HC Deb 02 August 1897 vol 52 cc108-10
* SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

asked what business it was proposed to take to-night after Supply?

MR. DILLON

asked what was proposed to be done with the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

said that as to Supply there remained the Report of Supply of the Votes which would be taken that evening, and it probably would have as great, if not a greater, claim to consideration than the Reports standing on the Paper. The House would remember that last year it was found possible to give precedence to Reports of Supply by postponing with consent the Votes which it was not desired to discuss, so as to leave room for the Votes which it was desired to discuss; and the Government were prepared to adopt such a plan this year in order to meet the general wish of the House. As to the Bills on the Paper, he was informed by the Chief Secretary that the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill was purely a Departmental Measure referring to Belfast only. He did not ask the hon. Member to take it from him that the Measure was non-contentious, but he thought that the hon. Member, on looking at its provisions, would find that it was so.

MR. DILLON

We cannot get the Bill. It is not available, and it is hard to ask us in these circumstances to deal with it.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

thought that the hon. Member would find that it was now printed, but if the hon. Member raised any objection he should feel that it would have great weight. But when the Order came on, he thought that the hon. Member would have an opportunity of convincing himself that it was practically non-contentious. With regard to the remaining Orders on the Paper, to his very great regret he believed it to be impossible to take the London University Commission Bill in the course of the present Session. He felt to the full the objections as to leaving over for another year the settlement of a question in which a large number of independent educational bodies were concerned, and on which, speaking broadly, they had come to an agreement. But he recognised at the same time that there was serious opposition taken to it in its present shape, and the Government could not face the expenditure of time necessary to deal with the Measure in the present Session. The Government must therefore postpone the Bill. He earnestly hoped that next year, at all events, the Government would be in a position to settle this long standing and perplexing controversy. [Cheers.] With regard to the Land Transfer Bill, he was given to understand that the main part of the opposition to this Measure came from Yorkshiremen, or Members representing Yorkshire constituencies; but he was also informed by those who were able to give an authoritative expression of opinion on the subject, that there was no interference under this Bill with the existing Yorkshire system, and he believed that it was recognised in Yorkshire that they were anxious there for the passing of the Bill. If the Bill could get through without any serious expenditure of time, he still hoped they might be able to pass it. There could not, however, be any serious expenditure of time—it was absolutely impossible at the present period of the Session—and if time was required for the Bill he could hold out no hopes that the Government would be able to proceed with it, though he had some grounds to hope that the opposition to it might melt away.

MR. J. BRIGG (Yorkshire, Keighley)

Will it come on to-night?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I should like to bring it on tonight if we can. I am not competent to speak as to the details, but I understand that full security can be given to every Yorkshire interest. There remain only the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill and the Merchant Shipping (Exemption from Pilotage) Bill. I hope we shall be able to make progress with the Irish Judicature Bill in order that it should go as soon as possible to another place. The Merchant Shipping Bill comes from the Lords. I believe it is a non-controversial Measure, which it is rather important to pass from a diplomatic and international point of view.

MR. AUGUSTUS HELDER (Whitehaven)

indicated that there were certain clauses in the Land Transfer Bill to which Yorkshire objected.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I am not competent to deal with the details of the Bill, but I will take note of my hon. Friend's point.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

asked as to the outstanding Votes in Supply.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

said that there were 33 Votes in Supply, representing about £2,000,000, still to be taken. This was practically identical with the condition of Supply at a similar date last year. The number of Votes then was 30, and the amount about £1,800,000. The difference was more than accounted for by the number of Supplementary Estimates taken this year, and which had not to be taken last year. The Government had not been so successful with Irish Supply as he had hoped, but he trusted that there would be some opportunity that evening to debate some of the outstanding Irish Votes.