§ On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
§ * THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, Preston), moved, "That this Bill be now Read a Second time." He said that the Bill was brought forward simply to carry out an agreement that had been made between the Harbour Commissioners and the Town Commissioners of Kingstown. Adjacent 336 to one of the roads some good houses had been built, and although the Harbour Commissioners were undoubtedly bound to maintain it, there was no obligation on them to maintain the road in such a condition as it ought to be maintained in, with, on both sides of it, some good houses and clubs. It would be a great advantage to the Town Commissioners of Kingstown and the people generally, not only that this road should be kept in good condition, but also that it should be extended. The Bill was simply introduced to carry out an agreement whereby the road would be transferred to the Town Commissioners.
§ MH. CLANCYHave the Town Commissioners passed a resolution in favour of the Bill?
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the expression. It is a most improper expression to use. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe Secretary to the Treasury was explaining a Treasury Bill, and the hon. Member interrupted him and said it was a Treasury swindle. That is a most improper expression. ["Hear, hear!"]
MR. T. M. HEALYI say that the British Treasury are continually swindling Ireland. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] I did not cast any imputation on the right hon. Gentleman.
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the expression.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThat is not the expression which the hon. Gentleman used at first, and I must ask him to withdraw it.
MR. T. M. HEALYI said that the Bill was a Treasury swindle, and I did not mean the expression to apply to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ * MR. SPEAKERWhatever the hon. Member meant, it was an improper expression to use, and I hope he will withdraw it.
MR. T. M. HEALYWe were denied our rights yesterday, and I maintain my expression. [Ministerial cries of "Order, order!"] It is not a personal one and it is not unparliamentary. [Ministerial cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman made use of the expression while the Secretary to the Treasury was speaking, and if it was nothing else, it was a disorderly interruption. ["Hear, hear!"] I must ask him to withdraw the expression.
§ * MR. HANBURY, continuing, said that his information was that the Bill was brought in with the full consent of the Town Commissioners, and he contended that it would be of great advantage to them and to the people living on both sides of the road. As hon. Members opposite no doubt knew, a dispute had been going on between the Harbour Commissioners and the Town Commissioners with regard to the Government contribution towards the local rates. He believed the amount in dispute, which had not been paid since 1892, was about £700. That dispute would be arranged under the Bill, and that sum would be repaid, and the Government would bear its share of the rates in future as it did up to 1892. The Bill would realty be of advantage to all the three parties concerned—namely, the Harbour Commissioners, the Town Commissioners, and the people living in the road.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Bill certainly presented the Treasury to the House in a most charming and agreeable light. Irish Members had been appealing for justice to Ireland for a very long time. They had been pressing for Franchise Hills, Local Government Bills, and other Measures, and the universal argument was "We have no time to attend to these matters "; but now the right hon. Gentleman out of his bounty, without anybody asking for it, was good enough, at the suggestion of that paternal body, the British Treasury to present them with this Bill. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] And what did the Bill do? It sought to take from a body the onus of keeping its own road in order, and to cast it on the poor fishermen and artisans of 338 Kingstown. The beneficent British Government, which owed Ireland 2¾ millions, now cast on the decaying town of Kingstown the duty, unasked and unsought for, of keeping a Treasury road in repair. ["Hear, hear!"] Every lease in the town would expire within ten years, and would revert to the lords of the soil. Lord de Vesci and Lord Longford. Was a single opinion asked in reference to this matter? Could the Treasury produce a scrap of writing from the Town Commissioners asking them to do this? The right hon. Gentleman said, "We have owed the Town Commissioners £700 for the last seven years." He wondered the British Treasury did not plead the Statute of Limitations. [Laughter.] In return for the repayment of that £700 they made the Town Commissioners pay out of the rates for the repair of this road, hitherto borne by the Treasury. The defence was that this was a growing residential neighbourhood. This matter was to be referred to a hybrid Committee, and there was to be power to send for persons, papers, and records; and eminent counsel were to! come over from Ireland on behalf of the Kingstown Commissioners to fight the British Treasury. Even the very frame of the Bill was a falsehood. A Government with an income of a hundred millions a year proposed to cast this burden upon a township that had not got a balance to its credit of £100 a year. The Irish Members on that side of the House bail pressed the British Treasury on every conceivable subject for the past 15 years, and never from the time he entered the House had they ever had anything but chicanery and dishonesty from the British Treasury. [Nationalist cheers.] How would an English Corporation like to be treated in this way? He was sorry the Colonial Secretary