
said, he claimed to speak, not as representing Belfast, but as being a native of the city and knowing the inhabitants well. He was not a Catholic, and therefore was free to speak impartially on these affairs. He knew there was a strong feeling in Belfast against the Catholic population, and there had always been such a feeling as long as he could remember. There were some 72,000 Catholic inhabitants of Belfast, many of them in high positions and men of great responsibility, who were systematically excluded from all civil dignities in the town. Therefore this Bill ought strongly to be opposed unless the Corporation would make some concession to this large and respectable minority in the town. Now was the time to have provisions put into this Bill which would give fair play to the Catholic inhabitants of Belfast. He did not commit himself to the system of cumulative voting, but there were exceptional cases in which it should be adopted, and, if there was one more than any other, that place was Belfast. He strongly opposed this Bill unless the concession was made that cumulative voting should be adopted. The Government had had to adopt exceptional measures before for Belfast. The Government took from the Corporation the police, and made them a national force. Then, when the Main Drainage Bill was passing through the House, the Municipal and Parliamentary Franchises were equalised. So that in other cases the Government had adopted exceptional measures to keep in check the feelings which dominated Belfast, and now, unless something of the same exceptional nature was done with regard to this Bill, he for one should oppose it.
§ MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said, the hon. Member for North Belfast, in a portion of his speech, made some very extraordinary statements. He stated he never heard a Bill more weakly opposed or with less show of reason. He might be pardoned for telling the hon. Member that opinion on that side of the House was exactly the reverse. What did the hon. Member say? In the 326 course of his speech he did not bring forward a single argument in favour of this Bill, nor did he give any evidence that the people of Belfast were in favour of it. Indeed, he would prove in a few moments that a very large body of the people of Belfast were opposed to the Bill. The hon. Member for North Belfast made one statement so extraordinary that he thought he was right in fixing the attention of the House upon it. The hon. Member denied that, under present arrangements, or under this Bill, if it should pass into law, the Catholics of Belfast would be denied representation, and he proceeded to explain to the House what he meant by representation. The hon. Member used these words—for he took them down at the time—If they (meaning the Catholics of Belfast) are unable to return Members to the Corporation, it is owing to the paucity of their numbers.What did that mean? It meant that, so far as the hon. Member and those who act with him are concerned, so long as the Catholics of Belfast are in a minority, no Catholic will ever be allowed into the Belfast Corporation. That was the reason of the strong opposition to this Bill, and it was also due to the fact that, not only in the city of Belfast, but in the city of Derry, the proscription of Catholics has prevailed for years and years, the like of which could not be paralled in any part of the civilised world. [Nationalist cheers.] In his attempt to justify this Bill, the hon. Member said, that the Catholics could not enter the Corporation because of the paucity of their numbers, thereby laying down the general principle that, until they were in a majority they could not expect to become members of the Corporation. Was there any other city in the whole of the United Kingdom which would not feel ashamed if one of its members made such a declaration? [Nationalist cheers.] Take the case of the city of London, where the Catholics might be said to be only a handful of the population, and yet only a few years ago London had its Catholic Lord Mayor. [Nationalist and Liberal cheers.] But in the city of Belfast, where the Catholic population was one-fourth of the whole, this abominable system of religious bigotry and proscription, which happily had no place in any other part of 327 the Kingdom, prevailed in full swing, and the hon. Member for Belfast declared that he and his friends intended to adhere to it. No Catholic, they were informed by the hon. Member for North Belfast, was to be admitted into the sacred chamber until they could get in there by the fact of superior numbers. If that principle had been applied in Waterford, or Limerick, or Cork, or Dublin, how the House of Commons would have rung with denunciations of the Roman Catholics! If, to-day, the Nationalist Members claimed exceptional legislation for Belfast, it was because for generations a system of proscription had been carried on, the like of which did not exist in any other city in the United Kingdom. In the city of Dublin, although there the majority of the Roman Catholics over the Protestants was far greater than that of the Protestants over the Roman Catholics in Belfast, the Protestants had had more than their fair share of representation in proportion to their numbers.
§ MR. DILLON
Yes, because the Catholics of Dublin were not bigoted like the Protestants. In Dublin they did not ask a man, when he came up for a city office, what creed he professed. Very often Protestants were elected to offices because of their qualifications; but, unfortunately, in Belfast there existed a system of bigotry and intolerance, naked and unashamed, which had over and over again been dragged on to the Floor of the House, and compelled the House to apply exceptional legislation to the city of Belfast. The Catholic people of Belfast had, by a deliberate and long-continued system, been excluded from a reasonable share in municipal government.
