HC Deb 29 April 1898 vol 56 cc1514-5

Having looked through the Instructions which stand in the names of the honourable Members for Dublin on the Dublin Port and Docks Bill, and having looked at the Bill, I consider that the Instructions are out of order. The Bill deals only with the constitution of the board, and with its powers for raising capital and for borrowing money, and two of the proposed Instructions direct the Committee to define the limits of authority between Dublin Port and Docks Board and the Corporation of Dublin over roads and streets, while the other Instruction directs the Committee to deal with the rental of sheds and quays of the Dock Board, and with the rating of those premises. Those are purposes which are not cognate at all to the purposes of the Bill, and therefore no Instructions can go to the Committee with regard to these matters. As regards the Instructions on the London and North Western Steam Vessels Bill, that is a Bill to give permanent powers to the London and North Western Railway Company with regard to traffic between Holyhead and Ireland. The first Instruction proposes that the Committee may, if it think fit, regulate the traffic on the Holyhead and Chester line in connection with the steamship traffic. That would be a matter quite within the power of the Committee, and it being in the power of the Committee already, no Instruction is needed; therefore the Instruction will be out of order. As regards the fifth Instruction on the Paper, standing in the name of one of the honourable Members for Dublin, it proposes that the powers shall remain in force 14 years, and no longer. That is raising again in this House the precise question which was raised on the Amendment of the honourable Member for St. Patrick Division on the Second Reading of the Bill, when he proposed that the powers should not be permanent. The House decided against that Amendment; therefore, the question having been debated on that Amendment, it cannot be again debated.

MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

If I alter the wording of the Instruction No. 4, will that then be in order?


I do not like to take upon myself the duty of ruling as to any Instruction until I have seen it on the Paper, but I think I may say that if the honourable Member will put the Instruction in a mandatory form it would be in order. At the same time I think that it would be a somewhat strong measure to ask the House to command the Committee to deal with this matter in a certain way without reference to the evidence. However, if the honourable Member alters the Instruction in the way he proposes I shall not rule it out of order.