was not present to say how he would like Birmingham to be affected in that way. Why were English frauds to be perpetrated on this miserable country, out of which they were driving millions every year. If Ireland were a conquered country, and they occupied it as enemies, as the Prussians had occupied France, they could understand such proceedings, but the Government pretended they were there for all good. Good was never got out of them. They asked every now and then for some little element of relief; 339 the answer was that the Treasury could only make savings in regard to Ireland, but he observed that this burden was not only cast upon the township of Kingstown, but it had been cast upon them with a chancery suit in addition. Here was the boon which was killing Home Rule with kindness; this was the remedial Measure from a Government which owed this unfortunate township Board £700 and would not pay. Were they nut ashamed of themselves? [Nationalist cheers and Ministerial laughter.] No doubt this was a laughing matter for Englishmen; but Ireland, as compared with the British Empire, was but small; it could only interest the nation in its local affairs. Irishmen let England alone; they could bombard Crete to their hearts' content. All they sought was that in. their local affairs they should not be unfairly treated, and he could only describe this Bill as the essence of Treasury meanness and shabbiness. [Nationalist cheers.] They had had this expense for 40 years, and they selected the year of the Diamond Jubilee to give the Irish people this little birthday present. The Irish were quite willing to run their country without one farthing of expense to the British Treasury if this country would be good enough to show them their heels. Ireland did not ask them for a sovereign; all they sought was to control their own money. They only asked to be let alone, and to be allowed to run their own country in their own vulgar, rude, Irish way. [Laughter.] They left John Bull to his civilization and his bombardments—[Nationalist cheers]—and to the Concert of Europe. [Laughter.] When this country built roads for Imperial purposes, let it be good enough to keep them, and to maintain them, at any rate, while they obtained every year two and three-quarter millions from Ireland, according to the finding of a Royal Commission. [Nationalist cheers.]
§ MR. CLANCYsaid he was astonished to hear the Secretary to the Treasury say that there was any agreement made between the Harbour Commissioners and the Town Commissioners of Kingstown. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say where and when such an agreement was made. He gathered from the silence of the right hon. Gentleman that he had no answer 340 to make, and he therefore was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no agreement. His impression was that the Kingstown Town Commissioners disagreed with this proposal, and that at some meeting at Kingstown the greatest dissatisfaction was expressed at this proposal. In Clause 6 of the Bill the object of the Treasury came out in all its nakedness. That clause provided that henceforward these roads should be maintained by the Commissioners of Kingstown, instead of by the Treasury as heretofore. For the purpose of saving about £50 a year to the Treasury this Bill was introduced. A meaner act, a shabbier act, and a more dishonest act on the part of the Treasury had never been perpetrated within his recollection. There was nothing in the Bill providing for the repayment by the Treasury of the £700 which they owed the Kingstown Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the intention of the Government to pay it, but if there was no legal warrant for the Treasury not paying for the maintenance of these roads, how could they legally pay the Town Commissioners the money which they owed them in respect of these roads? In return for this I fresh taxation—for that was what it amounted to—the Town Commissioners were to get a couple of rocks—["hear, hear!" and laughter]—and even from this was reserved six yards of ground on either side of the obelisk of George IV. A good many of the Irish people regarded this obelisk as a mark of the degradation of the Irish people at the time it was erected. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expected any harm to this obelisk, but he might rest assured that no harm would come to it. Would the grant of these six yards at either side rob England? The Irish people would like this obelisk. [Laughter.], They would like the six yards at either side of it. [Renewed laughter.] He really would trouble the House, if this Bill got into Committee, with an effort to keep the obelisk and the six yards at either side of it. [Laughter.] On the opposite side of Dublin Bay was the harbour of Howth. This was also a royal harbour, but the Government would not give the money to render it navigable, and yet insisted on keeping it in their own hands. To resort to this device in the present case for saving a paltry £100 seemed to him to 341 reach the very nadir of British Treasury meanness and dishonesty. ["Hear, hear!"] He regretted that the other Member for the County Dublin was not present, as he felt sure he would have his support. Unless the right hon. Gentleman produced evidence that the Town Commissioners of Kingstown—
§ * MR. HANBURYThere is a distinct written agreement made last year with the Town Commissioners, and this Bill carries out distinctly that agreement. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. CLANCYsaid an agreement between two public bodies such as Harbour Commissioners and Town Commissioners must be under seal, and must be founded on resolutions of those public bodies. That agreement should have been laid on the Table, or at all events mentioned in the preamble to the Bill. Until some evidence of this kind was produced he would strenuously oppose the Bill.
§ MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said that this was a typical case of the way things in Ireland were managed by this country. This road was in a wealthy district in Ireland called Kingstown. It was used by the inhabitants, and was apparently a useful road, and yet his constituents in London were asked to keep it going. As an English Member he protested against that monstrous proposal. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth had said that they wanted nothing from England. Then let them pay this paltry sum themselves and not ask his constituents to contribute to it.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)said that it might set the hon. Member's mind at case to know that this road did not belong to the inhabitants of the locality, but to the British Government, with whose works it formed a connection.
§ MR. BARTLEYBut Irishmen use it.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that had nothing to do with the matter. A Bill of this kind was a cross abuse of the forms of the House. It was practically an attempt to pass what was in effect a private Bill as a public Bill. All the forms of a private Bill were violated. For example, the agreement was not recited in the preamble and set forth in the schedule. The Secretary to the Treasury did not know whether an agreement had been come to.
§ * MR. HANBURYI said distinctly that an agreement had been come to.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid he was within the recollection of the House when he stated that what the right hon. Gentleman said was, that he could not say that an agreement had been come to or that Resolutions had been passed, but that the Commissioners of Kingstown were in favour of the proposal. It was easy to say that a public body were in favour of a proposal; but the only way in which that could he shown was by the body passing Resolutions and entering into a formal written agreement. If such an agreement existed, why was it not produced? But if it were produced, he should regard it with the gravest suspicion. The Government and the Commissioners had, for the last few years, had a dispute about the road. The Government, he presumed, demanded that the Commissioners should take over the road, and the Commissioners repudiated the responsibility. Then the Government refused any longer to pay rates for the Government buildings in the locality, though rates were paid for Government buildings all over the country. If the agreement had been forced on the Commissioners by this means, it was worth nothing. This was a Bill which, to save the British Government a few pounds a year, sought to throw on a little Irish body the maintenance of some thousand yards of road. All the machinery of an Act of Parliament was invoked for this purpose. 'When the Government were asked for Irish reforms, they always replied that they could not possibly find the time. They had always plenty of time for Bills of this sort. The Irish Members would not assent to the Measure till they knew all about it; and he begged to move that the Bill be Read a Second time on that day six months.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELLseconded the Motion, saying the matter was one which should not be allowed to pass without further explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury. Many small Bills affecting Irish interests had been introduced by the Government, most of them after midnight, which looked very harmless and simple; but which, on examination, proved to contain matter of an insidious, and harmful character to the interests of I Ireland. He remembered the Attorney 343 General for Ireland introducing a small Bill, which seemed—
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must confine himself to the Bill before the House.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he would not pursue the matter a step further than the Speaker's ruling allowed. But Clause 6 of this Bill imposed on the township of Kingstown not only the taking over of these roads in their present condition, but the expense of maintaining and repairing, as well as lighting and watering, the transferred roads and footways. The roads had been neglected for some years past, and probably one of the first things the Commission would have to do would be to expend a large sum in repairing the roads. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Louth that this was not the time to impose the smallest further taxation upon any Irish town. The three days Debate on the Financial? editions between England and Ireland ought to convince any Irish Member that the Government had no claim to come to the House and ask them to pass any Measure which would inflict the hardship of additional taxation on any Irish town. The Bill had many grave defects in it. As had been pointed out, Clause 8 would not only involve the transfer of land but involve the Commissioners of Kingstown in a serious law suit, which, as the House knew entailed, now-a-days, serious expense. If the matter had to be fought out before a Select Committee of the House, still more expense would be incurred. His hon. Friends had done well to raise the question, and he hoped it would be pressed to a, Division.