§ SIR J. HASLETT
I distinctly deny the hon. Gentleman's statements. I have said that a Roman Catholic is not proscribed as a Roman Catholic, but as a Nationalist.
§ MR. DILLON
did not think the hon. Gentleman had very much improved his position. He took down the hon. Gentleman's words, and he said:—If the Roman Catholics cannot elect representatives, it is because of the paucity of their numbers.328 Was not that proscribing Roman Catholics? Did not that mean that a Roman Catholic would not be elected except where there was a majority of Roman Catholics. The hon. Member only gave expression in that language to a settled practice. That was the reason why the Nationalists made this strong complaint. He was prepared to admit that there would have been some force in the hon. Gentleman's argument if they had been dealing with any other community; but, in view of the fact that they were dealing with Belfast, a community which time after time had been the object of exceptional legislation, he contended that the arguments of the hon. Gentleman entirely fell to the ground. In 1865——
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
May I ask, Sir, if this line of argument is relevant to the Second Reading of this Bill?
§ MR. SPEAKER
It is difficult for me to say how far the provisions in the Bill for the extension of the boundaries and the division of wards affect the Roman Catholics.
§ MR. DILLON
thought that in a few moments it would become perfectly manifest that these arguments were relevant, because the Bill proposed to bring a large population under the power of the Corporation. If the Bill passed into law, a large section of the county of Down would be brought within this iniquitous system. In 1865, on the recommendation of a Royal Commission, the House of Commons abolished the borough police of Belfast, which at that time was under the control of the Corporation, in consequence of its partial administration, and brought in the Royal Irish Constabulary. Again in 1887——
§ MR. SPEAKER
I think the hon. Member is now going into historical matter which does not bear on the Second Reading of this Bill.
§ MR. DILLON
said he would not pursue that line any further, and would now turn to the Bill itself. Many of the provisions of the Bill were bad, but it was unnecessary to go through them at length. Clause 54 was a most extraordinary clause, and, in order to understand its intention, he must refer again to the fact that in 1865 Parliament, acting on the recommendation of a Royal Commission, took away the police from the Corporation and introduced the 329 constabulary. Clause 54 provided that it should be lawful for the Council, if they thought fit in each year, after the passing of the Bill, to contribute a sum not exceeding £500, to be applied in augmenting the salaries of the town inspector and the district inspectors of the constabulary force employed in the city. What was the meaning of that? That whenever a riot broke out, if the constabulary supported the Protestants they would get this £500. Year by year the conduct of the constabulary was to be surveyed by a Corporation which the House had on a former occasion declared to be unfit to deal with the police. Nobody doubted that one of the horrible and inevitable results of this system of proscription and religious bigotry had been the perpetuation of those scandalous and atrocious riots which were the disgrace of Belfast. For his part he held that to sanction this Clause 54 would undo the work of Parliament in 1865. He wanted also some explanation of certain other provisions of the Bill which appeared to him extraordinary and quite outside the scope of a private Bill. Clause 55 provided that from and after the passing of the Act a resident magistrate in Belfast should have all the powers and jurisdiction which were conferred on stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, and a barrister should not be deemed to have retired from practice by reason of his having held the office of resident magistrate. He wanted to know what the full bearing and scope of the section would be; he did not understand himself what it meant.
§ SIR J. HASLETT
said that the meaning of the clause was that under a recent decision the resident magistrate could not deal alone with a case of a dual character. If a man was charged with being drunk a resident magistrate could try him as a justice of peace; but if he was charged with being drunk and disorderly he could not try him alone. There must be a second magistrate on the Bench with him, whereas a stipendiary magistrate in Dublin could try him alone.
§ MR. DILLON
wished to know the full bearing of the clause. Would the hon. Member kindly explain the meaning of the second paragraph of the clause, "a barrister at law shall not be 330 deemed to have retired from practice by reason of his being appointed a resident magistrate"?
§ SIR J. HASLETT
explained that at present if a barrister was once appointed, even temporarily, he could not again practice as a barrister.
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! These details are clearly more appropriate for discussion in Committee than for discussion at the present stage.
§ MR. DILLON
observed that it was not known that they would ever get into Committee on this Bill. It was undoubtedly extremely inconvenient that there should be introduced in a private Bill of this kind, clauses of an ambiguous character relating to the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland. If an attempt was to be made to tamper with the magistracy of Belfast, it ought to be made in a public Bill. The system of removable magistrates was not without advantages in Belfast, for such magistrates were at any rate independent of local opinion, and could act against it. If a resident magistrate was to be allowed to practice at the Bar at Belfast, after his retirement from the magistracy that circumstance might seriously affect his conduct. If there had been nothing suspicious about the provisions relating to this matter, they would have been introduced in a public Bill. He objected to this Measure on its merits. The hon. Member for North Belfast had treated the House with contempt, and said nothing in favour of this legislation which was opposed by five-sixths of the representatives of Ireland and by a large section of the population of Belfast.
§ MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)
said, that the really important points for discussion would arise upon the instructions which were to be moved and which, he admitted, were open to great differences of opinion. This was a perfectly ordinary Municipal Bill promoted in good faith by the city of Belfast. As to the points raised by the hon. Members for North Louth, and East Mayo, he thought they were matters for discussion in Committee. Many hon. Members had thought fit to attack the Corporation of Belfast. That city contained 270,000 inhabitants and enjoyed the lowest franchise for municipal 331 purposes in Ireland. What hon. Members below the Gangway opposite wanted to do, was to punish Belfast for acting the part which it had acted during the last 10 years. The House was asked to punish Belfast for not having done as Limerick, Cork, and Tipperary had done. It was asked to force upon Belfast a yoke which there was no intention of applying to any other part of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth had suggested that it would be an infraction of the Constitutional principle to extend the jurisdiction of the borough magistrates of Belfast in accordance with the extension of the borough. The hon. and learned Member was in error, for whenever borough boundaries were enlarged, the jurisdiction of the magistrates was enlarged pari passu. The borough jurisdiction took the place of the county jurisdiction in such cases. Complaint had been made that the changes which this Measure would effect were not matters which ought to be dealt with in a private Bill. There was, however, a precedent of direct application in the Bill for the Amendment of the Municipal Franchise in Belfast which was promoted by Mr. Sexton some years ago. That was a case where it was proposed to effect a great change by means of a private Bill. But his main point was that if Belfast was to be punished for what it had done, what was its offence? It was complained that there were not more Roman Catholics on the Corporation of Belfast. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: ''None!''] Now he was there to say that as far as his own private judgment in this matter went, he would be glad to see more Catholic representation in Belfast. But this was not a matter which they could force upon people. They had no right to take the people of Belfast by the scruff of the neck and say what they should do in the matter. They had a fair and open election in the city of Belfast, and the members of the Corporation were elected on the lowest franchise. He quite agreed that they might all wish to see greater reciprocity between two parties, but it was not for that House to grant this great power of free election and then to take away that power by compelling the people to exercise it in a particular way. No one could pretend that 332 the admission of a certain number of Roman Catholics to the Corporation of Belfast would improve the government of the city. Limerick was a badly governed disloyal place, and it had been made what it was by the Roman Catholic Corporation and their officers. Naturally the ratepayers and electors of Belfast were not tempted to follow the example of Limerick and kindred towns. Was Belfast to be compelled to do what no one suggested that London, Liverpool or Glasgow ought to be forced to do? He was precluded from speaking on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derry city; but he might say that he had always been a supporter of the principle which the hon. Member advocated, and that if he were to see that principle embodied in a tentative measure applying not only to Belfast, but to the whole of the United Kingdom, he should be ready to consider the Motion fairly. What he objected to, and what he hoped the House would object, to was the selection of Belfast for punishment. Belfast did not deserve the treatment for which hon. Members opposite desired the sanction of the House. He did not advocate the continuance of the distinction which existed between parties in Belfast, but the fact remained that the difference was a political one, sharp and clearly defined; and he had yet to learn that there was a recognised duty on the part of electors to elect persons whom they did not consider representative of their opinions. They did not propose any re-division of the Belfast Commissioners, and he submitted that it was a monstrous thing to prefer a charge of gerrymandering when all that was asked was that a subdivision of the wards should be made by an independent authority. They were doing what was being done by every other corporation in the United Kingdom in similar circumstances.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
said, that it had been left to the hon. Gentleman to import a good deal of sweetness and light into the discussion. The hon. Member for North Belfast was of opinion that Roman Catholics ought not to be admitted to the Corporation of Belfast because they were Roman Catholics. But the hon. Member for West Belfast carried the principle a little further, for he thought that in no municipality in Ireland 333 should any Roman Catholic be admitted. The hon. Member said that the destruction of Limerick was to be attributed to the fact that the Corporation happened to consist of Roman Catholics. He drew the conclusion from this that if a Roman Catholic Corporation brought destruction upon a community, every Roman Catholic ought to be excluded. That was the message of peace, of sweetness and light which the hon. Member had characteristically introduced into the discussion. His hon. Friends who had spoken were entitled to lay stress on the exceptional character of some of the clauses of this Bill. It was all very well for the hon. Member to say that the magistracy and the police were simple matters, but they affected the lives of the Roman Catholics in Belfast. What was the position of Belfast? He was anxious to recognise the great services rendered to Ireland by that city, but the blot upon its escutcheon was that alone among the cities of the Empire it was periodically visited by hideous religious riots, in nearly every case provoked by the Protestant majority. ["No, no!" from Mr. Wolff.] The hon. Member had himself to go down to his own workmen and to tell them that they were doing their best to bring Home Rule to Ireland by the Protestant intolerance being shown to the Roman Catholics.