§ MR. JAMES DALY (Monaghan, S.)opposed the Bill, saying that a trick like this sprung upon the House ought not to be allowed to pass. The hon. Member for North Louth let the cat out of the bag when he pointed out that this Bill was brought forward to benefit the owners of property in Kingstown. In ten years the property that adjoined this road would fall into the hands of the landlords, the value of whose property would be considerably enhanced at the expense of the ratepayers of Kingstown, who, for the next ten years would have to keep the road in repair. As Irish representatives they would not be doing their duty if they allowed this Bill to pass without 344 giving it, as they intended to do, their most strenuous opposition. When the Government did anything which was pretended to be for the good of Ireland he always regarded it with great suspicion. What was the position of the right hon. Gentleman? He was dictating the payment of this money. He was going to pay £700 to the Kingstown Commissioners, but he said if they accepted the money they must keep the road in repair. It was simply absurd. He could not see that it was honest. The right hon. Gentleman laid it down to the Commissioners that if they did not accept the money on the terms the right hon. Gentleman wished, they would not have it at all. He talked about, a dispute between the Harbour Commissioners and the Town Commissioners. He knew the Town Commissioners could not erect any buildings without the consent of the Harbour Commissioners. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to settle the matter once and for all, but that was not the case, for it did not appear that the disputes of the past were not to continue in the future. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to amend this portion of the Bill, at any rate. Perhaps the Kingstown Town Commissioners might not be under the Grand Jury. To say that this road was to be made, and that the keeping of it might fall under the control of the Grand Jury was a thing he protested against, and every Irish Member would protest against it. He would only say, in conclusion, that he did not like buying a pig in a poke. Even if he had no one to support him, he would oppose this Bill being Read a Second time, unless the right hon. Gentleman explained the different points he had brought before the House. The way the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the Bill filled him with suspicion. While Irish Members had been deluged with circulars from interested quarters in Kingstown asking them to vote for this Bill, had there been a single circular from anybody in Dublin asking them to vote for it? Certainly not. They had to take the right hon. Gentleman's word. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to get-rid of this legacy. The right thing to do would be to let the Government keep this little bit of ground. Unless the 345 right hon. Gentleman explained himself, he would give the Second Heading his opposition, and he had pleasure in supporting the Motion that the Bill be Read a Second time this day six months.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIENassociated himself with his colleagues from Ireland in this matter. He would reserve what he had to say on the merits of the Bill to a future occasion. He assumed the right hon. Gentleman would, with his usual courtesy, desire to give full explanations, but probably he felt he suffered from disability, because he would not be in order in doing so on the Motion before the House. With, the view of placing the right hon. Gentleman in order, he begged to move the adjournment of the Debate, so as to enable him to produce the proofs which he said he had in his possession that the people of Kingstown desired to have this Bill. He took it they need not be in a hurry with this Bill. The Government had been galloping over a course of Bills, and getting money night after night, and he rather thought the Irish Members were to blame for having, so to speak, demoralised the Government into the condition that they did not desire to give time to anything that concerned Ireland. The experience of the last few days had opened the eyes of the Irish Members to the error of their ways, and the Government in future might calculate on having every step of their course, and every proposal they made for spending money, questioned by the Irish Members. He did not desire to delay the business, and would, therefore, conclude by moving the adjournment of the Debate.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI think that Motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House. I have the alternative of either refusing it, or taking an immediate Division upon it, and I adopt the latter course.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 60; Noes, 160.—(Division List, No. 157.)
MR. T. M. HEALYrose to continue the Debate on the original Question, "That 346 the word 'now' stand part of the Question," when,
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.) moved, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 67.—(Division List, No. 158.)
§ Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 68.—(Division List, No. 159.)
MR. T. M. HEALY, on a Question of order, asked whether this was a hybrid Bill, and if so whether the Speaker had satisfied himself that the procedure in regard to hybrid Bills had been regularly followed?
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe Bill has been before the Examiners and they have certified that on all those matters of which they have cognisance the Standing Orders have been complied with. Therefore it is ripe for Second Reading.
§ * MR. HANBURYclaimed to move "That the main Question be now put."
§ Main Question put, "That the Bill be now Read a Second time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 67.—(Division List, No. 160.)
§ Bill Read a Second time.
§
*MR. HANBURY moved,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection; that all petitions against the Bill presented five 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 moved to omit the word "Select" in order to insert the word "Standing." This would, he said, give the Government the opportunity of saying whether they preferred to send this Bill to the Standing Committee on Law or the Standing Committee on Trade.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought the Amendment would not be in order. This was a Motion which must be made according to the regular practice of the House in the case of a public Bill which sought private Bill powers.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that surely it was open to the House to take any course they liked in regard to a particular Bill—either to send it to a Private Bill, a Select, or a Standing Committee. He submitted with confidence that there was no Standing Order governing the matter, and that it was the invariable practice to put the reference to the Committee as a separate question.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid the usual course in such a case was to put the Motion as a whole. The hon. Member could not move to dispense with the Select Committee, and substitute a Standing Committee.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that when the Bill had been withdrawn from the purview of the House and it came back, he would move that it be referred to a Grand Committee. At the present moment he confined himself to moving that the word "five" be omitted, and the word "fifteen" be substituted. If that were carried he would move a consequential Motion. This was a Bill in which English Members had little concern. The proposal, as he understood it, was to refer the Bill to a Committee of five, of whom three only were to be selected by the House. The Irish Members' proportion of three would be nil, because the Government would be entitled to two Members, and the Liberal Opposition to one. This proposal amounted to a device to carry the Bill through a Committee from which Irish Members were excluded. Nobody had more confidence in the right 348 hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Sir J. Mowbray) than he had, but he maintained that this was not a case for the Committee of Selection at all, The Committee of Selection were to take into view considerations affecting parties and the like, but this was a question of Ireland versus England—[interruption]—a question of all Ireland against the British Treasury.
§ MR. HEBERT DUNCOMBE (Cumberland, Egremont)claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that they were not in Crete yet. [Nationalist cheers.] One would think the hon. Member was Sir A. Biliotti at a drumhead Court-Martial. [Renewed cheers.] This might be a simple question from the point of view of English millionaires, but the people who were being robbed by the English Treasury were entitled to say that the Committee of Selection was not the proper tribunal to decide this matter, and that the proper tribunal was the House of Commons. The Committee of Selection would have to select two Members. Again, of the two seats Irishmen would be entitled to neither. Was that a fair way to proceed if hon. Members wanted to get on to the Berriew School Bill? [Laughter.] A more dangerous performance he had never known. The fault was not theirs that precedence had been given to this Bill. Accordingly, as he had said at the outset, they were entitled to maintain that the ordinary rules of the House ought to be upheld. Out of the 15, what chance would they have? They would only have two Members to meet the embattled might—[laughter]—of the supporters of the Bill. He said it was a monstrous thing to propose to shut them out. Two Members of the Government, unless they waived their right in favour of some more intelligent Members of their Party—[laughter]—would be entitled to be on 349 the Committee. Who was to be the other one? Why, sonic Gentleman sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. Would any one pretend that that was fair? He said that it was a most unfair thing. He had yet to learn that Kingstown had the power to spend money out of the rates in order to come over there and meet the Treasury Council. The only other case that he remembered of a Bill of this kind being dealt with in this way was the Ulster Canal Bill. What hope could the Irish Members have of carrying their point of view in a small Committee, of whom two would be representatives of the Treasury, the promoters of the Bill? They would only have to put on one other Gentleman who would support them in order to carry the whole Bill. In the case of a Bill like this, which came before the House under such unfavourable auspices, it would be only fair that the tribunal should not be a hole-and-corner one, and that the House at large should have some voice in its composition. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.)seconded the Motion. He complained that while the Public Health (Scotland) Bill had been sent to the Grand Committee, this Bill, simply because it was an Irish Bill, was to go to a Select Committee.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid that this was not done in lieu of sending the Bill to the Standing Committee. This was a proceeding which the ordinary practice of the House provided in Older that persons whose private rights were affected might have an opportunity of appearing and being heard. After the Bill had been before the Committee, it would come back for consideration by a Committee of the whole House.
§ MAJOR JAMESONcontended that a Committee of 15 would be much fairer to the Irish Members. With a Committee of five, no one else but the Treasury, who were the promoters of the Bill, would have a chance, and therefore they asked the House to appoint a Committee of 15.
§ * MR. HANBURYsaid the hon. Member for Louth had based his Amendment on two theories; one, that there would lie 350 no adequate Irish representation, and the other that the Treasury would be too strongly represented on this Committee. With regard to the Treasury, he could assure the hon. Member that there was no intention whatever to put two Treasury representatives on the Committee. He was sure also that it was the wish of the Government, who could not control the Committee of Selection, but could control the nomination of Members by the House, that the Irish Members should be adequately represented. But, after all, although the hon. Member spoke, so strongly as to Irishmen being represented on the Committee, the only persons properly concerned were the people of Kingstown and the Town Commissioners, and, as he had explained—
MR. T. M. HEALY, rising to order, said that he was stopped when referring to the merits of the Bill, and he submitted that the right hon. Gentleman, having declined to avail himself of two opportunities he had had to go into the matter, was now not in order in so doing.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid the right hon. Gentleman might perhaps be progressing in that direction, but he did not think he was yet out of order. [Laughter.]