§ MR. SPEAKER
said, they were getting far away from the question. The subject was not the Belfast riots.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, that the relevancy of his incidental reference to these riots was this, that in a city that was periodically visited by religious riots the control of the police was an important consideration; and therefore the Irish Members were entitled to scrutinise vigilantly and carefully every arrangement in regard to the police management of Belfast in a Bill like this. What was the proposal of the Bill? The police of Ireland were distinguished above all other police forces by their high sense of honour, but it was proposed in the Bill that the police, who ought to be a National force, should be made subject to local authority by local 334 subsidy. That was a vicious principle; and if there was a city in which it ought not to be introduced it was the city of Belfast. There was something more than the fate of this Bill at issue in this Debate. He thought that the policy of the Party opposite was at issue. This Unionist Parliament had been elected on the principle that it could render more equal and impartial justice to every class of Irishmen than the Parliament sitting in College Green. The second principle on which it was elected was that, stopping short of a Parliament in College Green, it was ready to extend to Ireland every right and privilege given to Englishmen in this country. The astonishing fact was, however, that the city of Belfast was entirely unrepresented by any state of things prevailing among people in this country, or any state of things represented by Irishmen here. In the Scotland division of Liverpool, for example, there was a large Irish population. The hon. Member for West Belfast spoke of a large Welsh population in Liverpool, and asked whether the House would order electors in Liverpool to elect Welshmen to the Corporation. Among the most prominent Members of the Corporation a year or two ago, a Welshman was the Lord Mayor, and if anyone had got up and had made the statements with regard to Welsh Nonconformists which the hon. Member had made with regard to Irish Roman Catholics, he would be hooted out of Liverpool even by the Tory Orangemen. Did the bitterest Orangeman in Liverpool contend that a man should be excluded from the Corporation because he was a Roman Catholic? Among the Councillors in Liverpool were a number of Roman Catholics, and in Manchester a number of Irish Roman Catholics and Irish Nationalists were members of the Corporation. The President of one of the branches of the National League in Bradford was a local Councillor; all over England Irishmen and Roman Catholics were elected by Englishmen and Protestants to places on the Corporations. He asked this Unionist Government to render as much justice to Roman Catholics in Ireland as they were willing to render to people in England. They at least should get as much justice in the land of their birth as in the land of the stranger. It was said that the franchise 335 in Belfast was low, and therefore the Roman Catholics were properly treated. But the franchise was one of the means towards controlling elections. Had hon. Gentlemen every heard of gerrymandering, or the artificial arrangement of districts resulting in a certain body always remaining in the minority? In Belfast the distribution took place in such a manner that the Roman Catholics there always remained in the minority; and thus, in this great city, with 40 members of a Corporation, not a single Roman Catholic found a place. The Unionist Government was on its trial, and so was the Unionist Party. It was somewhat remarkable that on a Bill of this importance, involving principles of such magnitude, the representative of the Government should sit silent.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)
on a point of order asked whether this was a Measure which ought to be proceeded with by means of a private Bill. There were a large number of precedents, but the last was as recent as February, 1895, when Mr. Speaker Peel was in the Chair. The question under consideration was the London Valuation and Assessment Bill, and the point of order was raised by Sir Henry James. On that occasion Mr. Speaker Peel laid it down that, looking at the magnitude of the area and the interests involved, looking to the fact that a new jurisdiction and a new Court of Record were sought to be created, it would be unwise and improper to introduce it as a private Bill. He asked whether, seeing that the present Bill dealt with very large interests and embraced a very large area, and also repeated important sections in certain public Acts, it was properly introduced as a private Bill?