§ * MR. HANBURYsaid this was not really a very important Irish interest, and there was no opposition from the persons most concerned in Ireland. He thought there was no necessity for increasing the number of the Committee, for the reasons which he had given.
§ MR. CLANCYsaid he wondered why, if the right hon. Gentleman had the agreement of which he had spoken in his pocket, he did not produce it, or at least the Resolution upon which it was founded. Would the Government say they would not have another Member on the Committee supporting the Treasury? In accordance with the invariable practice of every Government, they would, he ventured to say, insist on having a majority of their own supporters. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would agree to refer the Bill to a Committee of one Treasury representative and two Irish Members? The fact was this Bill 351 was for the benefit of the Treasury, and until the right hon. Gentleman produced the agreement, or gave them a guarantee on the subject, he should support the Amendment.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that until they had some guarantee that this Measure was not objectionable to the Commissioners they must treat it as being contentious. The framing of the Motion showed that the Treasury regarded it as a contentious Measure, which was to be fought out by counsel. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered the point as to the Commissioners not being able to employ counsel before this body. He did not know whether it was permissible for the Court of Selection to put a Member having an interest in the Bill—say the hon. Member for this division of County Dublin—but if that could be done he asked an assurance from the Government that the hon. Member for South Dublin, who was a supporter of the Government, and against whom, therefore, nothing could be said from a Party point of view, should be one of the three Members of the Committee. However, the proposal to refer the Bill to a Committee of five had been conclusively demonstrated to be an unfair proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to defend it except on the ground that the Bill was a non-contentious Bill; but instead of that being the fact the Bill was one that would be sharply contested by the people of Kingstown and the Town Commissioners of Kingstown.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI rise, Sir, to move the adjournment of the Debate. [Cheers.] My reason for doing so is this. This Bill was brought in by my right hon. Friend for no other purpose than to benefit the township of Kingstown, and it was brought in by agreement with the Kingstown Town Commissioners. [Cheers.] Under those circumstances we had a right to expect different treatment from hon. Members opposite than that we have received from them. [Cheers.] But, inasmuch as these 352 hon. Members are determined to waste the time of the House on what is really a private Bill—a Bill brought in to save the township of Kingstown the cost of bringing in a private Bill—[cheers]—we see no use in prolonging the Debate. I therefore move that the Debate be now adjourned, and I shall subsequently propose that the Order be discharged. [Cheers.]
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that when they a little while ago moved a similar Motion, they were not allowed to give their reasons, but were closured, and if there had been any time wasted it was wasted by the Government. [Cheers.] He denied that the Bill had been brought in for the benefit of Kingstown. [Cheers.] It deprived Kingstown of over £700 that was due to her from the Treasury in regard to those roads. It was a very excellent lesson they had learned from the action of the right hon. Gentleman. It showed that by a little courage and a little firmness, even the greatest swindles of the Treasury could lie unmasked and could be scotched. [cheers] They had saved Kingstown from n gross imposition, and they had exposed the British Treasury as they had exposed them last year on several occasions—in the act of committing a fraud on the taxpayers. [Cheers.] He had only to remind the House, in conclusion, that in the course of the two hours' Debate on the Bill the Secretary to the Treasury had sent round to the Treasury for the alleged agreement which he said he possessed. [Cries of "Oh!"]
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. Member in order in attributing fraud to the Treasury Bench, and in using the word "alleged" in reference to the statements of the Secretary to the Treasury?
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe use of the word "alleged" is improper if it was used in the sense, as it seemed to me that it was, of suggesting that something stated by the right hon. Gentleman was not true. As to the word "fraud" in connection 353 with the Treasury, such words are extremely objectionable in Debate; but, unless they amount to a specific personal allegation against an hon. Member, they are hardly out of order. The action of the Government, as a whole, can be denounced in much stronger language than can be used about an individual Member of the House. But the hon. and learned Member goes extremely near the line.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that for the word "alleged" he would substitute the word "postulated." [Laughter.] The Secretary to the Treasury had sent for the agreement, and though the Government had had three opportunities of producing the agreement, it had not been produced.
§ Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not in charge of the Bill. [Cheers and laughter.]
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI move, Sir.
§ Bill withdrawn amid loud Nationalist cheers.