§ MR. SPEAKER
It appears to me that this Bill is properly introduced as a private Bill—that is to say, the clauses relating to public matters are not so great in number or importance as to make it necessary to introduce it as a public Bill. It always is a question of degree whether the quantity of matter bearing on public Acts is such as to make it necessary to bring in the whole Bill as a public Bill. I have no doubt the decision of my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Peel, was perfectly right on the facts which were before him in the case to which the hon. Member has called 336 attention. Applying the general principle to the Bill before the House it seems to me that, although it does refer, as many private Bills do, to some public matter, and seeks to enact that some public statutes shall not apply or shall be partially repealed, nevertheless there is nothing in it to prevent its being properly brought in as a private Bill.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said, that though he had listened with attention to the Debate, it had not been his purpose to intervene, but for the pointed appeal which had been made to him by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The hon. Member had said the credit of the Unionist Government was at stake in connection with the Vote which they were now about to take. It would be difficult to imagine a more exaggerated statement. In the first place the Government had no interest in this Bill at all, one way or the other. The hon. and learned Member for Louth seemed to think the Government was responsible not only for the Bill as a whole, but for every detail of it.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
The Irish Office is not responsible for this Bill, and ought not to be responsible. The Government is less.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Is not the Irish Office always consulted and bound to express its approval or disapproval on Irish private Bills?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
In any case the questions which are raised on the Bill ought properly to be decided in Committee, and do not involve the fate of the Second Reading. The House was not called upon to decide the merits of the different clauses, but simply whether this Bill was or was not so incurably vicious that the Committee to which it was proposed to be referred could not adequately and properly deal with it. It had been represented that the Bill would do an injustice to the Catholics of Belfast, that it encroached on their rights. But the House had 337 also been told that the Catholics had no representation whatever in the Corporation of Belfast. It was generally admitted that under this Bill they would get, if not an adequate, at least some representation. [Cries of "No, no!"] Now then, how could it be argued with any plausibility that this Bill took away from the Catholic voters of Belfast rights which they at present did not possess? This general question was one which would undoubtedly be much more fully discussed when they came to consider the instruction which the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Knox) had upon the Paper. For the present it was clear that no grounds so far had been shown why the House should reject the Bill on the Second Reading. The hon. and learned Member for Louth had taken a variety of classes and pointed out objections to them; the essence of his objections being that the provisions in question would be more properly brought forward in a public than a private Bill. It was unnecessary for him to go into that, but he should appeal to the House, after the somewhat lengthened discussion which had taken place, to come to the Second Reading and leave these matters of detail to be dealt with by the Committee.
§ MR. J. DALY (Monaghan, S.)
said, that from the speech to which the House had just listened, he thought they had been coolly treated by Her Majesty's Government. Allusion had been made in the course of the Debate by the hon. Member for North Belfast to the difficulty that had been experienced in rectifying the boundaries of the Parliamentary divisions of that city. How had it been done? By giving no Catholic a house in West Belfast, by making new streets and stocking them with outlanders. ["Hear, hear!"] The fact that this Bill had been prepared by Sir Samuel Black, made him look upon it with a good deal of suspicion. In 1864, before the control of the police was taken away from the Belfast Corporation, of the 160 members of the force in the town there were but five Catholics, and Sir Samuel Black had stated at a Government Inquiry that he would know a man's religion by his face. As an example of the toleration which prevailed in other parts of Ireland, he mentioned that in 338 Cork, where the Catholics were in the proportion of three to one, there was at present a Protestant Mayor. [Nationalist cheers.] In Belfast, on the other hand, of the 20 members of the Harbour Board, of the 22 members of the Board of Guardians, of the 40 members of the Town Council, of the 17 Water Commissioners, there was not a single Catholic [Cries of shame], and of the sum of £231,686 12s. expended by the Corporation annually, Catholics received but £480. All they asked for was fair play, and he hoped on those grounds the House would vote against the Second Reading. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)
said, he would not detain the House more than a few moments in explaining the grounds on which he thought this Bill should not be read a Second time. Although a Protestant himself, he sat in that House by the votes of the Catholics of an Ulster constituency, and he knew from experience the deep sense of injustice under which the Catholic community in Ulster generally and in Belfast in particular laboured. [''Hear, hear!''] Though this Bill came before the House in the guise of a private Bill, by reading between the lines, he could see that its object was to clinch more firmly than ever the ascendency of one Party in that city. [''Hear, hear!"] He held that the Bill should have been brought forward as a public Bill, so that there could be full discussion upon it before a Committee of the whole House. Its effect would undoubtedly be to increase the power of the ascendency Party in Belfast to such an extent that it would be impossible for the Catholics ever to hope to emerge from the weight and burden that would be cast upon them. He would not go through all the sections of the Bill, but he desired to call attention to one or two that involved considerations of public importance. The eighth section gave the Corporation of Belfast power to deal with property which had been left for charitable purposes and trusts. That was a provision which he had never seen brought in in a 339 Bill of this nature. There was another provision which also showed that gerrymandering was present to the minds of the promoters of this Measure. It enabled the city to be divided into 15 wards by boundaries to be settled and determined by a person to be selected by the Chief Secretary. He asked, would it be fair or reasonable, in carrying out this Bill, that some young Conservative Barrister should be named by the Conservative Chief Secretary to carry out the regulation of the boundaries of those 15 wards? ["Hear, hear!"] That would give an opportunity for gerrymandering for which there was no precedent or example in Ireland, that land of jobbery hitherto. ["Hear, hear!"] If the House could be induced to read this Bill a Second time he trusted that the person who was to regulate those wards and divisions, would be named in the Bill, and would not be left to the discretion of any Member of the Government. [''Hear, hear!"] The provision which would enable a bonus to be given to the constabulary was also of a public character. He knew from experience, and the hon. Member who brought forward this Bill was aware, that the streets of Belfast had been flooded with the blood shed in riots between Orangemen and Catholics, and some of the police appointed by the Corporation of Belfast were actually charged criminally in connection with some of those riots, and it was after that found necessary to take from the Belfast municipality the control of the local police force. The effect of this system of giving a bonus to the police might be that they would play into the hands of the municipality. He did not believe the Royal Irish Constabulary would be capable of it, but at the same time he did not think it was right they should be exposed to this temptation. ["Hear, hear!"] Under the fifty-sixth section the old divisions of counties which had existed for three or four centuries would be altered, and jurisdiction would be given the judges of Assize of County Antrim over portions of the County Down, which under this Bill are to be annexed to the city of Belfast. That was a power which should not be delegated to a small Committee of nine, but should be referred to the whole House. 340 ["Hear, hear!"] It changed the place of trial for this portion of County Down, and would compel accused persons to be tried in the adjoining County of Antrim, and the juries who were to try these accused persons should be drawn, not from the County Down, but the County Antrim. That provision would change in a fundamental manner the ancient law of the land. ["Hear, hear!"] Some remark should be made with reference to the section that barristers appointed resident magistrates of Belfast need not retire from practice. The meaning of that provision appeared to be, that whereas now a man must be a practising barrister to qualify for certain judicial appointments, under this Bill he would be still qualified if he had gone through the probation of being resident magistrate to the satisfaction of the Corporation of Belfast. He appealed to the House not to read this Bill a Second time, and he asked the hon. Member who had charge of it to withdraw it, and let the Government bring it forward so that it could be discussed with the solemnity and importance to which it was fully entitled. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)
reminded hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House that the Chief Secretary had announced that the Government did not care anything for the Bill, one way or the other; and he appealed to them to take a broad-minded view, and vote with the majority of the Irish Members on the occasion. He was aware that there were many hon. Gentlemen opposite who had been returned to the House to oppose what they called a Separatist Policy and to a setting up of a separate Parliament in Ireland. Hon Members opposite had, over and over again, said that short of setting up a separate Parliament in Ireland they were anxious and willing to do all they could for Ireland in accordance with the demands of the great majority of the Irish people. Now here was no proposal to set up a separate Parliament for Ireland, but a proposal put forward by the great majority of the Irish people on a purely local Irish affair, and he appealed to hon. Members on the Government side of the House to try to govern Ireland in accordance with the 341 wishes and desires of the majority of the Irish Members. He asked hon. Gentlemen who sometimes thought that the grievances of the Irish Nationalist people were imaginary grievances, to place themselves for the moment in the position of the Nationalist Members. Here was a Bill dealing with a purely Irish affair, and it was a Bill concerning which the great majority of hon. Gentlemen in that House knew very little indeed. They had 83 Irish Members, representing the overwhelming bulk of the country, asking the House of Commons to decide this question in their favour; and on the other side they had not more than 20 Members for Ireland asking that this local affair should be decided in their favour. If this Bill were carried, and the news went over to Ireland that the House had decided a purely Irish affair in favour of the small minority of the Irish Members, and against the strongly expressed opinion of the large majority of the Irish representatives, how could they expect that it would give rise to anything but dissatisfaction in Ireland? This Government professed to govern Ireland in accordance with Irish wishes; let them try that policy at once; they had now an opportunity of showing that, without setting up an Irish Parliament, they could respect the Irish feeling. He challenged the hon. Members for Belfast to show that it was fair there should not be a single Catholic representative on the governing body of the city. They ought to give the Catholics a small representation. It would be a much more satisfactory state of things, not only for the Catholics, but for Protestants, and for the reputation of the city, that there should be in the Municipal Council a full and fair minority representation. If, instead of there being 82 Catholic representatives and 20 Protestants in that House, there were 82 Protestant Members for Ireland and only 20 Catholic, would the House of Commons go against the 82 Members for Ireland? He believed the House of Commons had no bigotry, and therefore he appealed to all hon. Members to shake themselves free from their Party Whips for this occasion at least, and do justice to the Catholics in Belfast. The Chief Secretary had said that this was a matter in which the Government took no particular interest, therefore he asked Members to 342 vote with the majority of the Irish representatives on a purely Irish local affair—their vote could not be construed as in any way a menace to the integrity of the Empire. He was sure they would all like to hear an expression of his views on the question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), who had made the due representation of minorities a study. The hon. Member for West Belfast was not quite fair when he referred to what took place in other towns in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman might have told the House that in places like Cork and Limerick, and, indeed, in all southern Municipalities, there prevailed a distinctly opposite state of affairs to that which prevailed in Belfast. In Catholic cities in the south the majority had often, in order to conciliate their fellow-citizens, if for no other reason, elected Protestants to high municipal office. Did not the hon. Member for West Belfast think it would promote a happier state of things in the north of Ireland if the actions of the Catholics in the south were reciprocated? All he asked for was that the Catholic voters in Belfast should have fair play and no favour. At the present time the arrangements of the municipal constituencies in Belfast were such that it was impossible for the Catholic voters to return a due number of representatives. He advised that the city should be divided into constituencies fairly, and not gerrymandered. There should be a proper distribution of seats, and then nobody would find fault with the arrangement. He asked hon. Members opposite to commence their governing of Ireland without Home Rule according to their promise, by voting with the vast majority of the Irish Members upon this question.
§ MR. PRYCE-JONES (Montgomery Boroughs)
understood from hon. Members from Ireland who sat opposite, that at present and under this Bill the Catholics of Belfast would not have proportional representation. Unless he heard facts to the contrary, he should have no hesitation in casting his vote for the Amendment. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for East Clare that Catholics should have fair play and no favour. Whilst he was a strong Unionist and a Protestant, he thought Roman 343 Catholics and Nonconformists ought to have their fair share of representation, and he was not afraid of voting in favour of giving them that justice which he and his friends expected to receive.
§ MR. M. McCARTAN (Down, S.)
said, it was a pleasure to hear a friendly voice raised for justice and fair play in Ireland from any hon. Member on the Benches opposite, and he could not help thinking that if Unionist Members generally had given as much attention to the Debate, and had considered the justice of the matter, as the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow had done, the decision of the House in this matter would for once be in favour of justice being done to Catholics in Ireland. The House would contrast the speech of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow with that from the hon. Member for North Belfast, who, not long since, speaking in Belfast, declared that, so long as he had a voice to raise or an arm to lift, it would be raised or lifted to prevent any Nationalist being admitted to the Municipality of Belfast. No Unionist voice had defended the indefensible position of municipal matters in Belfast, and the only voices from Tory Ulster were those of the most recent recruit from North Belfast and that of the English Gentleman who represented West Belfast, a constituency long represented by a Member of the Nationalist Party, whose eloquence and ability had reflected honour upon the House, from which his absence was generally regretted. ["Hear, hear!"] For justice simply he asked. For fair representation for the Catholic minority, he cared not how. The terms of the Instruction offered one method for securing representation of 70,000 or 80,000 Catholics in Belfast, but he would not be in order in referring further to that. No other suggestion had been offered as an alternative to the new system of gerrymandering proposed in the Bill. If the Bill passed, it would only lead to a new system of gerrymandering the municipal representation of the city. The Catholics of Belfast asked only for fair play. They could hold their own if fair opportunity was given them. In the professions and in business matters, in intelligence and in integrity, they had shown that they were equal to any competitors, and he was confident the individual 344 members of the Corporation would admit the fact, though they might not make the admission publicly.
§ MR. P. J. O'BRIEN (Tipperary, N.) rose to speak, when—
§ MR. E. CARSON (Dublin University) moved that the Question be now put.
§ MR. SPEAKER
said he would not interrupt the hon. Member who had just risen, but he might express the opinion that the question had been fully debated, and that the House might come to a decision upon it. [Cheers.]
§ MR. P. J. O'BRIEN
referred to the case of Liverpool, where the Catholic minority were afforded an opportunity which they fully used of securing representation on the local council. The claim of Catholics in Liverpool had been recognised, and on no just ground could the fair claims for the Catholics in Belfast be denied. He fully recognised the honourable way in which the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow had expressed his view of the case. If more members of the Unionist Party were animated with such sentiments the expression of them would go far to convince Irishmen that the Unionist Party were earnest in their professions for the welfare of Ireland.
§ MR. W. JOHNSTON rose to speak amidst loud cries of ''Closure!'' from the Irish Benches, and said he claimed the privilege of making a few remarks. [Loud cries of "Divide!" and "Closure!"]
§ MR. SPEAKER
said, he hoped the hon. Member would not make it necessary for him to listen to those suggestions of closure.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 135.—(Division List, No. 30.)
§ MR. W. JOHNSTON moved that the Bill be postponed until Tuesday.345
§ MR. DILLON
said, he thought he could, in a very few moments, make out a very strong case for the Adjournment of the Debate. It was perfectly plain from what had occurred that a great difference of opinion existed on this subject. The point which he would specially draw attention to was this—that already a very large portion of this evening had been consumed in the consideration of this private Bill.
§ MR. JOHNSTON
I rise to order. I wish to know whether I was out of order in moving that the question be now put?
§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member was not out of order, but I desire to say that, although the question has been fully debated, and there ought to be, in my opinion, no further Debate on this formal question, I wish to hear what reasons the hon. Member for East Mayo may have for carrying on the Debate. He is about to offer some reason why it should be adjourned, and I accordingly suspend my judgment.
§ MR. DILLON
said he was observing that the Debate ought not to be continued, for that night was one of the special nights for Supply, and already half the evening had gone. He would like to hear from the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was proposed under the new Rule to count this as one of the nights.
§ MR. SPEAKER
I think that is an abuse of the forms of the House. The whole of the case for this Bill has been debated fully in the usual way, and on the usual question. It is a most unusual thing to raise a second Debate, and therefore I must proceed to put the question. The question is that this Bill be now read a second time.
§ Main question put:—
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 241; Noes, 131.—(Division List, No. 31).
MR. KNOX rose to move the Instruction standing on the Paper in his name. There were, he said, two parts of the Instruction, the first part of which, he
understood, there was no objection to. He thought, therefore, it would be a convenient course if he should move the part to which there was no objection, and leave over the other part. He moved:—
That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of Nine Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection; that all Petitions against the Bill presented Seven clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee, that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that Three be the quorum.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
asked the Chief Secretary to state how soon he proposed to strike the Committee, and also to give the House a general idea as to its composition. There were only four Members to be nominated by the House. Would the principle be adopted of taking two from one side and two from the other?
§ Instruction agreed to.
§ MR. KNOX
in rising to move—That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire into the municipal franchise and the present mode of election of aldermen and councillors of the city, and as to the expediency of applying the principle of cumulative voting to such elections, and whether it is expedient to modify or alter the law as to such franchise or election in other respects, and, if they think fit, to make provision in the Bill for the same accordingly.stated that he understood objection was taken to this Instruction, and that being so he could not proceed with it now.
§ MR. SPEAKER
I gather from some observations that have fallen in the course of the Debate, that it is not assented to generally, and that being so it must, by the Standing Orders, stand over to a future day.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY
remarked that Tuesday would be an inconvenient day. It was a Private Members' day of which 347 they ought not to be robbed now that the Government had got an additional day in each week.
§ MR. SPEAKER
Under the Standing Orders, unless it is otherwise agreed, it must go over until the next day upon which the House sits, which will be Monday.
§ MR. W. JOHNSTON
I beg to give notice that on Monday I shall move that it stand over until Tuesday.